Capt Ayhab

Rosie jaan,

Same to you ;) -- I've been busy.

Always glad you're around.

Hi, Spear.

I was wondering where you'd been. Nice to see you.

Ayhab

You first falsify the facts and say that the Shah "fled" three times, and when I correct you, you say what difference does it make, two or three. Well, for those of us who respect and value the truth, it makes a lot of difference. Your hatred -- yes, UBER HATRED -- of all things Pahlavi is highly irrational, bordering on insanity.

And you're wrong when you write, "Shah even did not know that Huyser was visiting with his generals. Sad I should say."

If you had read a few books in your life, instead of parroting hearsay, you would know that the Shah, through his Savak spies, was fully aware of Huyser's presence in Iran. In fact, the moment Huyser arrived in Iran, the Shah was informed of his presence by the Savak. This is a very well known FACT, Ayhab. In fact, Gharabagi was summoned to the Shah's office and reprimanded by the Shah personally for having met with Huyser, a foreign officer, without having documented his meeting. Huyser ended up meeting the Shah shortly thereafter in the very office where Gharabaghi had been reprimanded. This is all in Manuchehr Ganji's book, if you wish to catch up on some reading.

And your other point is patently foolish, borne out of irrational hatred: "Now let us look at this from a military stand point......... Shah was commander in chief of armed forces, as a result he was bound by the rules of the army. Any officer or rank personnel who runs away is called a deserter and is subject to military tribunal, punishable by firing squad."

This is a good example of your irrational hatred, which when it comes to the Pahlavis, is out of control, which rightly diminishes your standing as an objective observer in this forum, which is quite sad. In fact, by now I recognize that the moment you write about the Pahlavis, it's going to be slanted, highly biased, even falsified, irrational and borderline dellusional, a product of misinformation, hatred, exaggeration and patently untrustworthy. In short, you're not taken seriously , far from it, when you write about the Pahlavis, specially Reza Pahlavi. And if I feel that way, believe me, a great many others do as well.

mitra

If you want to debate, then please read what I write closely. I never said there was no revolution in Iran, but rather, by the "technical" definition of the term, what we had in Iran was not a revolution, "technically."

The masses did not storm the Shah's palace as they did in the French and Russian revolutions. And the Shah did not abdicate his throne. He left for a "vacation," with our only legitimate constitution firmly in place -- a constitution which STILL to this day recognizes his son as the rightful heir to the Peacock Throne. So, technically speaking, what we experienced in 1978-79 was not a "text-book" revolution. But that's what it amounted to, so don't go off on your soap box trying to teach me how to be fair minded and objective. I made a fair point, whether you agree with it or not.

Okay, Ben, here's the last word

on the subject of how you and I get along. I'm sure someone's played this for you before, but in our case every single word of it counts, and especially the lyrics at the bottom, in the exact way they're written, because that's how we're destined to communicate-garbled.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwAmpn8ISV0

And yes, Ben I do remember the first time you posted here. It was under the Dabashi article, and Fred was insulting Niloufar and I was lecturing Fred about insulting Niloaur and you said you didn't read the site much but you came because they sent you an e-mail and you were never coming back because of the way we were all talking on that thread, and I said come back, and you came back and said here I am, by popular demand, and then I kept lecturing Fred and you started lecturing me about lecturing Fred. and then you said you were leaving again and never coming back.

But here's the part you didn't understand, Ben. Right after I was lecturing Fred, Fred starting posting comments on my news contributions and they weren't even nasty.. And that's probably the only time on this site Fred ever wasn't nasty to someone who wasn't a right winger.

But hell, let's forget about the past and look toward the future, u & me.

& Fred.

lol

Rea /Anahid

Rea, if you want to understand Iran and Iranians, or at least expats, well, here they are in all their glory. In their posts on this site. Anyway, ifyou didn't want to find some ad hominems, it might be better to look at a thread that doesn't have the graphic at the top with the French medieval poetry. And finally, you're mischaracterizing a thread with almost 200 comments, apparently based on a couple of posts at the top (the  'novels'...). Reviewing the whole thread, at least scanning it, provides a very different picture. imho 

Well, three steps forward, two steps back. But I think overall this was a great thread.

______________

Anahid, I've been reading the blog you linked below with attention to the poster you mentioned. His posts on it are convoluted to say the least. I'll let you know what I think about that bizarre thread soon.

 //iranian.com/main/comment/reply/105503/289792

captain

i hope that your realize as the host of this show, once the vowels are bought and the puzzle solved, the statement will be directed at you.  followed by the applause of the audience.  at least that's the way it works on wheel of fortune.

