Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2009

Iranian Violence Escalates (Updated)

Filed under: International — DRJ @ 5:33 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Instapundit links a PJTV interview with Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, an Iranian activist and Brooklyn NY-based founder of Iran Press, who says the violence in Tehran has escalated. This is my transcript of a portion of Zand-Bonazzi’s report from an Iranian blogger:

“What they were hearing is more gunshots, except this time on top of the gunshots they were taking axes to people. They were actually slashing people, breaking people’s legs, breaking people’s arms. It’s just turned into one of the most awful and, you know, like a massacre type of thing — to the point where …

Actually, then later on, some of the people who had managed to get home were on the phone with CNN and they were describing the scene. And this poor girl was wailing and begging for help and I think you have that clip. [Crosstalk.] It turned into a bloodbath, basically.”

If the details of this report are true and photos/video are released, this would be a dramatic escalation that will likely have an impact on Western opinion.

Hot Air also has a report with the CNN link.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a number of links.

— DRJ

66 Responses to “Iranian Violence Escalates (Updated)”

  1. I keep saying, first you get the mullahs … the rest will figure itself out.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  2. What will Obambi say?

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  3. Hate to plug the SOB, but Sullivan has a photo of someone axed to death on his blog. They aren’t making it up, and its every bit as disturbing as you think its gonna be.

    Sean P (e57269)

  4. Sean P,

    I don’t have time right now but if you have the Sullivan link, please feel free to add it. He’s done a good job covering this story.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  5. Obama’s waiting, in his words, to see how things play out. Someone in the media needs to ask him whether he thinks the debate has intensified.

    I no longer think Obama is navie or stupid. I think he’s evil and banal.

    Terry Gain (6b2a64)

  6. *naive* damnit

    Terry Gain (6b2a64)

  7. Hundreds of thousands of people were equally massacred with axes and machetes in Darfur, and where was the outrage? Do we need to see photos to be outraged? Or is it Darfur is not relevant for US Interests?

    oderfla (54581b)

  8. oderfla, now that you’ve spammed multiple threads, try to make your point more coherent. By the way, you do know that Sudan has been subject to quite a bit in the way of US sanctions don’t you? Do you even know where Darfur is? Or are you just rummaging in a grabbag of faux issues to distract the thread?

    And then you can explain how failing to act in one place requires that the US fail to act everywhere. I’m sure it will be an amusing system of logic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. likely have an impact on Western opinion.

    Isn’t western opinion already pretty much unanimously that the current regime are a bunch of violent thugs who don’t adhere to their own constitution, and are using force to stay in power against the will of their own people?

    aphrael (4163e2)

  10. aphrael,

    That can’t be a pretty much unanimous western opinion because who would even consider sitting down for unconditional talks with such a regime?

    😉

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  11. Isn’t western opinion already pretty much unanimously that the current regime are a bunch of violent thugs who don’t adhere to their own constitution, and are using force to stay in power against the will of their own people?

    But that’s just how Barry Soetoro likes his men. Mayor Daley trained him well.

    nk (d78a32)

  12. I blame Obama for the escalation of the violence. Exactly what he predicted would happen by meddling in Iranian affairs by talking mean about their leaders has happened. Why did he have to flip flop again?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  13. Stashiu3: 🙂

    I would certainly consider it. There are times when it is in our national interest to talk to terrible regimes whom we really really don’t like, because we have some important interest which will be advanced by doing so. It was in our interest to talk to Stalin during WW2; it was in our interest to talk to the Soviets during the era of detente, and to China during the 1980s.

    That said, because i’m not an ideologue :), my position on Iran has been shifting over the last several weeks; it’s no longer clear to me that our interest in talking with Iran outweighs the harm it might do to the people of Iran. I’ve always been at least moderately pro-Iran – in the sense that I think that the regime, as originally constructed, enjoyed popular legitimacy, and that we should respect that legitimacy (and that much of American opposition to Iran was the result of hurt feelings left over from 1979-1980).

    I think it’s clear now that the regime doesn’t enjoy popular legitimacy within Iran (although given the rhetoric of the protesters, the revolution still does), and I would vastly prefer for us not to have anything to do with them. And yet at the same time: we’re at war in two of their neighbors, so maybe we need to talk to them, in order to secure the success of our actions there.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  14. oderfla – Is Darfur developing nuclear weapons, promoting the destruction of Israel, sponsoring terrorists, killing U.S. soldiers, threatening regional peace and our interests? Please explain the similarities apart from the interest of Hollywood celebrities in Darfur.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  15. Daleyrocks: I think you’re oversimplifying what the fear was about taking sides.

