Harry's Place

Astute readers will observe that this is precisely the narrative being offered today in the UK by George Galloway and other dim bulbs

Astute readers might also observe that he is accusing the US of using “…propaganda…psychological warfare and making intentional use of media…” ON PRESS TV! ;)

Those dam’ feminists again, eh?

All the more reason to keep them decently wrapped up!

The John Simpson programme on Radio 4 last night put the lie to much of the Gallowayesque argument. According to JS the protesters were NOT the upper/middle classes but the lower working class people, the very people who did not bother voting at all last time around (2005).

The SOCIALIST UNITY site can be considered pro-Ayatollah and pro-Galloway but it does NOT stifle debate.

HP readers who click on the *tweedlefiddledeedee* link in Brett’s piece above are taken to a list of signatories of those SUPPORTING the anti-Ayatollah demonstrators including – perhaps surprisingly – the Chomsky of Massachussetts himself!

The more Galloway pushes the more he marks himself out as a perfect target.

They, Khatami and the other thugs, know that this is the ‘Beginning of the End’ for them

While democrary is being crushed in Iran, the halfwits at NUS are holding a two-minute silence today for Michael jackson. Words fail me…

Galloway follows the power, and the money

Let us not forgot what one of the Tweedles said:

No-one is defending the deplorable killing of a young girl, but it does seem relevent to ask who actually shot her. re you sayng it is inconceivable that it coudl be a false flag shooting to further destabilise the government?

It is terrible whoever did it, but surely we shoudl ahve no illusiosn on what ether the cuirrent government or Mousavi/Rasfanjani are capable of.

Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

This is a repeat of the Burmese protests, when smart anti-war types were busy trying to find British companies selling shoelaces to the Generals.

They’re on their own. God help them.

Ah, the point it turned in France was when they started to execute people.

Putting the revolutionaries in fear ill only make them fight harder.

Well if the Ayatollah wants to let rip with a shoot-on-sight policy, this is the time to do it. The western media are so totally obsessed with Michael Jackson, that they are broadcasting nothing else.

Furthermore, Galloway is still an MP isn’t he? Why should any of our members of the commons, or the lords, be allowed to accept any payments from any foreign power, or their agents.

“Ah, the point it turned in France was when they started to execute people”

This means both everyting and nothing, sorry… Just because the state uses violence does not mean it is about to crumble… Tons of regimes have “started to execute people” at some point. They did not collapse, in fact they survived.

Iran? Time will tell. I suspect Ahmadinejad will survive.

“I wonder how many of his executions they will tolerate before they blush.”

I don’t!

The NUS is having a silence for Michael Jackson while Iranian students have their heads stoved in….that just about says it all.

“Astute readers will observe that this is precisely the narrative being offered today in the UK by George Galloway and other dim bulbs (I almost said ‘leading lights’) of the so-called “anti-imperialist” Left, to explain the current events in Iran.”

Any right-minded person would loathe Galloway and Iran’s vile, repressive regime.

But let’s not allow loathing to cloud the grim reality in Iran. Like it or not, the ugly truth is that the majority of Iranian people DO support some form of Islamic government. What we are seeing is not simply a battle between repressive theocracy and liberal democracy. It is far, far more complicated than that.

The Iranian regime should be criticized and condemned. But we can’t force Iranian people to accept our values.

And the fact that around 150, 000 liberal minded Iranians simply leave that country every year to move to the West means that it’s unlikely for the demographic change required to overcome Islamic government will happen anytime soon.

“Ah, the point it turned in France was when they started to execute people”

Erm, when? In 1789, the state had become so enfeebled that judicial executions was virtually impossible. Whilst lives were lost in rioting, that was no different from ‘everyday’ struggles over public order in 18th century France. Indeed the entire ‘Liberal’ period of the revolution (1789-91) was far less bloody than the Flour wars of the 1770s or the virtual civil war that broke out in the south during the last years of the war of Spanish succession.

