[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Khorshid]

You need to move beyond simple syntax and understand the original intent for the quotation marks. The designation of "king" vis a vis Iran is to highlight the fact that the actual lineage of monarchy in Iran with respect to the Pahlavi's can hardly be compared to a traditional sense of what monarchies are. Just look at the history of monarchies yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_monarchy#Pahlavi_dynasty

Notice the discontinuity in the family tree. The only link Reza Phalavi has to being king is that his grandfather gained power via a coup d'état and declared himself king. It's for this reason that I put quotation on the word "king". One can just as easily describe him as a descendant of a dictator.


I enjoy “simple syntax”, such as identifying the rhetorical uses of such adjectives as “simple”, and if my understanding of “the original intent for the quotation marks” did not meet your expectation, then, it is wholly your fault for not having explained it in the first place. However, your subsequent recourse to an explanation of your intention, “to highlight the fact that the actual lineage of monarchy in Iran with respect to the Pahlavi's can hardly be compared to a traditional sense of what monarchies are,” is also unwarranted (No doubt requiring yet another explanation of intent!) and fails as an explanation. Frankly, I believe that you either have next to no knowledge of world, even Iranian, history, or are feigning utter ignorance to create an artificial argument, because world and Iranian history is replete with instances of breaks in the direct lines of monarchs!

Did you yourself, before you asked me to “notice the discontinuity in the family tree”---in a page providing a timeline known by every Iranian school boy, if not by ignorant Hizbollahis--- have the intellectual decency to note previous breaks in Iranian dynasties? Have you the slightest idea, for instance, how Kurosh (Cyrus the Great) became king? Ever bothered to read the Behistun inscription, describing Darius’ coup against Gaumata? And this is just pre-Alexandrian history!

Readers will note that the “discontinuity”---in fact the break--- referred to involved the ousting of a corrupt and hated dynasty, the Qajars, and that the assumption of power on the part of Reza Shah is regarded, by Iranians themselves, as a positive development in Iranian history at the very least .

I don't know where you're going with this but the monarchies in said countries have almost no role in "safeguarding their form of government". In the case of Britain the ruling monarchs were smart enough to give way to a parliamentary democracy, while Japan and Spain are more difficult to compare due to obvious historical events.

A distinction should be drawn between a monarchy that actually has a say in the affairs of the nation and benign monarchs who serve mainly a symbolic role. I'm steadfastly opposed to the former and indifferent to the latter. Your comparison rebuttal applies to the latter so I don't have a conflict per se.

This is meant as a response to my:

[redux]

[Khorshid]

No. A person who focuses on "simple syntax" is someone who overlooks the meaning of the content and instead talks about "bad grammar". "Simple" is an apt description because focusing on grammar in a discussion is in fact simple minded.

A person who focuses on "simple syntax" may well be someone who overlooks content and instead speaks of "bad grammar", but had I overlooked the meaning of your quotation marks it would have been rather impossible to point out your poor grammar! You cannot at once claim that I’m overlooking the meaning of your quotation marks, yet admit to the quotations marks having had a specific meaning! (Incidentally, and I hope I do not offend, your use of that monosyllable as the first sentence is also poor grammar, as I did not ask you a question, and suggests that type of antagonism for the sake of antagonism that is generally not favorable to one’s argument.)

"Simple" is an apt description because focusing on grammar in a discussion is in fact simple minded.

Focusing on grammar in a discussion may be simple minded, provided of course that the grammar does not affect the content of the discussion; but you wrote “simple syntax”, not simple-minded syntax! Therefore, “simple” was not an apt description of what you had in mind. “Simple syntax” is a linguistic term and has no negative connotations!

You see I almost never encounter Iranian monarchists in real life and had no idea they still existed.

It is not LOGICALLY impossible, of course, for you not to have met any Iranian monarchists, but how could you conclude, based on your personal encounters, that they did not EXIST? I have personally never encountered a lion, but what would others think if I denied the existence of lions? Quite possibly that I've lived in near total isolation. Did you also not know that there was an opposition movement against the Islamic Republic? If you did, is it possible that all these years you have not once heard or read mention, or seen pictures of monarchists? I think this last-minute invention ultimately says more about you, and the degree of falsehood you are willing to resort to, than the number of Iranian monarchists.

In my day-to-day encounter with other Iranians terms like "king" and "dictator" are interchangeable with "king" being the obvious euphemism. This is another reason I put "king" in quotation.

