tweakabelle
Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
Who thinks this will end well for the Iranian people, in the immediate future? Iran was once a very moderate state, and even women had basic freedoms there - before Jimmy Carter.
How is it - or even was it - possible to be a *moderate* member of a 'death cult'? They were 'moderate extremists' back in the day, for you? You're giving me another migraine, Bosco. Please stop.
One never knows with any certainty what the howling voices in Bosco's head mean when they tell him that not only today's Saudi Arablia, but also Iran in the time of the CIA installed Shah are "very moderate state(s)".
While the Shah's Iran did offer greater freedoms to women and tried to modernise (read: Westernise) Iran, most observers will remember it for its savage repression of its own population, and its attempts to Westernise Iran, which led directly* to the Islamist revolution. The principal organ of that repression was the secret police SAVAK. Wiki notes:
"Writing at the time of the Shah's overthrow, Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
It seems moderates ain't what they used to be hey?
The seeds for the 1979 Khomeini revolution and today's Iran were sown during the CIA led coup that installed the Shah and nurtured during the reign of the Shah. Many observers see the Islamist Revolution as a direct reaction to the Shah's rule, its brutal repression of the population, pro-Western policies and especially its close relations with Israel. So, Bosco's idea of a "moderate" Muslim State bears no resemblance to anything that the rest of the world understands as "moderate".
So, when Bosco refers to a "moderate" Muslim state, he's referring to something that only the howling voices in his head really understand. As a rule of thumb, I find it useful to interpret Bosco's notion of a "moderate" Muslim state as a state that is grovellingly subservient to American interests and foreign policy. While this subservience seems to be a fairly accurator predictor of whether Bosco will label a given Muslim State as moderate, the relationship of these states to any concept of "moderate" (as the rest of the world understands the term) at best fragile and tenuous, at worst non-existent.
* Many observers and historians would go further and state definitively that these factors were among the primary factors that caused the Islamist Revolution. This raises the tantalising speculation that minus the 1953 American intervention which overthrew the democratic govt of Mossedagh, and installed the Shah, the Iranian Revolution would never have happened ...
_____________________________
|
RE: HuffPo Howlers Side With Terroristic Iranian Govern... - 
Profile
RE: HuffPo Howlers Side With Terroristic Iranian Govern... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread