When you study American foreign policy, you can’t help but wondering it’s indeed not the interest of USA to have once unconquerable empires like Persia to be thriving and realize their full potential. US would rather have dysfunctional corrupt extremists dependent on foreign aids rule an entire region than challenging its hegemony.
So next time you hear our media preach how detestable other foreign leaders like Erdogan or Modi or MBS is, think twice what the agenda there is. USA has had no problems supporting savage regimes for their own interests. I will pick WMD monster Saddam Hussein any day everyday over whatever there is left in Iraq today. History repeats itself. Nation state with media collusion saturating its own citizens mind with propaganda to serve their own interests (often just a very small group of people living north of Richmond) where the same group of people keep drumming the war machines for decades under different banners. Enough said.
This is rather conspiratorial.
Great Britian and Russia have been involved in Iran since the 19th century (example[1]). They both invaded during WW2[2]. Britian left after the war but Russia stuck around. As the cold war began, the USA also got sucked into the mess in the middle east because Russia already had a presence there[3]. The US involvement is often portrayed as the beginning of this mess (just like you did), but it really isn't.
I promise that at no point did anyone involved say to themselves "I sure am scared of a modern Persian Empire". The country was simply caught up in the geopolitical chess game between world super powers. That doesn't make it right, but that's what it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuter_concession
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Honestly it doesn't sound like you've studied very much then. I would recommend you read up Ali Shariati who was the revolution's ideologue and someone who was extremely influential amongst those university students of 1979. He was also very influential among younger clerics as well as with Khomeini himself. His philosophy was that society would be guided by the intelligentsia instead of the clergy. His political philosophy was one that was intended to lead to a freer society. And indeed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution democratic institutions called "shuras" and "komitehs" arose which gave workers and the impoverished an economic and political voice. These were considered a threat to clerical power however and so power was consolidated and the revolution was highjacked. Your parroting of the just "blame the west" narrative is just plain lazy.
US actions don't remove the ability for their to be reliable observation that certain leaders are terrible. Kicking up hate for muslims is not a good thing long term for India. Killing your democratic enemies and cutting them up with saws in embassies is also clearly wrong. I feel completely empowered to point these things out, while being able to talk about the many problems in the US too.
It is tiresome to read again and again on the internet about how my country would be X or Y had the evil Westerners not "overthrown" the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953.
This false narrative is bandied around so much and so many fall for it with zero interest or curiosity to delve deeper to see if any of it is true.
Well, no, it isn't true.
Sadly, unfortunately, tragically, [insert adjective of your choice here]...
#Iran has NEVER been a democracy
Read that again.
While our future is bright and with the imminent the removal of the Islamic theocracy we will have the opportunity to have a secular democracy that represents and governs all Iranians, that will be a very important first for our ancient people, land and society.
What most ignorant people refer to in the above lazy copypasta are the events in and around 1953 with the appointment and dismissal of Mossadegh.
#READ THAT AGAIN
*appointment*
and
*dismissal*
Mossadegh was appointed, not elected, as per the 1906 Iranian constitution:
> ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Ira...
You and I may not like that article in the 1906 constitution. While we're free to have our opinions about it, we can not have our own facts. The facts are that just like previous PM's (which included him btw!) Mossadegh was appointed legally (in accordance with the enacted constitutional framework) and also legally dismissed as well.
Funny that no one mentions or even remembers the first time around that he was appointed and dismissed: 28 April 1951 appointed and 17 July 1952 dismissed (1 year, 80 days) but every ignorant person loses their minds re the second time in 1952/1953 !!
Furthermore, it is hilarious that Mossadegh is now seen by some ignorant people devoid of any historical knowledge as a symbol or champion of democracy.
Mossadegh was so "democratic" that his referendum to dissolve parliament so that he obtains absolute power won 99.93% of the votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_parliamentary_dis...
What did credible international publications think of his democratic zeal?
