Ali Ohadi

I am an admirer and not an agent

by anglophile on Sat Oct 22, 2011 02:44 PM PDT

First a little lesson for you Mr Kazemzadeh: In the same way that you and (dare I say) the overwhelming majority of the Iranians who live and pay taxes in the USA are admirers of the American way of living (otherwise they wouldn't have stayed there), I am an admirer of the British way of life and their mentality. I don't am not blindly infatuated with all things British but if I am given a choice I will continue to choose their way of life over the rest of the leading powers of the world. And their way of life includes their political system. It is very unacademic and unscholarly of you Mr Kazemzadeh to rant in the way you do and accuse your opponents of being the agents of the British. But seeing that you are a blind devotee of Mohammad Mossadegh, explains why you behave the way you do. After all you idol Mossadegh said the same thing about Reza Shah during his trial. When he was asked: "why despite all the services that Reza Shah had done for his country you (i.e. Mossadegh) were still against him?", Mossadegh replied: "Because he (Reza Shah) was a British lackey".  This was the shallow depth of his political acumen. For a man who was supposed to have studied law and was not to charge any one with having proof, Mossadegh's polical knowledge was the same as a commoner baazari who would fo along with the word in the "hojreh". Now what more should I expect from a Mossadeghollahi that you are? But as for your other reant abut Mirfetros, I must point out that he is not the only scholar who has demystfied Mossadegh. There are other leading scholars like Abbas Milani, Mashallah Ajoudani, Jalal Matini, and more recently Hooshang Nahavandi and Dariush Bayandor who have written extensively on Mossadegh. All these authors are unanimous in Mossadegh's ineptitude and insincerity. I suggest you give them a read. May I take this opportunity and thank Fozolie and VPK for their accurate and supportive comments. 

Dear Fozolie

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Oct 22, 2011 04:40 AM PDT

 

You are right and in particular about this: 

It is not possible to have a logical discussion with matters of faith.  

Worship of the Saint is a religion and the faithful respond that way. Go to a Mosque and question Mohammad. You will not be welcome! It is the same about the Saint M worshipers. Many are JM although not all. My mother was a member of JM but renounced them. Privately and told me "I was young and behaved based on emotion". Good for her! While some people grow up; see their mistakes other stick to the faith. 

There is also a difference between "scholarly research" and one done by a professor. Just because the writer is a professor does not make the work "scholarly".  

For 60 year the feud over Mossadegh haunted Iranian politics. It kept us from moving on and brought IRI. I hope we put this *** behind us and move on. I bet at the age of 100 we are still going to have JM screaming at the wind "only if Mossadegh ....". 

Mr Kazemzadeh you are the one guilty of propaganda

by fozolie on Sat Oct 22, 2011 04:47 AM PDT

Your defence and so called version of truth is nothing but propaganda. What you wrote in defence of Saint Mossadegh was pure proganada. The logic and perversion of what happened by supporters of Jebhe Gheri e Melli is laughable when it is a matter of a record that Saint Mossadegh would not listen to anyone (including his constitutional advisers). 

 

You (and the so called very biased 'scholars') make "100%" claims without a shred of evidence. You justify Saint Mossadegh's undemocratic actions with very childish justification.  Your accusation of a commenter being a lier was off putting in the first place then to try and answer his points with what is at best innuendo cloaked in leftist scholarly propaganda does not persuade me. You cannot answer the points he or she makes instead you hide behind scholarly. Please don't forget we have a very good saying in Persian: Alem shodan che assan, adam shodan che moshkel. 

 

It is not possible to have a logical discussion with matters of faith.  That is they tragedy gripping us.  We now know how dangerous the Toudeh threat was and how actively they were working to destablize Iran (not just the monarch sir, IRAN).

I repeat, nobody is falling for this (per)version of history and childish justifications for Saint Mossadegh's incompetence.

 

Since you also present a lot with benefit of hindsight ignoring the dangers facing Iran and the chaos that was then, let me engage in the same. If anyone gave the Shah the perfect excuse and opportunity to become a dictator it was Saint Mossadegh through his ineptitude, incompetence and inexperience. It is easy, isn't it? Let me go on since I am on 'scholarly' roll. I further accuse that generation of allowing such a chasm to develop between the ranks of modernists which allowed Islamists in. We are the ones picking up the pieces so please think about what you are doing.   It is divisive.

 

Mr. Fozolie

 

Propaganda vs. Scholarly Materials

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Fri Oct 21, 2011 04:04 PM PDT

Anglophile,

YOU are NOT interested in the truth. You are here to spread lies and propaganda to benefit the British and attack Iranian nationalists. Facts and truth do not matter to you.

On this very blog, we have on the one hand a WEALTH of materials from the very TOP scholars of the field. You do not accept the words of the TOP historians and scholars. But you accept the words of a person like Mirfetros!!!!!!!!!! That, alone, says it all.

