How to maintain 0% productivity

Some say it's a skill, some say it's an art, psychologists and science say it's a disorder. I say you're either born with it or you're not. Regardless of what it is.

Make lists like this one
- Take an interest in something like .. internal affairs of Australia
- Read the news
- Then go read the same news, in another paper
- Go find a translated version of the same news
- Check out really old emails you still have in the inbox
- By the way, watch the news too
- Organize your downloaded pictures into folders
- Then, if for example you have cars in a folder & bikes in another, sort by name
- Then, sort by color
- Then sort by modded or not modded
- Make a list of mods for your ride(s)
- Vow to 'not work until I can do 3 sets of 60 pushups'
- If and when you do that, tell yourself that, since you managed, you should treat yourself to some icecream - mind you, only if it means you need to go get some
- Read the latest news while eating the icecream
- Edit your bookmarks/favorites
- Download masra7eyaat from nuks.org
- Better yet, itha SIJ you want 0% productivity, download drama series
- Read about scheduled movies
- Look up old movies of not-so-known actors
- Try to learn all you can about the history of OPEC and its decisions
- Get a pile of clothes and try them on
- Think about what you REALLY want to name your children
- Talk to someone about internal affairs of Australia from above
- Ask a friend for his opinion on the latest news from above
- Start a thread on a forum talking about old movies for not-so-known actors
- Make 5-year and 10-year plans using nothing but Notepad and Calculator on the PC
- Check for used car prices in two countries and compare the 2nd-hand market
- Talk with a friend about a girl you played
- Shave using a shaving machine only
- Go back an hour later and use a blade 7ag ta7deedat il shanab wel le7ya
- Talk to friends about other friends you haven't seen for a while and see how they're doing
- Play Tetris and don't stop until you beat the highest score you already have set. This is genius.
- Check for updates on the internal affairs of Australia


Proving without doubt that Italy is the greatest nation in the world. These aren't reasons. This is evidence.

Organized part in Organized Crime.

All the more reason to why you wanna get rich.

So'al ye6ra7 nafsah: and you wonder why people think homosexuality is a joke?
The perfect example for whenever explaining objectifying women.

Dishadeesh + the following

Self-explanatory. Should've had this alone and still would be sufficient evidence.

NOOOW you're convinced ena 3endy salfa when I say they're the greatest nation..

All about the defense, baby. It's all about the defense.

'Nuf said.

If you haven't studied the Roman Empire, then you know nothing. It's that simple.

More history.
.. wa haakatha



"It's all about staying basic" he mumbled through the cigarette sticking out of his mouth, trying to light a match, "you think there's more to life than there really is but there really isn't. Modernity and civilisation, civility actually, since civilisation is nothing but a town if you really knew your history, and you would have known your history if you just stayed basic.. modernity and civility, words of the like are virtually nothing but nouns used by people who think that there's more to life than there really is. Those same group of people who fancy everything that's not already in their possession, and those same group of people who keep whining about everything that's already in their possession. Civility and modernity my bum, I'll tell you what that is, it's like when you have a six year old kid and you take her into a toy store, and no matter how many toys she buys, she'll always see that one final toy up on the top shelf. It's all about something, it's all about having to have this or that, or why Little Jimmy has it and not Little Janey, there's always something that we're the only people on the planet who aren't doing it right. Well not me mister. Go ahead, call me "un-patriotic", buncha kids watching way too many movies if you ask me. Patriotic, yeah right, that's an excuse that works, let's all forget what we are and where we come from and keep our eyes on good ol' lil Jimmy, desire what he possesses in the name of being nationalists. The biggest favor you can ever do for your country is accept it for what it is, it's not about dragging it into accepting what you think you are. All you have to ask yourself is, how do you know the difference? The answer is by staying basic."


قص على عمرك

*B just got off the phone*

A: So you love her, yeah?

B: Yeah, man. It's great.

A: What's that? Being pussy whipped?

B: Being in love.

A: How do you know you love her? Who is she anyway?

B: I can't tell who she is, and you don't explain love. You just know it.

A: Why can't you tell me? Afraid she's been passed around before? Don't wanna be disappointed?

B: No, but what do I gain in telling you? What do you gain in me telling you?

A: Nothing, but you never gained anything in me knowing who your mom is. You love your mom don't you?

B: Sure I do.

A: And I know who your mom is. So what difference does it make if I knew a woman you loved?

B: I don't think it's the same thing. There is no way you can not know who my mother is. But there is a way to make you not know who the girl I love is.

A: "A way"? Don't you mean "a reason"?

B: What would that reason be?

A: That you don't want anyone to know who the girl you say you love is?

B: Uh-huh?

A: Because you know 85% of all the guys will think she's a bitch.

B: I don't care what people think.

A: Yeah? Then why don't you tell people who she is.

B: Because there's nothing that forces me to do so.

A: Okay. But you did say that you don't care what people thought. And clearly you think of yourself as such an asshole that you convince yourself that you love this girl, and you show it. You admit that you love her. But then you say you don't care if people thought she was a bitch if they knew her. So prove it.

B: I don't have to prove it.

A: Because you know it's wrong?

B: No.

A: Then why is it secretive?

B: Because I choose it to be.

A: You know who keep things secretive? Guilty people. Robbers, murderers, everybody who's done something 'bad', for a general term. Oh and you know what happens to guilty people when they confess?

B: What's that?

A: They get fucked. They either go to jail, or they are forced to put up with how they are frowned upon.

B: Are you saying that loving a girl is the same as murdering someone?

A: No, I'm saying you obviously feel the same guilt as someone who killed someone. And I'm saying you know that you, or her actually, will get fucked if you confess or let it be known who she is.

B: You're an idiot.

A: Am I? Think about it. You say you don't care what people think. You say you're convinced that what you're doing is right. But you fail to admit the whole thing. It's like when some guy marries a second wife. If he knows he's guilty, he doesn't make it known.

B: But I did say I am in love. So I'm admitting it.

A: Yeah? I have a meter long cock. I'm admitting it too. I'll prove it if you prove that you don't care what people think.

B: That's biologically impossible.

