Patriot of Persia

Interview with Christopher de Bellaigue

Share/Save/Bookmark

Patriot of Persia
by Fariba Amini
08-Feb-2012
 

Only the pen of a Macaulay or the brush of a Vereshchagin could adequately portray the rapidly shifting scenes attending the downfall of this ancient nation,-scenes in which two powerful and presumably enlightened Christian countries played fast and loose with truth, honor, decency and law, one, at least, hesitating not even at the most barbarous cruelties to accomplish its political design to put Persia beyond hope of self-regeneration. -- The Strangling of Persia, W. Morgan Shuster, April 1912

Mohammad Mossadegh — Iran’s charismatic Prime Minister—and the coup that brought him down in 1953 stand at the center of modern Iranian history. British journalist and writer, Christopher de Bellaigue, has written a new book on this remarkable figure titled Patriot of Persia, which counts as the first real biography of Mossadegh in English by a non-Iranian. De Bellaigue, who is married to an Iranian artist and who has lived in Iran, has written about the country and the wider Middle East for the Economist, the Financial Times, the Independent, and the New York Review of Books. He is also the author of In the Rose Garden of Martyrs which was shortlisted for the Royal Society of Literature‘s Ondaatje Prize, and, more recently of Rebel Land, which deals with the memories of the Armenian genocide in today’s eastern Turkey. He will be speaking on the subject of his new book at the Royal Geographical Society on February 14, sponsored by the Iran Society and Iran Heritage Foundation.

I thank him for granting me his very first interview about his book:

The title of your book is interesting. It is commonly believed that it was more the Americans who carried out the coup but, as you tell the story, the foundations were really laid by the British. In your book you put great emphasis on Great Britain’s role. Is it correct to come to this conclusion?

Let me begin by saying that I don’t consider my book to be the final word on Mossadegh, but since I read Persian and I had access to some Persian sources, I would want to think of my book as an accurate portrayal of the man, but certainly it is not the last word. I don’t even think of my book as a scholarly book; I just hope it is a good one.

In the U.S., the title is a bit different: The title is “A tragic Anglo-American coup.” I think I try to show balance. Great many people have written about the episode from the American perspective, and naturally the apology made by Madeleine Albright focuses the attention on the American role and involvement, but I think I lay it out a bit more explicitly that it was really a British idea and that it was the British who instigated the idea of deposing Mossadegh and that they got the American support when they couldn’t do the job.

What distinguishes your book from so many other ones written about Mossadegh?

I think when you write about someone’s life, you can either dislike them or like and feel admiration for them. I certainly feel admiration for Mossadegh. I am fascinated by him partly for the reasons that anyone interested in Iran would be interested in him, and partly because of my fascination with the conflict between the two countries to which I feel the strongest bond. So I was immediately drawn to him for two reasons, his personality and the conflict between the two countries. As I say in the preface, a lot of valuable work has been done on the subject; but I don’t think we have ever had a fully rounded biography in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, where you follow someone from the cradle to the grave. A lot of lavish biographies have been written about famous people in the Middle East but not Mossadegh. It also happened that I was living in Iran and had some access to the archives and other Persian sources. I was able to gather together some secondary and firsthand material that had not been used before. I must say that there will never be a last word on Mossadegh. People will continue to write about him.

You say in your introduction: “As an Englishman who is married to an Iranian and spends part of the year in Tehran, I learned long ago to suspend all patriotic urges when writing about Iran. Approaching Mossadegh has necessitated even more rigour because of his famous loathing of Britain, and his desire to end British meddling. In Mossadegh’s time, millions of Iranians attributed to the British an almost boundless capacity for mischief. Although Mossadegh’s hatred of Britain clouded his judgment, I regret to say that it rested on sure foundations. Mossadegh saw the hidden hand of the British everywhere because that is where it was.” As a British national, you are defending this man. Is that the case?

I happen to be British, but of course it affects me to read and to hear and to learn about my government’s role in Persian politics. Yes, I am sympathetic to the man. When you read about Mossadegh, it is as if you are reading about your grandfather. There was something grandfatherly about him. But at the same time, it is not that I am defending him. I am trying to show the man as he was, with his many positive characteristics as well as his flaws, to set the record straight. I wanted to write as honestly as I could, to bring out what where his virtues and his flaws were, without any agenda. I have tried to be fair. I know many Iranians will find that a British person writing about him is ridiculous.

