Wow, I got chills reading that. It sounds like it is growing increasingly radical at this point... it is what the people need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Printable View
Wow, I got chills reading that. It sounds like it is growing increasingly radical at this point... it is what the people need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Some other news; people have actually been shouting "Marg Bar Khamenei!", which means "Death to Khamenei!". It looks like they have lost some of their faith in the Ayatollah.
Yesterday Mir Hussain Moussavi also washed his hands in preparation for martyrdom. I get most of my info here
point of no return?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/me...woman.twitter/
never shoot pretty young girls people don't like that, and if you absolutely have to make sure nobody is filming. This is where a single image can change the course of a country, it's a horrible video, the way she looks in the camera just before she starts giving up blood is worth a thousand speeches.
absolutely heart rending. I hope the Iranians find whatever they're looking for. :shame:
It's even more sickening than that, she doesn't actually intentionally look at the camera. Apparently when you die/ are dying your eyes roll upwards, it was just a coincidence that her eyes rolled up towards the camera. The video is awful though, the way the blood comes rushing out is extremely graphic, it just hits home how violent yesterday actually was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Also today should be interesting, peaceful protests are due to take place around the world. Now who wants to make a bet that the Mullahs will some how use it as anti-western propaganda?
May she and all those dying for freedom in Iran rest in peace. Let us hope their sacrifice will not be in vain. Her father's cries have touched me to the core - no man should have to watch his daughter die.
May I extend a particular thanks to Lemur for your excellent range of articles and blogs that have been so useful in understanding and following what is going on. I am not blessed with any Google-fu, and I'm extremely grateful for your contributions. :bow:
Maybe it is, it's a bit too good, Neda means 'voice' in farsi, and Spielberg couldn't have shot it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Maybe not, the sad truth is that more and more scenes like this are being filmed on the streets, it was only a matter of time before a "good" one popped up.
A word of caution, all those hoping for a secular democracy to come out of this should be dissapointed. It looks increasingly like this will at best be a changing of hats. Possibly less corrupt hats, but I'd say that is no better than an even bet at this point.
Change isn't usually made all at once. It will take time, especially a society like Iran's. However, this may be a death knell for the Ayatollah's.
Or it may just be a death knell for this one. If he is declared apostate and the other Mullahs all stand against him the theocratic element can be maintained by declaring him an enemy of God.
I don't disagree. Who knows at this point, maybe it would just be better to expect less in the short term. But one can only hope.
Could be the end of the political islam thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Gilles Keppel = +1
It makes a huge difference to the Iranian people, who are the ones with the largest stake in all this. Any prospective government that may be set up after this would have to remember that they owe their postition to the people and the people have shown a willingness to assert their right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Just like the Islamic Revolution, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Currently Iran is Constitutionally a Democratic Republic with theological safeguards to prevent a repeat of the oppressive and forced Westernisation under the Shah. This seems to still be what the public wants
At best we will see the Supreme Leader fettered by the Guardian Council, I expect. The justification will be that no living man measures up to the original Supreme Leader. This will make abuse of the Constitution more difficult, but it is unlikely to result in the reform Westerners want to see.
edit: huh
I think it unlikely, so long as voters and candidates are Muslim. Dinnerjacket was elected on a tax and welfare platform, irrc, not an Islamic one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I'm a religious man, and I won't vote hard against my theological principles, I'm also not an idiot and will not vote solely on them. Lest we forget, 50 years ago religion was a powerful political motivator in Britain. Secularism is a very recent invention, and it's not doing as well as it was 20 years ago.
powerful article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Definitely a good article. Saw Cohen doing an interview on CNN last night too, pretty much summed up what he wrote there. It would definitely be a tough position to be a regular police officer during all of this, required to up hold 'law and order' yet be asked to suppress your friends and neighbors. I'm curious as to how the regular military will react.
For the reasons stated in the article, the military may not be activated for these reasons exactly. Things could possibly dissolve into a sort of Spanish Civil War Redux.
CNN Zakaria gives a good analogy
Quote:
CNN: But shouldn't the U.S. be more vocal in support for the Iranian protesters?
Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.
Fully seconded. I'm busy for my paper more than anything else right now, but I come back here every once to see what the Lemur dug up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
:bow:
1) Thanks, Lemur, for keeping on tab for this. :bow:
2) Good luck, Iran. This looks like it can only get bloodier now that Khomeini has pigeonholed himself into support for Achmadinijad. I can't express my awe for the protesters to stand against the might of the government, and their willingness to die for a cause.
While I appreciate the compliments (what prosimian wouldn't?) I'm hardly the only person contributing to this thread.
Great article on what Mousavi's latest communication means:
He acknowledges, interestingly, that his own voice at the beginning was less ‘eloquent’ than he would have wished and that the people were ahead of him in turning the movement green. But now he accepts the “burden of duty put on our shoulders by the destiny of generations and ages” [...]