A: It's logically impossible for you to convince yourself you love a girl too.

B: What? Why?

A: Because you don't have any reason to think that. Not even if your subconscious wants to fuck her so bad, and not even if your consciousness tells you that that admitting that will drive her away. So you submit it for 'love'. That's what you show the world. That you love her. When you obviously don't

B: Like I said, you're an idiot.

A: Do you think she will mind if you told me who she was?

B: Sure she'll mind. She already thinks of you as an idiot.

A: She minds because she knows what she's doing is wrong. She feels guilty too.

B: So what, now you're an expert on introspection?

A: No, I just know wassup. Do you think her dad knows about you?

B: He doesn't.

A: Does her dad know she has a male lecturer at school?

B: He does.

A: So it's not just about her being 'exposed' to a male human being. It's about the way she is exposed. You think her mother will be okay with you fucking her?

B: I don't wanna fuck her.

A: Okay, you're gay, I get it. That's not the question, do you think her mother will be okay with you fucking her?

B: No.

A: So what makes it okay that you talk to her?

B: You're saying sleeping with a girl is the same as being in love with her?

A: No, I'm saying there isn't any 'degree of error'. What's wrong, is wrong. Sure, a wrong doing may be 'lighter' than another wrong doing. But doing a certain degree of an error, and not commiting the larger error as if you're making the first, lighter error into a right thing .. is just bullshit.

B: You have way too much time on your hands. What does that even mean?

A: It means that, just like saying that 'two wrongs don't make it right', doing one wrong alone does not make it right.

B: What makes it wrong? That I talk to her and love her?

A: Besides your faith? The fact that you're keeping it secretive. The fact that she knows it's wrong in keeping it not known. Not even to her father.

B: But I, well, WE, are not doing anything wrong.

A: Let me get this straight. You think of her as the girl you love, but whom you're not married to. Basically, the concept of a girlfriend in certain cultures.

B: Yes.

A: But you don't live with her, and you don't go out with her.

B: I go out with her. But living with her is wrong.

A: Now I know you think of yourself as an asshole. It's not about the 'degree of error'. What's the difference between living with someone and going out with someone?

B: You're saying they're the same thing?

A: Tell you what. Think of someone, ANYONE, whom you know, but don't want anyone to know who they are; whom you go out with; but whom you know living with is wrong; i.e. if you could find anyone who it is 'okay to go out with' but 'not okay to live with'; also, make sure that they feel the same way. I.e. that they say it's okay to be with you, but don't want anyone to know who they are. Like a person who is ashamed.
That they're okay with going out with you, for a certain period of time; but still think it's wrong to live with you. Then, and only then, will we talk.
You blame everything on emotions. Thinking that it makes you sound, or seem, or feel even, compassionate. Caring. Loving. Whatever it is. 'Cute', even. But the fact of the matter is, it makes you look like an idiot. You and the idiot who believes you love her. You know how I know that you know what you're doing is wrong?
It's because you have a way out. Something that makes you think will make it all 'okay' and 'understandable'.
That's by you saying, and by her thinking, that whatever it is you have now will 'end in marriage'.
If it's so bloody right to you, emotionally and logically, then why do you have something like marriage as 'the end' that makes it all right? Why do you have a way out?


Dreams vs Potential

A: You're trying to tell me that you became an engineer because that's what you always wanted when you were a kid?

B: Yes.

A: What, like, you enjoyed drawing circles and shit?

B: No, you idiot, that's not it.

A: I know, so how exactly is it that a kid knows what an engineer does? Let alone knowing what a specific field of engineering is concerned with. That's what you're saying, right? You became an engineer because that's what you always wanted when you were a kid?

B: Yes.

A: So yeah, it's a legitimate question. How does a kid know what an engineer does, that when you were a kid, you knew you wanted to be an engineer? Like you saw a movie or something?

B: Something like that.

A: So if you wanted to be a stripper when you were a kid, you would grow up to be one?

B: Why would any kid want to be a stripper?

A: I don't know. Why would a kid want to be an engineer?

B: Are you saying that being an engineer is the same as being a stripper?

A: No, but wait a minute, are you saying that no stripper ever wanted to become a stripper when he or she was a kid?

B: No, I don't think so.

A: So what, you look down on strippers?

B: Sure I do.

A: Because you're an engineer?

B: No, because being a stripper isn't a good thing.

A: And what, being an engineer is?

B: Sure it is, are you saying otherwise?

A: I'm not saying anything. I'm just not sure on why you think, or better yet how you're convinced that you wanted to be an engineer ever since you were a kid, but no stripper could have wanted the same thing when they were kids too.

B: How can you even assume that, did you ever think about becoming a stripper?

A: No, but I never thought about being an engineer either.

B: But you're not an engineer. So it works out.

A: Not really, when I was a kid, I wanted to be a driver.

B: What, like a race driver?

A: No, like a driver who picks up your kids from school and shit.

B: Why did you want to be that?

A: Why did you want to become an engineer?

B: Are you saying that being an engineer is the same as being a driver?

A: I would say the same skills are involved, yes.

B: Beg your pardon?

A: I mean, kids are kids. They want silly shit. Some kids want to grow up to be birds.

B: Now you're just being silly.

A: And what, listening to the 5 yr old kid inside you who wants to be an engineer isn't silly?

B: What's your problem?

A: Nothing. I just don't expect people to take shit like "I always wanted to be .." this or that seriously.

B: Then why did you choose to become a linguist?

A: I never said I wanted to be a linguist. Just because you were a boring kid wanting to be an engineer doesn't make me a boring kid who wanted to be a linguist.

B: What, you wanted to be a doctor?

A: No, I wanted to be a pilot.

B: Why didn't you become a pilot then?

A: Because I grew up. I'm not a 6 year old kid anymore. That's my point, when you're a kid, you want things that seem cool at the time.

B: What's so cool about being a pilot?

A: For me it was about fucking flight attendants.

B: But you said you were six year olds at the time.

A: Yeah and I told you I wasn't a boring kid. That's what occupied my mind.

B: So .. what are we exactly talking about here?