As interesting as your day-to-day encounter with other Iranians may be, assuming that you are an Iranian, and irrespective of the planet in which these encounters take place, the terms “king” and “dictator” are not interchangeable. Nevertheless, if that is another reason (in addition to your forthcoming sound reason) you put "King" in quotation marks, then, for clarity, why not avoid it altogether and use the other instead?


When we hear of "king" or "Queen" in western societies we think of monarchies such as the House of Windsor, where the royal family plays almost no role in the decision making of the country and has only a symbolic purpose.

I think I’ve made it quite clear that the role of what is left of a Family which Khomeini described as “kafir” and “illegitimate”, and future Iranian Royals, should be of a symbolic nature, thus precluding their role as a decision making body. This is also a reply to your last paragraphs.

Contrast this with what "king" means with usage to a place like Iran.

What does the term Shah mean in a place like Iran? For one thing it is not a title referring only to the Pahlavis, but to any Iranian King. Iran, you undoubtedly know, has had innumerable Kings. Can you really keep a straight face and say that the very mention of say Kurosh (Cyrus) or Khashayar (Xerxes) evokes the type of meaning you have in mind? That you were specifically referring to the Pahlavis will not do, as you state: “Contrast this with what 'king' means with usage to a place like Iran.” The vague “with usage” will not save your argument either, for whatever you think the Pahlavis were, or whatever sin you think they committed, thoughts of our other kings remain fresh in our memories. In fact, after the “glorious” anti-Iranian revolt, our Kings, and specifically the Pahlavis, have never been more revered.

The Pahlavi reign consisted of one man having say in all serious matters of the nation. Even worse were the gross human rights violations under his reign. In western culture the term dictatorship would be used to describe this form of government.

I am not a westerner, and were I to use western terms, I’d describe the Islamic Republic as a “sort of democracy.” Although I know that you detest the Pahlavis for what they did RIGHT, and not for what they did wrong, I will tell you this: The Pahlavi reign did consist of one man having say in most serious matters of the nation, but you conveniently neglect to put the fact in its proper context. You cannot compare Iran back then with Britain or Switzerland and expect not to come up short. Yes, there were unfortunately inexcusable human rights violations, but you should bother to investigate the history of the time. Do you know of the circumstances surrounding such violations and how the Iranian government was prevented to keep these at minimum? (It’s remarkable that on one hand the Shah’s most severe critics reproach him for having not used an iron fist, while on the other he is accused of having been the devil himself.)

I mean are you actually serious when you try to compare the way monarchies are set up right now in Japan and UK with the way it was set up in Iran? I do hope you think about this some more before you start hurling accusations of ignorance of history.

Provide a SINGLE instance where I compare, or even try to compare, the way monarchies are set up right now in such places as Japan and the UK with “the way it was set up in Iran.” Also, I do not need to accuse you of what you yourself demonstrate. However, I did mention the possibility that you could also be feigning ignorance in order to create your artificial arguments.


Yes. They are filled with instances of breaks, which just further emphasis the absurdity of respecting someone like Pahlavi who is often portrayed as being an heir to people like Cyrus.

”Breaks which further emphasis the absurdity of respecting someone like” Pahlavi??! I’m not sure what this means; please explain clearly.

You know that Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi is OFTEN portrayed as being an heir to people like Cyrus…by Iranians you “almost never” encounter and had no idea existed?


But what is so artificial about my argument? Why should events in 1920 be used to promote someone like Reza Pahlavi to a prominence role in the future Iran?

Your question suggests, inadvertently I’m sure, that events in 1920 (by which you may have meant 1921) are used to promote Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi to a prominence role in the future Iran. If they are, they need not be.

I mean what type of reasoning goes on in the minds of people who want leadership positions to be filled with people whose only qualifications are their parents?

When or if he becomes the next Shah, his qualification consists of being the son of Mohamad Reza Shah. Although the Pahlavi record cannot help but influence his qualifications as a leader of the Iranian movement (i.e. opposition), his role as such consists of exceptional personal traits.

My goodness. I think I'll have to use larger fonts because you obviously failed to read a key word in my quote above: governance.

Your fonts are fine:

You called Monarchists nepotists.

I replied that the millions of people living under monarchies, living productive lives and committed to safeguarding their form of government, are not nepotists.