    The Iranian regime is going to great lengths to portray the whole thing as the result of American and British meddling … down to the level of faked confessions blaming the whole thing on the BBC and the VOA.

    Some number of people are going to be persuaded by that … and those people may be large enough in number to swing the outcome in Iran one way or the other. Making a great show of non-intervention and respecting the sovereignty of Iran, etc, may reduce the number of people who are persuaded by the regime’s argument. Making a great show of denunciation and opposition, on the other hand, would increase the credibility of the regime’s argument … and thereby undermine the very people we want to help.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  16. Daleyrocks lays it out plainly. He doesn’t care about massacres of innocents per se, he just pretends to care when people he already dislikes are doing it. That’s why nobody takes people like Daleyrocks seriously.

    Brolic Johnson (280b11)

  17. Aphrael – …so maybe we need to talk to them, in order to secure the success of our actions there.

    The problems with talking to them at this point are:

    1) There is no ‘them’ to talk to anymore, since the rigged election and the abuse of the demonstrators have been denounced by many in the very upper echelons of power. Whichever side you talk to, you are making powerful enemies – securing no success in the process.

    2) It is a very shortsighted argument to assume that the regime will emerge from this unscathed, and that meeting with them will not undermine future relationships should they eventually fall, again, securing success only temporarily, if at all.

    3) Establishing a dialogue with an illegitimate leadership ties our hands in how we deal with them regarding proliferation. Any action is now compromised, as we have established that proliferation isn’t punishable by isolation, and simultaneously any actions that we undertake will be viewed as punishing a large section of the population that does not support the violations. A lose-lose.

    Sorry, but I can see no good in dealing with these people, especially now that the suppression of the people is available for the world to see. What worked in the 1940’s with Stalin will not work now.

    It is a different time.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  18. I’m fine with talking… my problem with the administration position is stating that the talks would be unconditional. I agree there are hard feelings from 79-80. I share those feelings deeply. Part of the conditions for talks should include consequences for violation of sovereign soil, kidnapping, assault, torture, etc… in connection with the embassy takeover.

    I don’t think any show of non-intervention will affect things in Iran at all. They’ll just make them up, as you alluded to. That’s not to say we should intervene in any way either. Condemning governmental murder, torture, and repression should be the default position. Taking the side against that is not intervening and should be a no-brainer. Worries that the regime will use it as justification are baseless because they don’t use truth as justification, just propaganda. We’re not going to stop that from happening no matter how careful we are.

    Someone in an earlier thread said it best. Something about how it’s sad that France stood up for what’s right before we did.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  19. There is no ‘them’ to talk to anymore, since the rigged election and the abuse of the demonstrators have been denounced by many in the very upper echelons of power

    Right. This wasn’t true two months ago, but I think you are correct that it is true now.

    shortsighted argument to assume that the regime will emerge from this unscathed

    I hope the regime falls.

    And I agree that we shouldn’t talk now.

    But we can’t continue refusing to talk for five years; at some point we have to reassess.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  20. Here’s an article for anyone interested in knowledgeable analysis of the situation rather than stupid talking points from barely-literate morons.

    Brolic Johnson (280b11)

  21. aphrael,

    I think it’s unfairly minimizing the situation to describe U.S.-Iran relations as based on “hurt feelings” because of Iran’s actions in 1979. Iran committed an act of war by kidnapping and holding American diplomats for almost a year, something that was virtually unthinkable at the time. For many Americans, it was so upsetting that public sentiment reminds me of the way people felt after 9/11. Thirty years of terrorism and bombings make Iran’s 1979 acts seem tame by comparison, but it doesn’t change the fact that those actions damaged international diplomacy and promoted terrorism as a viable state option.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  22. Brolic Johnson,

    We’ve been talking about the issues raised in your link for 2-3 days.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  23. Stashiu3, the problem with conditional talks in this context is that such conditions come across as an ultimatum: do what we want, or we won’t talk to you … and the odds are that the people presented with that ultimatum will just say “f*ck you” and walk away.

    I’m pretty frustrated with the discussion about how we should have said more about Iran, sooner, because I think that a lot of the discussion is actually driven by a concern about how America appears in the world: that it’s a shame that we aren’t being the standard-bearer for freedom and democracy … and not being driven by a concern about what is best for the people of Iran.

