Etcetera

Breaking News: Mayhem, Violence as Government Attempts to Halt Protestors in Iran

pO157.

Posted to Etcetera on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 02:48:50 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

The world is glued to its internet connections and television stations in horror as initial pictures begin to come out of pitched battles in the streets. The fallout from the allegedly rigged election continues as unconfirmed sources on the ground report protesters being beaten, shot (very graphic!), and detained by Iranian security forces. The BBC reports civil authorities and the military are discharging live ammunition into the crowds. This follows a stern warning from Supreme Ruler and Dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to halt protests against the election and support current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The leader of the opposition, Mir Hossein Moussavi,  was widely quoted as announcing on Saturday that he is prepared to die for his country in the coming days.

The situation will be updated as it becomes more clear. Currently it is difficult to confirm the situation on the ground due to the communications blockade the Iranian government has put on its own people.

[There's a good liveblog going from the Huntington Post, and Fark has threads devoted to what's going periodically throughout the day. -- DEMachina]

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, Allah Akbar (all tags)

This story: 34 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
6

more updates

DEMachina.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 07:57:25 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

First.  A story was printed in the Tehran Times yesterday saying the Assembly of Experts had expressed "strong support" for Khameni's statements the other day.  There are reasons to doubt its veracity, according to some Iranian citizens:


I just wanted to point out that the letter of support written by assembly of experts in support of Khamenei's sermon is only signed by the deputy leader of the assembly, who is a former head of the judiciary and a staunch supporter of ahmadinejad, as well as a rival of Rafsanjani for the assembly's leadership election. He is the only one signing the letter and the government sponsored news media are reporting it as a letter from the full assembly.
And

Once again thanks for the great job in reporting the events. Just a comment about your 7:33pm item about the Assembly of Experts. The statement is not by the Assembly of Experts, but by Mohammad Yazdi, the head of the "Dabirkhane" of the Assembly of Experts. His statement doesn't carry much weight and definitely not a blow to the freedom movement. After all, there are certainly many Khamene'i loyalists in the Assembly of Experts and such comments could be expected from these cowards.

Finally, the speaker of the Iranian parliament said on state-run TV that a majority of Iranians thought the election was fraudulent:

Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani suggests that some of the members in the Guardian Council have sided with a certain candidate in the June 12 presidential election.

Speaking live on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Saturday, the speaker said that "a majority of people are of the opinion that the actual election results are different than what was officially announced."

"The opinion of this majority should be respected and a line should be drawn between them and rioters and miscreants," he was quoted as saying by Khabaronline -- a website affiliated with him.

 

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

7

^ 6

Re: more updates

pO157.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 08:36:18 AM EST

none

Basically Khameni and Dinner Jacket are taking the hard line "my way or the highway approach" and the rest of the politicians are beginning to play both ends against the middle so when its time for somebody to be up against the wall they won't be the first? Got it.

Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmada and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!

14

Re: Breaking News: Mayhem, Violence as Government

DEMachina.

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 09:19:19 AM EST

5.00 (scary)

From the Guardian's liveblog:


The man who leaked the real election results from the Interior Ministry - the ones showing Ahmadinejad coming third - was killed in a suspicious car accident, according to unconfirmed reports, writes Saeed Kamali Dehghan in Tehran.


Mohammad Asgari, who was responsible for the security of the IT network in Iran's interior ministry, was killed yesterday in Tehran.

Asgari had reportedly leaked results that showed the elections were rigged by government use of new software to alter the votes from the provinces.

Asgari was said to have leaked information that showed Mousavi had won almost 19 million votes, and should therefore be president.


We will try to get more details later.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

11

U.S. Domestic Politics

novy.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 08:02:39 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Can anyone sensibly doubt that, but for Barack Obama's outreach to Muslim countries in general and to Iran in particular, events we have been watching in Iran would not have happened at all? If Bush or some Bush-clone like McCain had been president, making threatening noises about attacking Iran or letting Israel attack Iran, would Iranian nationalists have risked defying their government (by voting for opposition candidates or taking to Teheran's streets when their candidate didn't win), potentially exposing their country to foreign military intervention? If George W. Bush had been president while street scenes like ones we have been watching on television were taking place, can there be any doubt he would be beating his chest, congratulating himself and his hard-line policies for destabilising one of America's most prominent enemies?

