"The famous dialogue that took place between the king and his messenger is very short and very revealing. The king, we are told, exclaimed, 'Ce'est une revolte', and Liancourt corrected him: 'Non, Sire, ce'est une revolution.'"
Sandmonkey reports:
Der Spiegel just confirmed the rumors, that many of the guys that are cracking down on the demonstrators in the streets are lebanese hezbollah members. According to them, there are 5000 Hezbollah members in Iran that are part of the crackdown on the students. This is a big mistake. You don't bring an arab to beat down a Persian, unless you want the Persians to get really and I mean really pissed off. The hatred that Persians have for arabs are the stuff of legend, and if the regime has to use arabs to crack down on its people, then it maybe weaker than we ever though.
(Note that Sandmonkey speaks German.)
Also read this: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2009/06/16/an-e-mail-from-tehran/
And have a laugh: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2009/06/16/ahmedinjad-unmasked/
This true about arabs and Persians. I'm sure the Iranian media will blame this (all the protest) on the U.S. You don't suppress people (especially college students) for change will come. The Tiananmen square protest (whiched happened on June 4 1989) if you look at some of their reasons for protesting (first to be allowed to mourn, then against the authoritarian/economic change) it did bring along changes.
If Khomeini doesn't do something soon he'll face the consequences. Could you imagine if Ahmadinejad got snubbed out. If that happened the U.S. will get blamed for sure.
Holy crap.
Leauki, I usually don't see the biases you see in the media (maybe Canadian papers are better about it, or maybe I'm just blind), and I'd seen lots of coverage of the Iranian election. I knew it was getting ugly over there, and that Ahmedinejad looked like he had stolen the election (I could have bought it if he had won the first round, but a >50% landslide? Bullshit!). I didn't have any idea just HOW ugly it was getting. I'd heard all this stuff was happening to some extent or another, but the details are... shocking, to say the least.
On one hand, I really can't blame the Media for not publishing anecdotal, unverifiable reports coming out of the country... but on the other hand, it's the only stuff coming OUT. The Iranian government is blocking everything else.
Arg. Anecdotal evidence and historical patterns of behaviour are like a great big neon sign saying "THIS ELECTION WAS A FRAUD", but I still feel uncomfortable roundly condemning it simply because I don't have sufficient confidence in my information... a position that I imagine a lot of governments are finding themselves in. I suspect that's the primary purpose of the media blackout.
Lets just hope we don't get another Tianamen Square on our hands. And maybe, if we're lucky, that thuggish, anti-semetic loudmouth that they jokingly refer to as the "elected president of Iran" will be out of a job shortly.
@Leauki - You have anything corraborating the rumor that the Iranian Military is in Tehran now? I got a direct tweet from a friend who lives there. I trust him, but still wanted to check up on it.
Btw, here's some good stuff about it: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
~Alderic/Hope4Iran
On one hand, I really can't blame the Media for not publishing anecdotal, unverifiable reports coming out of the country
The official election results were an anecdotal, unverifiable report, yet many news sites reported them as facts. As I said, they changed the headlines only after blogs published the first pictures of the riots.
You have anything corraborating the rumor that the Iranian Military is in Tehran now?
No, but it could be true. However, note that the regime cannot rely on the military. They are conscripts.
They have a professional second military, which is weaker in numbers (only 100,000 people or so) but better equipped. Plus they have a militia of volunteers, who are not very disciplined.
The military itself might well change sides. Calling them in might well be a sign of desperation (running out of volunteers?).
Mhm, that was what I was thinking. I know they've got the various, branches, so to speak. I would, assuming it is true, tend to believe that they're losing control a bit. Not necessarily all of their control, but a significant amount. There's been reports of protests numbering up to 3 million; so, who knows.
The One has 'deep concerns' but feels it wouldn't be good for the US to be seen as 'meddling' in Iran. Apparently it's OK to 'meddle' in Israel, however. Presumably because that looks 'good.'
Setting him aside; there is a grain of truth to the point when it comes to Iran. We're already on ice when it comes to Iran, and any sort of support and subsequent reaction could only screw us further. Think about it, if the US sided with Ahmadinijead - and there was a revolution or the investigation showed corruption...or vice versa.
Personally, I support the protestors, but I'm not the president.
~Alderic/hope4iran
@Leauki:
The reports I saw said stuff along the lines of "Ahmedinejad has been declared the winner by the state, with more than 50% of the vote (meaning no runoff election)". These are facts about the regimes actions and statements, not anecdotal or unverifiable.
