Commentators

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 15° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Robert Fisk: The dead of Iran are mourned – but the fight goes on

Despite the intimidation, the appetite to overthrow Ahmadinejad remains strong

Mirhossein Mousavi, centre, waves to supporters at a demonstration in Tehran yesterday

AP

Mirhossein Mousavi, centre, waves to supporters at a demonstration in Tehran yesterday

"President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and the quotation marks are becoming ever more appropriate in Iran today – is in real trouble. There are now three separate official inquiries into his supposed election victory and the violence which followed, while conservative Iranian MPs fought each other with their fists at a private meeting behind the assembly chamber, after Ahmadinejad's members objected to an official's reference to the "dignity" with which the opposition leader, Mirhossein Mousavi, answered parliamentary questions. Those close to the man who still believes he is the President of Iran say that he is himself deeply troubled – even traumatised – by the massive demonstrations against him across the country.

Tens of thousands of Mousavi supporters marched in black through the streets of central Tehran yesterday evening, in an emotional demonstration of mourning – the second in two days – for the post-election dead. In a city symbolised by its brutal traffic and decibel records, they walked in total silence for three miles, holding banners and posters lamenting the killings in Azadi Square and Tehran University and in other Iranian cities. And they had no doubts about the political – and physical – risks they were taking.

A chemical engineer walking at the centre of the huge black trail thought for several seconds when I asked him what happens next. "Nobody knows but we think of this all the time," he at last replied. "We cannot stop now. If we stop now, they will eat us. The best is for the United Nations or some international organisations to monitor another election." Upon such illusions is disaster built.

But the same man's wife had a humour that almost belonged to the vast black crowd yesterday. She was a commercial lawyer but had studied psychology. "If we let go now, we are going to face someone like Pinochet – and our dictators here are not even up-to-date dictators," she told me without a trace of a smile. "My psychological training is very useful. Ahmadinejad has a classic psychosis problem. He lies a lot and he's hallucinatory and the problem is, he thinks he's related to someone up there!" And here, the lady pointed upwards in the general direction of heaven. But no jokes about religion. These marchers were chanting the Muslim "salavat" prayer, giving greetings to the Prophet Mohamed and his family.

And just as well. For this morning, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is to lead Friday prayers at Tehran University – the same campus upon which seven young men were shot dead by pro-Ahmadinejad Basiji militiamen on Sunday night – and Mousavi is promising to bring his own supporters, wearing black arm-bands of mourning for the dead, to demonstrate their loyalty to Khamenei himself. Ahmadinejad's acolytes have been claiming that the opposition is trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic as well as Khamenei, a dangerous slander in any revolution here but a particularly incendiary one today.

The opposition suspects that Khamenei will try to restore order by telling Mousavi and his people that they have been allowed their massive demonstrations and that, despite "unfortunate incidents" – that wonderful autocratic cliché has actually just been used by parliament Speaker Ali Larijani – this was a generous and democratic act by the government. But, Khamenei is expected to say, enough is enough. Any groups disturbing the peace this weekend will be regarded as counter-revolutionaries and dealt with "according to the law" (a favourite Khamenei expression).

If so, Mousavi and his advisers – they include former president Mohammad Khatami as well as Mousavi's election ally, Mehdi Karroubi – will have to behave with immense sensitivity if they are not to be trapped into silence by such a warning. Their problem is almost intractable. If they continue the protest marches, they can be accused of breaking the law – and the waning strength of the marches no longer brings the people of Tehran on to their balconies and rooftops – but if they bring the protests to an end, the Basiji and the cops become kings of the street.

Indeed, the arrest of the Islamic Republic's first foreign minister, Ibrahim Yazdi – he was taken, quite literally, from the bed of his Tehran hospital where he is suffering from prostate cancer – shows just how high the level of suspicion is amid the heights of the Islamic Republic. No one has managed to suggest a sane reason why a man who worked alongside the founder of the Islamic regime, Ayatollah Khomeini himself, should suddenly disappear before our eyes. Yazdi had urged Iranians to boycott the presidential poll four years ago – the election that brought Ahmadinejad to power – but was urging all Iranians to vote last week.

If anyone needed proof of the government's state of indecision, they had only to look at yesterday's Tehran newspapers. Suddenly, the mass demonstrations were acknowledged in full. A whole front page of photographs showed Wednesday afternoon's Mousavi rally. Ahmadinejad had said at the weekend that his opponents were mere "layers of dust" – an unwise as well as a childish remark – but across one photograph, demonstrators can be seen carrying a banner which reads: "The layers of dust are making history."

