posted
MattP - Thanks for those pictures. They were stunning, awe inspiring, horrible, and beautiful. The crowds were amazing at some of those events. After witnessing the crowds that flocked to Obama, it was all the more impressive to see the crowds around Moussavi, and Ahmadinejad. Some of their flags, like a giant mosaic, also looked beautiful.
I think to a Western audience, this is extremely productive. Not only are the protests themselves heartening, and something recognizable to us here in America, and the west in general, but the inside view we're getting into Iranian politics. People who are paying attention are learning that it's not really a democracy, it's not really a dictatorship, and in essence: Iran isn't really what we thought it was. Khamenei is in a backroom power struggle with Rafsanjani, the last surviving member of the Revolutionary Council from the original '79 overthrow. He holds a great deal of power in some of the backroom Council of Experts and whatever the name of the other powerful advisory board is. He could even theoretically arrange for Khamenei's ouster, though it's highly unlikely.
The whole point is, the people just made themselves heard, and the government reacted. They learned that if they scream loud enough, they'll be heard. We learned that Iran isn't a Western democracy, but it's not useless either. We learned that Iran isn't of one mind, there are huge ideological rifts and people feel very strongly about them.
I think this whole process, no matter how it ends, might end up being a big positive for future Iranian/Western relations. We're relearning the distinction between a government and their people.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Probably a majority of the country want real democracy, moderation, and an end to the anti-Western and anti-American and nuclear war-threatening fanaticism of Iran's hard line leadership.
But the tyrants will not meekly give up power. They will only be deposed if the military decides to side with the people. Unless Iran has its own Boris Yeltsin, willing to stand up against the hated old leadership, and enough people with power decide to stand with him.
Perhaps some generals will advise Ahmadinejad that he cannot expect to hold on to power unless he is willing to kill over half the populace, and the best thing for him would be to ride off into the sunset quietly.
As far as history is concerned, probably the biggest mistake we made was to allow the Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran from his exile in France, at the same time we were encouraging the Shah to step down from the Peacock Throne and give up power.
Bullcrap. And besides the people of Iran overwhelmingly supported the Ayatollah it was their sovereign right to do so.
IP: Logged |
I think his first sentence is true and his second sentence contains truths.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The whole bit about how they "should've kept Khomeini from returning to Iran" and the bit about them starting to pressure the Shah.
Think about it, why should the people or Iran be forced to wait on the US's timetable for them to kick out the Shah? How many years would it have taken?
IP: Logged |
quote:I think to a Western audience, this is extremely productive. Not only are the protests themselves heartening, and something recognizable to us here in America, and the west in general, but the inside view we're getting into Iranian politics. People who are paying attention are learning that it's not really a democracy, it's not really a dictatorship, and in essence: Iran isn't really what we thought it was. Khamenei is in a backroom power struggle with Rafsanjani, the last surviving member of the Revolutionary Council from the original '79 overthrow. He holds a great deal of power in some of the backroom Council of Experts and whatever the name of the other powerful advisory board is. He could even theoretically arrange for Khamenei's ouster, though it's highly unlikely.
The whole point is, the people just made themselves heard, and the government reacted. They learned that if they scream loud enough, they'll be heard. We learned that Iran isn't a Western democracy, but it's not useless either. We learned that Iran isn't of one mind, there are huge ideological rifts and people feel very strongly about them.
I think this whole process, no matter how it ends, might end up being a big positive for future Iranian/Western relations. We're relearning the distinction between a government and their people.
QFT
anyone who was holding on to a black and white picture of politics in ANY country, hopefully just got a big wake up call.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are videos and pictures all over the place, but the sheer size and strength of of this video struck me.
Also, I think it's good for westerners to hear people shouting "Allahu akbar" in regards to something like election fraud and democracy. Maybe it'll give us an idea as to what the phrase means culturally, instead of just assuming it's an automatic reference to a blood thirsty religious thing. I've never understood why that phrase is some sort of trigger for westerners or Americans when it's really little different than saying "oh thank god," which people say all the time. For all the American phrases we have that are laced with god, "in god we trust," "god bless America," etc, it's always seemed strange that "allahu akbar" gets special notice as a phrase that only a fanatic would say. I think it says more about us than them.
posted
The Guardian Council, which had previously announced that they would make a decision on the election in 9 days has now announced that there will be a recount of votes.
