Anti-government protests in Iran

[Peter B]

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned these protests...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-30/violent-protests-enter-third-day-in-iran/9294822

Street protests have hit Iran for a third day running, spreading to the capital Tehran where crowds confronted police and attacked some state buildings...

The wave of anti-government demonstrations [has been] prompted in part by discontent over economic hardship and alleged corruption...

[SHaYap]

The Trumpotus thought it not worth a Twitter ...

~

[Peter B]

4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

The Trumpotus thought it not worth a Twitter ...

~

Actually he did.

According to the article above, he tweeted this statement: The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most.

From what I know of Iranian people, I'd tend to agree with that sentiment.

[SHaYap]

38 minutes ago, Peter B said:

Actually he did.

According to the article above, he tweeted this statement: The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most.

From what I know of Iranian people, I'd tend to agree with that sentiment.

Oh ... well I guess its me that thought the Trumpotus wasn't worth a Twitter ... we've been keeping the eye on it over here this part of the World ...
 

Quote

 

~

31 Dec 2017 | 4:39 AM

Police shoot dead two protesters in western Iran - social media video

LONDON (Reuters) - Videos posted on social media on Saturday showed two young Iranian men lying motionless on the ground and covered with blood and a voiceover said they had been shot dead by police.

 

~

 

Change ain't gonna come with things like these ... fact is its gonna make change harder to come by ... hard and harsh lessons of the fact ... but who's to tell the Iranians what is or is not ... seen it all before ... don't take a genius too to know that this ain't gonna end well or lead anywhere good ...

~

Edited December 31, 2017 by third_eye
Vowel shortage

[Only_]

19 minutes ago, Peter B said:

According to the article above, he tweeted this statement: The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most.

From what I know of Iranian people, I'd tend to agree with that sentiment.

Regime change in Iran is what the U.S. want ever since the Shah (a puppet) was booted out in 1979. Trump is of course pursuing the exact same policy as his neoconservative predecessors.

[Peter B]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Regime change in Iran is what the U.S. want ever since the Shah (a puppet) was booted out in 1979. Trump is of course pursuing the exact same policy as his neoconservative predecessors.

Perhaps he is.

From what I can tell from various sources, a lot of Iranian people would be happy with some regime change.

[Only_]

33 minutes ago, Peter B said:

Perhaps he is.

From what I can tell from various sources, a lot of Iranian people would be happy with some regime change.

I'm sure in Saudi Arabia, too. But you won't see Trump tweeting about it.

The West want to push 'democracy' and regime change in a particular country when it's in their interests. Other than that...

Edited December 31, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[simplybill]

Hopefully Iran will become a secular society, and funding for Hezbollah and Hamas will end. Wishful thinking, I know.

[Peter B]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

I'm sure in Saudi Arabia, too. But you won't see Trump tweeting about it.

The West want to push 'democracy' and regime change in a particular country when it's in their interests. Other than that...

And you know what?

Where you live you have the opportunity to say things like that in a public forum, and the worst that will happen to you is that someone will disagree with you or ignore you. By contrast those people in Iran saying much the same sort of things in public are risking their careers, their freedom, and sometimes their lives.

The issue of wanting to "...push 'democracy' and regime change..." is a tricky one. Like simplybill I'd personally like Iran to become a secular society. No doubt there are others in the West who are perfectly happy for Iran to remain a restrictive Islamic republic, even though they'd hate to live in such a state themselves. So what should we in the secular West do? Engage with Iran? Ignore it? Invade it? Shun it?

[+and-then]

I wish them well.  It appears that the nuclear deal has had an unintended consequence for the leaders.  The people were generally ecstatic about the deal because they envisioned an added measure of prosperity coming their way.  They can see the money being sent to Hamas, Hizballah and into government corruption and they've just had enough.  The mullahs CAN crush this out again but they can't do so forever.

[Only_]

13 hours ago, Peter B said:

The issue of wanting to "...push 'democracy' and regime change..." is a tricky one. Like simplybill I'd personally like Iran to become a secular society. No doubt there are others in the West who are perfectly happy for Iran to remain a restrictive Islamic republic, even though they'd hate to live in such a state themselves. So what should we in the secular West do? Engage with Iran? Ignore it? Invade it? Shun it?

