Telephones Cut Off, Mousavi Arrested, Rafsanjani Resigns

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Jeff » Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:39 pm

I'm not in a position, typing up here in my kid's room, to rule on the legitimacy of the Iranian election. I will say, though, that I think it's wrong to presume that Washington - at least Washington "hardliners" - want a Mousavi victory. Its disdain towards Khatami and rebuffing of his efforts towards rapprochement were to Ahmedinejad's benefit. If your policy is bent upon demonization, you can't encourage moderation.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:02 pm

Jeff wrote:I'm not in a position, typing up here in my kid's room, to rule on the legitimacy of the Iranian election. I will say, though, that I think it's wrong to presume that Washington - at least Washington "hardliners" - want a Mousavi victory. Its disdain towards Khatami and rebuffing of his efforts towards rapprochement were to Ahmedinejad's benefit. If your policy is bent upon demonization, you can't encourage moderation.


Actually, I expect that some elements in the U.S., possibly very important elements, would be very happy with a Mousavi victory. It's zionist hardliners that have been, ironically enough, rooting for Ahmadinejad:

Neocons for Ahmadinejad

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

By Daniel Luban


At Wednesday’s Heritage Foundation conference on the Middle East peace process (which, as I wrote yesterday, was primarily devoted to pushing the almost-universally-scorned “three-state solution” for Israel-Palestine), Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes made an unusually revealing comment while discussing Iran’s upcoming presidential elections.

“I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason, Pipes went on, is that he would “prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements.” (Video of the event is available by following the link to the Heritage website; Pipes’s comments come at about the 1:29:00 mark.)

Although it is rather remarkable to see a prominent neoconservative admit this in public, it’s clear that many Iran hawks in America and Israel are similarly hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory next week. After all, the Iranian president’s outlandish statements have been a propaganda gold mine for those pushing military action against Tehran, and no warmongering op-ed would be complete without a ritualistic invocation of his (mistranslated) call to “wipe Israel off the map”. At last month’s AIPAC conference, Ahmadinejad was the undisputed star of the show; large glossy photos of him touring nuclear facilities in a lab coat were distributed to every conference-goer, and the largely geriatric audience was bludgeoned into a state of terror with constant juxtapositions of Hitler and Ahmadinejad, Auschwitz and Natanz. An alien who descended on the conference might be forgiven for thinking that Ahmadinejad was president of Israel or the U.S. rather than Iran, since he was far more discussed and displayed than Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, or Barack Obama.

Given Ahmadinejad’s usefulness as a propaganda tool, it is not surprising that the Iran hawks would be eager to hold on to him. A more moderate president would threaten to puncture the hysterical and apocalyptic atmosphere in which discussion of the Iranian nuclear program is currently conducted. (Also of related interest is the right’s angry reaction to the release of Roxana Saberi — on display, for example, in this James Kirchick monologue. From the hawks’ perspective, of course, the ideal outcome politically speaking would have been for Iran to execute Saberi, preferably in the most brutal and medieval fashion possible.)

Now that it seems possible that Ahmadinejad might lose, however, the same people who spent the last four years obsessively focusing on the Iranian president’s every utterance have suddenly discovered that the Iranian presidency doesn’t matter after all. In the same discussion at Heritage, Pipes reminded the audience that it is Supreme Leader Khamenei rather than the president who controls foreign affairs and military policy. Similarly, AIPAC is now pushing the line that Iran’s elections will not affect their nuclear policy. While it is perfectly true that the Iranian president has little control over foreign policy, it would have been nice to see some acknowledgement of this from the Iran hawks prior to the elections, instead of constant harping about the “existential threat” that the dastardly Ahmadinejad poses to Israel and the U.S.

UPDATE: Trita Parsi’s latest article is also of interest here. Parsi details how U.S. congressional leaders have fast-tracked the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009 — a move that is likely to bolster Ahmadinejad and undercut Moussavi in the days before the election. Is this the intended effect? Given the list of cosponsors (including such familiar names as Eric Cantor, Mark Kirk, and Shelley Berkley), it seems more than likely.