Yet not only can Republicans not bring themselves to stand behind Obama even when his policies have unquestionably borne fruit, first in Lebanon and then Iran, they have become incapable of non-partisan response. They scream that Obama has been "weak". They wail about Obama's "apology" tours and his Cairo speech. They "blame" him for something they wish they could have achieved but couldn't. They demand that Obama act like Bush would have acted, threatening another war in another distant country with even more people than Iraq or Afghanistan, even though most experts think all such statements would have accomplished would have been to unite Iranians against Western nations. They beat their chests demanding stronger reaction by Obama even though in their hearts many of them know full well that any appearance of American interference might potentially weaken protesters' position.

Right-wing haters should be ashamed of themselves. They demonise someone who has done everything right even as they barked their insistence that he was selling America out. Obama has run American foreign policy with such finesse that, mere months into his presidency, Pakistan now plans to invade South Waziristan with its own troops after seven years of effectively protecting Taliban insurgents. Iranians now call their own hated clerics "Taliban" as if that very term has degenerated into cursing. American victory against religious nuts in Afghanistan/Pakistan has become thinkable, Iraqis have been declaring victory against their own nut-job insurgents. Al-Qaida operatives have been reduced to making futile calls for Muslims to ignore Obama's extended hand of friendship. Some sell-out. Some "weakness". Yet they cheered until they were hoarse at Bush policies that consistently failed for seven years, and none dare call it ignorance.

15

^ 11

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

pO157.

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 11:50:34 AM EST

none

With all due respect, I disagree. If yours was the case then wouldn't many of the protestors be calling for US/Obama intervention? I recall reading one comment where a woman asked if the UN could help, but didn't mention Obama. Obama is playing it the right way by staying out of it, lest he stir up remaining anti-American sentiment and play into the regime's pretent plan that the revolt is all a US/Israeli plot.

The reason this happened is because the government so blatantly stole the election. Had they been a bit smarter about it, then maybe things would have been fine.

Neither the GOP, Obama, the Dems or anybody else can get credit for this. It all goes entirely to the people of Iran.

Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmada and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!

16

^ 15

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

novy.

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 03:37:26 PM EST

none

I hadn't intended to suggest that Obama's speech and other efforts to reach out to Iranians had turned Iranians pro-American, nor had I intended to give "credit" for what has happened there to anyone other than Iranians. What I was trying to say was that Obama had managed to convince Iranians that America wasn't going to attack them, even if they appeared divided or weak. America's turn away from confrontation didn't cause Iranians to revolt, it allowed them to without fear of dangerous consequences, giving nationalistic Iranians space to turn their attention to domestic politics instead of remaining fixated on defending their country from external threats. Obama deserves "credit" not for Iranians' effort to take control of their own government but for changing American policy so that Iranians no longer felt any need to focus on remaining united so as to back America off.

I especially hadn't intended to suggest that Obama should interfere in events in Iran. That has been Republicans' pitch as they try to position themselves as "strong" while they complain about Obama's "weakness" and "neutrality". I completely agree with you that American (or Israeli) interference would stir up anti-American and anti-Western sentiment and that Obama has acted correctly by being circumspect, condemning human rights violations and political repression but otherwise backing off. My anger at right-wing Republicans has been focused on their ignorant and politically self-serving demands for America to intervene. Telling their emotionally-driven, militaristic, and intensely nationalistic base that Iranians' revolt has been driven by people who want to fall into America's political orbit, and that we owe it to those people to come charging to their rescue, amounts to irresponsible populist lunacy, but that has become SOP for Obama-hating Republican right-wingers.