As you know, Iranians have a tendency to blame “others” for whatever happens to them. Yet you say that Iranians have a legitimate reason to point fingers at the British not just in the 1950s but long before that. Can you elaborate?

Yes, I do believe the British were very much involved in the internal affairs of Persia or Iran. In the book I try to show Iran’s fascination with the Great Britain and the paranoia that came with it. There is an element of paranoia but at the same time there is a very real foundation for suspicion. Someone like Iraj Pezekshzad [in his masterpiece novel, Dayee Jan Napoleon; translated as My Uncle Napoleon] deals with this on a comic level. That fascination and obsession can get in the way of good judgment, particularly when it comes to politics. At the same time, if you read the history of British involvement in Iran, there is much justification for Iranian suspicion.

Have you by any chance read Darioush Bayandor’s book, Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeqe Revisited. Do you agree with him? He considers the role of the clergy and the Iranian players to have been more important than that of the outside forces.

I did see Bayandor’s book. I read it with interest but I tend not to agree with the crux of it. Bayandor’s approach as far as I can tell is centered on reevaluating the role of Iranians. The foreign involvement is portrayed differently. I think it is fine to listen to other voices offering another argument. But I do think that the events of August 1953 were ultimately a military coup instigated and orchestrated by foreigners. It was not Khod- joush as you say in Persian in my opinion at all.

Don’t you think that if Iranians and some of those around Mossadegh had not actively participated, the coup would not have happened? That is, those who betrayed him or left his side, namely some of the clerics and the Iranians who were paid off like the Rashidians and the rest?

It is one of those hypothetical questions. I think what brought Mossadegh to his downfall were a combinations of factors: the oil nationalization and his engagement in long negotiations, the qualities he possessed- that is a strong will combined with integrity and an attachment to principles were the ultimate tests. I don’t think the defection of Makki, Baghai and or Kashani or any of them were decisive in toppling his government. Mossadegh did not want to invite a civil war. He could have done that. But he did not want bloodshed. He did not want the country to collapse and ultimately that was a decision of principle he took, and the coup found new momentum. As far as I know Mossadegh never expressed regret in the way he handled things or his decision, although many Iranians would say that it was the wrong one.

You really have written a full biography of Mossadegh. We know that he came from a prominent family, he was a Qajar from his mother’s side, but he basically went against that nobility. What really shaped this man? You talk about the most influential person in his life being his mother, but what were some of the other factors, elements or events that shaped him?

I tried to identify every element that shaped him in his early life. I am sure that I have missed a lot. The person who had the most obvious influence on him was his mother no doubt. Naturally, the Constitutional Revolution was an event that influenced him. He was ambivalent at the time but it shaped him considerably, particularly his attitude towards the monarchy. I think his time in Europe was absolutely seminal in shaping his way of thinking in terms of his ideas towards government, towards religion in public life, towards the independence of nations. Then he went back to Persia and he combined what he had learned from the West with the life in Persia. He never wanted to become a European or be a European intellectual. He always remained very much an Iranian. He had a very strong sense of his Iranian-ness and managed to combine the two. All these elements came together to create the man. And then of course, there are the personal elements which shaped his character: Responsibility at a very young age, his relations with his maternal uncle, Farmanfarma, who was a notorious Anglophile. And the long dark years of Reza Shah and the tragic personal experience of watching his youngest daughter fall into mental illness due to his own incarceration.

By the same token, the Shah was also educated not far from Neuchâtel in Switzerland. But he became a different person. What contributed to his character? His experience was different than that of Mossadegh. What do you attribute that to?

You are absolutely right. They came from totally different viewpoints as we know. The Shah was the representative of a new dynasty and he had to live up to the standards that had been set by his father. He was unsure of himself. I have sympathy for the Shah’s predicament. Mossadegh, on the other hand, was sure of his own position and standing among his compatriots. The self-confidence he showed connecting with his constituents or the people around him was very different from the uncertainty of the Shah.

In the chapter on Razmara, you say that Mossadegh knew about his assassination. Yet we know that Mossadegh had a non-violent character that he did not want to use force. How do you come to this conclusion? On what basis do you say that he knew of Razmara’s killing?