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=256


Not that I think zionists were behind the Ahmadinejad win -- Israel and the U.S. only think they're the center of the universe, but the majority of Iranians had plenty of very good reasons to re-elect "jad", his integrity and genuine preoccupation with the welfare of Iran's poor among them.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:36 pm

Jeff wrote:I'm not in a position, typing up here in my kid's room, to rule on the legitimacy of the Iranian election. I will say, though, that I think it's wrong to presume that Washington - at least Washington "hardliners" - want a Mousavi victory. Its disdain towards Khatami and rebuffing of his efforts towards rapprochement were to Ahmedinejad's benefit. If your policy is bent upon demonization, you can't encourage moderation.


Agreed. Then again, depends. What if it's a "color revolution" op? Disregarding the rhetoric, an overt military attack on Iran has been off the table since the NIE controversy of late 2007. The rhetoric has definitely climbed down and the official US line is that there will be talks. Obama has also been said to warn the Israelis against their own attack (which could never happen, they have to fly over Iraq and get US permission).

In short, the spooks may be cooking a regime change as a replacement.

For the moment, and from my remote perspective, it's indistinguishable. It's as likely it was faked as that the perception it was faked is being engineered.

What's really going on should become obvious later.

Alice wrote:how would you characterize people who set buses on fire, break the windows of shops and banks, throw rocks at policemen riding motorcycles and armed only with batons, and for what? Because they don't like the election results?


If they do this unprovoked? Based on examples from around the world, I would characterize them as agent provacateurs working for the state, since that is almost always the case. Or as whole-cloth fictions of police-state propaganda. I don't believe CNN, do you believe the Iranian state TV?

Otherwise, such actions almost always follow police attacks on demonstrators. That's true everywhere. I doubt real protestors almost ever do what you are describing without provocation, since it would be destructive to any political cause and most people also understand it will get their heads cracked. (We're leaving out hooligans and drunks and rowdies who do it for sport.)

But I won't rule it out, since again, maybe they've been hired to do this in a "color revolution" op that aims to get an over-reaction from the Iranian state and prompt larger protests. In which case they are, indirectly, agents of a foreign state.

Anyway, Fisk is reporting even-handedly on the likelihood that Ahmedinejad really won it, even as the police go wilding after the opposition.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 04810.html

Iranian elections
Robert Fisk: Iran erupts as voters back 'the Democrator'


A smash in the face, a kick in the balls – that's how police deal with protesters after Iran's poll kept the hardliners in power

Sunday, 14 June 2009


A injured supporter of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi during riots in Tehran

afp

A injured supporter of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi during riots in Tehran

First the cop screamed abuse at Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporter, a white-shirted youth with a straggling beard and unkempt hair. Then he smashed his baton into the young man's face. Then he kicked him viciously in the testicles. It was the same all the way down to Vali Asr Square. Riot police in black rubber body armour and black helmets and black riot sticks, most on foot but followed by a flying column of security men, all on brand new, bright red Honda motorcycles, tearing into the shrieking youths – hundreds of them, running for their lives. They did not accept the results of Iran's presidential elections. They did not believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 62.6 per cent of the votes. And they paid the price.

"Death to the dictator," they were crying on Dr Fatimi Street, now thousands of them shouting abuse at the police. Were they to endure another four years of the smiling, avuncular, ever-so-humble President who swears by democracy while steadily thinning out human freedoms in the Islamic Republic? They were wrong, of course. Ahmadinejad really does love democracy. But he also loves dictatorial order. He is not a dictator. He is a Democrator.

Yesterday wasn't the time for the finer points of Iranian politics. That Mir Hossein Mousavi had been awarded a mere 33 per cent of the votes – by midday, the figure was humiliatingly brought down to 32.26 per cent – brought forth the inevitable claims of massive electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Or, as the crowd round Fatimi Square chorused as they danced in a circle in the street: "Zionist Ahmadinejad – cheating at exams." That's when I noticed that the police always treated the protesters in the same way. Head and testicles. It was an easy message to understand. A smash in the face, a kick in the balls and Long Live the Democrator.

Many of the protesters – some of them now wearing scarves over their faces, all coloured green, the colour of Mousavi's campaign – were trying to reach the Interior Ministry where the government's electoral council were busy counting (or miscounting, depending on your point of view) Friday's huge popular national vote. I descended into the basement of this fiercely ugly edifice – fittingly, it was once the headquarters of the Shah's party, complete with helipad on the roof – where cold chocolate lattes and strawberry fruitcake were on offer to journalists, and where were displayed the very latest poll results, put up at 10.56am Iranian time.

