The Iranian Election and Its Aftermath

July 25, United 4 Iran. A day of solidarity with Iranian people around the world.

http://www.united4iran.org

Jian Ghomeishi's message of support:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx1qsYrdWHc

List of Events in Canada (for a complete list check www.united4iran.org )

Toronto:
Event time: 11am-2pm
Event location: Queen's Park North Side of Ontario Parliament

Montreal:
Time: 1:30 -4:30 p.m.
Location: St. Catherine intersection Atwater across AMC Theater

Vancouver:
Time: 12-3pm
Location: Starts at the Vancouver Art Gallery – north side (W. Georgia, between Hornby and Howe)

Calgary:
Rally time: 12pm
Rally location: City Hall

Halifax:
Event time: 5:00 PM
Event location: Meet at main entrance to public gardens

Riding the "Green Wave" at the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and Beyond
by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/hp240709.html

QUOTE:

There are many problems with the Campaign for Peace and Democracy's "Question & Answer on the Iran Crisis," issued by the CPD on July 7, and widely circulated since then. [...]

As we try to show below, when stripped of its didactic format, this Q&A amounts to little more than an emotional plea to its target audience to surrender what remains of their leftist instincts (long under siege in the States, and shrinking rapidly), and join its authors for a ride on the "green wave" of yet another color-coded campaign that fits well with one of their government's longest-running programs of destabilization and regime change. We believe that any "confusion" felt by the left and "American progressives" towards these events is a confusion that has been sown by our would-be instructors.

contrarianna wrote:

I'm not sure why this troll is still posting on Babble.
Its "arguments" include insinuating reposting haraatz analysis of Iran as a non-threat as "antisemetic":

If she/he actually was capable of formulating (or even tried to formulate) an argument I would say, let it stay.
But no.

 

If she/he/ actually was capable of formulating (or even tried to formulate) an argument I'd say, okay.
But no.

 

If you/it were capable of reading a post I'd say it were worth have a discussion with.

But  for anyone else who has an eye for reading ad half a brain...... I'll repost the rest of my post:

(BTW: News flash to it: disagreeing with your obligatory bull- shit views doesn't a troll make.)

"Message to the International 'Left': "Stop Supporting Iran's Islamic Regime."
From The Iran-Left Coalition Canada:

"We are asking the Iranian regime’s defenders in the international left to show us any documents or articles by any major Iranian leftist organization or entity after 1986 that is in line with their current position of defending the reactionary, anti-worker regime in Iran as anti-imperialist and deserving support.

"We ask these comrades again, shall you not refer to the Iranian left’s literature and analysis for a true understanding of the Iranian regime? The experience has taught us that any regime which murders the communists, and the worker, union and human rights activists, can not be anti-imperialist.

"The anti-imperialist struggle can not be waged without the fight for democratic freedoms. Please support us in our cause by endorsing this appeal."

With some minor caveats, I happily endorse this appeal (which follows usefully from Saeed Rahnema's analysis), which should come as no surprise (as in here, and here, and in the context of Afghanistan). I am very happy to see the stupefaction exposed and challenged by the Iran-Left Coalition, because it's long been my view that the corrosive effects of the reactionary 'left' should be exposed at every opportunity."

the rest here:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/07/message-to-international-left-...

As does mine.

Peech wrote:

(BTW: News flash to it: disagreeing with your obligatory bull - shit views doesn't a troll make.)

Witnesses: Iran police attack hundreds of protest

Iranian police and pro-government militia attacked and scattered hundreds of protesters in a demonstration in Iran's capital Saturday, witnesses said.

The protests were in response to the demonstrations being held around the world calling for the Iranian government to release opposition activists, one of the witnesses told The Associated Press.

Protesters in Vanak and Mirdamad districts chanted "death to the dictator" and "we want our vote back" before they were attacked and beaten by police.

The witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

As night fell, Iranians across the city gathered on their rooftops and chanted "death to the dictator" and "courageous neighbors, thank you for your support," apparently in response to the protests around the world.

Hundreds of activists have since been imprisoned in the ensuing crackdown and at least 20 have died.

Protesters across the world call for end to Iran human rights abuses

Protesters across the world on Saturday called on Iran to end its clampdown on opposition activists, demanding the release of those rounded up.

Groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International "are backing a global day of action, with protests planned in more than 80 cities.

The protesters want Iranian authorities to release what they say are hundreds, or even thousands, of people detained during protests that followed the presidential election last month that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

Clearly this is a popular uprising put down by the vicious repressive regime:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102723.html

Contrariannna:

I don't know if your tiny puny little  brain crammed full of out-dated ideology  can figure this out, but there has been an overwhelming silence from the "progressive left" who are obsessed with that  "Zionist entity" as the root of all evil  as evidenced by many  on Babble who have accused Israel of initiating the uprising. How's that for a collective straw man?

