Focus Visually On Iran

عینک جان برو بین قانون "عرفی" معنیش چیه

اگر این‌طور بود که تو میگی‌ پس تمام نخست وزیرای دوران فترت در پیش از مصدق غیر قانونی بودند!! عجیب اینجاست که مصدق هم هیچ عتراضی به اونها نداشته!

برای قضای حاجت بیدار شدم گفتم حاجت تو رو  هم برآورده کنم!

Knew it :)

You have never read the constitution.    Milani makes a claim, and I ask for proof in constitution.  Which you can not find.  

 I think you need a pair of aynak too :)

Desperate situations need desperate (though clumsy) arguments

Aynak

I am referring to the practical aspects and not what the law said.  Please note that as early as 1979, Khomeini also gave us 50 lies under apple tree, a constitutiOn that even JM signed on to, but did whatever the ¥£€# his cold heart desired.

History has judged

Dear MM, you wrote:

"None of us were there to know exactly what happened.  But, the fact is
that the Shah WAS able to fire the PM or the VF DECREE the impeachment
proceedings."

Please note:

Mosadegh's point was that this decree was NOT written by Shah, as I tried to explain from his own writing.   That's the legal basis of his argument.  The law on this issue is also fuzzy.  (I would challenge anyone to bring the Mashrooteh law that says Shah can dismiss --prime-- minster if there is no Majless as Milani claims.  Milani's claim is not constitutional but based on what Mossadegh had said on a previous case.   The main flaw with Milani's argument is that he tries to use this statement by Mossadegh to establish constitutionality!  Even if Mossadegh had made such statement,  it does not make Shah's action legal. Taking a letter written by foriegn powers and given to him and signing it to dismiss a PM.   More importantly is the consortium agreement, which --reversed-- the whole oil nationalization for several decades and that is also a fact.  Finaly, U.S's statement is a testment to agreeing with their destructive role in the coup.

I am affraid here there is little new to be found out  except for those who want to rewrite history.

But your more important point that I fully agree with:

"Going forward, the question should be: How do we put a Political system
together that is not a one-man-gang, does not recieve orders from the
foreigners and respects the rights of ALL her citizens"

And based on what we see from perpatrators of the coup both those currently ruling over Iran, or those who were deposed during 1979 revolt, they have not come along an inch.   (Look at the other thread where they are waiting in queue to hang Bani-Sadr).

خوش به‌حالت آقای مرادی

در ضمن یادم رفت بگم که مصدق ما رو به خاک سیاه ننشانید. اونهایی که باور کردن مصدق صادقه ما و خودشونو به خاک سیاه نشوندند! ولی‌ بازم زهی به انصافت که گفتی‌ "راهت بی‌ رهرو باد". بازم مرسی‌!