Eighty per cent of the votes had been counted and the results came up as Ahmadinejad 64.78 per cent; Mousavi 32.26 per cent; Mohsen Rezai (a former Revolutionary Guard commander) 2.08 per cent; and Mehdi Karoubi (a former parliament speaker) a miserable 0.89 per cent. How could this be, a man asked me on a scorching, dangerous street an hour later. Karoubi's party has at least 400,000 members. Were they all sleeping on Friday?

There were a few, sparse demonstrators out for the Democrator, all men, of course, and many of them draped in the Iranian flag because the Democrator – devout Muslim as he always displays himself – wrapped his election campaign in the national flag. Each of these burly individuals handed out free copies of the execrable four-page news-sheet Iran.

"Ahmadinejad," the headline read, "24 million votes. People vote for Success, Honesty and the Battle against Corruption." Not the obvious headline that comes to mind. But Mousavi's Green Word newspaper allegedly had its own headline dictated to it by the authorities – before they shut it down yesterday: "Happy Victory to the People." And you can't get more neutral than that.

Back on the streets, there were now worse scenes. The cops had dismounted from their bikes and were breaking up paving stones to hurl at the protesters, many of them now riding their own motorbikes between the rows of police. I saw one immensely tall man – dressed Batman-style in black rubber arm protectors and shin pads, smashing up paving stones with his baton, breaking them with his boots and chucking them pell mell at the Mousavi men. A middle-aged woman walked up to him – the women were braver in confronting the police than the men yesterday – and shouted an obvious question: "Why are you breaking up the pavements of our city?" The policeman raised his baton to strike the woman but an officer ran across the road and stood between them. "You must never hit a woman," he said. Praise where praise is due, even in a riot.

But the policemen went on breaking up stones, a crazy reverse version of France in May 1968. Then it was the young men who wanted revolution who threw stones. In Tehran – fearful of a green Mousavi revolution – it was the police who threw stones.

An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."

But of course, the streets of Tehran were only a hundred metres away. And the police were now far more abusive to their adversaries. My own Persian translator was beaten three times on the back. The cops had brought their own photographers on to the pavements to take pictures of the protesters – hence the green scarves – and overfed plain-clothes men were now mixing with the Batmen. The Democrator was obviously displeased. One of the agents demanded to see my pass but when I showed my Iranian press card to him, he merely patted me on the shoulder and waved me through.

Thus did I arrive opposite the Interior Ministry as the police brought their prisoners back from the front line down the road. The first was a green-pullovered youth of perhaps 15 or 16 who was frog-marched by two uniformed paramilitary police to a van with a cage over the back. He was thrown on the steel floor, then one of the cops climbed in and set about him with his baton. Behind me, more than 20 policemen, sweating after a hard morning's work bruising the bones of their enemies, were sitting on the steps of a shop, munching through pre-packed luncheon boxes. One smiled and offered me a share. Politely declined, I need hardly add.

They watched – and I watched – as the next unfortunate was brought to the cage-van. In a shirt falling over his filthy trousers, he was beaten outside the vehicle, kicked in the balls, and then beaten on to a seat at the back of the vehicle. Another cop climbed in and began batoning him in the face. The man was howling with pain. Another cop came – and this, remember, was in front of dozens of other security men, in front of myself, an obvious Westerner, and many women in chadors who were walking on the opposite pavement, all staring in horror at the scene.

Now another policeman, in an army uniform, climbed into the vehicle, tied the man's hands behind his back with plastic handcuffs, took out his baton and whacked him across the face. The prisoner was in tears but the blows kept coming; until more young men arrived for their torment. Then more police vans arrived and ever more prisoners to be beaten. All were taken in these caged trucks to the basement of the Interior Ministry. I saw them drive in.

A break now from these outrages, because this was about the moment that Mousavi's printed statement arrived at his campaign headquarters. I say "arrived", although the police had already closed his downtown office – Palestine Street, it was called, only fitting since the Iranian police were behaving in exactly the same way as the Israeli army when they turn into a rabble to confront Palestinian protesters – and Mousavi's men could only toss the sheets of paper over the wall.

