Current Iranian unrest will lead to regime change.

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

...or not.

I am very happy to see thousands of brave Iranians give the finger to Mr. Ayatollah and protest against the police and the army. They face mortal danger.

But yet, a lot less people came out this Saturday. Was it because they fear for their lives? Or because they actually respect the words of the immortal Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah?

Should Obama be speaking out more in support of the protestors? Or would that just add an unneccessary propaganda tool to the Mullahs?

I recall a tv program that stated that as battle over the wall in Berlin was taking place, Bush I made every attempt not to appear to be on the side of the German protesters, or the Soviets. And Gorbachev later thanked him for this. Perhaps Obama is making the same calculated decision. If so, good for him.

Will this lead to a new revolution? Will the Islamic dictatorship be removed and democracy take hold?

:confused:

[ravdin]

Should Obama be speaking out more in support of the protestors? Or would that just add an unneccessary propaganda tool to the Mullahs?

A lot of people have drawn comparisons to the 1956 uprising in Hungary against communist rule. President Eisenhower and VOA made a lot of noise, leading many Hungarians to believe that the US would intervene on their behalf against the Russians. Naturally, they felt betrayed when that didn't happen.

Unless we're willing to directly intervene (which would not be desired by either side in Iran), there's only so much that we can say. I think that Obama's hitting the right notes, so far- he's called for an end to the crackdown but not in a way that would lead anyone to believe that we have any plans to intervene.

Will this lead to a new revolution? Will the Islamic dictatorship be removed and democracy take hold?

Maybe eventually, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. My most optimistic scenario would be that Khamanei/A'jad will be forced out of power, and a new Supreme Leader/President will be in. The Islamic Republic would remain more or less the same, but a good bit more open (given that the new leaders wouldn't dare to steal another election, for example).

[Thunder]

Maybe eventually, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. My most optimistic scenario would be that Khamanei/A'jad will be forced out of power, and a new Supreme Leader/President will be in. The Islamic Republic would remain more or less the same, but a good bit more open (given that the new leaders wouldn't dare to steal another election, for example).

The fall of Khamein would be great..but I dont see it happening.

Ahmedinajad losing power, however, is possible.

anything that brings more freedom, more openness, and more democracy to Iran, is a big step.

brainwashed regimes often require baby-steps. and the brainwashing has been severe.

[icerat]

But yet, a lot less people came out this Saturday. Was it because they fear for their lives? Or because they actually respect the words of the immortal Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah?

While I think numbers may have been down due to fear, I think it may at least partly have been an illusion. The regime apparently instigated a strategy of blocking entrance roads to the ralling point, so different groups could not come together into the extremely large crowds seen earlier in the week.

Should Obama be speaking out more in support of the protestors? Or would that just add an unneccessary propaganda tool to the Mullahs?

Part of the Mullah's strategy is to try to blame the unrest on the US. Obama speaking out too much would simply enhance the Mullah's position. He's doing the right thing I think.

I recall a tv program that stated that as battle over the wall in Berlin was taking place, Bush I made every attempt not to appear to be on the side of the German protesters, or the Soviets. And Gorbachev later thanked him for this. Perhaps Obama is making the same calculated decision. If so, good for him.

I can't think of anything he says that could help much, so there's only room for harm.

Will this lead to a new revolution? Will the Islamic dictatorship be removed and democracy take hold?

I've been predicted this weeks actions for a couple of years. It may go the way of Tiananmen, where no change was obvious, yet the country has opened greatly in the ensuing years. Even if there's no sudden change in the power structures, it's enough to put fear into the hearts of the true despots, and a mood for change in the hearts of the merely power hungry.

What will change things is if part or all of the army decides to back the protestors. Then we'll see either a complete collapse of the government or a bloody civil war.

[Thunder]

What will change things is if part or all of the army decides to back the protestors. Then we'll see either a complete collapse of the government or a bloody civil war.

i dont see that happening. Iran is kinda like the Nazi regime. they have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Ayatollah and they are unlikely to break that oath.

[CapelDodger]

Whatever happens the regime will be changed. More in the evolutionary than revolutionary sense, IMO. It's very hard to see where it's going.

Obama is, I think, striking exactly the right line with "the world is bearing witness". This is a matter about and for Iranian society, however hard Khamenei's faction try to make it about the outside world. (The UK the "most evil"? This guy is really living in the deep past.)

Khamenei has got himself between a rock and a hard place and seems at a loss. He's tried exerting his moral authority, but he blew that when he endorsed Ahmedinejad before the election. And it hasn't worked. He's tried a bit of force but that hasn't worked. Too much force will bring the system's legitimacy into question, and may still not work.

He's already lost a great deal of face and only stands to lose more, whatever he does. And he may not be completely in command of the situation anyway.

Interesting times :).

[CapelDodger]

brainwashed regimes often require baby-steps. and the brainwashing has been severe.

And pretty ineffective apparently.

[icerat]

For those who haven't already discovered it and aren't willing to track the multiple message a second #iranelection twitter feed, the best ongoing coverage I've found is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com

I'm truly astounded that this isn't getting more media coverage. A successful Iranian revolution would completely rewrite the current story of the middle east. People are fighting for freedom and literally dying in front of cameras, but because it's not official media channels some outlets are hardly touching the stuff. One swedish news channel tonight did little more than report the Iran government line (probably BS) about 1 dead from a suicide bomber. No mention of the multiple deaths captured on camera phone and posted on the net! No mention of the beatings of women sitting on the sidelines, captured on camera. Why the silence?

[CapelDodger]

i dont see that happening. Iran is kinda like the Nazi regime. they have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Ayatollah and they are unlikely to break that oath.

They've done nothing of the sort. That would be the most obscene blasphemy imaginable.

[Thunder]

They've done nothing of the sort. That would be the most obscene blasphemy imaginable.

i am gonna look into that.

[CapelDodger]

I'm truly astounded that this isn't getting more media coverage.

The BBC's been very good on it, as has CNN. The BBC hs John Simpson on the ground, so we know it's serious :).

A successful Iranian revolution would completely rewrite the current story of the middle east.

The last one did.

People are fighting for freedom and literally dying in front of cameras, but because it's not official media channels some outlets are hardly touching the stuff.

Palestinians have been making that complaint for a long time. And there lies the rub for Khamenei and Ahmedinejad, who have made such a big thing of the Palestinian situation. Official Iranian channels are full of it.

If they are seen doing what they condemn Israel for, what legitimacy will they have left? They'll show themselves up as a desperately fading historical accident, just as they paint Israel.

Interesting times. All respect to the Iranians that are putting themselves on the line, just as people put themselves on the line to gain me the society I appreciate so much. I can only hope that I would do as much in their place, but I'm frankly glad I've never been called on to do so.

[Thunder]

If they are seen doing what they condemn Israel for, what legitimacy will they have left? They'll show themselves up as a desperately fading historical accident, just as they paint Israel.

Interesting times. All respect to the Iranians that are putting themselves on the line, just as people put themselves on the line to gain me the society I appreciate so much. I can only hope that I would do as much in their place, but I'm frankly glad I've never been called on to do so.

lets attempt to make this an Israel-free thread, shall we? :)

i think the media has been doing a pretty good job covering this, especially PBS, CNN, and BBC.

[CapelDodger]

i am gonna look into that.

When you look into the Iranian constitutional arrangement leave a trail of breadcrumbs so you can find your way out :).

It's a system with a lot of give in it. The Supreme Leader might declare that he's shocked - shocked - to discover that he's been misled by self-interested advisors that he innocently trusted. Such as Ahmedinejad and a bunch of conspirators yet to be determined ...

It's axiomatic that you don't attack the Prince to change policy, you attack his evil counsellors. That leaves him a get-out. Khamenei still has that option : who better than an Ayatollah to claim unworldliness as an excuse?

[Thunder]

It's axiomatic that you don't attack the Prince to change policy, you attack his evil counsellors. That leaves him a get-out. Khamenei still has that option : who better than an Ayatollah to claim unworldliness as an excuse?

he could also pull a George Kostanza:

"was it wrong for us to kill protesters? Had I been told that when I first applied for the job, I might have been more sensitive to this matter."

;)

[Bikewer]

The Friday News Roundup on Diane Rehm had all the international reporters expressing this idea. They were all of the opinion that these events would seriously and permanently damage the existing power structure.

[CapelDodger]

lets attempt to make this an Israel-free thread, shall we? :)

I agree in principle, but in context Israel can't be ignored. Not for what it might be but for what the current Iranian regime have made of it. They've made it an icon of Western imperialism, the overthrow of which is the foundation of their Revolution.

To the average Iranian Palestine is an Arab problem, and they don't really mind Arabs having a bad time. There's some history there ...

i think the media has been doing a pretty good job covering this, especially PBS, CNN, and BBC.

I think so. What's perhaps most telling in a general sense is the amount of material that gets out despite restrictions in an age where mobile phones are video cameras. Gone are the days when cameras were bulky and film had to be smuggled out.

[CapelDodger]

The Friday News Roundup on Diane Rehm had all the international reporters expressing this idea. They were all of the opinion that these events would seriously and permanently damage the existing power structure.

I'm sure it will change it. What's remarkable is that it's been brought to a head deliberately by the Khamenei faction. Whether or not the election was fixed, Khamanei's endorsement of Ahmedinejad before the first ballot (let alone before a run-up) set up a deliberate confrontation. It was akin to a British monarch endorsing a political party before an election - whatever happened, things wouldn't remain the same. (It doesn't have to end in beheading though. Sacrificing an evil counsellor often does the trick.)

[Roadtoad]

I don't see much chance of regime change. For one thing, with the Mullahs running things, regardless of what the people themselves want, it's going to be the Mullahs' way. They are the ones with the military power, and that's pretty much what's been keeping Iran in some semblance of order over the years, even as the economy's gone to hell.

There's also the matter that no one, especially not the US, wants to get in the middle of this fight. Once you're in, there's literally no way out. They have you by the short hairs.

Just my $.02 worth.

[Darth Rotor]

The BBC's been very good on it, as has CNN.
No sir, CNN are cocked up as usual. Christiana Amanpour is on the case, and she is a liar. A professional who is paid for that talent.

Saw way too much of CNN's coverage tonight while at dinner with family, which pissed off Mrs Rotor as I was paying to her mind too much attention to the telly. I had two shots of scotch, neat, to toast whomemever in Teheran decided to show some stones.

Well done, lads.

As to other media organs, no idea who has the access necessary to give the vultures row (all of us who don't live in Iran) a view to what's up with their current fun and games.

DR

[CapelDodger]

I don't see much chance of regime change. For one thing, with the Mullahs running things, regardless of what the people themselves want, it's going to be the Mullahs' way. They are the ones with the military power, and that's pretty much what's been keeping Iran in some semblance of order over the years, even as the economy's gone to hell.

The economy hasn't gone to hell, it just isn't doing as well as it might have done. There's no shortage of mobile phones.

The current regime's power isn't based on the military; the Iranian military has a tradition of acting by not acting. It didn't act to prevent the Shah's coup d'etat or the one that overthrew him. The regime's power is based on its legitimacy as defenders of the Revolution - a legitimacy that's worn very thin over time. That's why it keeps harping on about external threats, from the US, Israel and (gawdelpus) the UK.

The post-Revolution, post-war generations aren't very susceptible to that.

There's also the matter that no one, especially not the US, wants to get in the middle of this fight. Once you're in, there's literally no way out. They have you by the short hairs.

Just my $.02 worth.

It's nobody's affair but the Iranians'. That, ultimately, was the point of the Revolution. And it was a valid point : Iran is not our business in principle, and it's no longer our business in practice. They'll sort something out.

[Policenaut]

No one has any access. That's why CNN and FOX are getting news from Twitter and Youtube instead of the AP. MSNBC of course is busy showing Locked Up reruns tonight.

[Thunder]

That's why it keeps harping on about external threats, from the US, Israel and (gawdelpus) the UK.

lolol!! i like that

[dudalb]

It's nobody's affair but the Iranians'. That, ultimately, was the point of the Revolution. And it was a valid point : Iran is not our business in principle, and it's no longer our business in practice. They'll sort something out.

Your concern for freedom and democracy are touching.

And when Iran supports groups like Hezbollah?

[Policenaut]

It's nobody's affair but the Iranians'. That, ultimately, was the point of the Revolution. And it was a valid point : Iran is not our business in principle, and it's no longer our business in practice. They'll sort something out.

With the actions taken by the regime (I assume there are greater and more widespread violence that hasn't been reported yet) I think it should at the very least be the business of the UN.

[dudalb]

I just saw the footage of the woman. If you do not what I am talking about, you soon will.
My God. Godwin be damned, Heinrich Himmler's Merry Men could not have done much worse.

[Thunder]

Your concern for freedom and democracy are touching.

And when Iran supports groups like Hezbollah?

The USA supports China. whats the difference.

[Roadtoad]

I just saw the footage of the woman. If you do not what I am talking about, you soon will.
My God. Godwin be damned, Heinrich Himmler's Merry Men could not have done much worse.

Just watched it myself.

Ya THINK!?!? Any chance she could be gagged?

[Minadin]

I agree with the USA admin's tact of stating that the situation in Iran needs to be decided by the will of the Iranian people and not subverted. I wish we could do more for those who are fighting for democracy and moderation, but I fear that any actual intervention might do more harm than good on the stage of global politics. In the mean time I hope they can accept our heartfelt well-wishes and general support.

It also may turn out still that more Iranians did actually vote for the current President, and if that's the case and if we're promoting that the 'voice of the people' be heard, we need to be prepared to accept and deal with that as well.

Personally, I would be most happy with new polls (or a run-off between the top 2) with some sort of international oversight (let Iran pick half and the UN pick half) and validation. But, it seems like that isn't likely to happen. We'll see.

[dudalb]

The USA supports China. whats the difference.



God, Parky , drop the moral equvilence garbage.Few people are buying that.

[Minadin]

What footage of what woman?

[Thunder]

God, Parky , drop the moral equvilence garbage.Few people are buying that.

China murders countless people in Tibet. The USA supports China through Most-Favored Nation trade status and other goodies.

Moral equivalence? You betcha!!

[ravdin]

China murders countless people in Tibet. The USA supports China through Most-Favored Nation trade status and other goodies.

Moral equivalence? You betcha!!

If I wanted to make a moral equivalence argument, I'd probably pick Saudi Arabia. They have all of the despotic attributes of Iran- an absolute monarchy, no free speech, armed thugs enforcing religious "virtue" in the streets, and zero tolerance for dissent. Unlike in Iran, women can't vote, drive a car, or walk about with their faces uncovered. And yet the Saudis are our allies. Go figure.

[egslim]

Your concern for freedom and democracy are touching.
Not speaking for CapelDodger, but democracy includes the people's right to self-determination. And freedom also means to be free of unwanted foreign intervention.

You fault others for their lack of concern, but you don't even understand the meaning of.

[icerat]

What footage of what woman?

Google "Neda Video". A beautiful young girl apparently shot throw the heart by a Basij sniper while not even participating in the riots. Her death was captured on two different cell phone videos. Harrowing.:covereyes

[Policenaut]

CNN and FOX both were showing the video last night but heavily pixellated.

[Thunder]

Not speaking for CapelDodger, but democracy includes the people's right to self-determination. And freedom also means to be free of unwanted foreign intervention.

You fault others for their lack of concern, but you don't even understand the meaning of.

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.

The USA should stay out of this one, for the time being. The last thing we need is for this to be turned into another American sponsored coup.

[Darth Rotor]

Google "Neda Video". A beautiful young girl apparently shot throw the heart by a Basij sniper while not even participating in the riots. Her death was captured on two different cell phone videos. Harrowing.:covereyes

Not sure how you determined who shot her. A source I clicked on commented that she "had been shot by police." Looked like a throat shot. A bit tough to tell.

Poor girl. The folks trying to render first aid/stop the bleeding by direct pressure seemed to be applying pressure to her throat area. All that blood was not a good sign.

[CapelDodger]

With the actions taken by the regime (I assume there are greater and more widespread violence that hasn't been reported yet) I think it should at the very least be the business of the UN.

It's an internal affair so by definition it isn't UN business. A fundamental tenet of the UN is that it cannot interfere in internal affairs. The sovereign states which founded it wouldn't have it any other way. In fact they wouldn't have accepted the UN at all if it hadn't been neutered at birth.

[ddt]

It's an internal affair so by definition it isn't UN business. A fundamental tenet of the UN is that it cannot interfere in internal affairs. The sovereign states which founded it wouldn't have it any other way. In fact they wouldn't have accepted the UN at all if it hadn't been neutered at birth.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence; but not with the "neutered". The UN is an organization of states, so it's concerned with the relations between those states, and it's only logical they shouldn't interfere in internal affairs. That would be a big cession of the states' sovereignty, much bigger than what, e.g., the EU states have ceded to the EU.

Back to Iran: it is reported that Rafsanjani's daughter has been taken into custody.

[CapelDodger]

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.

Absolutely not. I'm sure the people of Zimbabwe would love foreign interference (despite their colonial past) but the Iranians have had quite enough of that. Despite never being formally annexed to an Imperial Power Iran was their playground for a century and a half, first in the Great Game of India between the British and Russian Empires and then as an oil-source. That all ended with the Revolution of '79.

The USA should stay out of this one, for the time being. The last thing we need is for this to be turned into another American sponsored coup.

Those days are long gone, and not just in Iran. The US couldn't even organise a successful coup in Venezuela, which is in its back-yard. The idea that the US "should do something" is so 20thCE.

[Roadtoad]

If I wanted to make a moral equivalence argument, I'd probably pick Saudi Arabia. They have all of the despotic attributes of Iran- an absolute monarchy, no free speech, armed thugs enforcing religious "virtue" in the streets, and zero tolerance for dissent. Unlike in Iran, women can't vote, drive a car, or walk about with their faces uncovered. And yet the Saudis are our allies. Go figure.

Obviously you've forgotten the phrase, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.

The USA should stay out of this one, for the time being. The last thing we need is for this to be turned into another American sponsored coup.

As CD said: At this point, we don't have the ability to organize a kid's birthday party.

[alfaniner]

I think this will accomplish in Iran what Bush tried to do in Iraq, i.e., force democracy onto the populace. The change has to come from within. Well, at least it's a start.

[icerat]

Not sure how you determined who shot her. A source I clicked on commented that she "had been shot by police." Looked like a throat shot. A bit tough to tell.

Poor girl. The folks trying to render first aid/stop the bleeding by direct pressure seemed to be applying pressure to her throat area. All that blood was not a good sign.

The information is out there. The fellow who uploaded the video was apparently a doctor and attended her immediately, his friend was videoing. The doctor is the one who said she was shot through the heart by a rooftop sniper. There are 2 separate videos of the incident on the 'net.

[Oliver]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

...or not.

I am very happy to see thousands of brave Iranians give the finger to Mr. Ayatollah and protest against the police and the army. They face mortal danger.

But yet, a lot less people came out this Saturday. Was it because they fear for their lives? Or because they actually respect the words of the immortal Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah?

Should Obama be speaking out more in support of the protestors? Or would that just add an unneccessary propaganda tool to the Mullahs?



Obama would be even more stupid than Bush if he would side with anyone in the Iranian uprising. Not just for being used as propaganda, but even more importantly because it would destroy every diplomatic efforts so far to rationally communicate with Iran - without both sides using the opponent as propaganda. [See: Bolton, Lieberman, Ahmadinejad, McCain, Kristol, etc...]

[geni]

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.


Notice the protest signs in english? At the very least they want us to take note.

[JihadJane]

(given that the new leaders wouldn't dare to steal another election, for example).

Has it been established that the election was stolen?




Part of the Mullah's strategy is to try to blame the unrest on the US. Obama speaking out too much would simply enhance the Mullah's position. He's doing the right thing I think.

Well, the US does set itself up for such accusations. Has Obama, ordered a halt to the covert destabilisation operations that the Bush regime instigated in Iran?

[dudalb]

Why am I not surprised that Jihad Jane is sticking up for the regime in Iran?

[nota]

we could thoughtfully return all the arms iran sent to the nuts in iraq
and try to see that they fall into the hands of the protesters not the government
as these are the arms from iran they can't really protest to much :D

[Thunder]

Has it been established that the election was stolen?
Well, the US does set itself up for such accusations. Has Obama, ordered a halt to the covert destabilisation operations that the Bush regime instigated in Iran?

You are either on the side of reformists and democrats..or you are on the side of the Islamist fundamentalist Mullahs.

Pick one.

[CapelDodger]

Has it been established that the election was stolen?

Not as such. Nor has it been shown to be fair - which would be easier to do.

Well, the US does set itself up for such accusations. Has Obama, ordered a halt to the covert destabilisation operations that the Bush regime instigated in Iran?

Yes, but covertly. I have it on good authority.

Bush and Ahmedinejad were perfect foils for each other, but Obama is not going to fill that role. The US is not Bush.

[CapelDodger]

we could thoughtfully return all the arms iran sent to the nuts in iraq

You'd have to find them outside your imagination first. There was no shortage of weapons in Iraq when the invasion took place. It was just a question of redistribution.

and try to see that they fall into the hands of the protesters not
the government

They don't want arms. They have numbers and determination. This isn't a shooting-match.

as these are the arms from iran they can't really protest to much :D

The Iranian regime protests about plenty of other imaginary things, so why not those?

[Tricky]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some. First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad. For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully. Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened. While he's saying a lot of the stuff we like to hear, let us not assume for a minute that he is going to be our great friend, or that any enemy of the ruling regime in Iran is a friend of ours. We made that mistake once before with Saddam Hussein. Are our memories really that short?

Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup. Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.

Third, remember that Iran, though thoroughly religious, is very western by most standards in the Middle East. They are far less repressive than, oh, say Saudi Arabia. If we are looking for a foothold in a Muslim nation, this is one we don't want to kick while they are down. This is a situation that requires greater diplomacy than Obama has yet had to muster. Let us hope that he is up to the task. I feel a lot better with him at the helm than I would have if it were still Dubya, but any number of things could go wrong.

But that being said, I am quietly rejoicing that Iran is starting to throw off the bonds of religious oppression. While I lament the loss of life, I certainly have seen situations where more innocent people died, and for a stupid cause than I have (so far) seen here. Fareed Zakaria, a commentator I have a lot of respect for, thinks this is the beginning of the end for the Mullahs (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html). He made what I thought was an apt comparison.
I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protesters and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

This is indeed a delicate situation and while the future is hopeful, things are far from over, and there is a good likelihood that things will get worse before they get better. I believe and hope that they will eventually get better.

[icerat]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some.

I think most people are supporting the protesters, rather than Mousavi per se. Didn't Obama point out their not so different, Mousavi and Ahmadinejad? If the revolution works though, Mousavi will be beholden to those who got him there.

First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad.

True enough, but aren't the response to the protests is enough to support almost "anyone but Ahmadinejad"?

For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully.

It's a shame you're distressed by something that's not true. Mousavi has regularly called for the protesters to remain peaceful, most recently today.

[CapelDodger]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some. First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad. For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully.

He has. Mousavi has explicitly called for peaceful demonstrations, and they have been so in the main. The violence against them has not been provoked.

As for people getting killed while protesting against an authoritarian regime with a thuggish militia, that's going to happen. To quibble at that is to accept the status quo, to give in. The numbers so far are miniscule in historical terms. Each an individual tragedy, but what real change has ever happened without those? Should Martin Luther King have told people to stay quiet indoors because they might get killed?

Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened. While he's saying a lot of the stuff we like to hear, let us not assume for a minute that he is going to be our great friend, or that any enemy of the ruling regime in Iran is a friend of ours. We made that mistake once before with Saddam Hussein. Are our memories really that short?

Let's be more charitable and think of it from the Iranian point of view. Which is what this is really all about. Not you or me or who's our friend, but the Iranian people now and those yet to come.

Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup. Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.

It is simply nothing to do with "us". It's not for us to do anything other than (as Obama put it) bear witness.

[JihadJane]

Why am I not surprised that Jihad Jane is sticking up for the regime in Iran?

Because your under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs?


You are either on the side of reformists and democrats..or you are on the side of the Islamist fundamentalist Mullahs.

Pick one.

What are you rambling on about? What has that got do do with my questions?


Yes, but covertly. I have it on good authority.

What sort of authority?

Bush and Ahmedinejad were perfect foils for each other, but Obama is not going to fill that role. The US is not Bush.

The differences between Bush and Obama's Long War policies are cosmetic.

[Thunder]

The differences between Bush and Obama's Long War policies are cosmetic.

Bush was forced to sign a treaty that pulls out troops out of Iraq. Contrary to that, Obama WANTS to pull our troops out.

Bush and Obama are night and day. I don't care what the nutcase conspiracy theorists say.

[MattusMaximus]

I just saw the footage of the woman. If you do not what I am talking about, you soon will.
My God. Godwin be damned, Heinrich Himmler's Merry Men could not have done much worse.

Her name was Neda, apparently. And she's become a rallying cry for the opposition in Iran. I think that the women in the movement are going to be especially pissed off about it, as they should be.

Here's the video (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2009/06/21/intv.nasr.neda.cnn.html) - be warned, it's graphic.

[MattusMaximus]

But that being said, I am quietly rejoicing that Iran is starting to throw off the bonds of religious oppression. While I lament the loss of life, I certainly have seen situations where more innocent people died, and for a stupid cause than I have (so far) seen here. Fareed Zakaria, a commentator I have a lot of respect for, thinks this is the beginning of the end for the Mullahs (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html). He made what I thought was an apt comparison.

You just beat me to it, Tricky!

I just got done reading that article, titled "'Fatal wound' inflicted on Iranian regime's ideology" (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html). Zakaria does a great job of laying out how this is, indeed, a really big deal and that there's no going back to the way things were just two weeks ago in Iran. The religious class that has, up until now, run the Iranian government behind the scenes since 1979 has now been openly exposed, ironically by their own stupidity, as being nothing more than thuggish theocrats thirsty for power.

And plenty of Iranians see it and are sick of it, and now I think the worm has started to turn in Iran.

Tricky, as for your other points about Mousavi, whether or not they're accurate I think that it may now be moot. The opposition seems now to have taken on a life of it's own with more and more prominent Iranian politicians & clerics joining its ranks, especially in light of Khamenei's attempt to shut down all dissent with a religious decree :rolleyes:

[JihadJane]

Bush was forced to sign a treaty that pulls out troops out of Iraq. Contrary to that, Obama WANTS to pull our troops out.

Bush and Obama are night and day. You nutcase are a nutcase conspiracy theorist.

(Fixed that for ya)



Dream on. Military spending is up. The war continues, unabated.

[Thunder]

Dream on. Military spending is up. The war continues, unabated.

Dream on? The USA is poised to remove all its troops from major Iraqi cities, as scheduled and agreed upon.

It is no dream.

US troops must leave Iraqi cities by June 30th and we are doing just that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090620/wl_nm/us_iraq_usa_security_1

[Fiona]

I do not know whether Mousavi won the election or did not win the election. But I do wonder why people are so sure that this is a blow to theocracy. Ahmadinejad is the first non cleric to hold the post: he has pursued policies aimed at improving the lot of some of the poorest people in the country (whether he has done so effectively and whether this was mere pork barrel stuff, I do not know). He does have the support of some of the religious leaders including Khameini: but I do not think it is possible to succeed in Iranian politics unless that is true: certainly Mousavi also has clerical support. I understand he has called for a return to the "fundamental values" of the founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, and that does not inspire me to the view that he is a force for secular democracy.

I do not know why people seem to think that the popular uprising represents a rejection of theocracy: is it not true that at the last election there was increased support for the religious and conservative strands? I might be wrong about that but it was my understanding. And I cannot understand the quote in Zakaria's article where he says
Something very important has been laid bare in Iran today --- legitimacy does not flow from divine authority but from popular support.