I just love it when  bullies like you go on the personal attack because your precious views are threatened. It only reinforces the fact that you are totally and utterly ......... irrelevant.

Peech wrote:

I don't know if your tiny puny little  brain crammed full of out-dated ideology  can figure this out....

"...the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass"

-Oscar Wilde

Ignorance is bliss:

Cueball:

" That is interesting. What is also interesting is this call is made to the "left", as a general group. When we puruse most of the aforelinked to bloggery what do we find? We find quotes from "a British leftist" and so on and so forth. Who is "a british leftist"? These wild eyed attacks against unnamed persons amount to a stinking pile of straw shit.

Straw shit mind you, not to disimillar to the accussations made by many Zionist appologists who make undefined charges of anti-semetism against unamed "leftists" who are in league with antisemites, and so on.

Good criticism comes with names and quotes attached.

Galvin and yourself are only adding credibility to the claim that the Iranian movement for change is in the pocket of the Zionists, or at least serves its interests. The last thing they need is a pack of Zionists lining up to show their support for Mousavi."

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/iran-protests-2

Of course he was only speaking "hypothetically"

The benign entity speaks:

Iran: If Israel attacks us, we'll hit its nuclear sites

The leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday that Iran would strike Israel's nuclear facilities if Israel attacked it, state television reported.

"If the Zionist regime attacks Iran, we will surely strike its nuclear facilities with our missile capabilities," Mohammad Ali Jafari, Guards commander-in-chief, told Iran's Arabic language al-Alam television.

The Revolutionary Guards are the ideologically driven wing of Iran's military with air, sea and land capabilities, and a separate command structure to regular units.

Iranian leaders often dismiss talk of a possible strike by Israel, saying it is not in a position to threaten Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter. They say Iran would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests and Israel."Our missile capability puts all of the Zionist regime within Iran's reach to attack," Jafari said. "The Zionist regime is too small to threaten Iran."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102705.html

Peech wrote:

Galvin and yourself are only adding credibility to the claim that the Iranian movement for change is in the pocket of the Zionists, or at least serves its interests. The last thing they need is a pack of Zionists lining up to show their support for Mousavi."

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/iran-protests-2

 

Of course he was only speaking "hypothetically"

Not at all hypothetical. I am watching you now add credibility to the claim that Iranian movement for change is in the pocket of the Zionists, or at least serves its interests", right now.

For good.

[url=http://www.socialistvoice.ca/?p=446]Debate: How Should Anti-Imperialists Respond to Iran's Political Crisis?[/url]

I gave it as example to show that not all Marxists agree on this issue, child, and not all worry about "what socialists should believe".  I got another where he talks about the necessity for authoritarian rule in China...yknow, only as an temporary stage.  See, in this complex world some people can refer to others without swearing allegiance to their every utterance.  Now if you want to create more straw men go to it, you don't need my help for that.

Heh. I spent the better part of three threads discussing democracy in Iran, where I asked what the tangible difference between a democractic system where a theocratic elite sanctions an electoral slate where two candidates are more simillar than they are different,  and a democracy where a corporate elite sanctions two candidates that are more simillar than they are different, and you villified me as a supporter of Sharia Authoritarianism for even daring to ask such a question. Zizek does the same asking "is there a link between Ahmadinejad and Berlusconi? Isn't it preposterous even to compare Ahmadinejad with a democratically elected Western leader? Unfortunately, it isn't: the two are part of the same global process," and this is just an example of the "complex world", not some kind of covert defense of religious authoritarianism.

Heh. Too funny. I guess its because you read it in LRB, as opposed to Rabble.

So when I say something like that, its a "ploy to divert attention" but when Zizek says something like that its fair criticism. Hah! Now there is this bit about "foreign manipulation". Again you could quote me on something I actually said, where I said, the revolt was primarily instigated by the west. Where do you read me saying that? Nowhere. It is a fabrication. In fact, I said the opposite, several times, noting above, for example:

Quote:

The Twitter story was quite well evidenced, and there do seem to have been some Twitter feeds that originated with the Jerusalem Post, not that makes much difference, since I doubt "twitter" had much to do with anything, other than serving as a cute byline for the western press. In that sense it may have helped shape views here, more than it did in Iran.

But no, as you recently opined, my real aim is supporting "dictatorial regimes... whether you admit that's what youre doing or not". What you are really saying is that my failure to align myself along the ideological spectrum of right and wrong, as you concieve of it, is tantamount to being "with the terrorists". Zizek can get away with it, apparently, even though he really was a member of the communist party, an alignment you have suggested charachterizes my view "objectively", on more than one occassion.

sanizadeh wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Heh. I spent the better part of three threads discussing democracy in Iran, where I asked what the tangible difference between a democractic system where a theocratic elite sanctions an electoral slate where two candidates are more simillar than they are different,  and a democracy where a corporate elite sanctions two candidates that are more simillar than they are different

On these three threads you have read articles and opinion pieces from many who have had thde experience of living under those two systems, and yet you reject their experience. So it seems the only way to understand the difference is to personally experience living under both systems and then compare them. Note that the difference is not just the mechanisms of election as you are focusing on; but the whole lack of legal protection for human rights of individuals and groups.