Why just Iran, what about Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, Qatar ect. ? Is that because they are 'friends of the West' and serve our interests so we ignore that they are ruled by monarchs and despotic leaders? Protests have been crushed in those countries as well.

Edited December 31, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Only_]

14 hours ago, simplybill said:

 and funding for Hezbollah

Given the fact that Hezbollah has helped defeat ISIS in Syria, I'd say that they have proven useful.

[LINK] The Truth about Hezbollah: What the main stream media doesn’t want U.S. Citizens and Christians to know.

Edited December 31, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Peter B]

4 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Why just Iran, what about Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, Qatar ect. ? Is that because they are 'friends of the West' and serve our interests so we ignore that they are ruled by monarchs and despotic leaders? Protests have been crushed in those countries as well.

A very good question, which goes exactly to the point I was trying to make.

During the Cold War, American leaders had to make strategic decisions like this: do we support oppressive regimes because they're strategically valuable, or do we try to stand for something better and limit support to oppressive only regimes? Generally the Americans went for option A. President Carter was maligned for trying to stand a little more for option B, yet East European dissidents praised him for it because in doing so he showed up more clearly the oppressiveness of the USSR.

The UK and the USA faced the same decision in World War Two - how much support to give to a regime which was in many ways as bad as the regime they were fighting.

And Britain and France faced the same decision in the years prior to World War One, and they decided to ally themselves with probably the most repressive major power in Europe because the alternative was against their strategic interests.

So I'd ask the question again: what should the US do with regard to Iran? Personally I don't know, and I suspect that anyone who thinks they've got a simple answer hasn't thought it through.

[Only_]

1 hour ago, Peter B said:

So I'd ask the question again: what should the US do with regard to Iran? Personally I don't know, and I suspect that anyone who thinks they've got a simple answer hasn't thought it through.

Minding our own business. Iran can handle itself. We've seen it with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. There is no point meddling in the domestic affairs of a foreign country and one who clearly doesn't trust you in the first place. It's a recipe for disaster. Look at Syria, Lybia or Iraq.

Edited January 1, 2018 by TruthSeeker_

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Given the fact that Hezbollah has helped defeat ISIS in Syria, I'd say that they have proven useful.

[LINK] The Truth about Hezbollah: What the main stream media doesn’t want U.S. Citizens and Christians to know.

Maybe you'll be as pleased with them when they are used to attack Israel.  That will be quite a show.  Unfortunately, a large part of south Lebanon will die with them.  

 

15 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Minding our own business. Iran can handle itself. We've seen it with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. There is no point meddling in the domestic affairs of a foreign country and one who clearly doesn't trust you in the first place. It's a recipe for disaster. Look at Syria, Lybia or Iraq.

We were careful to "mind our own business" in the run-up to WWII.  Iran's government has made it as clear as Waterford Crystal what their intentions are toward the U.S., Israel and anyone else that doesn't submit to their peculiar version of Islam.  Giving these young people some encouragement and even some technical help could forestall a shooting war in the not so distant future.  It's worth trying, anyway.  If they fail, I'd be in favor of using low-yield deep penetrating nukes to take out their underground facilities.  When they inevitably turned their sleepers loose in the U.S., I'd begin to incrementally deracinate their military infrastructure.  The air defense nets first.  Navy next, then concentrations of troops beginning with the most deserving - the IRGC elements.  The mullahs realize that if the Republican Guards die, they will soon follow.

[Only_]

45 minutes ago, and then said:

Maybe you'll be as pleased with them when they are used to attack Israel.  That will be quite a show.  Unfortunately, a large part of south Lebanon will die with them. 

I thought Israel invaded Lebanon, not the other way around.

Quote

We were careful to "mind our own business" in the run-up to WWII.  Iran's government has made it as clear as Waterford Crystal what their intentions are toward the U.S., Israel and anyone else that doesn't submit to their peculiar version of Islam.  Giving these young people some encouragement and even some technical help could forestall a shooting war in the not so distant future.  It's worth trying, anyway.  If they fail, I'd be in favor of using low-yield deep penetrating nukes to take out their underground facilities.  When they inevitably turned their sleepers loose in the U.S., I'd begin to incrementally deracinate their military infrastructure.  The air defense nets first.  Navy next, then concentrations of troops beginning with the most deserving - the IRGC elements.  The mullahs realize that if the Republican Guards die, they will soon follow.