As for Iran's stolen election, which you admit set off current protests, I think that Obama's speech and other outreach efforts may have been responsible for convincing Mousavi that negotiating with America could be fruitful, which position may, in turn, have scared Khamenei and other hard-liners into thinking that it was necessary to steal Iran's election to begin with. Again, that doesn't mean Obama or America caused what happened, merely that Obama and America created new conditions that allowed what happened to happen.

17

^ 11

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

MC Nally.

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 11:40:56 PM EST

none

Can anyone sensibly doubt that, but for Barack Obama's outreach to Muslim countries in general and to Iran in particular, events we have been watching in Iran would not have happened at all
You obviously will doubt that my position is "sensible" but I'm generally a fairly sensible guy and I believe that events that are now transpiring in Iran would have happened much as they have without Barack Obama's recent speeches -- heartbroken as some of us may be to realize it, relations with America are not the only (or even the chief) issue in Iranian politics.  If you honestly think hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Iranians are demonstrating in the streets and braving arrest and even gunfire principally because Obama gave a good speech I think you're nearly as deluded as people on the other side of the political spectrum whom I've seen opining that this is the inevitable fruit of Bush's efforts to promote "democracy" in the Middle East.

My belief is that American politicians do have it in their power to screw things up and shut down the demand for democracy we're seeing expressed in Iran (for instance, now would be a moronic time to drop a few bombs on Iranian nuclear sites) but credit for not screwing things up totally is not the same as credit for creating something.

20

^ 17

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:21:21 AM EST

none

Hope.

23

^ 20

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

pO157.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 04:27:49 PM EST

none

Change.

Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmada and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!

22

^ 17

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

novy.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:41:36 PM EST

none

Americans have become so used to their government screwing up that "credit for not screwing things up totally" really deserves to be accorded, at least until everyone gets used to government not routinely screwing up.

Again, for clarification's sake, although you already seem to grasp my distinction, I don't think Obama's speeches caused Iran's revolution but merely allowed Iranians to demand their rights without fear of foreign attack or invasion. Some of Obama's best decisions to date have been about things not to do. He doesn't threaten or revile allies, he doesn't talk down to Muslims, he hasn't continued to push for "unitary executive" powers, he hasn't pushed for new gun control legislation, and so forth.

We agree that attacks on Iran would derail any democracy movement in that country. If McCain had been elected on his platform of continued active hostility to Iran (among other countries), do you really think Iran's democracy movement would even have gotten started? If, by some miracle, one had started anyway, do you think that McCain would have refrained from "intervention" in Iran so that "our side" would win? Do you think that such intervention would have helped protesters or hurt them?

Your position seems sensible enough, but then you don't disagree with me quite as much as you think you do. Even your strawman characterisation of my views barely distinguishes what you have been saying from what I argued to begin with.    

24

^ 22

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

MC Nally.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:26:49 PM EST

none

Again, for clarification's sake, although you already seem to grasp my distinction, I don't think Obama's speeches caused Iran's revolution but merely allowed Iranians to demand their rights without fear of foreign attack or invasion.
To provide some context, the post I made in #17 was written (but not posted, due to network outage) before you had further clarified your position.  (You obviously had no way of knowing that.)  I am substantially closer to agreement with the position you staked out in your second post on the topic, but still think you're overstating the influence recent changes in US rhetoric have had on the process.
If McCain had been elected on his platform of continued active hostility to Iran (among other countries), do you really think Iran's democracy movement would even have gotten started?
Surely "gotten started" is the wrong phrase to use ("gotten" aside) -- the outpouring of anger and frustration we are seeing in the streets of Iran goes back much further than November's US elections.  Years and years of societal repression, demographic change, and poor economic performance have brought Iran to this boiling point.  Barring a less desperate reaction from the Iranian theocrats or some precipitous and very overt action against Iran by McCain at the very start of his presidency (which, I will grant, would have been quite conceivable) I still think we'd be seeing some version of this.
If, by some miracle, one had started anyway, do you think that McCain would have refrained from "intervention" in Iran so that "our side" would win?
That's a much more interesting question.  I have to admit that I have not been able to form a strong opinion regarding who, among the conservative commentariat calling for bold intervention from Obama, are just cynically scoring points with their own base, calling safely for ill-advised action they know will not be forthcoming, and who, by contrast, actually believe that strong intervention is advisable.  I simply can't tell which of them are eating their own dog food at this point.  Under ordinary circumstances I'd be intrigued by the question but the events unfolding in Iran are so much more fascinating to watch..