So you think.

Those who challenge the state know differently. This is a country where the Prime Minister invoked martial law in order to quell the threat of Quebec nationalism when two minor officials were kidnapped by a small revolutionary clique. Where the RCMP actively sent agent provocateurs into the midst of opposition groups to discredit them, buying dynamite to trump up evidence against people, burning down barns to prevent political meetings from taking place, stolen the membership lists of legal democratic parties, and when this was discovered, they held an inquirey and founded a new organization to do the same kinds of contelipro opreations, legaly. They called it CSIS, the very same CSIS that aided an abetted the torture of a teenager in Guantanmo Bay, and is "scolded" for doing so. A country where a police officer shoots a native activist and is given two years of community service for criminal negligence. And that is just here.

In the grand scheme, when we talk about here, we are talking about "the west" and particularly the USA. And if you really think that there is real legal protection for human rights for individuals and groups, in the United States you are seriously deluded. Nazis who march through black suburbs of Toledo are given police protection. Black people are murdered by law enforcement officers routinely, almost as if it is in the line of duty, executing them in full public view, or shooting them even when they follow instructions. Rioting takes place when the disenfranchised mass react to these blatant abuses, and for some reason here you seem to think we can determine that the violence is the fault of the protestors, and not a "police riot", whereas you insist that the violence perpetrated by people of Iran against police repression is justifiable. Even peaceful protests are routinely broken up violently by the police.

On the one hand you assert that narrative given by Iranian state media about how rioting is instigated by lawless elements is entirely false, but turn around and assert the same narrative when given by the mainstream media in the west, is essentially true... the work of anarchists and other lawless elements.

So yes, there is a difference. The unmasked brutality of the state is always availble to the powers that be, in direct ratio to the evident threat to authority. Were there a serious challenge to the reigning authority in the US, I believe the violence unleashed by the state would more than likely make what has been happening in Iran look like a tea party. When it comes down to it what you call the paper upon which the "legal protection for human rights of individuals and groups" exists is indeed very thin.

Cueball wrote:

Those who challenge the state know differently. This is a country where the Prime Minister invoked martial law in order to quell the threat of Quebec nationalism when two minor officials were kidnapped by a small revolutionary clique. Where the RCMP actively sent agent provocateurs into the midst of opposition groups to discredit them, buying dynamite to trump up evidence against people, burning down barns to prevent political meetings from taking place, stolen the membership lists of legal democratic parties, and when this was discovered, they held an inquirey and founded a new organization to do the same kinds of contelipro opreations, legaly. They called it CSIS, the very same CSIS that aided an abetted the torture of a teenager in Guantanmo Bay, and is "scolded" for doing so. A country where a police officer shoots a native activist and is given two years of community service for criminal negligence. And that is just here.

I do not subscribe to a black and white picture and do not paint a rosy picture of the situation in the west; the Vancouver airport incident for example is as bad as any similar incident in Iran. However the comparison you are giving in the above, especially the examples you gave, is like garden party comparing to the situation in Iran and many other third world countries. The scope and magnitude of it is perhaps beynd comprehension of an average Canadian. Let's compare:

1. Canada: Stealing membership lists of political parties

Iran: Mass arrest of top exectives of the two legal parties that challenged Ahmadinejad in election. Most of them have not been heard from since the election.

2. Canada: Officer gets two years of community service for shooting a antive protester

Iran:  No one has ever been brought to justice for any of the murders in police custody: from Zahra Kazemi and Zahra Bani-yaghoub in previous years to more than 30 who have been confirmed dead in police custody after this election.

3. Canada: CSIS gets scolded for its activities

Iran: 25 newspapers get shut down over night for "crimes" ranged from suggesting that a specific trial was unfair, to "insulting" an official by linking him to murder of a journalist. Not even "scolding".

4. Canada: An inquiry leads to another ineffective organization

Iran: What is an inquiry?

I can continue the list, but no doubt you know it as much as I do. This is not a "West is paradise and Iran is hell" argument. Just the fact that even thinking that a Canadian activist has to face the same level of problems that an Iranian or other third world activist has to, requires a huge deal of fantasy.

Cueball wrote:

What do you mean? Authorities in Iran had an inquirey into the allegations of vote fraud, and discovered that indeed their were "irregularities" but not enough to sway the end result. Are they not having an investigation of the event were the student dorm was attacked during the first weeks of the unrest? They indeed had a trial in the Zahra case that resulted in aquittal on what amounts to a manslaughter charge.

