Comments on: Hello darkness my old friend

By: Wadeusaf

Wadeusaf — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:38:04 +0000

Unsk, I appreciate the position and the reason it was made. I just strongly disagree.

Look at what has happened since I posted that comment this morning. On good authority we have it that the Ayatollah has gone into seclusion, hiding if you will, in fear for his own safety. The leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is under arrest for refusing to order his men to suppress the demonstrators. Now how much of this is possible because we did not get on the television and tell the Iranian Government that the United States Government would Officially take it as a personal insult if they got violent toward demonstrators in Tehran or any other Iranian city. I think by not inserting the Official policy of the United States into the mix, the people of Iran were left with a clear understanding that this was not our doing, but rather the making of their own Government. The people in Iran do not trust us, they have been taught not to trust us, and have only recently been able to see the United States through the lens of Post Saddam Iraq instead of Jimmy Carter’s veil of tears.

They are not stupid, they know that twitter was supposed to go down for maintenance, and they know American citizens and especially American students are pulling for them to win their freedom. How could they not?

No I don’t agree that Obama gave anyone permission to harm anyone else by not giving any one a reason to do harm. I find the sort of dialogue that follows such a lines of rational to be somewhat less than reasonable. It is the same stuff that says we gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, because we did not say he couldn’t. Something about disproving a negative.

By: RWE

RWE — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:02:59 +0000

Mick # 36.

Okay, so what happens when the Shia – or for that matter the Sunni – in Iraq start smuggling weapons to Iran? And the Kurds in the north do so too?

Democracy has already been smuggled across the border. IEDs, RPG’s and AK’s won’t be far behind. Payback is a very unpleasant woman, indeed.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:22:19 +0000

JF, the Shah’s DHS impressed me more. Walking through the modern, crowded downtown boulevards of Teheran in ’77, not long before President Carter pulled out the Shah and welcomed in the Ayatollah, I heard a beloved rumble build behind us. A flight of 4 Phantoms, tight patrol formation, thundered over at about 500 feet, leaving oily black smoketrails for us to ponder as our clothing shuddered in their back blast watching them mercifully move on.

Strange cops on the corner are scary, 4 Phantoms at 500 feet, peace-inducing.

By: JFSanders

JFSanders — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:00:02 +0000

Mick: It was mentioned in a previous Wretchard post by a commenter. But, yes a nation such as Iran removed all rights when the revolution of 79 ended. It was only through decree that an individual had any rights at all.

As for using out of town thugs to suppress and interdict rioters. Just look at your own backyard. When you drive around notice the number of police and sheriff vehicles in driveways that are not of your jurisdiction… And if you ask about it the story line is we don’t want the drug dealers to be able to find the officer’s home. Seems plausible and most let it go.

But within the time frame of 9-11 to today. We now have DHS and it’s attendant coordination powers. What you will see if you are on the road selling or service tech working. Those that drive the public highways and streets daily. You will notice out of jurisdiction LEOs working traffic stops and such with local PD. Normally a sworn officer is only sworn for his local jurisdiction. But those rules have changed due to DHS consideration. Think Katrina.

We have our own basij in the making.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:45:18 +0000

Surprised to see no mention of the right to bear arms in connection with this event. These sorts of ideological militia raids are immensely more costly when the citizenry is armed. From start to finish they are aimed at terrorizing the victims. There are more efficient ways to kill and silence targeted individuals, but these raids were/are as much about the neighbors seeing and hearing the unexpected violence for betrayal of the “revolutioinary” principles on which the mullahcracy is based. With an armed citizenry, the reaction would be precisely the opposite: the neighbors see and hear what is happening, and decide no F-ing way are these bastards gonna get away with this again and get together to make sure they pay a price, having seen what happens when you don’t fight back. Just having that right makes state-sponsored terrorism a conclusion that just doesn’t follow, since then violence doesn’t = terror but provocation.

By: buddy larsen

buddy larsen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:43:29 +0000

I guess everything political has always been “in the presentation” but somehow more and more reality itself is stripping away all the paint and decorations and the just-so lighting effects –and leaving a thing standing there that is promising to not let anybody anywhere hide anyplace anymore.

By: 49erDweet

49erDweet — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:32:42 +0000

I don’t trust the provenance of CNN’s report, so cannot put much faith in its credibility. That said, I see wishful and western thinking in far too many of these comments. We are speaking of a Byzantine world viewed through several “veils”, not all of whose wearers would like us to be able to comprehend these events.

One person’s youthful freedom fighters could easily be another’s decedent, self-destructive generation. We could all abhor the bloodshed while still differing on the desired outcome. As for me, I believe their nation is imploding – and has a long road to travel before the dust settles enough for westerners to “see through the veil”.

By: Alexis

Alexis — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:43:16 +0000

The brutality of the Iranian government is not new. Of course it’s brutal. The Iranian government prides itself on gratuitous violence. The only new aspect of this video is that someone had the nerve to send it to CNN.

By: peterike

peterike — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:37:31 +0000

You can’t expect the O to talk smack about Middle Eastern strongmen in Iran. He wants to be a Middle Eastern strongman, only of a very domestic, Leftist sort (same ideas, better clothes).

Just as he did the soul-brother hand jive with the disgusting Ugly Chavez, he would do precisely the same with the Mullahs. Wolves can smell each other from across the room. O’s problem is that he’s not yet the Alpha Male in the wolf pack, so he’s got to roll over and show his belly to the big boys. Don’t think he’s not watching and learning.

He likes the mullahs. It’s as simple as that.

By: RWE

RWE — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:11:43 +0000

Dave the Kamapwhatsit #12:

Interesting. I brilliantly pointed out some time back on this very site that our mission in Iraq could have that very effect.

Shia believe that the leader of Islam should descend from Mohhammed. Sunni believe that the leader of Islam should be chosen by the people (i.e., up to now the guy they are afraid of the most).

In Iraq we have had Sunni voting democratically for a Shia leader. And Shia voting for a leader as well. And in Islam religion and national identity tend to get mixed.

If that does not shake Islam to its core on both sides of the schism then nothing will.