Iran Uprising

Below are some pictuers I took from boston.com around 4-5days ago.
+ Show Spoiler +

A supporter of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi shouts slogans during riots in Tehran on June 13, 2009. Hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner by a landslide in Iran's hotly-disputed presidential vote, triggering riots by opposition supporters and furious complaints of cheating from his defeated rivals. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images)


2Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi march through Valiasr Street during riots in Tehran on June 13, 2009. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images) #


3Protestors set fires in a main street in Tehran, Iran in the early hours of Monday, June 15, 2009. Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (AP Photo) #


4Young men run past a burning bus during a riot in Tehran on June 13, 2009. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images) #


5A riot-police officer strikes a man with a baton near Tehran University on June 14, 2009. Iran's defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi said on Sunday he has asked the powerful Guardians Council to cancel the result of the presidential poll, while urging his supporters to continue peaceful protests. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) #


6A man is detained by Iranian riot-police in front of Tehran University during riots in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #


7Iranian students, supporters of presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, try to keep clear of tear gas being lobbed back and forth at the main entrance of Tehran University during riots on Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #


8Students, supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi demonstrate at the main entrance of Tehran University during riots on Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #


9Iranian supporters of reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi gather on the streets protesting the results of the Iranian presidential election in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 13, 2009. (AP photo) #


10Members of the Iranian hardline volunteer Basij militia begin to enter Tehran University where supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi were protesting against the latest election's results at Tehran's University on June 14, 2009. (AFP/Getty Images) #


11Supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of the Basij militia hurl stones towards supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi who are inside Tehran University on Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #


12Backers of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi are beaten by government security men during riots in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #


13Riot policemen deploy in Tehran's Enghelab square to disperse protesters demonstrating against the election results in Tehran on June 14, 2009. (AFP/Getty Images) #


14Hard-line supporters armed with batons try to break into a house where protesters found shelter in central Tehran June 14, 2009. (REUTERS/Stringer) #



15A motorcycle burns in a street of Tehran, Iran on Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP photo/Vahid Salemi) #



16An injured backer of Mir Hossein Mousavi covers his bloodied face during riots in Tehran on June 13, 2009. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images) #



17A supporter of defeated presidential candidate Mousavi is beaten by government security men as fellow supporters come to his aid during riots in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #



18A man with a cane gestures towards a woman on the ground during protests in central Tehran June 14, 2009. (REUTERS/Stringer) #



19Supporters of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi are followed by Iranian riot-police with batons in front of Tehran University during riots in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, June 14, 2009. (AP Photo) #



25Iranian riot policemen kick a man in Zartusht street close to the Interior Ministry, as supporters of reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi started to gather on the streets protesting the declared results of the Iranian presidential election in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 13, 2009. (AP photo/STR) #



26A riot policeman hits a motorcyclist with a baton during a protest against the election results in Tehran June 14, 2009. (REUTERS/Stringer) #


27A riot-police officer sprays tear-gas at a supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is attacking him with a police stick during riots in Tehran on June 13, 2009. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images) #



28Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi try to calm down fellow demonstrators as they rescue a bloodied riot policeman (center) who was beaten during a protest in Valiasr Street in Tehran on June 13, 2009. (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images) #



29A backer of Mir Hossein Mousavi helps evacuate an injured riot-police officer during riots in Tehran on June 13, 2009. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images) #



30Black smoke rises above the Tehran skyline as supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi burn tires and other material in the streets as they fight running battles with police to protest the declared results of the Iranian presidential election in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis) #



31A protester holds a stone during clashes with police in Tehran June 13, 2009. Thousands of people clashed with police on Saturday after the disputed election victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked the biggest protests in Tehran since the 1979 Islamic revolution. (REUTERS/Ahmed Jadalla) #



32Armed with handguns, members of the Iranian security force, in civlian clothes, fire warning shots to disperse supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi in central Tehran on June 14, 2009. (OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images) #



33A poster of defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi is seen on the broken-down door of a room in Tehran University dormitory after it was attacked by militia forces during riots in Tehran, Iran in the early hours of Monday, June 15, 2009. Overnight, police and militia stormed the campus at the city's biggest university, ransacking dormitories and arresting dozens of students angry over what they claim was election fraud. (AP photo) #



34An image of Mir Hossein Mousavi is seen (lower left), fixed to a desk with a smashed computer monitor in a room in a Tehran University dormitory after it was attacked by militia forces during riots in Tehran, Iran in the early hours of Monday, June 15, 2009. (AP photo) #



36On Monday, June 15, 2009, Iranian opposition demonstrators protest in support of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, in Tehran. Opposition supporters defied a ban to stage a mass rally in Tehran in protest at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide election win, as Iran faced a growing international backlash over the validity of the election and the subsequent crackdown on opposition protests. (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images) #



37Defeated reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi (center) raises his arms as he appears at an opposition demonstration in Tehran on June 15, 2009, appearing in public for the first time since an election that has divided the nation. (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images) #



38Defying an official ban, hundreds of thousands of Iranian supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi demonstrate in Tehran on Monday, June 15, 2009. (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images) #



39A man lies on the back of a taxi, after being seriously injured by gunfire in an area where pro-government militia were firing shots near a rally supporting leading opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in Tehran, Iran, Monday, June 15, 2009. (AP Photo) #



40A man lies the back of a truck after being seriously injured by gunfire in an area where militia were firing shots at a rally supporting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top opponent on Monday, June 15, 2009. (AP Photo) #



41Onlookers observe the body of a man allegedly shot by pro-government militia near a rally supporting leading opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in Tehran, Iran, Monday, June 15, 2009. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi) #

Today the crackdown has been worse. I have unconfirmed reports of atleast 8 dead.
The militia police in civilian cloth called Basij is walking around and shoots civilan people in the neck.
Here are some pictures of today.
Warning: some are graphic
+ Show Spoiler +

one guy who was shot today


So was this girl

This is happening in all the cities in Iran and not only tehran. But because of the crackdown of media and internet its very hard to get news from other cities other than by telephone calls to reletives. But atleast 1 person is shot dead in every major city in Iran in the past week.
This is a picture from the 3rd city in iran
+ Show Spoiler +

So whats the mood in Iran today?
The goverment basically is saying that they moved on to the next stage and will kill anyone they can. And people are saying "we are ready to die for a freedom."
The police also started to raid the universities and even people's homes and taking every one into unknown places. Knowing this regime and history it is very possible that they are just shooting them dead and getting rid of the bodies.

Things can get only worse from this point on before it starts geting better. Or it just stays worse.
Either all the current leaders in Iran will die or all the leaders in opposition which are also high ranking people withing the goverment. So there will be blood. lots of it.

