Bellis Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFipyKSC2U8...feature=relatedThanks to everyone who participated in the last thread. I know I speak for many boarders who were quietly lurking when I say that you guys (Shryke, DalThor, The Stranger, Ckrisz, etc) are my first hit on the web for Iran updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazydog7 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 continuing from the previous thread Scot said CD,The people didn't have tanks in 1979 and managed to pull off that revolution. But the army wasn't loyal to the Shah by the time he left Ayatollah Khomeini had their loyalty. Its going to come down to Ahmadinejad's charisma and weather or not the army supports him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So how credible do people think claims of American interference will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazydog7 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So how credible do people think claims of American interference will be?Well we've never tried to topple a democratically elected government before....oh wait....yeah we have haven't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turinturambar Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well we've never tried to topple a democratically elected government before....oh wait....yeah we have haven't we?That has no bearing on this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K26dp Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So how credible do people think claims of American interference will be?It might have worked before the weekend, but I doubt it will have much affect except to possibly rally folks that would lean pro-Ahmadinejad anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 continuing from the previous thread Scot said CD,The people didn't have tanks in 1979 and managed to pull off that revolution. But the army wasn't loyal to the Shah by the time he left Ayatollah Khomeini had their loyalty. Its going to come down to Ahmadinejad's charisma and weather or not the army supports him.Except so far every indication has been that the Army DOESN'T side with Ahmadinejad. They've stayed fairly neutral, as has the IRG (mostly). Hell, there's been reports that they've arrested members of the IRG for being sympathetic to the protesters. And the police aren't doing much against the protesters either.The guys doing all the head-knocking out there are Ansar-e-Hezbollah and the Basij, who are essentially the crazy pro-government militias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So how credible do people think claims of American interference will be?Well.. they are right as far as that White House request to Twitter. I don't know if supporting outside lines of communication is enough to make the accusation stick in any meaningful way, though. ETA: Not that any such specifics appeared to be given w/the accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 That has no bearing on this situation.Well, that history continues to affect Iranian perceptions of the US. So it's relevant as far as trying to raise the specter of US interference in the current troubles, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turinturambar Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well, that history continues to affect Iranian perceptions of the US. So it's relevant as far as trying to raise the specter of US interference in the current troubles, IMO.It may affect the supporters of Ahmadinejad, but those protesting on the streets wouldn't find much credibility in it nor would they care much whether it were true, many may even welcome it if it were true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annelise Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ...but those protesting on the streets wouldn't find much credibility in it nor would they care much whether it were true, many may even welcome it if it were true.I'm not sure what you're saying here, sorry. They may even welcome it if what were true? If we were more involved presently? And/or they won't take offense to our response so far? Or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashaman Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFipyKSC2U8...feature=relatedThanks to everyone who participated in the last thread. I know I speak for many boarders who were quietly lurking when I say that you guys (Shryke, DalThor, The Stranger, Chrisz, etc) are my first hit on the web for Iran updates.second that, thanks for providing good lurking material. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max the Mostly Mediocre Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I know I speak for many boarders who were quietly lurking when I say that you guys (Shryke, DalThor, The Stranger, Chrisz, etc) are my first hit on the web for Iran updates.Yeah, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjen Stark Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 The official storyline is that the protests are small and mostly consisting of radicals. When word starts reaching people not intimately involved with either side that you are looking at truly massive protests, not just in Tehran, but even in the smaller cities and at least one rural village (which happens to be the only one we've gotten news about at all)...Suddenly it is hard for any witnesses to reconcile what they are seeing with what is on state television. As most other forms of communication have shut down and STAYED down, there are not a lot of rational conclusions to draw except that something is wrong. Khamenei apparently does not want to demonize Mousavi, possibly out of fear of losing those who are hesitantly staying on his side or throwing Mousavi and his backers into a genuine revolution.Given all of that, how can you expect the Hojjatiyeh crowd to come up with anything except the Ahmadinejad standby of blame the West for everything. With his core supporters, the excuse will fly. With those on the fence, it may make them more hesitant to get involved out of fear of being painted as traitors. With those out on the streets protesting, it will reinforce the idea that everything he says is a lie. That jives with the Mousavi reaction to Ahmadinejad's rampant accusations of corruption in the debates. Curiously, Ahmadinjad's accusations would include Khamenei as corrupt, but the Supreme Leader is not choosing to act upon that, or believed himself no longer capable of doing so.According to Tehran Bureau, Achmadinejad has not referred to Iran as the Islamic "Republic" since he took office in 2005. If true, this points to the idea that Ahmadinejad's contempt for Democracy is not a new development born out of losing the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It may affect the supporters of Ahmadinejad, but those protesting on the streets wouldn't find much credibility in it nor would they care much whether it were true, many may even welcome it if it were true.Wow, that's just a really dumb statement.You know the protesters on the street screaming for their voices to be heard and for a non-sham election? Those people STILL fucking hate the US for the CIA led coup back in the day.That's why Obama is staying the fuck out of this whole situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalThor Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 That's why Obama is staying the fuck out of this whole situation.Second hand info but seemingly credible:- She (an aunt in Iran) said most people think Obama is doing the right thing not getting involved and letting Iranians sort this out for themselves. Already Ahmadinejad's supporters are trying to say that this is another US-led coup like 1953, and the CIA is behind it or other such nonsense about foreign involvement, but a few of the newspapers are offended and have come out and said "why can't Iranians protest without everyone thinking someone else is behind it? We have brains and ability for ourselves "“nafaam neesteem"- we are not stupid.This from an Iranian living in the U.S., having spoken to family members in Iran (on... some guy's blog). hereIt doesn't seem at this point that the foreign involvement argument is going to get much traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falagar Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I want to thank the posters here for their updates and insights, as well as salute the choice of thread-title. Keep it up! :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It doesn't seem at this point that the foreign involvement argument is going to get much traction.Unless the Republican saber-rattlers pressuring Obama to leap into the fray get their way.Since the Iranian protests began, the right has been assailing President Obama for acting like an appeaser toward Tehran. Senator John McCain said on MSNBC that Obama "should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election." House minority whip Eric Cantor said, "The Administration's silence in the face of Iran's brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East." William Kristol, drawing on Leo Amery's famous statement in September 1939 in parliament to Neville Chamberlain, "Speak for England!" declared, "Speak out kindly and gently. But speak out. Speak for liberty. Speak for America." And Jonah Goldberg complained in the National Review that "the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished. Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. Stop voting 'present' on democracy."http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...obama_and_iran/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Remember that thing about the State Department contacting Twitter and asking them to delay maintenance?When BayNewser heard that someone from the State Department had called Twitter to ask them to delay maintenance to allow Iranians to continue tweeting, we pictured some fusty old guy at Foggy Bottom in a rumpled Brooks Brothers suit and wayward spectacles.Imagine our surprise, then, when we learned that, instead, it was a 27-year-old whiz kid whose job is to advise the State Department on how to use social media to promote U.S. interests the Middle East.And imagine our further surprise when we learned this young gentleman wasn't one of Barack Obama's social media geniuses, but instead was a Condi Rice pick hired specifically to advise the State Department on young people in the Middle East and how to "counter-radicalize" them.http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/twitt...ting_119136.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'd also like to echo those thanking the boarders for their insight, knowledge, and analysis of the Iran situation. I has been a facinating thread to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.