Jahanshah Rashidian

Re: Rosie

I read your post in the 25 years of service thread. My response:

//iranian.com/main/comment/reply/12282/27040

question for rashidian

You claim these "islamists" cannot tolerate a woman to lead over them.

Then how come Benazir wasn't assasinated while she was Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1983? You can't claim Islamists did not exist in 1983, because that was one of Pakistan's Islamisized periods (because of what was happening in Afghanistan at the time with the Mujahideen and the Soviets). Yet it wasn't much of a problem for them to have a "woman" leader then, why is it a problem for the Islamists all of a sudden right now?

Second question: When Islamists murder and assasinate women leaders (such as Benazir Bhutto) you claim its because they are female. What about the thousands more killed by so-called Islamists and Al-Qaeda that were men around the world? Why do you gendercize a politicized issue? Al-Qaeda itself who claimed responsibility didn't even claim it was because she was a woman, but you seem to impose ideologies on people who don't adhere to it.

Rashidian, deaf, dumb, blind, verily you are in manifest error. You will reply back that I'm some sort of Islamist myself and blinded by Islam, but I reply back to you that if you do label me as such, then why don't I have a problem with a woman ruling a country? (and as I've said in previous posts, Islam only regards a woman (Queen Saba) as the only just non-prophetic leader, who happened to be a woman).

Legacy (Shah)

Happy Holidays to you, JR, and you can read and/or reply to this after them, but I want to jot it down while it's fresh in my mind.

You say how many people hated the Shah and this is obvious by what happened in 1979.  But I know a guy who runs a small sandwich place here on Avenue A, and he's a Zoroastrian, a mild, loving man, and basically apolitical, very fair-minded, and he tells me that on his last visit to Iran young people all over were saying, "May his memory be blessed" without specifically alluding to the Shah, but that is what they meant.  This person is NOT an Aryanist, he concurs with my interpretation of the essence of Mazdaism being MUCH older than Zoroaster, he detests the Sassanids, he's a humanitarian, he has NO problem with people of any other religion or no religion at all, and so on.  I like him and I have no reason to doubt what he tells me.

"My first Iranian lover" (I put it in quotes because some people have asked me on this forum to write about my relationships with Iranian men and he was actually the person who awakened my specific interest in Iran) was a DEVOUT working-class Muslim recent immigrant--so devout that after we "did the nasty" he claimed I'd ruined his life by making him betray Allah by having sex outside marriage, and that he wanted to go back to Tehran...and yet he always referred to the Shah as "my King" and his eyes lit up when he did so, with a passion and fervor equal to his religous fervor. He was 35 years old in 2004.

And JJ tells us on his photo essay "Daughter of the Revolution" that his cousin comes back from Iran with requests from the youth of our generation to explain what happened, that they BLAME (y)our generation for this mistake, that is, the Revolution.  It seems to imply a nostalgia for something previous to the Revolution that in their mind sthey now see as preferable to it.

So the Shah was hated at the end of his reign and now three decades later his ghost haunts us like Hamlet's father. Rightly or wrongly, for reasons political or psychological, whatever, his ghost walks. 

Legacy.

I'm an outsider.  I've never set foot in Iran. I don't purport to know anything about any of this other than what I've been able to synthesize from the discussions going on here and with the occasional Iranian I run into in New York.  I try to be honest and report back what I've gleaned.  What I've gleaned is an enormous LEGACY that has yet to be scrutinized fully and squarely in the light of day. A legacy that haunts and a people who are haunted.

And so I've also gleaned a gnawing sensation that until this legacy is fully and squarely scrutinized, the wounds will not be healed and progress will not be made.  That is just my intuition. I can't swear by it, it's only an intuition.

And one that...haunts me....

Answer for Jamshid

Jamshid, you seem not to be an open minded person. You have an idea and want to stick by it. You are dismissing an article from Time Magazine because you think the American writer hates the shah. You want to reject all the facts because one doctor was quoted as saying the Shah watched "crap TV." At the same time that you deny corruption, you say it is OK. I don't think you will ever find the kind of evidence you said you are looking for because you don't want to see it. Therefore, there is no point in debating this issue which is obvious for everyone.

