Iranians Revolt - Latest News

reply to post by DraconianKing


Can you show me this website?

Just a quick note. Anyone who knows Iran realizes the stats for people living in cities is something of an exaggeration. A city by their definition can be a cluster of homes for only a few thousand. We would call them tows, even villages.

And the fact that people do live in cities does not equate them the to the ipod and twitter student and professional class we see as the vanguard of the North Tehran riots. They represent a tiny privileged class.

Most Iranians in even Tehran are underclass with low paying jobs and no status or autonomy.

The fact that no other sector of the society beside the privileged class has come out in support of the dissent indicates this will not spread to become a nationwide movement.


Mike

CNN just had a live phone call from a frantic young lady in Iran as she described chaos, you could hear it in the background, she described people being shot, beaten and she claims to have witnessed Iranian forces "throwing people (protesters) off of a bridge"

If you can tune in do it now, they are replaying the call, and discussing it.

CNN Viollence flares again in Tehran

updated 1 hour, 16 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, with one witness saying security forces beat people like "animals."

At least two sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.

"They were waiting for us," the source said. "They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap."

"I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads -- blood everywhere -- pepper gas like war," the source said.

About "500 thugs" with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said.

The security forces were "beating women madly" and "killing people like hell," the source said.

"They beat up a woman so bad, she was all bloody," the source said in a description that underscores the growing and central role of women in the uprising.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
CNN just had a live phone call from a frantic young lady in Iran as she described chaos, you could hear it in the background, she described people being shot, beaten and she claims to have witnessed Iranian forces "throwing people (protesters) off of a bridge"

If you can tune in do it now, they are replaying the call, and discussing it.

Partial YouTube video of CNN call from Tehran



[edit on 24-6-2009 by Walkswithfish]

I pray God is on the side of the Iranian people, and that they can bring about their own liberation from this evil tyrannical theocratic regime.

A religious authority that rules a people with such deceitful and murderous policies should not be able to claim that they are the servants of God... They are evil. pure and to the core.

Pray for their downfall, and for retribution, freedom and liberty for the brave people of Iran.

This is why the protesters (all of them) should carry guns or at least weapons to defend themselves with i mean the police here in Britain are pretty decent but in iran.... i wouldn't go out unless i had an AK or at least an M9

reply to post by rationaluser


On similiar line of thinking, if the Iranian military and police don't side with the protestors, the revolution will failed.

Originally posted by coolieno99
reply to post by rationaluser

 

On similiar line of thinking, if the Iranian military and police don't side with the protestors, the revolution will failed.

Yep, sticks and stone may break my bones but bullets will kill me dead. If the US thinks they will get Iran back by a colored democracy attempt they best think again.

Originally posted by coolieno99
if the Iranian military and police don't side with the protestors, the revolution will failed.

This is Tiananmen Square not the Russian Revolution.

Students and professional class, a wealthy educated elite almost exclusively in North Tehran, are the activists.
Little follow up in other parts of the city or even Tehran.

No walkouts, no strikes, no real support from any profession, class, institution, anywhere in the country.

So the government is given a golden opportunity to arrest or photograph people in the country they would consider trouble makers.

Unfortunately it will all die down soon.

Maybe the first baby steps, but no revolution.

Mike



[edit on 25-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by coolieno99
if the Iranian military and police don't side with the protestors, the revolution will failed.

This is Tiananmen Square not the Russian Revolution.

Students and professional class, a wealthy educated elite almost exclusively in North Tehran, are the activists.
Little follow up in other parts of the city or even Tehran.

No walkouts, no strikes, no real support from any profession, class, institution, anywhere in the country.

So the government is given a golden opportunity to arrest or photograph people in the country they would consider trouble makers.

Unfortunately it will all die down soon.

Maybe the first baby steps, but no revolution.

Mike
[edit on 25-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Hi mike!

I think you're dead wrong my friend! The problem has been brewing a long time, and it's a deep rift in the Iranian society right now! This is bigger than you think! - especially regarding womens right and people that are longing for more personal freedom and a more secular society!

Mousavi's wife is the key here, to understand how they could get the support of so many people, even from the religious families.

Add to this all the high clerics who are now marching together with Mousavi's reform friendly people on the streets, and you'll understand that this is NOT only a student uprising!

