Protests in Iran

[JScott]

Anti-government protests turn deadly in Tehran

TEHRAN -- Security forces opened fire at crowds demonstrating against the government in the capital on Sunday, killing at least four people, including the nephew of opposition political leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, witnesses and Web sites linked to the opposition said.

"Ali Mousavi, 32, was shot in the heart at the Enghelab square. He became a martyr," the Rah-e Sabz Website reported.

In the heaviest clashes in months, fierce battles erupted as tens of thousands of demonstrators tried to gather on a main Tehran avenue, with people setting up roadblocks and throwing stones at members of special forces under the command of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. They in turn threw dozens of teargas and stun grenades, but failed in pushing back crowds, who shouted slogans against the government, witnesses reported.
washingtonpost.com

Looks like the people arent backing down this time.

 

[JScott]

Up to the minute videos-

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...o_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=25&uni=3

 

[xsited1]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.

 

[JScott]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.

Why do you suppose hed want to do that?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.

Why do you suppose hed want to do that?

teleprompter broke?

 

[rightwinger]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.

Nice post to reflect on people dying for Democracy in Iran.

Shows the true underbelly of the right wing

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.



Nice post to reflect on people dying for Democracy in Iran.

Shows the true underbelly of the right wing

It 's not he said the following like the Telegraph did in the UK


I wrote back in June about the shameful silence of the Obama administration during the mass street protests that greeted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent re-election victory as President of Iran. As White House spokesman Robert Gibbs ludicrously put it, the administration was “impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm this election generated.” Or in Vice President Joe Biden’s words on NBC’s Meet the Press, describing Ahmadinejad’s victory – “we’re going to withhold comment… I mean we’re just waiting to see.”
Embarrassingly for Washington, even many European leaders showed more backbone in condemning the Iranian regime’s brutal suppression of protestors, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton humiliatingly outflanked by her French and German counterparts, who had no qualms about speaking out quickly and firmly against the election result and the actions of the Iranian government.


Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protestors shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is silence from the White House. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recovering from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American people and without a shred of bipartisan support.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ideally we'd go change the government of Iran as well. There are some unfortunate restraints however.

 

[JScott]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.



Nice post to reflect on people dying for Democracy in Iran.

Shows the true underbelly of the right wing

It 's not he said the following like the Telegraph did in the UK


I wrote back in June about the shameful silence of the Obama administration during the mass street protests that greeted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent re-election victory as President of Iran. As White House spokesman Robert Gibbs ludicrously put it, the administration was “impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm this election generated.” Or in Vice President Joe Biden’s words on NBC’s Meet the Press, describing Ahmadinejad’s victory – “we’re going to withhold comment… I mean we’re just waiting to see.”
Embarrassingly for Washington, even many European leaders showed more backbone in condemning the Iranian regime’s brutal suppression of protestors, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton humiliatingly outflanked by her French and German counterparts, who had no qualms about speaking out quickly and firmly against the election result and the actions of the Iranian government.


Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protestors shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is silence from the White House. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recovering from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American people and without a shred of bipartisan support.

What would you like him to do?

 

[Neotrotsky]

It 's not he said the following like the Telegraph did in the UK


I wrote back in June about the shameful silence of the Obama administration during the mass street protests that greeted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent re-election victory as President of Iran. As White House spokesman Robert Gibbs ludicrously put it, the administration was “impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm this election generated.” Or in Vice President Joe Biden’s words on NBC’s Meet the Press, describing Ahmadinejad’s victory – “we’re going to withhold comment… I mean we’re just waiting to see.”
Embarrassingly for Washington, even many European leaders showed more backbone in condemning the Iranian regime’s brutal suppression of protestors, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton humiliatingly outflanked by her French and German counterparts, who had no qualms about speaking out quickly and firmly against the election result and the actions of the Iranian government.


Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protestors shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is silence from the White House. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recovering from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American people and without a shred of bipartisan support.

What would you like him to do?

Stop bowing - would be a good place to start

 

[JScott]

What would you like him to do?

Stop bowing - would be a good place to start

No really, what would you like him to do? You have very concrete ideas, I want to know what you think he should do.

 

[xsited1]

Obama needs to give them his 'evil eye'. That'll put a stop to it.

