Iran's "supreme leader" is losing it

[Lycurgus]

I have to agree that not making blood public statements right now may actually work in our favor. However, I am not convinced that Obama can act if really called on to do so. He has already given them too much breathing room and the same with N. Korea.

since he had already said he would meet with the nutjob without preconditions, what can he really say now that would be taken as serious?

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

Valid points and I don't disagree. I just feel that by him giving some space right now helps those in Iran pushing for change. Nevertheless at some point, he is going to need to stand up and be very blunt and strong on the issue. But, I'll bet he doesn't do it

 

[MaggieMae]

Your point being regarding the crisis?

These are toughies.

Please decode 'toughies'.

[Sigh...]

Beruch said:
So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

To which I said:
How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Then you said:
Your point being regarding the crisis?

The first statement deals with the CURRENT "crisis." My response said, in effect, that the protesting Iranians should already know that the U.S. does NOT support Achmedinejad (the bad guy).

Get it now? I think you just like to stalk me with dumb responses.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have to agree that not making blood public statements right now may actually work in our favor. However, I am not convinced that Obama can act if really called on to do so. He has already given them too much breathing room and the same with N. Korea.

since he had already said he would meet with the nutjob without preconditions, what can he really say now that would be taken as serious?

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

He's already done that. But he's not about to say anything that will further escalate civil war in Iran. Or has everyone already forgotten the outcome resulting from all the adventures in Iraq where the U.S. got stuck in the middle of a civil war...

 

[oreo]

Watching CNN right now--they are covering what they can. The state run media is blocking all foreign reporters from covering this big day. The state run media is not reporting on the protests. Protestors are being blocked, they are using tear gas, water cannons & clubing to disperse them. Many of the organizers have already been arrested.

It looks like the threats from the supreme leader are working. Crowds are way--way down.

BUT--here is the change--the protestors who are there are chanting "death to the supreme leader." This would indicate to me that they want a complete regime change.

 

[Annie]

These are toughies.

Please decode 'toughies'.

[Sigh...]

Beruch said:
So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

To which I said:
How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Then you said:
Your point being regarding the crisis?

The first statement deals with the CURRENT "crisis." My response said, in effect, that the protesting Iranians should already know that the U.S. does NOT support Achmedinejad (the bad guy).

Get it now? I think you just like to stalk me with dumb responses.

Hardly stalking you. Considering Obama has said there really isn't any difference between the candidate chosen or the one representing the people, as far as him sitting down with and working problems out.

Now he could have said that the US is always on the side of more freedom and peaceful change. Hmm, so which side would that be?

 

[oreo]

since he had already said he would meet with the nutjob without preconditions, what can he really say now that would be taken as serious?

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

He's already done that. But he's not about to say anything that will further escalate civil war in Iran. Or has everyone already forgotten the outcome resulting from all the adventures in Iraq where the U.S. got stuck in the middle of a civil war...

It's been reported that the Mullah's & the supreme leader of Iran are already reporting that these protests are sponsored by the United States.

 

[Sunni Man]

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

He's already done that. But he's not about to say anything that will further escalate civil war in Iran. Or has everyone already forgotten the outcome resulting from all the adventures in Iraq where the U.S. got stuck in the middle of a civil war...

It's been reported that the Mullah's & the supreme leader of Iran are already reporting that these protests are sponsored by the United States.

I am sure they are correct.

And most likely Israel is also involved.

 

[Annie]

It's also being reported that the people are now chasing back the police and Mousavi has written a letter that's inspiring people. Little talk anymore about elections, seems to be the mullahs now:

Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising

I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, and scroll down for stories corresponding to the front-page headlines.

11:47 AM ET -- More from Twitter: "Crowd rushing to Jihoun St, where people are saying Mousavi is there and talking with protesters"

Protesters in Revolution sq r chanting: Goftim agar taghalob besheh basatetoon jam misheh!! "We told u if u cheat it'll be the end of u"

11:43 AM ET -- An Iranian-American talks to Iran contacts: "worth noting
people in iran are hearing that others are coming out to join. people are leaving work now and going to join."

11:37 AM ET -- Report: Police taking injured, dead. This story in Persian says that its reporters are trying to confirm deaths but the dead and injured are being grabbed by security forces and taken away.

11:30 AM ET -- More Mousavi reporting.

@LilyMazahery: "Mousavi is at head of Jayhoon ave. giving a speech."

Reliable Iranian on Twitter: "mousavi among people: I am ready for death"


Another: "Mousavi - Confirmed - I have prepared for martyrdom"...

 

[Sunni Man]

I think that it is terrible that the American government and people are supporting lawless protesters and criminals attacking the legitimate democratically elected government of Iran.

 

[Annie]

Twitter pics from Iran:

Twitpic / madyar

 

[MaggieMae]

Please decode 'toughies'.

[Sigh...]

Beruch said:
So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

To which I said:
How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Then you said:
Your point being regarding the crisis?

