 One-way propaganda
Banning Hizbollah TV
Dariush Abadi
December 21, 2004
iranian.com
Is it not ironic that the world protests against
Iran's continual banning of satellite feeds from abroad, going
as far as sending static waves to block the satellite
feeds, while the United States bans satellite feeds from the Middle East
that are against its interests?
Recently the United States and
France banned the satellite feeds
of Al-Manar,
the channel of the Hizbollah organization. They rejected claims
of "banning
free speech and expression." They made the claim that Hizbollah
is inciting
hatred and violence in the Middle East.
The same could be said about the Iranian opposition
satellite stations
broadcasted from Los Angeles. They incite hatred against the
religion of the
people of Iran (Islam), they incite hatred against the clergy most
of whom
are the biggest victims of the Islamic Republic. Some also incite
violence by
asking people to go into the streets and start a revolution (some
call for peaceful
revolutions, while others are calling for more violent ones).
The same way that Al-Manar calls for an armed struggle
against Israel, some of
these opposition Iranian satellites are called for confrontation
with the
Baseej and Pasdaran forces in Iran.
 Their is a huge double standard here. Why can't
Iran ban these satellite
stations that are against her interests, while the United
States and France can
easily ban the broadcasts that don't even directly affect
it.
The broadcasts of Al-Manar does not affect any domestic
calm in France of the
US. However, the blatant biased and reactionary satellite
feeds from L.A.
threaten the integrity and independence of Iran.
I think if the United States and France have the
right to ban Satellite feeds,
so should Iran. No one should complain about Iran's ban,
if they don't complain
about the US and French ban.
If you want freedom of speech, you have to tolerate
the free speech of your
opponents as well. You can't have double standards.
*
*
|
One-way propaganda