Please read what I just wrote under "25 Years of Service"

I'm sorry, my computer doesn't copy URL addresses for some reason but it's one of Kadivar's photo posts from a couple of weeks ago.

Re: Notwonder ed

Shah stole 16 billion? The entire budget of Iran in those days was about 20 billion. What an incredible imbecile you must be. Still living in the same manure of lies than 30 years ago...

Re: Jahanshah Rashidian

Jahanshah, I do understand where you come from and what you think of the Shah. At some point in time, I too beleived in the same almost identical views. I even acted against the shah solely based on those views. So I can completely understand your thoughts.

We can debate the shah and the issues you brought up if you want at some other time. However, first a few notes to clarify where do I come from: 

During the time when I still resented the shah, I always wondered why there was an abundance of Western media books and articles which demonized the Shah in only the period 1976-1978, inclusive.

With time, I learnt that there were many lies and exagerations in the said books and articles that were later refuted even by the shah's foes and worst enemies.

With more time, I found out that a lot of the claims the shah and his government made turned out to be true.

I also observed that there was a parallel demonization of shah by the Islamists and leftists using almost the same identical "facts" than used in the western media in exaclty the same period of the late 70s.

I also noticed that many of those who were "concerned" about the people of Iran during the shah's reign, and spoke loudly exposing the shah, his government and his family, suddenly fell silent in the face of khomeini's crimes.

Also, I learnt that any financial corruption during the shah was incrediblity minuscule compared to in other first or third world countries.

So I did the math. It was a gradual process. My views today are completely different than when I was a young student activist. However, I don't consider myself a monarchist. I want to clarify that I feel since I contributed to the demise of my country by participating in the revolution, I find it only fit to expose the very same lies that deceived me and many others long ago. I had a few very dear friends that, thanks to the IRI, are not alive today, because I influenced them with exactly the same lies that I believed.

I support a democratic parlemantary form of government which is secular (most important), multi-party, with a strong and independent judiciary branch, and with a strong sense of respect towards kurds, azaris, arabs, balooch and all other Iranian ethnicities.

Whether it is a republic or a constitutional monarchy makes little difference to me. Just as well, I find little difference in a dictatorial republic and a dictatorial monarchy.

I do agree with you that the plague affecting us today is not the Pahlavis nor the Ghajars. It is the IRI. Any break among those opposing the IRI would only make the IRI and therefore the misery of our fellow countrymen last longer.

jamshid you are still

jamshid you are still denying shah's corrupted gov.
Unbelievable. Ask mike Wallace from 60 minutes to give you copy of the program that said shah took out 16 bilion dollars.
You cannot live forever in darkness. Wake up.
Shah was no good and that is why he lost to mullas.
If mullas are no good then shah was worse to lose to them.
If he had been good all nation would have wanted him back. so give up and try to look more intelligent and reasonable.

Re: Rosie

Rosie, I agree with you. But in a way it is a related to Butto as well, since she is constantly being accused of corruption.

But I'll let the rest of you decide whether we should end the "corruption" discussion in this thread, or continue it in a separate blog.

Re: K1

I read the article. By reading this article you could feel the anger and resentment of the author towards the shah. None of the claims in the article are backed up by any evidence. It was exactly these baseless but believable clever rumors and false accusations that deceived many of us in 1978, including myself.

But first, what you fail to accept is that there has been and always will be corruption in the governments of the world. Even if YOU take command of the government, you can't stop corruption, you could perhaps minimize it, but you won't be able to 100% uproot it.

So therefore when talking about corruption, it should always be in context. You should ask yourself, corrupt compared to what?

For example, the $3 million comission you refered to should be compared to the type of comissions the Amercian senators and the japanese government officials and the French cabinet members were getting in those times. Also What about Mexicans? Indians? Chinese? Russians? Or today's IRI?

However, if you have a blue print for a completely corruption-free form of government, not only me, but many others would be interested to read about it.