Who should know this better than Iranians? their theocracy was established in that way in the very recent past and I very much doubt they have forgotten

[Tricky]

And plenty of Iranians see it and are sick of it, and now I think the worm has started to turn in Iran.

Tricky, as for your other points about Mousavi, whether or not they're accurate I think that it may now be moot. The opposition seems now to have taken on a life of it's own with more and more prominent Iranian politicians & clerics joining its ranks, especially in light of Khamenei's attempt to shut down all dissent with a religious decree :rolleyes:
You think that this is now less about the election an more about the supression of dissent? Well, you may have a point. These things do tend to feed on themselves. It may be that the bullet to the heart of the Iranian theocracy was the one that killed "Neda". Scenes of Tienanmen Square flash through my mind, along with the lyrics to a Roger Waters song (http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/watching-tv.html).

She is different from the unknown Nicaraguan
Half superstar half victim
She's a victor star conceptually new
And she is different from the Dodo
And from the Kankanbono
She is different from the Aztec
And from the Cherokee
She's everybody's sister
She's symbolic of our failure
She's the one in fifty million
Who can help us to be free

Because she died on T.V.

[ddt]

While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some. First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad.
Interestingly, in the other thread GreNME (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4832909&postcount=65) pointed to an analysis of the official results by Chatham House (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/755/). It says about this:
Whilst many commentators have suggested before and after the recent
Presidential Election that Ahmadinejad is very popular in rural areas, and that
this explains his high levels of support, the data from the 2005 Presidential
election does not support this contention. Rather, it confirms that what support
Ahmadinejad did gain in 2005 was mainly from urban and suburban areas.



For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully. Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened.
As others already commented: he has repeatedly called for peaceful and non-violent protests.


While he's saying a lot of the stuff we like to hear, let us not assume for a minute that he is going to be our great friend, or that any enemy of the ruling regime in Iran is a friend of ours. We made that mistake once before with Saddam Hussein. Are our memories really that short?
Mousavi certainly will remember: he was PM during the Iran-Iraq war. :) In foreign affairs, surely Iran and the US (or Europe) will have different interests, but Mousavi - or for that matter, nearly anyone - will be an improvement over Ahmadinejad's hostile and vile rhetoric. In internal affairs, he'll own it to his supporters to respect openness and human rights.


Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup.
And even be careful with what you're saying as it may backfire on those you want to support. That Congress motion was a bit careless. See the result of Obama's cautious statements and Brown's fire and brimstone - it instantly earned the UK the "most evil" title. :D


Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.
Or how well destabilizing the Sandinistas worked. Foreign coup attempts don't work in the long run, and they certainly don't work in bringing democracy (see Iraq).

Let us hope that he is up to the task. I feel a lot better with him at the helm than I would have if it were still Dubya, but any number of things could go wrong.
Me too. But it's up to the Iranian people to get the government they want.


But that being said, I am quietly rejoicing that Iran is starting to throw off the bonds of religious oppression. While I lament the loss of life, I certainly have seen situations where more innocent people died, and for a stupid cause than I have (so far) seen here.
Thus far, the body count (a couple of dozens as reported) is remarkably low for a revolution-in-progress.


Fareed Zakaria, a commentator I have a lot of respect for, thinks this is the beginning of the end for the Mullahs (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html). He made what I thought was an apt comparison.
Good article!

The religious class that has, up until now, run the Iranian government behind the scenes since 1979 has now been openly exposed, ironically by their own stupidity, as being nothing more than thuggish theocrats thirsty for power.
They always ruled openly, not behind the scenes. And there have always been conservative and reformist strands. Until now, in the end they always drew one line, but the conservatives have now overplayed their hand and now one-by-one the reformist clerics call their bluff.


I do not know why people seem to think that the popular uprising represents a rejection of theocracy: is it not true that at the last election there was increased support for the religious and conservative strands? I might be wrong about that but it was my understanding.
In the 2005 elections, IIRC, there was quite a support for reformists in the first round. Ahmadinejad's victory in the second round then was also quite a surprise, extrapolating from the first round-results.


And I cannot understand the quote in Zakaria's article where he says
Something very important has been laid bare in Iran today --- legitimacy does not flow from divine authority but from popular support.
Who should know this better than Iranians? their theocracy was established in that way in the very recent past and I very much doubt they have forgotten
Khamenei has said the the official results were a "divine assessment". The people on the streets don't trust those results. Half a dozen ayatollah's don't either. Khamenei had to backpedal and agree to an inquiry. In short, Allah was wrong with his numbers. That's very significant.

[Fiona]

Whilst many commentators have suggested before and after the recent
Presidential Election that Ahmadinejad is very popular in rural areas, and that
this explains his high levels of support, the data from the 2005 Presidential
election does not support this contention. Rather, it confirms that what support
Ahmadinejad did gain in 2005 was mainly from urban and suburban areas.

Not seen this article, sorry. Does it have anything to say on the impact of Ahmadenjani's policies favouring poor rural women: for example extendng pensions and health insurance to them? These were part of his platform in 2005: and Robert Fisk reported in the independent that he had delivered on at least some of these promises

In the 2005 elections, IIRC, there was quite a support for reformists in the first round. Ahmadinejad's victory in the second round then was also quite a surprise, extrapolating from the first round-results.

Well I am not sure: according to wiki polls conducted before the election expected it to be a close call between Rafsanjani and a reformist called Moeen: in the event he came fourth and the run off was between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinegad, with 21.13% and 19.43%, respectively: they are both conservatives though Rafsanjani garnered some reformist support



Khamenei has said the the official results were a "divine assessment". The people on the streets don't trust those results. Half a dozen ayatollah's don't either. Khamenei had to backpedal and agree to an inquiry. In short, Allah was wrong with his numbers. That's very significant.

Not so sure Allah was wrong with his numbers: I think Khameini may have been wrong. As you said, other clerics disagree, and there is no one religious authority in islam. Thus there is nothing which obviously suggests a rejection of religion in this, so far as I understand it.

[Darth Rotor]

The information is out there. The fellow who uploaded the video was apparently a doctor and attended her immediately, his friend was videoing. The doctor is the one who said she was shot through the heart by a rooftop sniper. There are 2 separate videos of the incident on the 'net.
Thank you. I have since gotten to view the film in better resolution, and see that her throat wasn't really marked, but that they were applying first aid to about where her shoulders meet her throat.

I then found out that one of the men comforting and aiding her was her father.

Oh, that hurt. It is Father's Day here in the US as I watched this. My heart goes out to that poor man, losing his daughter while she bled to death in his hands. I get the feeling that part of his disbelief and shock is that this is being done "by our own people to our own people." Caveat that, of course, as what I am getting is filtered through a Western media filter. That disclaimer aside, there seems to be a consistent "how can you do this to your own people?" sentiment among the Iranian public (even supporters of Mahmoud the Mouth?) and (if one believes the reports, hard to confirm) among some of the Basij.

I don't speak Farsi. Whatever we get in the news is filtered, so sorting it all out will take a great deal more time than I have at the present.

Neda, which means "divine something or other" (I missed the full remark) in Farsi appears on her road to martyrdom. Her unwitting sacrifice may be wasted, or it may turn out to be a pivotal symbol for change.