Please read this sober analysis of the situation in Iran!

GWEN IFILL: Apparently absent from the unrest continuing in the streets of Tehran these last few days was the man whose declared electoral defeat started it all, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

His wife, Zahra Rahnavard, is a prominent academic who campaigned with her husband, an unprecedented step in Iranian politics. Today, she issued a statement calling for the release of those who have been arrested.

Together, they are the face of the opposition. But who are they? For more, we turn to Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. In 2007, she was detained by the Iranian government for three months.

It's been 12 days since that election, Haleh Esfandiari. Are Mousavi and his wife now the face of the opposition?

HALEH ESFANDIARI, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Yes, they are. I think I would call them the accidental face of the opposition, because when Mousavi started running, he probably never thought that he would galvanize and mobilize such a huge number of people. And, you know, I believe his wife had a lot to do with this prominence of Mousavi, and she is by far more outspoken than he is.

GWEN IFILL: How is that there has been room for her to be so outspoken in a country that's so seen by Westerners as being kind of repressive when it comes to women's rights?

HALEH ESFANDIARI: She made room for herself. She just walked in -- or walked out of Tehran University hand in hand with her husband, and that was a first. She was the first president of a university, of a women university in Tehran. She's been an academic, a scholar, an outspoken advocate for women's rights.

GWEN IFILL: I gather you have actually met?

HOOMAN MAJD, Author-Journalist: Yes, yes. And I saw her about, I guess, 10, 12 days before the election itself.

And I was at the first rally that she -- the first rally of the campaign, May 23rd, which former President Khatami attended, and actually Mousavi himself didn't attend, but his wife did. And she spoke, and she gave a rousing speech and got an incredible standing ovation and people screaming for her.

She really did become, as Haleh pointed out, a real -- kind of, in a way, she was the face of the campaign for a while, more so than Mousavi himself.

GWEN IFILL: Was that anyone's intention? Was it an intention in any way for her to seemingly overshadow him? And what does that mean now?

HOOMAN MAJD: I don't think it was the intention. I think it happened, and Mousavi, I think, went along with it quite happily. I don't think he was unhappy about it.

He seems to have been, certainly, you know, encouraged her to be as vocal as she wanted to be. She was very, very vocal when I saw her, saying all kinds of things, like that her Islam doesn't allow for the government to impose its views on the people, things like that, which have never been said by any candidate today ever.

So what does this say about Mousavi? Is he now kind of absent? I want to ask you to follow up on something Haleh said. Do you think he was the accidental face?

GWEN IFILL: And today she used terms like "martial law" to describe what's going on, on the streets.

HALEH ESFANDIARI: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: So what does this say about Mousavi? Is he now kind of absent? I want to ask you to follow up on something Haleh said. Do you think he was the accidental face?

I think it was -- yes, I do. One person in Tehran told me, after the first huge demonstration, and Mousavi attending that 3 million person demonstration, he said to me, "He's probably sitting at home going (speaking Farsi) which in Farsi means, 'My god, what a mistake I made. Why did I get myself into this?'"

I think that was kind of a half of a joke. It was -- he was being half-serious there. I think there might be a little bit of that. There was a little bit of that. It was like, "Oh, my god, what have I unleashed here?"

Because I don't think there was ever the intention on Mir Hossein Mousavi's part to become this symbol, a revolutionary symbol that he has turned into in Iran.

GWEN IFILL: He didn't expect this uprising, at least?

HOOMAN MAJD: No, not to the scale that it's been.

And, you know, one thing to remember about all this and when we start talking about revolution, "revolution" is perhaps too strong of a word, because let's not forget that, even if we assume that Mousavi won this election, even if we assume that, by as large a margin as is claimed that Ahmadinejad won, that still puts 35 percent of the people with Ahmadinejad, and that's a large number of people.

www.pbs.org...

I'm searching for more pieces like this to convince you guys, that the freedom movement in Iran now - have become bigger than you think!
The key here is to understand their success and popular support among the population and the rest of the clarics.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by mmiichael

As the Association of Combatant Clergy, which represents more liberal mullahs in Qom, said in a statement: “What sane mind believes that a peaceful movement of millions of informed people — including workers, shopkeepers, farmers, students, clergy and others — could be agents of a so-called enemy?”