I think Ali Rahnama has done some very good work on this subject. His argument seems valid. One could say that historically we are in the realm of speculation but, as I say in my book, there is strong reason to suspect that Mossadegh did know; several of his close confidantes had given their approval to the act. Mossadegh probably had foreknowledge. One has to remember that decisions were being taken in the heat of the moment and that many Iranians were under the impression that their country was on the brink of collapse. They were acting in extremis. But never do I suggest that Mossadegh advocated, advised or even encouraged Razmara’s murder.

Do you think that he was going to eventually call of for a Republic even though he was at core in favor of a constitutional monarchy?

On the day of the coup, they were preparing for a Regency Council, which the Shah should according to the Constitution have been involved in setting up, and for obvious reasons was not. The country was moving towards a republic even if that was not what Mossadegh wanted; though how long that would have taken I don’t know. Mossadegh himself didn’t know how long he would remain in power. During this period he wanted to step down on several occasions. He was surrounded by younger dynamic men who would have been candidates to take his place. I think the majority of them, like Hossein Fatemi, were either hardcore republicans or moving in that direction. Even if we could imagine for a moment that Mossadegh had asked the Shah to return, it is hard to imagine the Shah doing so. His rule was effectively over and he was planning his life with Soraya in the U.S.

Many people argue that Mossadegh was stubborn and made the wrong moves in his negotiations with the Americans and the British and that it was really his fault that a compromise over the oil issue was not reached. Is that your belief too?

I think that if Mossadegh had not had the qualities we have been discussing, Iran would not have been able to negotiate from a position of strength. When nationalization went through, the British did not take it seriously. They did not think that this would last very long or that Mossadegh would last very long. During his trip to America, he genuinely wanted to do a deal. But Eden summarily dismissed the proposals. After that, Mossadegh had the opportunity to test British, to test their appetite for a deal. It is hard for us to know for sure how sincere the British were in their pursuit of compromise. They were certainly trying to convince the Americans of their good intentions so that later on they could enlist the Americans’ help in more aggressive measures. But I do think that Mossadegh missed an opportunity. If he had shown more openness to a deal in the latter days of his premiership it is hard to imagine that he would have lost American good will to the extent that they went along with a coup.

How do you define “Mossadeghism” as you meniton in your book?

It was coined in the West to denote irrational, unstable Middle Eastern leaders who had no idea how the world worked and who liked poking their fingers into the eyes of the great powers. If Mossadeghism was allowed to grow and expand then it would not just be confined to the Abadan refinery but go further, to the Suez Canal and other economic possessions. Mossadeghism was never translated into Persian but to Iranians it meant personal and political integrity.

Mossadegh was cordial towards the Shah and always referred to him as “Your Majesty.” But on page 266 of your book, the Shah in reply to a French journalist asking how Mossadegh was doing said, “He is happy where he is. He eats well and, at eighty- six, engages in his favourite sport, riding donkeys. What more could he wish for?” There was a time when Mohammad Reza Shah was also respectful towards his PM. What made him change? Does power change people?

I am not an expert on the Shah. I studied him a bit. Mossadegh was convinced that the Shah wanted him out of office and even dead. He might have kept the Shah close to him. He did not respect the Shah as a person but respected the idea of a Monarchy for Iran, so that meant respecting the person of the monarch. But in the end their relationship broke down to the point where the Shah went along with the coup plan.

We have heard a few American politicians, most importantly Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, apologize for the U.S. government’s role in the coup. Have any British political figures ever apologized to the Iranian people for the British role?

I don’t think any British politician has ever publicly acknowledged their role. Having said that, I am skeptical about the usefulness of public apologies of this kind. Particularly, for a country like Britain, you would have to spend all your time apologizing! There is a point when apologies lose their value unless they are part of an endeavor to achieve reconciliation. We know that the MI6 records are off limits. I can only say that if we were to see those records, they would not be very flattering.

On page 274 of the book, you mention that Roosevelt went to see Churchill on his way back from Tehran. Churchill was recovering from a stroke. Churchill told him, “If I had been but a few years ago younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture.” There is also a photo of four men sitting on the White House lawn; this is a year after the Coup. They all look jolly. What went through the mind of these politicians? I know you are not a psychiatrist, but what do you think when you look at this picture?