A: Nothing, I just don't see how you can have the nerve to say that you carried out a thought you had when you were a kid. Like you didn't grow up or something. I mean, you're practically admitting that you never matured and are now fulfilling some thought you had when you were a baby.

B: It's called having a dream. Asshole.

A: Well excuuuse me, but just because I had a dream about being a footballer doesn't make it plausible that I grow up to be one.

B: Why not?

A: Because dreams are just thoughts. Potential isn't.

B: What's potential?

A: It's the difference between you, an engineer here, and John, an engineer in Britain. He builds bridges. You draw circles in school.

B: But it's about fulfilling a dream.

A: So your dream was what exactly, that you can be called x the engineer?

B: No, of course not.

A: Then what was your 'dream'?

B: To become an engineer.

A: And I suppose you're okay with a doctor saying he or she became a doctor so he can help people?

B: Sure I am.

A: So what, you're saying only a doctor helps people?

B: No, but only doctors help people in a certain way.

A: But when you're a kid and want to be a doctor, you don't know how doctors do their jobs. So how can you say "I became a doctor because I like to help people".

B: That's what doctors do. It's common sense.

A: No it isn't.

B: Okay, whatever. So what now, if not pursuing a dream, what do you expect people to do?

A: Make the best of their potential.

B: How do they do that?

A: They don't think about what they wanted back when they were toddlers.

B: What if someone saw that his potential lays in his becoming an engineer, like me for example?

A: When was the last time you built a bridge, designed a stadium, or whatever?

B: That's not the only thing engineers do you asshole.

A: Humor me. It's an example. Are you saying that potential is only dependent on a dream?

B: What? No. What?

A: Nothing, just forget it.


نقا بليز

Yet again, feminists prove that they need to just grow up.

The worst thing about a feminist is that she thinks she speaks in the name of all women.
The second worst thing about a feminist is that she thinks she knows it all.
The third worst thing about a feminist is that she presupposes that she is a victim of everyone else. Not only does she believe in that, no sir, she acts on it.
My limiting the wording to 'sir' and not including 'ma'am'? Well, a feminist can somehow determine my social and psychological upbringing, reaching, based on some 'recent study', that I have been treated like this and that, and then I did this and that, and because she's a feminist, she can therefore conclude why I limited the wording to 'sir'. No shit? Yes shit.

Coming across a red light when she's running late for a feminist-power-meeting? Yeah, it's allllllll about her 'being a woman and the bias of the traffic light' and how the world judges her no matter what she does.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that a feminist believes that the world revolves around her, you see.

Case in point, if you're a feminist, and you're right about ... here, by now, then chances are you have already made up your mind on my being .. something-fancy-you-learned-off-of-some-book you read when you were in college.
See I never went to school, "ma'am", I never knew that there is an adjective for every single trait, even when there is nothing to account for that trait. Like, I dunno, a word like, feminist, perhaps?

A feminist, so it seems, supposes that anything to do with 'covering a woman' has to do with 'regarding a woman as nothing but a piece of meat'.
Poor thing seems to never can understand that, sometimes, it's about a notion called respect, or perhaps sanctity. Or whatever, that's not the point. She just takes it upon herself and believes she, not only has the right, but the obligation to 'call for the liberation of women', or something as pathetic in the name of 'the free world' and .. I don't know, I haven't read as many books (or watched as many movies, if you ask me), remember?
Her limited mind does not appreciate anything but the biological fact that a woman tends to have the luxury, or sometimes the discomfort, of transforming, upon a woman's demand, her body into a luscious thing.

It can, but that's not everything a woman can do.
I know that, you know that, but a feminist seems to not know that.

And because she (acts like she) doesn't know. We all have to believe and take her word for it. Because she is a feminist, she turns into this larger-than-life 'thing' that knows everything.

Just like a seventeen year old highschooler can turn everything to be about sex; a feminist has that same superpower. A feminist can, and will, and just about does nothing but, turn everything, no matter how irrelevant, to be about sex.


غلطة عمر

- Two days later -

She lay still in bed, staring at the cieling. So much was on her mind on so little of a subject it was driving her crazy since she could not focus nor think on anything but what happened. It was more or less like being paranoid, where everything is possible to ensue because of her knowledge and ackowledgement of a mistake done. Okay, a mishap, perhaps. If that, some might say.
She stopped nibbling on her finger, ran her hands in her hair and rested her palms on her forehead. Slowly, they dragged themselves to cover her eyes and the tears.
Faisal rolled over next to her, eyes half-open he asked "what time is it? Honey what's wrong?"

- Three years prior -

He spinned his mobile on the table. It banged on the plates every now and then but he didn't care. There were more important things on his mind. Like how lucky he was about to get if he knew how to "yesayis omoorah". He sucked down on the straw, and let his mind drift.
She opened the cabinet's revolving door and sat across of him. She looked fresh. For lack of a better word, Yosif thought. He smiled, "meshaina?"

- Yesterday -

She walked into Il Rayah with her arm locked in Faisal's, leaning her head up against his shoulder. She apparently told him something that made him put his hand on her belly. Instantly, he smiled.
They proceeded to the escalators going up.
Greeting them at the top was Dalal, her friend's friend. The two young ladies gasped in surprise and proceded to hug and kiss. Dalal congratulated her, looking at her belly. She bent her head and smiled, thanking Dalal.
When she looked up, she felt dizzy as things went blank. Sounds muted. People went out of focus. Fixated, there, Yosif, in front of her. Holding Dalal's hand, as if coming out of no where.
"Bo ya3gob!", she heard a familiar voice inside her head say. She looked around blindly, only to see Faisal shake hands with the familiar man, "wainek ma gemt tbayen 3endina.."

- Next week -

Yosif held Dalal's hand and moved it away from his chest. "Not tonight baby" he excused. Dalal recollected herself and sat up, blowing it off in asking if his backache was gone or if he needed the 'thing with the smell' rubbed tonight too. He shook his head and got out of bed, proceeding to a nearby chair with his training pants folded neatly upon. He put on some clothes and came to Dalal's side of bed kissing her forehead "I'll see you later okay?"
Dalal didn't bother answering and was already switching through channels.

