Talking From Both Sides of the Mouth!

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Dara Shadru
by Dara Shadru
07-Apr-2008
 

It is interesting to see that the mouthpieces of Western neo-colonial powers talk from both sides of their mouths. On one hand, they call such medieval regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt moderate states and on the other hand, when there is an international outcry on abuses, they shed crocodile tears on lack of basic human rights in these satellite states. These regimes are the creation of the Western powers.

If the West hadn't brought to life such bloodsuckers and was not arming them to their teeth with the most sophisticated arms and was not training their secret service with the latest techniques of torture, would there be a Saudi regime? You think the Saudi masses and the intellectuals are incapable of grasping modern and liberating views and do not wish to free their society from the tentacles of these sheiks, the Western lackeys and the medieval parasites.

You think the democratic Saudi groups do not wish to free their people from stone age conditions. (At least in the stone age, the women were highly regarded and were not treated like animals.)

Throughout years, the West has been the main defender and the backbone of the clergy and the sheiks in these societies. They are the ones who created the Taliban and the Saudis. They have nothing against Taliban/Saudi views but rather against those who are not in compliance. In Iran, they (headed by the English and Tsarist forces) allied with the clergy (Mashru-e Khahan) and the dictatorial lackeys against the Constitutionalists (Mashrute Khahan) in the 1906 democratic revolution and bombed the parliament.

They allied with the clergy headed by Ayatollah Kashani in 1953 against the democratic government of Dr. Mossadegh and overthrew his democratically elected government. (Kermit Roosevelt, one of the engineers of the 1953 coup, writes in his diary that they spread rumors that Mossadegh was a communist when they were passing out dollars bills to street gangs and hoodlums to chant "Down with Mossagegh".)

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
jamshid

Sorry

by jamshid on Wed Apr 09, 2008 01:22 AM PDT

I know I diverted from the main points of the article to its side points, but I couldn't help myself, sorry!


  •  
jamshid

An eight questions quiz...

by jamshid on Wed Apr 09, 2008 01:20 AM PDT

Here is a multiple choice quiz for those who are still slumbering and just don't want to wake up:

Question 1: Why do we consider Mosadegh to be a "democratically elected" official?

a. Because he was elected in a refrundum by a popular vote.

b. Because he was elected by the parliament.

c. Because I was told so and I am too lazy to think for myself.

Answer: "b"

 

Question 2: So Mosadegh was elected by the parliament. And how does that makes Mosadegh a "democratically elected" official?

a. Because members of the parliament were all sellouts. 

b. Because members of the parliament were "democratically elected" and therefore their appointment of Mosadegh as prime minister makes Mosadegh also a "democratically elected" official.

c. Because I was told so and I am too lazy to think for myself.

 Answer: "b"

 

Question 3: In a democracy, what does happen when the two sides, the executive branch (Mosadegh and his cabinet) and the legislative branch (the parliament/majles) disagree with each other on important national matters?

a. One side orders the military to shut down the other side.

b. They debate, oppose, veto each other, or do whatever else a democratic government allows for one side to do in order to stop the other side.

c. It doesn't matter because I am too lazy to think for myself.

Answer: "b"

 

Question 4: What did Mosadegh do with the parliament after its members opposed Mosadegh's decisions and policies?

a. He engaged in debate with members of parliament and respected them because the members of parliament were "democratically elected".

b. He ordered the military to shut down the "democratically elected" parliament.

c. Whatever, because I am too lazy to think for myself.

Answer: "b"

 

Question 5: What does Mosadegh's order of shutting down the parliament mean?

a. That he was a true follower of democracy.

b. That he was really a dictator when the going got tough.

c. That I need a hero to worship, so the truth does not matter.

Answer: "b"

 

Question 6: So what is this "democratic" thing about prime minister Mosadegh?

a. It means that since generally facts are irrelevant and should be ignored, therefore we must still consider him a "democratic" official, period.

b. It means that he was a dictator, but since he never remained in power and we never got to see his dictatorship, and we have a "hero worship" culture, therefore we are still considering him "democratic".

c. This is getting way too complicated and I am too lazy to think for myself.

Answer: "b"

 

Question 7: Are there any other examples to substantiate the above?

a. No. Therefore quick, all the above answers are false.

b. Yes. Just think of what khomeini would be in our eyes today if he did NOT succeed with his revolution. He would be considered even more "kind", "gentle" AND "democratic" than Mosadegh.

c. Too many questions and I am too lazy to think for myself.

Answer: "b"

 

Last question (the easiest one since there is only one choice): Who is the author of this article?

a. Someone who is parroting what he was taught because he is too lazy to think for himself.

Answer: "a", of course!


  •  
Ali P.

A few innocent questions...

by Ali P. on Mon Apr 07, 2008 02:32 PM PDT

Sorry for going there, but I am a 28-Mordad buff. Other than Kermit Roosevelt's own account you mentioned, I have never heard of actual dollar bills being passed out (although there is a slightly more reliable source, reporting $10,000 being given to Ayatollah Kashani).


Who was passing out the bills?

To whom?

 How many $10 or $100 bill can you pass out, when you are surrounded with roudies and criminals, before they rob you blind? What stopped them from taking the money, and play it safe and go home?

Did all the hoodlums form a line,in order, and each took a $100 ? How many hoodlums? More than 100? A democratic stable government does not fall on the account of 100 hoodlums.

 Were there more ? 500? How come not one person, out of these 500 has come forward ; or at least one person has not come forward to say: "I saw dollar bills were being passed out, but of course I didn't take any?"
 Just some questions to think about.
 Thanks.


  •  
default

Well said!

by Maryam Hojjat (not verified) on Mon Apr 07, 2008 01:15 PM PDT

Thanks, Abarmard
You said it well!
We need to teach our children "Vatan Parasti" more than any thing else. unfortunately, we have a lot of traitors or Vatan forosh but not very Vatan parast.
That is the main reason we are where we are!


  •  
Abarmard

It's about power

by Abarmard on Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:20 AM PDT

It's politics. For others, ignorant is a bliss.


  •