I don’t know what was going through their mind but I think the British felt that Mossadegh had done something wrong and felt that if it were not for British engineering and money, the refineries would have never been built and that it did not belong to Iran. It was the end of the Empire and the two men were representatives of an earlier age. British supremacy was on its last legs so either of those men wanted to make the decline as smooth as it was possible. And Mossadegh was not part of the script. The Americans had a different opinion, that Mossadegh was driving the country into the arms of the Soviets.

Mossadegh was anti- Soviet but the British used their propaganda to bring the Americans on board claiming that he was cozying up to the Soviets. Is that right?

The British definitely played on that. They had a very profound sense of Iranian history. Diplomats who went to Iran were well versed in the history of British involvement in Iran. They never seriously believed that any Iranian statesmen would cozy up to the Soviets. The Tudeh did have some support in Iran but it was not mass based. These were fear mongering stories. Across the Muslim world you find this. There is already a mass ideology – Islam – and doesn’t mix well with the mass ideology of Communism.

You mention Ann (Nancy) Lambton in two separate chapters. I have always been very curious about her. She had a lot of knowledge and understood and wrote about Iranian history. She lived in Iran and traveled by foot. Why would someone who was not just an ordinary scholar—who was not pretentious like Zaehner or even Wilbur—want a true democrat out of office? What can you tell us about her?

She is an absolutely fascinating figure and an enigma. She kept her cards close to her chest. She never talked about her involvement. She had an inspirational role early on. It would be wrong to say that she was the mastermind of the coup. But at the same time, she recommended that Robin Zaehner come to Tehran and use his contacts to undermine the government. She recommended Mossadegh’s removal. I think we have to try to put ourselves in her shoes. She was admirable in so many ways but ultimately she was working for what she believed was the British interest. But as we now know, coercion tends to destroy whatever good may come from diplomacy.

How should Iranians remember Mossadegh today? What is the legacy he left behind?

He should be remembered as a good man, a man who wanted the best for his country. He had a vision. And even more than a leader, he was a good man. I think he is remembered in a positive way because he united the country around a goal that no one can argue with, or contend that it was motivated by self-interest. He wanted an independent, respected Iran, and that, at the end of the day, is what every Iranian wants.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Fariba AminiCommentsDate
Forgotten Captive
61
Nov 27, 2012
The Bride and the Dowry
3
Nov 27, 2012
Enemy Number One?
64
Sep 07, 2012
more from Fariba Amini
 
Parham

You should know.

by Parham on

You should know.


Siavash300

Fixation

by Siavash300 on

"Like I said earlier, you seem fixated" Oktaby

FIXATION is strong attachment to a person, especially such as attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behavior that persists through the life. The person who is fixed on certain false character in Iran's history could benefits from intensive psychotherapy to sort out her/his feeling through therapeautic settings. I strongly recommend this remedy because therapy is effective in these cases.


oktaby

A common ground

by oktaby on

Thank you for your response and I apologize for the 'blood relative' reference. I recall reading to that effect but my error. This Mossadegh/Shah rift is beyond repair unless and until it is understood and framed in historic content with due appreciation for two men that were flawed & great depending on the slice of time and context you look at. If you recall in your article of two years ago I had an equally balancing discussion with our dear departed friend Farah Rusta 

http://iranian.com/main/2009/oct/culture-death

and a discussion of Shah & Mossadegh without name calling:

http://iranian.com/main/blog/noosh-afarin/all-...

A now deseased relative of mine resigned from Royal Army when asked to take Anti-Mossadegh steps in his official capacity. Another who was a General in Royal Air force and funded islamists. yet another was the most trusted  pilot of Shah. Point being none of us have a monopoly on what motivated people and what is best for Iran and certainly majority have failed to collaborate despite differing views even for sake of the nation; Including Shah & Mossadegh. Few were incorruptible but that is not the only requirement for success. Many a corrupt man have risen to the occassion. When collaboration happened it was for all the wrong reasons and blind foolishness. So now a nation is hostage.

