Interesting times in Iran..

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

not me. Persian girls are beautiful

Probably less so after they get smacked around by baton-wielding thugs, I imagine.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty big news concerning the possibility of a revolution. It appears the current regime has issues now with some members of the Revolutionary guard organizing to back the opposition. This creates a MUCH bigger threat to the regime than the protesters, though it is likely to bolster the protester as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...arrested-iran/

In addition, supporters of the current winner will be holding a rally at 3 PM in the same place that an opposition protest was already scheduled for 5 PM. Could be a collision of forces.

Large explosions have been reported at university dorms and police headquarters in northern Iran in the past few hours. No exact counts other than 'many dead'.

Should be another interesting day to watch.

[Flasch186]

when you say watch.....where can you 'watch'? Twitter?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

when you say watch.....where can you 'watch'? Twitter?

I've been watching Andrew Sullivan's website along with the Huffington Post updates. Both sites are posting updates, video, and twitter info every 15-20 minutes throughout the day. They've done a great job providing a wealth of information. I know you're not a fan of getting information from partisan blogs, but I think it's been great thus far. I commend them for their coverage.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I am very thankful that this thread has avoided the partisan sniping so far.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I am very thankful that this thread has avoided the partisan sniping so far.

Pictures of scantily-clad Persians has that calming effect on people.

Anyone else notice that they delayed last night's Twitter update until this afternoon to allow the opposition to continue to communicate without interruption today? Even issued a press release noting that they were supporting the opposition's efforts with the delay. Shows the far reaching effect of technology.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Pictures of scantily-clad Persians has that calming effect on people.

Anyone else notice that they delayed last night's Twitter update until this afternoon to allow the opposition to continue to communicate without interruption today? Even issued a press release noting that they were supporting the opposition's efforts with the delay. Shows the far reaching effect of technology.

yeah - i saw that. A+ to Twitter - and they've finally demonstrated a way in which they can actually be...useful

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I am very thankful that this thread has avoided the partisan sniping so far.

Not sure how this could turn partisan anyway.... It's not as if anyone here supports Ahmadinejad

Although I've seen some right-wing sites saying Obama is showing weakness in this situation.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You underestimate how much they dislike him. You have to remember that during the boom in oil prices a couple years ago, Iran still had a horrible economy (while every other Middle East country thrived). Their financial problems are bad and have been going on for a long time.

In my opinion you're overestimating it. As I understand it, most of his support is in the rural areas of the country (they're busing people in from there to have rallies of their own). 75% of the country is considered rural. I don't doubt that his popularity is lowest in the big cities and especially Tehran, I don't doubt that he got less than 62% of the vote, but I find it hard to believe he would receive less than 14%.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JAG

In my opinion you're overestimating it. As I understand it, most of his support is in the rural areas of the country (they're busing people in from there to have rallies of their own). 75% of the country is considered rural. I don't doubt that his popularity is lowest in the big cities and especially Tehran, I don't doubt that he got less than 62% of the vote, but I find it hard to believe he would receive less than 14%.

I'd be curious to know how much his rural support has eroded as he's essentially been a populist that really hasn't delivered much. Just saw a documentary the other night (obviously slanted against him) that was based on this.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by lungs

Not sure how this could turn partisan anyway.... It's not as if anyone here supports Ahmadinejad

Although I've seen some right-wing sites saying Obama is showing weakness in this situation.

You might be surprised. On another board, the Iran thread has devolved into Obama's-not-doing-enough/Ahmanijad-is-not-much-worse-than-Bush/McCain-would-have-nuked-Iran-had-he-won bullshit.

As annoying as political threads here can be at times, it can be even worse.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'd be curious to know how much his rural support has eroded as he's essentially been a populist that really hasn't delivered much. Just saw a documentary the other night (obviously slanted against him) that was based on this.

Hopefully we'll have the chance to see a 'more legit' election and find that out.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

http://twitter.com/BreakingNews

I have no idea who these guys are, but after following them for a few days they do get accurate information out quickly.

They're reporting that a pro-Ahmadinejad and a pro-Mousavi rally have gathered near each other.