McCain's close to Lindsey Graham, who's been making the rounds on various news and panel-discussion shows advocating for bolder action from the USA.  I wouldn't rule out that a McCain executive team might be making some very different decisions right about now.  It's one of several big reasons why, as much as I prefer the executive and legislative branches to be controlled by opposing parties, I couldn't support McCain for president.  When it came to foreign policy I could never tell how much of his crazy posturing was just posturing and how much was actual crazy.

25

^ 24

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

novy.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:21:22 PM EST

none

No doubt Iranians have been sick of their country's misrule for years now. Would that anger have boiled over if Iran remained under external threat? Would Ayatollah Khamenei have even bothered to fix Iran's election if all major candidates agreed that Iran needed to be ready to defend itself against Israeli or American aggression? Answers to those questions seem to define how far apart we remain on this subject.

You seem to agree that McCain might well have used military force in Iran, which I think would have united most Iranians against American aggression and perhaps set off yet another ill-considered war in that region. If McCain would have used military force to make sure "our side" won in Iran, why wouldn't he have been threatening use of force against Iran as soon as he took office? If he was threatening force prior to Iran's election, why wouldn't America's role have become that election's central issue, assuring that reformers were doomed before any votes were cast?

Sadly, from my perspective, it doesn't really matter whether right-wing blowhards believe their own rhetoric or not. They intentionally stoke ugly emotions among people who can't be expected to know any better, hoping to sow some short-term political advantage even if they harm their country by doing so. Actual crazy? Only effectively crazy? Either way, "despicable" sums it up.

"Gotten started" wasn't proper English? I try to google these sorts of things before using them, but lots of people besides me have questionable levels of English literacy. Sorry.

26

^ 25

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

MC Nally.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:24:09 PM EST

none

No doubt Iranians have been sick of their country's misrule for years now. Would that anger have boiled over if Iran remained under external threat?
From their point of view, are the Iranians no longer under external threat?  Certainly Israel's policy towards them has not changed substantially, and the amount to which America's position has really changed remains untested.  Obama's Cairo speech was no doubt welcomed by many as a step in the right direction, but in the end it's still just one step.  You and I are obviously going to continue to disagree on the extent to which it influenced the current situation.  You seem to be arguing that it is a sine qua non, while I believe we'd be looking at some version of the current situation as long as whoever the US elected in November had not committed some sort of major f*ck up by now.
You seem to agree that McCain might well have used military force in Iran, which I think would have united most Iranians against American aggression and perhaps set off yet another ill-considered war in that region.
I agree that he might have, and that if he had, it is more likely than not that the results would have backfired.  Obviously we will never know how such a counter-factual event would have played out.  I'm willing to give Obama a gold star, if you insist, for not behaving idiotically, if that's how low we've set the bar these days.  And I do approve of the position he's taken.  But I'm reserving the use of words like "brilliant", "inspired", and "genius" for something that really deserves them.  Hopefully someday soon I'll get a chance to use them.
Sadly, from my perspective, it doesn't really matter whether right-wing blowhards believe their own rhetoric or not. They intentionally stoke ugly emotions among people who can't be expected to know any better, hoping to sow some short-term political advantage even if they harm their country by doing so. Actual crazy? Only effectively crazy? Either way, "despicable" sums it up.
Here's where we really part company.  I believe it makes a substantial difference whether they really believe their own rhetoric or not, because I believe there's a much greater chance of them acting on it if they do (the foregoing of course assumes that the politicians we're talking about are in power, which the group we're currently talking about are not.)  I don't much like such rhetoric either way, but I do believe it matters whether or not it's sincere.

28

^ 26

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

novy.