Then you talk about the "jewels" in shah's palace. First of all, be serious, has the author, Mr. Graham, ever visited the Shah's palace? And why those who had visited his palace never said anything remotely similar? Second, none of the crown jewels nor any of the "emeralds" in those palaces, if there were any, were taken away by the shah. He left them there for the mullahs to plunder them.

You also talk about a couple of town houses that Ashraf ownes. I fail to see how does that make the Pahlavis corrupt.

I am sure you know that Mosadegh was a very wealthy man, much wealthier than Ashraf. One could ask does that make him "corrupt" as well? In your view, does having wealth is synonymous to theft and corruption? 

The gold domed palace of Shams is more comic than believable. It is easy to make false accusations like these and spread rumors against anyone. But this is not the 1978 when people would beleive these exagerations so easily. This is the sort of thing that will only ruin your credibility.

Also, you said that "Princess Shams is said to have bought a ..." Said by whom? 

You quoted Mr. Graham saying the shah spent "$975-a-day bill for his New York hospital suite..." Is this your proof that the shah was corrupt? Do the math. That's 30K per month, 360,000 for one year. Don't you expect that a shah or a prime minister or a senator or a president, or... , from any country, should be able to afford that much for treating cancer?

Said one of doctors: "He (shah) watches some real crap. Westerns. Detective movies. Bad romances." The author of your article is so resentful and biased towards the shah that he even attacks his TV habits. I beg to ask, was the doctor sitting there with the shah and watching TV and eating pop corns? Is this how the doctor found out the shah was watching "bad" romances? Did the shah even cared what he watched knowing that he will be dead shortly?

Don't even you want to laugh at this? 

I was the one who brought up the Shah on this thread...

in the context of Rashidian's statement about Benazir Bhutto and the idea of the "Shakesperian dimensions" of human character and especially in leaders. I am VERY interested in Jahanshah's reply and other people's thoughts in it but could we make it a separate blog and leave this one for Benazir Bhutto?  II know there are lots of blogs about BB here but they really should ALL be about her as much as possible...I guess that's what Rashidian means when he says "Happy Holidays" 

Personally I would be very interested to see Jamshid and Rashidian debate each other on this one...Jamshid why don't YOU blog the question? I don' think you've ever written a blog....and yet you do blog all the time...

How about AFTER the holidays?  :D

R:Jamshid

Jamshid, I have no specific proofs at hand because the Shah is finished and I now concentrate on the plague of the IRI. However, I remember reading a book in Farsi from Sir Sullivan, Brit ambassador in Iran, describing the Shah and his surroundings as corrupt and dependent to the West. The Shah in his own book after his fall acknowledged that all his decisions were made with advice of the US embassy in Tehran.

To know the corruption of the Shah and his family, there are many articles, booke and even acknowledgements. For example,  the relations of Ashraf Pahlavi with the international mafia, her related arrests in the European capitals, about Shahpoor Gholamreza ‘s reputation, about the conflict the IRI had with the US about the Shah’s assets, about thousands of villages, hunting fields, agriculture banks, big companies, bribery to the Shah for different concessions...

More officially, Pahlavi Foundations, sharing in many in and outside companies and many others which all include the  Pahlavi's corruption. See Shah's banking transactions about  Shah's unaccountable assets in the world banks, all of which  you may find in many sources if you are really to challenge them.

For some Iranians with nostalgia for the late Shah, I would remind them that the Shah does not merit to be compared with an independent, patriotic, and dedicated leader.

Jamshid, I read all your materials and mostly agreed with your views, but never saw something placing you as monarchist. I thought you avoid exaggerated judgment over the Shah and his era. As a secular and democrat, I prefer a democratic republic, but people’s priority is to get rid of the plague before making further decision. So, once again Happy Holidays!

JR

this is from Time Magazine, jamshid:

//www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9...

Whatever the size of the Shah's personal fortune, he ran a corrupt government from first to last. Foreign companies frequently had to pay "commissions" to government officials or members of the royal family to get any kind of contract in Iran. One example: between 1973 and 1975 the Bell Helicopter division of Textron Inc., which was selling choppers to the Iranian air force, paid a $3 million commission to a company that turned out to be secretly owned in part by a brother-in-law of the Shah. The Shah indirectly acknowledged the corruption by periodically announcing drives to root it out, but he never succeeded in doing so—if, in fact, he ever really tried.