I have no doubt that with either Shah or Mossadegh Iran will have been a different country; but a different good country. Had they managed to see beyond their massive egos and worked together, Iran would have been a magnificent nation that you and I dream of, I'm sure. But it was not to be and it is not.

I have lost dear friends who were Leftist, Communist, Pan Iranist, and MEK. and yes Shahi & Mossadeghi. You can get the jist of it from this real story http://iranian.com/main/2010/feb/it-was-summer... (only the names have been improvised). Point being we have been torn into pieces. Enough is enough. Enough death, blood and tears and fighting over Iranians of differing views. We have become so policticized and polarized that we have forgotten the whole point was to help each other and build a kinder, gentler Iran. Let's focus on the real enemy of Iran and Iranians; the rapist republic.

Iran has had its share of heroes, private and public; and without knowing all details yet, I accept your father among them. Had we not had heroes through millenia, there would be no Iran today.

The last line of your comment to me is promising and welcomed. It should serve as common ground for all Iranians. Let's build from there.  

Oktaby


Jeesh Daram

ه

Jeesh Daram


همینقدر که خانم امینی پاسخ بنده رو ندادند، بنظر میرسد که از من راضی هستند.  ولی از طرفی خوش بحال انگلوفیل که مرتب پاسخ میگیره و ایشان کلی باعث کرکر خنده ما شده اند.  خدا رحمت کند روح همه رفته گان خاک رو.  ما خیر همه رو میخواهیم.  بقول آن دوست آذری ما:   "آخه اینهمه زینده مورده باد  // مورده زینده باد،  // آخه مورده زینده باد؟  آخه زینده مورده باد؟" فلسفه ای که نمیتوان با آن مخالفت کرد.  ضمنا مرحوم امینی از شریف ترین افراد بودند و عموی بنده که هم کلاس ایشان بود همیشه از ایشان به نیکی یاد میکرد و اگر اشتباه نکنم ایشان هم بمانند مصدق از بزرگان آشتیان (شامل تفرش، اراک، فراهان و گرکان) و آن خاک پاک بوده اند


Fariba Amini

reply to Mr. Oktaby

by Fariba Amini on

 

Mr. Oktaby,  I also agree with you that the gap will never be bridged for as long as one side does not come to terms with the historical proof that M. was indeed toppled by two foreign powers and that many Iranians had a role in it and that the Shah finally gave in to them, eventhough at the beginning he refused to comply.  You cannot deny history and sometimes historical facts are not to our liking.  I just wished that the dialogue would be more civil. I have always tried to be civil in my correspondence with Shah supporters and in fact I have many friends that are monarchists but we disagree on some issues.  Yet, we can learn to be polite.

It is also unfair to say to me, the least of all people, that I have been insensitive to IRI's violation of human rights or as you put it the rape of the country.    Just look at the numerous articles on this very website and see how much I have written on the subject: women, the Bahais, journalists, HR defenders and civil right activists, not one, not two but over two dozen in the course of more than 20 years.   I did not become a HR activist overnight. I believe in it.  I practice it.  

As for my blood relative, I am not sure who you are referring to.  Mossadegh is not my blood relative.  My late father was his personal attorney and mayor of Tehran.  He was called the mayor of the poor people, and he brought plumbing to the impoversihed areas.  The shah after an outing told him, Mr. Amini this was the best day of my life after he took the Shah to inspect the poor areas of the city.    These were incorruptable men and history has judged them. 

Let me tell you that my father was also the first governor who resinged his post after one month in office after giving his resignation to Khomeini.  I am also proud to be the daughter of a man who saved Persepolis.   "While governor of Fars, Khalkhali and his thugs left Tehran for Shiraz in an attempt to destroy Takht-e Jamshid.  Nosratollah Amini announced on the radio, after sending the army to confront them that over my dead body will you come to commit such immoral act. And he saved this treasure of Iran."

Mossadegh and the Shah will ultimately be judged by Iranians. But I will also say this, that both men loved Iran.   

 


Fariba Amini

I will mr octaby I have been

by Fariba Amini on

I will mr octaby I have been on the road not always having access to Internet 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Shahi; Mossadeghi ...

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

As one who has been called Shahi I want to get my bit. Oktaby is right to a degree as is Anglophile. The hard core on both sides like Ms. Amini and APFSM if genuine will never budge no matter what reason you got.