Time will tell.

[Darth Rotor]

You are either on the side of reformists and democrats..or you are on the side of the Islamist fundamentalist Mullahs.

Pick one.

How Bushian of you, Parky. Or Rumsfeldian. Or Dickian. (Cheney.)

On the other hand, JJane seems to be empathizing with Mahmoud's supporters.

Is there something wrong, I'll ask you, with there being more than one side to an argument or a dispute?

For example: does anyone actually know the vote count? How many votes did Mahmoud the Mouth get? Was it enough to win?

DR

[MattusMaximus]

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.

Definitely not. The Iranian people are extremely proud, and they want this to be their revolution, free from foreign (especially Western) influence. And I don't blame them - I don't like the idea of foreign nations having too much influence in our affairs.

The USA should stay out of this one, for the time being. The last thing we need is for this to be turned into another American sponsored coup.

Agreed. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there could eventually be some form of assistance offered by the West, unofficially of course, to the revolutionaries.

[JihadJane]

How Bushian of you, Parky. Or Rumsfeldian. Or Dickian. (Cheney.)

On the other hand, JJane seems to be empathizing with Mahmoud's supporters.

Is there something wrong, I'll ask you, with there being more than one side to an argument or a dispute?

For example: does anyone actually know the vote count? How many votes did Mahmoud the Mouth get? Was it enough to win?

DR

Where have I empathized with Mahmoud's supporters?

[egslim]

Sometimes people very much want foreign intervention. I don't think this is the case in Iran though.
The best way to determine if someone wants your help is - wait for it - listen if he asks.

So far, I haven't heard Mousavi ask for foreign intervention, either explicitely or implicitely. Therefore the only rational assumption is he doesn't want it.

[Oliver]

Demonstrators vs. Police = 1:0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

[ProbeX]

Google "Neda Video". A beautiful young girl apparently shot throw the heart by a Basij sniper while not even participating in the riots. Her death was captured on two different cell phone videos. Harrowing.:covereyes

That's important to know. If she were ugly we'd have less reason to be sympathetic LOL

[ProbeX]

Tricky, good insights. This situation is very thorny. So far our President seems to be on the right track (as others have said too).

Agree with a lot of the ppl on this thread about the need to let the Iranians try and work this one out w/out interference.

But for those saying it's a moral imperative that the US intervene, there are plenty of countries including but not limited to those already mentioned in this thread: Saudi Arabia, China and Zimbabwe, where people are being subjugated, even raped/murdered (Darfur). And yet the people who are criticizing Obama for not intervening with Iran continue to sit quietly as it regards these other countries ... I'd just like to know what that descrepancy is about?

[MattusMaximus]

Demonstrators vs. Police = 1:0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

Wow... is there a Farsi to English translator so that I can read that website?

[Minadin]

Demonstrators vs. Police = 1:0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

Wow... is there a Farsi to English translator so that I can read that website?

I think the video was the important thing. It reminded me of the final border crossing scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCwrdqGrxBU) in Born in East LA.

[Oliver]

Wow... is there a Farsi to English translator so that I can read that website?


Watch the clip. I don't speak Farsi, either.

[Peephole]

Has it been established that the election was stolen?
Yes they admitted it yesterday.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101
First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won.
Who would have won if the election hadn't been rigged is irrelevant, as Iran doesn't know fair elections anyway.
For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully. Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened.
As a fellow mourner, I continue to invite our dear people to restraint. The country is yours. The revolution and current establishment is also your heritage. Protesting dishonesty and deception is your right. Be hopeful in retrieving your rights and do not let those who seek to disappoint, frustrate and intimidate you to frustrate and enrage you. Continue to abide to non-violence in your protests and react to the unacceptable actions of your children in the security forces as heartbroken fathers and mothers.

http://tehranbroadcast.com/Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-s-Stataement-6.html
Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup. Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

Very controversial stuff!

[marksman]

Yes they admitted it yesterday.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101
No, they didn't. They have not admitted fraud. The article to which you link admits that some districts had over 100% turnout, and then goes on to say that it is because Iran doesn't require people to vote where they live. So they're writing it off as people voting where they work and where they have summer getaways.

I'm not saying it's credible (it's not). But please stop saying they've admitted that there is fraud. The Iranian government is adamant that the results are valid and there were no irregularities.

[Peephole]

Of course, I'm not saying they admitted it literally. :rolleyes:

JidadJane was just asking whether it had been established.

[skepticalbeliever]

There will be a regime change in Iran, with out a doubt. It will pobably be sooner than later. But the question is will it come before the SUpreme Leader dies naturally. I think he may get hanged like Saddam. Shooting on your own people is always a big mistake. He shouldn't have cracked down so hard on the protests, just for his own sake. The current regime probably only has 5 more yeas at most. The Iranian people don't seem to be submissive.

[linusrichard]

brainwashed regimes often require baby-steps. and the brainwashing has been severe.

I'm thinking about this, and trying to think of where "baby-steps" have led to an eventual serious change in regime. All I can think of are baby-steps that haven't led to serious change, and non-baby-steps that have. Do you have any examples to back up this (admittedly reasonable-sounding) assertion?


As far as Iran, I'm not optimistic. If this ends with Mousavi in power, is that a real victory? If Mousavi represented real change, a "Free Iran," as the avatars put it, they wouldn't have let him run for president. Or am I wrong? I hate to be pessimistic or cynical, but I feel like it just might be warranted here.

Unless these protests turn into something bigger. Is there a Persian Lech Wałęsa or Václav Havel out there who can - given the right set of circumstances - take the reins and offer real change? Or is the best we can hope for a Persian Alexander Dubček or Nagy Imre - offering a slightly better version of the same old thing until the real powers that be decide to remove him?

[mortimer]

That's important to know. If she were ugly we'd have less reason to be sympathetic LOL
Unfortunately, there's probably something to that observation.

[Tricky]

That's important to know. If she were ugly we'd have less reason to be sympathetic LOL

Unfortunately, there's probably something to that observation.
Indeed there is. It is the same reason we care more about beautiful college co-eds being murdered than little ghetto kids. And interestingly, it ties into this current thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4827180#post4827180).

[CapelDodger]

I just got done reading that article, titled "'Fatal wound' inflicted on Iranian regime's ideology" (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/zakaria.iran.elections/index.html). Zakaria does a great job of laying out how this is, indeed, a really big deal and that there's no going back to the way things were just two weeks ago in Iran. The religious class that has, up until now, run the Iranian government behind the scenes since 1979 has now been openly exposed, ironically by their own stupidity, as being nothing more than thuggish theocrats thirsty for power.

With all due respect, wtf are you talking about? When the Shah's police state collapsed under the weight of its own incompetence and illegitimacy the only focus of opposition it hadn't dared to suppress was religion. Secular democratic opposition was easily identified and tortured into submision with impunity - it could be blamed on Soviet agitation if anyone quibbbled about Iran's membership of the "Free World".

Do you remember those days? When the enemy was the commies and nobody'd heard of Islam? I do.

And plenty of Iranians see it and are sick of it, and now I think the worm has started to turn in Iran.