It was strong stuff. "The results of these elections are shocking," he proclaimed. "People who stood in the voting lines, they know the situation, they know who they voted for. They are looking now with astonishment at this magic game of the authorities on the television and radio. What has happened has shaken the whole foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and now it is governing by lies and dictatorship. I recommend to the authorities to stop this at once and return to law and order, to care for the people's votes. The first message of our revolution is that people are intelligent and will not obey those who gain power by cheating. This whole land of Iran belongs to them and not to the cheaters."

Mousavi's head office in Qeitariyeh Street in north Tehran had already been besieged by the Democrator's loyal "Basiji" volunteers a few hours earlier. They had chucked tear gas at the windows. They were still smouldering when I arrived. "Please go or they will come back," one of his supporters pleaded to me. It was the same all over the city. The opposition either asked you to leave or invited you to watch them as they tormented the police. The Democrator's men, waving their Iranian flags, faced off Mousavi's men. Then, through their ranks, came the armed cops again, running towards the opposition. So whose side were the police really on? Rule number one: never ask stupid questions in Iran.

Last night, all SMS calls were blocked. The Iranian news agency announced that, since there would be no second round of elections, there would be no extension of visas for foreign journalists – one can well see why – and so many of the people who were praised by the government for their patriotism in voting on Friday were assaulted by their own government on Saturday.

Last night, the Democrator was still silent, but his ever-grinning face turned up on the posters of his supporters. There were more baton charges, ever greater crowds running from them. Thus was the courage of Friday's Iranian elections turned into fratricidal battles on the streets of Tehran. "Any rallies," announced the Tehran police chief, General Ahmad Reza Radan, "will be dealt with according to the law." Well, we all know what that means. So does the Democrator.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the blacksmith's son and former Revolutionary Guard, who, since his surprise victory four years ago, has seemingly gone out of his way to play bogeyman to the US. In his first term in office, Mr Ahmadinejad became known for his fierce rhetoric against America and Israel, his proud promotion of Iran's nuclear programme and persistent questioning of the Holocaust.

In Iran, he benefited from a surge in petrodollar revenues and has distributed loans, money and other help on his frequent provincial tours. But critics say his free spending fuelled inflation and wasted windfall oil revenues without reducing unemployment. Prices of basics have risen sharply, hitting more than 15 million Iranian families who live on less than $600 a month. He blamed the inflation, which officially stands at 15 per cent, on a global surge in food and fuel prices that peaked last year, and pursued unorthodox policies such as trying to curb prices while setting interest rates well below inflation.

During the campaign, in a series of bitter TV debates with his three rivals, he was repeatedly accused of lying about the extent of price rises. Mir Hossein Mousavi also accused Mr Ahmadinejad, 53, of undermining Iran's foreign relations with his fiery anti-Western speeches and said Iranians had been "humiliated around the globe" since he was first elected.

During Mr Ahmadinejad's first term, the UN Security Council imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, which the West suspects has military aims.

Mr Ahmadinejad, the first non-clerical president in more than 25 years, basks in the support of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on Iranians to vote for an anti-Western candidate. The Ayatollah ultimately calls the shots in Iran, where the president can only influence policy, not decide it.

Mir Hossein Mousavi

Life for President Barack Obama would be a great deal easier if Mir Hossein Mousavi had won Iran's election. The man who was prime minister during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s says he would seek detente with the West, ask Mr Obama to debate at the UN with him, and floated the idea of an international consortium overseeing uranium enrichment in Iran.

On the domestic front, the 67-year-old architect and painter urged a return to the "fundamental values" of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He advocated economic liberalisation, and pledged to control inflation through monetary policies and make life easier for private business. He has also promised to change the "extremist" image that Iran has earned abroad under Mr Ahmadinejad and has hit out at his profligate spending of petrodollars and cash hand-outs to the poor, which, he says, have stoked rising consumer prices. He also advocated removing the ban on private firms owning TV stations.