But people who are in the middle like me will change. In the past 30 years I have learned a lot about this. As I learned more my positions changed until I realized nobody is pure good or bad. They all have their flaws and their good.

However I have not got anywhere with any hard core people specially Mossadeghi. They will go on with their praises and denial. It is their right and I wish them well. Go on and may you reach your goal. 


Shemirani

Maast man Torsh nist :D

by Shemirani on

Thanks Oktabay with your fair and intelligent comment !! and Anglophile is also very right i never saw fanatic article (not comment) about the King but i have seen tonesssss about Mosadegh !!!! (specially here)

The lack of objectivity of the Interviewer is shocking and almost ridiculous !!! Someone said It's more like having an obsession or a fixation i do agree with that !! Beaucoup trop revencharde !!

And i don't think The opposition of Mossadegh and the King was that huge back in the context , My two granpa were in the majles at that time, and Both were ProMossadegh (even if i think faribkhordan like many people ! ) but it didn't meant they were anti monarchist or anti-Shah ! Both of them were Monarchist at the same time ! there was nothing paradoxal in this ! (having different oppinion in a parlement is great and healthy but it doesn't mean you have to reject the whole system !!) 

So this hate from mosadegh's followers against the King is not resonable, it's maybe goes back to their qajars roots, many of them want to believe Pahlavi were impostors, pour ma part, i have no other explanation !

From 70's to now, The Mossadegh's followers looks more like Khomein's followers,no sign of any sense of moderation !

ps: about the book i don't need Christopher de Bellaigue to explain me Iran's history ( the way he sees it) , so i will not buy it ! 


anglophile

Thanks for the complements Ms Amini

by anglophile on

You are right about all but one of my attributes: "
a person who has no shame, no etiquette, no credibility and no humanity.  Oh and beekar! " - I am less of a beekar than you are - LOL


anglophile

Oktaby

by anglophile on

You will never get a straight answer from the likes of Ms Amini. The same monotonic and repititive barrage of platitudes is what you may at best receive from her. You may, and quite rightly so, say that the Shahi fanatics on this site are no better than her. There is however, a big difference at work here. As Abbas Milani says, history is and will continue to be kind to the Shah. Can't say the same for Mossadegh. This explains why they are so alarmed. 

oktaby

Ya marg ya Mossadegh

by oktaby on

Ms. Amini, you still have not responsed to many questions raised and that is not just improper but ruder than some comments you object to.

The Shah/Mossadegh gap will never be bridged among Iranians and we have 6 decades worth of proof. I have never seen a Shahi or Mossadeghi change position and there is no amount of empirical or material evidence that'll change that. The best proof is you & your periodic fueling of this fire under the guise of an interview. Like I said earlier, you seem fixated.

But to keep this up so persistently and single mindedly as the enemy within rapes and plunders anything Iranian, serves the rapist republic and shows a basic lack of patriotic sensibility, even as you proudly advertise that of your blood relative.

Oktaby


Fariba Amini

dad-e bidad

by Fariba Amini on

I am a very polite person but sometimes I wish to say shut up to some people among them this fellow anglophile or whoever he or she may be. a person who has no shame, no etiquette, no credibility and no humanity.  Oh and beekar!  

 

The source of the book is Dad-e bidad written by Vida Hajebi Tabrizi:

Accounts of imprisonment and torture of women in the Shah's prisons

May we see an Iran that torture will be forever eradicated.


anglophile

    و اما در باره مغلطه‌های فریبا خانم!

anglophile


مغلطه اول:

 

هیچ اسم یا مدرکی‌ در باره داستان اول ارائه نشده. احتمالاً یادگار دورانی است که فریبا خانم برای خمینی شب نامه پخش میکردند

 

مغلطه دوم:

 

البته اگر روایت خانم فریده کمالوند (اعظمی) درست باشد جای بسی‌ تاسف و دادخواهی است ولی‌ خانم امینی داستان را کامل نمی‌‌گوید که شوهر فریده اعظمی یعنی دکتر هوشنگ اعظمی در راس یک گروهک تروریستی دست به حملات مسلحانه بر علیه نیروهای دولتی زده بود (معمولأ گفتن داستان کامل به نفع فریبا خانم نیست).