By 1794 and Thermidor, the state had been mass executing people for more than two years. Many of the leading ‘Terrorists’ were party to the anti-Robespierre coup and leading lights within the Directory, fearful of moves by those deposed to limit the terror and investigate the actions of the ultras

No political executions preceded the Brumaire coup in 1799 or the return of the Bourbons in 1814 and 1815. In neither 1830 nor 1848 did the regime collapsing have the strength to carry out judicial executions beyond the initial short struggle on the streets

Presuming it isn’t a case of historical ignorance, when?

Good for Kos.

Ridley’s really gone off the deep end with this one.

“I’m told that more people in America voted for Pop Idol and America’s Got Talent TV shows than vote in the US presidential elections. True or not, they attracted vote rigging allegations as well”

Err……………

But wait there’s more;

“On a point of interest the ‘92 election was very close. Neil Kinnock lost by 1400 out of 25 million votes – it came to represent 21 seats, a bitter pill for anyone.”

A paid agent of the Iranian regime resorting to manipulation of the facts and half truths? Now who else does that remind me of?

I note on the SU thread and others of that ilk the widespread scepticism about the genuinness of Neda’s murder. There were no such reservations among this lot about the Al Durah footage, whether at the time, or afterwards when the fakery was exposed.

Give Johng his due, and he seems much more rational generally on that SU site than when he comes over here- even he is sickened by the comment regarding the death of Neda which Alec quotes above. For goodness sake, even Louis Proyect tears holes in this Wight character.

HP readers who click on the *tweedlefiddledeedee* link in Brett’s piece above are taken to a list of signatories of those SUPPORTING the anti-Ayatollah demonstrators including – perhaps surprisingly – the Chomsky of Massachussetts himself!

Oh well, let’s go to Paul Bodganor. This is Chomsky on past events in Iran: taken from Pirates and Emperors, Old and New (rev. ed., Pluto Press, 2002), p112.

Iran remained ‘moderate’ until the fall of the Shah in 1979 while compiling one of the worst human rights records in the world, as Amnesty International and other human rights groups regularly documented, not affecting the classification of the Shah as a ‘moderate’ or the applause for him among US elites.

Nuh-huh.

Amnesty International accused the Shah of carrying out 300 political executions. He was not remotely comparable to the world’s worst human rights abusers. During the same period, Macias Nguema murdered 50,000 in Equatorial Guinea, Idi Amin massacred 300,000 in Uganda and Pol Pot slaughtered as many as 2 million in Cambodia.

Who would have thunk it? Chomsky is a nihilistic opportunist.

As the unofficial Gumtree Crap Jobs monitor, may I bring this to your attentions:

Invitation for Press TV’s Forum
Thursday 2nd July 2009 from 17.15 to 20.00pm
“The Iranian elections and World Media”
Press TV Ltd
Media House

Forum takes place on Thursday 2nd July. Hosted by award wiinning presenter, Nick Ferrari, the show features 4 specialist panellists who will debate the world medias reaction to the Iranian Elections, with our studio audience.

So… it’s not about the elections, it’s about the world media’s reaction to the elections… cunning.

And the fact that around 150, 000 liberal minded Iranians simply leave that country every year to move to the West means that it’s unlikely for the demographic change required to overcome Islamic government will happen anytime soon.

An excellent point. One can see the export of liberal-minded Iranians as a tool of control by the islamists. Especially if they have wealth and education. It leaves those behind beholden to the regime for handouts and knowledge of the world around them. As Eric Gordy demonstrated in 1995, Milosevic was doing much the same thing in Serbia.

Amie mentions the Al Durrah footage and this is bothersome because we never heard the full story; was the boy really shot – and if so by whom – or was it all a fake and the boy and his dad now have a flourishing fruit stall in Damascus or what?

Could we PLEASE have the full truth at last?

“one who wages war against God”

Goody, they have played the last card. If you are against the government of the IRI and its action you are by default a heretic, as the government of the IRI serves Allah on Earth.

Ahmad Khatami, who wears a black turban, has just done more to destry Islam in Iran than anyone has since the Mongol conquest.

On Michael Jackson and the wall-to-wall press coverage: May he rest in peace and oy already.

This goes double for Governor Sanford, he of the Argentine mistress. We need to hear about this 24/7 why?