They're sick of it in two generations after the Revolution (and the Iraqi invasion naively called The Gulf War back in the day by those who actually noticed it going on at the time). They no longer believe incredible threats to the Revolution which is all the Old Guard have to fall back on.

This is nothing new. Every successful Revolution goes through a similar phase. The success was in the definitve overthrow of the old order, not in the new order that was patched together at the time.

Iran is no more religious than the US, and the last thirty years will prove to have been anomalous. Mark my words :cool:.

[CapelDodger]

Indeed there is. It is the same reason we care more about beautiful college co-eds being murdered than little ghetto kids. And interestingly, it ties into this current thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4827180#post4827180).

It matters to you because that's what you seem to are about. Have you considered it from an Iranian point of view? The point of view that took her to he streets she was killed on?

Get a grip. This isn't some media-fest, and we are merely observers who can at best bear witness. Without influence by the ugliness or otherwise of what we see.

[ProbeX]

Get a grip. This isn't some media-fest, and we are merely observers who can at best bear witness. Without influence by the ugliness or otherwise of what we see.

I honestly am unsure what you mean here (it's also quite early here and my IQ has fallen a few points just from the fatigue of the day). So bear with me:

Are you saying that we as an audience hold some responsibility for the media's prejudicial cherry picking of victims to place on display? If that's what you're saying I agree: if people didn't react with more sympathy toward certain types of people, the media couldn't "sell" the images - or the stories, perhaps - as easily.

On the other hand I don't think people necessarily have conscious awareness of these reactions ... at least not everyone, and certainly not all the time.

[Darth Rotor]

Where have I empathized with Mahmoud's supporters?

Well, if you won't, I will, for a moment here.

What about all of the people who did vote for Mahmoud the Mouth? Who is considering their rights in this election? He had lots of supporters, lots of people who voted for him.

Where is the empathy for their side of the election? I am not talking about Mahmoud, he's in the power structure. What about the Iranian citizens who, in reasonably good faith, went to the ballot box and voted for four more years of Mahmoud?

Are they not also entitled to our support as advocates of democracy?

Is it fair to them that their guy won, (or so it appears by whatever ballot counting measures were employed) but the protesters are claiming that it wasn't a fair vote since their (the protesters) guy didn't win?

How do you think that sits with the average guy in Iran who isn't an ayatollah, nor rich, nor a political cat, nor a member of the Revolutionary Guard? As far as he or she knows, Mahmoud got the most votes and won, but these losers are rioting in the streets.

Who speaks for those voters?

[CapelDodger]

I honestly am unsure what you mean here (it's also quite early here and my IQ has fallen a few points just from the fatigue of the day). So bear with me:

Are you saying that we as an audience hold some responsibility for the media's prejudicial cherry picking of victims to place on display? If that's what you're saying I agree: if people didn't react with more sympathy toward certain types of people, the media couldn't "sell" the images - or the stories, perhaps - as easily.

No.

I'm pointing out that this is not the issue in Iran. There already was an issue otherwise she wouldn't have been killed a few days ago. This has been going on since the election.

It's not about us and our reactions to a media-fest. That is just to trivialise the issue. Discuss people's reactions to faces by all means, but this is hardly the place.

Some people should really get over themselves.

On the other hand I don't think people necessarily have conscious awareness of these reactions ... at least not everyone, and certainly not all the time.

I don't care.

[JihadJane]

Well, if you won't, I will, for a moment here.

What about all of the people who did vote for Mahmoud the Mouth? Who is considering their rights in this election? He had lots of supporters, lots of people who voted for him.

Where is the empathy for their side of the election? I am not talking about Mahmoud, he's in the power structure. What about the Iranian citizens who, in reasonably good faith, went to the ballot box and voted for four more years of Mahmoud?

Are they not also entitled to our support as advocates of democracy?

Is it fair to them that their guy won, (or so it appears by whatever ballot counting measures were employed) but the protesters are claiming that it wasn't a fair vote since their (the protesters) guy didn't win?

How do you think that sits with the average guy in Iran who isn't an ayatollah, nor rich, nor a political cat, nor a member of the Revolutionary Guard? As far as he or she knows, Mahmoud got the most votes and won, but these losers are rioting in the streets.

Put that way I guess I do empathize with them and have wondered what the his rural and working class supporters think of the townies' protests.

Who speaks for those voters?

Certainly not the National Endowment for Democracy.

[ProbeX]

No. I'm pointing out that this is not the issue in Iran. My comment wasn't about where the issue takes place. It was about the issue itself.

There already was an issue otherwise she wouldn't have been killed a few days ago. This has been going on since the election.Regardless of how long the issue was going on, the portrayal of a "beautiful" young girl did seem to be a method used to bring the deaths in Iran, further into the American consciousness. And it seemed to work. Not only was that video played to death in major media outlets, but the President commented on her too, even though there were others who allegedly died in the protests.

It's not about us and our reactions to a media-fest.Not sure what "it" you're referring to here, but "us and our reactions" to images in the media can and are often very powerful impetuses in the political arena.

... Oh yeah, and I don't care that you don't care.

[CapelDodger]

My comment wasn't about where the issue takes place. It was about the issue itself.

You didnt make a comment, you asked a question : "are you saying ..." something I obviously didn't say.

Regardless of how long the issue was going on, the portrayal of a "beautiful" young girl did seem to be a method used to bring the deaths in Iran, further into the American consciousness.

So what? It wasn't brought into the Iranian mind that way. The US American mind is not the issue. The issue is whether what's happening in Iran will lead to regime change. That has nothing to do with what you see on your television.

Not sure what "it" you're referring to here, but "us and our reactions" to images in the media can and are often very powerful impetuses in the political arena.

The powerful impetuses in the Iranian political arena were there long before this image hit your TV or computer screen. That's why she was there in the first place. It's not about you or the political arena you vote in. Shocking, but there it is. People can be galvanised into action without giving a toss about what the US American public notices.

... Oh yeah, and I don't care that you don't care.

The problem is that you assumed I did care about a video-clip. Not everybody's attention had to be drawn to what's been happening in Iran by that. It may have been your introduction to the subject but it wasn't mine. M'kay?

So do you have anything to contribute about Iran? (That's not a comment, that's a simple question.)

[Tricky]

It looks like it may come to a showdown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/26/iran.election.moussavi/index.html). Mousavi is not backing down, even though they're arresting people right and left. I expect he will push it to the brink and get himself arrested, then you can expect to see some serious unrest. I doubt that this will lead to regime change though. The government has more resources, and even if Mousavi has a strong following, it is certainly not enough of the nation to sweep the government out. But I expect the country to become much more repressive, and that itself will foment more unrest.

[ProbeX]

It matters to you because that's what you seem to are about. Have you considered it from an Iranian point of view? The point of view that took her to he streets she was killed on?

Get a grip. This isn't some media-fest, and we are merely observers who can at best bear witness. Without influence by the ugliness or otherwise of what we see.

Okay, you're a little confusing, so back to basics. Above is your response to Tricky, which is what originally caught my attention. I disagree and think this is "some media fest". The video with the young woman went quite viral and the President even commented on it.