Both Ahmadinejad's and Moussavi's supporters planned huge rallies in Tehran again today and for tomorrow, and were jockeying for different times so as to reduce potential clashes between demonstrators from opposing sides. The Guardian Council has also invited the reformist losers to present their concerns before the Council.
I like this quote from Moussavi, which came while he was urging peaceful demonstrations from his supporters:
quote:From Mir Moussavi: "You are not breaking glass," he said. "You are breaking tyranny."
That one, as far as I'm concerned, goes into my big book of quotable quotes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this whole process, no matter how it ends, might end up being a big positive for future Iranian/Western relations. We're relearning the distinction between a government and their people.
Even if it ends with Ahmadinejad winning the election? It might be a good thing in so far as attitudes in the west may change, but as for anything substantive, I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad's re-election will be the best thing. In some sense, that would mean that a majority of people in Iran "voted" for the same policies he has had towards the west, and many, if not most, of the people in the west won't see the lessons of this revolution. They will see Ahmadinejad and the Iranians once again embracing that which has been so destructive on the world stage.
Besides, I don't think there is a difference between the government and it's people. The government is the people, and if that's the case, then Iran is Ahmadinejad. Just like we were Bush when he was President and we are Obama now, we get who we deserve as a leader, and that means that a government run by the people and for the people, simply *is* the people.
The problem with fighting extremism by exposing it is that the moderates then have to win, the trust placed in the people has to be rewarded, and if not, then the extremists simply gain a larger and more powerful voice. The same goes on here in America, I once said that the litmus test for the Republican party was whether they could stand up and say that Rush wasn't their leader without apologizing and that hasn't happened yet, which means that people like Rush and Hannity and Beck become more powerful, and in the last few months they have. At some point, if you hope to defeat extremism in this manner then the people have to stand up. If the people of Iran sit down at this moment, then I think we have a bigger problem than what we started with.
A more powerful and more extreme Iran.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Update: Even though the Guardian Council has agreed to a recount, Moussavi is rejecting this and is calling for a whole new vote. I don't know a great deal about Iranian politics, but that sounds pretty ballsy.
Humean -
Yes, even if it ends with him winning, which I think is likely to happen no matter how many protest rallies are held. Much like in America, demographics are on the side of those who want a more progressive policy enacted. Iranian youth, who we've seen a lot of these past few days, are the majority of the country, and in the coming years will become more and more powerful in how much say they have in running Iran. What we're seeing is that this vocal segment of the population favors pro-western relations and big changes in Iran itself. They're clamoring for democracy, and are holding almost all of their protests in a place called Freedom Square (I can't remember the name in Farsi).
The west knows, or thinks, that this election is a sham, so the world won't see Iran embracing Ahmadinejad style vociferousness, they'll see kindred spirits growing more organized and more unhappy with the status quo. They'll see potential allies under the surface.
And I think there certainly is a difference between a government and its people. Obviously Ahmadinejad, or Obama, or Bush, don't represent all of their people, or they'd act a lot differently. National are built of contentious populations with political fault lines and rifts running rampant, and those are seldom represented in the words and actions of leaders. Leaders generally speak with one voice, but national populations seldom have but one opinion. Therefore, there's a vast difference between a government and its people.
The bright side of extremism in America is that a very vocal but small minority are people who really subscribe to what people like Rush and Hannity are pitching. The more extreme the party appears, the less appealing it will be to moderates, and the party will effectively ostracize itself from mainstream politics. Sarah Palin certainly brought that point out. She might have fired up a certain segment of the population, but she turned off the moderates that McCain's campaign hinged on winning. I'm not sure the situation here and the situation in Iran are comparable.
Short of a full scale revolution, at the end of the day, when the clerics and scholars ratify Ahmadinejad's reelection, as is likely, Moussavi supporters will again go a little crazy, like a volcanic eruption, extreme and powerful, but not long lasting. But also like a volcano, there's always a lot of movement beneath the surface, and a slow simmering fire that doesn't die easily. The response has proven that Ahmadinejad doesn't have a mandate, hell, it's so tenuous a victory that Khamenei had to reverse himself within 24 hours just to placate the protesters, and in Iran no less, a country that prides itself on order.