Ah

Some of us come here so we can learn about Iran and Iranians.  And all we find is ad hominem and people writing novels about who said what to whom.

Nite dear friends. ;)

Rosie

Do you really think I didn't notice what you were doing? Do you think that I didn't value that? But at the end of the day, you lack the deviousness of the mind we Iranian are so familiar with. You don't read what I read. I was trying to help you and I did. Look at the worm last comment. You did a good job Rosie.

Mitra Jan ....both rouholahi's and shaholahi's.

Excellent observation.

Fact of the matter is that these bunch that you mentioned have no particular talent what so ever. Non of them have any thing of value to contribute. All they know is to repeat certain lies and slanders about everyone just to hide their impotence in logical and civilized debate.

All you have to do is look at their contributions list. and you will find it as empty as their skulls. This is true for the extremist on both sides, be it rouholahi's or the shaholahi's.

-YT 

ps Jammy,

you were absolutely right. I defend myself just fine and I don't need anyone else to defend me. I don't know why I said that last night, that I needed defense. I was just very upset. Probably because it has been so long since I participated here, and I still felt a little vulnerable. I'm fine now, and to reiterate, I'd rather, if it is still interesting to anyone, for people to focus on the debate and not on me.

Thanks for your support. You know how I feel about our friendship.

Rosie jan, some IC bloggers would make horrible politicians

Dear Rosie, in respect to your last comment, I have to say that I have noticed something about few of our friends who make much political commentatory on IC.  Some of these friends rather than try to build on agreements manage to escalate the argument even if they see the other side is getting closer to their positions. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians acted like this?  Many IC friends act as if they just want to have IC as a tribune to broadcast their ideas.  In order to do that, their idea has to be different. If there were a realization that many IC bloggers have much similarities in their political ideas, then that would not allow these blogger to grab as much attention so some friends(notice the word some)  just prefer to disagree with others even when there could be some agreements. 

in retrospect - Rosie

What this blog failed to do was a direct challenge to Reza 1/2 Pahlavi to come on-board and buy few vowels. 

They are free and we wouldn't have charged him a dime. Only the dignity he does not have, along with his rabid and FEW supporters.

Rosie, You did great, trying to beat logic into some skulls is futile, no one is home. ;-)

Once a treacherous and dimwitted monarchist always a foul mouthed dimwitted monarchist. It has become part of their genealogy, if you get my drift.

have yourself a wonderful weekend.

-YT 

Yes, you did, Ben. You said something extremely

offensive to me because all you said was that my position on Monarchy doesn't matter. I worked long and hard to articulate that position and you said absolutely nothing to clarify your snitty post to me the way you're doing now, and this was rude and scathing. Especially in light of how much work I (with others) put into this blog throughout so it would remain civil. You wouldn't even be able to be having your discusson on Monarchy on Ayhab's blog without us. And more especially after your having expressed how trenchant my comment was about how people who spew vomit every time they see anything related to RP might be angry at themselves for having fought the Revolution.--your snitty comment was not only rude but ILLOGICAL.

___________

To expand on your illogicality, you said (and only AFTER I asked you why my position wasn't important--you wouldn't have even bothered to 'clarify' if I hadn't asked you) that you would welcome my observations but not my position. Well, in point of fact my positon WAS merely an observation because it was completely non-partisan. So your two posts about whether or not I have the right to express myself and under which circumstances were illogical.

But moving on to the content of my post, it was EXTREMELY important as an observation/position because ALL it did was logically dismantle the position held by many anti-Monarchists here that Monarchy doesn't even BELONG in the debate, by explaining that this is wrong from a LOGICAL standpoint, no matter how irrelevant and/or toxic they may feel Monarcy is, and therefore it must be respected as a position within the debate within the Iranian context.

That post wasn't intended for you or any other Monarchist. Or anyone who's been willing or eager to debate the Monarchists on equal grounds. It was meant for the people I just spoke about in my post I mentioned here, the trenchancy of which you lauded, the ones who spew venom every time they hear the word 'RP'. Many of whom respect me. And by your so scathingly cutting me down, you undid a lot of my work, because in watching how you just treated me, you confirmed a lot of their stereotyped opinons about Monarchists and why they don't belong in the debate, which I won't elaborate here so as not to do further damage to my own efforts, but which you are well aware of.

My post was meant for the venom spitters so they'd stop attacking Monarchists on the threads, and...oh Ben, oh Ben, my positions here matter far more than you seem to realize.

Jamshid

Before I disable the feature to send me email for new comments in this blog, let me clarify few things.

I didn't say anything, anything at all, offensive to Rosie. I just merely stated a fact. I always (well, not quite 'always'!) welcome her input and her observation. She is an intelligent person (and I told her this before) and also very observant. And yes, she cares about Iran more than most of these worms. And she always is well intentioned.