And I also disagree that we are "merely observers who can at best bear witness." No. News and entertainment venues have long acknowledged that the size of viewership, and therefore profit margins, are dependent on the appearance of the people on display.

Obviously much of the "news" out of Iran (protests/violence) came from the citizens themselves. Many of them created videos through personal media. So sure, they were witnesses, but also participants in this news: selective ones.

As for considering the "Iranian point of view", you'd have to be more specific about what that means, and how it's being neglected here. No one said there wasn't some value to the fact that a woman being shot on film - beautiful or not - created a POV of Iranian politics that was powerful, possibly in positive ways, by eliciting sympathy. But it's equally true that you see relatively few ugly people getting so much attention when they die. And that does seem a little bizarre, as if an ugly person is less worthy of our sympathy. There's nothing trivial about that observation IMO.

[dudalb]

Obama blasted the Presdient of Iran today. The war of words is heating up.

[dudalb]

It looks like it may come to a showdown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/26/iran.election.moussavi/index.html). Mousavi is not backing down, even though they're arresting people right and left. I expect he will push it to the brink and get himself arrested, then you can expect to see some serious unrest. I doubt that this will lead to regime change though. The government has more resources, and even if Mousavi has a strong following, it is certainly not enough of the nation to sweep the government out. But I expect the country to become much more repressive, and that itself will foment more unrest.


And make it almost impossible for Obama to continue his Opening To Iran.
I also thinkgObama is just plain angry ..quite rightly so..at some of the insults that The Pres of Iran was hurling at Obama today.

[CapelDodger]

Okay, you're a little confusing, so back to basics. Above is your response to Tricky, which is what originally caught my attention. I disagree and think this is "some media fest". The video with the young woman went quite viral and the President even commented on it.

At which point you apparently noticed that there was something going on in Iran. The hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets in Iran already knew. That wasn't a media-fest it was a spontaneous mass protest.

And I also disagree that we are "merely observers who can at best bear witness." No. News and entertainment venues have long acknowledged that the size of viewership, and therefore profit margins, are dependent on the appearance of the people on display.

So what?

Obviously much of the "news" out of Iran (protests/violence) came from the citizens themselves. Many of them created videos through personal media. So sure, they were witnesses, but also participants in this news: selective ones.

They selected to go out on the streets and protest, and they didn't do it just to take videos of themselves. Nor did they do it because a pretty girl was shot. The media response to that incident is trivia, and this is not (to my mind) something which should be trivialised.

Try to forget the pretty girl video. That's not important.

As for considering the "Iranian point of view", you'd have to be more specific about what that means, and how it's being neglected here.

I can't speak as an Iranian but I can make an effort to put myself in their place. That involves rather more than watching how this plays out in the US.

[CapelDodger]

It looks like it may come to a showdown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/26/iran.election.moussavi/index.html). Mousavi is not backing down, even though they're arresting people right and left. I expect he will push it to the brink and get himself arrested, then you can expect to see some serious unrest. I doubt that this will lead to regime change though. The government has more resources, and even if Mousavi has a strong following, it is certainly not enough of the nation to sweep the government out. But I expect the country to become much more repressive, and that itself will foment more unrest.

I think the repression will exacerbate existing differences within the clerical camp, which is how change will come. Khamenei's moral authority has been pretty much shot way. Repression serves to polarise situations, and the remarkable thing is that Khameini chose to bring things to a head at this time. He must already have been a worried man when he publicly endorsed Ahmedinejad as a presidential candidate.

I really don't think the result was as he intended. His moral bluff has been called and there's no getting back from that.

[CapelDodger]

And make it almost impossible for Obama to continue his Opening To Iran.
I also thinkgObama is just plain angry ..quite rightly so..at some of the insults that The Pres of Iran was hurling at Obama today.

I think he's quite right to take this line. He's not making any comment on the election or any internal Iranian affairs but responding directly to what's being said publicly and volubly by Ahmedinejad. And I for one wouldn't get into it rhetorically with Obama, translation or no. The short guy will be shouting "no fair!" before you know it.

[Darth Rotor]

It looks like it may come to a showdown (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/26/iran.election.moussavi/index.html). Mousavi is not backing down, even though they're arresting people right and left. I expect he will push it to the brink and get himself arrested, then you can expect to see some serious unrest. I doubt that this will lead to regime change though. The government has more resources, and even if Mousavi has a strong following, it is certainly not enough of the nation to sweep the government out. But I expect the country to become much more repressive, and that itself will foment more unrest.
I have a different take on that. I think Mousavi, if he gets arrested, will discover that he's got a short journey to the noose. It seems that the hard liners are not messing about. That said, I put about a fifty fifty confidence on my prediction.

Since there are a number of internal power struggles going on (see GrenMe's thread for some neat links, good one by an Indian observer in Asia Times) Mousavi may have enough support to keep alive in his prison cell.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

And make it almost impossible for Obama to continue his Opening To Iran.
I also thinkgObama is just plain angry ..quite rightly so..at some of the insults that The Pres of Iran was hurling at Obama today.

Yeah, he said Obama was just like Bush.

In some ways, he is.

Obama is:

College educated
An American politician
Not keen on Iran's human rights record
Against Iranian nuclear ambitions
Apparently willing to use force (see the upsurge in UAV attacks in Pakistan since Barry took over)

But of course it's an insult to be compared to Bush, if you are Obama. He ran on "I"m not Bush" as John Kerry did, but had a hell of a lot more charisma, so he won.

DR

[DC]

Aduk1-_nsc0
lY1wtxJqKAg

[geni]

I have a different take on that. I think Mousavi, if he gets arrested, will discover that he's got a short journey to the noose. It seems that the hard liners are not messing about. That said, I put about a fifty fifty confidence on my prediction.

I doubt anyone in Iran wants to encourage the idea that it is okey to kill former Prime Ministers. People might start thinking the same applies to other memebers of the ruleing class.

[ProbeX]

At which point you apparently noticed that there was something going on in Iran. The hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets in Iran already knew. That wasn't a media-fest it was a spontaneous mass protest.

It was both. The response to the mass protest was a media fest :rolleyes:

They selected to go out on the streets and protest, and they didn't do it just to take videos of themselves.

Calm down there frisky. No one said otherwise.

Nor did they do it because a pretty girl was shot. The media response to that incident is trivia, and this is not (to my mind) something which should be trivialised.Their movement seemed to gain significant sympathy - All those comments about "Did you see that pretty girl who got shot?" - because of the portrayal of a pretty woman getting shot. You don't need to care for that to be true. You can continue to insist that one observation can't have any importance because of the larger picture. And you are free to remain stuck in that mode of thinking.

I can't speak as an Iranian but I can make an effort to put myself in their place. That involves rather more than watching how this plays out in the US.Who said any of us weren't doing just that? I can rub my stomach and chew gum at the same time. I've been watching how this has been playing out and in the process have also made an observation that you don't want to acknowledge. ... Then let it go and stop being sour about it. You're the one hammering away at this now.

[Richard Masters]

The differences between Bush and Obama's Long War policies are cosmetic.

That's what I thought, too. I was wrong. Obama's foreign policy is much more like Ron Paul's thus far.