    This is frustrating; in this time, what concerns me is how we can help the brave men and women who are standing up for themselves against the might of the Iranian regime … and I really, really, really couldn’t care less about how we look in the process.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  24. Making a great show of denunciation and opposition, on the other hand, would increase the credibility of the regime’s argument … and thereby undermine the very people we want to help.

    Especially the ones being chopped up with axes by the militias.

    nk (d78a32)

  25. DRJ: that’s fair; I don’t remember those days, so it’s hard for me to estimate what popular feeling was like.

    That said, I also think we need to let it go, and make decisions about how to interact with the Iranian regime based upon the events of today, and our interests today and in the future, rather than on the events of thirty years ago.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  26. NK: at the end of the day, the people being chopped up with axes by the militias will only win if the regime falls. I think everything the US says and does on the subject, for now, should be said and done only after considering whether the statement or action will hasten the fall of the regime or will delay it.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  27. I’d agree with you, aphrael, but the same people/groups govern Iran now who ran it then. Even if I were willing to forget what happened, I don’t trust them to negotiate in good faith.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  28. DRJ: three weeks ago I would have trusted them to negotiate in good faith.

    Today? not so much.

    aphrael (4163e2)

  29. aphrael @15 – My comment was not intended to be taken seriously by commenters such as yourself. It was merely bait for the flamers such as DCSCA and our new friend Brolic. Sorry you did not see that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  30. Why do they need to negotiate? What is there for them to negotiate? They have what they want.

    nk (d78a32)

  31. aphrael,

    I wish we knew what to do to hasten the fall of the regime. The problem is that we’re not talking about a situation like the New York Times/media agreement to keep quiet about a reporter’s kidnapping to protect his safety. With so many people, groups and nations and so many variables within each, it’s almost impossible to forecast what will result from specific words and acts.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  32. Seriously, what does Iran need negotiate right now?

    nk (d78a32)

  33. DRJ,

    It was over a year… 444 days which ended 20 minutes after President Reagan was sworn in.

    aphrael,

    Not all ultimatums are bad. If they walk away based on those, fine. Ignoring the actions of thugs and murderers just because they are in power is not diplomacy, it’s appeasement. Until there are consequences for the embassy takeover, I don’t care if it takes 100 years until we talk to them again. Those were our people, on our soil, no different than a group of terrorists taking over a State Capitol Building for 444 days.

    We can express our support for revolution by the Iranian people, but until it happens, that should be it. The current government must be removed before we can legitimately sit down and talk without conditions. A new government may be even worse, I don’t know (look at what happened when the Shah was deposed). We won’t know that until it happens. If a new government is as bad as the current one (or worse), then we deal with them accordingly. The current government is a no-go however. They committed an act of war and have never paid the price for that. We shouldn’t have anything to do with them until that price is paid.

    Speaking only for myself, I’m not willing to “let it go”.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  34. #16 is a moron alert.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  35. Aphrael – three weeks ago I would have trusted them to negotiate in good faith.
    Today? not so much.

    So were you wrong or did they change? Either way it’s something to think about, and reinforces DRJ’s point.

    what concerns me is how we can help the brave men and women who are standing up for themselves against the might of the Iranian regime … and I really, really, really couldn’t care less about how we look in the process.

    I’m in complete agreement, however, I feel it is a false assumption to conflate our support of Rule by Consent of the People with a narcissistic self aggrandizement.
    Remember, the regime held elections, and by doing so showed that the hardliners are also very concerned about their self-image reflecting Rule by Consent of the People, even if they have no intention of actually carrying it out.

    They are pretending to do what we ourselves stand for, and they’ve been caught cheating. Without legitimacy, they have no right to rule. This isn’t some esoteric western based patriotic idea we’re forcing on them. By their actions they’ve shown that they also believe and accept that conclusion as fact.

    We, along with the rest of the world aren’t demanding an outcome – we’re demanding legitimacy, something with which the hard-liners pretend to agree.

    That is their weak point, and everyone except President Obama seems to understand this. It’s not how we look in the process, but how they look, and right now they don’t look good. There’s no reason to be quiet about that.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  36. “We, along with the rest of the world aren’t demanding an outcome – we’re demanding legitimacy, something with which the hard-liners pretend to agree.”

    Apogee – Exactly, so next time when if the existing government survives and Imadamnutjob starts talking to the U.N. again about how he believes so much in truth and justice for everyone, the audience can just break out in unrestrained laughter.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  37. Are any of our liberal friends going to apologize to GWB for mocking his “Axis of Evil” comment.