I will update this if you guys care.

looks so brutal
but how is the new president elected? are there just more people that voted for him but are sitting in their homes or it is just sick corrupted vote? obv it is the 2nd but needed to ask, i have no info about iran

On June 20 2009 15:35 Technics wrote: looks so brutal but how is the new president elected? are there just more people that voted for him but are sitting in their homes or it is just sick corrupted vote? obv it is the 2nd but needed to ask, i have no info about iran

It looks like it was flat out rigged. The turn out was in excess of 80% and polls, even corrupted as they were, showed it being a very close race. Official results showed the president being relected 2:1.

why does this shit even matter when the Ayatollah runs the country?

----> countdown till US "intervenes" or w/e and goes into Iran

this is brutal, idk what else to say

thanks for the post capaneo. It's getting crazy over there. I have no idea what will happen and very little idea about what's going on. I feel bad for all the people who are suffering and like you said, I think a lot of people are going to die and that's really shitty.

+1 post i still don't know how to react to all of this. It's seems so foreign to me

I'm interested.

I mainly hope for an end to theocracy but that will not come easily or soon.

No words to describe it, really

Inspiring to see a country shedding so much blood for its own freedom, go iran!

one my friends there has been arrested

still at least there might at last be a change and then itd be a great country

also whats cool is that this is 1st uprising in history where im getting up to date news from facebook/twitter and the news is next to useless.

basically these ayatallohs... they will kill everyone before they leave power. they r not the shah- they r religious zealots

also the official line is that ahmadinejad is supported by poor/rural... ive been to small villages. ive never met anyone that likes this idiot. they call him a turkish monkey (hes not persian). hes universally hated since the beginning of time

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

the "president" had the ballots burned... lol. it's so sad. we shouldn't intervene however. Not our country.

On June 20 2009 17:37 Baal wrote: Inspiring to see a country shedding so much blood for its own freedom, go iran!

May sound harsh but agree with this. Not supposed to come across harsh though. I hope they get their rightful ways soon and without too many casaulties and everything because this is just too ugly... Weird to see these pictures when Dutch news hardly shows anything and basically just talks about it with correspondents in Iran because they say it's almost impossible to get visual footage.

The UN should intervene... Its sickening with all the people being killed. The civilians cant do it on their own, they need our help.

On June 20 2009 21:28 MayZerG wrote: The UN should intervene... Its sickening with all the people being killed. The civilians cant do it on their own, they need our help.

lolzer's...sure thatll work. im sure the world community would agree there too

props to Obama

I disagree with Obama. If the regime of Ayatollah's turns iran into something like Afghanistan during Taliban(which is their goal and the direction this is going.) There will soon be an Iranian-AlQaida that will come and kill people in the west.
How can you expect that these people who are killing their own citizens would not do the same with people in Israel/US/England/.... Specially since this is what they are saying all the time?
Just standing by and "watching" and doing nothing will not solve any problems. You have to note this goverment is different almost all the high ranking prople in this goverment are wanted by interlope around the world.

I think if they pull out a Tiananmen square the world has to react. Or down in some years they will come after western world just like Taliban and Afghanistan.

So you think we should invade Iran too for fear of the future is that it?
User447 you are a perfect example of fear leading you by the nose
The USA does not = police men of the world

No I dont think US should "invade" Iran.
But they have to MAKE SURE the Ayatollahs regime wont be able to do what China did.

The world can use their political arm/economic arm/Intelligence service. There are lots of options.

Im saying if world stay aside and not do ANYTHING. And just wait for a side to win and then make biz as normal with them this will hunt us. Just look at history and Afghanistan. What makes you think this will be ANY different?

I say the world has to MAKE SURE the right side wins. And the right side is not the one who yells DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ENGLAND every chance they get.

I dont know how anyone can disagree with that.

See, preemptive strikes are totally fear based.

User447 are you American?
I ask because when you say "But they have to MAKE SURE the Ayatollahs regime wont be able to do what China did." I wonder who exactly is they?
That is very important.

I am assuming by this statement you are not American and so then I ask you why should THEY always be the one to do something, why don't YOU go do something

And what do you mean we have to make sure the right side wins? This is a people uprising. It is about the government vs the people. Let the PEOPLE there decide for themselves what they want. Do you really think to know which side is the right side better than all the people of Iran to speak for an argument of American intervention?

People are not inherently bad, and by these protests/uprising and no direct intervention/occupation from the USA, the people of Iran currently have the ability to establish their own government as they should see fit. As they should.
You think we (America in particular) should go in and force our views and establish our own system of government upon the uprising people for fear of what might happen if we don't. That is a really bad answer.
So in order to insure your future scenario of fear doesn't happen you think the USA in particular should intervene and thus establish our own government/views upon everyone there. Just to fix what you see could be a problem. Because of what might happen...

I say again let the people there handle it.
American intervention will just create even more problems and hate for this country, and we have plenty of both already.

We will have to stand by and watch, for now at least. If the Iranian people want freedom they will have to fight for it, shed their blood, lose their lives perhaps, but that is how freedom is won. You only end oppression by defiance. At all cost. We can't interfere in the natural order of things.

The Iranian people need to decide, for themselves, what they want. They have already proven that revolution comes from within (by the people) and without foreign interference, this was seen clearly and most recently in the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Yet the assumption that recent events will lead to a revolution is naive, it's still just a word touted by Iranian's abroad and encouraged by western governments. The protesters, while they have their own ideas of nationalism, religious alignment, threat or want of westernisation, and so forth, are simply united through the disenchantment of an election process that has ushered in Ahmedinijad's second term. This has been met by government suppression that has fueled this situation even further, perhaps closer to rapid reforms or the other ''R'' word. I feel that by applying any foreign interference, there is a risk of reducing this united front into their fundamental groups which won't help Mousavi's case for 'election fraud' at all, but allow Ahmedinijad an opportunity to reunite the country, or at least the majority of it, behind his nationalistic call 'against the west' (which by the way, is supported by A LOT of Iranian's within Iran).

Also, our idea of 'freedom' in the west shouldn't be attached to Mousavi. He is very much a 'child of the Islamic Revolution', a member of the Islamic Revolution Council in its early years and serving as Prime Minister under the current Supreme Ayatollah's presidency back in the 80's. His leftist ideals, considering President Khatami before him (of the same party), would be within the framework of the Islamic Republic and the constitution he helped establish. Reform in Iran is bound by the emotive 'hope'.

The US response is near perfect, in that they are refuting claims of preference or judgment and instead taking on the peaceful role of observer while, as Kissinger has said recently of Obama's message, "The US] has to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech [and] free elections".

Having said all that, I haven't been following the recent situation as best as I probably should as it's exam week and I'm cramming D: I am intrigued by Iranian politics tho...