The first statement deals with the CURRENT "crisis." My response said, in effect, that the protesting Iranians should already know that the U.S. does NOT support Achmedinejad (the bad guy).

Get it now? I think you just like to stalk me with dumb responses.

Hardly stalking you. Considering Obama has said there really isn't any difference between the candidate chosen or the one representing the people, as far as him sitting down with and working problems out.

Now he could have said that the US is always on the side of more freedom and peaceful change. Hmm, so which side would that be?

Obama's first comments, June 16, 2009:

"I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected."

But the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says the president studiously avoided any comment on the allegations of vote fraud.

"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Mr Obama said.

In an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith Friday, President Obama said he is "very concerned" with the thrust of the statements made today by the ayatollah about Iran's disputed election results.

"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," the president told Smith. "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 -- and is not."

Maybe he should always check with you first for the politically correct language that would appease Republicans? Are you guys sad that he didn't immediately confirm Iran's "axis of evil" status?

 

[Chris]

Zakaria on Iran...

By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that they are battling an aggressive America bent on attacking Iran. In his inaugural address, his New Year greetings, and his Cairo speech, there is a consistent effort to convey respect and friendship for Iranians. That is why Khamenei reacted so angrily to the New Year greeting. It undermined the image of the Great Satan that he routinely paints in his sermons. In his Friday sermon, Khamenei said that the United States, Israel, and especially the United Kingdom were behind the street protests, an accusation that will surely sound ridiculous to most Iranians. The fact that Obama has been cautious in his reaction makes it all the harder for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to wrap themselves in a nationalist flag.

Zakaria: 'Fatal wound' inflicted on Iranian regime's ideology - CNN.com

 

[Annie]

[Sigh...]

Beruch said:
So the administration should definitely make sure that the Iranian citizens know we are not on the side of the bad guys for once.

To which I said:
How could they NOT know that? Achmedinijad has been reviled all along by the United States.

Then you said:
Your point being regarding the crisis?

The first statement deals with the CURRENT "crisis." My response said, in effect, that the protesting Iranians should already know that the U.S. does NOT support Achmedinejad (the bad guy).

Get it now? I think you just like to stalk me with dumb responses.

Hardly stalking you. Considering Obama has said there really isn't any difference between the candidate chosen or the one representing the people, as far as him sitting down with and working problems out.

Now he could have said that the US is always on the side of more freedom and peaceful change. Hmm, so which side would that be?

Obama's first comments, June 16, 2009:

"I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected."

But the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says the president studiously avoided any comment on the allegations of vote fraud.

"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Mr Obama said.

In an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith Friday, President Obama said he is "very concerned" with the thrust of the statements made today by the ayatollah about Iran's disputed election results.

"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," the president told Smith. "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 -- and is not."

Maybe he should always check with you first for the politically correct language that would appease Republicans? Are you guys sad that he didn't immediately confirm Iran's "axis of evil" status?

MM, you don't get that he needed to stand with the protestors, not regarding the election, but the right to make demands. That wasn't happening on the 16th and surely isn't today.

 

[Sunni Man]

Zakaria is a worm and a sell-out to his people.

Of course Israel is using the spy agencys of the U.S. and Britan to destroy the Iranian government.

The Zionist want a non nuclear Irainian government that is friendly to Israel and believes in the Holohoax.

 

[toomuchtime_]

since he had already said he would meet with the nutjob without preconditions, what can he really say now that would be taken as serious?

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

He's already done that. But he's not about to say anything that will further escalate civil war in Iran. Or has everyone already forgotten the outcome resulting from all the adventures in Iraq where the U.S. got stuck in the middle of a civil war...

That's a truly bizarre statement to suggest that if this president delivered a robust statement in support of democracy and human rights we would end up with 140,000 troops in Iran. The fact is that Obama has no track record supporting democracy and human rights so the Iranian people have no way of knowing where he stands. They did know that the Bush administration supported democratic change in Iran, but Obama has made a point of saying all his policies with respect to Iran are different. The Iranians who have been able to follow Obama's career so far have every reason to think he is interested in what is happening there only so far as it will effect his and his party's political fortunes here.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

He's already done that. But he's not about to say anything that will further escalate civil war in Iran. Or has everyone already forgotten the outcome resulting from all the adventures in Iraq where the U.S. got stuck in the middle of a civil war...

It's been reported that the Mullah's & the supreme leader of Iran are already reporting that these protests are sponsored by the United States.

He has quite clearly said that all this trouble has been caused by schemes from the US, UK and Israel, yet some Obama supporters still claim that Obama refuses to take a strong stand in support of democracy and human rights in Iran for fear that the Supreme Leader will say what he has already said. Baghdad Bob did a better job of trying to explain Saddam's actions than these Obama supporters do of trying to explain Obama's continuing refusal to take a strong stand in support of democracy and human rights in Iran.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hardly stalking you. Considering Obama has said there really isn't any difference between the candidate chosen or the one representing the people, as far as him sitting down with and working problems out.