Author Graham believes that the Shah's motives in tolerating the corruption, and in guiding the network of investments of the Pahlavi Foundation, were less personal aggrandizement than a desire to retain tight control of the Iranian economy and win the loyalty of subordinates by lavish financial favors. Nonetheless, the Shah in power lived very well, to put it mildly. He shuttled among five palaces in Iran. Journalist Fallaci, interviewing the Shah in 1973 in one of them, noted that "almost everything in the place was gold: the ashtray that you didn't dare dirty, the box inlaid with emeralds, the knickknacks covered with rubies and sapphires." The ruler's sisters also basked in opulence. Princess Ashraf Pahlavi owns two town houses and a lavish triplex coop apartment in Manhattan. Princess Shams is said to have bought a seaside showplace in Acapulco and to have once planned a gold-domed palace overlooking Beverly Hills, Calif.

The Shah's life in exile, since he fled Iran last January, has been considerably less grand but still rather more than comfortable. In Cuernavaca, Mexico, where he lived for almost five months before coming to the U.S. for medical treatment, he occupied a rented four-building compound with spacious gardens set inside a twelve-foot wall. He can afford a personal security force and a staff of servants—and he pays the $975-a-day bill for his New York hospital suite promptly. But the Shah last week whiled away much of his time in the unregal pastime that many hospital patients are reduced to: watching television. Said one of doctors: "He watches some real crap. Westerns. Detective movies. Bad romances."

Re: Jahanshah Rashidian

I have read many of your posts and I do have high regards for your opinions. There is one issue you brought up in this thread which I'd like to hear more from you about it.

You claim the Shah was much corrupt. I am interested to know your reasons and references as to...

1. Why the Shah was corrupt? And,

2. Corrupt compared to what?

Please note that I am asking two different but related questions.

Since I too believed in the past that the shah was corrupt, and acted  fevereshly against him on that belief, I am certain that I may already know and be quite familiar with most of your reasons. Nevertheless, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

laughing all the way to the bank ....!!!!

Thanks Mr/Ms Admin ...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5j7sCn_SH4&NR=1

Do not spend it all at once!

All the best for the new year ...

Shahriar

Re: Jahanshah Rashidian

Thank you and I wish you Happy Holidays as well !

shahriar, of course the signal will get through

but now it's funnier!

Thanks for visiting Iranian.com.

STUPID ICONS to ADD more White noise

Does America dot com aka Iranian.com loves itself ? will it put up a fight to Survive
at cost to the Truth ?

Absolutely YES.

LOOK at the ICONS NSR (Noise to Signal Ratio) ....

Signal will get through never the less ...

//iranian.com/main/comment/reply/13611/24...

that was funny Shahbanu!

that was funny Shahbanu!

R:Jamshid

Happy Holidays!

Regards

JR

REPLY : WHO KILLED WHOM?

The situation is up the followings relatively clear, the valid answer is given. Please acknowledge the following:
Who really killed Benazir Bhutto?
Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:07:02
By Ismail Salami, Press TV, Tehran
The assassination of the charismatic Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi earlier Thursday is to be considered an affront to and a violation of people's rights in that country.

With her death all hopes for any transition to democratic rule vanish in Pakistan. The daughter of Sindh came to her homeland on October 18 2007 in the high hopes of bringing democracy and peace to the troubled nation. Yet, the enemies of democratic rule were so numerous that they tried from the very outset to stifle the process and obstruct the path of good will she was treading.

It was clear from the beginning that there were certain powers who did not like the idea of her coming to Pakistan. Upon her arrival in Karachi, she witnessed a bloodbath when a suicide attacker detonated himself with 45 pounds of explosives strapped to his body, leaving 135 people dead and more than 300 injured. Bhutto blamed remnants of the government of the former dictator, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq who seized power in 1977, then arrested and hanged her father, the popular Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on charges of conspiring to murder a political opponent.