By "they" I mean EU and US and Israel. Basically all the countries that the current government WILL ATTACK.

I understand what you are saying. But everything you think and say is wrong and the reason is this:
"Let the PEOPLE there decide for themselves what they want. "
"... the people of Iran currently have the ability to establish their own government as they should see fit. As they should. "

Those two statement are at the very foundation of every conclusion you make. And you have NO IDEA how wrong you are on both of those statements.

They rigged the election. as you might know. Imagine tomorrow they go and kill 100,000 of the people on the street.
And this people's movement will not only die out it will NEVER rise again. Which will give the current government enough chances to "engage" with Israel, US and EU. Like they are saying in every chance they get.

All your assumptions are based on the fact that people in power actually care about their country. NO THEY DONT. They care about Islam and going to paradise more than killing 1,000,000 of their own people.

You are very very wrong. You have no idea how theocracy work. Not saying anything and staying aside will cause another AlQaida.
When this government gets done with killing their own people they will come after us.

+ Show Spoiler +

when did mosh girl join the Iranian riot police?

User447: I spoke with a professor the other night at a Uni function who suggested illegally shipping in weaponry to 'anti-government' factions within Iran, not dissimilar to the foreign engagement that led to a coup d'etat against Mossadegh's disposal in the 1950's... I was appalled, but he's an economics prof so *shrug*. Bad things tend to lead to worse things, regardless of what you think is 'right', there is a degree of manipulation that is involved when nationalism is held against a backdrop of foreign assistance. The US/UK involvement in overthrowing one of Iran's initial chances at democracy in Mossadegh, for the reinstatement of the Shah (benefiting Oil companies at the time), was used provocatively in the subsequent overthrow of the monarchy during the Islamic Revolution. When you say 'other countries' should interfere, you're not speaking for the interests of the Iranian people, but instead, those who have interests in the region... this sentiment is fine, however case example's in Iraq/Afghanistan have shown that military approaches to nation building with hawkish perspectives, simply don't work.

In this particular case, while it does sound harsh - I'll say it again, the Iranian people need to deal with this themselves and they are safer unarmed than walking down the streets of Tehran with US supplied M4A1 colt carbines in-hand...

Wow, that's horrible...

and..
+ Show Spoiler +

edit: damnit byrnesam, i actually wanted to be the funny one for once!

On June 21 2009 01:21 kalgo wrote: User447: I spoke with a professor the other night at a Uni function who suggested illegally shipping in weaponry to 'anti-government' factions within Iran, not dissimilar to the foreign engagement that led to a coup d'etat against Mossadegh's disposal in the 1950's... I was appalled, but he's an economics prof so *shrug*. Bad things tend to lead to worse things, regardless of what you think is 'right', there is a degree of manipulation that is involved when nationalism is held against a backdrop of foreign assistance. The US/UK involvement in overthrowing one of Iran's initial chances at democracy in Mossadegh, for the reinstatement of the Shah (benefiting Oil companies at the time), was used provocatively in the subsequent overthrow of the monarchy during the Islamic Revolution. When you say 'other countries' should interfere, you're not speaking for the interests of the Iranian people, but instead, those who have interests in the region... this sentiment is fine, however case example's in Iraq/Afghanistan have shown that military approaches to nation building with hawkish perspectives, simply don't work. In this particular case, while it does sound harsh - I'll say it again, the Iranian people need to deal with this themselves and they are safer unarmed than walking down the streets of Tehran with US supplied M4A1 colt carbines in-hand...

What you are saying might be right in the perfect world. But its not in the real world.

Look at the evidence and past examples in history.
Anytime a goverment has killed many of its own people during a "clean up" act later they have been aggressive towards other nations.
Just a few recent examples:
Napoleone who was in charge of cleaning up Toulon.
Hitler who basically murdered any opposition in Germany.
Stalin
Saddam
Taliban and BinLaden
.....
The list goes on and on.

If this current government get the chance to get rid of inside opposition. We are next. So we HAVE TO make sure the "right" side wins.

A psycho in power with guns is a very dangerous thing. Now imagine that psycho thinks he has a mission from GOD. You get the Iranian current government.

That same psycho has been relatively dormant for the past 4 years of his term, beyond the standard rhetoric you're expected to hear from a country that has been labeled as part of an axis of evil that included their invaded neighbour... with war at both east and west, in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's only show of hostility has been through Ahmadinijad's easily ignorable dialogue, the testing of weaponry (defensive bravado), manipulation of oil trade/routes (from a country slapped with a US embargo) and their political alignment with other 'frowned upon' nation states such as Venezuela...

The right side won't win if we interfere, it will simply set up a series of events that could lead to an even worse scenario. This is not a perfect world, you're right dude, and these issues can't easily be wiped away by taking out the political actors that upset you at the moment.

Obama is right to stay out, and the world should continue to observe what is happening if only to assist in holding those responsible to account if or when Iran's judgment day arrives.

Mark my words. If the current government goes into a mass killing mode. Which is THEIR ONLY CARD to survive. We are next.

This has happened numerous times in the history and this is no exception.

good posts kalgo - I am sure the going ons and current affairs there are much deeper and more complex than my current understanding as is often the case with internal affairs.
and lmao byrn <3

as for User447 geez man you are just brimming with fear aren't u
I believe you actually don't understand what I am saying as you are wrong; all my assumptions are not based on the fact that people in power care one way or another. I am actually saying quite the opposite.
My assumptions are based on the fact that it is obvious the PEOPLE do care, hence why you have an uprising? This uprising is because of the rigged elections, the ruling government etc is it not? Thus all the more reason why other countries should allow this process to happen and not get directly involved - let the people do what they need to do.

All of your statements keep underlining this point. Make sure the right side wins!

Answer me this plz: Who is the right side and who can best determine this?

and how I love this from you:

We are next!

you keep making that statement and it is the epitome of fear and the bottom line of the preemptive war on a thought

Be afraid, be very afraid

Who is the right side and who can best determine this?
You really dont understand who the right side is??

The right side the the one who has respect for human's life. Its very simple.
The right side is the one whose goal is NOT going to paradise. Specially when they are shooting civilians on the streets.

If the west step aside and let this side wins. Which is a possibility. Then there will be consequences.
Can you really trust Ahamadinejad promises in nuclear negotiations after all these??
Hitler signed a paper with Chamberlain then PM of england. Guaranteeing peace. Less than a year after you have the 2nd world war.

Now answer this question please.
What do you think it means that EVERY CHANCE they get they shout death to america and death to Israel?