    Boy we heard it from the MSM and Libards about how GWB was a generalizing simpleton who was creating bogeymen but….

    If I read the NYT correctly 2 of 3 are making Obambi’s FP life miserable.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  38. Stash,

    It was 444 days. I was thinking 344 days but you are absolutely right. Thank you.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  39. Also waiting for the apology with regard to the Middle East Democracy Domino Theory that started with Iraq.

    1) Iraq
    2) Lebanon
    3) Iran??
    4) ???

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  40. Mussavi’s call for boycotting shopping says it all. He needs the military to break his way. Otherwise, just call him Alexander Dubcek.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  41. The show Nightline began as Day 1 of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Once Reagan took office and the crisis was over, the show’s name was changed to Nightline.

    kimsch (2ce939)

  42. The insincerity of the current regime is clear in history, and is now again grotesquely confirmed. What is the point of talking, much less negotiating, with someone whose word is known to be worthless? The guys with the axes are the same bunch who kidnapped our people.

    If you have ever dealt with criminals, you know most will say whatever they think will work to achieve the goal at hand, if they are sane enough. There is always a justification for their behavior, usually based on someone else’s behavior. Often they even believe in it themselves.

    I didn’t see much point in talking to them a couple weeks ago. Now, the notion is not only repugnant, but ludicrous. What would we hope to gain? Would it be enough if they said they like us? How would we know we gained it? If they promised it, what would you bet on them keeping the promise? What shall we give them if they promise to be nice to their citizens? A cookie? A pat on the back from Teh One?

    The purpose of diplomacy is not looking like nice guys, but achieving goals in the interest of the US. Not the world, or not until after US interests are met. To speak with them without achievable goals is to take risks for no discernable reward. I see little to gain, lots to lose.

    If Obama doesn’t back down from his 4th of July plans for partying with the Iranians, I for one will be angry (angrier, I’m already angry at all the other cr*p). The idea of celebrating the 4th of July with these guys is way beyond nauseating.

    jodetoad (617c49)

  43. Aphrael – Why would you assume good faith 3 weeks ago?

    JD (07e55f)

  44. just saw this – thank God for small favors.

    Confirmed: Iran no longer invited …

    jodetoad (617c49)

  45. Iran committed an act of war by kidnapping and holding American diplomats for almost a year, something that was virtually unthinkable at the time. For many Americans, it was so upsetting that public sentiment reminds me of the way people felt after 9/11.

    It was 444 days. And public sentiment was anxiety and angst, not the fuming anger– and fear, fermented by 9/11. Indeed my framed up copy of the Union Tribune has the freeing of the hostages headlines above the inauguration of President Reagan. Imagine that. But it benefits neither nation to keep picking at that scab and going tit-for-tat with Iran back along the calendar of transgressions each has done to the other. If Americans used that as a basis for diplomacy, we’d not have Japanese cars on our roads or German beer in our stores. There’s a fresh generation in Iran to cultivate and work with. They are the focus of President Obama and American foreign policy. The crack in the foundation is visible. Iran will collapse under its own weight on its own time.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  46. “Are any of our liberal friends going to apologize to GWB for mocking his “Axis of Evil” comment.”

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting, if I was you.

    Dave Surls (26f76e)

  47. Anyone see ABC’s Obamercial on “Healthcare?”

    I love how telling Doctors and Health Care Providers “LOWER YOUR PRICES” equates to a policy.

    I’m sorry … outcome based reimbursement which only increases health care costs even if did work since if you live longer, you spend longer while working a smaller percentage of your life..

    Frankly, my $$$$-Saving Health Plan comes with FREE Drugs, Smokes, Alchohol and Prostitution.

    By cutting 10 years off the average males life (and some off a females) you would lower health care spending since we die sooner, not collect SSI and lower our Carbon Footprint.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  48. But it benefits neither nation to keep picking at that scab and going tit-for-tat with Iran back along the calendar of transgressions each has done to the other.

    So, after Pearl Harbor, that tit for tat stuff, like the battle of Midway, was wrong ? We are at war with this regime, troll.

    If Americans used that as a basis for diplomacy, we’d not have Japanese cars on our roads or German beer in our stores.

    They lost the war, troll !

    There’s a fresh generation in Iran to cultivate and work with.

    Obama is seeking to “work with” the regime that is killing them with axes in the streets.