- One year and a half earlier -

"Cham jawla bageelek oboy?", he asked.
"Thalaath, dish ma3ay 7ayaak", came the answer.
The two spotted each other climbing up the weights on the bar. "Jadwelek elyom bi o sadir o mi3da?", he asked. The addressee nodded, inviting him to work out together today. "Ila ma geltly shesmik bel khair?", asked Faisal.
"Yosif, Yosif 3abdalla," he replied.


يا تصيب يا تخيب؟

Not so much of a smooth transition. Should do the trick though.

A part of me dies everytime someone, somewhere, at some point in time mistakes one of the following for the other.

Ib ay 7ag hatha ..

Yiseer hatha? 3aib .. jad 3aib

Wela hal bazir ..

.. mistaken for this bad boy? 7aram ya naas

This is a classic, al7een hal garamba3..

rear view of the C2S version

is thought to be this.. ?

It was never about "it being a porsche", it's the opposite. If you know what I mean.

Okay I admit, this may be a tough one at first .. mistaking this

for one of these.. at first, okay.. bas 3ad sita3ash mara?

and no, it's not just the sticker on some of them

again, this isn't 'a Porsche' .. it's a lot more

if you want 'a porsche', these 2 should be just fine

as well as this one

There are a lot lot more, but these should give you an idea.
It wouldn't be an understatement to say: you're either born infatuated, or you're not.

It's really like with watches, if someone needs to tell you what a 'Daytona' is, then you're not really in it for 'what the watch really is', regardless of make (and unfortunately, price).


Iranian Hostage Crisis

Jimmy Carter is a very important man in "today's history".
For one thing, his adminstration did not intervene to stop the overthrow of the Shah; or let us say his adminstration did not take it upon itself to restore stability to the Shah's reign.
For another, it was his adminstration that initiated the program of training Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. Intermission: Just to get one thing clear, he did that because the then-USSR invaded Afghanistan (why? That's another post).
Anyway, critics blame Ol' Jimmy's ways for some of today's 'problems' with Islamic Fundamentalism because of that.

Jimmy Carter changed today's world.
So did Rou7alla Khomaini.

N o v e m b e r 4th, 1979: less than a year after the Islamic revolution, Iran and the US came literally face to face. For the first time.
Hundreds of Iranians sorrounded and stormed the US embassy in Tehran taking it captive and, initially, 90 hostages.

A sum of the hostages were let go, and 54 remained.

"Inzain laish 3ad?"

Against the advise of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (and his Deputy Warren Christopher), President Carter admitted the fleeing Shah of Iran into the US for 'medical reasons'. The Shah had cancer.

Thing is, the Shah was in Morroco before going to the US.
In other words, 6ag eb rasa il shab il la6eef ena he prefers exile in the US.

And as mentioned, Mr Vance and Mr Christopher advised against such a haste admittance because they foresaw (from prior incidents concerning the US embassy) that Iran would not approve and react.

"Khayfeen ya3ni?"

Not at all. Il thahir ga3deen ma3a Rashid il Majid youm enah yegoul "ib3id 3an il shar ya 3omri o ghaneelo".
But apparently Ol' Jimmy probably wasn't "schooled" right. He should've listened.

The world would have been a very VERY different place if the Shah was not admitted to the US after 'chilling' in Morocco. Consider the following.

Fact: The Shah was admitted into the US on October 20th, 1979.
Fact: The Shah initially fled Iran on January 16th, 1979.

Personal note: For a cancer patient, that's a lot of time to make a "life or death" decision. Innit?

Nevertheless, we return. November 4th 1979. Iranians capture the US embassy in Tehran and take 54 hostages.


- Get the Shah back to Iran so he can be put on trial. Let's be honest with ourselves, Iran was going to execute the Shah the first second he stepped foot coming back. This is backed up with the fact that Iran was now trying ex-SAVAK officers and ex-corrupt politicians. Some were executed. Some were exiled. Some fled.

Personal note: Because I am the President of this blog, I say "good riddance". Hint hint.

Another personal note:
Of course, back in 1979, the world, although seemingly chaotic, was a place were people respected themselves in the sense that they did not make a mockery out of .. THEMSELVES.

Unlike some people 'I know' who have been on trial in our time for the past year by some other people 'I know'. Ye7chy il rayis, ye7chy o ye7chy.

Oh okay, the Shah did not commit crimes 'against humanity'? I'm Rick James, bitch.

In essence:

Fault #1 : Admittance of the Shah without the 'jas nabth' beforehand of the Iranian newly found government.

Fault #2 : Refusing the demand of returning the Shah to Iran for a 'trial'. Oh I'm sorry, human rights, right? Eh khair inshala, sa7 il noum 7abayby.
Fault #3 : Freezing of Iranian assets in US banks. Amounting to 8 billion dollars. In 1979 money, that's the kinda money you do NOT fuck around with.
I repeat, 8 billion "dolahz" in 1979-money is a NO-FUCKING-AROUND-ZONE. Gashmara il baykha kelesh malha da3y ya3ni.

Consequences of the Iranian-US pride:

1. December 1979 : the US expelled most of the Iranian diplomats
2. March 1980 : the US expels the rest of the Iranian diplomats, and,
3. in April : diplomatic ties were broken between the two countries
4. Also in April : Enter OPERATION EAGLE CLAW : Rescue mission. Eight US Marines die in a helicopter crash in the desert. The operation was called off. Yeah, this isn't the movies; welcome to the real world. These were the only casualities of the incident. Allah yer7amhom
5. July : the Shah dies. You would think the Iranians would now let the hostages go. But they don't. Because the US won't return the frozen assets. Personal note: pride & politics = the lose.
6.. November, 1980. Ronald Reagan elected President (Carter was raped in the elections). Ten minutes into Reagan's inaugration, Iran releases the hostages. No casualities.

444 days total.

"Show me the money"

Iranian assets were (are) still frozen as a consequence.
A compensation of $65 million FROM these assets were returned to Iran following the shooting down of an Iranian Air commercial flight in 1988 by the US. Killing 290 passengers. 38 non-Iranians included.

The US says it was a mistake.

Mistake being?

