Iran Uprising - Page 5

from Wikipedia ... knowing that groups crucial to the revolution's success -- secular and Islamic Modernist Iranians -- were likely to be irreconcilably opposed to theocracy. It was only when Khomeini's core supporters had consolidated their hold on power that wilayat al-faqih was made known to the general public and written into the country's new Islamic constitution.

This leadership is deeply unpopular and hated. Riot is just the wrong word to use and is more suited for football hooligans, not university students marching for their personal freedoms to dress how they want, talk about what they want and generally be free to express themselves in a democracy.

btw here's a short history of Iran:

- Mossadeq democratically elected government toppled by US/UK because of him nationalising oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq

- UK installs a dictator the Shah. Brutal, tortures people. Spends excessive amounts of money while poor starve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_shah

- Revolution where everyone rallies behind Ayatollah who promises a democratic Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_...on#Consolidation_of_power_by_Khomeini

- Installs a weak theocracy.

- Saddam invades Iran for no reason other than as an opportunist backed by the west. This cements the strength of Irans leadership under wartime conditions.

So that is why showing even any partiality towards either side is just a bad idea. It plays into the government line. Simply taking a neutral stance shows the government for the liars they are and has them scrambling to find a scapegoat to blame.

thanks genjix

Ok you guys either dont read my posts. Or read it and dont understand what Im saying.

This is the type of actions Im talking about here(Germany also have opened their embassies doors so that they can bring wounded people there):
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Iran/idUSTRE55K1P920090621

Doing something like that rather than doing what Chinese and Russians are doing is what I believe western countries must do.
I am sure you all agree with me its just a little hard for me to say exactly what type of action Im talking about.
Think of France and American Revolution but to a lesser extend actually.


And @boblion: Read my post again I didn't say that.
@traxamillion : You posted Zeitgeist1 video link. So Im not gonna waste my time you.
@genjix : That last video just made my day!

Wow these threads get crazy. I love how people in this community bash over the head anyone who has an opinion different from their own. So many jump on the bandwagon, and spout nonsense or regurgitate press clippings as if they were their own thoughts. Something I would never do is call you stupid for your beliefs. When I disagree I will say so, and try to explain why I disagree and explain my thought process, but I won't disparage you or your beliefs. And I don't expect to convince anyone of anything, because narrow minds are very hard to expand, and it's not my job nor my quest to educate the masses.

This thread starts with a series of photographs with captions like
"Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi march through Valiasr Street during riots in Tehran" and "Young men run past a burning bus during a riot in Tehran". Now you can agree with the cause of the people, but this is still a riot, not an organized protest being put down by the military, and certainly not a revolution. My only assertion was that this will peter out in a short amount of time without significant change occurring in Iran. I'll stand by that assertion. I could end up being wrong, and I can live with that. It doesn't make me stupid, nor does it mean I don't want to see a coup in Iran. I just don't see that happening here and now.

genjix you said "what i think will happen if anything does is not a revolution but evolution- the ayatalloh being replaced with montazeri who advocates democracy and reelections hopefully" which is a credible, optimistic point of view. It's certainly possible you will be right.

user447 you are clearly a war-monger. Either that or naive. maybe both. Either way, there is little for the US to do about this situation other than condemn the violence. It isn't for the US to decide the fate of another country's people. We've done that too much already, to the point that the current president feels he needs to go around the world apologizing for the US. We have our own problems in our country we need to focus on, not to mention the fact that we haven't yet gotten out of the mess we created the last time we tried to 'free' an Arab nation.

capaneo you call me dumb for calling this a riot when the captions under your own pictures describe it as such. Then you make a comparison to Tienanmen as if that was the same as what is going on in Iran right now. It's not. The students at Tienanmen were not storming the streets setting fires and being generally unruly. They occupied the square for more than a month, with thousands of them on a hunger strike, and they were actively seeking dialogue with the government. I don't think you are dumb, but I do think you are young, and one's perspective changes with experience.

It's a sad situation over there, for sure. And support their cause if you want.

Is this a riot?

On June 22 2009 10:29 genjix wrote: Is this a riot?