> TIME magazine: “Hitler’s best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja’s in 1936; Stalin’s peak was 99.73% Da’s in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.”
> NBC TV’s John Cameron Swayze announced: Mossadegh “has accomplished what Hitler and Stalin could not. He received 99 9⁄10 percent of the vote in a carefully managed referendum.”
> New York Times: “A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.”
> NYT, A Bid For Dictatorship, 7/15/52:”Having brought his country to the verge of bankruptcy,Premier Mossadegh is now trying to take it further along the road to ruin by demanding dictatorial powers for 6 months,on the plea that he needs these powers to pull Iran out of the crisis into which he has plunged it.What he proposes is in effect a legalized coup d’etat that smacks of Hitler’s technique.This is the legal device by which Hitler also acquired absolute powers he had no intention,of course, of surrendering them on termination of the ostensible period for which they had been granted, and there is no assurance that Mr. Mossadegh would act differently.”
> Melbourne paper, The Argus (8/21/53): “THE swift and violent overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh , Premier and virtual dictator of Persia, has been a complete surprise to the world, and a pleasant surprise to the Western half of it.”
The fact is many contemporary international news outlets referred to Mossadegh as a dictator because that’s what he was. There was nothing democratic about his reign (nor his coup attempt at overthrowing the Shah) Anyone who says otherwise is either naive or lying.
There’s only one reason a handful of Iranians have rehabilitated, re-branded, mythologized and continue to promote Mossadegh: their disdain for the late Shah.
Lamenting the loss of a Mossadeq because of democratic ambitions betrays a lack of knowledge of Iranian history.The most common misconception is that he was democratically elected. He wasn’t, he was appointed by the King.Another misconception is that he was a champion of democracy.
During his tenure Mossadegh dissolved the senate, shut down parliament, not once did he hold a full meeting of the council of ministers, suspended elections for the National Assembly, announced he would rule by decree, jailed hundreds of opponents, and the cherry on top of this "democratic" so called champion: he dismissed the Supreme Court.
This angered the National Assembly so he announced a referendum to decide if it should be dissolved. At the opening session he gave a speech aimed at intimidating dissenters saying only 80% of those present truly represented the people - for visuals think Saddam’s parliament speech with that cigar.
Our “champion of democracy” arranged that those voting for dissolution and those against voted in plainly marked booths. The signal was clear: anyone brave enough to vote in opposition would be beaten up by his street hooligans/Tudeh (Communist) supporters.
Dissolution won by 99% of all votes!
In one town with a population of 3,000, 18000 votes were cast in favor of Mossadeq’s undemocratic dissolution. His democratic ideals were so far reaching he allowed the dead to vote. Hundreds of people were killed during his rigged elections.
By the time of the counter-coup that toppled him he had 27 gallows put up on Sepah Square to hang his enemies in public. All but approximately 4 days of his premiership were under martial law/curfew. There was nothing democratic about his reign.
While a member of parliament he posed as a champion of the constitution, due process, representative govt, free press; but only in a few months did he do the things mentioned above. Khomeini promised democracy too. Had his revolution not succeeded he too would be touted a great democrat
From 1941-1979 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi appointed & dismissed 22 PMs (incl. Mossadegh twice) in accordance to the 1906 Constitution.Yet, Mossadeq is the only 1 referred 2 as “democratically elected” despite the fact that all were appointed and dismissed in the same manner.
What set Mossadeq apart from the pack were his political ambitions.After becoming Prime Minister he successfully forced the Shah 2 appoint him Minister of War,granting himself absolute power.He soon replaced officers w/those loyal 2 him, consolidating power to obtain the throne via a coup
When the Shah finally dismissed Mossadegh in accordance with his legal authority under the Constitution of 1906, Mossadeq had the officer who delivered the dismissal decree arrested, his Foreign Minister published an editorial in Bakhtar-e-Emruz denouncing the Shah & called for his ouster.