خوب همیشگی

شاید برآیند همه این اظهار نظر ها این باشد که همه ما ایرانی ها طبق معمول زندگی روزمره افراد را به خوب و بد تقسیم میکنیم. همه کسانی که در فایل های خوب ما قرار گرفته اند امکان ندارد در زندگی اشتباه کنندو کاری بر خلاف تصور ما از آنها سربزند. برای برخی نویسندگان ، مصدق همیشه خوب است و امکان نداشته در زندگی اشتباهی کرده باشد. برای تعدادی هم شاه همیشه مظهر نوکری انگلیس و آمریکا و اسرائیل است.
اینکه دکتر میلانی سندی را پیدا کرده و یا نه و این موضوع که از آن چه استنتاجی می شود کرد یک بحث اکادمیک است نه موضوعی برای کوبیدن همدیگر. اغلب بحث های این چنینی در اینجا مثل کل کل کردن های قرمز و آبی هاست. یاد نمایشنامه کله گردها و کله تیزهای برتولت برشت افتادم.
بزرگان ٰ اشتباهاتشان هم بزرگ است ولی این اشتباه ذره ای از عظمتشان کم نمیکند. بیل گیتس اصلاً باور نمیکرد که حافظه های کامپوتری تا این حد پیشرفت داشته باشند و بشر بتواند به مموری های تراباتی قبل از سال 2015 دست پیدا کند. آیا اقرار به این موضوع از ارزش علمی گیتس چیزی کم میکند ؟‌
خیلی از فرماندهان نظامی انگلیس در خصوص استراتژی های جنگی چرچیل در طول جنگ جهانی دوم ایراد های فنی بسیاری را وارد کرده اند که بیشترشان هم درست بوده است . آیا اینها از عظمت و بزرگی چرچیل بین انگلیسی ها چیزی را کم میکند.
حتی بدون پیدا شدن چنین سندی هم کاملاً مشخص بود که مصدق ظرفیت لازم برای رهبری مردم در سال 1953 را ندارد. دیدگاه های مصدق متعلق به قبل از جنگ بود. مصدق حداقل 30 سال از زمان عقب بود. هیچگاه اهمیت حضور آمریکا در صحنه های بین المللی را درک نکرد. درک مصدق از اوضاع بین المللی خیلی قدیمی و متعلق به زمان محمد علی شاه بود.
با همه این حرفها در کارش صداقت داشت و با همین صداقتش همه ما را به خاک سیاه نشانید. روحش شاد و راهش بی رهرو باد.

History will judge, but looking forward:

None of us were there to know exactly what happened.  But, the fact is that the Shah WAS able to fire the PM or the VF DECREE the impeachment proceedings.  

Going forward, the question should be: How do we put a Political system together that is not a one-man-gang, does not recieve orders from the foreigners and respects the rights of ALL her citizens. 

Professor! Why do you enjoy being embarrassed so much?

You gave away the most damning evidence against your IMAM Mossadegh like no one could:

"Mossadegh heard all the views.  His interpretation was that the Shah did NOT have the right to dismiss or appoint a pm while there is no Majles in session."

There was not a single clause in the entire pre-Islamic constitution of Iran that would give the right to "interpret" the law to the incumbent prime minister. Not in the Belgian constitution and definitely not in the British constitution - btw good "professor", you are embarrassing yourself more than enough by showing your deep illiteracy about the Iranian constitution and need not to show off your utter ignorance of the other countries constitution by commenting on them - just stick to Iran and give us a good laugh. 

More funnily, you keep repeating your own flawed understanding:

"  The Shah did NOT have the right to appoint or dismiss the pm.  The Majles had the right to appoint and dismiss the pm.  The Shah only did "toshih' [sign] it. "

Pofessor Mossiji please save yourself some last shred of respect and do not embarrass yourself so much. Did it ever occur to your "political scientist (!!!)" mind - assuming there is a pseudo science like this - that THERE WAS NO MAJLIS. and IN THE ABSENCE OF MAJLIS, THE MONARFCH HAD EVERY RIGHT TO APPONT AND DISMISS A PRIME MINISTER"... IN your own words: HELLOOOOOOOOO - LOL.

Sorry everyone, it is not my style to cheapen myself to the level of Mossijist Professor Kazemzadeh by resorting to such childish slangs or using capital letters to emphasise my points but when you are dealing with a Mossadeghi-Basijist as our bigot professor, this is the only language he understands.   

By the way, the personal affiliations of Pirooz Mojtahedzadeh is not te question here but his irrefutable research resuls. I will not give one Mojtahedzadeh to hundred Mossadeghzadeh LOL.

Anglo's Nokar is Clueless

1. JM was (and is) a democratic organization.  Various members could and did hold different views and perspectives.  We could and did share our views with others including with Dr. Mossadegh.  On the issue of dissolving the Majles, not only Sedighi but also Dr. Sanjabi held a different view than that held by Dr. Mossadegh.  They shared their views with Dr. Mossadegh.  In a democratic entity, members can do this.  This does not mean that these persons are autoimatically right or wrong.