    They are the focus of President Obama and American foreign policy.

    No, the regime that is killing them is the focus of Obama’s foreign policy. Don’t you read ?

    The crack in the foundation is visible. Iran will collapse under its own weight on its own time.

    Comment by DCSCA

    Yes, just like the USSR collapsed of its own weight and Reagna had nothing to do with it. Eh, troll ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  49. Mike K,

    I wish you had finished each statement of yours with Troll.

    You broke pattern there and it got me off sorts.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  50. “And public sentiment was anxiety and angst, not the fuming anger”

    My recollection is different, nimrod. I remember the anger and since Jimmuh didn’t have the sand to do anything about the situation and screwed up his one rescue attempt by micromanaging it, the Iranians had no incentive to release the hostages. Reagan, however, scared the shit out of them, which is why the release coincided with his inauguration.

    Nice try at revisionist history, pops.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  51. Terry: Welcome to the club.

    we’ll make sure you have a fair share of the rations when Ear Leader puts us in the pen.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  52. I think The Big O wants the Iranians to buy our T-bills to pay for all his programs, and then we can treat their government the same way we treat the Chinese.

    Horatio (55069c)

  53. Stash @ #18 – That was me 😉

    JD (46cf2b)

  54. DRJ, at 31: I don’t think we do know how to hasten the fall of the regime, alas.

    Stashiu, at 33: do you feel similarly about, say, the government of Vietnam? Or was the act of war in Iran somehow worse?

    My point is: we sign treaties with people we’ve been at war with all of the time. What makes Iran different?

    Apogee, at 35: I was wrong.

    I don’t think I’m conflating support of rule by consent of the people with narcissistic self-aggrandizement; i’m saying that being more concerned with appearing to support the people than we are with whether our actions help or hinder them is narcisstic self-aggrandizement.

    That is to say: I have no problem with the argument “we should loudly declare our support for the protesters because it will help them” (I mean, I think it’s incorrect, but it’s within the realm of reasonable argument). I do have a problem with the argument “we should declare our support for the protesters because we’re America and that’s what America is supposed to do”, at least insofar as that argument takes no notice of what the effect on the ground will be.

    HeavenSent, at 37: since my problem with the ‘axis of evil’ comment was always the implication that the countries were somehow working together, the way the Rome-Berlin Axis was, I see no reason to apologize; there’s still no evidence of that kind of collusion. Three seperate, independent, evils do not constitute an axis.

    DCSCA, at 40: yes. the tragic thing, in my mind, is that right now it looks like the revolt will fail.

    Mike K, at 48: we’re ast war with Iran? Since when?

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  55. Iran’s president is no fool. Ruthless, yea, and cuckoo too. But certainly clear-sighted enough to observe the behavior of the guy in the Oval Office — to be aware of his kum-bah-yah sentiments and naivete — and to play him for all he’s worth. To play him like a cheap violin.

    Reuters – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor towards Iran and said there was not much point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologised.

    “Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former president George W.) Bush used to say,” the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

    “Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about … I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he said.

    Mark (411533)

  56. aphrael,

    Good point about Vietnam, I’ll have to do some thinking about that. I don’t have the visceral reaction to them that I do with Iran. Despite what the serial fabulist claims, the country was very angry during the hostage crisis in Iran. I was too young to really understand Vietnam back then.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  57. aphrael, we’re at war with the government of IRan in the same way we’re at war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, and the Taliban. Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, according to the US Government. The US government is pronouncedly at war with terrorism sponsors.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  58. I’m not sure what constitutes a country being officially “at war” with another, but considering that we haven’t had an active embassy there for quite some time would seem to indicate some level of hostilities were engaged, does it not?

    Also, when said country continually calls you “The Great Satan” for the better part of 30 years, and when the other country’s head of state responds in kind by calling it part of “the axis of evil,” does that not also indicate a state of war? It’s really a matter of semantics for those who feel otherwise, IMHO.

    Dmac (f7884d)

  59. Mike K, at 48: we’re at war with Iran?
    Aphrael at 54: Since when?

    Since the mid 80’s.

    From Worldfacts: During 1980-88, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive war with Iraq that eventually expanded into the Persian Gulf and led to clashes between US Navy and Iranian military forces between 1987 and 1988.

    From parstimes [quoting Ronald Regan’s statement, Oct 10, 1987]: Acting pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief, United States naval vessels at 7 a.m. e.d.t. today struck an Iranian military platform in international waters in the central Persian Gulf. This platform has been used to assist in a number of Iranian attacks against nonbelligerent shipping.