Even if a more powerful and more extreme Iran does come out of this, which I don't think is likely, it's only going to inflame the people out there in the streets that much more, and make the extreme movement's hold on power that much more thin. I think you're confusing perception for reality in much of your argument.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Even though the Guardian Council has agreed to a recount, Moussavi is rejecting this and is calling for a whole new vote.
That's a shame, I would have been interested to see how the guardian council intended to count all the burnt ballots.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, I don't think there is a difference between the government and it's people. The government is the people, and if that's the case, then Iran is Ahmadinejad. Just like we were Bush when he was President and we are Obama now, we get who we deserve as a leader, and that means that a government run by the people and for the people, simply *is* the people.
This quote baffles me. Can you really simplify an entire country to who happens to be ruling it at any given time? Sure, you might be able to say that about their policies...but their people? Apparently I was wrong in my above post. I truly thought these events would be a wake up call to those who equated the president or policies of a country with the ENTIRE country.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The whole bit about how they "should've kept Khomeini from returning to Iran" and the bit about them starting to pressure the Shah.
Think about it, why should the people or Iran be forced to wait on the US's timetable for them to kick out the Shah? How many years would it have taken?
What, you think Khomeini was an improvement on the Shah? Give me a reform-minded king over a theist fanatic any day.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Washington Times, so take with a grain of salt:
quote: According to the Cyrus News Agency, Tuesday morning 16 senior members of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were arrested. "These commanders have been in contact with members of the Iranian army to join the people's movement," CNA reports. "Three of the commanders are veterans of Iran-Iraq war. They have been moved to an undisclosed location in East Tehran." This report has not been confirmed by other sources.
Also, from one of the best twitter sources Change_For_Iran (a student at Tehran University):
quote: the gov apparently doesn't trust the normal police, they are all unarmed with empty holsters!
[ June 16, 2009, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've never understood why that phrase is some sort of trigger for westerners or Americans when it's really little different than saying "oh thank god," which people say all the time. For all the American phrases we have that are laced with god, "in god we trust," "god bless America," etc, it's always seemed strange that "allahu akbar" gets special notice as a phrase that only a fanatic would say...
Personally, I had resolved this inconsistency by categorizing those that would say "in god we trust" or "God bless America" as fanatics as well
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: ... Besides, I don't think there is a difference between the government and it's people. The government is the people, and if that's the case, then Iran is Ahmadinejad. Just like we were Bush when he was President and we are Obama now, we get who we deserve as a leader, and that means that a government run by the people and for the people, simply *is* the people.
I think you can reasonably make this argument to a degree for a country that is truly democratic (government by the people, for the people, etc.)... with the caveat that in real Western democracies you'll have differing amounts of voter fraud and corruption. But how you could apply the same thing to autocratic governments is beyond me. We already know how dictatorships retain power, distort what people really want, pit one group against another, and generally run government with a smaller group of people.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I would even dispute your claim about the truly democratic government, thought it's closer to the truth. When the President of the United States can win an election while LOSING the popular vote, that should say something about whether the government IS the people.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from any social category, for the 10th presidential elections.
Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the government’s officials to bond with their people.
But unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientifics.
Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you :
1- A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress all critical views. I fear that this lead to the lost of people’s faith in Islam.
2- Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore people’s confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy.
3- I invite everyone, specially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues in calm, and not let those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed.
4- I ask the police and army personals not to “sell their religion”, and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before god. Recognize the protesting youth as your children. Today censor and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide the truth.
quote:The west knows, or thinks, that this election is a sham, so the world won't see Iran embracing Ahmadinejad style vociferousness, they'll see kindred spirits growing more organized and more unhappy with the status quo. They'll see potential allies under the surface.
