The Islamic Republic regime in Iran is vividly revealing itself as an enemy of the entire world.

“Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei’s police and the Basij militia are using violence and terror to suppress the Iranian people at home. His terrorist proxies fire missiles at Israel while torturing, maiming, and murdering Palestinians. He sponsored a violent coup d’etat against the elected government in Beirut last year with his Hezbollah militia. He sponsors a terrorist insurgency against the elected government of Iraq, while his fanatical proxies shoot and kill American soldiers. A car bomb cell belonging to the regime’s Lebanese franchise was recently arrested in Azerbaijan, and more cells were rolled up in Egypt. Terrorists sponsored and encouraged by him and his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, have murdered civilians from Argentina to Japan.

...

Iranian civilians risk violent beatings and worse by the thousands for standing up to the regime in the streets and treating it as the enemy it clearly is. There is no better time for the rest of us to do so, as well, especially since such gestures carry far less risk for us. The Pasdaran have no divisions in Washington, Paris, or London.

...

If President Barack Obama simply must get this out of his system, at least his patience may be partly sapped by the brutal suppression of hope and change in Iran. He will learn soon enough, if he hasn’t already, that Khamenei, if he survives after defeating Iranians who bravely stood up and said “death to dictatorship” to his face, will be in no mood to compromise with diplomats who are afraid to speak up from thousands of miles away.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/69651

Leauki, you crack me up :-> I am seriously taking in consideration what you said though.

https://forums.joeuser.com/355230

Can you tell me (its on the second page of that) if my agrument on that page make sense. Either Nephilium didn't get it, maybe I'm missing what he said, or he's a lepton.

I hope I'll have time to read through it.

I was planning to compare Hebrew and Akkadian grammar tonight.

MIchael J. Totten is keeping us up-to-date at Commentary:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions/contentions?author_name=totten

However, there’s another possibility that few seem to have thought of. Right now the regime may be sticking its proverbial finger in the wind to sense what a foreign reaction to a more ferocious domestic response might look like. It’s somewhat surprising that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps hasn’t already gunned down a substantial number of people. Surely its commanders have at least considered massacring dissidents as in Tienanmen Square. If they feel they might get away with it because no one outside Iran is willing to stop them – which is exactly what happened in Burma last year – silence from the White House might actually increase the likelihood of something monstrous happening.

Huh, ironic...

*trys to hold back giggles/laugh*

Yeah, who would've thought that the MSM would consider that *anyone* could commit fraud?

\sarcasm

How so?

Note that while most news outlets still refer to Ahmadinejad as the "elected president", German n-tv.de switched to "so-called election winner" a few days ago.

http://www.n-tv.de/politik/meldungen/Das-Regime-besetzt-die-Strasse-article367282.html

A few weeks ago I read this (German) article about life as a female doctor in Saudi-Arabia:

http://ww.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/artikel.asp?id=61386

They took her passport and treated her like a whore, even when her husband was by her side.

This (Suisse) article talks about the legality of hitting women when they spend too much money:

http://www.20min.ch/news/kreuz_und_quer/story/Schlaege-fuer-kaufsuechtige-Frauen-sind-o-k--10120340

(It is legal in SA.)

And here is a (German) Spiegel article about selling 10-year old children to "husbands":

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,623221,00.html

I am sure there are English-language versions of these stories. Saudi-Arabia doesn't even deny these claims. Instead they say that Islam allows it. (Islam does not, but that's another story.)

All-in-all SA is pretty much a weirdo world.

The following document, known as the Seven Point Manifesto, calling for the resignation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has hit the streets of Iran. Hundreds of thousands of copies have already been circulated throughout the country.

The Seven Point Manifesto calls for:

1.Stripping Ayatollah Khamanei  of his Supreme Leadership position because of his unfairness. Fairness is a requirement of a  Supreme Leader.

2. Stripping Ahmadinejad  of the presidency, due to his unlawful act of maintaining the position illegally.

3.Transferring temporary Supreme Leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Iran’s constitution.

4. Recognizing Mir Hossein Mousavi as the rightfully elected president of the people.

5. Formation of a new government by President Mousavi and preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments.

6. Unconditional release of all political prisoners regardless of ideaology or party platform.

7. Dissolution of all organizations - both secret and public - designed for the oppression of the Iranian people, such as the Gasht Ershad (Iranian morality police).

