Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in street

[Federate]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

lol, this is not true. I don't know where you've heard this but he speaks a clean and fluent Persian.

I heard it from an Azari ironically.

[meline]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

BBC Caught In Mass Public Deception With Iran Propaganda


The BBC has again been caught engaging in mass public deception by using photographs of pro-Ahmadinejad rallies in Iran and claiming they represent anti-government protests in favor of Hossein Mousavi.

An image used by the L.A. Times on the front page of its website Tuesday showed Iranian President Ahmadinejad waving to a crowd of supporters at a public event.

In a story covering the election protests yesterday, the BBC News website used a closer shot of the same scene, but with Ahmadinejad cut out of the frame. The caption under the photograph read, 'Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests'.

The BBC photograph is clearly a similar shot of the same pro-Ahmadinejad rally featured in the L.A. Times image, yet the caption erroneously claims it represents anti-Ahmadinejad protesters.

More here http://www.propagandamatrix.com/arti...propaganda.htm

Plus, pay attention to the language most media use when reporting the news. Painting everything in back and white in order to form the opinion of the masses on the bad ones and the good ones.

[Siggie]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

This is all nice but do you think 'you' living in America (for instance) should have as much right and voice as someone living and struggling inside Iran?

No, again not only it's not clear but it's misleading and confusing. The ones who are protesting are a portion of the Iranian people, there was another huge portion who protested and organised rallies for the opposite side. Maybe it was not shown on the 'free' media?



Did I say you should not 'comment'? I never did. You are free to comment on the actions of others based on different criterions and people are also free to percieve it in different ways but you are not free to decide for their fate.

Eddo, I disagree. Unlike your old friends and your family living in Iran, you have no impact on today's Iran's social, economic development...

Nice try… did I say that to you? Obviously everybody is free to comment on a comment but when you jump on a comment that was a direct response to another member and take it personally and confuse yourself, this is what will happen…



Look, I never said you should not voice your opinion or keep your mouth shut, did I?? But in practice, those living and working outside Iran have no or little impact on today's Iran's social, economic, political or cultural current. That's the reality.



lol, this is not true. I don't know where you've heard this but he speaks a clean and fluent Persian.



I believe he is an Iranian nationalist, an educated decent politician. At least his past says it all.

You're not being consistent. I said I support (agree with) those who are demanding that their rights be respected.
You said do we think that we, as persons living in the US, should have as much right and voice as someone living in Iran. Voice or right to what end? And by asking if we should have as much voice is asking whether we think we should be speaking about it and voicing an opinion, is it not?

And you said that we shouldn't decide their fate. I asked before and you didn't answer... How would voicing our opinions decide their fate?

You say here as a reply to something else say (see quoted part above) that we cannot impact what's going on. If this is the case why would you tell us that we shouldn't decide their fate? By saying here that we support those who are protesting their perceived injustice does not decide their fate. Isn't it a moot point if we can't? Besides, I'm personally not trying to nor would I want to.

Do I think the US or Iranian diaspora should decide these things? NO. If my view on that was unclear from what I had said then you should have asked for clarification instead of implying that I have no right to speak about the subject either.

Now if you meant this (you living in America) for Eddo specifically (and you did quote him) then you should have been more specific and asked whether those living outside of Iran should be VOTING. You criticized me for making a categorical statement and then you did the very same thing. It was ambiguous enough, in my view, that it's not absurd for me or anyone else to have interpreted this as I did.

So, if that's what you meant, then I'm in agreement with you. I don't think that those not living in Iran should be voting and deciding who and what policies will govern those who are living there.

If this is a simple misunderstanding it could have been cleared up a couple exchanges ago by clarifying that you meant right and voice to VOTE. There's no need for argument or animosity.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

You're not being consistent. I said I support (agree with) those who are demanding that their rights be respected.
You said do we think that we, as persons living in the US, should have as much right and voice as someone living in Iran. Voice or right to what end? And by asking if we should have as much voice is asking whether we think we should be speaking about it and voicing an opinion, is it not?