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:21:35 PM EST

none

I think external threats to Iran have been minimised. If Bush didn't let Israel bomb Iran before he left office, what reason exists for assuming Obama would? As for assuming there would have been no "major f*ck ups" if McCain had been elected, McCain wasn't just shoveling sh!t at Iranians, he was picking fights with Russia and anyone else that annoyed American neo-cons. Arguably, he was trying to set off some new global Cold War (if it stayed "Cold") to supplement Bush's War on Terror, just in case people lost interest in Osama bin-Laden as justification for continuing militarisation of American society. If Republicans were committed to allowing major banks and car companies to fail, how many options would they have had to keep their approval ratings above sea level when America's economy began to collapse in earnest a la Hoover besides war and threats of war? As Iranian mullahs understand all too well, when you don't know how to run your country's economy, scaring your people with external threats serves as your only ace.

Thank goodness you can argue that McCain might not have done anything really stupid to play to his Republican base if he had become president and that Republicans might not have really meant what they were saying. As you have noticed, since they didn't win power, we will never really know whether they were sincere or not. Rhetoric like what has been emerging from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et alia, or even what has been emerging from McCain's mouth lately, suggests to me that assuming that Republicans wouldn't have done what they said they would do would have amounted to taking huge risks with huge downsides. While I admit that sensible foreign policy may not be "brilliant" in any abstract sense, I have been comparing what Obama has been doing with what Republicans said they wanted in 2008 and what they have been screaming for ever since. In that context, Obama's foreign policy successes have been evidence of "brilliance".      

29

^ 28

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

Lou.

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM EST

none

just in case people lost interest in Osama bin-Laden

Who?

Minty fresh

30

^ 29

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

pO157.

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 02:51:49 PM EST

none

President George W. Bush.

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫

31

^ 30

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

Lou.

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:16:10 PM EST

none

Still not ringing a bell, I'm afraid.

Minty fresh

32

^ 31

Re: U.S. Domestic Politics

pO157.

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 03:17:57 PM EST

none

President Bush (43) lost interest in Osama Bin Laden to instead go and invade Iraq on some tenuous "evidence." Because of his intransigence we're now stuck in a quagmire.

♫You's a superstar boy, why you still up in the hood?♫

27

^ 25

Re: Gotten

MC Nally.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:31:54 PM EST

none

"Gotten started" wasn't proper English? I try to google these sorts of things before using them, but lots of people besides me have questionable levels of English literacy. Sorry.
It's debatable.  As with many other issues of English-language usage, don't expect consistency or universal agreement.  Nevertheless, here's one explanation, which seems to allow your use of "gotten":
Usage note:
For nearly 400 years, forms of get have been used with a following past participle to form the passive voice: She got engaged when she was 19. He won't get accepted with those grades. This use of get rather than of forms of to be in the passive is found today chiefly in speech and informal writing.

In British English got is the regular past participle of get, and gotten survives only in a few set phrases, such as ill-gotten gains. In American English gotten, although occasionally criticized, is an alternative standard past participle in most senses, especially in the senses "to receive" or "to acquire": I have gotten (or got) all that I ever hoped for.

1

Everyone's hoping the other side will blink.

MayorBob.

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:50:45 PM EST

none

Whereas the protestors were merely defying Ahmadinnerjacket and his hired thugs, now they're facing off against the guys with the real juice in Iran.  The real question is, will this revolution succeed a la the Boris Yeltsin-led smackdown of the commies trying to hang onto their Soviet Union once the people's army refused to back the commies.  Or will it go the way of the Tienamen Square uprising with the government busting up all opposition and imposing its political iron fist even as it allowed nascent capitalists to blossom like a thousand flowers.

If the ayatollahs want to kick out all the jams, they might want to hire this Chinese hostage negotiationer to deal with the rabble.

Tending to final details.

12

^ 1

Re: Everyone's hoping the other side will blink.