I said the Islamic Republic has been weakened. Why? I see five principal factors. The first is that the supreme leader’s post — the apex of the structure conceived by the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — has been undermined. The keystone of the arch is now loose.

Khamenei, far from an arbiter with a Prophet-like authority, has looked more like a ruthless infighter. His word has been defied. At night, from rooftops, I’ve even heard people call for his death. The unthinkable has occurred.

The second is that the hypocritical but effective contract that bound society has been broken. The regime never had active support from more than 20 percent of the population. But acquiescence was secured by using only highly targeted repression (leaving the majority free to go about its business), and by giving people a vote for the president every four years.

That’s over. Repression will be broad and ferocious in the coming months. The acquiescent have already become the angry. You can’t turn Iran into Burma: The resistance of a society this varied and savvy will be fierce.

The third is that a faction loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fiercely nationalistic and mystically religious, has made a power grab so bold that fissures in the establishment have become canyons.

Members of this faction include Hassan Taeb, the leader of the Basiji militia; Saeed Jalili, the head of the National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator; and Mojtaba Khamenei, the reclusive but influential son of the supreme leader.

They have their way for now, but the cost to Iran has been immense, and the rearguard action led by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a father of the revolution, and Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition leader, will be intense.

www.nytimes.com...

Pretty Please! step away from the fact that this is a analysis from the so called MSM for a while, and read in between the lines - use your intellectual capacity to understand and educate yourselves about the current situation in Iran before the election to get the whole picture!

Hopefully & Intellectually I can open the eyes of at least ONE person here?!

If I manage to do that, it will be a victory for the people of the reform & freedom movement in Iran.

They really need our support now! even if they can't win this fight!

Sadly they will be crushed and slaughtered as lambs by the fanatics and the security apparatus if the try to get this further!

But at least something very important has happened in the Iran society!

The Iran society now have a big rift between the many clerics and half of Irans people on one side, and the Islamo-fascist faction on the other side.

Despite the dictatorship's power-grab of the Islamo-fascist faction during this election, we have seen great signs for the opposition this last week!

Hopefully this seed will grow strong in the future!


[edit on 25-6-2009 by Chevalerous]

We in the West like to think we understand how Iranians feel and think feel by projecting our values into them. We get reinforcement that they want liberation form an culturally and economically repressive leadership. But the people we see in the streets who feel that need do not speak for all Iranians.

We see this in the fact that there is little if any indication of a mass uprising through every segment of society beyond the intellectual class who have constant access to Western media and values.

It may sound alien to us, but most people in still developing Asia take comfort in the notion that a forceful government and it's leaders are working in their interest to preserve their culture, religion, way of life. They believe their leadership when it is explained how the people are being protected from hostile foreign powers. They still remember a brutal unnecessary war with Iraq for 8 years.

Stratfor Geopolitical Analysis did an interesting analysis of the situation
clarifying what is the difference between a spontaneous uprising and a followed through revolution.

Mike

www.stratfor.com...

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.

Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces — who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators — and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.

This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators — who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents — failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.

[...]

critically, the protesters were not joined by any of the millions whose votes the protesters alleged were stolen. In a complete hijacking of the election by some 13 million votes by an extremely unpopular candidate, we would have expected to see the core of Mousavi’s supporters joined by others who had been disenfranchised. On last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when the demonstrations were at their height, the millions of Mousavi voters should have made their appearance. They didn’t. We might assume that the security apparatus intimidated some, but surely more than just the Tehran professional and student classes possess civic courage. While appearing large, the demonstrations actually comprised a small fraction of society.

[...]

The Western media misunderstood this because they didn’t understand that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the clerics but against them, that many of the clerics were working for his defeat, and that Ahmadinejad has enormous pull in the country’s security apparatus. The reason Western media missed this is because they bought into the concept of the stolen election, therefore failing to see Ahmadinejad’s support and the widespread dissatisfaction with the old clerical elite. The Western media simply didn’t understand that the most traditional and pious segments of Iranian society support Ahmadinejad because he opposes the old ruling elite. Instead, they assumed this was like Prague or Budapest in 1989, with a broad-based uprising in favor of liberalism against an unpopular regime.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
We in the West like to think we understand how Iranians feel and think feel by projecting our values into them. We get reinforcement that they want liberation form an culturally and economically repressive leadership. But the people we see in the streets who feel that need do not speak for all Iranians.