Identifying the Iranian airplane as an attacking military jet.

Khariboha il rabi3, haa? I thought this was NOT the movies .. ? 6ayara 7arbiya chethy mara wa7da? Lo gayleen "wala kena enjarib om sachmat Davey" chan gelna okay. But a jet fighter? "Cruising" at a commercial flight speed? Sh khalaw 7ag Mingaash?
Ana la 6ayar wala darast 6ayraan, bas fi ikhteraa3 isma "flight records".
Ikhteraa3 thaany isma "control tower".

This is 1988 people.

Personal note: If it was a mistake, then why award the whole crew?
Okay, your awards, your army, your concern. Last thing I want to do is "intrude on internal affairs", hint hint.

But, why hasn't there been any official admittance of wrongdoing, or taking responsibility by the US government?

I don't make this shit up. I just have the discomfort of knowing it. Backed up if you want to argue.

That would be the second time Iran and the US came face to face.

Next time would be ... yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Now you know your A B C, next time you can rap "I to the R to the mathafakin' A N"; with the chorus being: "gatz beef with the U-zay S-zay-of-A since 19 fiTTy three"

By the way, it is believed that President Najad was one of the students who took the embassy hostage.
You probably thought I was kidding or exaggerating when I said it's one single turn that we're all still taking.


The Revolution

Meet Rou7alla Mousawi, a.k.a Al Khomaini. Rou7alla is his real name by the way (ay naby yo6lag 3alaih rou7alla ya 7elween?), and later on he has 'earned' the title: ayatollah.
Personal note: I'm not sure where ayatollah comes from, but semantically speaking, I don't like it. I also don't like the pragmatic use of the word "Imam" which is pretty common in Kuwait, derived, I would imagine, from the fact that 'x ya'emmo fi' the y mosque. Ironically, the ayatollah title is a pragmatic one, while the Imam use is a semantic one, when it's exactly the opposite if you really knew wassup. PhD thesis? Fouga?

Anyway, intersecting with where we left off last time, in 1963 he (Khomaini) denounced Shah Mohammaed Bahlawi. He was sentenced for 8 months in prison. When he got out, he denounced the United States. This time, and this was in 1964, he was exiled to Turkey.
Later on, he went to Iraq and stayed there until the SOB Saddam forced him out of Iraq also, under the urgance of the Shah himself.
Thus, he moved to France. This is 1978.

"Why haven't they killed him throughout all those years?"

In the 60s, who knows.

But in 1978 when Al Khomaini was on his way to France, the head of the French SDECE (French intillegence, their version of the CIA 3ishtaw) Alexandre de Marenches claims that France offered the Shah to assassinate Al Khomaini. But according to 'Monsieur' de Marenches the Shah refused on the grounds that, if they did assassinate him, he would be regarded as a martyr. I would imagine Monsieur de Marenches, holding the same position as the director of Jihaz Amn Il Dawla Il Kwaity, took his job seriously and did not make false accusations, and attribute them later to "ga3daat il shabab bel dowaneya, 7asha wel 7asha 3an alf yimeen mo ana ely gayel ya jema3at il rabi3". La bas agoul ya3ni.

Boy, the things 14% of a country's wealth will buy you, I'll tell ya.

Ya7lailah il Shah yekon saayidha. I would imagine that he thought murdering someone like Al Khomaini was known to have caused a revolution. So he decided against it.

Oh wait. This is supposed to be about history and politics.
Irony would have it that even keeping him alive would result in a revolution.

By September, 1978 (this is before Khomaini was back from France) witnessed a huge (peaceful) protest against the Shah a.k.a Black Friday. Despite its nature, the Shah opted to use the military (martial law in effect) in pushing the protests back. Hundreds (some claim thousands) of people died.
In turn, causing any support for the Shah in Iran to melt away. Things escalated and reached their peak that December. By the day, protests left hundreds of dead bodies. By the day, the protests grew larger.
One month later, now in January 1979, the Shah fled Iran, SAVAK was haulted, political prisoners were released, and only two weeks after the Shah fled, Al Khomaini was invited back to Iran.
This was all in hopes of calming down the tensions caused by September's Black Friday.
Obviously, it did not work.

The military declared impartiality, after soldiers turned on their leaders refusing to participate in any more of the killings, marking the completion of the overthrowing of the monarchy.

February 12, 1979. Revolution completed.

"Where was the US?"

First of all, the revolution wasn't what it sounded like. Ongoing opposition was existant since the overthrowing of Dr Mosadagh.

President Jimmy Carter, in 1977, somehow 'aided' in the revolution. He threatened to hault any arms shipments to Iran if the Shah did not loosen up a bit. This has led people to start demonstrating, political prisoners were released, demands for freedom started surfacing, and the like.
President Carter obviously wasn't the biggest fan of the Shah's regime, but he never really took any decisive action. He did not stand with another coup d'etat. Rather, he tried to 'work something out' with the Iranian military to set up a more moderate government.
This was all interrupted when Al Khomaini sought control. However, it must be noted that number-one revolutionary all along was Dr. 3ali Sharee3aty (who was very much different from Al Khomaini by the way), but he was assassinated in 1977 in London. Only then did Al Khomaini become the spiritual leader 'to it all' - which explains why the Shah urged Sadam to force him out of Iraq in 1978. Al Khomaini, being in Iraq, and "number one revolutionary" now, was too close.

History did not take a turn when Al Khomaini's revolution overthrew the Shah's regime. I wouldn't get carried away and say the US helped in, but I really don't see how anyone can argue that at least some prominent figures in the adminstration were just fed up with the Shah's ways. Homeboy had to go. Sure, Al Khomaini's rise to power came as a surprise. But it was not until the admittance of the Shah into the US that history did take a turn. Ever since, we have still been "in that turn". Now, more than ever.

Enter the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Who's who:

1. Rou7alla Mousawi a.k.a. Al Khomaini : Known to be the Leader of the Revolution (1900 - 1989).
2. Jimmy Carter : President of the United States 1977-1981 (Born in 1924).
3. Alexandre de Marenches (no pic) : Head of French Intelligence, SDECE.
4. Dr Ali Shariati : Known to be the number one revolutionary until his assassination in 1977.