Btw in case you dont know. The Supreme Leader of Iran friday said that all these "riots" on the streets is a movement financed and planned by USA and England.
This is the kind of nuts we are dealing with here.
Do you REALLY think if we let these guys stay in power they are not going to do anything to us???

ur incredibly misinformed

ZEEBO WAS RIGHT

EVERYONE TO SWEDEN!

QUICK!

On June 21 2009 03:27 genjix wrote: ur incredibly misinformed

You are either incredibly ignorant or dishonest.

I don't understand anyone can make a case for pre-emptive war in the name of world peace with a straight face.

hah I was just going to say something to that effect Fudyann
I think the line of thought goes something like...
the right side is the one's who have respect for human life and the wrong side are the one's who do not
thus we need to kill the people on the wrong side
before they kill us

I wonder where User447 is from

anyhow I'm off this unicycle
time to grind

What you guys dont understand like I said is that I dont ask for a "WAR"

What Im asking for is NOT STANDING ON THE RAIL AND JUST LOOK AND NOT TAKING SIDE.

There are hundreds of things the west can do. Like not recognizing the current regime. Not buying their oil. Secret service support for the opposition(information/technology/maybe even providing arms).
Setting up refugee camp in the embassies. Firing the Iranian ambassadors from their country.
btw many European countries are doing some of these stuff already.


Its very American of you guys to think that taking a clear position on an issue means dropping bombs!

plz shut up. u dont know anything about iranian history. western influence has been a curse there for centuries and will just fuck everything up

graphic video:


basijis are shooting now. she's #neda on twitter fyi. basijis have been sending men into the protest crowds with razors to randomly cut people up.

on twitter, u can find various stuff under #iranelection . whereis myvote on facebook. alot of content is on various friends facebooks who upload their first hand material and repost other popular media. so if u know any iranians u should try to add them.

Ok so you wanna have a zombie nation like Afghanistan? Then we should only "pick a side" when we have planes flying into buildings?

Im not talking about intervening. Im talking about support.
If there is a football game going on. Having support for one side doesnt mean getting into the middle of the field and running with the ball. You can stay on the rail but be VERY supportive of one side. You can boost your team morals. You can give them financial support. You can do lots of things.

BTW this is very normal and standard stuff. French did it for America.
America did it for Europe during WWII prior to Pearl Harbor.

ok i see what ur saying. but its still bad and will hinder not help opposition

iran is not afghanistan. even the zealots do not advocate attacking civilians. in fact iran is more moderate than saudi arabia ffs. the previous govt was western oriented but a dictator and many ppl are still modern and westernised... just living under a theocracy

Very depressing. A friend informed me over Skype that a score of people had been shot last night, another friend arrested together with his mothers leg having been broken by Basiji. People have been trying to seek shelter in mosques for protection which they haven't provided.

He sounds pessimistic. That the situation will quiet down and come to an end with only a minor change if anything. Sad. Civilians are afraid to leave their houses. Assembly is totally out of the question.

Worth mentioning is that most internet services have been cut, including all IM, https and email. Wide brush of websites are blocked. All SMS is down, phones are all monitored. Foreign media is banned with jamming signals for foreign broadcasts. Only Skype really works-- but with a 20 second delay between speech!

wtf is this User447

You come in saying how the US needs to make sure the right side wins and mark ur words we are next and then you backpedal saying oh you just mean moral support, money would be nice then end with "Its very American of you guys to think that taking a clear position on an issue means dropping bombs!?"

forgive me if I don't continue with you and the obv no spin zone u got there Mr Bill O'Reilly
g'day

[edit]
actually I will say one piece before checkout - tho hopefully I am wrong when I say this, there is a decent chance you are going to get your wish
I mean in seeing what you are wanting, you already have that in part - just look at what the House of Rep recently voted on
http://www.liquidpoker.net/blog/viewblog.php?id=755183




genjix last night were the ppl shot in demonstrations or random killings or what?

On June 21 2009 05:16 User447 wrote: Ok so you wanna have a zombie nation like Afghanistan? Then we should only "pick a side" when we have planes flying into buildings? Im not talking about intervening. Im talking about support. If there is a football game going on. Having support for one side doesnt mean getting into the middle of the field and running with the ball. You can stay on the rail but be VERY supportive of one side. You can boost your team morals. You can give them financial support. You can do lots of things. BTW this is very normal and standard stuff. French did it for America. America did it for Europe during WWII prior to Pearl Harbor.

User447 doesn't want to play football, but thinks we should line up on one side and rah rah for that team, buy their souvenirs, wear their colors, write about the games . . .

who is this user447 tool. Maybe he really is Bill o retardo in disguise.

wow i had little knowledge of just how bad iran was getting. Sad shit.

i dont understand
how did Baal not start another anti american thread here

this is certain not to be a popular view, but the more video of this stuff I see the more it looks like just another riot, much like we see in our own country. More people beating each other in the streets than protesters clashing with police. This isn't revolution, it's a riot. Mob rule mentality. The body count is amazingly low considering how much attention this is getting. How that country deals with it is up to them, we can't very well impose our ideals on them, it isn't ours to say who is right and who is wrong when there is disagreement of values. There are plenty of videos out there of riots in America and how the police use violence to quell them. Look up Kent State, or the Rodney King Verdict riots, or the WTO riots here in Seattle. We are not so different when we perceive injustice, and our government not so different in how it responds. Rioting is not the answer, in fact it is counter productive. And it should not be encouraged from outside countries. We should not be taking sides, rather we should encourage both sides to calm down and stop the violence.

On June 21 2009 03:34 byrnesam wrote: ZEEBO WAS RIGHT EVERYONE TO SWEDEN! QUICK!

This isn't getting enough love <3. Make a picture please.

On June 21 2009 08:43 ToTehEastSide wrote: wtf is this User447 You come in saying how the US needs to make sure the right side wins and mark ur words we are next and then you backpedal saying oh you just mean moral support, money would be nice then end with "Its very American of you guys to think that taking a clear position on an issue means dropping bombs!?" forgive me if I don't continue with you and the obv no spin zone u got there Mr Bill O'Reilly g'day [edit] actually I will say one piece before checkout - tho hopefully I am wrong when I say this, there is a decent chance you are going to get your wish I mean in seeing what you are wanting, you already have that in part - just look at what the House of Rep recently voted on http://www.liquidpoker.net/blog/viewblog.php?id=755183 genjix last night were the ppl shot in demonstrations or random killings or what?

Im sorry if you missunderstood me. But this is the post I wrote here:

On June 20 2009 23:20 User447 wrote: No I dont think US should "invade" Iran. But they have to MAKE SURE the Ayatollahs regime wont be able to do what China did. The world can use their political arm/economic arm/Intelligence service. There are lots of options. Im saying if world stay aside and not do ANYTHING. And just wait for a side to win and then make biz as normal with them this will hunt us. Just look at history and Afghanistan. What makes you think this will be ANY different? I say the world has to MAKE SURE the right side wins. And the right side is not the one who yells DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ENGLAND every chance they get. I dont know how anyone can disagree with that.