While I do agree that the west will see something different out of Iran, I simply wonder what will happen when and if Ahmadinejad wins the election and everything returns to the way it was before. We will still face an Iran that wants nuclear weapons, that is a threat to Israel, and still supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, so what practical use is this revolution if things return to the status quo? And the better question is this, now that Ahmadinejad and the clerics who want his installation know that no matter what happens they will win the day, will that embolden them and make them even more powerful?
quote:And I think there certainly is a difference between a government and its people. Obviously Ahmadinejad, or Obama, or Bush, don't represent all of their people, or they'd act a lot differently. National are built of contentious populations with political fault lines and rifts running rampant, and those are seldom represented in the words and actions of leaders. Leaders generally speak with one voice, but national populations seldom have but one opinion. Therefore, there's a vast difference between a government and its people.
You remember that debate we had about Obama and whether it was a politicians responsibility to win an election or whether the people are responsible for asking questions and the like? Iran, much like America, claims to be a democracy, and whether that really is true or not, I think politicians have a responsibility to the people and the people have a responsibility to the state. Now, that doesn't mean that the country speaks with one voice or holds one opinion, but who we elect and how we deal with our government speaks of who we are as a people, especially in democracies like ours.
quote:Even if a more powerful and more extreme Iran does come out of this, which I don't think is likely, it's only going to inflame the people out there in the streets that much more, and make the extreme movement's hold on power that much more thin. I think you're confusing perception for reality in much of your argument.
In some sense, I think Obama is trying to fight extremism in Iran the same way he is trying to fight extremism here in America, he is trying to bring it to center stage and then trusting the people to reject that extremism out of hand. If the people do not reject that extremism, as it seems the right as not rejected Rush or Hannity, the strategy cannot work. Let me ask you this, do you think extremists are more or less likely to crack down on these people if they see their hold on power being threatened? If you think that is more likely, don't you also think that the extreme elements of Iran will do *anything* to hold on to power?
Extremists tend not to look at these kinds of protests as mandates against what they embrace because what they embrace is absolute and righteous, they see these things as threats to their existence that must be excised.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humean, firstly, you misunderstand Obama's strategy on a pretty fundamental level if you think his goal is to get the right to reject Limbaugh. His goal is to get moderate Americans to reject Limbaugh, and he's been largely successful at doing that. The fact that he's also managed to tie Limbaugh to the Republican leadership is gravy for the Democrats, electorally, but Obama ultimately doesn't give a damn what the right wing (be it the religious radicals or the neoconservatives) says about Rush Limbaugh. If the Republicans want to continue marginalizing themselves by clinging to him, then Obama is happy to let them do it.
As for Iran, I would argue that the mass unrest and protests are exactly symptomatic of "the people rejecting that extremism out of hand." So if, as you suggest, this is all part of some grand diplomatic plan of Obama's, then I think it's working remarkably well. Four days ago, who would have imagined that we'd see this much open defiance against the extremist government in Iran?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point? Definitely. He'd have to be much worse off now than he actually is to just cut and run completely. Of course, that depends on how much the public reality matches up with actual facts in Iran right now.
---
I often wonder what people mean by 'Western-style democracy'. Democracy doesn't have a cardinal direction. 'Pro-Western' democracy is one thing, but a democracy is a democracy, or a shade of democracy such as a republic like we've got here. You don't just get to call something an 'Arabic-style democracy' just because it's closer to a democracy than its even more repressive neighbors, after all.
And as for Iranians not suddenly loving us due to, among other things, American support for Saddam Hussein...hey, depending on how things shake out, maybe Iranians can let bygones be bygones towards us, and we'll do the same for them. Because the f@#*ing with definitely went in both directions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I often wonder what people mean by 'Western-style democracy'. Democracy doesn't have a cardinal direction. 'Pro-Western' democracy is one thing, but a democracy is a democracy, or a shade of democracy such as a republic like we've got here. You don't just get to call something an 'Arabic-style democracy' just because it's closer to a democracy than its even more repressive neighbors, after all.
Well yeah, democracy is democracy, but American democracy and Iranian democracy aren't the same. And Egyptian, Syrian and old school Iraqi democracy certainly aren't the same thing as British democracy.