 

مغلطه (دروغ) سوم:

 

معصومه شادمانی که به نوشته شما (البته با شیوه مخصوص خودتون) در زندان شاه کشته شد، نه تنها کشته نشد بلکه به حبس ابد محکوم شد و پس از آزادی در جمهوری اسلامی از طرف مجاهدین نماینده مجلس شد تا بالاخره بدست جمهوری اسلامی اعدام گردید.

 



http://gehar.blogspot.com/2007/07/blog-post_3469.html     http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%85%D9%87_%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C

anglophile

جیش دارم جان!

anglophile


 

 

حداقل شما یکی‌ میدونی‌ که من ممکنه "نامرد" باشم اما "میز" نیستم - قربون هرچی‌ آدم نکته سنجه :))

 


Disenchanted

If likes of Sabeti would have been brought to justice

by Disenchanted on

torture was not an issue in Iran nowadays. One hopes!  Did someone say: حزب فقط آیپک، رهبر فقط اسرائیل  :-) 

Souri

Yes, I see my comment has been flagged again

by Souri on

I can't believe it!

I don't mind that people flag my comments, for any and all kinds of personal reasons. But I can't stand that the Admin actually delete them, without any valid reason!

As you said, DK jon, let ignore them.

hoselam sar raft.


Darius Kadivar

Someone's clearly playing with us Souri Jan

by Darius Kadivar on

ignore it.

Take care

DK 


Darius Kadivar

No worries Souri Jan it's called too much Rubberneckin ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Astagforellah ...

Meegham Faransavy nameefahman bad beekhod khodemoon ghaty paty fekr meekoneem.

Now I understand why Daie Jan Napoleon was so much into conspiracy theories.

 

There must have been a good reason !

 

Said roh nabayed meeferestadan San Fancisco ! 

 

Elvis Presley - Rubberneckin (Final Groove Mix)

 

Happy Valentines ! 

 

 

;0) 


Souri

Don't worry DK jon

by Souri on

I believe maybe you didn't have the time to read my  reply to your comment (which have been deleted) where I said you are right : A chacun sa merde .....and I added that: I love your French humor!

Someone  did flagged our commetnts, and our lovely "ali bi-gham" JJ, did delete them without even reading our comments, I bet. They don't realise that by doing this, they might create confusion and  animosity between two members, whereas initially there was nothing confrontational in there.

Let it be.

But please don't think for a second, that I would flagged your  wise comment. I even took the time to answer it.

Best;


Jeesh Daram

آ

Jeesh Daram


آقای آنگلوفیل، در مورد شکایت شما از آن آقا که شما را "میز"  خطاب کرد.  این همان چیزی است که باعث میشود ایرانیان همیشه مواظب یکدیگر باشند و حتی الامکان همدیگر را "جان" خطاب کنند،  حتی اگر از یکدیگر دلخوری دارند. برای مثال انجام عمل جراحی تغییر جنس روی افراد از راه دور.  خیلی باید مواظب بود.  حالا تهمت و قهرمان کشی و ختنه سورون جای خود دارد


Darius Kadivar

Thanks Souri Jan my bad ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

I did not flag you at all and glad it was not you either. I didn't even get to read your answer if any because I went out for a walk after posting mine.

But Clearly those who take upon themselves to judge an exchange as inappropriate don't even understand the language.

This kind of prude censorship is truly nauseating to say the least because it is a form of censorship in itself. 

Sorry for the confusion but I have reasons to be confused if not even paranoid given that I have been a recurrent "victim" of this kind of repeated and childish behavior.

Kind regards,

DK 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Responses

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I want to see if any reasonable person would see what we got. Here is the VPK distilled version of some recent posts here:

  • One person claims we are all insane because we say Shah made mistakes. That SAVAK did indeed torture some people. I don't know how many but some. 
  • Another says Mossadegh was perfect no flaws whatsoever. That he was brought down by evil America with no fault of his own.
  • Yet another blames our problems on AIPAC.

Do I see a pattern here. Maybe a desire to blame others. Not that others are blameless. Yes America did have a hand. Yes AIPAC does mess with Iran. But to blame it all. Or to claim Shah or Mossadegh were flawless. 