[DaddyTorgo]

[DaddyTorgo]

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JAG

Here's a different opinion on that:

Bear in mind that there are many layers to the government and power structure in Iran. I think it's possible some members of the Guardian Council helped rig the election (or turned a blind eye) without Khatemi's knowledge. Possible.

If they did, though, Lord help them. I can't imagine Khatemi is going to be happy with people who put him in the position of having to come out in public and sort this mess out.

The above is pure, pure speculation, though, and continues to be based mostly on the premise that I simply can't understand why Khatemi himself would see the need to rig an election that's already, for all intents and purposes, rigged.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I simply can't understand why Khatemi himself would see the need to rig an election that's already, for all intents and purposes, rigged.

+1

that's why he almost can't have rigged it. it makes zero sense

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

+1

that's why he almost can't have rigged it. it makes zero sense

Successful revolution or not... heads will roll.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

+1

that's why he almost can't have rigged it. it makes zero sense

Sometimes people do things that don't make sense. Maybe he thought that a landslide for the incumbent would take the wind out of the sails of the reform movement. In hindsight, that is not at all what happened. But I could see someone who was out of touch with the people thinking that.

I have to imagine that, like most Supreme Leaders, he is surrounded by yes men and underestimates the numbers and passion of the people who are against his government.

All of this is, of course, speculation.

[JAG]

People make mistakes. Maybe the Supreme Leader selected Mousavi thinking he would be ineffectual as a candidate, later realized he was wrong but didn't want to back down from allowing him as a candidate (that would show he was afraid of the guy), and rigged the election as a result. The text messaging services that Mousavi + supporters were using that were down for days prior to the election is a system that's supposedly under the charge of the Supreme Commander.

The above is as much speculation as anything else in this thread though. In any case, Mousavi himself has pointed out that these protests are not because they think he's such a great guy.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Sometimes people do things that don't make sense. Maybe he thought that a landslide for the incumbent would take the wind out of the sails of the reform movement. In hindsight, that is not at all what happened. But I could see someone who was out of touch with the people thinking that.

I have to imagine that, like most Supreme Leaders, he is surrounded by yes men and underestimates the numbers and passion of the people who are against his government.

All of this is, of course, speculation.

Apparently I didn't need to write my last post.

[lordscarlet]

It amuses me that MBBF ignores the facts even when there is photographic evidence that HE POSTS.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JAG

The above is as much speculation as anything else in this thread though. In any case, Mousavi himself has pointed out that these protests are not because they think he's such a great guy.

Yeah, they're more anti-opression or pro-rights than they are pro-Mousavi. The government is the ones that are painting them as pro-Mousavi to imply that they are sore losers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

It amuses me that MBBF ignores the facts even when there is photographic evidence that HE POSTS.

Let's not do this dance. There was a station burned in Tehran. The twitter reports said the pictured station was the one that burned. A similar incident occured in Northern Iran. It happening, though very little is actual MSM reports. Most of what's being discussed here is second and third hand. Just take it as such. Andrew Sullivan has already retracted a couple of his reports, but that doesn't dimish what's being passed on in his blog.

[DaddyTorgo]

This thread is still lacking in beautiful women. And I have tracked her down via the interweb (yes I should be working but I was on a conference call just listening) - courtesy of the Iranian Babe of the Day thread on bigsoccer.com - Claudia Lynx

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Brutal video leaked out of Iran. This man was used as an example.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Translation of video by one of Sullivan's readers:

It's very hard to understand, but what I can make of it:

They are shouting at him, "This is what's done to the scum (arazel)", "what else have you done", "Will you do it again?" and shouting at crowd, "watch this".

Towards the end they order the young man, "stand up", so that they can beat him again.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's not do this dance. There was a station burned in Tehran. The twitter reports said the pictured station was the one that burned. A similar incident occured in Northern Iran. It happening, though very little is actual MSM reports. Most of what's being discussed here is second and third hand. Just take it as such. Andrew Sullivan has already retracted a couple of his reports, but that doesn't dimish what's being passed on in his blog.

Really?

Wow. Confirmed reports that the protesters followed teh unofficial religious police back to their headquarters after they opened fire. Protesters burned down their headquarters and killed the commander of the base.

So, first of all, apparently "confirmed" means "posted on twitter.