It might all be about people voting at a very basic level, but it still comes in a lot of different flavors.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Humean, firstly, you misunderstand Obama's strategy on a pretty fundamental level if you think his goal is to get the right to reject Limbaugh. His goal is to get moderate Americans to reject Limbaugh, and he's been largely successful at doing that. The fact that he's also managed to tie Limbaugh to the Republican leadership is gravy for the Democrats, electorally, but Obama ultimately doesn't give a damn what the right wing (be it the religious radicals or the neoconservatives) says about Rush Limbaugh. If the Republicans want to continue marginalizing themselves by clinging to him, then Obama is happy to let them do it.
Well, maybe. I think that Obama is a pragmatist though, and I think pragmatically the best way to get things done is not to not care about the right but to embrace them and allow them to help. Ultimately, if he doesn't court the right, he cannot get many things done without 60 guaranteed votes in the Senate, and he doesn't have the votes and he knows it. In a sense, it doesn't make sense for Obama to completely disown or not care about the right, which makes me think that he does want the right to disown Limbaugh and Hannity. See, I think the fight over the stimulus showed Obama that the right is ruled not by moderates or a want to do what is right (in his view) but by what the far right wants from the Republican Party, and thus, I think he saw what was happening, knew that he couldn't do what he wanted to do without support from at least some on the right, and decided that the way to fight it was to get rid of the extremists on the far right. Of course, someone on the left cannot be the one to call out Limbaugh because then, no matter what is real about the situation, it is a partisan attack, and thus, it has to be the right that does so.
I actually think that makes more sense, but then again, I could be wrong.
quote:As for Iran, I would argue that the mass unrest and protests are exactly symptomatic of "the people rejecting that extremism out of hand." So if, as you suggest, this is all part of some grand diplomatic plan of Obama's, then I think it's working remarkably well. Four days ago, who would have imagined that we'd see this much open defiance against the extremist government in Iran?
Agreed. I argued a while back that Obama had to present a different face to the world, a face that couldn't spun into a boogey-man that scared moderate Muslims into embracing extremism to save them from America and Israel, and I think it's important that he has done so. If you can take away the boogey-men and give the people a real chance, then the people themselves, led by Ghandi or Martin Luther King for instance, can bring about real change that governments cannot.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can take away the boogey-men and give the people a real chance, then the people themselves, led by Ghandi or Martin Luther King for instance, can bring about real change that governments cannot.
How does that statement gel with your belief that the government is the people, and vice versa?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Guardian Council met with the three opposition candidates -- Moussavi, Mehdi Karrubi and Mohsen Rezaie -- and asked them to specify the areas where they wanted a recount, a council spokesman told the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Moussavi rejected the recount, according to an official close to his camp, demanding fresh elections and accusing the country's religious elite of trying to further manipulate the outcome of the original vote.
An official close to the opposition leader's camp, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a recount would provide another opportunity for the government to manipulate the results.
He said the council ordered the printing of 53 million ballots for the elections, but only 39 million were used. Fourteen million ballots were missing.
quote:If you can take away the boogey-men and give the people a real chance, then the people themselves, led by Ghandi or Martin Luther King for instance, can bring about real change that governments cannot.
How does that statement gel with your belief that the government is the people, and vice versa?
Great social change has always begun with introspection and acknowledgment of a wrong, we look at ourselves and claim that this injustice cannot stand, and in some sense, revolutions, like the ones led by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, are deeply personal ones where what we really change is our own personal views of the world. And when we do that, government changes because we change. Government is the people, so when we change, it does too.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.
In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.
Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed "political expert". Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%.
Ayandeh's source said at least 200 polling stations across Iran recorded participation rates of 95% or above. "This is generally considered scientifically impossible because out of every given cohort of 20 voters, there will be at least one who is either ill, out of the country, has recently died or is unable to participate for some other reasons," the
source said. "It is also unprecedented in the history of Iran and all other democratic countries."
The claims are impossible to verify but they are consistent with comments made by a former Iranian interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who said on Tuesday that 70 polling stations returned more completed ballots papers than the number of locally eligible voters.
Supporters of the defeated reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, have complained that their campaigns' inspectors were refused permission or ejected from polling centres on election day.
Abbas Abdi, a Karoubi supporter who was among the radical students that took over the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, said some polling stations had run out of ballot papers by as early as 10.30am – even though it is standard procedure to issue each voting centre with more ballots than the number of voters.
