Students Cry Out for Freedom in Large Demonstration at Tehran University

-If we spend 1/10th of the money investing in these students instead of a war in Iraq - Iran would be a pro-American democracy and we would not be in the hell hole of Iraq.

TEHRAN, Iran — "What do we want? Freedom!" That was one of the banners a large crowd waved on Wednesday at a demonstration at Tehran University.

As many as 2,000 students turned out to demand personal freedom in the Islamic state, which has cracked down on political activity on campus this year in what some have called the Second Cultural Revolution.

Student and academic sentiment could pose a problem for the Iranian regime. Seventy percent of Iran's population is under the age of the 30, and 90 percent of the under-30s are literate, well-read and seemingly aspire to greater personal and political freedom.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235062,00.html

They need to take their quest for freedom in their own hands instead of waiting for or asking for the US and allies to intercede and destroy their beautiful country as they did in Iraq.

I recall more students than that protesting at college over choices in the dining hall!

Hardly a "movement". I've had bigger ones. (tmi?)

The biggest danger our troops would face is twisting their ankle tripping over the palm fronds and rose petals thrown at their feet by the children of Iran who want to grow up to be fat white christians watching Survivor on TV.

Won't take more than 6 months.

The WMDs are somewhere north, south, east, or west of Qom.

Anyone who opposes us are just a few dead enders.

The oil will pay for the war.

Only Haliburton knows how to feed troops, no other company can do that.

Only Haliburton can make sand out of sand, no other company can do that. It will be well worth the 987 billion dollars we pay them for doing it. The money should be tax free.

Turning millionaires into billionaires while at the same time torturing and murdering brown people who don't believe in jesus is what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do.

People fighting without wearing uniforms are enemy combatants who should be tortured and killed. Unless they work for Blackwater, Dyncorp.........

Oh, to keep me out of trouble:

:sarcasm:

they'll report on Tehran's protest, but not our's.

makes you say "hmmmmm..."

Good luck getting the apathetic lazy pisses of shit we call students to do anything about freedom.

Hopefully, their efforts one day lead to some progress.

by older "apathetic lazy pisses of shit" who've been ignoring serious problems in the world for decades, it's truly baffling that you'd choose to take a cheap potshot at them.

those brave students in Iran are greatly outnumbered by "older "apathetic lazy pisses of shit" who've been ignoring serious problems in the world for decades".

And the ones in the US?

Trying to get us in another war.

Just like the neoconman media lies about Cuba and North Korea, which can't possibly be as bad as people say.

:eyes:

there has been a movement inside Iran for the past couple of decades to try and get rid of the theocrats

before the current regime took power, there was a moderate (for Iran) president who was trying to impliment changes

after the Bushies took over here, the hard-line theocrats once again took power in Iran

Before Bush's "axis of evil" speech. The best way for the US and other countries to eliminate the theocratic government there is to support the democratic movement and subvert Iran's culture from within. War there would be a disaster.

for Stage III of PNAC Plan.

1. "New Pearl Harbor"

2. "Get Saddam"

3. Bu$hCo statement coming soon: "We must bring freedom to Iran"

You are in space if you think Democrats dont support a free Iran.

:eyes:

you are in space if you think this "protest" isn't completely vetted by Bu$hCo and the Saudis.

Back in the late nineties, the Democratic movement in Iran was gaining some serious momentum, because of these same students...or their older siblings, at least. Then, after Bush's address where he referred to Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil," this nudged the moderates in Iran out of their general neutrality in favor of the hardliners who used the fear Bush's comments generated to push for greater social control.

BUSH and his people sabotaged these young people--I don't think they're now working for them.

I'm glad somebody lives in the reality based community.

Some people attribute a heck of a lot more to the PTBs than actually makes any sense. Paranoia doesn't serve us very well.

but could we have some f**king freedom HERE IN AMERICA FIRST?? I have a dim memory that we used to have some around here somewhere.

Sorry to be selfish and put our needs ahead of those yearning young Iranians, but... some of us over here are yearning a little bit, too.

For starters, I'd like to have thousands of our young people be free from being recruited to fight, die, and be maimed in needless, gratuitous, overreaching, wars.

What does that have to do with what I posted? And how does young Iranians protesting have to do with preventing us from having greater freedom?

the poster said:

"Back in the late nineties, the Democratic movement in Iran was gaining some serious momentum, because of these same students...or their older siblings, at least. Then, after Bush's address where he referred to Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil," this nudged the moderates in Iran out of their general neutrality in favor of the hardliners who used the fear Bush's comments generated to push for greater social control.
BUSH and his people sabotaged these young people--I don't think they're now working for them."