Other papers showed Iran's top six football stars playing South Korea in Seoul with Mousavi's campaign green ribbons tried to their wrists. They complied with instructions to take them off for the second half of the match – which was broadcast live across Iran and which turned out to be a draw. Even Mousavi's website is no longer blocked. We may ask what all this means. But so does all of Iran.

It was clear, however, even before the right-wing MPs turned to fisticuffs, that the authorities simply did not know how to handle this unprecedented revolt – not revolution – by so many millions of Iranians. With a more intelligent, thoughtful, less arrogant man in power, it might be possible to look for a political compromise, perhaps some tinkering with the constitution to create a vice-presidency (not that Mousavi would accept it) or even recreate the post of prime minister which was held by Mousavi himself during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

But who wants to work with Ahmadinejad? His efforts to improve the lot of the millions of Iranian poor – their existence, of course, is a blight upon the moral reputation of any republic which controls so much oil wealth – have been genuine and well received. His meretricious doubts about the Jewish Holocaust, his foolish rhetoric about Israel, his constant comparison of the Iranian election to a football match, are of no interest to them. But Mousavi can scarcely work with such an unpredictable, unstable figure.

Ahmadinejad's colleagues have been claiming that the vandalisation of property, including the destruction of computers at Tehran University – an act with absolutely no intelligent explanation – was committed by "traitors", but the government's own investigative committee is now saying that plain-clothed agents were involved.

It all leaves "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a very lonely man.

Day 6 of Iran crisis

* In an attempt to defuse calls for a rerun, Iran's Governing Council promised to listen to the candidates "express their ideas" about the election. It also said it was examining 646 complaints.

* Meanwhile, it was clear where President Ahmadinejad wanted to place the blame for the crisis. He told his cabinet that the vote's legitimacy was being questioned because it was a "challenge to the West's democracy."

* Also focusing on foreign elements, the Intelligence Ministry said that it had uncovered proof of a bomb plot backed by American elements. The bombs were apparently supposed to go off in polling stations on election day.

* Iranian television showed former president Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, rallying protesters. Hardliners accused her and her brother, Mahdi, of treason. The two were later barred from leaving Iran.

* In an echo of Twitter's decision to cancel planned maintenance to help protesters, YouTube broke from its usual policy of barring violent videos so that Iranians could "capture their experiences for the world to see".

More from Robert Fisk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Iran - Next Saudi Arabia
[info]brain4reason wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 01:05 am (UTC)
If Iranians think their government reaction to this protest is bad (which would be the same reaction any Western democracy would have to burning cars and burning military posts), just wait till they have someone in power backed by the CIA like Saudi Arabia. Even Iraqis are asking to have Saddam back after they were so called "freed".

Paranoid this, paranoid that. The protesters are creating their own grave (or the grave of their fellow citizens since the protesters are wealthy enough to flee, while their compatriots who voted for Ahmedinejad are not).
Re: Iran - Next Saudi Arabia
[info]achilles0200 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)
brain4reason "If Iranians think their government reaction to this protest is bad (which would be the same reaction any Western democracy would have to burning cars and burning military posts), just wait till they have someone in power backed by the CIA like Saudi Arabia. Even Iraqis are asking to have Saddam back after they were so called "freed"."

So the Iranians should 'like it or lump' it should they? And if, say for argument's sake, as a minority they detest living in a society that stamps on any freedom of self-expression (particularly for women and the clothes they are required to wear) and routinely executes individuals often in public pour encourager les autres and is belligerently hostile (and seems to be spoiling for a fight) with regard to the West that's just too bad isn't it?

The question that you, and others who rush to support Iran at all costs, should address is whether you would want to have your lives controlled by this sort of regime. Very few of you appear to wish to up sticks to live in this theocratic Utopia or go to North Korea etc. But you cheerfully expect others to knuckle down and accept their fate.







Re: Iran - Next Saudi Arabia - [info]brain4reason - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Iran - Next Saudi Arabia - [info]azeri_in_paris - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Khamenei is in deep trouble
[info]chesscheckers wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:27 am (UTC)
Khamenei is in deep trouble. He must either listen to the people and order a revote or be forced out. This is a genuine movement for change and it cannot be stopped.
Khamenei in deep trouble?--No Iran is
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 05:10 am (UTC)
"Khamenei is in deep trouble. He must either listen to the people and order a revote or be forced out. This is a genuine movement for change and it cannot be stopped". So writes chesscheckers.

