 |
| [cartoon pending] |
CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "That 'Progressive' Weapon of Global Dominance." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed [date pending]. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!
M. Rasheed on BitChute!
************************************
Phillip Provost - Iran in the 1970’s prior to the US meddling in their government and establishing the brutal Islamic rule.
All the crazy Islamic brutality we see is the result of our corrupt US government ignoring our constitution
Martin Solzberg - @Phillip... Please provide sources for your statement. According to that I remember and actual history the US backed the Shah and his regime which boosted several very progressive ideas IE: Prior to the revolution, Iran was ruled by a monarchy headed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The Shah was heavily US-backed and promoted westernization which many Iranians believed was diluting their indigenous culture and values. Separation of sexes, which had been a traditional practice, had been banned. Women during this period wore western clothes in place of the hijab and could now go to school, vote, and work. The new rights to women were embraced by the elite society while Islam Puritans viewed it as secularization. A more secular take on religion was adopted, where religious minorities could hold office." (https://bit.ly/3Arlbnd) The government was heavily opposed by the Conservative Shia Muslims led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The basis of their arguments against the government took a cultural and religious approach. The Conservative Shia accused the Shah of destroying Islam through the popularization of Western values.
Iranian Muslim Students, who had been exposed to the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini, increasingly began to support the idea of an Islamic State. The left-wing Islamist groups encouraged the use of armed struggle as the means to topple the Shah’s regime. (Again; https://bit.ly/3Arlbnd) so please tell me how the pictures and your statement should condemn the Us for backing someone who was making changes to a brutal and oppressive belief system?
Muhammad Rasheed - Martin posted: "where religious minorities could hold office."
And that was the root cause of the downfall right there.
Martin Solzberg - @Muhammad... As I said progressive ideas. I should have included humanitarian as well.
Muhammad Rasheed - You all's use of "progressive" reveals itself as traditional white supremacist legacy families maintaining their global dominance.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Progressive" is very anti-competition with other sovereign groups I've noticed. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - ...especially when a "religious minority" is put in charge of a traditional ideological foe's nation. 😳
Phillip Provost - @Martin... All I know is that the people were looking free and happy prior to the US involvement in their politics
Martin Solzberg - Good one Muhammad. White supremacist. I happen to be a Jew, but according to your beliefs that makes me worse than the "White supremacist right? Were you part of the era that wanted or wants to drive the Israellis into the sea? I just like to know who is insulting me.
Martin Solzberg - @Phillip... Those students were not even born when the US first got involved in Iran's politics. The US had a relationship long before 1945. So by your declaration, the US may have contributed to the happy looking students. Check these out. there is lots more on this subject.
(https://bit.ly/3plZLkX)
(https://bit.ly/3JYD8MO)
Luke Coffey-Bainbridge - @Martin... Can we all just agree that Islam is a set of really bad, not at all Liberal beliefs....
Steven Abood - @Phillip... All the U.S.'s fault? For pushing for women not to be enslaved and for people to have human rights? Lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Martin wrote: "Good one Muhammad. White supremacist. I happen to be a Jew"
I figured. Your very insulting, classically anti-Islam position gave you away.
Martin wrote: "but according to your beliefs that makes me worse than the White supremacist right?"
It makes you exactly like them in literally every way that can be measured. Remember who owned the Middle Passage ships, the West African slaving forts, the sugar cane plantations and the New England rum distilleries during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
Martin wrote: "Were you part of the era that wanted or wants to drive the Israellis into the sea?"
No, I'm Black American of the former slave class. My interest in the topic is very personal (see: paternalism; gradualism; "Black & Jewish Alliance" treachery).
Martin wrote: "I just like to know who is insulting me."
Do you feel insulted just because I pointed out your use of "progressive" in the historical record doesn't match what you pretend it to mean here?
Muhammad Rasheed - Martin wrote: "Prior to the revolution, Iran was ruled by a monarchy headed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The Shah was heavily US-backed and promoted westernization which many Iranians believed was diluting their indigenous culture and values."
Apparently, "heavily US-backed" means "Iran's oil industry was run by private companies, largely controlled by foreign interests." lol
In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was appointed as the Prime Minister of Pahlavi Iran. After the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, he became enormously popular. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the United States had participated in an overthrow of a foreign government during the Cold War. (https://amzn.to/3Ptf8CO)
The entire point of US intervention was to return Iran's oil to private foreign company control, not to bring them democracy or women's rights. "According to the political scientist Mark J. Gasiorowski, [Mosaddegh's] oil nationalization movement had two major results: the establishment of a democratic government and the pursuit of Iranian national sovereignty." (https://amzn.to/3QuIF0e)
lol As I said, "progressive" when you use the term means "anti-competition with sovereign nations you don't agree with." Why don't you agree with them? Because your megacorporations want their natural resources without having to pay market prices for them, but "Islam is bad." 🙄
No comments:
Post a Comment