Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 21, 2009

Is It Over?

Juan Cole headlines: Downtown Tehran Burning. That is wishful thinking and certainly not the only thing he got wrong.

Is the 'revolution' in Tehran that was none over as Arnold Evans assumes?

While not certain I think mostly yes.

With only 3,000 fighting in the streets yesterday there are too few willing to seriously challenge the government's authority. It seems that expressing discontent and frustration is one thing and risking ones health for a change in government something else. The police and other government forces have not turned on the government and as long as do not do so there is little chance that the few will have any effect but to disgruntle their compatriots by disturbing their daily business.

I doubt that a general strike Mousavi asks for will happen. He does not have the charisma, the numbers and cause to do lead one.

There will be a few more rowdy nights in Tehran, lots of faked or not faked violence videos for the 'western' voyeurs and the usual 'western' officials who will feign outrage.

But unless something really big happens, the crisis will now peter out. Unfortunately the damage done to Iran's image will only be repaired over a longer time frame. That was certainly not the intend of the people on the streets in Tehran, but likely the intend of the people who planed and started this.

Posted by b on June 21, 2009 at 15:44 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

I don't know why people are talking about Kazemi here.

This article describes well what went on MoA.

Posted by: Amir S. | Jun 22 2009 3:27 utc | 101


Sam @ 97

I've seen the post. Nowhere does the report say that the IRGC tortured her. My questions were about the IRGC complicity in this issue not whether she was tortured at all. That I don't know. She might have been.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 22 2009 3:45 utc | 102

Anthony Lowenstein:

It is one thing to defend the Iranian state from outside assault and interference, all necessary and laudable, one thing to recognize the occasional political usefulness of the Iranian state on the world's stage, which is real enough if often exaggerated, one thing to admit that the replacement of the Shah's kingdom of thieves with the Islamic Republic was a positive historical development with real material gains for the Iranian working class, and quite another thing to cheer the crackdown on dissent and to root for state violence against a mass movement of people demanding basic civil and political rights, especially rights that our Gucci anti-imperialists enjoy in their safe(r) abodes. Furthermore, in so far as divide-and-rule is the lifeblood of imperialism, the pitting against each other of different forms of oppression, the demand that we chose exclusively, whether one is pro-Palestinian OR pro-civil rights in Iran, but not both, whether one is against Islamophobia OR for womens' rights, but not both, and so forth, in short, imposing whichever struggle we fancy to be more important on others and demanding that they put their demands for liberation on hold, is not anti-imperialist. On the contrary, it deepens the divisions on the basis of which imperialism flourishes.t

http://tinyurl.com/neyc9v

Posted by: yuri | Jun 22 2009 3:52 utc | 103

oops that's not Lowenstein, it is Gabriel Ash.

Posted by: yuri | Jun 22 2009 4:02 utc | 104


zadeh@82,
your suggestions are excellent

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 22 2009 4:22 utc | 105

If the Iranian threads are any indication of what summer is gonna be like (almost typed goona... hmmm) than I fear the coming heat!

If all the energy posters put into being angry with each other was somehow used more constructively for positive purposes... then shit we'd have solved half the world's problems right there!

I don't want to sound too fucking pollyannaish but crap, some of the shit that has been flung is pointless and ruthless; and tell me again what purpose it serves?

It's one thing to be passionate about your argument or your position, it seem an entirely different thing to be just plain mean to someone over facts we'll probably never really know the truth about... even if we were there witnessing the very same event.

I'm usually decked out in an aluminum foil hat when I'm at the computer... yeah I'm one of those guys. But that doesn't mean I think every person posting is some agent for the MAN... at least I doubt many people are posting as their "job" but that doesn't mean some posters aren't posting from a rather conservative point of view and this affects their words.

Honestly, if I were the omniscient being of all power... but let's not go there, I'll probably write something I'll regret, and since I'm neither powerful or omniscient I just end-up in trouble – yet again.

But really, why doesn't everyone just read everyone else's post with a grain of salt... if something said is stupid or you don't agree with it, just state it that way, otherwise this bar will start to look like biker gangs are hanging-out, and I'd hate to get hit in the head with a bottle when I stop in for a "drink."

There is plenty of mean in the world and less and less reason everyday... why add more mean?

Posted by: DavidS | Jun 22 2009 4:23 utc | 106

So the Guardian Council has announced that over 100% "voted" in 50 cities, potentially resulting in 3 million extra votes.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101

It's amazing the lengths to which the CIA and Mossad have gone to make it look like Ahmadinejad rigged the vote...

[/snark]

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Jun 22 2009 4:34 utc | 107

As one of the many who has been coming to MoA since before it was MoA, I can confidently say one thing about this debate. That is never in the history of this site has a discussion contained so much shameful racist, sexist and pointlessly emotive name calling. I'm not objecting on the so called "PC" grounds which fools who cannot accept others are they are, like to label any effort which strives to keep prejudicial epithets out of human interaction, no despite my personal feelings about these types who depend on name calling to conceal their low self esteem, my antipathy to the shape this debate has taken is the arguements featuring cries of slut, arab or c+nt are so short on either fact or rational intellect they rely on name calling and derogatory classifications of other humans to carry a point. A point which is no point, a disgusting attempt to conceal a point of view bereft of substance.