Hero worship and not taking responsibility. It is all "their" fault. Never Yes we are all insane if we disagree with "you" please put in your name for "you".


Souri

JJ

by Souri on

Don't remove my comments!

You are really playing with my nerves!

Ajab gereftari shodim ha...........

please, do reinstall our comments (both DK's and mine)

This is really unjust and unfair!

If you don't understand French or you don't understand how we do debate, it is not our fault!

What is this dictatorial way of deleting what you don't even know a S... about?


amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

I take full responsibility for making an error

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I took Asadian, Amini, VPK seriously and even assumed the first 2 were among the sane, reading their comments I realize that no intelligent, rational person can take their comments seriously, so on that basis neither will I.

VPK- You are no authority for anyone to listen to. If you have a case make it, if you can disprove a case, disprove it. Mindlessly making comments, like Shah was a dictator, is the basis for why we had a revolution in the first place care of ANtellectuals etc, if it was true just because some people said so it you would be correct, but just because some people say so, doesn't make it truth.  

AMINI, Asadian- I see you couldn't answer my fair question, which I answered myself.  Let the record reflect that.

The mistake was taking you 3 seriously, lesson learned, from now on I am writing for the viewers and not to debate you.

Viewers- When US soldier Charles Graner was found guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, where he committed unlawful actions of torture, no one in their right mind ever thought of accusing the commander in chief, or even the chief of defense, let alone their commanding general for these crimes. Common Sanity and basic rationality requires, that people who are not aware of crimes, do not order them, are opposed to them and act in good conscience at all times are not and can not  be held responsible for the unlawful actions and disgraceful actions of a few people that act out side accepted rules and regulations.  Any serious adult knows this to be the case. That Amini and Asadian can not comprehend basic logic, is because they are likely borderline insane, completely ridiculous that i ever took any of these people I listed above seriously, their insanity makes it understandable to me why they chose not to answer the question that I directly posed to them and sheds light on their state of mind and others that think like them regarding their love affair with mossadegh.

QED INSANITYY EXPOSED.

 


Souri

DK

by Souri on

You must be crazy too!

How could you believe that I first answer you with a smily face and comment on that expression, and then would flag both our comments?

How would a normal mind reason  like you did?

What a crap!


default

Let us Invite him(Parvis Sabeti)

by darius on

Why can't we invite him to come and chat in Iranian.com and answer our questions ?

What is wrong with that?I don't know if he will ask for a fee but I would like to invite him as an Iranian to be here and without  fear  of being accused or insulted talk to us .

 

 


Darius Kadivar

Or go learn French Idiomatic Expressions before flagging them

by Darius Kadivar on

Clearly Some of you folks learned French with Mel Brooks !

 

History of the World Part I - French Revolution

 

To say the least about your "vast" knowledge of history ! 

 


Darius Kadivar

Souri Jan if you can't handle the Truth don't debate

by Darius Kadivar on

don't see why my response was deleted ? 

There was absolutely nothing rude ! 

Dunno if it was by you or a likemind who must have flagged it ! ...

I went out for a walk and came back to see the thread deleted. 

Eitherway it shows either you don't take responsibility for your beliefs or if not that some of your protective "friends" don't have the stomach for an openminded debate ! 

Truly Pathetic ! 


Souri

DK jon

by Souri on

Me, always been for the osouli ways, I have never endorsed the executaion of people, without a decent trial.

But, let be objective and practical.

In all typical revolutions like that, there are agitation and misbehaving like this. Remember Qadafi? This happenes even 30 years after our revolution. I don't approve it, but would say, sometimes, unfortunately it is inevitable. I regret it, of course.

Regarding the Savakis and Arteshis and Darbaris of the time, they would be killed anyway, whether with or without the trial. But I deplore that they were not given the chance to explain the degree of their corruption to the public. So, some of them have been killed as hero, for the Monarchists.

A trial is always the best, of course if it is honest and decent, which is not the case in our country and under the IRI.


Darius Kadivar

First Define what you mean by "Victory" before I Join

by Darius Kadivar on

your call for  "Hambastegi" ...

 

For I'm not sure we share the same goal ...

 

 

COMPLAINING JOMHURYKHAH: What Have the Pahlavis EVER Done For Us ? ;0)