Of course, you attack me. You want Iran to have remained a de facto colony of the British, and I want Iran to be independent. People like Mossadegh and his followers are your opponent. Many Brits, today, honestly do accept the fact. You, on the other hand, do not accept fact. You propagate lies and propaganda.

MK

Absolutely right VPK

by anglophile on Fri Oct 21, 2011 02:34 PM PDT

Remember it is the Mossadeghollahis like MK (or in this case Ohadi) who never give up. I just respond to put the record right.

Thank Anglo

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 02:31 PM PDT

 

For getting to the point on Tahmasbi. I said before if Shah wanted to release him he would have done a Royal Pardon. But it was the Majilis with Mossadegh as PM. The stink of it makes me sick. No *** way this is going away.

And thank you for explaining why Mossadegh hated Pahlavi. Yes the Ghajar filth deserved to go. Reza Khan was a million times better. While Ahmad Shah was in France exploring depths of French prostitutes, Reza Khan saved Iran.

Sick of Mossadegh

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 02:20 PM PDT

 

God! I am so tired of hearing about Mossadegh and how great he was. Whatever happened was 60 years ago. Meanwhile IRI is executing Iranians. Obama is about to go to war with IRI. What do you people do? Write about Mossadegh!

I am about to vomit. Not that I dislike Mossadegh but I am really becoming anti-JM. Ten or twenty years ago I admired them. But watching them stuck in the past has shown me they are fossils. 

One more thing. If MK would write something a bit less repetitive it would help. Not to mention being to the point. We are not being paid by the number of words. Getting to the point will result in more readers. Long 6 page posts do the reverse.

Kazemadeh FICTION again?

by anglophile on Fri Oct 21, 2011 01:52 PM PDT

Your "proof" is as good as "dom-e khoroos" in: "az roobaah porsidan shaahedet kieh" .  Your background and your "proof" has lost all its credibilty on Iranian.com - or may be elsewhere. So feel free to "prove" any thing   you wish. But Ali Mirfertros asked me to give a message LOL:         دكتر مصدّق از تريبون مجلس خطاب به رزم آرا فرياد كرد:

- «به وحدانيـّت حق، خون می‌كنيم! خون می‌كنيم! می‌زنيم و كشته می شويم! اگر شما نظامی‌هستيد، من از شما نظامی‌ترم. می‌كُشم! در همين مجلس شما را می‌كُشم!»

چهار روز بعد، رزم آرا، نه بدست مصدّق، بلكه بدست فدائيان اسلام كشته شد و شگفتا كه قتل رزم آرا با تائيد و جشن و پايكوبي عموم رهبران جبههء ملّی (و از جمله مصدّق) همراه بود. (آسیب شناسی...،چاپ دوم،صص56-57)

anglophile LIES again

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:26 PM PDT

How many times do I have to prove that anglophile continuously LIES?????

//iranian.com/main/blog/tapesh-503page4

　

Mossadegh OPPOSED the Majles bill releasing Tahmasebi. The Shah SUPPORTED the Majles bill releasing Tahmasebi.

//naghddrmosadegh.blogfa.com/post-8.aspx

　

Lets see what Professor Eravand Abrahamian, one of the most prominent historian of Iran, writes about this issue:

Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)., pp. 108. The passage in available in the internet at: //tehranbureau.com/history-abused/

As early as November 1951, the British Embassy reported that Kashani was so disgruntled with Mosaddeq that he had put out "feelers" in many directions, including the royal court and the U.S. Embassy. "The Americans," reported the British Embassy, "have told us in the strictest confidence that he [ Kashani] has been in touch with them. His main thesis is the danger of communism and the need for immediate American aid." Similarly, in May 1952 the head of the British intelligence service in Tehran reported that a prominent royalist had boasted to him that the "shah’s astute policies" had detached Kashani from Mosaddeq. He added, "I did not dispute this but would put on record that the detaching of Kashani was due to quite other factors, and that these factors were created and directed by the brothers Rashidian." (The Rashidian brothers were the main conduit of British intelligence service money into Iran.)

Kashani’s opposition to Mosaddeq came into the open by mid-1953 once the latter issued a referendum to dissolve Parliament, drafted an electoral bill enfranchising women, tended to favor state enterprises over the bazaar, refused to ban alcohol, and declined amnesty to assassins from the Fedayan-e Islam.

 

　

We are 100% certain that the Shah ordered the assassination of Gen. Razmara. The conspiracy included Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Alam, Seyyed Zia (Shah’s liason with Fadaian Islam), and Fadaian Islam.