The majority won, the minority lost. Everyone had a right to vote. Their rights were respected. Which rights are you referring to?

[Siggie]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

The majority won, the minority lost. Everyone had a right to vote. Their rights were respected. Which rights are you referring to?

To a fair election? They were/are questioning the results and they should be able to do that.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

Two Bush presidencies were obviously rigged. Iran's majority voted for the winner and the loser supported by the west(including yourself) are trying to cause trouble and promote the chances of a civil war. 40% of Canadians didn't even vote in our last election because we know it's bullxxxx anyways.

They did the same xxxx in Ukraine and the people suffered and learned when you listen to America, you get bent over the office desk.

[freakyfreaky]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ghazvinian/iran-and-america-the-spir_b_218683.html

John Ghazvinian
Historian, University of Pennsylvania
Posted: June 23, 2009 02:28 PM

Iran and America: The Spirit of 1908

So is it 1979 all over again?

It is certainly tempting to compare this week's events in Iran with the street protests and violent confrontations that brought down the Shah's regime thirty years ago. But for a whole host of reasons (lack of inspirational leadership; a bedrock of support for the regime, etc), the analogy is a non-starter, and most sensible analysts have been quick to set it aside. One scholar has suggested the uprising of 1963, in which the Ayatollah Khomeini first came into the spotlight, as a better analogy. Thousands of emotional young idealists poured into the streets then - only to see the Shah's goons swiftly gain the upper hand and send the ayatollah into exile. An interesting idea, but if we're looking for a historical parallel, the one that comes to mind is neither 1979 nor 1963. It is 1908. And it is chock full of lessons for America.

Is 101 years a bit far to go back to help us understand what's happening today? Not in Iran. If there is one thing that both fundamentalists and reformers will agree on, it's that the Iranian people's long (and largely unfinished) march to freedom began during the Constitutional Revolution, or 'Mashruteh,' of 1906-1909. Say that very word to a basiji thug or to one of Tehran's green-clad young twitterers today and both will tell you, insistently, that they are the true defenders of its legacy. The mashruteh is Iran's Federalist Papers and Boston Tea Party, all rolled into one; its Spirit of '76.

Iran's constitutionalist uprising was the first great revolution of the 20th century - an expression of spontaneous rage against a corrupt and bankrupt monarchy. Much like today's movement, it didn't demand a fundamental overthrow of the prevailing system. Instead, it unified the country's merchants, intellectuals, and (yes) clerics in demanding nothing more than an elected parliament and a constitution. The result? A remarkably progressive charter that enshrined the principles of equality, personal rights, universal public education, and freedom of the press. It was the first document of its kind in the Middle East, and it has formed the basis of Iran's political debates ever since.

Iran's shah at the time, Mohammed Ali, initially tolerated the constitutional movement, but with considerable reluctance. Then, after an assassination attempt in which a bomb was thrown at his car in February 1908, he became less sympathetic and more confrontational. After several weeks of turmoil, he began cracking down - arresting constitutionalists, declaring martial law, and even calling in the fearsome Russian Cossacks to run riot and intimidate protesters in the streets of Tehran. Finally, on 23 June 1908, the Cossacks stormed the new parliament building, precipitated an eight-hour gun battle, and killed several constitutionalists. It unleashed a civil war.

Despite a wave of indignation and demands for tough action from the United States (driven, no less, by politicians with close ties to the evangelical Christian movement and its missionaries living in Iran), official Washington maintained a dignified distance from events on the ground, and refused to take sides - at least not overtly. The US minister in Tehran was sympathetic to the revolutionaries, but projected an aura of quiet detachment. The State Department did the same. And all this during the rambunctious presidency of the original rough rider himself - Theodore Roosevelt. When William Taft took the oath of office in 1909, his inaugural address expressed optimism about the possibility of improved trade relations with Iran, but said nothing about the turmoil on the streets.

