TheAgitator.com
43 Responses to “The Revolution Will Be Photographed”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
You’d think the government there would be a bit scared. It hasn’t been that long since they had their last revolution. They probably don’t automatically take it for granted that a call for revolution is something that only a few fringe group radicals would advocate.
Check out this photo from a bit earlier today: http://twitpic.com/7h3r5/full
Found on this twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/StopAhmadi
BTW, I asked on this mornings threads post what the Liberterian view is regarding what response the U.S. should be taking. Just curious as to what people here are thinking.
Excellent post on this developing situation Radley. Thanks so much. I found the photos of the reformers rescuing riot officers to be especially moving. It shows which side has the moral high ground in this conflict. The behavior of the Iranian state has been ugly, as expected. The president’s private thug caste…oops, I mean supporters…has acted in a particularly brutal manner. But the reformers stopped to rescue injured policemen because they recognize that people are people. They shook off the urge to see the other side as monolithic. They turned their backs on blind identity politics and collectivism. In doing so, they have shown the world that Ahmedinijad and his minions are the true aggressors.
I wonder how much the US government helped fund both sides. The CIA etc has a long history of trying to install puppets for the US to control in an effort to further US hegemony.
At least the Iranian security isn’t shooting people on the spot. Seems they have more sense than police in the US – shoot first, don’t bother asking questions later, and get busy with the cover up.
It was also nice to see that Hillary Clinton stated that the US won’t recognize the Iran election results because there were allegations of fraud. It’s quite hypocritical considering the amount of election fraud that happens in the US, and that US mouth pieces cry “do over” because they don’t get the results they want.
One has to remember that the photos and their captions must be questioned. You can’t state with certainty that the captions are accurate, nor any info on internet is accurate. The media and government is so entrenched in information warfare and deceit that it’s hard to believe any information is fact.
Crap. I thought you were talking about a revolution here.
Personally, I really don’t like the idea of the US getting involved here. It would only serve to make things worse. The hardliners would say it was evidence of the the American war against Islam, or whatever it is they say. It would turn any moderates in the country against the reformists. Right now, the hardliners look like a bunch of thugs and they are hurting themselves more than the opposition in that sense.
But it’s good to see that not everyone in Iran is crazy like the government. Kinda gives ya hope.
amazing photos. I can’t see how the mullahs are going to put this one back in the bottle. I don’t think this would be happening if we had bombed them.
I’m with you on that. I would love to see the U.S. stay the fuck out of someone’s else’s affairs just once. You know. To prove they could do it. It would be really cool to have an event go by where we didn’t step in and start making enemies.
We go ballistic here when we even get a hint of some foreign country trying to influence the outcome of our elections. Are we so arrogant as to believe that other countries don’t feel the same about us when we do it?
:)
Overt foreign involvement would be the worst thing that can happen for any who want change there.
If the US or Europe made pro-opposition statements that would be all the invitation the security forces need to claim a foreign-backed coup and crush the protests.
This is something people, and especially the hyper-sensitive Iranians, need to do for themselves.
A million people gathered in Tiananmen Square as well, but look what happened there.
I hope there is a peaceful solution, but I am not holding my breath about revolution. Not yet.
I agree with the notion that the US should mind its f*&@ing business for once. We support the oppressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, so it’s not like we can support an opposition party or calls for a fair election without looking even more hypocritical than we already do.
It’d be nice to see Americans protesting like this more often.
Found it odd that the Wikipedia entry for Iran has not been updated with the election results, which usually occurs pretty fast. In fact, no mention of the 2009 elections at all…..
One suggestion I came across (I think in New Humanist) that I rather liked. Us Civilised Countries[tm] could use sodding off as a weapon.
By which I mean the following strategy:
1) If a country has proper monitored elections with no substantial irregularities, we agree to support its new government (by force if necessary) against any internal coups by military or minority groups.
2) If a country does not have proper elections, we do not agree to support them. This would basically be a declaration of open season on that country’s leaders.
This neatly sidesteps the problem of being seen to poke our noses in where we’re not wanted. The only problems I can see with this are:
a) it would tend to encourage corruption in the election-monitoring groups (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).
b) it would no doubt become a bit of a political football, with countries like China and Myanmar outraged that we don’t think they’re really a proper real democracy honest guv really. The temptation would be strong to replace “democratically elected governments” with “people we happen to like right now”.
Thoughts?
I’d like to add my voice to those hoping that the US doesn’t meddle in this election.
The Iranian people need to do a bit more than fix a rigged election – they need to send the Ayatollahs packing.
Absolutely not.
1) We should not get involved with elections in other countries because the military is only for defending the national security of our own country. It’s not the responsibility of the U.S. to keep any foreign government in power.
2) Our sending military to other countries inevitably generates hatred toward the U.S., something we could use less of.
3) We don’t allow the use of our military against our own civilian population. Why would we feel free to use it against the civilian population of another country?
Just to be the bitter voice, it is good to keep in mind that “reformist” is a relative term here. Mr. Mousavi would be a welcome change from the moron in place now, but his hands aren’t completely clean either. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=32262
#5:
“At least the Iranian security isn’t shooting people on the spot.”