You then replied, “I don't know where you're going with this but the monarchies in said countries have almost no role in ‘safeguarding their form of government’.”

.

[IIRF]

Redux,

I pitty you and your lack of knowledge about your own country. You say it is STUPID to respect the Pahlavi's? Well my friend we all have opinions and I respect everyones opinion on this forum and where ever i encounter other Iranians but how ignorant and blind are you to say that a monarchy or even the Pahlavi's are a joke?

You do realize if it was without kings in our history, our country would be nothing but a bunch of nomadic tribes and what not? The Pahlavi's pushed Iran into the future and out of the stone age when the majority of Iranians didnt know better. Would you like me to pull out the facts my friend or do you still think the Pahlavi's do not deserve respect? You say the Pahlavi's violated human rights? Really? Have you been reading AMerican nonscence from the 70's again?

I would like you to clearly state your points about all your claims regarding this and debate more into it as I myself am very interested to know what goes through your mind.

Once again you state that Reza Pahlavi has done nothing for Iran, consider this my friend - when you have numerous world powers backing up the mullahs and have religious fanatics blabbing out bullshit and myths about Islam to make it seem that their way of ruling is right, when you have arabs helping the mullahs and many countries who are in favour of mullahs staying in power it is hard to make any difference. When the Iranian people who the majority of them dont even care for the future of Iran and dont even want to lift a finger to help their nation arent doing anything how much can he and his people accomplish?

What have YOU done to help IRAN? Before you point fingers, look at yourself and your accomplishments my friend. Reza Pahlavi is helping to free Iran, even if your not aware of it he is. I think when a person risks his life, his families life and devotes his future to help his country and people and by sending money to thousands of Iranians in need and by saving lives of many exlied Iranians deserves respect. Reza Pahlavi is our best chance for a Free IRAN and he has proved that many times.

You try to sound intelligent my friend but do you even know what your saying? The revolution happend because the Iranian people, the majority of them became selfish and ignorant. The king gave them the best of everything- do not deny this as you can easily see the facts around you. It was not because the royal family was disliked even though some Iranians burned pictures even though they got their education for free , got jobs, rights, a future, and much more from the same King they would have died for months ago.
_________________
Long Live Shahanshah!

www.imperialforces.org

[reza]

If all i can do is give my assent to the previous two posts then i will. They have both said everything i could say on the matter of reza pahlavi and the dynasty in general. At the moment no man is more suited to leading the oppisition against the iri than reza pahlavi
_________________
"When on the battlefield if you have the sole intention of breaking into the enemy lines, you will manifest martial valour. Furthermore if you are slain in battle you should be resolved to having your corpse facing the enemy" - Yamamoto tsunetomo

[redux]

[IIRF]

Redux,

I would appericate it if you did not twist words around.

The Pahlavi's did not push Iran into the future after the destructive rule of the Qajars? So I am wrong am I? Please tell me how the Pahlavi's DID NOT help Iran move forward.

My opinion of Iran is that Iranians are stupid? How insulting can you get? Do you not know how to read or are you just trying to be a smart ass and ignore the facts? Iranians were not stone age people, read some history you ignorant fool, my patience with your atitude is at its breaking point. If you did not realize, during the Qajars period Iran had barally any effective education system, any strong army, no rights for women, no freedom concering religion, almost no futures for the majority of the people and I could go on. So if you compare the Qajars accomplishments with the Pahlavi's it is CLEAR that the Pahlavi's brought Iran out of the "stone age" and pushed it forward in so many ways.

On another point your telling me the American GVT , the British GVT, the PLO and many other gvts or groups were not behind the revolution? I wont even BOTHER to tell you the truth because you will still make up some ignorant bullshit but for your information there are documents that have been released which show the american and british and countless other groups were behind the revolution that sparked many uprisings. It is very sad to see you think like this my friend.

Once again for your last comment, do not insult me like that and read slowly my comments so you wont post such stupid responds again. We are not here to insult one another but to unite in our cause to remove the mullahs, dont forget that!
_________________
Long Live Shahanshah!

www.imperialforces.org

[irani]

Hey, Khorshid. I'm still waiting for an answer...

[Khorshid]

[Liberator]

Khorshid-jan,

What does it say?



Ba Sepaas
_________________
JAVID IRAN!



www.anjomane-padeshahi.org
http://aryamehr11.blogspot.com/

[Khorshid]

REZA PAHLAVI

[Liberator]