And THAT poster was apparently replying skeptically to some who had said or implied that the whole story of the young-Iranians-yearning-to-be-free was probably some more Bush propaganda.

While I see that other poster's (the one I quoted above) point about Bush being the enemy of Iranian "moderates", I think it is still possible that the coverage of this story by... what was it? Fox News? (ahem), might well be propaganda to get us thinking about "oh, gee, the Iranians NEED us to free them from their horrible repressive government... let's get over there now!"

I guess I'm just skeptical about ANYTHING I see about Iran in our media these days. (I think I have good reason to be.)

Now for your second question:

"And how does young Iranians protesting have to do with preventing us from having greater freedom?"

I am skeptical of the coverage of this story. This coverage slightly reminds me of some "news" (propaganda) that we used to hear played ad nauseam in the run-up to the first Gulf War: A young Iraqi girl got on TV at some "congressional hearing" (which, it turns out, wasn't a real hearing, but was just some repuke congressmen--then in the minority--staging an event for cable TV coverage.) She said, in a quavering voice, "THEY (Saddam's "thugs") TOOK THE BABIES OUT OF THE INCUBATORS AND LEFT THEM ON THE COLD FLOOR TO DIE!!!" Message: "WE'VE GOT TO GET OVER THERE NOW AND KILL ALL THOSE VICIOUS SADDAM-FOLLOWING MURDERERS!" Well, that young quavery-voiced girl, who claimed to have been some sort of Iraqi Candy-Striper or something--volunteer work in a hospital--turned out to be the daughter of the rich ambassador. And she hadn't seen any babies taken out of incubators by "Saddam's thugs". IT WAS ALL A STAGED LIE.

Today, those tuning into Fox News see a bunch of innocent young Iranians poignantly pleading for the world to set them free from the EEEEVIL, AWFUL, MURDEROUS Iranian "regime". Well, I don't buy it.

I just think most of the coverage we get of Iran is propaganda designed to get us all worked up so our brave and honest leaders can once again start sending MORE young Americans over--this time, to Iran--to kill, maim, or be killed, or be maimed. FUCK THAT.

And believe me, no young American man, especially if he's school-age, is free from CONSTANT attempts to recruit him into the armed forces so he, too, can go and be killed or maimed so some FUCKING BASTARD IN SOME U.S. OR ISRAELI CORPORATE BOARDROOM CAN LINE HIS POCKETS. Ask me how I know about the constant attempts.

To Our Leader: Sorry, George, but I wasn't fooled by your phony Iraq war, and I refuse to be fooled into agreeing to your next phony (Iranian, Syrian, fill in blank with any other country perceived as a threat to Israel, or as a fountain of oil) war!

Being tricked into enlisting, or being forcibly drafted, for the above craven quest is NOT my definition of "freedom". And I do want freedom for young Americans.

I am skeptical of those who think this protest is somehow manufactured by the Bush administration to get us into war with Iran.

Am I saying that the Bush administration or neocons wouldn't use such a story as propaganda? Not at all. What I am saying is that I don't that the Bush administration is behind it. Also, considering recent history in Iran it does not make sense to assume it is. And just because something could be used as propaganda does not mean it should not be reported.

I know about constant attempts to be recruited as well, as I am an American young man. However, that does not mean that every story is propaganda. We have to make sure we look at the context of the story (in this case, pro-democratic and pro-liberalization movements in Iran) before we make a leap and say our government manufactured it.

BTW, there is one other small point I want to make, though: it is not only the Bush administration who is pushing for us to go to war with Iran. There are others as well.

...as someone else commented, Iranians protesting for further freedoms is not responsible for the reduction of freedoms here. Paranoia, conspiracy, jealousy, resentment, anger among other things are leading people to react rather than reason and reach rash conclusions with no basis in reality or reason. Utter insanity.

posted to wrong area of thread.

...During Clinton's terms, there were significant strides toward a real democracy in Iran, mainly fueled my younger people. I couldn't believe it when Bush squandered his opportunity to build on this. Then again, why was I surprised?

But didnt we CIA overthrow the only democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 and did it not happen to be *secular* what makes you think that the people want to live under an islamic dictatorship just like you or I want to live under the christian coalition.

is US psy-ops cranking up the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a real democratic movement in Iran?

If you are, you're wrong.

You, my friend, are the smartest poster on this thread.