2. As shown on this blog, Dr. Mossadegh heard all the views.  His interpretation was that the Shah did NOT have the right to dismiss or appoint a pm while there is no Majles in session.

3. The 1906 constitution was modeled after the Belgium constitution, which itself was the codified and written form of the British unwritten constitutional form.  The point of having a constitution is to limit the power of the monarch.  In the UK the monarch cannot appoint and/or dismiss PM as will.  It is the parliament which chooses and dismisses PM.  The monarch only signs the decision of the parliament.  Therefore, it was the same procedure in the 1906 constitution.  The Shah did NOT have the right to appoint or dismiss the pm.  The Majles had the right to appoint and dismiss the pm.  The Shah only did "toshih' [sign] it.  The fact that Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza shah appointed and dismiised PMs was unconstitutional.

4. Pirooz Mojtahedzadeh is not a very credible person.  He simply hates Iranian democrats like Dr. Mossadegh and JM.  He uses as evidence the likes of Ardeshir Zadehi and Mirfetrooz that credible ane reputable scholars (historians and political scientists) laugh at.  What Zahedi says simply does not pass the gigle test.   He was a monarchist (Shahollahi) when he was in the UK and then went back to IRI and is now praises Kashani!!!!!!! 

lets copy-and-paste his MINDSET:

 //mojtahedzadeh.blogfa.com/post-12.aspx

مهندس اردشیر زاهدی که از شاهدان عینی بحران نفت و قانون اساسی ایران (1329 – 1332) هستند، طبیعتا دیدگاه ویژه خود را در این راستا دارند که در مقام خود بی اعتنایی بدان دیدگاه ها فقط می تواند منجر به افزودن بر جهل و تعصب در شناخت آن بحران شود و متاسفانه تلاش شصت ساله ترور شخصیت ایشان، تنها به این دلیل که او از 25 تا 28 مرداد نقش دلیرانه ای در سرو سامان دادن به حرکت برای به زیر آوردن تتمه حکومت یاغی مصدق  داشت، سبب شد تا بیشتر مطالعه کنندگان در مورد بحران یاد شده از دقایق بسیار ارزنده دیدگاه های ایشان محروم بمانند. سال های چندی است که من از موهبت دوستی و آشنایی ایشان برخوردار هستم: در بحث های شخصی و مصاحبه ها و نوشته های فراوان ایشان دقت کردم و راهنمایی زیادی دریافت کردم بی آنکه اجازه دهم ارزش یابی های ویژه ایشان، و یا مخالفان ایشان علیه نقش ایشان، تلاش در نگاه بی طرفانه دانشگاهیم را در بررسی رویدادهای یاد شده تحت تاثیر ویژه در آورد. از ایشان برای همه راهنمایی های ارزنده ایشان و محبت های  پژوهشی که به من داشته اند از صمیم قلب تشکر می کنم

کتاب های فراوانی را مطالعه کردم ولی نمی توانم از ابراز رضایت فراوانم در خواندن کتاب آقای دکتر علی میرفطروس زیر عنوان "کالبد شکافی یک شکست" که بر اساس برخی نگاه های ویژه قابل درک ایشان در گذشته و حال تهیه شده است، خود داری کنم. این کتاب در شهریور سال جاری (1390) به دستم رسید و من در پرواز از لندن به تهران در تاریخ اول مهر ماه جاری توفیق خواندن همه اش را یافتم. با این که نوشته های مربوط به نقش بازیگران بحران سه ساله نفت و قانون اساسی (1329 – 1332) را از مدتها پیش از خواندن این کتاب آغاز کرده بودم، از خواندنش بهره فراوان گرفتم و به همین دلیل سپاسم را برای انتشار این کتاب تقدیم می کنم و مطالعه آن را به همه علاقمندان توصیه می کنم.

IC Mossadeghollahis in tatters (again)!