We see this in the fact that there is little if any indication of a mass uprising through every segment of society beyond the intellectual class who have constant access to Western media and values.

It may sound alien to us, but most people in still developing Asia take comfort in the notion that a forceful government and it's leaders are working in their interest to preserve their culture, religion, way of life. They believe their leadership when it is explained how the people are being protected from hostile foreign powers. They still remember a brutal unnecessary war with Iraq for 8 years.

Stratfor Geopolitical Analysis did an interesting analysis of the situation
clarifying what is the difference between a spontaneous uprising and a followed through revolution.

Mike

www.stratfor.com...

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.

Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces — who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators — and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.

This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators — who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents — failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.

[...]

critically, the protesters were not joined by any of the millions whose votes the protesters alleged were stolen. In a complete hijacking of the election by some 13 million votes by an extremely unpopular candidate, we would have expected to see the core of Mousavi’s supporters joined by others who had been disenfranchised. On last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when the demonstrations were at their height, the millions of Mousavi voters should have made their appearance. They didn’t. We might assume that the security apparatus intimidated some, but surely more than just the Tehran professional and student classes possess civic courage. While appearing large, the demonstrations actually comprised a small fraction of society.

[...]

The Western media misunderstood this because they didn’t understand that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the clerics but against them, that many of the clerics were working for his defeat, and that Ahmadinejad has enormous pull in the country’s security apparatus. The reason Western media missed this is because they bought into the concept of the stolen election, therefore failing to see Ahmadinejad’s support and the widespread dissatisfaction with the old clerical elite. The Western media simply didn’t understand that the most traditional and pious segments of Iranian society support Ahmadinejad because he opposes the old ruling elite. Instead, they assumed this was like Prague or Budapest in 1989, with a broad-based uprising in favor of liberalism against an unpopular regime.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Please my friend! don't be stupid now!

George Friedman & Stratfor is a Geopolitical/Business Intelligence service working connected with RAND Corporation and the American Military Industrial Complex! and Henry Kissinger and the rest of the American Elit

Among them you find Carlyle Group, Frank Carlucci and a lot of other suspected characters who were involved with PNAC etc!

Those guys are playmates with the Texan George Friedman!

Of course they deliver such analysis of the situation, they don't want a velvet revolution which would work against their interests!

They belong to the same falange as Kissinger who prefer a war solution instead to make profits for the Military Inudustrial Complex.

Man! WAKE UP!

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Please my friend! don't be stupid now!

George Friedman & Stratfor is a Geopolitical/Business Intelligence service working connected with RAND Corporation and the American Military Industrial Complex! and Henry Kissinger and the rest of the American Elit

Among them you find Carlyle Group, Frank Carlucci and a lot of other suspected characters who were involved with PNAC etc!

Those guys are playmates with the Texan George Friedman!

Of course they deliver such analysis of the situation, they don't want a velvet revolution which would work against their interests!

They belong to the same falange as Kissinger who prefer a war solution instead to make profits for the Military Inudustrial Complex.

Man! WAKE UP!

Maybe you should come out of your dream state and read the damned thing before commenting.

A pretty straightforward analysis of the the Iranian regime highlighting internal conflicts among the Ayatollahs, military, the President.

Enlightening and light years beyond the conventional good guys vs bad guys stuff that floats around the bowl.

Friedman shows how successful revolutions have started with a core activist group and spread to other regions and sectors of a country.

No indication so far this is going beyond the members of the student and professional class in Tehran.

No attempt to persuade or dissuade anyone from supporting or rejecting the activism. Only showing how we are given a somewhat skewed perception of Iranian society.

Dot connecting get's tiresome after awhile. Where's the list of who has no connection to anyone else, never done business with other organizations, never employed or consulted for a number of clients, etc?

Somewhere there is linkage for anything and everything for the investigoogling crowd.


Mike

Well there seems to be a lot of confusion as to the reasons behind the present situation in Iran. I have taken it upon myself to clarify a few things. If you care to understand the under lying reasons behind the Iranian crises please follow this link.

