The protests can rage on forever, but no matter, the government isn't going to change. The elections were rigged in favor of the one who agrees more with, or is more willing to follow the Supreme Leader Ayotollah. The one who directs the show from behind the scenes.

Not true. I seem to remember somewhere in history a small collection of territories wanted freedom from a slightly unfair ruler so they went up against one of the most powerful armies in the world and the smaller force won. Strength isn't what always wins wars, sometimes the more determined side pulls through.

 

 

 

I am assuming you are talking about the United States' revolution, even though that has happened many times. The particular case then was slightly different because it still took a while to get across the Atlantic, and it was expensive. The Iranian revolution they aren't a part of an empire an ocean away from the leaders, they are just there. Strength usually wins.

 

"Slightly different" is a bit of an understatement if we are to compare the current situation in Iran to the American Revolution. Not only did the British have to move across the Atlantic, but they also had other problems in Europe at the time. After Ben Franklin signed a treaty with the French in 1778, the American Revolution turned into a world war against the British with Fance and Holland entering on the side of the Americans and the Russians and pretty much the rest of Europe forming an 'armed neutrality' that was 'passivley hostile' towards the British.

 

 

 

Sorry for the (somewhat) off-topicness, but I'm a bit of a U.S. history buff and I had to clear up this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think i know EXACTLY how you feel. You see the young generation of people fighting for what is right, while the government tries to stop it. How thousands and thousands of people unite and fight for what they believe even if it means getting hurt or even dying.

 

 

 

And with help of the Internet, this people are helping the word to spread, fighting to post on some twitter account.

 

 

 

 

 

And all this thing is amusing because you are watching it real time. It's happening RIGHT NOW.

 

 

 

I feel kind of excited, but I'm not sure if i should be when there's people dying and fighting for something more important that my amusement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think i know EXACTLY how you feel. You see the young generation of people fighting for what is right, while the government tries to stop it. How thousands and thousands of people unite and fight for what they believe even if it means getting hurt or even dying.

 

 

 

And with help of the Internet, this people are helping the word to spread, fighting to post on some twitter account.

 

 

 

 

 

And all this thing is amusing because you are watching it real time. It's happening RIGHT NOW.

 

 

 

I feel kind of excited, but I'm not sure if i should be when there's people dying and fighting for something more important that my amusement.

 

People die everyday and you can't let it drag you down. Change will only happen if the people are serious about it.

were hunters and therefore trained to shoot

 

And in the military you don't? :lol:

 

 

 

In the days of napoleonic warfare, the soldiers were taught just to point there gun at the enemy file and shoot. The american colonists who hunted were able to maximize the accuracy of the smoothbore muskets they used since they were always shooting at a single object. the current comand "ready, aim, fire" was originally taught as "ready, present arms, fire"; I believe the americans changed it under von steuban(could be wrong). The main place this came in handy was when guerilla warfare was being used, and when the colonists actually developed snipers(not called that back then) who could demoralize british troops.

The United States is obviously reading the Twitter posts if they are asking them not to do the maintenance, but Obama stands is that he will not intervene. McCain on the other hand had this.

 

 

 

The tempered response from the Obama administration drew criticism on Tuesday from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who said Mr. Obama had not spoken out strongly enough about the political dissent in Tehran.

 

 

 

He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election, Mr. McCain said in an interview on NBCs Today. The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime.

 

 

 

The French and the British support!

 

 

 

[yt]k7YSz6qwH8s[/yt]

So every major power in NATO is hoping for the Iranian goverment to be overthrown, but are any of them willing to offer a hand?

So every major power in NATO is hoping for the Iranian goverment to be overthrown, but are any of them willing to offer a hand?

 

 

 

I dont think anyone will intervene indirectly unless it becomes an open revolution. If that happens I can see a few powers "selling" arms to the revolution and providing other supply based aid. The odds of an actual military intervention are very small in my estimation.

 

 

 

I think mccain's statement was a bit overdone, then again hes not president so he gets to overstep what he would say as president in this case.

So every major power in NATO is hoping for the Iranian goverment to be overthrown, but are any of them willing to offer a hand?

 

 

 

Why would we intervene? Why do neoconservatives STILL not get it?

 

 

 

Thank God Obama won on this issue alone, thank God:

 

 

 

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.

 

 

 

The second thing that I think's important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, `Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.' And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it's important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we havenuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That's not going to go away, and I think it's important for us to make sure that we've reached out.