You are not serious, right? An inquiry is something that by nature must be open to the public. How do you know any investigation has been done in these cases where the whole report by the authorities is that: "We investigated and there was no basis."

Investigating the attack on the student dorm? Good luck. Lots of such promises were given in the aftermath of the similar attack on student dorms in 1999, and after ten years still not a single peson has been prosecuted for a ravage that was done in presence of police. Of course, scores of students who protested the attack afterwards have now completed their jail sentences!

Trial in Zahra Kazemi's case was done under pressure from Khatami, and none of the major alleged culprits was involved other than a low rank officer who was responsible for transferring her from the interrogation centre to the prison! Neither the interrogator, nor the head of prison or prison guards were investigated.

In the case of Zahra Baniyaghoub who was found dead in police custody, because of the prominence of her family originally the junior police officer in the police centre was charged, and then all charges were dropped after a week or two. Her sister (who is a well known journalist) and some other family members are now in jail since the election.

Cueball wrote:

Right. It's a whitewash, just like ipperwash. Please find me a Canadian conviction for murder of a Canadian police officer for his actions on duty? Ipperwash whitewash = "criminal negligence" charge, a charge that is even less than the charge brought in Zahra case, which was at least a murder charge. Siillarly, None of the higher officials involved were even touched by the investigation let alone charged.

In fact it is so simillar, any arguement on this would prevarication.

True, but the scale of whitewashing is entirely different. In the Ipperwash case you know when and how  Dudley George was killed, what was the name of the police officer who shot him, witnesses were called, and even Mike Harris himself had to appear before the commission and testify. BTW It was indeed a disgusting shame that the judge decided not to give a harsher sentence to the shooter. This appears to have become the norm here in Canada and a stain on the justice system.

Now compare it to Zahra Kazemi's case. please tell me: where was she killed? who killed her? what actually happened? not a single prison official was even called to testify. The court rulling was: "we have no idea what happened to Kazemi!" Same thing in all other so called investigations.

CB:  "Look, the point here is that we are looking at the larger scale aspects of "systems", and trying to determine their net effect in terms of real democracy and freedom from corruption."

First things first, stop telling others what "the point is here", thats only a matter of your opinion and one in which is not always clear in your case given your constant shifting of the grounds.  Most people left of centre have a clear idea that it isn't Islamic authoritarianism versus Liberal Democracy, for the simple reason that most everyone knows we no longer live in a Liberal Democracy.  It has become significantly less on both counts since the neo-cons manipulated their way to power, and of course was always less than perfect.  Most do however recognise that Iran may still be significantly worse most ways, and certaintly not any alternative that anyone here would prefer to live under.   Its nice to see you basically admit that you think that you are defending their "system", even if you will of course try to deny it and obfuscate. 

CB:

"So when I say something like that, its a "ploy to divert attention" but when Zizek says something like that its fair criticism. Hah! Now there is this bit about "foreign manipulation"."

Huh?  Something like what?  Didn't I just tell you that my quoting this wasn't necessarily in agreement with everything he said but only to showe some difference of opinion on the subject on the militant left?  Why yes, yes I did.  Now perhaps if you were more clear on just which passage I was supposed to be in contradiction of and with who I can better understand why you trying to turn this too around on me, other than your usual childish need to one up the other. 

It should have been obvious that I was looking to disengage on that post, in fact I said so quite plainly, but since you seem to want to raise more isues with me I'll promise you I get back to you soon on this whole subject, as you so obviously want to do, but first I'd rather engage with others and read a few less contentious threads.  But in answer to you other I will say that yes, yes you Are supporting dictatorial regimes,as you have done quite persistently over the years, what your AIm is for doing so may not necessaily be a love of dictorial regime itself and I seriously doubt youd prefer to live there yourself, but that is in effect what you are doing yes.  I hope that helps at least a bit.

Wow, back already?  You Are eager to pounce.  Ok, first things first, I was never refering to Sanizadeh in my earlier post, so please stop trying to play games.  Tell me what exactly I was in incontradiction with and please tie it into what I said previously, and how it related to others.  Otherwise I can only assume its more one-up-manship. 

Re your support of dictatorial regimes, that is exactly what your doing here and have done on many an occasion prior, Iran is a dictatorial regime, you are defending it, full stop.  Why you are doing so is another issue.  Now I am going to leave this for awhile, as you're also trying to make it look like I'm out to "get you" again, something I do not appreciate when you are the one going after me, but I will again assure you that I will deal with this whole issue soon, as it never seems to get resolved to anyones satisfaction. I hope I can offer up a better way of looking at this kind of international conflict, something that less militant leftists might find easier to accept.  Goodnight for now.