As the months dragged on and thousands were starved or beaten into submission, Iran's brave little experiment with democracy appeared dead on arrival. But eventually, the dust settled, and the United States found itself in an excellent position to reap the rewards of its fastidious neutrality. For months, as they battled for their survival and bled for their cause, Iranian constitutionalists had been struck by the contrast between America's hands-off attitude and the heavy-handed interference by Russia and Britain. They were impressed by this apparently unselfish new power on the world stage, and interpreted its silence as a form of subtle and tacit support - rather than lack of interest. So when the constitutional upheaval was over, its leaders turned to America to help them build a new Iran. In 1911, the newly minted parliament recruited a 35-year-old American lawyer, Morgan Shuster, to be 'Treasurer-General' - and gave him broad powers to restructure the country's finances. The Iranian public became steadily enamored of the United States, and thus began a remarkable 30-year love affair between the two countries - the kind of thing that has never been seen before or since. Shuster's turned out to be just the first of three such American missions - the last wrapping up its work in 1945.

President Obama is taking the long view, and he is dead right. This is Iran's struggle, not America's. And when the dust has settled, the Iranian public (for whom the specter of foreign interference is a longstanding obsession) will remember the note he struck this week. If, as appears likely, Khamenei is left standing but weakened, he will be in no mood to negotiate with a United States that was so overtly seen as licking its chops at the prospect of regime change. And if, by some miracle, the Islamic Republic is swept away and replaced with some new form of government, then it, too, will find it politically difficult to open the country up to American influence if it's seen by the people as an American 'puppet.' We have little to lose and, possibly, everything to gain from a little circumspection.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

Nice post freakyfreaky, Iran and America go a lonnnng way back.....

Bridge to victory

It was the summer of 1941. Food shortages and inflation were the most pressing concerns for the average citizen in Iran. The war in Europe, which had begun in 1939 when Nazi Germany and its ally, the Soviet Union, invaded Poland; had spread west across the continent and south, to North Africa and the Middle East.

In May of 1941 the British had taken control of Iraq to safeguard their access to oil resources. On June 22 the Nazis, concerned about Stalin's aggressive annexing of territory in the Balkans which could threaten Germany's access to the Romanian oil fields; turned on their former ally and invaded the Soviet Union.

Iran had declared it's neutrality from the beginning. Its strategic location at the cross roads between Europe and Asia, however, made it vulnerable to both the European power conflict and, the Japanese forces which controlled Manchuria and in recent weeks had occupied Indo-China.

It was against this ominous backdrop that Reza Shah came to hand out diplomas for the graduates of Tehran's military academy. With great sadness in his voice, he addressed them as sons and officers of Iran. "Unfortunately this year you cannot take your month vacation upon graduation," he told them." You must go immediately to the regiment to which you are assigned."

"For your information, sons," Reza Shah continued, " our country is on the edge of very dangerous times."

In the summer of 1941 much of the world was already over the edge. An edge pushed relentlessly forward by the Nazi war machine in the west and Imperial Japan in the east.

Since the turn of the century, Iran had maintained a cautious policy of courting foreign governments as third powers to balance the influence exerted by the British and Russians. By 1939 that policy had resulted in Germany surpassing Russia as Iran's major trading partner. The economic facts, coupled with rumors and suspicion surrounding the large German enclaves in Iran; and Reza Shah's open admiration of Hitler's Aryan race propaganda, provided the pretext for a joint Soviet and British invasion of Iran on the 25th of August 1941.

Junior Lieutenant Mohammed Ali Sobhani along with 35-40 other new officers loaded onto a bus in Tehran headed for Tabriz, Azerbaijan to join the 3rd Division. At one of the check points along the route, they learned of the Soviet invasion from the north. "I remember as soon as we heard we were all very happy," Sobhani recalled, "because now we would be fighting our real enemy - the Russians."

It was a short and very one sided fight as Soviet armored units rolled into Tabriz aided by advance guards of fifth columnists and infiltraitors who identified key targets and eliminated them before any significant resistance could be organized.