After polling times were extended beyond the original 6pm closing time, other stations refused to provide ballot papers for fear that participation would exceed the number of voters on the register, Abdi told Radio Zamaaneh, a Farsi-language station based in the Netherlands.
quote: The man who leaked the real election results from the Interior Ministry - the ones showing Ahmadinejad coming third - was killed in a suspicious car accident, according to unconfirmed reports, writes Saeed Kamali Dehghan in Tehran.
Mohammad Asgari, who was responsible for the security of the IT network in Iran's interior ministry, was killed yesterday in Tehran.
Asgari had reportedly leaked results that showed the elections were rigged by government use of new software to alter the votes from the provinces.
Asgari was said to have leaked information that showed Mousavi had won almost 19 million votes, and should therefore be president.
We will try to get more details later.
quote: Iranian filmmakers Marjane Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf have held a press conference in Brussels to say they have a document proving election fraud, Adnkronos news agency reports.
The document, seen here, says that Mousavi won the election with 19m votes, with cleric Mehdi Karroubi coming in second and Ahmadinejad coming in third. Satrapi and Makhmalbaf said the document had come from the Iranian electoral commission, and is dated June 13, the day after the election.
Adnkronos notes it cannot confirm the document's authenticity.
Satrapi, an artist, is best known for "Persepolis", her beautiful and insightful graphic-novel memoir of the 1979 revolution, which was turned into a film. Makhmalbaf is known in the US and Europe for writing and directing "Kandahar".
[ June 17, 2009, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lord Solar--Wow. If even half of what they show is true, well, wow.
There is another thing that makes Iranian Democracy different than Western Democracy. Iranian Democracy falls under a Theocratic rule. So we have Western Democracy and Islamic Democracy, where above the President and Prime Ministers sits a Mullah--or an Ayatollah who makes sure everything is religiously fine.
They say that such a theocratic ruler is above petty politics and the lure of dictatorship. They say that he won't succumb to greed or power worship, but just keep the country within the bounds of their faith.
There are many in the US who wish for a similar though Christian arrangement.
So this is a test to see if such an arrangement can work. When the Ayatollah was quick to back Ahmidin...what his faces apparently false win, it looked like fears of theocracy failing to power politics would come true. His change of stance offers hope that the two can remain apart, and actually offers hope that the violence in Iran will be minimal.
If Ayatollah Khemeni announces new elections, or that someone else is the winner, it would be hard for Ahmid to remain president, or to gain support from his religiously conservative backers.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what I'm curious about. Let's say after all this that the election results are NOT changed. What then? What recourse do the people have? When the leadership has truly swept democracy aside...how does change happen? And is it possible to do it non-violently?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) They can endure. Just do nothing and survive. 2) They can peacefully protest and call for change. Such protests can and will result in ever increasing violence as the controlling government tries to dissuade and stifle the opposition. 3) They can reach out the military and police to help them create change, stopping the more violent options of the government from going into effect. 4) They can reach out to various legal institutions, from the Supreme Court to the Election Board to bolster their case. However, since both of these seem to be in the hands of the governmental elite, that can do much. (It was a big part of Pakistan's political change). 5) They can call on the Theocracy for help. How close the two are connected is the question.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, the Guardian Council and the other bid council of religious scholars and what not that I can't think of the name of really do hold a large amount of power over and above what Khamenei does, and there are clear divisions inside those groups. It might be misleading to talk about factions in the upper echelons of power, but it's clear that this isn't just a people vs. tyrannical government fight. Khamenei has enemies amongst the elite.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
6) They can leave. Not in a "love it or leave it" kind of way, but I could definitely see a brain drain coming in Iran as the younger population - the ones most enthusiastic in the opposition - leaves to find a more hospitable home.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's already been happening to a degree, though not in huge numbers. It's happening for a number of reasons, though I think the economic ones are the biggest. Iran's economy has been doing extremely poorly for some time now, held together only by recently very high prices in oil, but even that's a long term loser since they've been producing less than their OPEC quota due to a lack of infrastructure updates.