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31393724/page/2/

Yep, it sucks but intervening to help would be a bad idea. A revolution wouldn't mean much at all if the dissenters can't get enough support to overthrow the government without "the west" giving aid.

This is nice to read, a Iranian on twitter: I've learned something today. Americans DO care about the world outside America.Their media just doesn't.

 

 

 

Even if this revolution fails a lot of good has come out of it, we know Iran isn't all terrorists and a lot of them know we arent all bad either.

There's a post on 4chan that I've replied to that strongly resembles trapical's post from earlier on this page.

 

 

 

Keeping a hobby from us trap? :lol:

This is nice to read, a Iranian on twitter: I've learned something today. Americans DO care about the world outside America.Their media just doesn't.

 

 

 

Even if this revolution fails a lot of good has come out of it, we know Iran isn't all terrorists and a lot of them know we arent all bad either.

 

Only an idiot will believe that is all any country has.

This is nice to read, a Iranian on twitter: I've learned something today. Americans DO care about the world outside America.Their media just doesn't.

 

 

 

Even if this revolution fails a lot of good has come out of it, we know Iran isn't all terrorists and a lot of them know we arent all bad either.

 

Only an idiot will believe that is all any country has.

 

 

 

Ever been to America? Every other person is an idiot :roll:

That's something I hate about this country. Why is the vote of a Harvard graduate worth the same as some high school drop-out that just turned 18?

That's something I hate about this country. Why is the vote of a Harvard graduate worth the same as some high school drop-out that just turned 18?

 

 

 

The only "better" way would be putting the intelligencia in charge and keeping everything peacful enough that the lower intellectual classes never bother to care. The problem is this never works out.

That's something I hate about this country. Why is the vote of a Harvard graduate worth the same as some high school drop-out that just turned 18?

 

 

 

Lol....Wow, just wow.

 

 

 

Anyway, an interesting observation:

 

 

 

Here are a few of the things that weve learned the last few days about the Iranian elections and their aftermath:

 

 

 

3 million people protested Monday in Tehran

 

the losing candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was put under house arrest

 

the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid on Saturday

 

 

 

These are just a handful of data points that have been shooting around the Internet, via Twitter or the opposition-friendly blogs. And all have been instrumental in building a public opinion case against the Iranian government for undercounting the support for Mousavi.

 

 

 

The problem is, none of them appear any longer to be true. The crowd was in the hundreds of thousands, most newspapers reported. Mousavis own wife said he wasnt under house arrest Sunday, and Monday he appeared in person at the protest. And if the president of the election monitoring commission has gone over to the opposition, no serious reporter has reported it.

 

 

 

Also courtesy of the blogosphere, we have two sets of real vote counts leaked from the Interior Ministry; one set had Ahmedinejad getting 28 percent, and another gave him 13 percent. These are just a few examples I was able to come up with quickly.

 

 

 

Andrew Sullivan, who has been leading the charge in the U.S. to try to get us all to wear green and support the opposition, says that [t]his event has been Twitters finest hour. One of his commenters tells him: You are gathering information from a myriad of sources and putting it out there for a cohesive message. CNN, NY Times, et al are merely running an article about thousands of protesters. Its a canned message from just a few stale sources.

 

 

 

But instead, it looks like the Internet is the medium for a lot of unfounded rumors by a lot of (understandably) passionate people in Iran. This is a chaotic situation, and rumors flourish in that environment. Ive been there: I remember spending a morning in Iraq, during the war, trying to track down confirmation that Tariq Aziz was killed in a hail of bullets trying to run a roadblock while attempting to flee into Kurdistan. Everyone was convinced it had happened. Later in the day he gave a press conference to demonstrate that he was still alive. In Serbia in 2001, as word began to spread that Slobodan Milosevic was going to be arrested soon, a crowd gathered in his backyard, and rumors spread several times that Milosevic had killed himself, or that it was the CIA who was going to make the arrest.

 

 

 

But in the pre-Twitter age, those sorts of rumors petered out quickly if they werent true. If they were true, then journalists found out about them and reported them as fact. Now, the latter is still happening, which is why the journalists in Tehran now are writing pieces with considerably more nuance than what you see on blogs. But the former isnt true any more rumors can have a longer lifespan on a network of sympathetic blogs, Facebook postings and Twitter feeds.

 

 

 

At this point, we dont know if there was election fraud or not. The AP has a story describing the current state of play on the fraud allegations (the speed of the announcement is now the main point of debate), and although the evidence for fraud is all in the beginning of the story and the evidence against is at the end, its a pretty balanced look that probably isnt going to convince anyone to change their mind. So no need to rehash the arguments here.