Soon after 30 Tir 1331, Kashani broke from Mossadegh and sided with the Shah. By 24 Aban 1331, Kashani was collaborating with the Shah. On 9 Dey 1331, the Shah and the Islamists (inluding Kashani) tried to murder Mossadegh and claim the people did it spontaneously.

Dr. Fatemi, was the target of attempted assassination of Fadaian Islam on February 15, 1952 (25 Bahman 1331). Later on the Fadaian Islam also planned to assassinate Dr. Mossadegh.

Fadaian Islam played a major role during the 28 Mordad 1332 coup according to its own newspaper, and according to the CIA’s own secret history.

The Shah had good relations with the Fadaian Islam. According to Dariush Homauyn, THE SHAH had allowed the murderers of Kasravi to be freed without prosecution:

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/07/100727_shah_annive30_homayoun_religion.shtml

Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the Struggle for Power in Iran (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 1990), pp. 82-84.

Professor Katouzian is widely regarded as one of the very top scholars of Iran. In my opinion, Professor Katouzian is the number 1 scholar of Iran. He is currently at the University of Oxford. The following are from his book:

Musaddiq having thus refused to co-operate, the shah and his friends began to think of other means of dealing with the fearsome general.

Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 while attending a funeral service at a mosque in Tehran. The self-confessed assassin was Khalil Tahmasibi, a member of the Fada’iyan-e Islam....

Immediately after the assassination, Sayyed Zia had confided in his friends that he believed that the shah was involved in the incident. The Sayyed had related that was with the shah when Alam – who had accompanied Razmara to the mosque where he was shot dead– had hurriedly arrived at the palace, and joyfully told the shah: ‘They killed him and we are relieved.’ ....

However, Colonel Musavvar-Rahmai’s detailed discussion of the event in his recent memoirs had left little room for speculation that the plot had had sides to it. Thus he wrote:

"An army sergeant, in civilian clothes, was chosen for the deed... He had been told to shoot and kill Razmara with a Colt, the moment Tahmasebi began to shoot... Those who had examined the wounds in Razmara’s body were in no doubt that he had been killed by a Colt buller, not by the bullet of a weak gun."

Furthermore, Musavvar-Rahmani relates his conversations with Colonel Daihimi shortly after the event, and the letter from Daihimi to the shah which the latter had read out to him, ending with the following words (which Rahmani emphasizes he is paraphrasing from memory): ‘As Your Majesty knows very well, no one had a greater role in getting rid of General Razmara than Mr [Asadullah] Alam and this servant.’

======================================

1. We know for 100% certitude that Alam asked Razmara to go to the Mosque (Masjed Shah) on 16 Esfand 1329.

2. We know for 100% certitude that at the same time, Khalil Tahmasebi and an Army Sargent with a Colt arrive at the same time. Even the IRI’s site for Navab Safavi admits to this.

3. The liaison between the darbar and Fadaian Islam was Seyyed Zia. Alam and Zia had been working for MI6 for a long time.

4. Shah was terrified of Gen. Razmara and was working hard to get rid of him. The Shah asked Mossadegh to become prime minister in order to undermine Razmara, an offer which Dr. Mossadegh refused.

5. We have evidence that Col. Daihimi was asked by Alam to organize the assassination. Col Daihimi discusses this with the Shah. Col. Daihimi says that an Army Sargent was assigned to shoot Gen. Razmara if Khalil Tahmaseni’s assassination did not work. The evidence is that the wounds on Razmara indicate that the mortal wound did not come from the weak gun by Tahmasebi, but by a powerful gun like Colt (the kind used by the Sargent sent by Alam).

Based on the evidence, Mohammad Reza Shah and Alam decide to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam personally brings Gen. Razmara to the place where he was killed. Alam also has Col. Daihimi send an Army Sargent with a Colt to be present and ordered to assassinate Gen. Razmara. Alam has Seyed Zia to coordinate Khalil Tahmasebi to be present and assassinate Gen. Razmara. Tahmasebi proudly confesses that he killed Gen. Razmara. At least three shots were fired. How many of the shots are from Tahmasebi’s weak gun and how many from Alam’s Army Sargent’s Colt are not known.

Mohammad Reza Shah, like Reza Shah, had assassinated many powerful individuals. There are many "theories" on Reza Shah killed soooooooooo many of his own lieutenants. One speculation was that because Reza Shah was a heavy opium uses, that might have caused him to become paranoid and kill his own top aids. One top scholar, Professor Stephanie Cronin, argues that Reza Shah’s heavy use of opium many not be the explanation of why he killed sooooo many of his own supporters. Professor Cronin argues that Reza Shah was getting old and he believed that his son was too young and inexperinces and that his own powerful lieutenants might make a coup and get rid of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Therefore, Reza Shah killed all those who MIGHT one day undermine his son. See Stephanie Cronin, Tribal Politics in Iran: Rural Conflict and the New State, 1921-1941 (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).