I have no idea how you say I "backpedal"?? I even clearly said it there.
And yes I think the west should provide weapons for the opposition. Thats why we have CIA and MI6. And its very legal. Like I said before we have to "make sure" the right side wins. kind of like France did during the independence of USA. Its very normal.

You were the one who intermediately thought that "support" and "making sure" means dropping nuclear bombs!

On June 21 2009 15:37 User447 wrote: And yes I think the west should provide weapons for the opposition. Thats why we have CIA and MI6. And its very legal. Like I said before we have to "make sure" the right side wins. kind of like France did during the independence of USA. Its very normal.

Are you for real? This isn't revolution, there isn't an opposition army you can provide weapons to. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo.

rioting = tilt

You take some bad beats, in poker and in life. The measure of the player/person is how they deal with the adversity. You don't just shove all your chips in the middle trying to win it all back in one hand do you? Only if you suck. You get back to basics and grind it out. Make steady progress and rebuild.

The problem gets solved politically not beating each other in the streets

On June 21 2009 14:44 curtinsea wrote: this is certain not to be a popular view, but the more video of this stuff I see the more it looks like just another riot, much like we see in our own country. More people beating each other in the streets than protesters clashing with police. This isn't revolution, it's a riot. Mob rule mentality. The body count is amazingly low considering how much attention this is getting. How that country deals with it is up to them, we can't very well impose our ideals on them, it isn't ours to say who is right and who is wrong when there is disagreement of values. There are plenty of videos out there of riots in America and how the police use violence to quell them. Look up Kent State, or the Rodney King Verdict riots, or the WTO riots here in Seattle. We are not so different when we perceive injustice, and our government not so different in how it responds. Rioting is not the answer, in fact it is counter productive. And it should not be encouraged from outside countries. We should not be taking sides, rather we should encourage both sides to calm down and stop the violence.

You are wrong. People are not bearing each other! Its the government forces shooting people.
they have over thousands of people in prison by now. The government goes to hospitals and arrest wounded people there. The government is raiding peoples homes at night and arrest random young people. All these people will get death penalty according to laws in Iran.
And the main difference is that they are not a bunch of people in a city pissed about someone spending time in jail or not being able to get jobs. The whole country(all major cities) wants the current regime to be thrown out and leaders to be trialed.
How can you say they are the same thing???

On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 21 2009 15:37 User447 wrote: And yes I think the west should provide weapons for the opposition. Thats why we have CIA and MI6. And its very legal. Like I said before we have to "make sure" the right side wins. kind of like France did during the independence of USA. Its very normal. Are you for real? This isn't revolution, there isn't an opposition army you can provide weapons to. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo. rioting = tilt You take some bad beats, in poker and in life. The measure of the player/person is how they deal with the adversity. You don't just shove all your chips in the middle trying to win it all back in one hand do you? Only if you suck. You get back to basics and grind it out. Make steady progress and rebuild. The problem gets solved politically not beating each other in the streets

Read the other post first.
Also I didnt say WE HAVE TO DO THAT RIGHT AWAY. I said thats an option.

And yes this is revolution. Who are you kidding? Millions of people are on the street saying death to the leader. WTF that supposed to mean? The leader of the opposition said he will fight for people's rights and freedom till death. How can you possibly think this is anything but a revolution??

And in case you haven't figured it out so far. There is NO RULE OF LAW in the government system in Iran. So the option of "getting to baisc" is not on the table.

I think you should do a little more research on this matter.

Well its really touching to see how Iranians fight for their freedom
I have mad respect for them.
Hopefully they will succeed.
The whole situation is pretty horrible

but many of those guys out in the streets are real heroes

On June 21 2009 14:44 curtinsea wrote: More people beating each other in the streets than protesters clashing with police. This isn't revolution, it's a riot. Mob rule mentality.

This is NOT a riot. Demonstrators even had silent marches so as the government was not able to misconstrue them via state television as being violent rioters. A friend showed me a photograph of government Basiji destroying property and I would not be surprised if a lot of damage has been done by the government to blame on demonstrators.

There is a lot of pent up hate there after years of suppression and very likely some of the vandalism has been done by young hotheads. I've been arguing with people for years that Iran is not a radical Islamic country and that its young populance is modern and western oriented- at last it's nice that these idiots that for one way or another knew better than me are proved wrong.

Fact is, people assemble peacefully and government suppresses brutally. What can you say about a regime that threw young college girls out of windows during the revolution? One that sends men with razors into crowds to randomly cut someone up? A regime that snipers a girl standing with her father watching demonstrators.

These are fucking sick and not religious at all- just corrupt. And the whole population, religious and non-religious hates them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

go to 1:45:00

[x] into afghanistan
[x] into iraq
[x] setting up 4 permanent bases in iraq
[x] war on terror searching in caves
[?] going into iran now

Best news compilation on net:

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4461931

On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: This isn't revolution. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo.

We'll see, a month from now I'll revive this thread with a big fat 'I told you so!!'

On June 21 2009 20:10 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: This isn't revolution. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo. We'll see, a month from now I'll revive this thread with a big fat 'I told you so!!'

You strike me as someone who is soo dumb that might think this was just another riot as well.

Apples and Oranges


The results will be the same.

On June 21 2009 20:47 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On June 21 2009 20:10 curtinsea wrote:   On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: This isn't revolution. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo. We'll see, a month from now I'll revive this thread with a big fat 'I told you so!!' You strike me as someone who is soo dumb that might think this was just another riot as well.

did you learn about tiananmen in kindergarten? I was your age when that happened son, you don't know shit. You're on a media driven bandwagon going along with the crowd. Take a look at the situation from a different angle and things look different. Twenty or twenty five people killed in some riots hardly make a revolution.

i guess his post has more credibility because

#1 he stated he is old thus he is wise and always right
#2 he called you son


-Jorge

You are very educated. Smart and so indipendent thinker.
Oh btw I lived through a revolution. My parents were part of the revolutino. Everyone I know was part of a revolution. And I had taken at least 10 courses in the span of 10 years studying revolutions because I had to. Sorry if my knowledge doesnt match yours sitting behind a TV in USA.
Please ignore me and leave this thread.
Sorry that im so ignorant on this subject.
Oh btw I told all my friends and family in Iran to just go home too. Because appareantly this is just a normal riot.