Re legality of "illegality"

There are two issues mainly overlooked and ignored by the Phalavi supporters and their apologists like Milani and Mirfetros -- who in the absence of real evidence, resort to hearsay and gossip to spin the harsh realities into a more presentable history on behalf of their masters'.

First of all, in parliamentarian systems, prime ministers regularly exercise prorogation of parliament due to special circumstances, e.g. in Great Britain and Canada!

The second issue however, which is more relevant to this specific case, is claims by supporters of the 28 Mordad coup that prorogation/dissolution of Majlis "was illegal" and not accepted by "HIM." In which case, the whole act of Shah's dissmissal of Mosadegh (even if there were any consititutional grounds, which there are none) would be illegal too!

So which is it? Did Shah accept Mossadegh's dissolution of majlis (in which case he should've ratified mosadegh's order even in order for it to be a matter of constitutional debate)? Or did he not, which substantiates the illegality of Mosadegh's dismissal!

P.S. Reformed-Marxists like Milani, Mirfetros and their counterparts at the service of IRI are indeed apologizing for their pasts when they try to vindicate their criminal masters! In his servitude to his current masts, Milani goes as far as condemning the movement and the very act of nationalization of Iranian oil under the pretext that "it made the U.S. and British to retaliate by the coup of 28 Mordad!" In other words, Milani's recourse is that Iranians should've kept putting up with the contract under the conditions dicated by British Petrolium (Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.) that allocated the majority of our oil revenue to the British!  

کشف جناب میلانی چه بود؟

جناب میلانی به نظر می رسد سوراخ دعا را گم کرده و به قولی کمی "جو زده" شده اند.
بد نیست برای بررسی به دو کتاب مربوط یعنی ماموریتی برای وطنم شاه و خاطرات و تالمات مصدق نگاهی کنیم:
در کتاب شاه آمده، که ۴ حادثه برای وی وجود مبدأ را ثابت کرده. که چون چهارمی در مورد کودتا ست اینجا آن را نقل می کنم:
"... و چهارم معجزه ۲۸ مرداد ۱۳۳۲ بود که ایران را از چنگال مصدق رهایی داد. دکتر مصدق مردی بود که امکان دشت رهبر سیاسی خوبی باشد، ولی در اوخر حکومتش اسیر اکار افرادی خود و عده ای از اطرافیان و تلقینات غیر مستقیم یک دولت خارجی بود. اعتقاد من این است که سر نگون کردن دستگاه مصدق کار مردم عادی کشور من بود که در دلشان بارقه مشیت یزدانی می درخشید."
در پاسخ مصدق در کتاب تالمات خود می نویسد:
"بارقه ی مشیت یزدانی در دل آیزن هاو ر رییس جمهور ی درخشید که تصویب نمود آزادی یک ملتی را با ۴۰% از سهام کنسرسیوم مبادله کنند، و برای اجرای این معاوضه در مرحله اول دسخت عزل من صدر و کودتای شب ۲۵ مرداد ۱۳۳۲ شرو ع گردید. که چون به نتیجه نرسید مرحله دوم آن شرو ع شد، و سیصد و نود هزار سلار آمریکا بین بعضی از علمای فاسد * و امرا و افسران بی ایمان تقسیم گردید ...."
اگر مصدق به قانونی بودن فرمان عزل خود توسط شاه اعتقاد داشت پس چگونه است که در پاسخ به شاه که کودتا را "بارقه" الهی نامید چنین می نویسد؟ میلانی مانند یک وکیل ناشی که به دنبال موردی می گردد که به قول کاظم زاده با جریان باد خودش را تغییر دهد، به ذهن خام خود کشف عجیبی کرده . آنچه در مورد سبک نگارش ایشان مشهود است این گونه مدارک است. (برای بازار گرمی ایشان در کتاب معمای هویدا هم می نویسد که ایشان فقط یک برگ از کتاب قطور خاطرات هویدا را پیدا کرده که منبع این همه اطلاعات بوده اگر همه اش را دشت چه میشد !) اینکه مصدق مشروطه خواه بود که کشف جدیدی نیست. اینکه در قوانین مشروطه آمده که شاه می تواند وزرا را عزل و نصب کند هم که خوب احتیاج به زکریا رازی ندارد،  
(البته در اصول دیگر مشروطه هم آمده که شاه از هر مسولیتی مبراست که با عزل و نصب متناقض است که این خود جای بررسی دیگری دارد، حتی به فرض اینکه شاه چنین حقی داشته که  معلوم نیست)**     آنچه مصدق قبول نداشته فرمان عزلی است که طبق مدارک کودتا با تاید ایزان هاور نوشته شده و و شاه هم معلوم یا نامعلوم نبوده با زور یا بی زور زیرش را امضا کرده باشد . مساله اصلی این است که در یک بازجویی اگر از زور استفاده شود مورد قبول نمی باشد. نفس این مساله که فرمان را خارجی نوشته و شاه هم  امضا کرده و مصدق در بالا به آن اشاره می کند، خود بهترین اثبات مساله است: مصدق به مشروطه سوگند یاد کرده بود نه به فرمان برون آمده از امریکا و انگلیس. در ضمن پوزش غیر مستقیم آلبرایت هم در ارتباط با همین است که آمریکا در این مورد --کودتا-- صورت داده. کشف جناب میلانی پس چه بود؟
*در صدر همین علمای فاسد باید از کاشانی نام برد که برخی نام ها هنوز هم در مدارک سیا --سیاه -- شده اند.