On Galloway. Hmmmm. How would he like it if a Western government started shooting protesters?

Right. That’s what I thought.

On Neda and al-Durah: this was bound to come up as were “false flag” conspiracy theories. No point in hiding from it so here is discussion:

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/06/24/is-the-neda-soltan-video-a-fake-gary-trieste-thinks-its-85-probable/

As you all know there are ongoing investigations and court cases in France about al Durah – there are lots of links about this on Augean Stables. Richard Landes has been working on this for years. It doesn’t seem to be the work of the IDF in any case (check the ballistics).

But, thousands of people died regardless in the ensuing rage –

Interesting isn’t it, none of the anti-Israel people defending Iran questioned the al-Durah case did they. Yet, there was precedent in Lebanon – and later in the intifada – Fisk wrote about the creation of “martyrs” by Arafat himself.

Here’s a piece full of Fisk’s usual vitriol toward Israel and Sharon but more tellingly, his dark opinion of Arafat and the use of death as propaganda:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fisk_Robert/MiddleEast_AccordingFisk.html

Personally I doubt the Neda film is a fake or a set-up. The situation in Iran is very different, this isn’t a war between nations but rather a struggle for civil rights within a repressive society, it seems more like a would-be peaceful struggle than a desire to create violence.

Also, there is the confused reaction of the Iranian government to Neda’s death.

The Iranian government has apparently taken steps against her family, dampened mourning observations and has issued conflicting comments about “mistaken identity,” ie she was shot because she was mistaken for the sister of a terrorist or she was shot by terrorists and also I saw a tweet claiming the government was trying to blame her death on an Israeli assassin.

Natch.

The weirdest theory though blames her death on a hitman hired by the BBC so he could do a story about her:

http://gawker.com/5302339/nedas-family-evicted-from-their-home-denied-her-body-as-iran-turns-bloodier

Now many of us are not too fond of BBC but THIS bad they are not. (Right?)

On conspiracy theories: I have read a lot of idiotic “false flag” and “cui bono” arguments the past few years. 9/11 is the prime example but I’ve seen comments blaming Israel for suicide bombing attacks – in Israel – and other cruel absurdities.

OK – that means according to the peace loving religion of Islam that they could be literally crucified by way of execution. Wonder how the STWC woudl react to mass crucifixions in Revolution Square? Please don’t answer that…

Of course all the liberal experts on Farsi will show us how that was taken out of context and what he really meant was “FREE MASSAGE WITH HAPPY ENDING FOR EVERYONE!!!!!”

Cuz you know, those poor people are ALWAYS being so egregiously mistranslated.

Could anyone point me in the direction of the supposed NUS minute’s silence for Michael Jackson?

They are at least making some effort to get the student population involved in the issue (rather than sitting on the sidelines like the UCU/SWP) http://www.nus.org.uk/cy/Campaigns-in-Welsh/Society-And-Citizenship/Remember-Neda-and-act-now-for-students-in-Iran/

Astute readers will also see that this same Khatami was the man sold to the West and it’s useful idiots as a “re-former” during his Presidency from 1997-2005. Mousavi, that old rergime hack, would no doubt turn out to be just as much of a “re-former”.

Admirable as some of the protests are, I have yet to see anyone on the streets of Iran marching for genuine regime change. Merely desiring one Ayatollah-approved candidate over another for a Presidency devoid of real power is hardly worth the effort going into these protests. “Elections” in Iran have always been a sham, with candidates and outcomes chosen by the Guardian Council of Ayatollahs; why are people acting surprised now that this one was as much of a sham as they have all been for the past 30 years?

I believe you mean, **Mohammad** Khatami, former President?

No, Ahmad Khatami is not the same man as the ex-President: no relation, indeed, as far as we know. Dennis is, however, right in saying that a President has no real power and that Mousavi would not have been a real improvement, and that “I have yet to see anyone on the streets of Iran marching for genuine regime change”.