Hasan Javdi, former chairman of the English department at Tehran University, was a child at the time and his parent's home was near one of the German trade missions in Tabriz. He remembers a young begger woman and her child who had camped out on the street in front of his parents home for several months.

On the morning that the skies over Tabriz were filled by black airplanes with red stars , the woman appeared in an officer's uniform at the head of a column of Soviet soldiers. That story is repeated in many variations as part of the folklore of the Soviet invasion of Iran. For Lt. Sobhani and the reinforcements, it meant withdrawal to Teheran and surrender.

By the summer of 1942, as Nazi units pushed through Ukraine and the Crimea towards the Caucasus, the first elements of American logistic and combat engineer units began arriving in Iran to form the Persian Gulf Command. Working with Soviet construction battalions, the Americans built a network of roads to replace the narrow trails that proved impassable to large trucks.

Lt. William H. Bird commanded one of the first American transportation units made up of White officers and Negro troops from the Illinois National Guard. "Our run from Andimeshk to Khorramshahr was supposed to take 10 hours" Bird recalled, "it was 135 miles, but there were 1,300 curves so it often took 15 hours or more."

The huge tractor -trailer rigs and the treacherous mountain roads overwhelmed this first batch of US Army Quartermaster drivers whose experience had been limited to civilian jobs driving delivery trucks in Chicago. The war department contacted the American Trucking Associations and through them the Teamsters Union calling for volunteers for a "secret mission."

At that time, most heavy duty truck drivers in America were exempt from the draft for military service because they were needed to haul supplies between factories for the war effort. Within a short time more than one thousand of these professional drivers had given up their deferments and joined the Army.

They arrived at Khorramshahr via Australia and the Indian Ocean with no idea exactly where they were going. The Pocket Guide to Iran, a small booklet published by the War Department began with familiar themes - Iran was a life line for supplies to the war front and a critical source of oil.

The highways and the Iranian State Railway became a vital life line from American factories, which were beyond the range of Nazi bombers, and the beleaguered Soviet Army, which could no longer be supplied as factories in Russia and Ukraine, were rapidly being destroyed by the advancing Nazi forces.

The aid program known as "Lend-Lease" which had allowed a neutral United States to provide war supplies to England, China, and the anti-Axis effort; expanded greatly after America entered the war in December of 1941. Some 4.5 million tons of war supplies arrived at the ports of the Persian Gulf for shipment north.

Although the total tonnage of American lend-lease supplies to the Soviet Union amounted to only seven percent of the total supplies consumed by the Soviet Union during the entire war, Russian historian Alexander S. Orlov acknowledges that supplies received during 1941 and 1942 amounted to closer to 90 percent of what some front line units had to fight with.

Thousands of Iranian civilians played a role in the war effort from laborers for road building and drivers to skilled mechanics at the "little Detroit's" truck assembly plants at Andimeshk. In one year 648,000 vehicles were built in Iran for shipment to the Soviet Union.

The success of the vehicle and aircraft assembly facilities is a tribute to the imagination of the Iranian people and the ingenuity of American soldiers - most of whom couldn't speak Persian. The fact was, the Persian language did not contain a vocabulary of terms for the tools and procedures needed to assemble modern machines - and yet they did it and did it well.

The sudden availability of large quantities of lumber, salvaged from the crates used to ship aircraft and other war materials, created a building industry for industrious Iranians. Even the children became involved in a sort of cottage industry - straightening nails!

It is rather easy to get caught up in the excitement of a "war story" and the big picture of battles and heroes and loose sight of the impact of war on individuals who were innocent bystanders to the history- making events around them.

In her novel, Savushun, Iranian author Simin Daneshvar captures that tragedy as she chronicles the impact of the war and foreign occupation on one Iranian family. The food shortages, caused by British and Soviet forces buying up grain intended for the Iranian marketplace, lead to riots in several western Iranian cities. The growth of the communist movement, supported by the Soviet occupying forces, lead to further instability and confrontation when the war ended and the Soviet forces did not immediately withdraw from northern Iran.