...and most ignorant poster on this thread. Are you even aware of the student democracy movement in Iran that was very influential during Clinton's terms? It was a real, grass roots movement that had NOTHING to do with neo-con wet dreams.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/16/us.iran.03/index.html?eref=sitesearch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/561162.stm

Look, I can understand your sceptical attitude towards a Fox News story. It's just that since the re-radicalization of politics in Iran, the fledgling student/younger generation movement towards a freer, more open, less repressive society has largely been driven underground. This sounds like their re-emergence, not a CIA OPS job. 2,000 might not sound like a lot to you, but given the repressive nature of the current government in Iran, these students are brave and don't deserve to be called tools of the Bush administration.

edit for sp.

Musette is "most ignorant poster" and "next to me, least knowledgeable." This is pronounced as a "fact".

You managed to peremptorily judge my "knowledgeability" from a two-line post.

Your thinking is a bit facile, if you think of Clinton as somehow having been the exact opposite of either of the Bushes. He wasn't. You imply that you think this by indignantly seeming to say, if this "freedom" movement went on during Clinton, therefore it could have nothing to do with Bushism.

And I am not even attributing this freedom movement to Bushism. I am not saying that Bush is in any way responsible for it. I am not saying that Bush somehow "caused" this glorious Iranian student demonstration. But apparently you failed to notice what I didn't say. You were too eager to condemn the little I DID say to musette.

It is not the "freedom demonstration" by the students that I am suspecting to be propaganda. It is the REPORTING of it--the timing, the placement of the story, the prominence given to the story by the highly untrustworthy Fox News.

I am not against people demonstrating anywhere. But surely an extremely astute judge such as yourself can see that demonstrations can take place even in societies which are essentially functioning and which are at least partly serving their people. I would go farther and say, if those students had been unable to demonstrate, it would have made Iran look a lot worse than the fact of their demonstrating has made Iran appear.

If there are changes that need to be made in Iran, fine. Let IRANIANS work on that. Isn't that what the students were doing?

But what business do WE have to patronizingly point at Iran and say, "Oh, isn't it wonderful, a tiny spark of good has somehow against all odds been lighted"? NO, I am NOT imputing those words to YOU. But that is essentially what I see the Fox News story--through its placement, emphasis, and framing--to be saying.

Why isn't Fox News giving its coverage to demonstratons HERE in the U.S.?? Isn't this the country that is supposedly served by Fox News? Isn't a HUGE series of demonstrations (and more) in our neighboring country of Mexico--with whom we have people, geography, etc., in common-- far more important for Fox News to be reporting to an AMERICAN audience? Why the obsession with all things Iranian?

I didn't see Fox News giving positive coverage to the HUGE Mexican election demonstrations.

My opinion is that the obsession with Iran--one country out of hundreds which is literally thousands of miles away--is due to the fact that Fox News knows our powers-that-be want to keep Americans' minds on all that is "wrong" with Iran. And Fox News has never failed to give the full Lewinsky treatment to our powers-that-be---as long as those powers are republican.

I'm sick of hearing about Iran. Iran is no more of a threat to us than are many other countries. It is in no way a direct threat to us. Regarding "freedom", it is no worse than many countries in the middle east--countries which are our close allies. We need to forget about Iran and sweep around our own back door. Let's see some coverage of the many demonstrations HERE in the U.S. Did you see Fox News giving glowing coverage to the "impeachment day" events here? How often on Fox News do we ever see any positive coverage of people dissenting on college campuses here in the U.S.?

and I am amazed at the naivete of many of the posters on this thread. happy shiny "freedom" and all that.

of pro-Democracy activists.

David Horowitz called, he wants his M.O. back.

geez. It's entirely possible to realize that the young people in Iran don't like the current government anymore than we'd like living under Pat Roberton's fantasy and yet not support invading any country.

but you're here on DU.

It's like, you could listen to Howard Stern and not come away spewing porn-talk like a lawn sprinkler. But a lesser mind... such as a wingnut mind?

This sort of story is fine for persons such as yourself who can make fine distinctions. But I don't like seeing it going out into the trailer of every wingnut in red Dumfukistan.

No, I don't advocate censoring it. I don't like censorship--but something I like even less than censorship is PROPAGANDA. Wasn't this story from Fox News? Are we really gonna take stuff from Fox News at face value?

Should we be worried about every story that people might misinterpret? Should we not give coverage to stories that could be taken a way we don't like?

"Is it still propaganda if it's true?"