Violence and terrorism are nothing new in Pakistan. There is speculation that the system in power spawns terrorism to a large degree. But why? Is it because that those in power can reap the benefits of their egoism with violence being rife in the country? Or is there some external power which views violence as a safe means to extend their domination in the region?

Bhutto was largely seen as a stabilizing power in Pakistan. In other words, she was a lost link in the absence of democracy. The potential consequences of her death are so massive in dimension that one shudders even at the thought of it: civil war, violence beyond imagination, revenge and anarchy.

President Pervez Musharraf was quick to condemn the assassination in order to dispel any concern for his possible hand in the act.

He said the attack was the handiwork of the terrorists his government is at war with. It was actually the most self-evident thing he could have said on that score.

"We are fighting. I have always said that Pakistan and its people face the biggest threat from these terrorists. On this sad occasion, I would ask the people to cooperate with me in the fight against terrorism. We will not rest till the terrorists are eliminated and their roots are destroyed".

But who really orchestrated the assassination of Bhutto? This is a good question and it deserves an answer. But in a land beset by violence and beleaguered by blind prejudice and ignorance, one can hardly find a solid answer for such a question. Every conflict and atrocity in Pakistan are eventually attributed to al-Qaeda.

According to the independent Italian news agency Adnkronos International (AKI), a spokesperson for al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the killing of Bhutto.

In a phone call from an unknown location, al-Qaeda's commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told AKI, "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahadeen."

Al-Yazid, the main Al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan, said the decision was made by al-Qaeda number two Ayman Al-Zawahiri in October this year. The assassination does not fit the standard al-Qaeda modus operandi however because they generally use a suicide bomber in a vehicle. Bhutto was shot to death by a hitman, who then immediately blew himself up.

It is hard to believe the paradox that Bhutto was the most precious American asset and that al-Qaeda which is supported by the US could have carried out the assassination. It is true that Bhutto was an outspoken critic of al-Qaeda and used to blame Musharraf for not making strenuous efforts to purge Pakistan of the evil of the terrorist group who spared no efforts in bringing the Pakistani people to their knees.

What adds to the conundrum is another truth that the copious accolades being heaped upon her in death are silent about: she is literally the political mother of the Taliban's mid 1990s takeover of Afghanistan, a fact she openly admitted to while in office. She also explicitly named the other progenitors of the group---Washington, London and Riyadh respectively.

Ever since she returned from exile on October 18, Zia loyalists in the Pakistan government and ISI commenced a series of calculated actions against her to make insure she did not return to power in the elections scheduled on January 8.

The guilty parties can be anyone including the government, junior military officers and even rivals within Bhutto's own party who place no real stock in democracy but do possess a profound passion for their own power. Her death can justify President Musharraf again declaring martial law, with the tacit agreement of western powers. It is also a surety that Musharraf should cancel next month's elections for security concerns. The crisis ultimately strengthens Musharraf's hand, as he viewed Bhutto as a counter power obstructing his dictatorial aspirations.

Yet, Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) also emerges as a very probable agent behind Bhutto's death. ISI was established in 1948 by a British army officer, Maj Gen R Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. The main function of the ISI was envisaged to ensure Pakistan's interests, suppress opposition politicians, and sustain militarism in the country. Ever since, the ISI has been used by Pakistan's leaders to strangle democracy in the country.

On the other hand, the assassination of the former Pakistani prime minister provides the Bush administration the excuse to put national security, and the "war on terror" back onto the 2008 agenda. The act of terror re-conjured up the idea of combating terrorism in the world. Crisis is already globally rampant and it is set to deepen even more dramatically with the death of Bhutto.

Now we should wait and see how Washington will use the incident to push ahead with its policies.
I think the comment to the sad happening in rivalpildy/Pakistan from an international valid TV is the most true analysis. Greeting

R:Rosie

I think the Shah does not merit the shakespearean dimensions. Shakespear would not even mention his name. 