Here's a picture of the burning religious police base I mentioned in an earlier post.

So is it some different base in Northern Iran that is burning, or is this the one you mentioned in your earlier post? This picture is CLEARLY of a building that has not been scratched with a burning car next to it. I just can't fathom how you can ignore the truth in SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS on this board. You say "Here's a picture of the burning base" and post a picture of a BURNING CAR. You CONSTANTLY refer to "Facts" and "confirmed" information that are from blogs, etc. If it supports your cause, it's the MSM's fault. If it doesn't, where are the facts to back it?

[JPhillips]

Guess it's no longer treasonous for Congressmen to criticize the President's foreign policy during an international crisis. Oh, well.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The blogosphere gets on my nerves at times, especially with their trumped up sense of importance, but I think the criticism of the MSM over this event is justified. Getting ready for work, neither CNN, MSNBC, or FOX were showing video, talking about this, or anything. Just a stark contrast to CNN's work at Tiananmen. Sullivan said "The Revolution will be twitterized" and I'm not sure he's wrong on this one.

Foreign Policy: CNN Embarrasses Itself On Iran : NPR

Foreign Policy: CNN Embarrasses Itself On Iran

by EVGENY MOROZOV

NPR.org, June 16, 2009 · While I am still thinking about the role that social media played in facilitating recent protests in Iran, let me draw your attention to the fact that today is that rare day when Twitter users have had the guts to accuse someone else of being shallow and inattentive to global affairs. Could those be the early signs of maturity in a community that has spent a good chunk of the last few months obsessing over the perturbations of Susan Boyle and Ashton Kutcher?

The most recent target of a Twitter-induced moral panic is CNN, which, according to some globally-minded Twitterati, has abdicated its responsibility to report on the protests that are unfolding in the streets of Tehran and has, thus, signed off in its impotence. Make no mistake, moral panic it is: CNN, which passed on the Tehran story to give more coverage to the bankruptcy of Six Flags, the challenges involved in switching from analogue to digital television, and, to top it all, the lifestyle of bikers (who were invited to share their thoughts with Larry King – actually, a re-run) has been chosen to embody everything that is wrong with today's infotainment-driven television media.

This collective rage has turned into massive anti-CNN cyberprotests under the common "CNNfail" hashtag on Twitter (see good overviews of this on ReadWriteWeb and CNET). Currently, it's in the list of the ten trending topics; the Twitter-rage doesn't seem to abate (some of it is pretty funny: "CNN: the most trusted name in snooze" is my favorite). I've been digging into some of the most fervent CNN criticism generated by "CNNfail" and some of is quite reasonably. My reading of the situation is that most Twitter users talk about CNN's actions (or, rather, lack thereof) as if there existed some implicit social contract between the TV channel and its viewers: CNN promises to feed them a certain type of news and viewers watch it based on those promises. If CNN over-promises and under-delivers, fewer people would watch it as a result.

From this perspective, we'll know if CNN really failed in a month or two, with the publication of precise audience numbers and their levels of satisfaction; those who find CNN's focus on the bikers terrifying would turn simply tune out or move to a different channel. I am, however, quite skeptical that this is likely happen; if we are really talking only about audience numbers here, there are surely many more viewers out there who are interested in the life of Paris Hilton than in how Iran's protests end.

There are, of course, numerous reasons for this. CNN might simply be trying to maximize their revenue, not entirely a bad thing given the grim future of traditional media. Over the years, they, along with other news networks, have pushed the definition of what counts as news beyond any reasonable limits—today's "news" is surprisingly much cheaper to produce, for example – and now they are simpling ripping the benefits.

Besides, CNN has always created value through superior access. 20 years ago it was superior access to places like China and Iran, where few freelancers would venture into and where locals would be unable to report the news due to the lack of equipment and the heavy expenses associated with training, knowing how to get the tapes out the country, and so forth. This era is certainly gone, for the locals have been empowered to report news on their own, via Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and, most importantly, mobile phones. CNN's superior access advantage has been greatly eroded.

