Posted on 06/11/2005 1:14:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
"This is has nothing to do with restoring the monarchy," he told AFP. "It's about self determination and freedom.
"My aim is to serve the country, it doesn't matter in what capacity, as long as I can be of use and it's for the people to determine my future, if any.
I find it very telling that the leftist AFP refers to Pahlavi as the "pretender" to the throne, and fail to point out that he would be the Shah and Iran would be an American ally but for Jimmy Carter's detestable betrayal of the Shah.
That is the proper term.
That "Pretender" in the headline really jumps out at you. No obvious bias at yahoo. (sarcasm)
the "pretender"
That is the proper term.
Please explain.
I'm all for Pahlavi doing what he can to help his countrymen, but I don't see a restoration of the crown.
Nevermind, after a quick trip to the dictionary, I see you're right. Although it says "usually a false claim".
pretender - a claimant to the throne or to the office of ruler (usually without just title) [syn: Pretender]
This word has multiple definitions. This is the one pertaining to Mr. Pahlavi.
IIRC the term "pretender" only applies is the person openly claims the title/throne, to the best of my knowledge, Pahlavi does not claim to be the Shah. This is just an example of AFP's pro-jihadist leftist agenda.
Except he's the "Prentender"
A false claim would be a common meaning, an example of a technical term falling into lower use. But, when it comes to the monarchy we ought to use the higher meaning.
Pahlavi makes no claims to the throne
In all fairness, while the Shah was a great friend to the United States, he was horrific in his treatment of many Iranians, this is one reason they were so receptive to overthrowing him. So, I don't see Pahlavi's return to Iran as a realistic possibility.
A neutral term would be "claimant" to Iran's throne.
Is that so? I don't know. Would he have to face election?
His "horrific treatment" was to communists and opposition groups, not to the average Iranian.
I believe this term only applies if he formally claims the throne. He does not refer to himself of the Shah, nor does his staff address him with any royal title; moreover, he does not claim any desire to return to Iran in any capacity at all. So, I do not think he is anything more than the former Crown Prince.
Except he doesn't even claim the throne, from what I can tell he desires true democracy for Iran.
<< I find it very telling that the leftist AFP [Correctly] refers to Mr Pahlavi as the pretender to the throne, and fail to point out that he would be the Shah and Iran would be an American ally but for .... >>
.... The fact this pathetic pretender's father was a despotic bloody tyrant whose only surviving Iranian legacy, after he ceased his peacock preening and parading and gave up his "throne" and ran away from the people who loathed and despised and hated him in ways they don't come close to with their mad mullahs, is the manifestation of evil he left behind in the form of the barbaric, murderous secret police force: SAVAK; that moved over to the mad mullahs and methodically murders for them these days instead.
Aesthetics aside, a classical real king would take the throne by force. Anybody that can't do that isn't kingly.
Kings like this basically became obselete with the advent of modern weaponry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.