No, this is putting the cart before the horse.

Those who have alleged fraudulent practice must declare where they find it, so that it can be investigated. Another election would be very expensive and time consuming--and could end with false allegations of the same, while chaos may go unbridled until a coup results or a state clampdown.

It is Iran, which is in trouble--and there is no doubt in my mind, that much of the confusion and disruption was planned prior to these elections, by a frustrated middle-class elite, who have selfish motives to jerk Iran into American-style free-market capitalism.

For those elites, who have enjoyed western-style "freedom" there would be no problem in amassing business deals and becoming oligarchs in a runaway privatisation frenzy, but for the vast majority, capitalism would be alien and damaging to their culture.

Be careful, for what you wish--the US takes no prisoners in the gambling arena of International Corporatism, where the main players are already skilled and established.

Israel too, has its interest in Iran's future--rather like it has for Palestinians.

Good luck Iran--and watch your back Ahmadinejad--remember they crucified Jesus for much less.
Re: Khamenei in deep trouble?--No Iran is
[info]chesscheckers wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:21 am (UTC)
The fraud was planned by Ahmadinejad's supporters. How do you explain that in over 30 towns the number of votes cast were over 100% of the voters. In a town near Yazd, the vote cast was 141%. Since all the votes were hand written and hand counted, how could they declare the results without any details within a couple of hours of the poll closing? By the way, it is not just the elite and the middle class only even the Tehran sanitation workers joined the protest.

Finally, leave the US and others out of it. This protest started because of the vote fraud by the Ahmadinejad administration.
Re: Khamenei in deep trouble?--No Iran is - [info]achilles0200 - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 04:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Revolution?
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 05:59 am (UTC)
rhinocircus, you may well be right about the likelihood of external destabilising influences undermining the present regime in Iran. On the other hand, if it really is a revolution which is taking place there, you should remember that revolutions are things that can't be controlled. They are unpredictable and would be as unlikely to serve American interests as anyone else's. However, what may be taking place there could be one of those pseudo-revolutions which have been called 'velvet revolutions' - an orchestrated 'revolution' for the restoration of capitalism and assertion of American hegemony which the former revolution disrupted. It all remains to be seen. There seem to be so many hidden variables here. For my own part I am for neither one side or the other. I think the regime in Iran is detestable and if the movement to overthrow it was a genuinely popular one, I would be for it. On the other hand, look what has happened to Russia and other Eastern European countries where 'revolutions' have been orchestrated. It was not the people who came out on top.
Happy days
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She is my sweetheart.....She is the sunshine in my heart.....She is my best match.....I knew I would not love any other woman since I met her...Thanks for ************Cougar Circle . com*********** which brought us happiness. Wish you are as lucky as me......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Readers mourn demise of a once respected journalist
[info]johnjackson wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:20 am (UTC)
I know that Fisk has had a downer on the Shia for some time, never letting an opportunity to rubbish Hezbollah or Iran pass him by. But his continued trumpeting of MoUSavi's alleged victory is sickening. For the umpteenth time Bob, where is the evidence that President Ahmadinejad rigged the polls? Is it te fake letter you described yesterday, er, and that's it. The U.S. conducted poll prior to the election, the results of which were published in the Washington Post on 15th June, predicted the landslide win for Ahmadinejad. As this poll didn't fit the agenda it has been ignored by the Zionist controlled Western media.

The results can be read here...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html

And here is an article putting them into context...
www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html

I have noticed that your reporting has nose-dived since you have been working for Rupert Murdoch. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver.
Re: Readers mourn demise of a once respected journalist
[info]penny_reese wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:56 am (UTC)
"I have noticed that your reporting has nose-dived since you have been working for Rupert Murdoch. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver."

Can you explain, please? I wasn't aware that the Independent is owned in whole or part by Rupert Murdoch. When did this happen?
Re: Readers mourn demise of a once respected journalist - [info]ganef - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Readers mourn demise of a once respected journalist - [info]ganef - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Readers mourn demise of a once respected journalist - [info]ganef - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Happy days
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:25 am (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am an ordinary man, but in her heart I am extraordinary. ========Cougar Circle . com ========= was where we met. She makes me believe that " I am one person for the world, but I am the world for her.".............
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Re: Happy days
[info]ganef wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:55 am (UTC)
Why are you allowing commercial advertising for a dating site?
Not revolution
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:27 am (UTC)
The protests are slowing in their momentum. There is no clear vital leader to make things happen and change. Mousaki is not strong or brave enough to suggest revolt and is thus allowing his own supporters to run out of steam.