The Persian Corridor, or Bridge To Victory as it was called in Persian, provided a vital link for war supplies in one direction while at the same time serving as a humanitarian passage for xxxish and Polish refugees, many of whom arrived in Iran by crossing the Caspian in ships that had delivered supplies to ports in Baku, Azerbaijan or Krasnovodsk, Turkmenistan.

There were no great tank battles or aerial dog fights on this front. Considering the number of double agents and the plight of refugees, an appropriate description might be "Casablanca East." This collection of memories of the men and women whose lives were thrown together by World War II or the Great Patriotic War as it was called in Russian, is not a well orchestrated chorus in praise of international cooperation.

It is, rather, an impromptu jam session in which, if we listen closely, we may hear the dissonant chords of our own mis-perceptions and prejudice set against a recurring theme of individual friendships and private acknowledgment of the public reality that, from time to time, we are all dependent on the kindness of strangers.

http://www.iranian.com/History/Nov97/WWII/index.html

[Virgil]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

To a fair election? They were/are questioning the results and they should be able to do that.

Again, I don't want to get involved because I don't like arguing on the internet. I just troll nowadays, but I want to make some comments because many people in the audience are being lead astray by the media (All will be explained in due time!).

Siggie (Addressed to all Americans and Europeans, anyone reading really that feels that the elections were fraudulent), ok, so you are claiming that the "elections are fraudulent"? Well, my friend (If you don't consider me a friend that is fine, often times, friends and enemies are the same), a series of questions is addressed to you and anyone that feels the same way. I would like to ask you ask everyone, what makes the elections in Iran "less democratic" than in nations with dubious human rights history that are considered "western ally" (I don't want to give names, you know who you are!)? Why is it that all the oppression perpetrated by those governments are ignored, while all of a sudden, the Iranian government is vilified for protecting and serving its people by maintaining order? Have you asked yourself this? No, I am sure you have not and you must have also ignored the fact that many citizens of those undemocratic "western allies" are discontent with their government, but because _________ or _________ have financial and political interests vested in these corrupt governments the actions by these governments are largely ignored.

Have you ever thought what a humanitarian crisis Iranian citizens will face if indeed the country is left without a government? God forbid, if the Iranian government fails to maintain order the region will spiral into chaos. "Neighbors" will attack the rich oil and gas fields in the north. The United States and Europe will have to deploy troops in the region. Granted they may secure these resources, but at what cost? Are you, everyone that supports a revolution willing to pay that price? Are the Iranians willing to risk losing their statehood to a bunch of foreigners with foreign interests? These are questions that the audience should ask, these are consequences that they should think about. The state of transparency of the elections should not outweigh the very realistic consequences that will be faced by Iranians and the world if the government can not maintain order. And what happens to Armenia, Georgian, and Azerbaijan? They are all xxxxed.

So now, with that being explained, can you see why putting your "faith" in these governments that are a pointing the finger is a little premature? Do you see how these governments are not motivated by altruistic interests, but instead are motivated by their own greed? Iran is a nation that is ripe with resources, furthermore, it has a nice consumer population. The very same motives behind Matthew C. Perry forceful landing in Japan on July 14, 1853 are the same motives today. Do you see how this will only lead to more problems in the region?

Now, supposing the elections were fraudulent. Explain to me why a government that wanted to "rig elections" would make it so blatantly obvious that they were "rigging elections"? If you are going to commit a crime, why leave any evidence? Let me be specific, a major "clue" that the BBC refers to is that one of the regions that Mousavi lost was areas where he was from, ok, so did you get that? Do you understand now? No, well if you are "rigging" a election, why the hell would you do that? Explain to me, why the Iranian government, which has infinite resources, would in fact do something as ridiculous like this if it wanted to "rig elections"? Hmm ... It makes no sense.

