Iranians may be ready to vote Ahmadinejad out of power

Heck yes that is what I mean....and if you are UP FRONT about it......the people would be able to watch it and understand where it was coming from.

I promise the people of Iran would like to know that the rest of the world is watching and is appalled by their horrible government.

Let them know their story is getting out...and people are with them...all over the world, wanthing them to procure their freedom from the self appointed Mullahs.

DD

 

The people of Iran (those who want a change, the younger ones) would most definitely like to know that, but I'm hoping they already do know that. I can't speak to all of them, but the way the news is hyping facebook and twitter, technology, etc. in this deal, I'm sure things are getting to them just as fast as we're getting stuff from them. At least I hope that's the way things are going.

I'd love to see those people free, and for them to have real elections.

 

The problem is that stuff does not work, nobody watches or listens to those media sources. The similar projects we are running in Iraq are basically losing money and are being propped up by taxpayer money. People are just not that gullible and they see right through it.

 

That is true, my cousin is a reporter for the station, his name is Amir Kazemi, you might have heard his name on CNN...anyways strikes can be and hopefully will be a big sign of more protest

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=96176117179&h=9HRLy&u=Qp3H6&ref=mf

 

Btw to any Iranians reading this, I am going to Iran in a week with my sister since my mom has been there for a month now, I've heard from some people that I could be taken to the military if I do go there even if i have gotten permission from the embassy in D.C. does anyone know anything about this?

Chilcutt

 

Let's not be overly naive here.. I think the people of Iran aren't against their gov't per se, nor are they clamoring for American style freedom or Democracy.

They are unhappy with the last 4 years, and see this election as an opportunity for change - but what has happened is that they will not accept the status quo. We can't make the assumption that they look to the world's democracy's and America - many of the opposition still are very anti-American.

Interference at this stage would be a mistake. It does not see that the Iranian leadership has the stomach for spilling it's own people's blood. A system may be corrupt, oppressive, and unfair, but the best intentions of the U.S. has often been a disaster.

If Iraq, Latin America, and Vietnam has taught us anything, it's that non-interference often is the best policy.

 

If you are in school (college) then you could get permission to leave Iran. You'd have to get this permission from the Iranian/Afghan Embassy in Washington D.C. This was the way I visited Iran 3 years ago in summer of 2006 while I was still in college. Things might have changed since then though.

 

This just isn't true. Baghdad Now is the perfect example. If you publish with a slant, people inherently distrust it and tune it out:

[rquoter]
Baghdad Now: All the news that's fit to slant



By Ernesto Londono

The pages of Baghdad Now, an Arabic-language newspaper, portray a country on the upswing.

Iraqi soldiers and policemen are capable civil servants who take weapons off the streets and doggedly pursue criminals. Iraqis of all sectarian backgrounds work in unison. The Iraqi government delivers.

The paper's editorials hail democracy. Fashion pages chronicle fads in Beirut and Kuwait. There's little news of the more than 130,000 U.S. troops who remain in the country.

That the paper has no publicly known editor, no bylines and no ads is no mistake. It is part of America's huge psychological-warfare campaign to influence Iraqis' behavior and attitudes.

"The millions spent on this is wasted money," Ziyad al-Aajeely, director of Iraq's nonprofit Journalistic Freedom Observatory, said as he flipped through a copy of Baghdad Now. "Nobody reads this."

U.S. military officials and contractors have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on billboards, pamphlets and TV and radio airtime in Iraq over the past six years to burnish the U.S. military's image, marginalize extremists, promote democracy and foster reconciliation.

Some campaigns are meant to encourage Iraqis to turn their backs on insurgent groups and cooperate with the U.S. military and Iraq's security forces. Others have loftier themes: democratic values, sectarian reconciliation and national pride.

In a country where few things work well, where security forces have a checkered reputation and sectarian tension remains high, many Iraqis have grown dismissive of the flood of propaganda they know or assume comes from the U.S. government.