MC Nally.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 11:22:47 PM EST

none

Or will it go the way of the Tienamen Square uprising with the government busting up all opposition and imposing its political iron fist even as it allowed nascent capitalists to blossom like a thousand flowers.
I get the impression that even with the regime trying to control the information available to Iranians by locking down the press, the internet, and text messaging, simply too much is getting through, and too many people are involved firsthand, to make it feasible to sweep things under the rug like the Chinese government did after Tienanmen Square.  Whatever happens I don't think we're going to be looking at a situation where ten years from now the average Iranian isn't really aware anything happened here.  (Nor do I think even the Chinese government could keep a lid on something like Tienanmen if it happened today.  Decentralized communications technologies have come unbelievably far in 20 years.

13

^ 12

Re: Everyone's hoping the other side will blink.

Toby Flip.

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:57:50 AM EST

none

On the other hand, guns have not improved much over the last 20 years but their power to suppress remains just as strong as in Tienanmen.  According to the news there were no major protests on Sunday.  Probably because people were justifiably afraid of getting shot.  I sadly predict this will fizzle and die over the next few days as the workweek begins and world interest moves on to the next crisis.  

Guns: 1
Internet: 0

2

choice quotes

DEMachina.

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 04:06:03 PM EST

none

A couple good ones from the Huffington Post liveblog I added:


3:20PM EST: Just got home...haven't read you're blog yet but if there's a lot of stories about violence I'm sure they're all true. I don't know where to start, I'd taken my camera but had the sence to take out the memory card this came in hany as I was serched twice (by Basij) before getting stuck in the middle of hell. If I'd been caught with pictures it would mean jail time and a possible a charge of spying (as I'm a Canadian citizen). Eventually I dropped of the camera at the house of a friend without being able to take any pictures as it would make me a definate target...The chants of death to Khamenei are true...I witnessed peoples fear of the Basij dissapear, an 80 year old chadori woman with rocks in her hands calling for the exacution of khamenei and all Basij...A group of Basij were surrounded and forced in to a building, the front was blocked with garbage and set on fire, They (basij) opened fire on the crowd with what I assume were blanks, the crowed disspersed for a moment the came back with a fury...thats when the molotov cocktails came out. When I moved on the building was on fire...an hour later when I passed by again there wasn't much of a building left. There was full blown war...there was a young man who had taken all of a basij's things including their teargas rifle. We were finnaly able to get out on the back of motorcycle...the ride home took 25 minutes,for 15 minutes of it we were passing intermitently though Basij and protesters fires placed to displace the teargas... might I add the 3 hours that we walked through fire we didn't see one shop or car that had been damaged by protesters...however I just recieved word for the one who was kind enough to keep my camera and other belongings that the Basij had gone into her street and destoryed cars...thats all I can get out for now hope some of it may be useful...I'm pissed I was unable to get pictures.

And Iranian security forces are targeting people with cellphones:

I could not get through. the guards were hitting people really hard to block their way. I got hit a few times, fortunately a few bruises but nothing major. they were hitting the women as hard if it didn't seem harder. they smashed all mobiles and then smack the mobile owners with batons. they also blocked all above ground routes out. the only way out was via the metro

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

4

^ 2

Re: choice quotes

pO157.

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:15:23 PM EST

none

Leaving the homes and stores unharmed is an amazing thing. In almost every riot we see some idiots using the situation to cash in. It's amazing they are able to be so self policing and peaceful in the face of the violence from the government.

I'm not an Islamic scholar (nor have I read the Quran) but if its half as much the religion of peace as people say it is I assume there are numerous passages in there about not attacking the defenseless and such. If this is the case you have to assume it's blatantly obvious that the Ayatollah and his backwards friends aren't really religious scholars at all, but simply justifying their totalitarian cruel & tragic shenanigans under the cloak of what Allah says. Fuck them.

Even as we speak, Ayatollah Razmada and his cadre of fanatics are consolidating their power!

19

^ 4

Re: choice quotes

HidingFromGoro.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:22:07 AM EST

none

the Ayatollah and his backwards friends aren't really religious scholars at all, but simply justifying their totalitarian cruel & tragic shenanigans under the cloak of what Allah says. Fuck them.

Protip: None of them are.

3

had to share this one

DEMachina.