But I don't see it happening in the huge numbers it would take to seriously weaken the opposition, and the biggest reason I think is that they'd rather stay and fix things than leave, though that's just my personal opinion. I have nothing to back that up.
Still, it's quite plausible if they really become that discontented.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Since the beginning of the revolution 30 years have passed. Events have happened that could eliminate the system and the regime," Khamenei said. "Try to forget about politics and remember spirituality. This is the way to gain freedom. From the beginning the revolution was based on the strength of your faith. "We have to go back to spirituality. It will lead the revolution to success in this materialistic world. It will make a strong pillar of the Islamic system and protect it from the troubles outside.
"Most of our youth are spiritual even if you don't see that in their faces. "Oh God give us a calm and peaceful heart. "About the issue of elections, the main issue of the country. There are three issues. One will be for the political leaders, our president, activists, western counties and leaders of the media. The elections of the 12 June was proof of participation of the people. It was a show of their love for their regime. We can't find other countries with such a level of democracy. "We have not had such participation (85%) since the revolution. The young generation especially showed their worry and their political obligations. There are differences between the people, some prefer different candidates. This is natural. This election was a big celebration of the revolution. That many people showing love and loyalty. This election was a religious democratic event. It showed dictatorial countries that this is a religious democratic country.
"The election showed that people with belief, hopes and joys are living in this country. Our enemies are using it. If the young did not feel free they would not have participated in the election. This trust is the biggest asset of the Islamic republic. "There were claims of fraud before the election. Don't listen to those allegations.
"The competition for the election was very clear. Enemies and dirty Zionists tried to show the election as a contest between the regime and against it. That is not true, all four candidates support the regime." [He lists the government positions of the opposition candidates]. All of the candidates are part of this system and regime. Zionists and the bad British radio said it was a challenge to the regime.
"The issue is inside the system. The dispute is not against the revolution. The dispute was among candidates and there was a positive and negative effect. People were able to judge, they felt part of the system. All views were available to the people.
"The result was clear. They selected candidates they wanted. These disputes and conversations among candidates went to the streets and houses of the people. This gives strength to the system. This should not be misunderstood. The people should be ready to answer critics.
"Rumours spread that were not true, and gave a bad image to the previous government. Calling the president a liar is that good? This is against the truth. The 30 years of the revolution was turning black." Khamenei talks about the rumours about Hashemi Rafsanjani. He praises Rafsanjani as "close" to the revolution. "The youth should know that... He was at the service of the revolution. I do have some difference with him, but people should not imagine something else between him and the president.
"We don't claim there is no corruption in our regime. But this is one of the most healthy systems in the world. Zionists claims of corruption are not right. "My dear people, June 12 was a historic event. Our enemies want to cast doubt on it and portray it as defeat for the regime. The presidential campaign has finished. All of the four candidates are among the Islamic system. The people have trust in the revolution and the republic. The Islamic republic is not cheating against others. There is no cheating inside the election system - it is well controlled. There may been mistakes but 11 million [votes] is not possible.
"The guardian council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them. I will not follow false allegations. In all elections some are winners and some are losers. Correct legal procedures should be followed to ensure trust in the process. "The candidates should be careful about what they say and do" [Mousavi doesn't seem to be there]. "Some diplomats from the west are showing their real face and that they are enemies. The worst are the British.
"The street is the place of living and trading. Why are you taking to the streets? We have had the election. Street demonstrations are a target for terrorist plots. Who would be responsible if something happened?
Well...this thing is going to get much worse before it gets better. I fear for the violence that will now inevitably follow. For the most part I've been so impressed and overwhelmed with the peaceful nature of these protests. hundreds of thousands of people walking silently. And they've taken to all sitting down en mass at the site of any approaching Basij. But I see two options for how this will proceed. The militia will become more violent and more protesters will be killed/beaten/arrested. Or the people decide a violent overthrow is the only recourse and this turns into a full fledged civil war. Either way...violence.
In other news, I've been wearing this all week to show my support.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched about 15 minutes of it live while he was talking, and it sounded like utter gibberish, except for the extremely well choreographed breaks so the massive crowd could all chant slogans together, which was a little unnerving. Maybe it's just that it was lost in translation, but his speech was a meandering mass of incoherency. It seemed like he was just spouting off randomly about current events and then as if by clockwork, every five minutes he's just blame the whole thing on the West.