...and yeah, nobody started questioning the results until people started raising allegations of misconduct. I don't recall the stories containing that on the day of, but reports on Iran in subsequent days seemed to make ample mention of the allegations of election fraud.
I dunno. Perhaps the newspapers I read aren't as bad as the ones you are familiar with?
@ Daiwa:
That's not a fair comparison. The "meddling" with Israel is in the context of regional diplomacy, but meddling in this instance would be interfering with Iranian elections. Messing about with other countries elections is a major diplomatic no-no. A few years back, the US Ambassador to Canada made some comments favouring one candidate or the other, and all four main parties, the media, and the citizenry all told him to shut up and butt out. The same thing happened when PM Steven Harper made a comment during the Democrat primaries between Clinton and Obama that reflected poorly on Obama. It's an unwritten rule that other nations shouldn't be meddling with the domestic elections of another country.
Add in the history the US has with Iran: having propped up and financed the incredibly unpopular former government that the revolution eventually toppled. It looks bad for the US to stick its nose in there, and could actually harm the pro-reform camp more than it helps by making them look like they're in the pocket of the Americans.
Seems like western countries, even Israel, have decided to abandon the protesters:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093410.html
Really? I still see articles that speak of Ahmadinejad as "re-elected".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104466.stm
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected last week with almost two-thirds of votes.
Compare this to how they phrase reports about the other opinion:
Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi are planning a new demonstration in Tehran in protest at what they see as a fraudulent presidential poll in Iran.
Now, this sentence is an actual report of the situation:
Iran has imposed tough new restrictions on foreign media, requiring journalists to obtain explicit permission before covering any story. Journalists have also been banned from attending or reporting on any unauthorised demonstration.
But THIS sentence is reporting a claim made by the Iranian government as fact:
Note that the BBC do not treat claims coming from the Iranian regime and claims coming from the opposition as equally valid. What the regime says is fact, and what the opposition say is something "they see as".
(Want to bet whether Reuters will show retouched pictures of Tehran that make the Iranian regime's reaction to the riots look worse? They did this in Lebanon to make Israel look bad. Who thinks Reuters, in all their objectivity, would also use that method against the Iranian regime?)
I don't know? Are you reading articles originating from the BBC, AP, or Reuters?
That's not a fair comparison. The "meddling" with Israel is in the context of regional diplomacy, but meddling in this instance would be interfering with Iranian elections. Messing about with other countries elections is a major diplomatic no-no.
That's unnecessary political correctness. What should be big no-no is to remain silent when other people fight for their freedom.
That's a nice excuse to do nothing. However, the Shah was and is not as unpopular as the current regime and the US actually did stick its nose into Lebanon and the reform camp won. Twice in a row.
I think the idea that speaking up could hurt the pro-reform camp is one of those axiomatic principles. We have not actually see it in reality, but it sounds like it could be true.
In the mean time, Iranian protesters are carrying posters asking the western media to stop legitimising the Iranian "elections".
What Obama could do is make a speech that tells the Iranian regime that their facade of democracy has failed, that the whole world now knows that the Iran people do not stand behind its policies and that the Iranian government does not, in fact, represent the Iranian people.
At the moment, the regime knows that everything will be back to normal when the revolt is over.
At the very least Obama could make that speech when all the rioters are dead or in prison, if he is unwilling to help them now.
(As for the diplomatic rudeness of this, I don't think Iran cared much for political correctness when they interfered in Lebanese or PA elections.)
There are now claims that Hamas are also operating inside Iran on the regime's side. (Note that it has long been claimed, including by Hamas themselves, that Iran is training Hamas terrorists. They have been in the country already.)
Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters told The Jerusalem Post On Tuesday.
...
"The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots." Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran. On Monday, he said, "my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too." It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." His hope, he added, was that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians. When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets… The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want… [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country."
"The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."
Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.
On Monday, he said, "my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too."
It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." His hope, he added, was that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.
When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets… The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want… [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184851049&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I don't know if this is true, but it's not unlikely. What's important here is that Iranians _think_ that Arab terrorists are fighting them. Also note that Iranians know that "Palestinian" terrorists were on Saddam's side.
Western media are still trying to save the Iranian regime, not just by downplaying the protests but also by claiming now that the protesters do not actually want a regime change. This contradicts the seven demands of the opposition:
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).
I don't know what the media's game is here, but it seems to me that they are currently competing for their place in Iran, should the regime win. Again, they are putting profits before honest reporting. And that isn't a problem. They are in the business for the money, not the truth. But they should be honest about it.
(Also, at some point, some things are more important than money.)