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-seven-point-manifesto-of-the-iranian-resistance/

About Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayatollah_Hossein-Ali_Montazeri

Seems like a decent choice.

To start with, the BBC, long considered a shill for the regime by most Iranian dissidents [Leauki: No! How could that be?], estimates between one and two million Tehranis demonstrated against the regime on Monday.  That’s a big number.  So we can say that, at least for the moment, there is a revolutionary mass in the streets of Tehran.  There are similar reports from places like Tabriz and Isfahan, so it’s nationwide.

...

Western governments have expressed dismay at the violence, and Obama, in his eternally narcissistic way, said that he was deeply disturbed by it, and went on to add that freedom of speech, etc., were universal values and should be respected by the mullahs.  I would have preferred a strong statement of condemnation–stressing the evil of killing peaceful demonstrators–but he finally said something.

He probably thinks he’s in a bind (he isn’t, actually).  He probably thinks that if he condemns the violence, and the regime wins, that will lessen his chances to strike the Grand Bargain he so avidly desires.  Somebody might remind him that Ronald Reagan was unstinting in his criticism of the Soviet Union (”The Evil Empire”), but negotiated no end of bargains with them, including quite dramatic arms reductions.

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/15/so-hows-it-going-in-iran/

The woman behind the man behind the opposition movement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/zahra-rhanavard-iran-elections-presidential/print

Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi's wife, turns out to be a charismatic leader. It will be an ironic well-deserved by the regime if the revolution will be brought about by a woman.

So rattled was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by her popularity, he used a televised debate between the candidates to query the legitimacy of her doctorate. Rahnavard's response was to threaten to sue him, and accuse him of lying, debasing women and abusing his office. "I will not relax until I teach him a ­lesson," she said, to the astonishment of seasoned observers.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/this-wont-end-well/

The protesters can expect no help, or encouragement from the Obama administration…

But Robert Gibbs did issue this  forceful statement: “We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/06/15/the_iranian_election_barack_obamas_cowardly_silence

The Obama administration's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election victory is cowardly, lily-livered and wrong. The White House's refusal to officially question the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America's standing as a global power, and is little more than a face-saving, cynical exercise in appeasement that will all end in tears.

Vice President Joe Biden, while expressing "some real doubt" about the election, summed up the administration's position on Sunday's Meet the Press - "we're going to withhold comment... I mean we're just waiting to see." Waiting to see what Mr. Biden? More savage beatings of opposition supporters including women? The further arrest of hundreds of opposition leaders? Even greater suppression of the press and free speech?

...

Fortunately there are some U.S. politicians speaking out against the White House's position, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Senator Joe Lieberman. As Romney put it on ABC's This Week, "what has occurred is that the election is a fraud, the results are inaccurate, and you're seeing a brutal repression of the people as they protest." Lieberman didn't mince his words when he declared "through intimidation, violence, manipulation and outright fraud, the Iranian regime has once again made a mockery of democracy and confirmed its repressive and dictatorial character."

...

Obama’s deafening silence over the Iranian election is a disgrace. According to The New York Times, the president “did not even convene any high-level White House meetings or conference calls on Sunday”. That’s not the mark of a leader but a clear display of weakness. It’s a sad day when the greatest power in the world withholds criticism of a brutal, tyrannical and illegitimate regime for fear of upsetting its rulers.

This is the "change" Obama has promised. When does he intend to do something? He has apparently noticed "irregulararities" (isn't he the sharp one), but has he noticed the riots and the deaths?

Somebody give the man a computer and Internet access!

Silly Leauki, he doesn't need a computer. He has his trusted Blackberry

I see this is as a real misjudgement on the Ayatollah's part. Not only did he support the wrong candidate, but he's not leaving himself much wriggle room for when the crackdown comes.

I don't think he is technically an "ayatollah". Iran's problem in 1989 was that no real cleric wanted to become the next "supereme guide" because all of them were opposed to the theocratic system Khomeini implemented. (It goes against traditional Shia beliefs. I have explained that before in some discussion, if I remember correctly. I'll look for that comment.)

It's a bit of a mystery how that actually happened. I'll come up with a few theories soon, maybe.