what's amazing about them is that they have a lot in common, although their differences are notable
Bin Laden: Born in Saudi Arabia, he studied in the US and became a fan of the US. He reached power in Afghanistan. He was backed by the US. He became assuming (and in a pre-planned scenario) attacked the US. The US called him a terrorist. Bin Laden disappeared.
Saddam: Born in Iraq, got to power in Iraq. Became US's ally. Attacked Iran. Became closer to the US. He became assuming (and in a pre-planned scenario) attacked Kuwait. The US called him a terrorist. He was captured.
Rajavi: born in Iran, he called the US "imperialism". Revolution took place. He was deprived from power, so he became angry. He made friendship with Saddam. In Iraq, Celebrated Bin Laden's operations. Bush toppled Saddam. Rajavi moved toward Bush. The US didn't like him. He persisted. The US didn't accept. Committed suicide. Pentagon accepted. Rajavi disappeared.
Similarity: in the view of these 3 ones, both the US and imperialism are lovely/ all three are reactionary cultists/ none of them has popular support/all of them are laughing at the people!
Differences: two Arabs, one Persian/ two with moustache, one with moustache and beard/ two disappeared, one in prison/one wanted by the US, one in US prison, one looking for the US!
Historical conclusion: the only lesson from history is that no one gets lessons
Political conclusion: power is blight, whether you have it or you are looking for it!
Moral conclusion: in the doctrine of opportunist power-seekers, moral has not been defined!
Terrorist conclusion: terrorism is good, depending on who the terrorist is?!
Spokesman for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Council said that Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) that has received asylum from France is today supported by the upholders of human rights though...