It’s clear to the objective student of Iranian modern history that Mossadeq initiated a coup against the Shah and the events that followed & led to Mossadegh’s downfall should more appropriately be labeled a “counter-coup”
The Mossadegh that many promote is more of a myth like CheGuevara. People think he stood for things which were inconsistent with reality.
Also, it bears notice that Mossadeq's own Chief of Police & cousin, General Daftari, joined the royal forces to topple him. He was disliked by everyone except his communist friends.
My understanding is that Iran has among the greatest Urban-Rural divides in the world, and that the rural population is large enough to democratically force their conservative views onto the urban population. Turkey seems to be in a similar position, but their proximity to NATO and Europe keeps them somewhat grounded.
> small group of extremists holds the entire country hostage
I'm just not sure that the group of people we consider extremists are that small.
In the past decade, there have been massive nationwide protests almost annually, often with election fairness as a theme.
The Iranian military has a special wing, the IRGC, that is dedicated to the Supreme leader and used to crush protest or dissent.
These are not characteristics of a functioning liberal democracy. If Iran's regime reflects the popular opinion of Iranians (which I believe it doesn't), then that's in spite of their government, not because of it.
This video explains their methodology and results: https://youtu.be/YONfg85gPU4?t=4341
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/iran-secular-shift-g...
It is possible the general population in Iran support this. All I know is that in countries where the people are allowed to voice their opinions freely, they generally oppose raping and torturing prisoners.
The conservative majority likes having an Islamic Republic, and has a lingering "memory" of the corruption and such of the Shah's regime, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like what the current regime has become. And as another poster said, the majority of the country, whatever their social/religious views, seems to be fed up with the country's rather dire economic state. It's been that way for the past like 5 years at least.
There have been a few, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
And Maria Ressa seems anti-Duterte, and pro-US if I read correctly.
Here's a visual representation of why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#/media/File:Bill_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AA_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_Th%E1...
It's pretty farcical.
See also: all of the winners whose pasts include revolutionary actions that killed innocents.
Did the US really admit that or was it something that was exposed by NGOs and investigators?
Snowden defected to Russia, see above about supporting ISIS. Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families who were working against AQ, another regime that openly oppresses its people's civil rights.
I think you might need to have a hard look at what you think peace is.
So far, the most civil rights a person can experience is under Western governance, flawed as it is.
To add context, Snowden became trapped in Russia when the US State Department decided to cancel his passport while he was at an airport there on the way out of Russia.
> Assange and Manning's exposure literally cost the lives of Afghan families
Exposure like the footage they revealed of US drones killing innocent civilians?
> The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.
Right, Assange is the problem, not the US military operations he exposed.
How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?
Tawakkol Karman (2011) has been a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia.
Willy Brandt received his prize specifically for increasing ties with the Eastern Bloc.
In terms of prizes giving for those working against particular regimes, anti-apartheid activists have received the most (1960, 1984, 1993).
A lot of people end up making assumptions based on their own personal biases.
The evidence strongly suggests that the Nobel committee doesn't like giving the prize against anti-western dissidents until they absolutely have to, i.e. when not giving the prize would raise more eyebrows and damage the Nobel's reputation. The two anti-western dissidents that come to mind are Nelson Mandela and (arguably) Martin Luther King. Again, they received the prize after achieving global fame and recognition.
ElBaradei won the prize for his work in the IAEA (whose primary focus has been on non-western nations) -not for his opposition to the Iraq war - whose primary focus has been on non-western nations.
Tawakkol Karman (2011) is another dissident against a non-western country.
Willy Brandt wasn't a dissident of the West. Far from it in fact - known for fierce anti-communist domestic policies , support for right-wing governments, the Vietnam war and for promoting greater European and western integration.
Nobel prizes given to anti-apartheid South African activists seem to be a laudable counter-example to the rule though.
Snowden exposed civil rights violations and constitutional violations but I wouldn’t say it contributed to the avoidance of war or conflict.
This should not be about “activism” but about political stabilization and the promotion of peace.