The Shah and the US
Early 50s - mid 70s

From the previous part, we have established that the US (through the CIA's Operation Ajax) have overthrown a democratically elected PM in 1953 so that major oil companies of the West can divide the Iranian wealth.
Just to show what we mean by "democratically elected", the vote was 79-12. Yeah. Oil.

But even since 1941 (10 years prior to Mosadagh becoming PM), Mohammad Ritha Bahlawi has replaced his father's throne to become Shah of Iran (another long story which is irrelevant here because it concerns Britain and Russia).
Think of the Shah of Iran in terms of the United Kingdom: The parliamentary government would have the power to make the Shah submit to its opinion (vote).
But despite that, the Shah involved himself a lot in what concerns government, which really is not what he was supposed to do since he was only the constitutional monarch. Pun intended.

So now we arrive back to where we started, 1951, witnessing the election of PM who was overthrown in 1953. Because the Shah opposed the decision to nationalize the Iranian oil sector (under the fear of an economic embargo from the West), he came off as the 'right person' to install in Iran (or better yet, keep in charge), and it did not hurt that Iran was neighbouring the then-USSR Russia. Of course, most important thing was making sure the western oil companies divided Iranian oil.

The Shah afterwards expanded his constitutional powers, taking matters into his own hand and started 'westernizing' Iran. This is now 1954.
It wasn't really all bad if you look at it from a certain perspective. For example, in the early 1960s, he launched a program known as the White Revolution which did benefit Iranians. Somewhat.
Women had more rights, a lot of money was spent on education, and even land reform policies saw that a lot of farmers ended up owning land of their own.
Yet, despite all the 'socio-economic' measures, not much was done to push for democracy inside Iran. I wonder why?
This, as well as minimalising the role the shee3a scholars in matters of education for example, as well as the land owners losing some of their property to the farmers would get on the nerves of a lot of people inside Iran.

To make sure things were going the way he wanted them to, the Shah (for the time being, let's say) founded the SAVAK. House of Sand & Fog? Ben Kingsley's character? Yeah, nevermind.
Anyway, SAVAK was founded with the sole purpose of protecting the Shah against political opposition.
Although founded in 1957, the SAVAK became much more violent starting from 1965. And because they can justify any "type" of arrest to 'maintaining national security' (mn oma pun intended), the SAVAK were pretty much free to do what they wanted. It is estimated that anywhere between 13,000 to 20,000 people were killed (note: killed, not just tortured/arrested) by SAVAK.

And just to show how much of a nice man the Shah was, he ordered the assassination of one of the former directors of the SAVAK in 1970, as well as kept surveillance over the other directors. Who, by the way, were all friends of his (one of them dated back to school, I can check for the name if you want).

Audience: "Okay, wi7na shako? Bil 6agag ely ye6eg'hom, where does the US fit in all of this?"

It fits in all of the above, 'my dear Watson'.

SAVAK was founded with the help of the CIA (what? you thought Iranians were BORN into this?) as well as Mossad. If you don't know what Mossad is, then boy are you reading the wrong post.

"So what, now you're saying the US and the Israelis helped found SAVAK to arrest, torture, and murder the population in order to save the Shah?"

No, I'm reporting (not saying, not making up) that the US, in 1954, vowed to protect the Shah if he agreed to their terms. Terms being? Check the last post: dividing up the Iranian oil for 25 years among the west.

On the condition, if I might add, that Iran can not look over the actual accounts to make sure it was getting its share.

"Price of doing business?"
Fifty percent cut of profits. But with the condition of Iran not being able to look over the actual accounts, I'll leave the actual cut to your imagination.

So yes, I am saying that the US adminstrations overlooked mass murders and arrests, a corrupt system and an unstable political state of affairs in turn to make sure a 'certain industrial sector' was fucking Iran over for its money.

Human rights, democracy, and whatever fed BS these days just was not 'in' "back in the day" I guess. Or they were, bas 3ala naas o naas if you know what I mean.

Note: in 1973, because of the Arab-Israeli war and the consequent oil embargo, the Shah raised oil prices (obviously not joining the embargo) and .. what does he do with the money?

Spend it for 'defense purposes', of course.

Yeah, hmmmm I'm not sure where you can go buy "army stuff" when you have a shitload of cash?

La7tha let me think. "Oh holy-shizzle-in-da-nizzle, Batman. This has got to be the hardest question EVER."

Let me take one very very wild, uneducated guess. The US?


With that, we have overseen the:
a) coup d'etat (changing the political system of a country through violent or non-violent means) against a democratically elected prime minister
b) the splitting of Iranian wealth among the western companies
c) under the US promise to protect the Shah as long as he keeps doing that.. through
d) the founding of SAVAK with the directions of your friends over at the American and Israeli "intelligence agencies".
e) who would go on and arrest, torture, and kill people as they wished to secure the 'protection of the Shah'

"Did Iran benefit from all that?"

Sure it did, "little Johnny".

If you call fucking your people over and turning your country into a military and economic base in the Middle East so you can keep the western companies in business. Oh, and just in case you foresaw that in like 30 years later you will have someone who has no idea about history or historical politics to say "Iran was better off with the Shah" .. then yes, "little Johnny", Iran did benefit. *Pat on the head*

Conspiracy theory? No sir, no ma'am. Plain history. Documented and sourced.


Early 1950s

Do read this if you would like to understand the current international events.
If you think you are NOT brainwashed, then you probably are already; therefore, do not read.

To make sure I get your attention: Fuck off. Hello there. Now please read the above two sentences.
If by now you are offended, then good, you're not fit to proceed. Sod off. Pretty please.

Conspiracy theory? No sir, no ma'am. Plain history.

Anti-American? As opposed to what, exactly? Pro-Iranian? There is no such thing.
Anti-Iranian? As opposed to what, exactly? Pro-American? There is no such thing.