Now he could have said that the US is always on the side of more freedom and peaceful change. Hmm, so which side would that be?

Obama's first comments, June 16, 2009:

"I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected."

But the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says the president studiously avoided any comment on the allegations of vote fraud.

"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Mr Obama said.

In an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith Friday, President Obama said he is "very concerned" with the thrust of the statements made today by the ayatollah about Iran's disputed election results.

"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," the president told Smith. "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 -- and is not."

Maybe he should always check with you first for the politically correct language that would appease Republicans? Are you guys sad that he didn't immediately confirm Iran's "axis of evil" status?

MM, you don't get that he needed to stand with the protestors, not regarding the election, but the right to make demands. That wasn't happening on the 16th and surely isn't today.

What more do you want him to do? Fly over there and march with them? Uh oh, can't do that. Then he'd be criticized about how much it cost Air Force One to make the trip.

IT IS FUCKING CLEAR THAT HE STANDS WITH THOSE WHO ARE PROTESTING.

 

[MaggieMae]

Zakaria is a worm and a sell-out to his people.

Of course Israel is using the spy agencys of the U.S. and Britan to destroy the Iranian government.

The Zionist want a non nuclear Irainian government that is friendly to Israel and believes in the Holohoax.

Fahreed Zakaria is the most brilliant expert on Mideast geopolitics and is respected by Jews and Arabs uniformly. In my opinion, he should have a top level position with this administration instead of a one-hour show on CNN once a week and a column in Newsweek.

 

[DiveCon]

Obama's first comments, June 16, 2009:

"I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected."

But the BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says the president studiously avoided any comment on the allegations of vote fraud.

"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," Mr Obama said.

In an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith Friday, President Obama said he is "very concerned" with the thrust of the statements made today by the ayatollah about Iran's disputed election results.

"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," the president told Smith. "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 -- and is not."

Maybe he should always check with you first for the politically correct language that would appease Republicans? Are you guys sad that he didn't immediately confirm Iran's "axis of evil" status?

MM, you don't get that he needed to stand with the protestors, not regarding the election, but the right to make demands. That wasn't happening on the 16th and surely isn't today.

What more do you want him to do? Fly over there and march with them? Uh oh, can't do that. Then he'd be criticized about how much it cost Air Force One to make the trip.

IT IS FUCKING CLEAR THAT HE STANDS WITH THOSE WHO ARE PROTESTING.

maggie, you really need to get your head out of Obama's ass, for two reasons, one, so you can get some fresh air for a change, and two, i think he'd like to get a bit closer to being able to sit for a change

 

[MaggieMae]

The leadership in Iran has given no indication they are willing to make any changes in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons or in their support for terrorism, so there seems to be little to lose no matter what Obama says, and I would be happier to see an American president speak up for democracy and human rights rather than to keep his silence to curry favor tyrants.

He's already done that. But he's not about to say anything that will further escalate civil war in Iran. Or has everyone already forgotten the outcome resulting from all the adventures in Iraq where the U.S. got stuck in the middle of a civil war...

That's a truly bizarre statement to suggest that if this president delivered a robust statement in support of democracy and human rights we would end up with 140,000 troops in Iran. Huh??? The fact is that Obama has no track record supporting democracy and human rights so the Iranian people have no way of knowing where he stands. They did know that the Bush administration supported democratic change in Iran, but Obama has made a point of saying all his policies with respect to Iran are different. The Iranians who have been able to follow Obama's career so far have every reason to think he is interested in what is happening there only so far as it will effect his and his party's political fortunes here.

Now you're just venturing into bullshit mode. Reza Pahlavi is the son of the former Shah of Iran. And one can assume he knows a helluva lot more about his own people than you do.

Letter to The Honorable Barack Obama
Reza Pahlavi
November 5th, 2008

Dear Mr. President-elect,

It is with a great pleasure that I offer you my heartfelt congratulations on your historic election victory.

This is indeed a proud moment not just for America, but for millions of others around the globe who have come to believe in and aspire for the kind of values that have become universally acknowledged as the hallmarks of American society. Your success is a remarkable reminder of the potential for promoting major change through the ballot box in a free and fair electoral process.

Mr. President-Elect,

The prospect for change as promised by you has already aroused a great deal of expectation from people everywhere who are hopeful of emulating your example by constructing societies based on peace, freedom, justice and opportunity.

No where is the desire for such change greater than in my homeland, Iran.

The people of Iran are perhaps amongst the most eager aspirants for the kind of values that have become synonymous with your success in the recent months. Iranians believe ‘that if allowed the opportunity, yes they will’.

It is their hope that with your moral and vocal support, they too can pursue their struggle for the realization of their individual liberties and fundamental freedoms along with the restoration of their pride and dignity as human beings.

Wishing you ever increasing success in all your future endeavors,

Yours sincerely,

Reza Pahlavi

///
And here he is commenting on the election.

Pro-Shah Iranians call for regime change - Yahoo! News