Iran Security Forces Overwhelm Protesters

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 11:12:26 AM EST
Tags: Iran (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From the TimesOnline: The Iran security forces won out over the protesters:

Opposition websites said Revolutionary Guards and basiji militiamen were stationed everywhere and that they moved swiftly and violently to break up opposition demonstrations.

They claimed the security forces used live ammunition, knives, teargas and paintballs that would enable them to identify protesters later and that they were beating and arresting women as well as men. They were backed up by water canon, new Chinese anti-riot vehicles and helicopters. Some, wearing plain clothes, infiltrated the protesters. The mobile telephone, internet and text messaging systems were seriously disrupted.

[More...]

It's hard to get an accurate picture because of the media restrictions:

Most foreign journalists are banned from Iran. Those that remain, and their Iranian counterparts, were bussed to and from Azadi Square and barred from reporting on anything else, meaning only the patchiest information emerged from the rest of the city.

Some videos are here but the protest seems to be over and mostly unsuccessful.

The message from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Iran is now a “nuclear state” and not afraid of the West:

The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to build nuclear bombs we would announce it publicly without being afraid of you.”

< Will The Village Dems Be "Radicalized"? | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iran Security Forces Overwhelm Protesters | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How brave are these people? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 11:55:03 AM EST

Good lord...the Iranian tyrants make our tyrants look downright cuddly by comparison.

I'd imagine the harder the state goons crack down, the more popular support the protestors will get...its always ugliest before it gets better. I wish them all the luck in the world in making a better country for themselves. I'm in awe.

The Iranians elected (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:26:09 PM EST

a forward-looking, progressive leader fifty years ago. How did this paranoid, reactionary, circle-the-wagons state of affairs come about?

Rhetorical question of the day.


Preachin' to the choir man....:) (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:06:41 PM EST

Sadly we're making the same mistakes as we speak...Crooked Karzai anyone?

Our US foreign policy aka the definition of insanity.


The Dulles boys were busy back then (none / 0) (#9)
by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:15:17 PM EST

In 1953, the CIA deposed the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran. The Shah reigned until the revolution in 1979.

In 1954, the CIA deposed the democratically-elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz.

The issue in Iran: Oil. And, Iran was taking back its oil reserves from the Brits.

The issue in Guatemala: United Fruit Company had its fallow land taken via eminent domain at the price it had been declared for tax purposes....

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and CIA head Allen Dulles just loved getting rid of democracies that threatened big money interests....

And, the coups are still resented....not considered ancient history....And some here think regime change and bombing Iran would make the Iranians just love the U.S.


..Like people HERE would just forget (none / 0) (#10)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:24:06 PM EST

about that stuff..

Jeezus, people still have those "Hail no, we aint forgot!" bumperstickers down south.


Actually the problem for the US (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:21:09 PM EST

in 1953 was the fact that Soviets were seeking a warm water port for their naval forces as well as an export point for their oil. This was compounded by the fact India was almost a client state of the Soviets.

The Iranian government was believed to be willing to allow this.

So we blocked the Soviets for 26 years until Carter became the God father of radical Muslim terrorism by withdrawing support for the Shah and allowing the radicals to take power.

Was the Shah a nasty? As compared to us, yes.

As compared to the Islamic theocracy that replaced him, no. That is especially true when women and gay rights are considered.


If only paint companies (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:01:08 PM EST

could whip up whitewash, exterior glosses like that.

The domestic activities of Savak under the Shah were what, just slightly worse than what we're used to here in the U.S?


I wonder if those indivuals (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 04:11:13 PM EST

worried about warm water ports were the same people who thought it might be a good idea to stage terrorist attacks here in the U.S in order to stimulate sympathy for an invasion of Cuba.

Definitely coming from the same school of 'thought'.


So according to you (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:59:28 PM EST

Faking terrorist attacks is the same as opposing the Soviets desire for a warm water Asian port...

jondee, I think you have become a "truther" if you actually believe that people were to be killed, etc.


Give you Operation Northwoods (none / 0) (#20)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 09:28:33 PM EST

signed on by the Head of the Joint Chiefs.

Look it up.

Warm water port. Funny, the main reason that I've heard stated - repeatedly - was Mossedeq's stepping on British Patroleum's toes. The way Arbenz stepped on United Fruit's toes.

Sounds like you swallowed whole-hog that the-reds -are-coming cover story.


Oh, really? (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 09:35:58 PM EST

Here's what one site has to say about Operation Northwoods:

In a recent development, the BBC is reporting that the transcript of a phone call made by Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls shows that the flight attendant gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, seat numbers which were NOT the seats of the men the FBI claimed were responsible for the hijacking!

That's "truther" stuff and I don't think I would believe very much of what they have to say.


Your snippett (none / 0) (#23)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:10:33 PM EST

has exactly nothing to do with the Operation Northwoods discussed by the Joint Chiefs in the early sixties.

Im not a "truther" and never was. Though that suggestion is rather laughable coming from someone who's still talking about birth certificates and the President being a Muslim on his website.


: That was for Gen Jack D Ripper (none / 0) (#24)
by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:12:04 PM EST

: Go back and read the link. (none / 0) (#27)
%%norm_font%