On June 21 2009 21:46 DooMeR wrote: i guess his post has more credibility because #1 he stated he is old thus he is wise and always right #2 he called you son -Jorge

lol

#1 he has experienced a lot of life and thus recognizes predictable patterns
#2 he called you son cause he is old

On June 21 2009 21:48 capaneo wrote: You are very educated. Smart and so indipendent thinker. Oh btw I lived through a revolution. My parents were part of the revolutino. Everyone I know was part of a revolution. And I had taken at least 10 courses in the span of 10 years studying revolutions because I had to. Sorry if my knowledge doesnt match yours sitting behind a TV in USA. Please ignore me and leave this thread. Sorry that im so ignorant on this subject. Oh btw I told all my friends and family in Iran to just go home too. Because appareantly this is just a normal riot.

Thx for the news feed & photo sharing . Pls dn't get mad at random bunch that don't get the story straight - as it's quite difficult to get unbiased info outside Iran...

* Deep respect to all the people taking part in the demonstrations.

# Neda RIP

On June 21 2009 01:00 byrnesam wrote: + Show Spoiler + when did mosh girl join the Iranian riot police?

ROFL



it amazes me that there still people stupid enough to think that they should get in Iran to help the protesters... are you retarded? have you not learn anything about history? dont you fucking realize that the American downfall is in great part of its foreign policy of policing the world.

The UN and USA should stay the fuck out of Iran, i am afraid given the new "ruling" of the congress that they are planting the seed to invade Iran in 1 or 2 years

On June 20 2009 23:05 User447 wrote: I disagree with Obama. If the regime of Ayatollah's turns iran into something like Afghanistan during Taliban(which is their goal and the direction this is going.) There will soon be an Iranian-AlQaida that will come and kill people in the west. How can you expect that these people who are killing their own citizens would not do the same with people in Israel/US/England/.... Specially since this is what they are saying all the time? Just standing by and "watching" and doing nothing will not solve any problems. You have to note this goverment is different almost all the high ranking prople in this goverment are wanted by interlope around the world. I think if they pull out a Tiananmen square the world has to react. Or down in some years they will come after western world just like Taliban and Afghanistan.

Didnt Mig start a precedent of banning people because of their stupid ideas? im tempted...

it was due to prolonged stupid ideas

On June 21 2009 15:37 User447 wrote: I have no idea how you say I "backpedal"?? I even clearly said it there. And yes I think the west should provide weapons for the opposition. Thats why we have CIA and MI6. And its very legal. Like I said before we have to "make sure" the right side wins. kind of like France did during the independence of USA. Its very normal. You were the one who intermediately thought that "support" and "making sure" means dropping nuclear bombs!

dropping nuclear bombs...wtf? where do u come up with these implications man?
ok then User447 if you are not backpedaling then let me put it to you this way.
Yes I am crystal clear on what our position should be and no it is not even anywhere close to what you think or imply I'm saying are solutions. Those implications you make as my solution or way about foreign policy are the exact OPPOSITE of me and my intent. These actions you say do not and will not ever apply unless there is blatantly and obviously no other course of action and you as well as my government have a far far far far far ways to prove to me that there is no other available action here. Sept 11th is over. That event is now far enough in the past that we need to look at where we are today and what we are doing as a country.

My position in foreign policy simply said is we should commerce with all nations and alliance with none. This is the most sound foreign policy and it should be ours for so many reasons. One small and easy example is it puts the fear mongering people such as yourself in place. We should completely gtfo and instead of being an oppressive nation to all those who have a difference in outlook and way of life and won't conform, we should allow them to be what they want to be and learn to stand on their own as a country and people. We should trade with all countries and nothing more.
What it boils down to is you have been sold this line of preemptive fear of the future because very rich people in control of our industry and markets want to keep their control and that requires expansion. I guarantee you the actions our government takes is much more about monetary gain than a fear of actual terrorism. Terrorism is the tool they use to keep people like you going forever as you can never kill a thought. It is ingenious really.

Not just that but you are deluding yourself if you think financially supporting "the side we want to win", or laying down even heavier sanctions than we already have on Iran is not actively participating.
Also do you actually know any of this history of Afghan you mention? Look at what we did in the 80's. If you can't find it or prefer a Hollywood version watch Charlie Murphy's War - it's true enough. Point is we do what you propose and now look at the outcome.

You are also deluding yourself if you actually think Iran poses a threat to taking over this country. Iran will never anytime soon take it us over. That isn't arrogance, it is just an easy fact. Ah but they could attack right? They do pose a threat to infiltrate through our borders and do a "terrorist" attack yes? Well ok, this is all the more reason we should not be spending our money over there and instead we should be here and focused on fixing our immigration problem.

It's total delusion when people like yourself think that by going in or "helping" get the outcome that YOU want in this situation, that the blow back and scenario that will grow from it is smaller than if we pulled out completely and actually changed our foreign policy to trade only and let the people in their country do what they need to do. I will say this again differently. I am saying that if we just traded with all countries and are not actively manipulating or expanding in these countries, instead we focused at home securing our borders and actually worked on a good illegal immigration system (the problem we currently only hear about time to time because it actually helps the need for our government reliance to grow because we can't see any other way) the blowback or retaliation or chances of being attacked go DOWN not up so national security is not an excuse to continue.

You are also deluding yourself if you believe that you can suppress and eradicate peoples thoughts.
You do not see the real beast of a machine that is hindering and creating the problems. You are just a pawn, a much needed pawn. A much needed pawn that wants to make sure the right side wins but also wants to make sure to say we don't actively send troops over there.
Basically we should do everything else we can do without actually doing it. This is what you propose should be our foreign policy.
What a shady person you are sir.
You know at first I thought you might have been Israeli, but now I am leaning that you are just a right winged neo-con American who is so scared he would rather put a dot for his country for shame than stand proud of where he comes from. I call people like you a shadow fighter.

This is all the more reason why our motto seriously ought to be what I said above, because it wipes out you and people like you who have an agenda, a want or a need that is primarily based off fear, religious beliefs and/or money and any other foreign policy gets in the way of the lives of people that maybe just maybe do not want our way of life and should have a right to their own

the rest I'm reading later

Peaceful protests will never achieve anything concrete or significant. Unfortunately the only way to overthrow a dictatorship is by coup d'etat or civil war.

On June 21 2009 20:10 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: This isn't revolution. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo. We'll see, a month from now I'll revive this thread with a big fat 'I told you so!!'

Israel is the only country that Iran is a real threat to, and they don't see revolution occurring in Iran. I saw this today, and since it is in agreement with me it must be credible!

"Mossad head: Iran riots won't escalate to revolution"



No one likes the bloodshed, and we would all prefer a democratic world where everyone shared American values. But this is not a revolution, these are riots over a people's perception of a fraudulent election. Riots of this size get put down by force. In any country they would be. I think a lot of people outside of Iran would like to seize the opportunity of the moment to effect regime change, but c'mon. Ain't gonna happen.