If nothing happens at the Khomernei meeting today, then that's that and the madman will stay in power
Re: Not revolution
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 08:07 am (UTC)
Mousaki? You mean Mousakka? Are eggplants in season? Who's the bird and who's she praying to in that Joanna Lumleyesque manner anyway?
this is below you, Fisk
[info]a_al_amin wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
I have always liked your writings Bob, but your recent ones are really below you.

You know that Ahmadi have a higher vote than others in this election, and this itself makes all these protests illegal by any standards. Yet yesterday you tried to prove a baseless letter to be fact, as true as the Koran, that one even a 6year old can see through.

Now you know that the number of the killed students were less, but you carried on with the "15 killed" mantra, as if this has no intention to fire up the youth to break more laws in protest.

However you dislike it, people of the west, in Ahmadi we have a populist leader with a REAL backbone, not shoe-lickers that we see in Abbas, Karzai and Maliki.

This fiasco is about bringing Iran to its knees but internal fighting, rather than having more US troops killed in a military invasion, pure and simple. The west will crush the peoples power in whole of the middle east in the name of democracy, just to keep a hold on all the oil.

Get on your lives and let us Muslims live our own life as we wish, we do not want your meddling. You have more important things to mind, keeping your sucking economy afloat. That in itself will create a lot of stability all over the world, because you will not have to invade other countries to sustain your extravagant lifestyle.

No more wars in our land. No more stealing our resources. No more moral policing on us, when you cannot live up to your own standards. Try producing a single poor-friendly president like Ahmadi in your country, you will be killed like a dog in your own country by corporate interests. Talk about democracy!






Re: this is below you, Fisk
[info]b_ehan wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:39 am (UTC)
Damn straight. I was beginning to think no one saw it this way but me! Imperialist motivated media farce with a double standard so thick it could cast a shadow. The once respected journalist Fisk is beginning to look more and more like a neo-colonial apologist for a U.S.led war of political aggression (with media complicity) against Iran for having a leader willing to put the poor before international corporate interests - next stop Chavez...
Re: this is below you, Fisk - [info]brain4reason - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 02:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: this is below you, Fisk - [info]achilles0200 - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 04:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Meantime in the banana republic of pseudo-democratic Britain
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC)
still governed by organised economic crime syndicates by way of gangs of quisling snouts jostling for the best places at the trough, this is a luvly diversion of the herd's attention away from their own predicament http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F5963509?thread=5422643&skip=40&show=20#p63176352 (this item after a year of censorship by the BBC, was recently restored)
chiennoir
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 06:48 am (UTC)
A fair analysis blackdog and not overlooked, but--

"I think the regime in Iran is detestable and if the movement to overthrow it was a genuinely popular one, I would be for it".

How many regimes have the unadulterated love of their people today?

Agreed, the strict theocratic regime would stifle me, but I can understand that, some people have cultures, which bring comfort to empoverished masses. I wish only for them to have the time to grow and adapt to the harsh realities of globalism and western capitalism.



Democracy
[info]amvet wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)
Democracy is when our candidate wins. Otherwise, have another vote. Amvet
[info]babakt2 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:40 am (UTC)
Have ever been such a gathering is Saudi Arabia? Have there ever been a revolution in Saudi Arabia? How many people in Saudi Arabia have been sentenced to death. Your comparison is out of question. If large scale killing was the only respond to massive crowd SHAH would have been in power today. Compare SHah's Army reaction in 1978-79 with revolutionary guards reaction. How many people were killed in one of massive protest in the history of revolution (29 Bahman Tabriz) just one person. But how many people killed in similar upraise in Tabriz 2007, which foreign media did not even covered, at least 30. So the regime in Iran is suppressive and brutal by any definition, and it has nothing to do with West or Saudi Arabia.
Who is this Robert Fisk? Not the one I used to know.
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 07:51 am (UTC)
This irresponsible rumor-monger and cheerleader for this crappy "colored revolution" of urban elites, led by the Khomeini apparatchik Mousavi and serving the political ambitions of the ultra-corrupt Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, is a bad and insulting imitation of the Robert Fisk I used to admire. I seriously wonder if there is some secret CIA microwave weapon that "rhinocerizes" people like Christopher Hitchens and Robert Fisk into neocon cheerleaders, shilling for the Yank empire in support for the Hariris and the Montazeris of this world.