It is apparent from this statement that Mousavi’s movement — and Mousavi himself — have evolved enormously in the past week. The candidate started as a mild-mannered reformer. After the searing events of the past several days, he has dared to preach a counter sermon to Khamene’i’s lecture on Islamic government. Although he never mentions the Leader by name, there is no overlooking the direct contradiction of his arguments. This open opposition to the Leader by a political figure is unprecedented.
Mousavi has in fact issued a manifesto for a new vision of the Islamic Republic. The repression and disdain of the government has brought the opposition to a place they probably never dreamed of going. And no one knows where any of the parties are likely to go next.
But for outside observers, it is like standing on the edge of a glacier and feeling the ice begin to crack under your feet.
-edit-
Another good one:
ARTEMIS, a 41-year-old Tehra-ni woman, is the proud holder of a law degree, but one who has never been allowed to work. She was clear about why she joined the million-plus men, women and children who took to the streets of Tehran last Monday.
“People want freedom and justice,” she said. “They stole the vote. No one in his right mind believes this result.”
She said she had been afraid to voice criticism before. “The neighbours listen to you, and people go to prison just for what they say, or what they write. But this is contagious. What you are seeing, all these people, this comes from 30 years of oppression and now we have had enough.” [...]
“I was afraid to speak at all before. I thought we were a tiny minority,” said Mona, a 24-year-old software designer in the oversized designer sunglasses favoured by Tehran’s fashionable young women, and a tight red “manteau”, the overcoat that gives a scant nod to the law that women must cover their heads and bodies in public. “But now I feel we are the majority. I am not afraid any more. For me, fear is over.”
There you have it. That's the spirit that all the police in the world couldn't push back into the bottle. Even if the hardline tollahs win, they will be shaking in their slippers at the sight of a crowd from now on. Any crowd, even a crowd which they themselves summoned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Remember Ceaucescu.
What I have to say that is interesting is the subtle changes in how reporters are viewing the situation. I was reading one HuffPost article about Rasfanjani and the "Assembly of Experts", the one council endowed with the power to remove the Ayatollah. In the first couple days, reporters always said "Assembly of Experts with the power to remove the Ayatollah, but that's not likely to happen." to "Assembly of Experts with the power to remove the Ayatollah".
Perception is key to winning any political struggle. Before these riots, when only "students" took to the streets, it was indeed a minority. With thousands of Iranians in Tehran (along with Shiraz and other cities) moving against the Iranian government, it's hard to say "these are only soccer hooligans and terrorists."
I don't have a source for this nugget of info, but during the Russian Civil War, the Reds called themselves "Bolsheviks" not because they were a majority but they wanted to project the image of massive influence, which made many Western leaders skeptical of supporting the White Army because it was perceived that they lacked widespread support that the Bolshevik "majority" seemed to maintain.
There are many sources for that episode, though not online that I know of. The term refers to a split in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party at their Second Congress which took place in 1902 in Brussels. Because of the location a lot of radical hotheads (who had been banned from Russie proper) were attending. The more moderate marxists were more likely to be in Russia at that time or had considerable trouble making it. Lenin and his ilk wanted to turn the party into a quasi-military organisation. They got a small majority, hence called themselves Bolsheviks (those in the majority) as opposed to the minority Mensheviks (those in the minority). So the term Bolsheviks refers to a majority within the party ranks not within Russia as a whole, though they would have embraced the latter suggestion without hesitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
They never had a majority in any regular election. They were a clear minority in the Russian Constituent Assembly election of 1917. But Lenin mobilised a bunch of sailors and disbanded the assembly by force.
Implications: "In this contest, there is a claim on both sides for the spirit of the 1979 revolution. But there is also a recognition, I think for Mousavi, that the Islamicness of the Islamic Republic has led Iran to this depraved state of affairs. I find it very hard to believe that if Mousavi's movement succeeds there will still be a supreme leader. He has talked about returning Iran's government to its people, and he is openly defying now Khamenei. In Persian thought there is a concept called Farr, the aura around the emperor. Roger Cohen wrote about this idea yesterday. Well it's gone. And that aura, this notion that the people's institutions, the presidency and the majlis must be checked by clerics, is gone too. None of this means that Islam will not thrive in Iran, but it will be a quietist Islam, the kind advocated by Montazeri and Sistani. Khomeinism, if Mousavi succeeds, is finished."
And that would be an auspicious thing.
Although Mousavi seems like an opportunist, sometimes opportunists are able to channel real emotion and reform - and get lucky. Hopefully the government buckles without too much more bloodshed. This could be a great lesson for human rights in China and the Arab States if it works. Only North Korea seems to do repression correctly these days - once you give a yard, people get smart and demand a country.
I for one think with the way things are shaping, is Islamic Republic is :daisy: , things are rapidly spiralling out of control for them as there is no end in sight for the protests.