I'm not a woman having to put up with the sort of name calling that wouldn't even be tolerated at the blokes against castrating sheilas (BACS) site any longer, or an arab copping the millenia old falsehood of being dirty and/or stupid, or even a frenchman whose been told I don't know my language, but I have no hesitation in pointing out to the pin heads on both sides of this debate that are resorting to this desperate and ugly rhetoric that it would be smart to shut up now because you have lost whatever audience you thought you had.

Go away and think about why it is that name calling generally never gets past the school yard. Use the time to find some facts - checkable facts rather than another's opinion, and then if you can find such facts to support your point of view, post them, but until then please don't waste everyone else's time, your own as much as ours with this ill-informed and desperate garbage you seem to think we want to read.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 22 2009 4:37 utc | 108

Another torture apologist

ellis @ 99:

Sam, the CBC has shown itself to be completely unreliable so far as news from Iran is concerned.

I see you don't like the story so you discredit the source. here are thousands of sources take your piclk:

The internet is full of them

Here's the whole sordid affair in a nutshell:

I've shown you mine now lets see your impeccible sources

And you are not much better: the case of Zahra Kazemi was considerably more complex than the faux factoids with which you regale your unwitting readers. You note too that it occurred in 2003, during the Presidency of someone who was not Ahmedinajad or a supporter of his policies.

Well since this blog has been flooded with comments about how holy and rightous the reformers are versus that evil Ahmedinajad I thought I'd set the record straight. Under Ahmedinajad there wasn't much difference concerning this case and that's the main point. Oh and those students that Zahra was filming got arrestted for protesting by the thousands. And considering that little factoid, you people espousing the virtues of the reformers and coming on this blog and complaining about protestors being arrestted by Ahmedinajad is laughable and very hypocritical. What? it's okay when your side does it but it's eveil when the other side does it? Better still why don't you explain to us what happened to Zahra Kazemi oh great expert on Iran.

As to your self-characterisation as "100% whitey" it probably encapsulates your ability to comment on Iranian society.

So because I'm a white man I don't have the ability to comment on another society? I can't believe this.

rudolf @ 100:

sam, i always steemed your contribution, but this is disturbing

Well if you don't see the irony in my response to someone that just blew off a rape and murder with an accusation of being a common criminal and like it was no big deal then I don't know what to tell you. It pissed me off that someone could do that. Better yet read about her case and who she really was and you will find my afinity for her dear soul.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 22 2009 4:37 utc | 109

Still thinking about this one, but at least he gives an indication to where the US millions are going, "rebel groups". Justin Raimondo: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/21/iran’s-green-revolution-made-in-america/

Posted by: yuri | Jun 22 2009 4:41 utc | 110

Dragonfly @ 102:

I've seen the post. Nowhere does the report say that the IRGC tortured her. My questions were about the IRGC complicity in this issue not whether she was tortured at all. That I don't know. She might have been.

That little tidbit came from both Parviz and Amir S both while trying to deflect attention away from the reformers as if they had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 22 2009 4:58 utc | 111

Everybody and their dog from all accross the planet has been on this site commenting on the US government with loads of criticism. Nobody seems to have any problem with that hell I do it myself. But when we comment on the Iranian government with loads of criticism all of a sudden my skin color matters and I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm an apologist for Ahmedinajad. Why is it okay to puke all over the US gocernment by any citizen on this planet but when it comes to the Iranian government all of a sudden everybody has to shut up and mind their own business.

I've never criticized the Iranian people as a whole and I never got into any election arguments because I don't know who really won and I don't give a crap. But I will defend their liberals because I share their beliefs. I care about my beliefs and I call a spade a spade and the Iranian government has a record just like the US government has and no government on this planet is above criticism in my books. Now if you people don't like my comments fine just let me know and I'll quit in a heart beat.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 22 2009 5:23 utc | 112

Just woke up. Sam comparison of the murder of an illegal (unaccredited) reporter -- who was taking photos outside a top secret facility whose walls carried warnings all around that any photographers would be shot -- with the cold-blooded murder of peacefully protesting Neda, armed not even with a camera, is the biggest red herring I've come across in the past few days.

Tragic as the Zahra Kazemi case was (and it was the secret service officials who perpetrated the atrocity, not the IRGC), she was doing an illegal professional job and trying to make a name for herself in full knowledge that she could be seized as a spy, while Neda was peacefully protesting among ordinary civilians without the hope of personal gain.

Israelis also shoot unarmed photographers, bulldoze peace protesters and rain down WMD on unsuspecting civilians. I suppose that's O.K.. What has all this got to do with Neda?