On the international news front, what they still have left is their ability to feature sophisticated commentary of the likes of Christiane Amanpour next to the footage that their broadcast. That is, "sophisticated" as opposed to the banal commentary of some locals armed with mobile phones, who, of course, do not always have the luxury of being able to compare Beijing in 1989 to Moscow in 1991 to Kyiv in 2004 to Chisinau in 2009. However, I am not sure what everyone is interested – replace Christiane Amanpour with a properly trained and knowledgeable local expert, and the accompanying footage would be as well-received.

At the moment, the only true advantage (at least, in terms of access) that CNN enjoys is their access to the world of Paris Hilton et al: if you really want to get 60 minutes of infotainment brainwashing on what is going on in Paris's head, you can't really trust citizen journalists with the task. No self-respecting celebrity – save for the really desperate ones – would sit down with bloggers for that long on a regular basis. There is nothing very surprising, then, that CNN is trying to use this access advantage to its fullest; it's more popular – plus, it's also much cheaper.

In light of all this, one lesson that I draw from the "CNNfail" debacle is that CNN as an international news venture is dead. Of all stories they had to report in the Middle East this year, this was the most important one – and they failed badly, which, to me, is the best reflection of their priorities. What we really need to figure out is how to fill in the CNN vacuum. I happen to think that cultivating demand and interest for international news is incredibly worthwhile, but also very tough (however, not impossible). I don't think that we can simply leave this task to the market forces; the fact that there is arguably much more international content on the Web – Twitter, Facebook, Global Voices Online and many other sites are great examples - does not mean that there is any more demand for this content.

The problem with relying on Twitter to supply you with a rich international news diet is that finding this content on Twitter and unknown local blogs is a high-effort activity; not only do you need to know which Twitter users you could follow and trust, you also need to be constantly on the look-out for new hashtags and discussion threads. Not so with television: you may be zapping your way to MTV and be serendipitously exposed to a mesmerizing report about Iranian elections, which would then force you to go online and read more about it.

There are many more advantages to having international news presented in the visual rather than textual format: it's easier to follow, there is usually more context, and moving images could be very powerful. Ultimately, I think it all boils down to human nature: most of us are just not inquisitive enough to make an effort of finding out what is happening in places we cannot really relate to (not to mention, place them on a map). To me, the only way to change that is to hijack other processes we are involved in (e.g. finding our way to our favorite reality shows) and introducing little dozes of serendipity-driven international coverage into them.

The most curious feature of the "CNNfail"hashtag campaign is the simultaneous use of another hashtag - "NPRwin" – meant to highlight the excellent work that NPR has done in covering the protests. For someone like me, it's very easy to like the NPR folks: free of profit-maximization motives that have squeezed most of other media outlets, they can afford to go into as much depth as they think is necessary. Unfortunately, they are not in TV business, but it doesn't mean that a non-profit model for international news cannot exist.

As far as I am concerned, the solution here is simple: we need to create a government-funded international news channel to supplant the failing CNN. I think that NPR's existing fund-raising model – the combination of funds raised from public and private sources – may potentially work too, but I also think that, since television usually operates on a different expense scale, it may be better off to simply provide it with government funding from the outset and free them of the fund-raising burden for the first five-ten years of their existence.

After all, BBC in Britain is funded with public funds; as a matter of fact, BBC has been widely praised for its rich and diverse coverage of the Iran protests. Deciding whether this new TV channel would be directly underwritten by the government or money should be raised from individual taxpayers is not really that important; the main thing is to fill in the international news vacuum left by the departure of CNN (and several others) from the business of serious reporting of international news. If this also means less reliance on advertising, so be it; the very point of subsidized international news is to

This channel should go beyond CNN's 40-hour workweek and work the real 24/7 news cycle; "this happened on a Sunday" should never again be cited as an excuse for not covering an election or any other important geopolitical event. They should find a way in which to integrate social media from across the entire Internet and not just from their own citizen journalism brands (iReport in CNN's case). They have to acknowledge that their main value lies in their brand and not in their primary delivery platform; if this means offering many more features on the Internet than they do on television broadcasts, so be it; the Web should be at the center of their activities and not at their periphery.