Baghdad Now is not labeled as a U.S. military publication, although the military acknowledges it is produced by an Army psychological-operations unit and distributed for free by soldiers. Piles of it are left at entrances to the Green Zone for passers-by to pick up.

Headlines in a recent edition paid homage to a newly promoted police chief in Baghdad, reported the implementation of a security agreement between Iraq and the U.S. is going swimmingly, and highlighted efforts at the Interior Ministry to root out corruption. A front-page image showed Iraqis marching down a street, apparently protesting. Under it was the statement: "The security forces protect your right to demonstrate peacefully."

Another edition included a cartoon with a maimed insurgent leaving Iraq as a smiling refugee returns.

"This is so wrong," Aajeely said with a chuckle. "The people in charge of this are not professional journalists.

"They do it the same way the prior regime did its newspapers," he added, referring to publications parroting the narrative Saddam Hussein wanted to push.

A U.S. Army officer in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Iraqi soldiers at his outpost mock the publication and are more interested in the editorially independent Department of Defense newspaper, Stars and Stripes, and in magazines they get in the mail.

"They say it's childish," the officer said. "Baghdad Now makes a good fuel source at the Iraqi checkpoints."

In 2004, reeling from the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal and wrestling a burgeoning insurgency, the U.S. military hired public-relations firms — including some apparently established to compete for the contracts — to improve its image.

One of them, Arlington, Va.-based Lincoln Group, came under fire in 2005 for paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories conceived and written by U.S. military officials. The communications firms have come up with campaigns that military officials have said are designed to appear as Iraqi-generated initiatives.

Pentagon officials say the campaigns allow them to push back against insurgent groups that have made the media a key battleground.

Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq regularly post videos that feature denunciations of U.S. troops and their presence in Iraq.

Propaganda produced by a group called the Future Iraq Assembly has become omnipresent. Its slick Web site says it is "an independent, nongovernmental organization, comprised of a number of scholars, businesspersons, and activists who share a common and firm belief in freedom and progress for all the Iraqi people. It is simply the 'watchful eye' over Iraqi interests."

It lists no members and no contact information other than a generic e-mail address. "Most people think it's American propaganda," said Wamid Nadmi, a political-science professor at Baghdad University. He said the messages of hope and political reconciliation are well-intentioned but disconnected from Iraq's reality.

"There's no talk of the atrocities committed by the local police or the people who have spent years in prison" without being formally charged, Nadmi said.

As'ad AbuKhalil, a political-science professor at California State University who writes the Angry Arab blog, said the campaigns are ridiculed in the Arab world.

"They have a very crude tone and content, and the narrator sounds like Saddam's own propagandist," he said. "The Arabic used also is awkward, clearly translated from English texts most likely drafted in some office on K Street. One is struck by the extent to which the ads show Iraqis as Westernized and secularized."

Of a couple of dozen Iraqis interviewed about the publications, the overwhelming majority said they find them ineffective.

"All Iraqis know that these organizations are supported" by the U.S. government "with the aim of normalizing the occupation," said Abdul Kareem Ahmad, a lawyer. "I say to the Future Iraq organization: If those funds had been given to the poor and the widows, Iraq would have become a pioneer in social welfare. Millions of dollars go into the pockets of war profiteers who believe victory in Iraq can be won through the media using underground movies."

[/rquoter]

 

Some interesting pictures. Looks like some clerics have joined the protesters, hopefully this is a trend and not an isolated incident. Its a pretty diverse crowd, you have the young, old and religious all protesting together. Its a shame we can't get any independent reporting to get a full picture of whats going on over there.

 

Actually I think this is exactly whatt hey're clamoring for and it is their downfall. Years of supression have led them to believe that the American style freedom or democracy is what they want.

Personally, I think that ultimately the solution is somewhere in between. A truly Islamic Democracy.

There is some misconception that Islam supports dictatorships - far from it. The Prophet PBUH warned during his lifetime against it and prophesized that despite the improved governance, down the line, the Islamic Ummah (people) will unfortunately resort to dictatorships.