    From parstimes [strike in the Persian Gulf, Apr 10, 1988]: Acting under his authority as Commander in Chief, the President has directed United States forces at 1 a.m. eastern daylight time today to strike Iranian military targets in the southern Persian Gulf. Our forces attacked oil platforms at Sirri and Sassan in the southern Gulf. These platforms are used as command and control radar stations for the Iranian military. The attacks are underway at this time.

    From Vanguard [video, warning — focus on US support of JPAK, Oct 23, 2008]: Is the U.S. already at war with Iran? In “America’s Secret War in Iran,” Vanguard correspondent Mariana van Zeller travels to the Iraq-Iran border to investigate claims that the United States is supporting militant groups that are attacking Iran.

    In between these dates, there has been enormous activity.

    Yeah, we have been (since the 80’s) and are at war with Iran. Our war has largely been waged by proxies.

    There have been…a few exceptions.

    Pons Asinorum (b26ed0)

  60. Aphrael – That is to say: I have no problem with the argument “we should loudly declare our support for the protesters because it will help them” (I mean, I think it’s incorrect, but it’s within the realm of reasonable argument). I do have a problem with the argument “we should declare our support for the protesters because we’re America and that’s what America is supposed to do”, at least insofar as that argument takes no notice of what the effect on the ground will be.

    I do have a problem with ‘loudly declaring our support for the protesters’, because that is, in fact, incorrect.

    We don’t support ‘protesters’. We support the same thing that the hardliners say they support – legitimate rule by consent of the people – as demonstrated by their holding an election.

    Due to recent events, there is now a huge question of the legitimacy of the government of Iran – and the violent suppression of the protesters only reinforces the notion that the current government is illegitimate – and in fact this notion of illegitimacy is echoed by many high ranking religious and political leaders inside Iran.

    The violent suppression originates from within Iran, and it is occurring because the faction currently in power is attempting to create an atmosphere that appears legitimate, because legitimacy can only originate from outside Iran, and the rulers know this.

    The violence and legitimacy are intertwined, and that is our key to effective interaction.

    Legitimacy is their weak link, and they can’t gain it through violence.

    Echoing that obvious assertion is how the United States can help the victims of political oppression in Iran, and it requires nothing more than reasserting our inherent beliefs. It’s not what we’re supposed to do, it’s what we are, and it’s the one way that we can actually help those people.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  61. The Mullahocracy, when it allowed (if indeed it did not actively plan and promote) the takeover of the U.S.Embassy in Tehran, committed an Act of War against sovereign territory of the United States of America, and the Citizens of that country contained within; a country that was not engaged in beligerant action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in fact, had been sympathetic with its’ ideals.
    Normally, when one country engages in an act of war against another, a State of War commences – one that continues until the two parties come to some formal, binding agreement that concludes that condition.
    This State of War has continued now for almost thirty-years.

    AD - RtR/OS! (438904)

  62. “My point is: we sign treaties with people we’ve been at war with all of the time. What makes Iran different?”

    Why would we want to make a treaty with a country that:

    1. is implacably hostile to the United States

    2. refuses to cease its bad behavior (like supporting terrorists)

    3. we can beat the living tar out of any time we feel like making the effort.

    Dave Surls (b2c10d)

  63. Any opinions on the cyberwar that’s brewing between snot-nosed kids at 4chan (VERY NSFW), hacker group Anonymous and the government of Iran?

    I’d post a direct link to “iran . why we protest . net” but I’m newish here and don’t want to look like a spammer. Remove the spaces and observe history in the making. Terrifying history, driven by a need for free “pr0n”, “for the lulz”.

    In my (very) humble opinion, this is the history in the making in this scenario, not the unfortunate and terrible atrocities. Sadly, those are all too mundane.

    Harvey M Anderson (a664fb)

  64. #54:

    Respectfully, I’d say our signing treaties with countries we’re at war with consistently is as surprising as finding something in the last place you look: treaties are the things signed at the end of wars, so (afaik), every war ends in a treaty,

    Sorry to cherry-pick your argument, just saw an analogy and wanted to go for it.

    Harvey M Anderson (a664fb)

  65. Drat, I mis-characterized Anonymous. They are not in this “for the lulz”… that’s the 4chan kids I was trying (and failing) to refer to above

    Harvey M Anderson (a664fb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1202 secs.