Clearly that is not. But I don't see what point you are trying to make either. That there are peaceful protests going on? I didn't say there weren't. I also don't see that peaceful protest being put down with gunfire from the government, or in fact any effort at all to stop it by authorities. But most of the video I have seen has been of riots. I have seen protesters running off the police throwing rocks and bottles and crap, and surprisingly the cops aren't mowing them down with machine gun fire. My point was that there are riots going on, and riots get put down with violence in all parts of the world.

It's still not a revolution.

who cares, the current supreme leader is a religious zealot nutjob, and the guy who supposedly should have won is an equally retarded religious zealot nutjob. he may be a BIT more liberal, but c'mon, get serious now.

any country that still uses high clerics, religious leaders and the like as their "Supreme" leader is fucking delusional. guardian council? get the fuck outta here

Not sure why we are arguing semantics on what are simply mixed images leaving Iran. In burning tires and clashes with authorities we consider 'riots', in rallies and street demonstrations we accept 'protests', yet whatever word we use to describe what is happening (rallies, riots, protests, demonstrations, disgruntled civil congregations, or mobile 'town hall meetings') it's far too early to consider 'revolutionary movement' to follow after.

Below is an image from Wiki, revealing the aftermath of a 2004 Venezuelan referendum where Hugo Chavez was petitioned to be recalled as president. The votes ended up in his favour, the opposition called 'fraud' on the results and ... well, five years on it's clear nothing changed...



... except, perhaps...










and my favourite...

ur fave doesn't work
and ya that definition from dictionary.com is as far as I was going in the semantics

here it is, i love how they're always holding hands!

you mean like this?

ahmadinejad is a gay boi

On June 20 2009 22:48 ToTehEastSide wrote: props to Obama ----------------------- CBS asked Pres. Obama to respond Friday to the warning from Ayatollah Khamenei that further protests would risk severe consequences. I like what Obama said but beyond that I'll just give you the full exchange, provided by the White House: Q Let's move on to the news of the day. The Ayatollah Khamenei gave his speech today, gave his sermon. He said that the election in Iran was, in fact, legitimate. He said, "The street demonstrations are unacceptable." Do you have a message for those people in the street? Obama: I absolutely do. First of all, let's understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States, that's an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically. And that's just not going to fly. What you're seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. Already we've seen violence out there. I've said this throughout the week, I want to repeat it, that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for. And I'm very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are -- through peaceful means -- trying to be heard will I think send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and is not. But the last point I want to make on this -- this is not an issue of the United States or the West versus Iran; this is an issue of the Iranian people. The fact that they are on the streets, under pretty severe duress, at great risk to themselves, is a sign that there's something in that society that wants to open up. And, you know, we respect Iran's sovereignty and we respect the fact that ultimately the Iranian people have to make these decisions. But I hope that the world understands that this is not something that has to do with the outside world; this has to do with what's happening in Iran. And I think ultimately the Iranian people will obtain justice. Q People in this country say you haven't said enough, that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say? Obama: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard. What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universal." It's long but it bends towards justice. link ---------------------------- gotta give credit where credit is due and so far on this issue it is totally due here Obama's words and my thoughts are in alignment I just have to admit I am wary tho, and I hope Obama's actions, his administrations actions, and our national government programs actions stay the course with these words and continue in alignment [edit] and ps.. fuck the UN

It's a miracle cause you and I are in agreement for once =)

I really like what he had to say and I I like his approach so far. I think it's a bad thing when the US gets involved in regime change, whether it's open war like Iraq or CIA assassinations like in south/central america in the 80's, it always seems to end really badly and create enemies for America which come back to haunt us in the end.

i really dont think that Obama will keep his word there, usa will surely intervene, its just a matter of time, afterall its in their economical interest and we know they dont stop at anything if money is up for the grabs.

as I hope to gladly be wrong here when I say this, I unfortunately would wager a guess that you are right Baal and in time User447 is going to get what he wishes of "American" involvement and more because our current government representing the people will deem it necessary to intervene, and sadly a reluctant and oh so hesitant President will have to concede
I very much hope this nagging theory is wrong - I can't express that enough

doing it this way keeps his image intact as long as possible

as if Obama's the one pulling the strings .. he ll do wever the fat jews behind him want him to do

as if you think what is going to happen here is not already thought out by the powers that be?