.

  //www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQ_0ebaN4M

Fanoos

Dear fanoos,

1. The clip uses Milani as an expert for his interpretation. I provided context that shows that his INTERPRETATION changes with the WIND from being Maoist, to allegedly authoring a pamphlet for SAVAK (attacking his own friends), to .....

2. In actual FACT, I provided documents and their contexts. I also provided the link to an excellent argument showing that Mossadegh’s interpretation that the Shah did not have the right to dismiss the PM while the Majles is not in session. Here is the link:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQ_0ebaN4M

Best,

Masoud

Dear Dr. MK, I seldom get involved in political mudslinging but

it appears from your response to Dr. Milani that you didn't like his message therefore you resorted to the 1000-year old tactic of assassinating his character to negate his claim that Dr. Mossadeq indeed followed the late Shah's will which was 100% legitimate according to the Iranian constitution. Instead of shooting the messenger in the eye and ear and face why don't you offer a counter argument and evidence for example by making reliable documents available for disproving Dr's Milani's. Thank you for your calm and rational response.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Was Nokar and Tyrant and had to go

Milani is wrong on a number of grounds. One of the main problems with Milani is his extremist politicized tendency. His tendency changes with the wind (or as he perceives the direction of the wind to). In the 1970s, when Maoism was big, Milani was an extremist Maoist. Once he realized that Maoists are not likely to come to power in Iran, he goes back to Iran. Once he is sent to prison, he apparently changes. It is widely believed that a pamphlet published by SAVAK on the Confederation of Students abroad was authored by Milani. I have not seen a denial by Milani on the authorship of the SAVAK pamphlet attributed to him (not that many would believe him). Then, it is believed that be becomes close to Farah Pahalavi gang. He is also believed to have changed yet again and supports the revolution.. Nothing happened to him initially after the revolution. At the cultural revolution, he was briefly dismissed, but he was apparently successful in convincing the authorities that he was not against the fundamentalists and the Islamization of the universities and he is reinstated!!!!!! Then, he changes, yet again, and comes to the U.S. Since then he has become the darling of the monarchists.

1. The Pahlavis LACKED any legitimacy (constitutional or otherwise). Reza Shah came to power by the help of the British. So did Mohammad Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah was a nokar of the UK and US from the very beginning. There exists compelling and indisputable scholarly and archival documents.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh...