As a Muslim, it's a sad sad thing for me to see certain people drag the corporate governance standards of an Islamic country to the point where people see Sharia as a ruthless dictatorship system. It is an issue that is close to my heart and always on my mind.

 

They can not get the freedoms they need from that type of government.

There must be a seperation of church and state and the ability to worship or NOT worship as an option.

A true Islamic republic would be a step forward, but not all the way to the finish line...

DD

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/rafsanjanis-40-ctd.html#more

Unconfirmed, but fascinating. Also, for those of you interested, Sullivan's blog is arguably the single best place for following the Iran stuff. He's thrown himself 100% into it and has gotten recognition from major media for the quality of coverage (he does have a bias though).


It seems that in a quick poll of the Guardian Counsel by two of their own (Ahmad Khatami and Mohammad Yazdi) some of the members of Qom's rank and file have refused to recognize Ahmadinejad's victory in the elections, which itself is giving rise to speculation that up to 40 members of the Guardian Counsel and authoirties of the Khobregan [I don't know how that has been translated in English] have signed a letter demanding a nullification of the last election results. Rafsanjani is said to have that letter in his possession.

On the other hand, it is said that Ali Khamenei has been relocated from his residence either for security reasons or for treatment. It has even been said that the reason that Rafsanjani's daughter 'Faezeh' was arrested from amongst the demonstrators was to pressure Rafsanjani due to the behind the scenes role that he has been playing.

It is being said that the reason for the coup d'etat is Khamenei's growing health problems and the severity of his lung cancer. His son Mojtaba wanted to keep the role of Supreme Leader in the family and needed the presidential power to be sympathetic and close to home on the issue.


It is said that the experience of the House of Ayatollah Khomeini and specifically, Ahmad Khomeini's experience, had a big role in shaping recent events. They were determined to select the next Supreme Leader prior to the death of Khamenei. This is based on a line in Mousavi's letter to the Supreme Leader saying that the recent events would not only impact the presidency but the foundation of Leadership in the future--changing the Islamic Republic to a monarchy or an Islamic Monarchy.

In another report three other well recognized ayatollahs (Javadi Ameli, Amini and Ostadi) boycotted last week's Friday prayers because supporters of Mesbah Yazdi had come to Qom attending the prayers and were protesting the Counsel.

The three mentioned above have withheld recognition of Ahmadinejad's victory, and have demanded justice for the people who have been attacked in recent events. Ameli went so far as saying about the attacks on the University streets that, "No Muslim would attack the homes and lives of other Muslims; anyone doing so is an outsider (non-Muslim)."

 

Stay safe and keep us informed.

 

My friend made her debut on CNN talking about Iran!

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/world/2009/06/21/intv.iran.security.defense.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

 

Isn't Bhalla kind of a Punjabi name? I know some Bhallas! (Maybe it's like Smith... I dunno.)

She did a good job.

 

Are they shot callas ?

 

I don't think Kwame is still here but this report summarily dispatches the idea that the 63-33 results were even remotely plausible.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

 

From NIAC:

I thought the following was interesting. What it tells me is that the leadership of the coup is concerned enough about the loyalty of the regular army that they want to keep them busy and out of the way.

[rquoter]
2:57 pm: Conventional military flexing its muscle - Hamshahri is reporting that the regular Iranian Army and Air Force (as opposed to the IRGC forces) are carrying out large training exercises, with the Army’s maneuvering in the south of Iran and the Air Force operating in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

[/rquoter]

 

And which side the regular armed force support?

 

The regular armed forces are more likely to turn on the leadership if that leadership ordered them to open fire on the people. The regular army is the people of Iran and is loyal to the people of Iran. There is a reasonable chance that if the leadership ordered them to massacre their brothers and sisters, that they would turn on the leadership. The IRGC is like the Waffen SS (no Godwin's Law 'reductio ad Hitlerum' intended by the analogy) - they are loyal to the ideology of the Islamic Revolution and its leadership more than the people of Iran.

They are keeping the IRGC around to use on protestors (though even then there are some reports that an IRGC general named Ali Fazli has been arrested for refusing the orders for using force on protestors).