But shouldn't we have the same standard toward non Iranians inputs in Iranian discussion, no matter their political leanings? What is it that the opinion of an American republican is suddenly brandished as AIPAC, warmonger, ignorant, imperialistic etc. and nobody complains but a mere remark about the fact that her preferences in political options of Iranians does not matter is considered offensive? Her preference does not matter, the same way that the opinion of a right wing American does not matter. Simply because it is an Iranian matter. This is simply a fact. There is nothing to be offensive or defensive about it.

Yes Jamshid. I'm fairly new here, and Rosie might recall that I retracted one of my first comments in IC and she might know why. I don't adhere to the idea that IC should be a 'country club' in which 'old boys' take care of each-other. IC is a forum for all Iranians and it only expands and succeeds if it doesn't get stuck in 'country club' mentality.

Rosie, 

you're illogical and rude and inconsistent and arrogant. 

yeh, I get that a lot!

No comment. I like you to stay around because I really like you. So I leave you alone, with your glass tank lab experiment.

Spear..... thrice a typo

once twice three times makes no difference. He fled, that is all it boils down to. Not once but twice.

Azhari was not weak as Ms. Mitra mentioned. Two factors were behind army's inaction.

First:  On 12 February 1979 the Armed Forces acted upon advice by the Deputy-Commander-in-Chief of NATO, General Huyser, who had been sent by President Carter as an un-announced envoy to the country, by declaring their neutrality and ordered all military personnel back to their barracks.

In another words Army was neutralized by General Huyser under the direct orders of Jimmy Carter. Shah even did not know that Huyser was visiting with his generals. Sad I should say.

Second factor was the huge mass of people, as Ms. Mitra articulated,  on the streets and the fact many army personnel laid down the weapons and joined the masses. First to do were the Homa Faran brigade[As I recall].

Shah was under the impression that once he leaves the country, CIA, much like 1957 coup, will hire some more likes of ShaAbah Jafari[Bi-Mokh] and he would be back to power in a jiffy.

Now let us look at this from a military stand point......... Shah was commander in chief of armed forces, as a result he was bound by the rules of the army. Any officer or rank personnel who runs away is called a deserter and is subject to military tribunal, punishable by firing squad.

So Shah was a deserter[AWOL], and he should have been  court marshaled by his own generals for leaving his duties. 

Regards

-YT 

Dear Spear, yes, that is good that blood bath did not happen but

Dear Spear, it is great that Shah left and blood bath did not happen but you wrote:"...And because the masses never stormed the Shah's palace (unlike the Winter Palace massacre of Czar Nicholaz II and his family -- I guess that's what you would have preferred, Captain), but that never happened, and as such, there never really was a revolution in the "technical" sense of the term, as the Shah did not abdicate his throne, but left for "medical treatment."

I don't think just because people did not storm the palace. you can say that "technically" there was no revolution.  Let's not have short memories.  True that people did not storm palace but they stormed padeganhaye nezami and TV and many other nahadhaye ghodrat.

Dear Spear, You can not have an arbitrary measure; people storming palace, and call any revolution that did not have this arbitrary measure technically not a revolution.

Also about Shah leaving the country, I believe that during 1332, Shah also left the country.  So we have got two at least.  Your measures are very arvitrary.  You write about Azhari" being weak. Azhari was not weak but he could not stop people.  River of revolution had started and all Shah's prime ministers that he chose in last months of his reign could not stop it. 

We can not deny a historic fact that in 1357, in Iran,a revolution happened.  If we do that, I am afraid we we will be like Ahmadinejad who denies holocaust.

His Majesty fled thrice, Captain?

List them, if you would.

And you can choose to call it "fled" but unlike the self-serving mullahs, when the Shah saw that the masses were against him in 1978, he acted like a civilized monarch and left Iran to Iranians and their wishes -- mind you, unlike the Russian revolution or the French revolution, the masses never stormed the Shah's palace in Iran.

In fact, if you strip away all the massive revolutionary exaggerations, the 1979 uprising was one of the least bloodiest of all revolutions (this is a fact), thanks in large measure to the decency of the Shah (who could have easily named a strong-man like Gholam Ali Oveissi to be in charge of martial law, but the Shah chose a weak man like Azhari, who even had a heart attack during the revolution. Oveissi would have given the Shah's supporters the blood-bath they were looking for -- but the Shah was not interested in any such adventures in self-mutilation.

As the Shah later told a visiting diplomat in his hospital room in New York, "a dictator (Khameini) gets his power from the military (Sepah), a king derives his power from his people... What good is a throne that sits on a river of the people's blood?"