If this new channel could implement even one third of these suggestions – as well as of many others that are slowly emerging thanks to the "CNNfail" hashtag – we'd be living in a much more stimulating and intellectually-challenging news environment...For now, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with stories about Ronaldo's memorable moments and social networking sites for film-lovers – two articles featured prominently on CNN's page at the moment.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Guess it's no longer treasonous for Congressmen to criticize the President's foreign policy during an international crisis. Oh, well.

I noticed that as well. I thought elected officials were all supposed to rally round the president in public on foreign policy.

[Flasch186]

brutal video.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I am very thankful that this thread has avoided the partisan sniping so far.

Right up until JPhillips brought it up.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Oh well. It went longer than I expected at least.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Right up until JPhillips brought it up.

We'll just pretend that didn't happen. Perhaps he missed his morning cup of coffee.

I'm sure there's discussion surrounding that issue to be had, but hopefully this thread can stay focused on the real issue here.

[DaddyTorgo]

agreed - save the discussion of what's going on here with regard to it for a post-mortem. we can't really make any judgement about it until then anyways.

[albionmoonlight]

+1 for trying to keep this thread non-partisan.

[JPhillips]

After this is all over I'll be interested in reading more about this:

Does Mousavi even want to change the system? I think he does, and in any event, I think that’s the wrong question.

He is not a revolutionary leader, he is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him. The real revolutionary is his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. And the real question, the key question in all of this, is: why did Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei permit her to become such a charismatic figure? How could he have made such a colossal blunder? It should have been obvious that the very existence of such a woman threatened the dark heart of the Islamic Republic, based as it is on the disgusting misogyny of its founder, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

It's from Michael Ledeen a notorious Iran hawk. I don't know how accurate he is, but I have been struck by the amount of women publicly protesting. How much of this is about gender?

[flere-imsaho]

FYI - we've moved the partisan sniping back to the Obama thread, where it belongs. Please redirect yourself there for your daily dose of unfounded MBBF assertions, Cam hit-and-runs, weird Flasch posts, sociopathic rantings by JiMGA and general unfocused vitriol.



This has been a Public Service Announcement.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

FYI - we've moved the partisan sniping back to the Obama thread, where it belongs. Please redirect yourself there for your daily dose of unfounded MBBF assertions, Cam hit-and-runs, weird Flasch posts, sociopathic rantings by JiMGA and general unfocused vitriol.



This has been a Public Service Announcement.

you forgot to include "quasi-socialist propaganda and sniping by JPhillips and DaddyTorgo"

[DaddyTorgo]

This just in (via bbcnews breaking alert):

Iranian opposition supporters are staging a mass rally in northern Tehran, witnesses have told the BBC.
It comes despite presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urging supporters not to risk clashes with demonstrators backing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hundreds of thousands turned up on Monday alleging fraud in the poll which returned Mr Ahmadinejad to office.
Tough new restrictions on the foreign media mean the BBC is unable to confirm reports of Tuesday's opposition rally.
The new restrictions have been imposed amid apparent surprise and concern among authorities at the scale of popular defiance over Friday's official election results.
Correspondents say crowds the size of those at Monday's opposition rally have not been seen in Tehran since the 1979 revolution.
An eyewitness told the BBC Tuesday's rally was even bigger than Monday's - though this cannot be independently confirmed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This just in (via bbcnews breaking alert):

Iranian opposition supporters are staging a mass rally in northern Tehran, witnesses have told the BBC.
It comes despite presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urging supporters not to risk clashes with demonstrators backing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hundreds of thousands turned up on Monday alleging fraud in the poll which returned Mr Ahmadinejad to office.
Tough new restrictions on the foreign media mean the BBC is unable to confirm reports of Tuesday's opposition rally.
The new restrictions have been imposed amid apparent surprise and concern among authorities at the scale of popular defiance over Friday's official election results.
Correspondents say crowds the size of those at Monday's opposition rally have not been seen in Tehran since the 1979 revolution.
An eyewitness told the BBC Tuesday's rally was even bigger than Monday's - though this cannot be independently confirmed.

FYI.....it should be noted that the rally was moved via Twitter communication to a different area. The Ahmini camp had decided to organize a protest right where the opposition was going to protest, so the opposition just switched the spot to avoid conflict and short-circuited the gov't attempt to create a conflict which could undermine the opposition.