 

 

 

None of this is to excuse the behavior of the government after the election results came out. Or to diminish the bravery and courage of the people who are out in the streets in Tehran getting beaten. But what if its based on a lie? A Twitter-fueled, mass delusion of a lie? That the one third of people who voted for Mousavi convinced themselves, via a social media echo chamber that selectively picked rumors and amplified them until they appeared true, that they in fact represented two thirds of the country? And then tried to bring down the government based on that delusion? Maybe its not the case this time. But doesnt this entire episode seem to show how such a thing could happen? And then what?

 

 

 

http://trueslant.com/joshuakucera/2009/ ... bout-iran/

A history lesson:

 

 

 

There are only about thirty living marja taqlid (or Grand Ayatollahs) in the world today. Almost all of them are either Iranian or Iraqi, and all of them have been educated in Iran (mainly in Qom), Iraq (mainly in Najaf), or both. A Grand Ayatollah is distinct from an Ayatollah. Ayatollahs are normally specialists in one area of Islamic studies, like law, philosophy, or ethics. But Grand Ayatollahs demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge by publishing a resalah amaliyah (or book) detailing the answers to a broad array of religious and legal matters.

 

 

 

It's hard to rank the Grand Ayatollahs in terms of their influence. All of them have significant followings. However, Grand Ayatollahs that reside in Najaf and Qom have extra prestige. In Najaf, the Americans quickly discovered that Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani had tremendous clout and could not be ignored. In Iran, things are a bit more complicated by the history of the current Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Hosseini Khamenei. Khamenei was hand selected to succeed the founder of the Republic, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. But Khameini was technically unqualified for the position because he was not a Grand Ayatollah at the time of his succession. His technical title was Hojatoleslam wal-muslemin.

 

 

 

Hojatoleslam (from Arabic: ??? ???????? ?ujjatu l-Isl?m) is an honorific title meaning "authority on Islam" or "proof of Islam", given to Twelver Sh?ah clerics. It was originally applied only to leading mujtahids, but from about the start of the 19th century came to be used by all clerics following the creation of the title Ayatollah for top Twelver mujtahids.

 

The title Hujjatu l-Isl?m wa l-Muslim?n "Authority on Islam and Muslims) is given to middle-ranking clerics.

 

 

 

What happened is that Ruhollah Khomeini had a falling out with his original designated successor, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. Montazeri was critical of the mass killing of political prisoners in 1988 and the fatwa issued against British author Salman Rushdie. Instead of taking over for Khomeini, he was stripped of his title of Grand Ayatollah and eventually found himself under prolonged house arrest (1997-2003).

 

 

 

Because of this history, Ali Khameini's credentials to be Supreme Leader have always been suspect. Meanwhile, Montazeri's claim to be the leading Grand Ayatollah in Qom (and therefore in Iran) is strong. But Montazari is controversial. He is definitely revered by almost everyone for his religious knowledge, but he has also aligned himself more with the Reformist camp. He has been openly critical of President Ahmedinejad, for example. Had he remained impartial, the following might be more powerful.

 

 

 

Supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main rival in the disputed presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, massed in competing rallies Tuesday as the country's most senior Islamic cleric threw his weight behind opposition charges that Ahmadinejad's re-election was rigged.

 

"No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi's charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers "in the worst way possible."

 

 

 

"A government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy," he declared in comments on his official Web site. "I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to 'sell their religion,' and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God."

 

 

 

Now, McClatchy is going a bit out on a limb in calling Montazeri Iran's most senior cleric. That case can certainly be made, but it would certainly be disputed by the Supreme Leader. Moreover, Montazeri's impartiality is more than just a little open to question. Yet, in any case, Montazeri's pronouncement carries enormous weight and makes Bill Keller look like even more of fool for writing yesterday:

 

 

 

Whether his 63 percent victory is truly the will of the people or the result of fraud, it demonstrated that Mr. Ahmadinejad is the shrewd and ruthless front man for a clerical, military and political elite that is more unified and emboldened than at any time since the 1979 revolution.

 

 

 

It's one thing to be wrong. It's another to be 180? wrong. The clerical elite in Iran has never been more split. They've never seen Ali Khomeini as the rightful successor to Khomeini, and now they smell blood. One of the ironies of the Islamic Revolution is that is based on the principle of Velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists), which is an innovation of Khomeini's. In effect, the Velayat-e faqih states that the most accomplished religious scholars should rule in order to assure that Islamic principles are adhered to by legislatures and judges. Very few Grand Ayatollahs subscribe to the theory and most of them see it as a heresy. Of course, things have been complicated on that score after thirty years of guardianship in Iran, where more than half of the Grand Ayatollahs reside. Nonetheless, the very principle that justifies the Supreme Leader has always rode on a thin reed. It could come crashing down quite quickly.

 

 

 

You might think the Grand Ayatollahs would like the power and not want to give it up. The truth is, they love their religion more.

 

 

 

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/17/03040/0325

[hide=]

A history lesson:

 

 

 

There are only about thirty living marja taqlid (or Grand Ayatollahs) in the world today. Almost all of them are either Iranian or Iraqi, and all of them have been educated in Iran (mainly in Qom), Iraq (mainly in Najaf), or both. A Grand Ayatollah is distinct from an Ayatollah. Ayatollahs are normally specialists in one area of Islamic studies, like law, philosophy, or ethics. But Grand Ayatollahs demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge by publishing a resalah amaliyah (or book) detailing the answers to a broad array of religious and legal matters.

 

 

 

It's hard to rank the Grand Ayatollahs in terms of their influence. All of them have significant followings. However, Grand Ayatollahs that reside in Najaf and Qom have extra prestige. In Najaf, the Americans quickly discovered that Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani had tremendous clout and could not be ignored. In Iran, things are a bit more complicated by the history of the current Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Hosseini Khamenei. Khamenei was hand selected to succeed the founder of the Republic, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. But Khameini was technically unqualified for the position because he was not a Grand Ayatollah at the time of his succession. His technical title was Hojatoleslam wal-muslemin.

 

 

 

Hojatoleslam (from Arabic: ??? ???????? ?ujjatu l-Isl?m) is an honorific title meaning "authority on Islam" or "proof of Islam", given to Twelver Sh?ah clerics. It was originally applied only to leading mujtahids, but from about the start of the 19th century came to be used by all clerics following the creation of the title Ayatollah for top Twelver mujtahids.

 

The title Hujjatu l-Isl?m wa l-Muslim?n "Authority on Islam and Muslims) is given to middle-ranking clerics.

 

 

 

What happened is that Ruhollah Khomeini had a falling out with his original designated successor, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. Montazeri was critical of the mass killing of political prisoners in 1988 and the fatwa issued against British author Salman Rushdie. Instead of taking over for Khomeini, he was stripped of his title of Grand Ayatollah and eventually found himself under prolonged house arrest (1997-2003).

 

 

 

Because of this history, Ali Khameini's credentials to be Supreme Leader have always been suspect. Meanwhile, Montazeri's claim to be the leading Grand Ayatollah in Qom (and therefore in Iran) is strong. But Montazari is controversial. He is definitely revered by almost everyone for his religious knowledge, but he has also aligned himself more with the Reformist camp. He has been openly critical of President Ahmedinejad, for example. Had he remained impartial, the following might be more powerful.

 

 

 

Supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main rival in the disputed presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, massed in competing rallies Tuesday as the country's most senior Islamic cleric threw his weight behind opposition charges that Ahmadinejad's re-election was rigged.

 

"No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi's charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers "in the worst way possible."

 

 

 

"A government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy," he declared in comments on his official Web site. "I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to 'sell their religion,' and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God."

 

 

 

Now, McClatchy is going a bit out on a limb in calling Montazeri Iran's most senior cleric. That case can certainly be made, but it would certainly be disputed by the Supreme Leader. Moreover, Montazeri's impartiality is more than just a little open to question. Yet, in any case, Montazeri's pronouncement carries enormous weight and makes Bill Keller look like even more of fool for writing yesterday:

 

 

 

Whether his 63 percent victory is truly the will of the people or the result of fraud, it demonstrated that Mr. Ahmadinejad is the shrewd and ruthless front man for a clerical, military and political elite that is more unified and emboldened than at any time since the 1979 revolution.

 

 

 

It's one thing to be wrong. It's another to be 180? wrong. The clerical elite in Iran has never been more split. They've never seen Ali Khomeini as the rightful successor to Khomeini, and now they smell blood. One of the ironies of the Islamic Revolution is that is based on the principle of Velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists), which is an innovation of Khomeini's. In effect, the Velayat-e faqih states that the most accomplished religious scholars should rule in order to assure that Islamic principles are adhered to by legislatures and judges. Very few Grand Ayatollahs subscribe to the theory and most of them see it as a heresy. Of course, things have been complicated on that score after thirty years of guardianship in Iran, where more than half of the Grand Ayatollahs reside. Nonetheless, the very principle that justifies the Supreme Leader has always rode on a thin reed. It could come crashing down quite quickly.

 

 

 

You might think the Grand Ayatollahs would like the power and not want to give it up. The truth is, they love their religion more.

 

 

 

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/17/03040/0325

[/hide]

 

 

 

two things

 

 

 

a. can I get a small summary of iranian politics, you seem to be fairly familiar and my understanding of their government structure isnt exactly up to par

 

 

 

b. where do you go for all of your research on stuff? You seem to be the most sourced of any one that posts on here and I would greatly appreciate some links to good research sites.

That's something I hate about this country. Why is the vote of a Harvard graduate worth the same as some high school drop-out that just turned 18?

 

 

 

[hide=Yep...][/hide]

Beside what has been said already, I'll say this; haha, Iran. Biggest international migraine along with it's equally despotic and despondent neighbor, Pakistan. I mean, really. A few people start chanting in the streets ? Go back and quit [bleep], nothing is going to change. Khomeini and the Majli system is nothing but a poorly constructed sham. All the mujtahids have screwed Iran up far enough.

 

 

 

 

Thats why this protest is important. Its the first time in 30 years that the people are trying to change Iran. Not just a "few" like you mention, yesterday there was a mass of rioters five miles long. So yes, Iran has been a global migrane, thats why this is important, the people of Iran are trying to change this.

 

 

 

Unfortunatly scattered reports are coming in saying that the military HAS been mobilized by the goverment. If this rumor is true the "revolution" is over. Period. -.-

 

 

 

Yes, yes. I understand. My attempt at being humorous whilst also being somewhat crude and still conveying what I feel. My sentiment remains; nothing is going to change dramatically in such a short span of time.

There's a post on 4chan that I've replied to that strongly resembles trapical's post from earlier on this page.

 

 

 

Keeping a hobby from us trap? :lol:

 

No, the people of 4chan are just getting their info from the same place I am, Fark.com, a site that is usually sort of like Reddit or digg, but with a little more of a loyal community. Fark.com's everyday business is to link to news articles from credible sources and discuss them. Well, with no major news sites covering this, the roles have been reversed. Over thirty thousand members of Fark have devoted extraordinary time and effort into sorting through the thousands of rumors and twitters and youtube videos and everything they find of info they post in the threads. CNN, NPR, NBC, and CBC correspondants then report the news on live TV... often quoting directly from Fark. This is quite insane, Fark is a site that links news articles and talks about them... not the other way around #-o

 

 

 

Its truly outstanding, they match 4chan in terms of impact on this world event, but fark is 1/100th the size of 4chan.

 

Latest Fark thread on this issue: Don't bother reading it all, every time you refresh the page another 40 posts appear. Once the thread hits 1500 posts they make a new thread. They are on thread number 15 right now...

mmm,

 

 

 

Here's a picture you can use:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I typically make blog runs, go on Digg, and then look for articles from regular news sites.

Members of the Iranian football team showed their solidarity to the protesters by wearing green wristbands when they played South Korea. They're brave guys, making such an international show of dissent when they have to return to Iran. I have a feeling they might be arrested for this.

 

 

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 87,00.html

 

http://www.inewsit.com/photo/gallery/Ir ... of-Mousavi

That's something I hate about this country. Why is the vote of a Harvard graduate worth the same as some high school drop-out that just turned 18?

 

Because this country is all about having freedom. It will be stupid to try to and make a system for that anyways. Too much of a process and people in the end will be getting the shaft. Not everyone can go to Harvard or simply were raised up in an environment which prevented them from going to a college of such. Please don't tell me it's easy for someone from a poor neighborhood to get such an education and suddenly impressive an Ivy League school so that they get accepted. It's pretty easy to go and poke fun at these "idiots", but that is why the candidates really try to go out there and show what their viewpoints are really all about.

 

 

 

Members of the Iranian football team showed their solidarity to the protesters by wearing green wristbands when they played South Korea. They're brave guys, making such an international show of dissent when they have to return to Iran. I have a feeling they might be arrested for this.

 

 

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 87,00.html

 

http://www.inewsit.com/photo/gallery/Ir ... of-Mousavi

 

 

 

Good for them, the more attention this can get out to, the better. If this revolution succeeds or doesn't, they will be looked as heros as they try to show support in something they believed in.