Nice post to reflect on people dying for Democracy in Iran.

Shows the true underbelly of the right wing

Nice going there Right Winger!

 

[rdean]

I am very surprised that the Right in this country isn't supporting the right wing conservative government in Iran.

After all, the protesters are of the radical left.

The entire reason they are fighting is to get "religion" OUT of government.

Why does the right support a religious take over here and protest the religious right wing conservative government in Iran. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

After all, the right supported the new Iraqi constitution that makes "Islam" the national religion and Article 2 of the US Republican supported Iraqi Constitution says all legislation is based on Islam.

Do you think the American right wing just follows Republican leaders without rhyme or reason?

 

[xsited1]

I am very surprised that the Right in this country isn't supporting the right wing conservative government in Iran.

After all, the protesters are of the radical left.

The entire reason they are fighting is to get "religion" OUT of government.

Why does the right support a religious take over here and protest the religious right wing conservative government in Iran. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

After all, the right supported the new Iraqi constitution that makes "Islam" the national religion and Article 2 of the US Republican supported Iraqi Constitution says all legislation is based on Islam.

Do you think the American right wing just follows Republican leaders without rhyme or reason?

Maybe Rightwinger can help you answer your questions. For the rest of us, the Right-wing portion of the Republican party has no power whatsoever which is why we don't concern ourselves with them. The bigger question is whether Obama and/or the UN will do anything substantive. So far, they have chosen to sit on the sidelines.

 

[JW Frogen]

Iran is sitting on an ocean of oil and yet the religious Neanderthals who squat on the country (one can hardly credit them with running anything) has turned it into an economic backwater that exports pistachios.

First their nuclear program must be stopped, by any or all means.

Then the key is Iraq, if Iraq does emerge as a real, stable democracy, it too is sitting on a pool of oil (now that the despotic Saddam is gone they are even finding oil in the Sunni areas rather than just mass murdering to take it from the Shia and Kurdish areas), but a democracy will see the money used to lift living standards.

Long term the Iranians will look across the border and say, why can't you deliver this oh wise and great squatters of Allah?

 

[rdean]

Iran is sitting on an ocean of oil and yet the religious Neanderthals who squat on the country (one can hardly credit them with running anything) has turned it into an economic backwater that exports pistachios.

First their nuclear program must be stopped, by any or all means.

Then the key is Iraq, if Iraq does emerge as a real, stable democracy, it too is sitting on a pool of oil (now that the despotic Saddam is gone they are even finding oil in the Sunni areas rather than just mass murdering to take it from the Shia and Kurdish areas), but a democracy will see the money used to lift living standards.

Long term the Iranians will look across the border and say, why can't you deliver this oh wise and great squatters of Allah?

IF?

Women are now back in burkas or similar. They are not allowed to venture out except with an escort by a male relative. Women's groups say they had it better under Saddam.

The Christian population has been pretty much wiped out from an estimated 1.4 million to between 3 and 4 hundred thousand. They say they had it better under Saddam.

Who knows what COULD have happened in Iraq? The incompetence of the Republicans have left Iraq a broken country under Sharia law. They will be trapped for at least another generation. They will hate us forever for what we did to their country. You can't put Republicans in charge of nation building. Look at what is going on in Uganda. That is a direct result of Republican interference. Republicans live for ideology over consequence. Everywhere they go, they leave behind hate and devastation. They are like the Biblical plague of locusts.

From the Iraqi Constitution:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

--------------

If we do any type of military action against Iran, they will unite as a country against us. And possibly much of the Arab world.

 

[JW Frogen]

That is certainly true in Shia areas, less so in Sunni or Kurdish areas.

It is a federal democracy and so such religious proscriptions are more embedded in local cultural power structure than in federal law. (Because interpritation of Islam is so widely disputed within Islam.)

Women in Shia areas were still subject to religious proscriptions under Saddam, just not at his hand. Rather that of their relatives. His hand was too busy killing their sons and husbands or sending them off to endless ego motivated wars. When he or his sons were not busy raping them that is.

True there is an Islamic provision in the Iraqi constitution, a constitution ratified by over 70% of the voting age population, voting under threat of death from the insurgents might I add, (how many jaded Westerners would risk their vote under such conditions?) so this too is democracy, unlike the theocracy in Iran where no amount of voting can over rule the dictates of the Mullahs.