We'll likely look back on this regardless of outcome and laugh at how a simple instant messaging program was used to subvert each and every attempt by a gov't to diffuse the situation. It's pretty comical at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Huge crowds. Some pics.......

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

[DaddyTorgo]

i can't follow the twitter-ing anymore - since everyone is setting their location to Tehran it's pulling in a bunch of noise in the geo-searching and you end up with just junk

[JAG]

hxxp://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june09/iran2_06-15.html
hxxp://garysick.tumblr.com/post/124278890/pbs-newshour-on-iran-with-karim-sadjadpour-and-gary

GWEN IFILL: For a closer look at what's happening in Iran and what it all means, we're joined by Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He formerly worked in Tehran for the International Crisis Group and was there during the last Iranian election in 2005.

And Gary Sick, a former National Security Council staffer who dealt with Iran policy under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan, he is now a senior research scholar and professor of international affairs at Columbia University.

(snip)

GWEN IFILL: So the word "revolution," do you think, is too much of a word to use, Karim Sadjadpour?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: I would say it is too much of a word, simply because in 1979 you had the population against the regime -- it was a wholesale revolution, a wholesale change of regime -- whereas this time around, as I said, you have fissures amongst the revolutionary elite themselves.

Certainly, someone like Hashemi Rafsanjani is committed to the continuation of the Islamic Republic, Mir Hossein Mousavi, as well. But I think we may -- there's a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the Wilayat-e-Faqih, the system of the supreme leader, the Khomeini system of government, which is truly unprecedented. And I think if these crowds continue, we may see some type of an evolution of the Islamic Republic, but I wouldn't predict a revolution.

GARY SICK: What I was planning to say, when I was so rudely interrupted as time ran out :-)) was that the situation is certainly not a revolution at this point, but the main players are faced with the decision of whether to push things to the brink, realizing that it could run out of control and perhaps bring down the entire system of Islamic government. In the past, opposition forces have recoiled at that prospect and retreated. It is very likely they will do so again, but they are perhaps closer to the line today than they have been in the entire 30 years of the post-revolutionary experience.

[Neon_Chaos]

I take back my pseudocriticism of the US government's lack of overt involvement...

Perhaps it is this lack of involvement that is good for Iran, in that Ahmadinejad can't use it to spin the entire thing on the US interfering in national affairs.

Somehow, his denouncement of foreign media and the EU as being interventionist don't really have a leg to stand on at home, as compared to if the US admin had taken sides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I take back my pseudocriticism of the US government's lack of overt involvement...

Perhaps it is this lack of involvement that is good for Iran, in that Ahmadinejad can't use it to spin the entire thing on the US interfering in national affairs.

Somehow, his denouncement of foreign media and the EU as being interventionist don't really have a leg to stand on at home, as compared to if the US admin had taken sides.

If you look at the 'pro-government' protesters, many of them are carrying signs that make varying 'Down with U.S' slogans. Without that message being supported by any direct message from the president, they don't have that crutch to lean on. They (Ahmini camp) are trying to stir a pot that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you look at the 'pro-government' protesters, many of them are carrying signs that make varying 'Down with U.S' slogans. Without that message being supported by any direct message from the president, they don't have that crutch to lean on. They (Ahmini camp) are trying to stir a pot that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

OMG. I think I'm agreeing with MBBF.

*HEAD EXPLODES*

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder if there is also a bit of the old self-reliance message going out to the reformists. Basically a "look, if this is going to happen, it has to come from you. The USA/UN is not going to send in troops to support you. You have to win your freedom with your blood and sweat--not just hold on long enough to wait for us. And good luck."

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i can't follow the twitter-ing anymore - since everyone is setting their location to Tehran it's pulling in a bunch of noise in the geo-searching and you end up with just junk

I wonder if searching other cities would get more useful info.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I take back my pseudocriticism of the US government's lack of overt involvement...

Perhaps it is this lack of involvement that is good for Iran, in that Ahmadinejad can't use it to spin the entire thing on the US interfering in national affairs.

Somehow, his denouncement of foreign media and the EU as being interventionist don't really have a leg to stand on at home, as compared to if the US admin had taken sides.

What is that code?