Do you know what I think happened? The entities behind Mousavi, which will remain nameless because I don't want to get involved are afraid that Ahmadinejad will not be tolerant of them when he assumed powers, so, they worked with the other side to make sure that he would not have the power to point to their corruption. I don't want to say more, personally, I think the opposition has won, they achieved their objective, which was to dethrone the only person that could highlight their ...

And you let me tell you something, here is a nice movie quote (You name the movie!), "villainy wears many masks, the most dangerous is virtue". The BBC and the entities that support the BBC are claiming that they "are not interfering", I can assure you, that is a bunch of bullxxxx. They planned this out the moment the government allowed them to enter the country and establish a media wing in Iran and I guarantee you that the same entities within Iran that allowed them to do this are the same ...

Also, the BBC claims that "experts" are sure that it was a sham election. So now, explain to me this, how does the BBC know that the elections were indeed fraudulent? Who are these "experts"? What estimates and assumptions are they using? So, we, the people, must blindly believe the BBC because why? Because they are a "credible" news agency? The same news agency that does not use the "G word" on April 24th? The same news agency that claims that "______ is a beacon of democracy"? The same news agency that viciously lies about the democratic conditions in __________, but is the first news agency in Armenia when a "color revolution" occurs? Think about those questions, you will soon realize that you are conditioned to believe everything from the mouthpieces of these nations pointing the fingers. You believe them without questioning them, you believe them without any opposition. These entities, in Iran, outside of Iran, they don't care about democracy like they didn't care about democracy in the 50's when they dethroned the secular government and didn't care about the "Islamic Revolution" that occurred in 1979. All just care about money and power like everyone else on this planet.

I will say this, I don't agree nor do I buy into Obama, but I don't think he is lying to the American people. Likewise, I think Ahmadinejad is not so evil as he is portrayed to be. I think if both leaders sat down and spoke to each other instead of listening to their "experts" the world would be a better place. Furthermore, I don't think this instability is really needed in the region when everyone faces a economic meltdown. Instead of solving these problems, all this gasoline that is drenched on the fire will burn everyone in the end. Take it from that has experienced the "Islamic Revolution", it did not work then and it will not work now. Being a immigrant and getting displaced within this harsh world is the worst fate that one can experience, to live like gypsies is a rotten existence. Change does not occur overnight, furthermore, before any democracy a nation, all nations, must experience the iron hand of a despot or else they do not understand why a democracy is important. I am not claiming that Ahmadinejad is a despot or anyone in Iran, rather, I am just pointing out to the fact that these ideas of "instant democracy" is a bunch of bull. It took many years of sacrifice for social change to occur in the United States. Finally, these western nations can not honestly expect that the rest of world embrace their standards as the "gold standard". All nations must create a democracy in their own image.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Protests continue after Ayatollah's warning: Protesters beaten, tear-gassed in st

I will say this, I don't agree nor do I buy into Obama, but I don't think he is lying to the American people. Likewise, I think Ahmadinejad is not so evil as he is portrayed to be. I think if both leaders sat down and spoke to each other instead of listening to their "experts" the world would be a better place. Furthermore, I don't think this instability is really needed in the region when everyone faces a economic meltdown. Instead of solving these problems, all this gasoline that is drenched on the fire will burn everyone in the end. Take it from that has experienced the "Islamic Revolution", it did not work then and it will not work now. Being a immigrant and getting displaced within this harsh world is the worst fate that one can experience, to live like gypsies is a rotten existence. Change does not occur overnight, furthermore, before any democracy a nation, all nations, must experience the iron hand of a despot or else they do not understand why a democracy is important. I am not claiming that Ahmadinejad is a despot or anyone in Iran, rather, I am just pointing out to the fact that these ideas of "instant democracy" is a bunch of bull. It took many years of sacrifice for social change to occur in the United States. Finally, these western nations can not honestly expect that the rest of world embrace their standards as the "gold standard". All nations must create a democracy in their own image.

Canada is a constitutional Monarchy, the US is FAR from a "democracy", the people are scared xxxxless of government.