However, one never knows just how far people’s power on the streets might go. Those who marched on the Bastille in 1789 had no idea of overthrowing the monarchy either. I am fairly sure that the Ayatollahs, if they’d known how this would turn out, would have let Mousavi win, knowing that he didn’t really stand for anything. Now, however, their hand has been forced; either they have to go in for real fascist oppression, or they have to give in to people’s power, and heaven knows where that might lead. No-one can really imagine freedom in Iran, but if the breakthrough is made they are unlikely to accept any version of the present regime.

No, Ahmad Khatami is not the same man as the ex-President: no relation, indeed, as far as we know. Dennis is, however, right in saying that a President has no real power and that Mousavi would not have been a real improvement, and that “I have yet to see anyone on the streets of Iran marching for genuine regime change”.

However, one never knows just how far people’s power on the streets might go. Those who marched on the Bastille in 1789 had no idea of overthrowing the monarchy either. I am fairly sure that the Ayatollahs, if they’d known how this would turn out, would have let Mousavi win, knowing that he didn’t really stand for anything. Now, however, their hand has been forced; either they have to go in for real fascist oppression, or they have to give in to people’s power, and heaven knows where that might lead. No-one can really imagine freedom in Iran, but if the breakthrough is made they are unlikely to accept any version of the present regime. Marg Bar Velayat-e-Faqih!

“Those who marched on the Bastille in 1789 had no idea of overthrowing the monarchy either.”

The Bastille was not really a prison, it only had 7 prisoners, but could hold up to 50 prisoners in comparative luxury.
It was an Armory, it had a huge number of muskets and enough gunpowder to start, supply and finish a revolution.

The idea was to overthrow the Monarchy.

but it does seem relevent to ask who actually shot her.

An early eye witness, said it was a member of the Basij militia.

Cipriano:

“Dennis is, however, right in saying that a President has no real power and that Mousavi would not have been a real improvement, and that “I have yet to see anyone on the streets of Iran marching for genuine regime change”.”

Cipriano and Dennis,

My impression from what I have been reading on Twitter and a few other places is that there is significant interest in regime change. Mousavi was astounded at the support he got, and the impression is that it was no longer really about him, but about anything is better than the present government.

One thing I found particularly interesting was a discussion with somebody who had voted for Ahmedinajad. it seems that even he didn’t really like the theocracy. Instead he was motivated partly by some kind of argument about how they differ on the economy, but mostly he just knew how to get around the system as is, and didn’t want to disrupt his social life for a revolution. I can well understand this from visit Hungary during the communist time. People learn to ignore dictators, and get on with life. Somebody asked about internet censorship, and he says, oh everyone knows how to get by the filters. But what I’m getting to with this is that if even an Ahmedinajad supporter can say he is against the theocracy.

It is certainly well known that there are plenty that are shouting “Down with the dictator.” Whether it is a large proportion of the population, or just a small number of fired up young people, I have no idea.

At least recent events have given the lie to the myth peddled by the Supreme Leader and his geriatric sidekicks, that the Iranian Revolution has led to one giant united happy family.

One side point: you can see how dictatorships these days tend to follow the Tienanmen template when suppressing the people. The televised confessions have a very familiar look about them. The oppressors know the Chinese totalitarians got away with it and think that’s the way to go. The democracies are to blame for acquiescing in the Chinese suppression.

It appears that the IRI is trying to get the youngsters of the streets by showing blockbusters on TV. They have just finished screening the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I wonder what the Iranians made of this declaration?

“‘But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund’s daughter!”

Mousavi campaigned with his wife.

‘The idea was to overthrow the Monarchy.’

No it wasn’t. The aim was to arm the population to avoid ultras around Artois and Provance from calling in the army to close down the newly formed National Assembly. Attacks against the monarch itself didn’t start till 1791 and the Champ de Mars massacre. Only in 1792 and the journees of July and August 10 did republican efforts become general.

Take a look at this. It explains, among other things, why Mousavi would represent more of a change than some cynics believe. If this guy is to be believed, it’s kind of what I suspected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ttXIgMdKE

Whilst obviously being an joyless obscurantist medieval fucker, Ahmad Khatami, is also a deluded psychotic willing and able to order the killing of innocent people who have the courage to challenge his miserable mullahocracy. To hell with him and all the bearded po-faced twats on Iran’s Guardian Council.