This weak-ass attempt to regime change Iran orchestrated by Obama and Montazeri and using Moussavi as the front man will fail. Read someone who still has some journalistic integrity and competence:

History suggests the coup will fail


Patrick Cockburn, who reported from Iran during the 1979 revolution, reflects on the fall of the Shah and explains why the current uprising is very different

Friday, 19 June 2009

By the time the Shah left Iran on 16 January 1979 he had almost no support. This again is very different from the present situation. President Ahmadinejad was re-elected with 62.6 per cent of the vote last week. His opponents claim the poll was rigged, although this is almost exactly the same as his vote in 2005, when he won 61.7 per cent. The point is that Mr Ahmadinejad is a popular politician and the Shah was not. He is very unlikely to be forced from power.

Cockburn also reminds us that the Shah was hated because he was a Yank stooge. Obama is bending over backwards to conceal the fact that Iran's Yank stooge today is Mousavi.

Here's who this whole pathetic "colored revolution" coup attempt is orchestrated by:

Iran Faces Greater Risks Than It Knows


Many in the Iranian countryside believe that the ayatollahs have too much wealth and power. Amadinejad?s attack on corruption resonates with the Iranian countryside but not with the ayatollahs.

Amadinejad?s campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.

Montazeri has made a deal with Obama, getting the Yanks and their Wurlitzer media to back his coup attempt in exchange for future concessions. Obama probably knows the coup will fail but is happy just to have a chance to bug Ahmadinejad.
Khameney just closed Mousavi's little party down
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 09:29 am (UTC)
The unelected theocratic "supreme leader" just called the faithful to prayer at Tehran University, the HQ of Mousavi's "colored revolution," and summoned Mousavi to bow before him along with the rest of the congregation, which he obediently did. Since Mousavi fans are not the mosque-going type, this prayer meet was in fact Khameney reading Mousavi the riot act and occupying Musavi's HQ with legions of Nejad followers. His speech depicted Mousavi and his fans as traitors and foreign stooges, which they are, though most unwittingly. What he didn't say was that they are also the pawns of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a contender for Khameney's job who has the backing of the most corrupt Mullahs in Iran, all of whom fear Ahmadinejad and his shock troops' anticorruption drive.

Mousavi, as the front man for the Yanks & the thieving Mullahs, just has to suck it up and accept that his little party is over. If he pushes it, he knows that his lifestyle is going to take a big hit. Khamenei doesn't have to jail him, he can just cut off his allowance. Mousavi is an apparatchik, an inside man who depends on the favors of ayatollahs to maintain his opulent lifestyle. Khamenei's prayer-meet-demo means that he has outmaneuvered Montezari, so his pawn Mousavi is left alone and undefended, ready to be squashed.
Another exemple of the western world propaganda
[info]denbundy36 wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
Leave them alone, they have voted, end of story! Fucking Western MEDIA
Marbles
[info]scousekraut wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
I think Fisk has lost his marbles. This is a CIA/Mossad manipulation using the mainstream media and the Internet. The students are being used and will be left to hang out when it is all over.
Re: Marbles
[info]marcopedro wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
And the MI5?
Wow, neo con at once !?
[info]hasanfaris wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:39 am (UTC)
Amazing how leftists and middle easterners go into conspiracy theories the minute a respected journalist like Robert Fisk does not verify their version of of "reality" , him a neo con ? he has spoke against Israeli aggression "AKA your rallying cry to avoid democracy or improving your lives" , he has spoken against removing saddam for his own reasons, not your tyrant worshiping ideological reasons.

It is a joke I am going to share with everyone from now on, Robert Fisk is the neo con because he is not towing the line for radicals like Iran's mullahs and their puppets in Southern Lebanon.

Funny world.
"towing the line for radicals"
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 04:08 pm (UTC)
Who do you think Mousavi is "towing the line" for moron? You think he's a pro-Shah zionist-loving creep like yourself?

Why don't you "tow your line" back to the pub with the rest of your expat pro-Shah pals and continue to drown your sorrows in ale? There's no soup here for you.
Re: "towing the line for radicals" - [info]hasanfaris - Saturday, 20 June 2009 at 05:51 am (UTC) Expand
Robert Fisk has had a Frontal Lobotomy?
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)
I have always enjoyed Robert's books and ME journalism, but recently he seems at a loss to analyse the events in Iran, without an absurd skew or bias.