"[t]he recipient is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway. Since 2020 the prize is awarded in the Atrium of the University of Oslo" [0]
The winners are basically selected by a subset of retired Norwegian MPs, and even Alfred Nobel's living heir has become opposed to the politicization of the Nobel Peace Price [1]. So it's reflecting the values of a subset of the Norwegian elite
The comment above should NOT be viewed as a rejection of Narges Mohammadi's work.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
[1] - https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/i/wP6y1/i-strid-med-nobe...
Equivalent awards given out by dictatorships or theocracies around the world can be just as easily seen through the same lens of hypocrisy and cynicism.
Obviously there is a bias in the awards, but is there a way to not be biased? Also, there is space to create better Nobel prizes for sure so blaming Nobel prize is in a way linked to the world incapacity to promote something better?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian?wprov=sfti1
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee?wpro...
No. Only a handful of elite Norwegians, as the committee is 5 former MPs selected by the Norwegian parliament.
Apartheid South Africa's leaders were Judeo-Christian westerners as well, but the award was given to their foe Nelson Mandela
It is said many churches/cathedrals in Europe are now appreciated more for their historical value than as places of worship
But this ship has sailed, apparently.
OTOH it's really understandable that many people value fighting for a just cause higher than peace. The easiest way to peace is often to just surrender, and have peace on the terms of an evil aggressor. But it's not a kind of peace many people prefer to live in.
imho the nobel peace prize should take into account what is peace, not just focus on the absence of war. this is an outdated idea. Polemology vs. Irenology.
There are so many people contributing greatly to peace who are invisible. only the ones 'fighting against war' are made visible. and with those, like other commentors suggest, its often simply an opinion. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, and one mans soldier is anothers terrorist... they are all fighting, killing or destroying (destruction can be non-physical here). it should atleast be a nobel anti-war prize or something. not a peace prize. it doesn't do justice to the many people contributing actively to a culture of peace in one way or another.
Rigoberta Menchú (awarded 1992) was an activist against the abuses of US allied regime, which abuses were aligned with and arguably a manifestation of US geopolitical priorities, and the Rev. Dr. King (awarded 1964) was an activist against the abuses of the American regime itself.
Also take into consideration that any head of state, prime minister or cabinet member in any government can nominate people for the prize (A lot of other people can do that too)[2] . So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time
[1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/07/09/...
Norway
> So it would be always interesting to know who our governments officials nominated over time
There's a list of nominees [0].
The Pakistani Senate nominated Erdogan for this year's prize, for example [0].
That said, most nominations seem to be done by Norwegian MPs trying to message to their own constituents (eg. Abiy's nomination and the large Ethiopian diaspora voting bloc in Norway and Sweden) [1]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nobel_Peace_Prize
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/world/africa/ethiopia-abi...
Martin Luther King Jr got one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
I’ve always views the Nobel peace prize as a political body. Designed to highlight and reward people of a certain persuasion.
Iranian oil was nationalized; in 1951 the National Iranian Oil Company took control, and retained it even after Mossadegh’s ouster (even up to today).
> The UK (and US) sought the support of right-wing mullahs, then overthrew the prime minister and replaced him with a dictator.
First, by this point in time Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (he claimed that 99.9% of Iranians had voted to give him control of the country[1]). Second, he wasn’t replaced with a dictator. The Shah had been in power since the Soviet Union and the U.K. had forced his father to abdicate over a decade before, and had been in a power struggle with the Majlis for quite some time by that point.
> Eventually even the right-wing clerics and bazaari grew tired of foreign interference and threw the western powers out.
The Shah was (mostly) friendly with the West, but he was hardly a puppet. He was the one who got OPEC to double their prices during the 1973 oil crisis, which hit the West pretty hard. Here's how PBS put it[2]:
> The final blow came in December when the Shah of Iran, ostensibly a U.S. ally, took advantage of American impotence and persuaded the rest of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to more than double the price of a barrel of oil from $5.11 to $11.65.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-9... [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...