Meet Dr Mohamed Mosadagh. The democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1951.
Enter Mohammed Ritha Bahlawi, a.k.a Shah of Iran, who overthrew the democratically-elected-PM and regained the rule of Iran (his father was Shah) aided by none other than your friends over at the See Ay Aih.
(Note: Shah Bahlawi didn't really 'lose the rule' to 'regain' it. But it was different, further comes in later posts)

Audience: "See? Now you're just making shit up. You're a conspiracy theorist."

You can't handle the truth.

Oil, no surprise, is a universal language. Not mathematics. Mathematics is:
Oil = All

So, what's up?

Dr Mosadagh wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry (from the privatized Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, AIOC). In the early 1950s? Homeboy didn't see it coming. He then declared the UK (the Anglo part of the company) as a diplomatic enemy.
Britain looked over to the US of A to bring out the big guns, and the US at the time had no other excuse but to declare Iran had "communist intentions". That's pretty much the equivelant to today's US saying "terrorist". Sounds familiar? 3ala afa mn yisheel, tawzee3 ib balaash.

Enter Operation Ajax: The US translation of 'overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister because he was going to mess up oil trade and make Iran filthy rich'. No shit? Yeah, no shit.
Long story short, the US wanted Mohammad Ritha Bahlawi (son of Shah Ritha, who was put in power by the British to make sure oil was going where it was supposed to - back to the British) to become ruler so he would do what they asked of him to do.

This was 1953. Dr Mosadagh was not an Islamist-conservatist or anything. Not at all. He got his PhD from Switzerland and was pretty much the 'most pro-American' the US could wish for. This was secular Iran we're talking about. La7geen 3ala salfat il thawra la7ad yesta3yel 3ala rizgah.
So why was he overthrown? As I mentioned prior, he nationalized the oil industry. No more Iranian money going to the British. The AIOC even refused to produce an actual account of production to make sure Iran was getting its share of its oil.

So, Dr Mosadagh was ousted. What does the US (alongside with the UK) do now?

Qasimaw il 7alaal il rabi3. They set up a Consortium (joint venture) dividing the Iranian oil where major A
merican companies would own 40%, British Petroleum to own 40%, and the remaining 20% to be divided by Royal Dutch, Shell, and a French company (CFH). This has caused some tension, known as the Abadan Crisis, where the independent American oil companies were left out but later on a settlement was reached for them to 'get in on it'.

What does this have to do with current events? It helps you understand and know:

A) The US overthrew a democratically elected prime minister. So really, what democracy are they exactly talking about? (Please look up Guatemala 1954 if you're not convinced yet)

B) They installed a puppet: Shah Mohammad Ritha Bahlawi (English: Pahlavi) who has fled to Baghdad, then to Rome, and then back to Iran all in a week - this was a security precaution by the American and British intelligence.. He would, of course, be pro-American (resist communism from Russia?) and of course make sure:

C) Iranian oil was shared by the big companies. Welcome to the real world, bitches.

Conspiracy theory? Yeah right. As if the CIA producing a former 'top secret' account for Operation Ajax was not enough, none other than Madeleine Albright's quote should set the record straight:

"In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations."

- March, 2000

Yes, the coloring of the quote in the Iranian flag colors is my way of being funny. Mako amlag weld 3ami?

Note: information in this post is based on my basic knowledge from discussing this with my father and uncles and all that. So I knew what to look for in the first place, and got the sourcing I needed for this to be fact-based. If you wish to debate authenticity, I sincerely look forward to it because it would give me more reason to ignore doing my assignments. So be my guest.

Who's who:

Dr. Mosadagh: Overthrown Prime Minister of Iran by the CIA and MI6
Mohammad Ritha Bahlawi: Shah of Iran at the time of Mosadagh being PM, and after being overthrown was returned to make sure Iranian oil was divided by the Western companies.
Ritha Bahlawi: Father of Mohammed, and Shah of Iran before him (since 1921). Installed by the British. Evidentally, to make sure the AIOC did what it was supposed to do. Err, that would be steal Iran's wealth I guess.. ? Chairz.
Madeleine Albright: US Secretary of State (January 1997 - January 2001) w/ the Clinton Adminstration.


ويني عنك من زمان؟

*I stumbled upon a translated version of this article in Il 6alee3a, thanks again to 7amad Il M6airi who was showing me an article about A7mad Il Fahad. 7ist o 6i7t 3alaiha.

*I found the name of the writer and did a search, arriving at the original article written in 04/04/06 in the

*The following is my edited version (not only the bold-ing and the italicizing, but also the deletion and the -re-arrangement of arguments). The blue-and-between-square-brackets is obviously my attempt at sounding cocky. Please find the original and the translated articles at the end.

- - - Part 1 - - -

There is widespread international agreement that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is an alarming prospect [no shit!], but very little attention is paid to the most obvious, immediate reason why [7adithna ya David, wa lima yakono thaalik?] that there is already a Middle Eastern nuclear power, Israel [la laaaaaaaah?], insistent on preserving its monopoly.

Iran is the unfriendliest possible, encouraging the widespread assumption that it alone is responsible for creating the crisis - and settling it. But is it? [La 6ab3an, bas ikhss 3ala akbar shanab bel dawla ely ma tejara' wegolha ya David]

It certainly isn't blameless [I agree - for what it's worth]. First, its nuclear arming would deal a major blow to an already fraying international non-proliferation regime. [Ya 3ami zain, akhaf bas sej] Second, it would involve a huge deceit. Third, the US divides actual or potential nuclear powers into responsible and irresponsible ones. [Il thaher ana kent naayem lama ejtam3aw The Board of Executives of Planet Earth o etafgaw 3ala ena the US ehy ely et7adid] Iran would be irresponsible, being already the worst of "rogue states". [Another word for rogue is unreliable]

Yet, in nuclear terms in the Middle East, Israel is the original sinner [Ashwa enha yat menik hal mara]. Non- proliferation must be universal [Khalas, en6erny 3ad inta]: if, in any zone of potential conflict, one party goes nuclear, its adversaries can't be expected not to. [Wallah gelt'ha ana ya David 3-4days ago "Mafeesh 7ad a7san mn 7ad"] No matter how long ago it was, by violating that principle Israel would always bear a responsibility for whatever happened later. [Bas khobrik, il Kwaity la sar Liberaly eb kaifah yegolek qal6at falas6een .. la tes'alni shlon wetgalib il mowaji3 ya David.. Ikhss 3al shanabaat]

Mindful of what Israel's mendacity portended, the CIA warned in 1963 that, by enhancing its sense of security, nuclear capacity would make Israel less, not more, conciliatory to the Arabs [La laaaaah? Bas rabi3na khoufik may3arfon el CIA, khalha "FBI" a7la o yesadgounha akthar chethy el khamma ely 3endena]; it [Israel, la7ad yethaye3] would exploit its new "psychological advantages" to "intimidate" them [them = Arabs, la7ad yethaye3 ham].