Try to have a nice day
Iranian revolt Explaned

Stratfor analysis is typical brainwashing which claims that revolutions are "spontaneous" and basically helpless movements without initiative of its own.

This is just wishful thinking of the ruling elite. That it happened in Iran at this moment is because there were elections and stealing of votes was so obvious. The next like thing that happens somewhere else will initiate the same kind of response because the situation for a world wide revolution is ripe.

The ongoing manipulation of the elite is to present Iranian revolt as an isolated event. But, you see, clero-fascist can easily be translated into banker-fascist or pluto-fascist.

The oppression of the elite is on the rise and and the reaction is also on the rise. Many seams are going to snap.

Keep in mind that corporations are the most important tool of oppression. Siemens, Nokia and others are helping the elite to keep track of everyone who raises his voice in defiance to the fascist NWO system that is being imposed on people of the whole world.

The reason fascists have been elected into EU parliament is because their role in Europe will be the same as the role of the Basij in Iran. Very soon they will be needed to do the dirty work. This is all part of premeditated plan to divide people into the ruling class and slaves class.

The Iranian unrest is over

now we can move on to other things like the UN and the FED

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Stratfor analysis is typical brainwashing which claims that revolutions are "spontaneous" and basically helpless movements without initiative of its own.

This is just wishful thinking of the ruling elite. That it happened in Iran at this moment is because there were elections and stealing of votes was so obvious. The next like thing that happens somewhere else will initiate the same kind of response because the situation for a world wide revolution is ripe.

The ongoing manipulation of the elite is to present Iranian revolt as an isolated event. But, you see, clero-fascist can easily be translated into banker-fascist or pluto-fascist.

This sounds like first year political science double speak.

Every political action has a unique set of specifics and circumstances. Iran 2009 is not Iran 1979, or China 1949.

Oppressors can be multinational corporations, or once liberators who've become corrupted by power.

If Stratfor, myself, or anyone sees what is happening in Iran as a spontaneous rebellion among a certain class that has failed to ignite wider support it doesn't mean any of us are brainwashed. Just observing and commenting on what information is available.

I would like to see a follow through on this. But it's not happening right now. Hopefully this is just the initial phase.

Even the successful Communist Revolution in 1917 had a failed precursor, in 1905. Read history some time.

I don't reach my conclusion based on speculative often false information on conspiracy websites. That's a form of brainwashing in itself practiced by the disinformation business.

The unsophisticated uncritically buy into any interpretation of events that appeals to them.

That's not independent thinking.

Mike







[edit on 25-6-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


I starred your response and this is why:

Oppressors can be multinational corporations, or once liberators who've become corrupted by power.

You see, this struggle is not the struggle of Iranians. Iranians against Iranians - that sounds stupid, doesn't it.

It is a class struggle.

The oppressed class consists of slaves (who are volunteers, because they gave their consent) and prisoners of war - those who never gave their consent to the existing system of oppression.

The idea of nations comes after the idea of religion, in history, and both were used to divide and deceive the oppressed and turn them against each other.

There isn't much need to elaborate on this. In present situation, the so called Global Society, or if you please the NWO, consists of two classes only, the oppressors and the oppressed. It does not consist of nations. In Iran, like everywhere else you have only the elite versus the oppressed ones.

The NWO may stage some proxy wars or unstable situations in one country, like Iran or Pakistan, but the point is, elite will always support elite and only pretend they are at war (elite from Iran vs elite from Israel, per example).

The very thing that glues various elites, which are apparently opposed to each other, are exactly the corporations. Corporations are not national or religious organizations. They are beyond that division. They are the true channel of communication between the elite and the neutralizer of all differences between them, and their effort is always one and the same - to make sure the oppressed stay oppressed.

The situation in Iran for the oppressed ones is not much different than the situation in China or in the USA. Cheap labor on the global scale is the goal of the NWO. The so called Great Game is reserved only for the elite players, but these elites have a common enemy - people, which is never in question.

Even if this Iranian uprising "succeeds" it will be quickly annulled by the "new" leadership which will be more aware of their place in the Great Game than the existing one.

Staford analysis is nothing more than "objective" journalism, and we all know how "objective" journalists really are.