Some angry Iranians stick to complain that the IRI robbed the throne. I do not believe that the West swept away the Shah then installed the IRI. So mechanically a regime change could not happen in Iran. It was a historical process, indendently from the westerns. However, the western key powers could not safeguard the Shah and capitalised, in vain, on the liberal faction of the regime—Banisadr, Bazargan and all their cö.·

Bhutto is different from the Shah, She was probably corrupt, but not as corrupts as the Shah. She was serving both her personal ambitions and her people, not serving her megalomaniac throne as the Shah did. She could become a strong PM, while the Shah was hated by a big majority at the end.

Happy Holidays!

JR

R:mazlum Ast

Thanks for your comment. Nice to read you on this site again.

The extent of Mr. Abadi’s assessments is somehow exposed by his extensive dedication for Islam. His selected “facts” are only those preached by a Mullah or written in dusty books. When he talks from “Western Imperialist Powers”, he actually means the "absolutely guilty" non-Muslims.

In his midnight prays, let's him have his  visions that Muslims and Islam are going to exist in our country for ever. A nightmare for coming generations!

Regards and Happy Holidays!

JR

Sources

Sources
//www.theosophical.ca/DwellerThresholdFH.htm
//www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/...

USA - THE DWELLER OF THE THRESHOLD

The answer is that the Dweller of the Threshold guards the door to the temple of truth and must be conquered before we can enter.

The Dweller of the Threshold, the Dragon of mediaeval symbolism, is nothing else but our own lower semi-animal, animal or perhaps brutish self, that combination of material and semi-material principles which form the lower ego, which the great majority of men blindly and lovingly hug and caress, because they love themselves.

Dose America.com aka Iranian.com love itself ? will it put up a fight to Survive at cost to the Truth ?

Elephant in the Room / Blind Men and the Elephant

It is true we have this website courtesty of the US because the US allows JJ to publish it.  They don't have it in Iran. And we SHOULD be thankful for that.

It is true that the US has deep pockets everywhere. What are you saying?  Are you facing the extraordinary paradox that the same nation which inflicts depredations on the Third World to feed its libertine hunger for individual material satisfaction ALSO grants freedom of speech at home, which is an expression of the deepest strivings of the human SOUL?

Or are you saying something else about this website? Please be clear.

Re: Rosie.......Democracy

You ask:
Also what do you mean rule of the majority if it supports "MY" roadmap. If it's rule of the majority isn't that "our" roadmap? Who is "my"?

"My" Can be anyone who uses Democracy as a tool to win people's support. Unfortunately, you can find them in US, Israel, Iran or other places......you know...the REAL politicians. The leaders in middle-east are also learning how to be a real politician!
I wonder if there's a real flaw in Democracy - It seems to be volnurable to majority-staying-passive-while-special-interest-n'determined-minority-forging-ahead OR an external coersion.

Reply is appreciated;

I truly do not know if Benazir fit in anuy of these category, so I pray for her to rest in peace; WHat is suspicious is that she knew she's getting into a grave situation. My question is:
1. Was she promised the rose garden and she was given false hopes?
2. She really was a heroine.

I agree with you J.R. on this!

Now you know my name .
Most of the time, I do not agree with your views because I find you to be standing on the other side …

However, I agree with all you have said in this article. You are on the mark!

But do not forget the big Elephant in the room; USA, courtesy of whom we have this web site to thank for.

The big collaborate is USA by having a deep hand in Pakistan. It has put this series of events into motion. USA has created Al Qaeda and most importantly it has helped nurture "brainwasheds" into power.

IRAN JAVIDAN ...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW-7ZQYuF0E&feature...

Happy New Year.

LostIdentity - Democracy

. What do you mean, they had a bad taste of democracy? Do you mean the so-called democracy of Israel? The economic depredations of "Western" democratic countries upon them? Their own failures with democracy which ended ultimately in coups?

Also what do you mean rule of the majority if it supports "MY" roadmap. If it's rule of the majority isn't that "our" roadmap? Who is "my"?

Benazir problem was pushing Democracy!!!!!!

Definition of Democracy:
Democracy is rule of the majority, if and only if it supports "MY" roadmap. I think people in the middle east had a bad taste of democracy in recent years. If one likes to succeed in that neck of woods, one needs to come up with a domestic equal of idea - "Democracy". You will see that tomorrow, the dark forces who killed Benazir will blame her to be a western puppet!