Tehran, reTweet from Neil Gaiman
polycounter lvl 18
Just saw this reTweet from Neil Gaiman....
http://twitter.com/persiankiwi
http://twitter.com/persiankiwi
I am speechless...i am hearing that tehran uni has been raided. #Iranelection
13 minutes ago from web
unconfirmed but I am hearing that many killed in tehran uni this evening. #Iranelection
10 minutes ago from web
tehran is like war zone. it is unbelievable. i have not seen this for 30 years. fires everywhere. shooting, people shouting. #Iranelection
7 minutes ago from web
we have no satellite tv, internet is blocked to most sites, no texting at al and very limited mobile phone cover. #Iranelection
6 minutes ago from web
tehran university dorm has ben raided and hundreds of students arrested tonight. this is happening now. #Iranelection
4 minutes ago from web
tomorrow if army come we will greet them with roses. #Iranelection
3 minutes ago from web
Replies
but regardless that seems unreal.
I was only vaguely aware of the elections going on prior to seeing Gaiman post on Twitter. I click and then a whirlwind of insanity has opened up...
hmmmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran
Regardless of the outcome of this particular election, the youth have shown that the old ways no longer work for them. The next 50 years will tell a tale of Iran's reinvention. Perhaps this change will give a nod to the past as well, and reunite the people with their sense of wonder and progress.
And there´s another thing I really don´t understand. I saw a field pick-up from Iran yesterday and the reporter was talking about banned internet pages, sms comunication stopped working during the elections and stuff... I was sitting in the room and one simple thing came to my mind. Pick one word from the group that you think doesn´t befit the others:
- internet
- elections
- sms
- Iran
I bet everyone would pick Iran and according to the report he would be wrong. Well, that´s how they describe the country and that´s what they want us to think. After all they do that with everyone they don´t like and mostly when the country has something that they DO like.
Has this been confirmed?
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099501.stm
But then...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/an-ayatollah-dissents.html
So whom is telling the truth?
edit: 14 videos of the riots, protests, violence, people standing up for themselves, bottom of this article:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/14/video-iranian-thugs-beat-protester-to-death-in-broad-daylight/
i wish I could increase the font size to fully express how hard I just ROFL'd
either way, this is the exact same type of reaction I would expect from the US authorities if US citizens attempted anything like this. But US citizens wouldn't because we're too lazy and have cool video games to be playing.
Also, I'm really confused as to what Neil Gaiman has to do with this?
[edit]nevermind, never used twitter, didn't know what retweet was. :P[/edit]
if the "global police" of the UN, failed to do anything about Mogabe in Zimbabwe. what hope in fucking hell do they have of doing anything in Iran?
as horrifying, and brutal as things are. all i can think, is that if the people were really, truly, unbearably unhappy, they WILL revolt, and he WILL be overthrown. but until that happens, everyone seems happy to just sit and watch, like it's not their problem.
i know there's nothing i can do, personally, to help. i don't think anyone outside of iran can do anything. but the people IN iran, can do something. so let's hope they do, and let's hope the "world leaders" actually do something about this, instead of just letting it slide, and threatening "sanctions".
almighty_gir - everyone knows that there´s only one country in the "world leaders" team, but why do you think that they should make the decision again? haven´t they been wrong about iraq? a little mistake that INCIDENTALLY brought them oil (it was an honest mistake, really, actually bush came here and he was trying to stay cool, but I swear you could almost see the tears in his eyes saying "why, why didn´t anybody tell me that this can bring us some profit? nobody´s gonna me believe that I was doing it to help the people NOW!!")... why do you think that the same "world leaders" should be deciding again after all the things they´ve done? or is everything forgotten already? I think you were right in one of your points - if the people were really unhappy, they will revolt. there´s nothing you (or me) can do about it. unless you´d go there, check it what it really is like in there and then you can help it from inside.
At the end just one thing: I heard that Ahmadinejad has a lot of fans/voters in villages, and he isn´t that popular in the cities. Now here´s a crazy idea... what if there´s a lot more villagers that do like Ahmadinejad and they´re happy about it, and there´s just couple hundreds of people from the city that don´t like him? Do you think that TV would go around villages showing you people that are doing their everyday things like working, playing with kids maybe... or do you think that couple of protesting people would be a bit better for the showtime? Hard decision there alright... and now another thing. The principles of democracy is that minority of people (by that I mean people who voted for the candidate that didn´t win the elections) has to "adapt", take the loss and wait for another elections. I just want to say that after every elections anywhere in the world, there´s minority of people not satisfied with the elections, but that doesn´t mean that the result of the elections should change, does it? because if you changed it based on protest of a few, the democracy of the elections would be ruined, right?
Iran supreme leader orders probe of election fraud
I'm with this guy.