Uh, yes, they are.
In other words, Mousavi is a “reformist” much in the same way Obama is the candidate of “Hope and Change”?
Lifewish,
If we took that viewpoint, but supported it passively – i.e. not invading…etc. – I would not be opposed. I think the spread of the rule of law should be a foreign policy goal even though Bush’s tactics toward that goal and loose interpretation of it have been ham-fisted.
However since the Chinese are currently eating trillions of our debt, maybe we should go ahead and keep that memo private for now. :)
And the Filipinos threw out Marcos with a people power revolution. I think it depends on how willing your troops are to shoot and kill their own countrymen. I’ve no idea how the Iranian army mught react if called upon. I don’t think anyone, not even the mullahs, know that.
I am merely hopeful that big changes for the positive are coming to Iran. I’m certainly not predicting it.
We are not the world’s babysitter. Iran will have to earn its freedom and the loss of life is usually necessary.
So the common thread here is we should keep our mouths shut? Really? I understand that the “reformist” candidate isn’t much better than Ahmamadnutjob but I would think that at a minimum we should take any and every chance to speak out for ideals like democracy and individual freedoms especially when dealing with a theocracy like Iran. Let’s keep in mind that these folks are just one generation removed from freedoms these kids can only dream about. I’m not saying Obama should come out with an overt call for mass uprising but he should at least say something for crying out loud.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best.
For you in the intertubez generation I’ll translate -
STFU and stock up on ammo.
I stand with some of the others here. This is one (IMO, all of them actually) to be watched from the sidelines. But I suppose it’s OK to cheer.
Interesting that the word “POLICE” is written in English, eh?
[...] to The Agitator. [...]
“Interesting that the word “POLICE” is written in English, eh?”
I wondered about that. I assume it is cheaper to buy them with that on them than a custom message in Persian.
Rob Robertson’s # 28 post makes a point that also bothered me:
About 4 pictures down, there are POLICE officers swinging batons at some women near a wall. You know they are POLICE officers because POLICE is clearly printed in white block Roman letters on the back of their riot jackets.
I’m not ready to call a rat, here, but it seemed strange that the word was written in block roman letters, rather than the local script and language. (Persian)
Now, it is possible that the word POLICE, like the word STOP on a stop sign has become a sort of international ideogram that is used and recognized uninversally. but I don’t have sufficient information to say that this is so. I know that I’ve seen Polizei in Germany and Policia in Spain, but those usages are close enough to the English usage that there is no trouble discerning the meaning.
Can any of you who have travelled beyond Europe give some insight on this?
(OTOH, maybe they got the uniforms at a police surplus discount store.)
Damn. Chance beat me to it.
They might be university police.
I don’t know what it’s like in Tehran University, but in Middle East Technical University in Ankara, where my parents were professors, the official language of the school was English, and much of the signage was, as a result, in English.
Also, Tokin42, you are welcome, if you so desire, to buy a gun, fly to Iran, and join the fray on whichever side you think is right. I personally stay out of fights where I don’t know what the fuck is going on. Nor do I think there is anything morally correct about forcing others to fight for causes they don’t support.
@ Tokin42 # 25
As I recall, one of the reasons given by the previous administration for the invasion of Iraq was to liberate the people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein.
That worked out so well and made the US so popular worldwide that I’m sure you can’t wait to try it again.
Meanwhile, I’ll just throw another steak on the barbeque and work on my sudoku puzzle, if you don’t mind.
Tehran University could surely use some peace studies courses, but I imagine the professors would be severely beaten. The U.S should stay the hell out of Iran, and cut our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I like to support Iran by going to Moby Dick and enjoying a combo 2
They didn’t have peace studies when I was in school. Exactly what would a student study? Ghandi and King etc..?
Ethics.
Dan-Check out Colman McCarthy and the center for teaching peace, they do great work. Many of D.C’s best connected are former students
#33:
ahh, a variation of the chickenhawk argument. brilliant.
#34:
You caught me. When I said Obama should say something, what I really meant was he should invade tomorrow. You were the only one smart enough to parse my statement down enough to catch it.
#36
I went to the Army War College. I’m betting it was a lot more fun.
So this is what Americans have to look forward to? Only with more blood (our cops are much more deadly).
“dealing with a theocracy like Iran.”
To be fair, the rest of the world didn’t invade the US when dealing with the Bush theocracy. But they might now when dealing with the Obama theocracy of “spend and default”.
The Iranian political unrest is not a direct threat (and I’m talking about a sane person’s definition of “direct threat”, not Rummy’s or Cheney’s or the Easter Bunny’s version) to the US, thus the US should not take physical action.
A revolution’s cost is one that must be paid by the revolutionaries. It cannot be provided by force from the outside.
I know. This is terribly frustrating to witness suffering when we could easily help by killing millions, pissing off billions, spending trillions, and wiping our ass with the Constitution (if we can even find it).
Would anyone be surprised if similar photos were captured on US soil within the next 50 years?
It is strange that BamBam’s comments at post #5 would generate neg karma.