But I am grateful for them helping Ukraine even if it for their own geopolitical goals.
Surely Xi Jinping, MBS and Khamenei deserve the award for actual peace?
Yeah, that is three people we are told to hate. But they achieved actual peace.
Instead we get this Iranian woman that nobody had heard of before today.
Something is not right.
It wasn't a peace deal - it was a normalization of relations (aka they've reestablished diplomatic contact) [0]. Iranian and Saudi proxies are still killing each other in Syria and Iraq.
> We haven't heard about Yemen since.
That's because of Oman acting as a mediator between the Houthis and Saudis [1]
[0] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/12/saudi-iran-rapprochemen...
[1] - https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yem...
You mean the guy who has sworn allegiance to Putin and takes an anti-Ukraine stance on Twitter to save his neck? A guy who has made millions peddling 'his story' and lives a life of luxury in Moscow? Yeah, surely he should get a Nobel prize
Think the prize is politicized and corrupt? Whatever - it's not about you or your opinion.
Iran had a parliament in 1953, when the US and UK launched operation Ajax after the prime Minister nationalized Iran's oil. The prime Minister was ousted, a dictator replaced him - who returned to Iran on a flight with Allen Dulles. The conservative mullahs were western allies in removing power from the parliament.
Then this structure the west put into place fell out of alignment with the west in 1979, and we suddenly hear an enormous amount of stated sympathy about "women trapped in these regimes". Sympathy that we didn't hear when the CIA was handing SAVAK lists of progressive, secular women to arrest or kill. It's farcical.
You also fail to note that the PM in question had a “99%” referendum during his tenure. You also fail to mention that the said PM refused his constitutionally valid dismissal by the Shah and then proceeded to launch a COUP against the constitutional monarchy.
You fail to mention all this because NYTimes and CIA and the rest of the Western world is perfectly happy with the narrative of Kermit Roosevelt getting off the plane with a suitcase of dollars and then taking over a “99%” supported regime overnight! CIA is sure impressive!
The facts are that the PM in question began to alienate his allies — the Islamists — so they withdrew support, and very substantial chunk of the nation absolutely did not agree with his coup and his program of unilaterally changing the outcome of the 1905 Constitutional Revolution of Iran which do grant certain powers to the monarch. This includes dismissing the PM.
So, now that we have a more ‘rounded’ historic context of what actually led to ‘53 counter coup encouraged and supported by US and UK (which failed) and the next day’s Army’s counter-coup (which succeeded), the topical point remains:
Whatever CIA, or “Anglo-Saxons” or this or that evil empire has done in NO WAY excuse or elucidate the dictatorial regime of the clergy and their very open trampling the rights of women in Iran.
I am not sure what is the Islamist version of “Tankee” but you are it.
[and a ps for Iranians in the audience]
If you continue to repeat the ridiculous NYTimes/CIA version of the story you are denigrating our great people. The idea that some flunky from CIA with a suitcase of cash managed to unseat a “99%” PM overnight mainly says that Iranians are mindless chumps who are trivially manipulated. This is neither flattering or accurate.
This is a prize awarded by the 2023 Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. The oldest member of the committee was 4 years old in 1953, and all five are Norwegian, not American or British. The person who received the award is an Iranian woman.
Why the hell is the bad behavior of the CIA in 1953 relevant to this discussion? "The West" is not a monolithic entity that should be held accountable as a single unit indefinitely for evil things done by two countries 70 years ago.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06...
Regardless, if we don't like dictators or power grabs, then we certainly shouldn't like the current regime in Iran.
Anyone old enough to vote in 1979 is probably pretty close to retirement now. Almost everyone in a position of power in 1979 is probably dead. Obviously Biden was a young senator, but that's about it.
The fact is, the mullahs torture and kill anyone who speaks up. That's happening now, not 71 years ago.
"women trapped in these regimes" does not need quotation marks, unless you think there are NO women trapped in these regimes.