Mr Mousavi has been politically silent for the past 20 years, but he broke new ground in Iranian campaigning by having his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a former university chancellor, not only join him on the stump but work for him. The couple even held hands at rallies, rare behaviour for politicians in the socially conservative state. His support was largely urban, and mostly young. He enjoyed also the backing of reformist former president Mohammad Khatami and apparent backing from Mr Khatami's pragmatic predecessor, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

He was widely expected to make a close-run thing of the election. But even as he was claiming a premature victory on Friday night, Mr Mousavi was alleging widespread malpractice in the conduct of the election. Where he goes from here – apart from into history – is far from clear.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:42 pm

Class v. Culture Wars in Iranian Elections: Rejecting Charges of a North Tehran Fallacy:

Some comentators have suggested that the reason Western reporters were shocked when Ahmadinejad won was that they are based in opulent North Tehran, whereas the farmers and workers of Iran, the majority, are enthusiastic for Ahmadinejad. That is, we fell victim once again to upper middle class reporting and expectations in a working class country of the global south.

While such dynamics may have existed, this analysis is flawed in the case of Iran because it pays too much attention to class and material factors and not enough to Iranian culture wars. We have already seen, in 1997 and 2001, that Iranian women and youth swung behind an obscure former minister of culture named Mohammad Khatami and his 2nd of Khordad movement, capturing not only the presidency but also, in 2000, parliament.

The problem for the reformers of the late 1990s and early 2000s was that they did not actually control much, despite holding elected office. Important government policy and regulation was in the hands of the unelected, clerical side of the government. The hard line clerics just shut down reformist newspapers, struck down reformist legislation, and blocked social and economic reform. The Bush administration was determined to hang Khatami out to dry, ensuring that the reformers could never bring home any tangible success in foreign policy or foreign investment. Thus, in the 2004 parliamentary elections, literally thousands of reformers were simply struck off the ballot and not allowed to run. This application of a hard line litmus test in deciding who could run for office produced a hard line parliament, naturally enough....
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:33 pm

JackRiddler wrote:Anyway, Fisk is reporting even-handedly on the likelihood that Ahmedinejad really won it, even as the police go wilding after the opposition.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 04810.html


I used to have enormous respect for Robert Fisk, mostly based on his good work during Lebanon's civil war and the Israeli occupation during the 80s. Now, reading the words "even-handed" and "Robert Fisk" in one sentence makes me wince. He gets so many things wrong that I find reading his articles to be a waste of time, yet his smug air of superiority never wavers.

On Iran, among other things, his close relationship with the Saudi-linked Hariri family (arch-enemies of Iran), and his tendency to depend on hearsay from his personal 'friends' (culled from among the elite, though in Lebanon, it's mainly his driver, Abed who keeps him informed) would indicate some bias, in case you didn't catch it in his tone.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:33 pm

.

Re: Fisk. I can believe all of that is true, he is quite the ego, and yet still think he's truthful when he describes the street happenings in the Tehran of the last few days. Furthermore the key passage, the reason I quoted the above, was this:

An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."


(But apropos Br. v. Am. spelling, what is yoghurt?)

Yog hurt!

Yog HURT!!!
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Wilbur Whatley » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:24 pm

This thread is almost 100 percent bullshit, and bullshit of a very serious and dangerous kind. Many of you are so politically and intellectually castrated (and what's the equivalent term for Alice?) that you'll damn well say anything to push a preconceived point with no concern for facts.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Ahmadinejad just pulled off a military coup in Iran, turning it blatantly into a secular, police state like what Saddam Hussein created in Iraq. This has provoked a civil war, and right now it's very unclear who is going to win.

This is VERY dangerous, because if Ahmadinejad can kill the opposition, it is CERTAIN that Israel will attack--and it is also CERTAIN that they will have to use nukes, because they have no other way to hit the underground nuclear processing facilities. So this is genuinely World War The Last on the horizon.

I'm disappointed at the crap in this thread so far, on what is the most important foreign development in a long time. Read Juan Cole. Read Josh Marshall. Read Andrew Sullivan. Read DailyKos. Read all the links from those cites to Persian and Arab sources. Read! And don't come back until you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Wilbur Whatley
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:41 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Ummmm

Postby norton ash » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:10 pm

Wilbur, many of those writers (and more and others) have already been cited here, and I value the Daily Kos about as much as I value the opinions of the post-softball crowd at Applebee's.

Seems like a reasonable discussion here so far with little soapboxing save for you.

If I was Mr. Ed I'd plant a shoe in your forehead right about now.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:16 pm

Wilbur Whatley wrote:...Read Juan Cole. Read Josh Marshall. Read Andrew Sullivan. Read DailyKos. Read all the links from those cites to Persian and Arab sources...