On June 21 2009 03:46 User447 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 21 2009 03:27 genjix wrote: ur incredibly misinformed You are either incredibly ignorant or dishonest.

You are an ignorant retard.

Ben Laden + Iran ?
Are you kidding ?
Do you know that Sunnis and Shias hate each others ?

/facepalm.

i think lots of this thread belongs in the ROFL thread

User447 you sir, are fucking retarded

On June 22 2009 01:12 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 21 2009 20:10 curtinsea wrote:   On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: This isn't revolution. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo. We'll see, a month from now I'll revive this thread with a big fat 'I told you so!!' No one likes the bloodshed, and we would all prefer a democratic world where everyone shared American values.

lol good one ...

On June 22 2009 03:10 CZechRaise wrote: Show nested quote + On June 22 2009 01:12 curtinsea wrote:   On June 21 2009 20:10 curtinsea wrote:   On June 21 2009 15:44 curtinsea wrote: This isn't revolution. This is a riot, and it will blow over. It's getting way too much coverage imo. We'll see, a month from now I'll revive this thread with a big fat 'I told you so!!' No one likes the bloodshed, and we would all prefer a democratic world where everyone shared American values. lol good one ...

ROFL... standard dumb american

it only turns into a riot when silent protesters are charged head on by government hizbollah on motorbikes wielding chains and indiscriminately attacking civilians- women and men alike. naturally people get pissed.

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?

Once again to those genious people on the west sitting on their couch thinking they have these "riots" all figured out:

Below is a video and pictures that you should see to understand why the situation is MUCH more complicated that you would think.
Please do not do your western analysis in middle east policy. It would be as wrong to do a middle east analysis on western issues.

+ Show Spoiler +

On June 22 2009 13:19 genjix wrote: ahmadinejad is a gay boi

On June 22 2009 15:31 capaneo wrote: Once again to those genious people on the west sitting on their couch thinking they have these "riots" all figured out: Below is a video and pictures that you should see to understand why the situation is MUCH more complicated that you would think.

yes capaneo, your video of a police officer beating up a car definitely proved that this situation is MUCH more complicated than we might think. such massive intricacies and complications went into the act of those police smashing that car. that was truly a gem of a video, certainly clarified things.

i'm not arguing any side of this issue, as i don't consider myself educated at ALL on this subject, but i can 100% say that these religious zealots and they're fucked up system of rule and governance is hilariously ridiculous.

in allah we trust

On June 22 2009 16:41 Racist Dragon wrote: Show nested quote + On June 22 2009 15:31 capaneo wrote: Once again to those genious people on the west sitting on their couch thinking they have these "riots" all figured out: Below is a video and pictures that you should see to understand why the situation is MUCH more complicated that you would think. yes capaneo, your video of a police officer beating up a car definitely proved that this situation is MUCH more complicated than we might think. such massive intricacies and complications went into the act of those police smashing that car. that was truly a gem of a video, certainly clarified things. i'm not arguing any side of this issue, as i don't consider myself educated at ALL on this subject, but i can 100% say that these religious zealots and they're fucked up system of rule and governance is hilariously ridiculous. in allah we trust

I've obv been up way to long

On June 22 2009 15:31 capaneo wrote: Once again to those genious people on the west sitting on their couch thinking they have these "riots" all figured out: Below is a video and pictures that you should see to understand why the situation is MUCH more complicated that you would think. Please do not do your western analysis in middle east policy. It would be as wrong to do a middle east analysis on western issues. + Show Spoiler +

are you sure this is the right video? ... if so... omg ur retarded how on earth does that shows us anything?

It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots.

On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots.

and do you think we are unable to fathom such a thing? -_-

theres more of these vids and pics where it shows government baseej and police vandilising property to blame on civilian protesters

as in riot is mostly a false fabrication and instigated by basiji

ROFL the government is photoshopping pics of protesters to make it look like they are armed hahaha look at this shit:

what makes u think thats photoshopped baal?

On June 23 2009 05:09 Fraser wrote: what makes u think thats photoshopped baal?

The source comes from those Tweeters updates from iranian civilians.

But isnt it obvious? its 100% photoshop and a bad one, you must not be very good at noticing photoshop if this isnt very obvious to you.

On June 22 2009 14:12 ToTehEastSide wrote: as if you think what is going to happen here is not already thought out by the powers that be?

because the outcome of mass protests and riots is the easiest thing in the world to predict?

On June 23 2009 05:19 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 05:09 Fraser wrote: what makes u think thats photoshopped baal? The source comes from those Tweeters updates from iranian civilians. But isnt it obvious? its 100% photoshop and a bad one, you must not be very good at noticing photoshop if this isnt very obvious to you.

ya i'm not good at noticing ive never used it, how do you notice?

On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots.

I think its important to try and establish how much of whats going on over there are riots and how much is peaceful protest. Cap you're not claiming that there is no actual rioting going on are you? And if there is rioting, or violent protest, do you not agree that most countries would use some degree of force to subdue the riots?

As for government using force against peaceful protesters, and/or religious militia doing the same (perhaps under government direction) i get the impression that is happening too, can we all agree on that? Then can we not all agree that is much more serious in alot of ways than police subduing a riot. It has more cultural significance and is more likely to have serious and far reaching consequences?

The Venezuela comparison is interesting too, maybe curtainsea is right and very little tangible change will come out of this.

Also, if enough people riot for long enough, refusing to obey the government, when does it become revolution? Only if its successful in displacing the government?

On June 22 2009 11:42 Racist Dragon wrote: 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

easy for us to say but i'm sure it makes alot more sense when you're a devout believer

For those of you who care.
I found this AMAZING documantry about Iran and the current state it is in.

Its 18 parts and around 3 hours.

And why this moment in Iran's recent election. Is VERY dangerous for the western world.
When these "riots" in Iran gets settled.
ANY person you see who is a moderate on the Iranian side in that video will be either executed or silence for ever.
The world will be left with all those religious nuts in power to deal with.

On June 23 2009 05:33 Fraser wrote: Show nested quote + On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots. if enough people riot for long enough, refusing to obey the government, when does it become revolution? Only if its successful in displacing the government?

It looks like this is petering out already. There is disappointment being expressed on the cable news channels because of a lack of encouragement for the protesters from the west.

It becomes a revolution once change has been effected. So far this isn't happening in Iran. It isn't even the top story on the news anymore. The bandwagon isn't running anymore.