Here's a hot take -- I think all the Nobel Prizes, not just the Peace Price are politicized, corrupt, pop-culture-ish, and basically just in-group accolades! Similar to the Academy Awards.
Nice can also mean silly and ignorant, as any well-aged dictionary would tell you. [0] We are reflecting, on the corruption and politicization of our institutions.
> Think of what this woman and many other women trapped in these regimes are going through, the sacrifices they've made, and the bravery they show to try to make things better.
Essentially the same Bush-era "plight of the Afghan women" kind of appeal to emotion to justify corruption, interventionism, and war [1].
Also, I'm pretty sure you don't really know much about the political situation in Iran. Mohammadi belongs to a political faction called the Reformists [2], which is filled with regime apologists and charlatans. More specifically, she belongs to a particular branch which is sometimes called Neo-Shariatism [3]. Shariati himself was the "ideologue of the Islamic Revolution" [4], and a full-fledged charlatan who used to falsely claim to have a PhD in sociology from Sorbonne [5].
Mohammadi is currently a political prisoner, but that obviously isn't something which merits a Peace Prize. I'm sure that there isn't a shortage of political prisoners in the Islamic Republic.
[0]: https://www.websters1913.com/words/Nice
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attack...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Reformists
[3]: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/6b552565-6ff8-45a0-a0e...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati
[5]: http://www.shariati.com/bio.html (Compare this with the Wikipedia article, which says he got a PhD in Persian. Even that is dubious.)
Hmmm. Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill, but the Peace Prize has been very strange of late in general.
By its own lights, I don't see a single person or entity who would deserve the prize this mad year. Maybe there's some ethicist somewhere...
Narges is one of the most inspiring women in confronting the inhumane regime of the Islamic Republic, which never stops committing crimes. A regime that sent a 16-year-old girl into a coma just a few days ago because of her hijab [1]. Narges spent most of her life in the most dangerous prisons in Iran for her activities, and I think this award was not only for her, but also for the all oppressed women in Iran in the last four decades.
[0] https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/about-the-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/iran-activists...
I am posting this again because my first post has been shadow banned.
To name one: Hume & Trimble (1998) was considered ironic because it was viewed as kind of reward for ceasing violence they initially caused. Similar remarks were made in 1993 about Mandela and De Klerk. It can even be argued that Gorbachev and Carter had blood on their hands before becoming saints.
Maybe this kind of ambiguity is simply rooted in the fact that the monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel.
' Guess "contribution to peace" is less about ethics and more of a political concept.
Note that net-net, the invention of dynamite probably saved many lives. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite invented by Nobel isn't very useful for military purposes, and has never been in wide military use. It can't be safely stored for long periods or in hot conditions, making it ill-suited for battlefield logistics. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite is primarily used in mining and earth-moving.
Properly stored, dynamite is both much safer and more powerful than the black powder or liquid nitroglycerine that were primarily used in mining and earth-moving before the invention of dynamite.
Much later, "military dynamite", a more stable dynamite substitute devoid of nitroglycerine and more suited to military use was developed. While more stable, it's more expensive, and less commonly used. I don't believe Nobel had anything to do with the development of military dynamite.
And then he proceeded to bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Syria, etc.
Neither of them started the armed resistance against it, either, though Mandela obviously participated in that.
Oppressive regimes like to use these sorts of rhetorical ploys to discredit social movements. Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency? Or are they just puppets to foreign machinations?
LOL, try harder. NGOs paid by the westerners are a thing, but you sure know that. If these people did not get free money for their actions, they would be silent.
"Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency?"
"Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party.
Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.
Would it surprise you if she won Nobel prize for chemistry for advocating freedoms ? It would surprise me
Remember when a man received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush?
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.
Remember when he started droning civilians all over the Middle East anyway, just because they might have been linked to Al-Qaeda?
The same Al-Qaeda US supported and trained a couple decades before that.
It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon.
The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.