Where does he mention the sensitivity and caution of Iran's leaders, to being under permanent seige from western interests and interference--and that deadly neighbour Israel, with its own destructive agenda for Iran?

Demonstrations of this intensity do not happen in a vacuum and for four years, there hasn't been any significant indication.

Let those who allege vote rigging say where and wait for the evidence to be discovered.

Otherwise, Mr. Fisk has had a serious operation, or wishes to produce a new and sensational book--based on hindsight, rather than momentary analyses.
WHO ARE THESE PROPOGANDISTS?
[info]zheegool wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
Who are these dictator sypathiser shrills who post here on behalf of iranians?
Who are these agents of Basiji and dare call these people traitors when Israel has OPENLY STATED THEY PREFER AHMADINEJAD.
Who are you to decide who is or is not an iranian patriot.
You are no different to the fascists and stalinists who branded their countrymen traitors for every word objection.

My people march in silence, so their voice can be heard.
My people mourn young women murdered in their sleep by your bloodthirsty thugs.

Do you think we can't see through your lies?
Do you think we can't see how you use religion to line your pockets.
Do you have no shame for the role you play in keeping your country down for 30 years.

We don't care about Mousavi.
We care about our country.

ENOUGH MARCHING.
PEOPLE MUST GO ON GENERAL STRIKE IF THIS MOVEMENT IS TO BE EFFECTIVE
British democracy isn't that different. Invade over lies and get away with it.
[info]alimabrouk wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC)


British democracy isn't that different. Invade over lies and get away with it.
Re: British democracy isn't that different. Invade over lies and get away with it.
[info]hasanfaris wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:22 am (UTC)
Yeah, but it did good by removing saddam despite the despot's defenders objections :)
Even Fisk could be mitaken
[info]is7aq wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:27 am (UTC)
According to official figures- which the west doesn?t' like- Mousavi got 13,216,411 votes, so seeing hundreds of thousands take to the street in support of his accusations is not a surprise. Mr.Fisk is trying to picture this as a vote against the system. Let us remember who Mousavi is, a former Prime minister in the same Mullah government. . Mr. Mousavi is filling legal objections and before the result is out he asks his supporters to rally. He did the same thing before the election results were out.
Fisk you are an intelligent man but I think this time your hatred for religious 'fundamentalism' obscured your vision. The same happened when in 'Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War' your understanding and onion on Hizb Allah turned out to be completely mistaken.
Israel
[info]marcopedro wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 11:32 am (UTC)
To clarify: Israel has no issues with Iran. Israel didn't declare war on Iran. Israel doesn't arm terrorist groups to attack Iran, like does with Hezbolah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Israelis don't hate Iranaans, they don't march on Iranian flags chanting "death to Iran". Israeli's religion (Judaism) doesn't come from the Iranian religion, we don't have to worship any Iranian. What is their problem with Israel? Why are they so obsessed with Israel and these "palestinians", arabs? Arabs already have 22 countries, one (or two, if we count Gaza) in Palestine, Jordan. Is Iran doing it out of love for the arabs, the same arabs that are scared of them, the same arabs they went to war (Iraq)? How about the minorities in Iran? Why don't they give them autonomy or an independent state? How about their Kurds, who want a separate country and don't have any? And why are Iranians muslims? Why don't they go back to worship their Persian gods? 1500 years after Judaism and 700 after Jew Jesus an arab invented a new religion "based" on Judaism and Christianism (no copyright then). All muslim "prophets" are Jewish kings and prophets, from Moses to David and Jesus. Then this arab converted the Persians by the sword. Now the Iranians have to follow a religion invented by an arab who worhsips Jews. BTW, the first Zionist was the Persian king who set the captive Jews free and let them go back to THEIR country, in Zion. At that time no arabs in Palestine, not even romans there, the ones who invented the name Palestine (before the arabs from Arabia invaded)
Re: Israel
[info]arniesack wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:07 pm (UTC)
Now why would Iran loving Israel fabricate documents indicating that Iran is carrying out illegal development of nuclear weapons?
www.counterpunch.org/porter06042009.html
We've heard all of your lies before. We know what kind of nut you are when you mention "Jew Jesus". The Talmud may have something to say about that.
Re: Israel - [info]marcopedro - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Israel - [info]arniesack - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Israel - [info]goatbucket - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Israel - [info]achilles0200 - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Game over, Fisk.
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:46 pm (UTC)
Khamenei blew the whistle, the Punch & Judy show between Nejad & Mousavi is now over. The Western Wurlitzer media will continue to huff and puff but the Supreme Leader has rounded up his stray mullahs who backed Mousavi against Nejad's anticorruption drive and the theocratic regime is now monolithically united behind Khamenei. During his Friday sermon at Tehran University the Ayatollah mostly castigated the Mousavi lot for being the tools of the "arrogant west" but also lashed out at Nejad for calling Rafsanjani a thief - which he is - thus sending a signal to the Ayatollah Montezari's pro-corruption faction that he will rein Nejad in and allow the mullahs to persist in their thieving ways.