As for Sam's tone and language, I think that speaks for itself, but I don't expect any better from a redneck.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 22 2009 5:42 utc | 113

A well-turned stone, Sam.

Creepy crawlies abound.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 22 2009 5:42 utc | 114


I've never criticized the Iranian people as a whole and I never got into any election arguments because I don't know who really won and I don't give a crap. But I will defend their liberals because I share their beliefs. I care about my beliefs and I call a spade a spade and the Iranian government has a record just like the US government has and no government on this planet is above criticism in my books. Now if you people don't like my comments fine just let me know and I'll quit in a heart beat.

I agree with you. The government of Iran is a corrupt, pseudo-medieval piece of crap. I never called on your skin color. You're allowed to criticize the Iranian government as much as you want.

I think people in Iran know this as well.

Posted by: Amir S. | Jun 22 2009 5:51 utc | 115


Parviz: you're being racist.

Posted by: Amir S. | Jun 22 2009 5:52 utc | 116

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says that the world must respect Iran and the "triumph" of its incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the election.

There you have it, the one person in the world who has won more elections then most even under heavy CIA manupilation knows a genuine win when he sees one. I do not believe that Chavez would make a statement like this unless he was given cast-iron guarentees from his mate AN.

Posted by: Hans | Jun 22 2009 6:25 utc | 117

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.

According to the Guardian Council spokesman, summering areas and places like district one and three in Tehran are not separable.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such issues could be over 3 million and the council could, at the request of the candidates, re-count the affected ballot boxes, "it has yet to be determined whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.

Most media seems to be ignoring the second part of the first paragraph (an explanation for the total tally being over 100%, already explained here by b) and after reading a spanish translation of the same news it also clear that the 3 millions mean the 3 millions votes in those 50 cities, not 3 million extra votes total in those 50 cities. Way to go for ambiguety on the english wording. And they aren't saying how much over 100% was the vote on those cities (200%, 101%? it's way different). The main effect is to discredite the opposition claims for widespread fraud.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 22 2009 6:59 utc | 118

Here's a curiosity, found a Xymphora.

Ledeen, 2003. Is this where the Lebanese Hezbollah info comes from?

New security forces have been recruited. Lacking confidence in the willingness of Iranians to beat and kill their own, the regime has brought in Lebanese Hezbollahi, members of the Badr Brigades from Iraq (where they'd been dispatched as part of the "insurgency" against American forces), the usual "Afghan Arabs," and, reportedly, Palestinian toughs.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen070903.asp

Posted by: yuri | Jun 22 2009 6:59 utc | 119

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101>Same PressTV link

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.

According to the Guardian Council spokesman, summering areas and places like district one and three in Tehran are not separable.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such issues could be over 3 million and the council could, at the request of the candidates, re-count the affected ballot boxes, "it has yet to be determined whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.

Most media seems to be ignoring the second part of the first paragraph (an explanation for the total tally being over 100%, already explained here by b) and after reading a spanish translation of the same news it also clear that the 3 millions mean the 3 millions votes in those 50 cities, not 3 million extra votes total in those 50 cities. Way to go for ambiguety on the english wording. And they aren't saying how much over 100% was the vote on those cities (200%, 101%? it's way different). The main effect is to discredite the opposition claims for widespread fraud.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 22 2009 7:00 utc | 120

@Parviz - @53 - b, do you still think Ahmadinejad won fair and square?

I still do not know.

Posted by: b | Jun 22 2009 7:22 utc | 121

sorry the OT, but i guess now it doesn't matter...

#109
sam, i didn't read about this particular story and i don't care about your irony
the woman in me cried out loud with that macho language
and the nigger in me gets pissed off with someone denigrating another one

peace and respect
rudolf

Posted by: rudolf | Jun 22 2009 21:21 utc | 122

@ rudolf 122

Well rudolf since my words hurt your feelings then I will try to explain them for you. But first I will remind you that i asked you to read about her in order that you would understand. I know that you don't have to and you can ignore it if you wish but if you do you might not understand why I wrote them. First off this is personal for me so it cuts to the bone. You said the woman in you cried out when you read my words and if you have any heart in you then how could they not but cry out. For this you have my respect and my apology. Now to cut to the chase. When somone demeans the death of someone dear to me those words that I wrote is what I envision coming from the dismisser. He reduced her to a common criminal that deserved what she got and I echoed that sentiment and embelished it in a statement of agreement. Instead of saying how dare you say that, I overeacted in my outrage. His trivializing the death of someone dear to me and the words I wrote are the same to me for someone that was tortured for 3 days. It is how I felt. I don't expect you to understand but if your mother was murdered and someone dismissed it as just another common criminal that got what she deserved, then I wouldn't expect you to react rational either. I also find it most intereting that you would choose to use such a derogatory word in your reply to me, to complain about my derogatory words.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 23 2009 4:20 utc | 123

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.