And Saddam Hussein had WMDs and Syria would be better without Assad. We've heard it all before and then. All the reasons - even outright fabricated ones - seem to be good enough for the War Hawks/interventionists to destabilize and eventually throw an entire country into chaos.

Edited January 1, 2018 by TruthSeeker_

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

I thought Israel invaded Lebanon, not the other way around.

And Saddam Hussein had WMDs and Syria would be better without Assad. We've heard it all before and then. All the reasons - even outright fabricated ones - seem to be good enough for the War Hawks/interventionists to destabilize and eventually throw an entire country into chaos.

So WWII was unnecessary?  The war that's coming in the M.E. will happen regardless our intervention.  Iran's leaders are hell-bent on destroying the power of the IDF in the region so that THEY can have hegemony.  I think most of the world will be drawn into it and all the isolationist sentiment in the world isn't going to matter.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

To evaluate happenings in Iran which have taken place over last few days one has to remember events from 2009. In that respect recent gatherings were also part of annual gathering for 30th December, to commemorate 2009 protests - protests which are seen by Iranians as foreign influenced try to destabilize the country.

In Mashad protests were held primarily by workers about wages and in Sari, Rasht, Qom and Hamadan protests were held out of economic reasons and concerns ( which were addressed by Ajatollah in June last year ). This also comes after some liberal laws have passed and puts veils of doubt over credibility of reports about protests in western MSM.

Short after first protests some smaller groups have started chanting anti government slogans and called for president and Ajatollah to resign. So far all i can see is growing MSM coverage ( in mid of crisis in Bahrain and in Palestine ) of Iranian protests and president Trump ( who once labeled Iranian people as terrorists ) showing compassion for Iranian democracy in his messages at the time when no one could tell the fully story jet, aside from few statements from Iranian officials.

Rouhani sent strong message, especially regarding Trump and foreign remarks in general. 

[stevewinn]

Ten protesters killed overnight. Iranian Govt reporting that some armed protesters tried to seize Police stations. You feel its only a matter of time before the govt really starts to  crack down.

[Mr.United_Nations]

6 hours ago, and then said:

So WWII was unnecessary?  The war that's coming in the M.E. will happen regardless our intervention.  Iran's leaders are hell-bent on destroying the power of the IDF in the region so that THEY can have hegemony.  I think most of the world will be drawn into it and all the isolationist sentiment in the world isn't going to matter.

Truthseeker. Means countries that arnt at war physically using tanks troops and missiles. Iran is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia but shouldn' be invaded by a few members of Hezbollah or the Republica guard.

[Gromdor]

On 12/30/2017 at 8:41 PM, TruthSeeker_ said:

Regime change in Iran is what the U.S. want ever since the Shah (a puppet) was booted out in 1979. Trump is of course pursuing the exact same policy as his neoconservative predecessors.

From what I have heard, these protests were started by religious hard-liners that wanted Iran to be less secular and used the economy as leverage.

[+and-then]

40 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

From what I have heard, these protests were started by religious hard-liners that wanted Iran to be less secular and used the economy as leverage.

I haven't seen that reference.  Do you have a link?  It wouldn't surprise me if it were true except that stirring up mass protests would seem to be a great risk.  Unless those hard-liners were sure the uprising would be completely, brutally crushed.  

[Gromdor]

47 minutes ago, and then said:

I haven't seen that reference.  Do you have a link?  It wouldn't surprise me if it were true except that stirring up mass protests would seem to be a great risk.  Unless those hard-liners were sure the uprising would be completely, brutally crushed.  

You know,  I can't find it anymore.  Seems buried under all the new articles.  It does seem to have spiraled out of their control though.  (The initial organizers that is, I am still expecting the tanks to roll out soon)

[The_V_Spirit]

On 12/30/2017 at 5:49 PM, Peter B said:

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned these protests...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-30/violent-protests-enter-third-day-in-iran/9294822

 

 

I wanted to, but we had internet outages here and i was trying to be cautious as well. Thanx for posting it.

[The_V_Spirit]

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/01/world/iran-protests-deaths-rouhani-intl/index.html