My favorite bit was when he said that there couldn't possibly have been election fraud, because it's against the law. That's rich.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really not sure. Should we be rooting for a peaceful resolution or not?
It seems like Iran may be ripe for a enlightenment pop, which would entail a very drastic break from that ways that things are going now that would be vigorously resisted by the people currently in power. I very much doubt that this would be possible without a fair bit of violence (and would even be fueled by the stupid application of violence by the government forces).
But I don't think that an enlightenment revolution would be a simple thing. It seems like it would be a very long, very bloody civil war, with no inevitable winner.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would depend entirely, I think, on just how revolutionary it would be. If it was to overthrow the entire religious establishment, it'd be bloody. If it was just to remove Khamenei from power and get a new election...that might be within reach if they're really pushing for a power change, without all out war. If it's just to get a new election, that might be yet easier, though still relatively very difficult.
Few to no people are suggesting that the protesters want such a fundamental change in the Iranian government.
It's hard to guess without knowing where the Revolutionary Guard falls on this issue.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Iranians are preparing for this to get worse:
quote:I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…
posted
Looks like this weekend is going to be "go time" for Iran. I think regardless, this weekend things won't stay the same. Either the protests deflate, or they escalate.
I think, for once, and totally by accident, the US government is actually doing the right thing in their rhetoric. Obama is toning it down to make it harder for Khamenei to use him as a symbol of western meddling. If he openly supports the protesters, he might spur them to action and then not be able to follow up (a la Bush with the Iraqi uprisings when Saddam slaughtered thousands). And for that matter, bold language might help unify Iran. But Congress is pushing support of the protesters hard, which shows them we DO support them, but can't do anything overtly.
Their political wrangling to try and score points off this is despicable, but what do I really expect from them?
McCain...oooooh McCain. For a guy who told lambasted Obama for being too blunt in discussing strategy in Pakistan, he's being extremely reckless in his calls for Obama to call the whole election a fraud and to pledge unflagging support to a movement that we don't at all understand...all with nuclear weapons hanging in the balance. If that's McCain's idea of foreign policy, I'm sleeping easy tonight with Obama in charge.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Protesters are engaged in violent clashes with police and militia forces in Tehran.
Protesters are dressing down, or not wearing green or carrying signs, to try and fly under the radar, but large groups of police forces and white shirted Basidji (religious militia enforcers, more or less) are turning them away violently with tear gas, clubs and pressure hoses.
There are reports that a suicide bomber killed himself in an explosion at the shrine for the former Ayatollah Khomenei, and there are scattered rumors that some of the police forces involved do not speak Farsi and are not Iranians.
Mir Moussavi has reportedly (unconfirmed) declared himself cleansed and prepared for martyrdom, but he hasn't been seen all day, either at the rallies or at the Guardian Council meeting he was supposed to attend. The GC has agreed to recount 10% of the votes, but that doesn't seem to matter to the protesters, who are calling for a lot of different things, from a new vote, to shouting "death to the dictator" in reference to Khamenei. There are fears that Moussavi might have been arrested, and that Rafsanjani, an enemy of Khamenei and member of the Guardian Council might also be in danger of arrest.
What isn't being reported as much, and hasn't been reported over the last week, is the smaller protests that have taken place across the country in other cities. I haven't seen anything on it today, but I've seen tiny articles or mentions here and there of similar but smaller protests occurring all over the country.
A lot of this seems to be somewhat out of control. In some cases civilians are fighting with each other randomly on the streets, sometimes they run away from police and in other cases they surround police forces and beat them until some other protesters rush in to rescue the police forces.
Other than that, news is coming in very slowly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to post this, but with some really strong warnings. First off, the grand majority of it is in Farsi, and I can't come even close to deciphering it. But there are a few posts in English here and there. There are a few Moussavi speech videos with subtitles, but be warned, there are a couple really, really graphic videos, including one of a girl that was supposedly shot today by a Basiji member that made my head spin in its graphic nature. Take it with a grain of salt though. I have no idea how much is propaganda and how much is real but the news can't show.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