Sure it's horrible what's happening there, but we can't presume to know what's best for them - if the majority of people really dislike the way things are run in their country, they'll either do something about it or they won't, depending on how much they care.
As brutal and ghastly as this has been, hopefully some good will come out of it. I hope at the very least this helps re humanize the Iranian people.
I think blame really falls on the politicians involved that whipped up the public over a puppet election. I was really hoping for peaceful democratic elections not so much that it would affect actual change but that it would prove the people and their government could flow together.
EDIT: Just read the link that AZ posted, looks like there might be some cool heads left.
Well, unfortunately, sometimes ideas may be all you have and I think that it's very seldom that the people with the ideas are the ones that are armed.
In Greece, 30 years ago we were under a military dictatorship that ended after 7 years, when the military decided it was a good idea to run over the gates (and the people behind them) of a polytechnic school with Tanks. None of the students were armed, a lot of them were killed, but it obviously made the people angry enough to take these bastards down. Although a lot of political adversaries of the regime were put to jail and/or "had accidents", no armed resistance helped end the dictatorship.
So, I'm just saying, sometimes having the ideas is all that's needed. Now, if the Iranian people don't mind their rather obvious junta, they won't revolt, whether they're armed or aren't. Then again, if the government keeps beating students up, maybe people will take a step back and think "wtf is that shit and why are we putting up with it" and that'll be that.
Or, worst came scenario, the USA will protect world freedom once again and serve them some McDemocracy(c) like they did with Iraq. And the bastards won't even pay us royalties
Well, what you think that was "mocking", I see only as empty words without any shred of reasoning. And if you really didn´t find any sense or thruth in there, then I can only be sorry about you. But please do me a favor. When the time comes and everyone will finally know that this and many of the events in the past were just political games to fool people like you, you just stick to your ideals about nice government saving the world and helping the poor people by dropping the bombs on their heads. Thank you.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fhashemi/sets/72157619758530748/show/with/3626907952/
really? are you telling me that if your future was a bleak, horrible affair, with public beatings and lack of freedom. that you wouldn't be willing to do anything to change it? even if it meant the possibility of death?
i'd rather die than have my freedom taken away.
I can only make wild guesses as to what life is like in Iran, but if I was in their shoes, I would do everything in my power to change things so the power was in the hands of the people and there was a non-violent way to settle disputes. Ideally that would be brought about by social change and elected political officials working for the interest of the people.
Getting worked up over a puppet position is probably not something I would be willing to get beat or shot over. If the tone changed to open revolt that could actually bring about change, I would be in.
This is a tragedy because the position in question holds very little power.
President of Iran = Press Secretary for the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Hope is a great gift to give, but false hope is horribly undermining to any peaceful effort to effect change, as we now see.
I would love to see a shift in power in Iran as My parents had to flee iran for there religious beliefs when i was just a couple months old.
Ive had many of my family tortured, beat up and killed because of the views of the current regime, and would love nothing more for it to be removed!
edit: shots fired at protest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101098.stm
Destroying government property makes even less sense... that stuff is paid for by taxpayers... so really you're destroying your own stuff.
What do you suggest they do?
vs.
Seriously though... you'd be surprised what private citizens in the USA have access to. The military is vastly outnumbered and as we're seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere), heavy handed military action isn't actually that effective against 'guerrilla' warfare.
That's because guerilla warfare has a different objective. There's no way irregulars could win a conventional victory.
It would be quite probable for a handful of armed civillians to financially and politically cripple america, but there's not going to be any overthrowing the government going on -- just collapsing the nation from the inside out.
that said, the national guard exists to maintain a state militia; if a crazy hellbent on distroying the world dictator were to ever take over, the founding fathers intended the national guard to be what rose up and overthrow them. It's always been an issue of state vs federal, not civillians vs federal.
Or, if a crazy hellbent on destroying the world dictator like Bush (but a bit subtler and smarter) were to take over, he could use the militia to round up his political oposition and have them kill their neighbours who don't view him as a world savior.
@ SupRore : I don't quite understand what you mean by "conventional victory", surely the purpose of all fighting is to 'win' a war so that the enemy is no longer able to or willing to fight, the methods and techniques to do that aren't exclusive to the use of heavy machinery (as we're seeing in Iraq et-al), right?
Regarding the National Guard, remember it's a modern invention - it's basically tacked on to the Constitution; the founding fathers always maintained the power and preeminence of The People's ability to form their own militias, the 'title' that later spawned the national guard (c1900s) doesn't even make it an exclusive right as the proviso is still there to allow the People to form 'other' Militias for the purpose of protecting the State, especially so now the the National Guard is actually answerable to the President rather than State... for instance, who would protect a State against the wayward use of the National Guard except an armed militia composed of The People?