Which, thirdly, points to the irresponsible use Israel has indeed made of it.

[Israel] came into being as a massive disrupter of the established Middle East order, through violence and ethnic cleansing. [6ayyib.. ashwa yat menik] Such a settler-state could only achieve true legitimacy, true integration into a still-to-be-completed new order, by restoring the Palestinian rights it violated in its creation and growth. [Laysem3ik Kwaity imsamy rou7a liberaly, yaaaiw.. shefokik 3ad .. yegolek hatha "sha'an falas6eeny o ma7ad lah sheghel feeh"]

But settlement never comes, because Israel resists even that compromise. [Which goes only to prove that this isn't just about rights. It's about Il Quds.] Its nuclear power, on top of its already overwhelming conventional superiority, ensures that. [Not to mention, takhaathul il muslimeen wil taqany bel dawla il madaniya o sarf il nethar 3an who they truly are. Bunch of pussies if you ask me.]

Such irresponsible use of it is what Shimon Peres was alluding to when he said that "acquiring a superior weapons system would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes - that is, forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands". [Ya3ni Shemon Biraiz b nafsa gaalha, fa laish iyoounek ba3th il naas yegolounlek "laaaa israel bas etdafi3 3an ro7ha khanat 7aily" is beyond me]. Or what Moshe Sneh [Hala yoba, tesharafna], a leading Israeli strategist, meant when he said: "I don't want the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to be held under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb." [Lena inta 3arif 7ajmik, ra7imma allah emre'en 3arefa gaddr nafsah]

As if the Arabs haven't had to negotiate under the shadow of an Israeli bomb these past four decades.


- - - Part 2 - - -

There are three ways the crisis can go.

1) Israel insists on, and achieves, the unchallenged perpetuation of its "original sin". [Ib'aa aabelny] For it isn't so much "the world", as President Bush keeps saying, that finds a nuclear Iran so intolerable, but the world on Israel's behalf; [Thank you for having the balls to say it. Ikhss 3ala shanabaat rijalat il dawla ily ma feehom zilim yan6eg ya David.]

He continues: not the risk that Iran will attack Israel that makes the crisis so dangerous, but that Israel will attack Iran - or that the US will take on the job itself. [7alaatik gaayel mn wain, 7alaaaatik gayel mn wain. Please read previous posts on the matter now]

In effect, Israel's nuclear arsenal, or the protection of it, has become a diplomatic instrument against its benefactor.

So here is a superpower, wrote the US strategic analyst Mark Gaffney, so "blind and stupid" as to let "another state, ie Israel, control its foreign policy". [Il 3omoom yadry il thaher, bas 3ad arid o agoul, waina il zilim ily ye7achi mn mas'oleena il ashaawis?] And, in a brilliant study, he warned that a US assault on Iran could end in a catastrophe comparable to the massacre of Roman legions at Cannae by Hannibal's much inferior army [Did a search for those interested, found this pretty simple account of the battle]. For in one field of military technology, anti-ship missiles, Russia is streets ahead of the US. And Iran's possession of the fearsome 3M-82 Moskit could turn the Persian Gulf into a death trap for the US fleet. [Ya3ni sheghel saving private ryan 3ala topgun 3ala madri aish ma yidour? .. Please read about the Iranian military training a.k.a. flexing of muscles for the Gulf and the US-bases in the Gulf]

And sure enough, from the Bush administration itself, the first hints have been coming that, given the regional havoc Iran could indeed wreak, there may be nothing the US can do to stop it going nuclear. [Except perhaps stir up a war between il shee3a wil sinna if muslims don't get their priorities straight by disregarding any silly 'nationalist' articles in daily newspapers?]

2) Israel obliged to renounce its monopoly and the Middle East entering a cold-war-style "balance of terror". It could be a stable one. Clearly, like Israel, the mullahs would make irresponsible, political use of their nukes. But, like Israel's, Iran's nuclear quest is essentially defensive, even if not in quite the same fundamentally "existential" sense.

READ: Nothing could have more convinced it of the need for an unconventional deterrent than the fate of that other "rogue state", Saddam's Iraq, which the US had no qualms about attacking because it didn't have one. [If I might add, under the lie Bush marketed that Iraq was filled with WMDs]

3) Iran's abandonment of its nuclear ambitions - would stand its best chance of being accomplished if Israel were induced to do likewise; [madry laaaaish] not just because reciprocity is the essence of disarmament, but because it would signify a fundamental change in America's whole approach to the region.

And that might have positive effects beyond the nuclear. "There is only one way," said the Israeli military analyst Ze'ev Schiff, "to avoid a nuclear balance of terror: to use the time left, while we still have a monopoly in this field, to make peace ... In the framework of peace, a nuclear-free zone can be established." [3an nafsi? Ma athin.. call me pessimistic for all I care]

But that is the wrong way round.

To make peace, as the CIA foresaw, Israel doesn't need the intransigence that absolute security brings, but the spirit of compromise that a judicious dose of insecurity might. [Fancy way of saying: Israel i3yalt il kalb don't need to be so worried about changing their position. Itha rikhaw shway yemken mn sale7hom]

A utopian notion perhaps [la mo perhaps, ila shay akeed], with the world now so focused on the villainy of Iran - yet better than a US onslaught that would add so thick a layer to an already mountainous deposit of anti-western feeling that Israel could barely hope ever to win acceptance in the region. [Shlonek enta zain? Chethy 3ad mara wa7da acceptance?]

- - -

Original article.

Translated article.