There is no dignity and little truth in defending Saddam no matter how imperfect the road to democracy for Iraq is, and will be.

 

[rdean]

That is certainly true in Shia areas, less so in Sunni or Kurdish areas.

It is a federal democracy and so such religious proscriptions are more embedded in local cultural power structure than in federal law. (Because interpritation of Islam is so widely disputed within Islam.)

Women in Shia areas were still subject to religious proscriptions under Saddam, just not at his hand. Rather that of their relatives. His hand was too busy killing their sons and husbands or sending them off to endless ego motivated wars. When he or his sons were not busy raping them that is.

True there is an Islamic provision in the Iraqi constitution, a constitution ratified by over 70% of the voting age population, voting under threat of death from the insurgents might I add, (how many jaded Westerners would risk their vote under such conditions?) so this too is democracy, unlike the theocracy in Iran where no amount of voting can over rule the dictates of the Mullahs.

There is no dignity and little truth in defending Saddam no matter how imperfect the road to democracy for Iraq is, and will be.

Stating the obvious that these people had it better under Saddam is hardly "defending" Saddam.

But how many women could his sons rape? Compared to the number of Christian women raped and forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men?

The fact that "Legislation is based on Islam" MAKES Iraq a theocracy. That is the definition of "theocracy". I don't see how it can be viewed any other way. It's spelled out in the constitution in black and white and the red blood of American sons and daughters.

theocracy - the belief in government by divine guidance

theocracy - definition of theocracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

From the Iraqi constitution:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

 

[JW Frogen]

I do not think they did have it better under Saddam and apparently neither did most Iraqis as they ignored his calls, or rather threats from his thugs, to boycott the elections. Saddam intiated a war in Iran that killed far more than have died in the post 2003 war, a war in Kuwait that broke Iraq economically, genocide against the Kurds and mass killing of the Shia, no real political or religious freedom for anyone, even within the Baithist party.

Tell a Kurd or Shia they had it better under Saddam and you may not get out alive. (There is also an imperialist Western hubris, perhaps even racism, in the assumption that they do not know what is good for themselves, that their vote is meaningless because a Westerner knows the little brown people were better off under Saddam, despite them voting to the contrary.)

As to theocracy -democracy, in Iran the Mullahs can over rule any elected official, in Iraq the elected officials determine the state of religious combination within the state, and can re-determine it by constitutional amendment. Indeed the implementation of this Islamic provision is really left up the federated areas, the Shia south has a vastly different interpitation and enforcement to the Kurdish north for instance, revealing another aspect of democracy, some local autonomy, something Saddam never allowed.

 

[rdean]

I do not think they did have it better under Saddam and apparently neither did most Iraqis as they ignored his calls, or rather threats from his thugs, to boycott the elections. Saddam intiated a war in Iran that killed far more than have died in the post 2003 war, a war in Kuwait that broke Iraq economically, genocide against the Kurds and mass killing of the Shia, no real political or religious freedom for anyone, even within the Baithist party.

Tell a Kurd or Shia they had it better under Saddam and you may not get out alive. (There is also an imperialist Western hubris, perhaps even racism, in the assumption that they do not know what is good for themselves, that their vote is meaningless because a Westerner knows the little brown people were better off under Saddam, despite them voting to the contrary.)

As to theocracy -democracy, in Iran the Mullahs can over rule any elected official, in Iraq the elected officials determine the state of religious combination within the state, and can re-determine it by constitutional amendment. Indeed the implementation of this Islamic provision is really left up the federated areas, the Shia south has a vastly different interpitation and enforcement to the Kurdish north for instance, revealing another aspect of democracy, some local autonomy, something Saddam never allowed.

To begin with, we are NOT the police of the world.

A search of Iraqi news will find almost nothing but stories of Shiites and Christians being targeted by bombs.

And, the new Iraqi government is considered the fifth most corrupt government in the world.

Corruption poses threat to Iraq » Kuwait Times Website

I'm too tired to write anymore. But the rosy picture you write about simply doesn't exist. Iraq wasn't our fight. But now it's our disaster.