The following is on page 173 of Cronin book:

The shah’s fear of assassination had become very visible from at least the mid-1920s and these fears only heightened with time. By the early 1930s he had become dominated by a sense that his own life and the future of his dynasty were in danger. Although he had little concern about any rival to himself, he was extremely conscious of the vulnerability of the succession, owning to the Crown Prince’s youth and weakness. His own health was suffering, his use of opium taking its toll, his morale further damaged by the attitudes and behaviour of those surrounding him, and he became morbidly preoccupied with the real or imagined ambitions of those closest to the court.

==============================================

In conclusion, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah have a long history of killing other powerful individuals. In order to avoid responsibility for killing them, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah made them look like suicide in prison, or assassination by other groups.

 

===================================

on the referendum:

The only clean elections were in the big cities. In Tehran most deputies were elected in clean elections and therefore the Shah could not interfere easily; so most of the deputies elected were from the JM.

In rural areas, the big landowners would haul in their raiyat (peasants) to vote for them or their designated person. The gendarmerie and the Shia mollahs in rural areas were almost always in the pocket of the big landowners. The exception were in some ethnic areas where tribal leaders could count on their own tribal leaders to vote for them instead. If the tribal leader was opposed to the Shah, then he might ally with democratic and progressive forces (e.g., as occurred with Qashqai tribe in central Iran, and Sanjabi tribe in Kermanshah). Some Bakhtiaris also sided with anti-Shah forces (but not all of them).

So, most members of the Majles got to Majles through electoral process that were not clean. Money would simply "produce" votes. Many who wanted to be elected would literally go and talk with the British (and their agents) who would supply the money. Most significantly most members of the Majles would SELL their votes. So the British would simply buy their votes. Only fear of the people would stop the Majles members from these votes.

In August 1953, Mossadegh correctly understood that the CIA, MI6 coup plan was to have the Majles vote against him, then have the Shah sign his dismissal. The British would simply BUY the votes of Majles deputies. To counter the CIA-MI6 coup’s "legal figleaf" plan, Mossadegh came up with the referendum to dismiss the Majles. Mossadegh (correctly) argued that while the Majles is dismissed (waiting until the next elections for the Majles), the Shah could not dismiss the Prime Minister. According to the 1906 constitution (modeled after the British system), the monarch could NOT appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister at will. That is the power of the Majles. The monarch only symbolically signs the decision of the Majles. Indeed, this is the PRIMARY difference between a constitutional monarch and an absolutist monarch. In a constitutional monarchy, the parliament has the power to choose and dismiss the prime minister. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch does so at will.

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

 

In conclusion, Mossadegh’s use of REFERENDUM to dismiss the Majles was the democratic method to counter the CIA-MI6 coup. Basically, Mossadegh had two goals (nationalize our oil and establish democracy). The British did not want to give up their colonial control of Iran (both oil and politics). From the getgo the British plan was to get rid of Mossadegh and re-establish their colonial control of our economic and political life. The Shah was a nokar of the British and did what was in the interests of the British until August 1953 and after that the Shah was a puppet of the US. Democracy in Iran was NOT good for the maintenance of British control over Iranian oil. The Shah was both power hungry and greedy. So, he collaborated with the MI6 and the CIA so that he could loot Iran and be the absolute tyrant in Iran (serving himself and his foreign patrons).

 

آقای اوحدی شما همیشه از الهامات غیبی بهره میگیرید؟

anglophile
Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:08 PM PDT

:میگویی

 

" مصدق از ابتدا تابع قانون بود" منظورتان قانونی است که خودش مفسر و تعبیر کننده آن بود؟ همان تعبیری که منجر به انحلال مجلس از طریق رفرراندم خلاف قانون می‌‌بود؟ 

و یا می‌‌فرمأید  

 

"  من اما خیال می کنم سیاست باید کثیف تر باشد. وکیل قادر است یک قاتل یا دزد یا جانی را تبرئه کند اما سیاست می تواند قاتلان و دزدان و جانیان را تبرئه و بر سرنوشت ملتی حاکم کند و سرزمینی را به خاک سیاه بنشاند! پرسش این است؛ مصدقی باید بود یا مدرسی؟" منظور شما همان مصدقی است که قاتل رزم آرا را از زندان آزاد کرد چون بقول مصدق رزم آرا محارب با خدا می‌‌بود!   

 

برادر من شما هرچی‌ دوست داری بنویس ولی‌ آخرش امضا کن: علی‌ اوحدی مصدق اللهی .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all that has passed are you still falling for demagogues?

by fozolie on Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:04 PM PDT

Na een khobeh na eeshon, lanat bar har do ta shoon. This hysterical anti pahlavi and anecdotal stories of these demagogues is not fooling anyone any more.

Mr. Fozolie