On June 23 2009 05:20 Fraser wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 05:19 Baal wrote:   On June 23 2009 05:09 Fraser wrote: what makes u think thats photoshopped baal? The source comes from those Tweeters updates from iranian civilians. But isnt it obvious? its 100% photoshop and a bad one, you must not be very good at noticing photoshop if this isnt very obvious to you. ya i'm not good at noticing ive never used it, how do you notice?

the position of the weapon is akward and the grip of the hand totally doesnt make sense, nobody would hold a rifle in that way,

On June 23 2009 05:36 Fraser wrote: Show nested quote + On June 22 2009 11:42 Racist Dragon wrote: 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 easy for us to say but i'm sure it makes alot more sense when you're a devout believer

If i remember correctly George Bush used many quotes about the Iraq war speaking about God.. and he once actually said he spoke with God.

On June 23 2009 15:46 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 05:36 Fraser wrote:   On June 22 2009 11:42 Racist Dragon wrote: 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 easy for us to say but i'm sure it makes alot more sense when you're a devout believer If i remember correctly George Bush used many quotes about the Iraq war speaking about God.. and he once actually said he spoke with God.

I talk to God, tho usually I'm promising him I won't drink anymore if he makes the pain in my head go away. I am pretty sure he knows I'm lying because he doesn't do anything about it.

On June 23 2009 15:32 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 05:33 Fraser wrote:   On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots. if enough people riot for long enough, refusing to obey the government, when does it become revolution? Only if its successful in displacing the government? It looks like this is petering out already. There is disappointment being expressed on the cable news channels because of a lack of encouragement for the protesters from the west. It becomes a revolution once change has been effected. So far this isn't happening in Iran. It isn't even the top story on the news anymore. The bandwagon isn't running anymore.

as expected, the uproar was huge but not big enough to turn into a revolution, what most people dont get is that this is a natural social evolution, people are tired of the old ways (particularly young ppl) and its only a matter of time because the government is either totally overturned or slowly toned down to the needs of its people.

Some dumb people think that intervention to coup the tyrants is the way to go and that is stupid because when a country is under attack or foreign manipulation, the country trends to become nationalistic supporting the current leader to defend them from the foreign invading force.

Example of this is Cuba, the only thing that has made Fidel stay in the power for 50 years is USA, their constant intervention and embargos have pushed a great part of the population to like fidel, he is the figure fighting the big american monster, if the USA kept his nose out of Cuba they would have kicked Fidels ass out of the office long time ago, so intervention would be the worst possible thing to do here.

The only thing to do is to wait patiently as social evolution takes it slow but steady course.

On June 23 2009 15:50 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 15:32 curtinsea wrote:   On June 23 2009 05:33 Fraser wrote:   On June 22 2009 21:25 capaneo wrote: It means the goverment is basically "framing" the protests as riots. if enough people riot for long enough, refusing to obey the government, when does it become revolution? Only if its successful in displacing the government? It looks like this is petering out already. There is disappointment being expressed on the cable news channels because of a lack of encouragement for the protesters from the west. It becomes a revolution once change has been effected. So far this isn't happening in Iran. It isn't even the top story on the news anymore. The bandwagon isn't running anymore. as expected, the uproar was huge but not big enough to turn into a revolution, what most people dont get is that this is a natural social evolution, people are tired of the old ways (particularly young ppl) and its only a matter of time because the government is either totally overturned or slowly toned down to the needs of its people. Some dumb people think that intervention to coup the tyrants is the way to go and that is stupid because when a country is under attack or foreign manipulation, the country trends to become nationalistic supporting the current leader to defend them from the foreign invading force. Example of this is Cuba, the only thing that has made Fidel stay in the power for 50 years is USA, their constant intervention and embargos have pushed a great part of the population to like fidel, he is the figure fighting the big american monster, if the USA kept his nose out of Cuba they would have kicked Fidels ass out of the office long time ago, so intervention would be the worst possible thing to do here. The only thing to do is to wait patiently as social evolution takes it slow but steady course.

Damn Baal, you knocked that one out of the park. I agree with this post 100%. Stupid American Cuban policy, what a joke. It's so hard to be on one side or the other when it comes to American politics because both sides are soooo wrong so often.

On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote:

How to run a country 250 years ago!!!
What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires.

Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII.
Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time?
Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them???
When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world.

Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours.
We have information going around the globe in seconds.
You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology.

To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL!

On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues.

On June 23 2009 17:37 User447 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote: How to run a country 250 years ago!!! What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires. Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII. Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time? Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them??? When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world. Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours. We have information going around the globe in seconds. You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology. To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL! On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues.

um, we did in fact stay completely out of it (WWII) until we were actually attacked. It likely would have benefited the US to get involved sooner, but we were following the principles described above.

What are you talking about? You were close ally with Brits the whole time. And you were attacked by Japan. Why did USA ended up in Europe?

And my point, like you said, is that you cant follow 18th century guide lines. in 20 century.

On June 23 2009 18:16 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On June 23 2009 17:37 User447 wrote:   On June 23 2009 16:16 ToTehEastSide wrote: How to run a country 250 years ago!!! What you and Ron Paul has to notice is that some advices even though were pure genius at their own time expires. Imagine USA had just listened to the founding fathers during WWII. Or would you really wanted USA to not intervene around the world during Stalin time? Do you think it would be a great idea to have "as little political connection as possible" after WWII while Russians are making nukes like candies. And then next thing you know America has 1000 nukes pointed at them??? When founding fathers wrote those stuff. There were no Nuclear Bombs. It would take months or even years to lunch attack from EU to America. It would take weeks or months for the fastest way of communication around the world. Now we have a suitcase size bomb which can kill millions that can show up in US in less than hours. We have information going around the globe in seconds. You are on the path to destruction if you think you should do 18th century foreign policy with the 21 century technology. To you and Ron Paul and many other people who look at founding fathers without thinking. ---> GET REAL! On the other hand I %100 agree with Ron Paul on many social issues and economic issues. um, we did in fact stay completely out of it (WWII) until we were actually attacked. It likely would have benefited the US to get involved sooner, but we were following the principles described above.

That is wrong user447 is right on this one...that's all he's really been right on I think but ya

On June 23 2009 18:46 User447 wrote: What are you talking about? You were close ally with Brits the whole time. And you were attacked by Japan. Why did USA ended up in Europe? And my point, like you said, is that you cant follow 18th century guide lines. in 20 century.

This is retarded, do you think Japan just randomly decided to attack a neutral world power for no fucking reason? you must be retarded and i wont let you smurf anymore.

the US wanted IN the 2nd wold war because it was in its economical interests (as u can see from results) so they did everything in their power to provoke the japan onslaught like detaining japanese living in USA, freezing their accounts and assets among many other things.

Anyway stop smurfing