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 04:36:25 PM EST

none


The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. "I swear to God," he shouted at the protesters facing him, "I have children, I have a wife, I don't want to beat people. Please go home."

A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of "Join us! Join us!" The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad riot police officers on motorbikes.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

5

Some Interesting Stories

novy.

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 07:06:15 PM EST

none

Ayatollah Khamenei's speech condemning foreign interference in Iran's election focused on Britain rather than America. Has BBC's Farsi service really been that effective or has Khamenei been trying to avoid slamming any doors on negotiations with Obama?

For Westerners who think Ahmadinejad actually won, this Iranian student has some news for you.

Some of Iran's chief clerics, including Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoiniha, Grand Ayatollah Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardabili, and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri dispute Iran's election results and may be working quietly to overturn those results and/or encourage public demonstrations.

8

Re: Breaking News: Mayhem, Violence as Government

MayorBob.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 11:15:43 AM EST

none

Current body count in the riots -- ten killed and five members of an opposition politician's family detained by police.  Only it wasn't that opposition politician; it was the daughter and a few assorted relatives of former Iranian president Rasfanjani.  I guess they'll wait to put the cuffs on Mousavi because if they put the arm on him now the current street riots would look like recess at daycare.

Tending to final details.

9

^ 8

Re: Breaking News: Mayhem, Violence as Government

port1080.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 11:40:17 AM EST

none

Only it wasn't that opposition politician; it was the daughter and a few assorted relatives of former Iranian president Rasfanjani.

This becomes interesting, because Rasfanjani is the head of a group within the Guardian Council that can (theoretically) remove Khamenei from office.  Now, he's still have to get the rest of the group on board, and even if they did vote to oust Khamenei, there's still the question of who the military & police would support.  Still, definitely showing some major cracks in the regime's cohesiveness, which just further damages its legitimacy.  Even if Khamenei comes out on top, any notion that Iran is some kind of Islamic democracy will have been firmly put to rest.  Perhaps this will finally motivate the Europeans to get behind some real sanctions...

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

10

Government Attempts to Halt Protestors in Iran

skeptic.

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 02:16:49 PM EST

none

I am amazed to discover that the people of Iran care this much about democracy.  I had thought that they were perfectly happy to give up all their civil rights to a totalitarian theocracy.  Anyway, I can only wish the protesters success.  Perhaps a new day will dawn.

18

^ 10

Re: Government Attempts to Halt Protestors in Iran

HidingFromGoro.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:20:24 AM EST

none

I am amazed to discover that the people of Iran care this much about democracy.  I had thought that they were perfectly happy to give up all their civil rights to a totalitarian theocracy.

Seriously not trolling bro but why did you think that?

21

^ 18

Re: Government Attempts to Halt Protestors in Iran

skeptic.

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:52:22 AM EST

none

Ever since the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution which overthrew the Shah, as far as I could observe, the population of Iran has been solidly behind the theocracy, making every sacrifice asked of them, going to war with Iraq, triumphantly seizing the US embassy in defiance of all established international law and custom, supporting terrorism throughout the world; and at least the first election of the extremist (and former embassy hostage-taker)Ahmedinejad appeared to be completely legitimate.  That's who the Iranian public wanted.  Now they want something else, to my surprise.  But then, in a way this development can be compared to the fall of the USSR.  The USSR had what appeared to be a fully brainwashed population, blindly following their crazy communist leaders for over 70 years, yet at some point people were still able to say "you know, this really isn't working".  It's a fascinating phenomenon.  

33

It takes a lot to move me

Lou.

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 05:32:19 PM EST

none

I have a big ol' clump of scar tissue where my heart should be.  That said, the video of that young woman dying made me sadder than I've been in a long time.

Minty fresh

34

^ 33

Re: It takes a lot to move me

delete me.

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:47:50 AM EST

none

Ah, well. One of my elderly uncles has the heart of a young man. Literally.

Just seeing the pictures of violence in such a modern state as Iran was disturbing.

- derumi (del-me)
"It is the farewell kiss, you dog!" - Muntadhar al-Zaidi

This story: 34 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment