Iran Security Forces Overwhelm Protesters

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.


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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    It's all over Op NW. And that's my point. Northwood is being used by the "truther" as part of his argument.

    I have this BS filter when it comes to paranoid rantings.


    You should have a b.s (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    filter when it comes to paranoid rantings, but no one introduced "truthers" into the conversation but you.

    Now, if you could just apply that filter to that birther - secret muslim stuff, someone might start taking you seriously.


    The fact is that (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 09:58:34 AM EST
    my link goes to a site that has Northwood as a lead in followed by a "truther" bit.

    Believing that the US government was involved in 9/11 is paranoid. Believing that Northwood ever had a chance of happening is also paranoid.

    If you understood my "birther" position you would know that it is simple.

    If I was Obama I would release my birth certificate and show the birthers to be fools. That he has not I find curious.

    And thanks for the personal attack. I was wondering when you would get there.

    Now, you can have the last word. I'm not going to get into a snit with you.


    Being concerned that something (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    might be carried out that the Joint Chiefs have given the greenlight to is "paranoid"? lol

    Lets see, you tried to connect what people here were discussing with the "truther" movement, and then, when someone mentions that you've been pushing the birther line, it's a "personal attack".

    Physician heal thy self.


    The question is, (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    whose truth will you tell?

    The issue was national security. Eisenhower got it right. Carter blew it.



    Credible does not mean (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 06:06:15 PM EST
    accurate and I too use Wiki. But I have found enough errors and incomplete entries to know that while useful for what most of us use it for we should also understand its limitations.

    If recognizing that be poisoning the well make mine hemlock.



    Two points (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    1. I care not a flip as to the "hows" of placing the Shah in power. We could ill afford to have Iran as a client state of the Soviets.

    That oil was involved in the mix is not surprising.

    And the real story is that it worked for 26 years until Carter midwifed the birth of today's radical Muslim terrorism.

    2. The key word in the Wiki link regarding the NW plan is "draft." That there are idiots in the US government who would would plan/discuss such a thing is not surprising.

    The fact is it didn't get implemented.

    Also, when it comes to Wiki, many schools will not accept it as an authoritative source.


    Making spy master Richard Helms (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    Ambassador to country already up in arms about being spied on and manipulated, wasnt exactly a genius move either.

    No one said it was Harvard (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    my point was that Wiki is not recognized as 100% accurate. As for the people on the blog, since I have only been commenting here for 7 years I had no idea.

    And oil in 1953 was not the issue it was in 1979.

    Carter's mistakes are legion. But he could have easily blocked what happened.


    The "issue", which you (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    dont get to dictate for everyone else here, is the historical context of the events occurring in Iran today -- which didnt just begin with the activities of some wingnut talk radio whipping boy.

    Your spiritual ancestors, in the service once again of short-term interests and the major shareholders, in 1953 overthrew a democratically elected, progressive leader and installed a thug and now everyone is reaping the whirlwind.


    American cold war jihadists (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:19:01 PM EST
    back then would never sacrifice American lives in the service of their cause..

    Glad you are concerned about women (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    and gay rights....

    You re-state the realpolitik of Kissinger....

    But bad stuff happens when you depose democracies....the irony of course is that the hope is that a democracy now flourishes in Iran...

    All kinds of things were believed by the Dulles boys while they were on their crusade to topple democracies....They were so very, very wrong about Guatemala....


    Carter also cut-off aid (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    to the military dictatorship in Guatemala; or, actually conditioned such aid on improvements in human rights that the dictatorship found unacceptable.....Reagan reversed course and genocide resulted....

    Carter's foreign policy was very good.


    Ah Jimmy, the Left hardly knows (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:54:53 PM EST

    Or perhaps they just don't want to know you.

    Anyway you slice it the Shah was no worse than what Carter greased the skids for and at least the Shah could have been influenced to do better.

    Carter's replacement rulers, aka radical Muslims, could not be influenced and we are living with the result this very day.

    And as much as I dislike Kissinger, he was right about some things.


    Funny though (none / 0) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    How this sort of stuff is never broughtup and into the discussion  of "why they might hate us". It's always all about how they hate our freedoms and not how we deprived them of theirs.

    Part of the conspiracy of silence (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    stupidity, and (most importantly) fear. Be very afraid. Or else.

    Not afraid of the west (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    Good, don't be.  Now go run your country into the ground.  Pres. Ahmaf*ckinidiot makes Dubya look like Thoreau.  Best thing we could do is let these morons dig their own grave.

    You wonder if this why (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    the Dubyas never go away in this country. Because we can always rely on people like that Persian Maynard C Crebs to make them look like Thoreau.

    Partly (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    And all the more reason to lead by prosperous and egalitarian domestic example instead of by reactionary and militarist example.  

    Aint it the truth (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    The struggle continues (none / 0) (#4)
    by Babel 17 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    I have some good links that are leftover from when I was keeping tabs on the election debacle.



    (the above often has links to video you won't see in the MSM)


    Current news plus some "sticky" threads that are old but offer impressive background.


    links must be in html format or they skew the site (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    Please post them correctly or I have to delete your comments as I can't edit them. Thanks.

    It is a small hope (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 01:53:32 AM EST
    I'm told a lot of sociologists have our only real hope in the current clash of cultures pinned to what is happening in Iran and an awakening of sorts.  It is hard to watch though what these people are going through.  I'm told that if we injected ourselves in any way we will only sully the process and what is gained can be considered an invalid result by those who would want it to be so.  All we can do is watch, and hope, and I suppose pray if we are the praying sort.