I think the thread started out with two posts referencing a Daily Kos diary. And Juan Cole has popped up a few times. justdrew posted a link to somebody's Twitter, which is where most of the on the ground reporting is coming from.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:32 pm

.

WW, what a thoroughly embarrassing post for you.

Moving on...

I've been reading about Mousavi's history and it really puts everything in depressing context.

It finally sunk in what it means that he was prime minister under Khomeini from 1981-1988. Think about it. That would the period of the theocratic consolidation of what had started as a far broader-based revolution against the Shah; a time of great repression and executions of tens of thousands of political opponents. The period, in fact, when the present system that Mousavi supposedly wants to reform was set up and constitutionalized, under Mousavi as prime minister. Also the era of the Iran-Iraq war and the Iran-Contra machinations, the hostage-for-arms trading, secret negotiations with the Bush mob, etc. I don't know what to think about the various accusations against him but the point is that even if he wasn't the most powerful man in Iran as a mere prime minister, his hands can hardly be clean of the regime's many excesses and atrocities. He was the highest official of the secular government.

So this looks a conflict first of all within the theocratic revolutionary set, Ahmedinejad's generation against the originals like Rafsanjani and Mousavi. I am reminded that the ayatollahs exercise control of elections first of all by vetting candidates and strictly controlling who is allowed to appear on the ballot. Beyond that, they get to shoot down legislation they don't like. So what was the choice? It appears if Mousavi's a reformer then this may be opportunist, at a time when profiling himself as one is the best chance to win against Ahmedinejad. And the people in the street on either side of this conflict may both be fighting for a fraud.

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:32 pm

Now that I think about it, maybe Wilbur Whatley is commenting on the lack of posts about the security forces beating protesters and other reports of some pretty nasty things. Example of a tweet that Sullivan highlights:

Hospitals around Tehran are surrounded by security forces who refuse to let those with injuries pass, humanity at its worst

Friend: 17 y/o killed infront of me couldn't get to him in time guards beating us up went to hospital but he stopped moving


And there is this interesting one:

My Father has a truck load of ballot boxes that were to be burned in the back of his truck.


Of course this cannot be verified.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:39 pm

JackRiddler wrote:.

...I've been reading about Mousavi's history and it really puts everything in depressing context....

.

I saw something about that earlier:

...In order to win Mousavi had taken up the progressive slogans, which he had previously fought against. I was there at the beginning of the Islamic Revolution when he was the Prime Minister, and implemented many of the repressive measures which he now denounces.

I (like many others) was thrown out of the university that Mousavi helped to shut down as part of the Cultural Revolution....
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smiths » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:05 pm

There is no doubt whatsoever
WW

ahhh, you gotta laugh, election news from iran in real-time, through mostly western sources and 'local blogs' (wow they'd be hard to fake if so desired eh?)

no doubt whatsoever
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:26 am

I think this is what the US govt decided to do instead of actual invasion and warfare. Send the CIA over there to support the opposition candidate, give him the funds and backing needed to make a stink and claim stolen election, encourage his followers to take to the streets and forment civil war and send in peacekeeping troops later to quell the ensuing chaos and voilence. Just like that the West takes control of one more axis of evil country.

I think Iran and North Korea are the last two countries that dont have CENTRAL BANKS and that is why they are the enemy and we already see psy ops going on in NK as we speak with Ling and Lee imprisoned and NK announcing new nuke tests being planned.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby SonicG » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:35 am

Interesting take Percival although I can't see US troops going in there. Cannonfire has an interesting take on Mousavi:
This story gives some of the background for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the Iranian politician allegedly robbed in the election. Turns out he has close ties to the old Iran-contra gang -- Manuchar Ghorbinfar, Adnan Khashogghi, and dear old Michael Ledeen. Long-time readers know my feelings about Mikey. The following comes from Time magazine, January 1987:

"By [Ghorbanifar's] own account he was a refugee from the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, which confiscated his businesses in Iran, yet he later became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government. Some U.S. officials who have dealt with Ghorbanifar praise him highly. Says Michael Ledeen, adviser to the Pentagon on counterterrorism: "[Ghorbanifar] is one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known." Others call him a liar who, as one puts it, could not tell the truth about the clothes he is wearing,"...

Here's the story he links about the connections.
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 160 guests