So the party's over, Mousavi's clerical sponsors have desisted from their power bid, and the "green revolution" is now officially a "Zionist plot." The crowds who got out the hankies on cue when Khamenei pulled a tear-jerker about his "handicapped body" (the Shah's CIA-trained goons tortured him) and shouted "death to America" and "death to Israel" in unison represent the silent (well, not so silent) Iranian majority, a huge immutable mass the power of which Mousavi has no illusions about.

Finally, the outright lie in this AP article shows you just how desperate the Wurlitzer media is:

Khamenei warns of protest crackdown


By Ali Akbar Dareini and Nasser Karimi, Associated Press

Friday, 19 June 2009

Iran's supreme leader said today that the country's disputed presidential vote had not been rigged and sternly warning protesters of a crackdown if they continue massive demonstrations demanding a new election.

"It must be determined at the ballot box what the people want and what they don't want, not in the streets," he said. "I call on all to put an end to this method. ... If they don't, they will be held responsible for the chaos and the consequences."

I listened to the entire speech. Khamenei never said anything about a crackdown. There is no quote in the AP article that supports the allegation in the header. All that the guy said was "they will be held responsible."

When even the AP stoops to lying and putting words in peoples' mouths, you know the Yanks and their vassals are desperate.

I watched Christiane Amanpour sum up Khamenei's speech, which she said contained "many valid points." The old geezer clearly saw the the parallels between the Western-bankrolled mob coup in Tblisi that brought the ethnic cleansing dictator Saakashvili to power and the color-coded synchronized mobs setting fires and trying to provoke a Tiananmen-style crackdown in Tehran. He explained all this in a homey Reaganesque style and the crowd expressed its strong agreement with chants of "death to (Israel, America, Britain, etc.)." The old cleric scolded but never threatened, never demonized the Mousavi crowd. In fact he never even mentioned them by name.
"Crackdown"
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:40 pm (UTC)
That's the new buzzword. It's on all the channels, all the papers: Khameney, crackdown, crackdown, crackdown. All the guy said was one week of riots is freaking enough already, from now on you riot, you face the consequences. He didn't specify but seeing as he didn't even so much as single out the Mousavi bunch by name - he just kept saying "some candidates" - it sure didn't sound like he was going to call out the tanks. So since when has prosecuting rioters become a "crackdown?"

I guess since somebody pushed the "crackdown" button on the media Wurlitzer.

In case you still think Mousavi's colored revolution thugs are "peaceful protesters," here's some highlights:



Iran polls end in riot




Protesters burn a car and attack a building of a pro-government militia base. Seven people have died so far in the protests in Iran, according to local radio. (Photo:DPA)



Iranian supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi run past burning debris during riots on June 13 (Photo:AFP)
Re: "Crackdown" - [info]achilles0200 - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 04:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: "Crackdown" - [info]fin_d_empire - Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Has Robert Fisk joined the enemy?
[info]aerialk wrote:
Friday, 19 June 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
It is disappointing to see Robert Fisk who campaigns against Western propaganda in the Middle East has started to be part of it! Noam Chomsky and John Pilger will be extremely disappointed with this turn of events.

Look, this is like the Tiannemen Square lie. As Philip Knightly has pointed out, there was no 'massacre' at T. Square. Similarly, Ahmedijenad did not rig the Iranian election. How could rigging account for 11 million vote difference between the two candidates? You think Iran is the USA or something?
The 'green revolution' will not work.
You might as well get back to Lebanon and report on some of the machinations there.
Sorry about poor results in Iran.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular in Opinion