And because the masses never stormed the Shah's palace (unlike the Winter Palace massacre of Czar Nicholaz II and his family -- I guess that's what you would have preferred, Captain), but that never happened, and as such, there never really was a revolution in the "technical" sense of the term, as the Shah did not abdicate his throne, but left for "medical treatment."

In the final analysis, His Majesty acted like a civilized leader of his country. He left instead of staying at all cost, which would have resulted in massive bloodshed. The Shah chose the more humanistic approach, for which many to this day hold against him (as they think he should have wiped out the mullahs and restored order).

Anway, I'm curious, what were the "3" times the King "fled?"

Spear

You quoted["It's not about Reza Pahlavi. For a monarchist, insulting the
monarch is insulting the country.]

what country does Reza Pahlavi reside on? Is it not true that his father ran like a chicken 3 times, hoping someone would bring him back to power?

Does that not mean that Reza pahlavi has no claim on any throne, when his daddy fled like a sissi  3 times??

Besides....... what is he doing in US..........? Why is he not going to claim the throne? He can fly a plane can he not?

I have a Cessna for rent.

-YT 

Oh, Captain...

I also noticed that you chided the blogger who goes by the name "Free" in your blog (you cited OnlyIran, Iraniandudee and Free).

May I ask why you're against Free?

Jamshid, this proud Monarchist agrees with you...

Jamshid disputes the conlusion that "Revolution in 1357 was rejection of monarchy." He writes, "Yes, but one could argue that it was also the acceptance of an Islamic Republic, not a seuclar republic. We can't be selective on this issue."

I'm glad to know there are plenty of objective Iranians out there, more than one would think.

Jamshid continues, "... the one thing that I see clearly and without any shadow of doubt is that a big part of the revolution and people's opinion was based on outright lies against the Pahlavis and even worst lies and false promises for the future."

How true, dear Jamshid!

"In short, people's manipulated opinions and therefore their vote for a mass suicide in 1979 cannot be considered as basis for today."

Well said, on all counts.

bencross, well done!

bencross writes, "It's not about Reza Pahlavi. For a monarchist, insulting the monarch is insulting the country. Even for someone who doesn't believe in monarchy but believes in the constitution, Reza Pahlavi has a stature beyond his personal being. Criticism of monarchy as a system, or even cracking jokes about the monarch... is not the cause of anger of monarchists. They get angry when their country is insulted."

Captain, I'm afraid I also agree with this statement, "Getting rid of these worms like captain, as a bonus, will result in a less defensive attitude from monarchist and more healthy environment to discuss about the system preferences, without creating any friction."

And how did this blog go from Captain's "narcissistic rage" to Reza Pahlavi's lack of "creativity?"

I guess kudos to Captain for steering the conversation away from himself and toward his nemesis = Reza Pahlavi. That was a stroke of genuis, Cap.

captain

great blog! i wasn't sure what you were gettng at to start with, but it seems to have worked out :)

hopefully we will arrive at a place soon where we all agree to express our views freely and live and let live.

Peace

Thanks for the song, Captain

Thanks for the song.  Hopefully everyone is having a great Friday.

Here it is!

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjN3t8cj74

:o)

A Song dedicated to all of you

-YT 

Dears Rosie, Anahid, Yolanda, Mehrban, MM, Jamshid, Mola.....

Dears Rosie, Anahid, Yolanda, Mehrban, MM, Jamshid, Mola and everyone else..........

Thank you kindly for creating one of the most wonderful debate in civilized and logical manner. I keep reading and reading your comments and more I read more I learn.

My sincere thanks to all of you gentlemen and gentle ladies.

-YT 

Ms. Mehrban

I, in good conscience can not have solidarity with any group that would not put a Secular Republic as an option to be voted on by the people of Iran in a referendum, etc.   

Allow me to cosign that statement with all my convictions. Perfectly put.

-YT 

benross

you said[ On Captain Worm, I never read his blogs. I just grab few points and expose his shenanigan. I prefer nobody participate in the blogs of this bunch altogether.]

It really doesn't take you long to show your true color does it?

You had to come up with name calling which demonstrates your true arrogance and detachment of anything logical. With garbing few words from blogS in an attempt to expose something or the other, the only thing that is exposed is how superficial and fake you are. [WINK]

It must be terrible to be like that,  with so much hate and resentment in your being ey? You have learned well from your idols at Faux News!

And as to participation in my blog, you are correct, I rather you and your like do not poison my threads with your hate and slanders.

-YT 

Great Jamshid, yes I read what you wrote about RP

 Dear Jamshid, you wrote:"...since my vote is for a republic and so we are on the same boat."  Great.  I like this.