As the documents clearly and unambiguously prove the Shah went to the UK and US officials and made the bargain that they support him becoming an absolutist dictatorial king, and he would defend THEIR (UK and US) interests in Iran. Therefore, from the get go, the Shah destroyed the constitution and collaborated with the colonial powers against the interests of Iran, in order for him to have absolute power.

2. There is a debate on whether a king has the power to dismiss a sitting prime minister if the Majles is not in session. Dr. Mossadegh was Iran’s number one expert on the 1906 constitution. His view was that the Shah did NOT have the right to do so. The REASON why Mossadegh used the referendum to dismiss the Majles (and to have elections for the next Majles later) was precisely to PREVENT the Shah (under the order of the MI6 and CIA) to use the paid members of the Majles to dismiss the Prime Minister and defeat the nationalist and democratic movement and install a nokar and dictatorial puppet PM.

3. Here is an excellent presentation on the debate on whether the Shah had the constitutional right to dismiss the PM while Majles is not in session:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQ_0ebaN4M

4. There is also a debate whether the letter of Shah was actually written and signed by him. It is believed that it was actually Donald Wilber, the CIA dude in Tehran and a top expert on forgery who actually signed the letter. Professor Ervand Abrahamian told me that in his interview with Donlad Wilber he implicitly said so. The Shah was apparently too afraid to sign it himself. Abrahamian is of the opinion that Wilber and NOT the Shah signed the letter.

5. It was a COUP and not a regular dismissal of the prime minister. First of all, Nasiri goes to the Prime Minster house around 1:00 a.m. AFTER midnight!!!!!! Before taking the letter to the PM, the Foreign Minister was ARRESTED in his house as well as several other members of the cabinet. In preparation for the coup, the coup plotters had kidnaped, tortured, and murdered Gen. Afshartoos the Chief of the Police.

In conclusion, unfortunately, yet again, Milani spreads an wired and extremist interpretation and does not disclose the whole context and the whole truth.

The whole context is that the Iranian people wanted to become INDEPENDENT from the colonial control of the UK. The British had succeeded in gaining the support of the US for their continued subjugation of Iran. The Shah was a nokar of the UK and US. The Shah had already undermined the constitution. Mossadegh was Iran’s foremost democrat and nationalist. The Shah was the primary enemy of democracy and independence.

Mossadegh dismissed the Majles to prevent the Shah to abuse the constitution and dismiss him by the votes of the Majles deputies who had sold their votes via British and CIA money. Mossadegh argued that in the absence of the Majles, the Shah could not carry out the MI6-CIA plan to use the paid Majles deputies votes to dismiss him legally. So, Mossadegh used the democratic feature of referendum to legally dismiss the Majles, because in the absence of the Majles, the Shah did NOT have the constitutional right to dismiss him.

The Shah was a nokar of colonial power and a terribly tyrannical ruler. Iran could not have independence, democracy, freedom, and human rights as long the Shah was the king. If anything, the fault of Mossadegh was that he was so reluctant to take stronger actions against the TRAITOR Shah earlier. Mossadegh should have demanded a referendum to change the system to a republican form of government after July 1952 (30 Tir 1331).

If a tooth is sooooooooooooooooo rotten that it could not be fixed, then the damn tooth has to be taken out. The Shah was soooooooooooo rotten to the core. The damn khaen regime had to be overthrown and democracy established as soon as possible.

MK

;0)

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?

Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?

Related Blogs:

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy (Newsweek Interview, 1984) 

Befarmeed all you (Mosad)eqollahies, Derivatives, & Integrals!

(Mosad)eq submitted and succumbed to the Shah per the constitutional rule as any other prime minster should have!

Are you convinced and happy now?

Now, that once and for all, it's proved that (Mosad)eq was not an Imam but rather a law-abiding prime minster maybe you should rally in support of Reza Pahlavi and maybe and just maybe you can finally find a solution to your current IRR predicament!