Somehow, that hardly seems an urgent consideration if the story is from Fox News--because it has become extremely obvious that Fox News is nothing more than the Voice of the White House. And we know how this White House treats the truth.

But, okay, assuming arguendo that it were true: yes, IMO it can become propaganda by being used in a certain way, at a certain time, in a certain positioning. Yes. A true story can indeed by used for propaganda. This story about "the young Iranians yearning to be free"--is this really at or near the top of the charts of things that are "news" today, for Americans? How many countries are there in the world? How many demonstrations are going on today? HAVE WE SEEN A SINGLE WORD ON FOX NEWS ABOUT THE MEXICANS PROTESTING IN OAXACA?? Propaganda can consist of choosing to cover certain things, while ignoring certain (arguably more significant or important) things.

No, we needn't worry about every story someone can misinterpret. I don't. As for this story, it was featured on a comments board--so I commented.

"Should we not give coverage to stories that could be taken a way we don't like?" We--if we are reporters--should even give coverage to "inconvenient truths", if they are stories that have some importance to our audience. Which brings me back to: HAVE WE SEEN A SINGLE WORD ON FOX NEWS ABOUT THE MEXICANS PROTESTING IN OAXACA??

Fox News chooses its stories for a reason. I, for one, don't watch Fox News. Mainly because I don't consider it news.

instead of Fox News, what meaning would it have? It's the same event. Same facts. Sure, Fox News is crap the vast majority of the time, but that doesn't mean every single story is a conspirative propaganda. On rare occasion, they're bound to come across a *legitimate* story that can support.

It is possible, on occasion, for there to be news positive enough for both sides to be happy about without it being a conspiracy by one side or the other. We're turning into a society as in Eastern Europe or the Middle East where corruption has led to a degradation of trust which breeds irrational accusations. We've seen it throughout history and now we're seeing it on our home territory.

...turning into a society as in Eastern Europe or the Middle East where corruption has led to a degradation of trust which breeds irrational accusations.

I don't think the accusation here is irrational, but I agree with your larger point. I think that is what Bush/Cheney and the republican congress and especially their Mighty Wurlitzer have turned us into.

Incidentally, WAS this story covered by CNN? Just wondering.

I don't think CNN is really much better than Fox News. It, too, has kowtowed to the Bush/Cheney maladministration, and has thus become a part of their Mighty Wurlitzer.

But Fox News is especially egregious.

Why choose to cover a demonstration of "2000 students" in IRAN, while they ignore the demonstration (and takeovers, etc., etc., and protests of the stolen election, etc.) happening in Oaxaca?? The Mexican election is far more relevant to Fox News' American audience--since we Americans can relate, when it comes to a stolen election, and also, Mexico is right here next to us, and there are millions of Mexicans who are supposedly "served" by American cable "news". But I don't think they've covered it AT ALL. And there were a HELLUVA lot more than 2000 people protesting in Mexico. I think it was in the millions.

...you're an idiot. These have been going on since the 70's and especially through the Clinton years. This is a great thing.

Anyone who has the tenacity to condemn freedom movements in Iran on the basis that it benefits Bush Co. is outright insane. Yes, I mean you really have significant mental issues to be so afraid of the world that you find conspiracy even in legitimate movements for peace. Maybe the Bush years drove you to this, I do not know. But it's a form of insanity.

Maybe we did encourage those who legitimately want freedom to show it through protest. It's entirely within the realm of possibilities. Frankly, I don't care how much an action or event helps the Bush administration; if it's good for the world, it's good by me.

"we must hear the voices of the Iranians who yearn for freedom, and we must act now to help them", you'll be the first one down to the recruiting station, I presume.

It's entirely possible to see that Iran is under a pretty despicable regime and support any movement for change against them without supporting outside military action against Iran.

either you know nothing of history, or you choose to ignore it.

it's Saturday now and there are still no legitimate news organizations reporting on this noble protest for "freedom". it's still ONLY Faux, some RW Texas blog with all the credibility of "Talon News" and Jeff Gannon, and a shaky organization currently designated as a terrorist group by the current US power establishment, reporting on what is beginning to look like a non-event.

so basically you are arguing an untenable position, against an event that is likely not at all what it was "reported" as.

you've misrepresented and misinterpreted every post of mine that you've responded to in this thread. your responses have been O'Reilly-worthy in that they assume things i never said, and assert that my beliefs are based on your assumptions of things i never said. you haven't commented cogently on one single post i've made.

either you are so naive that you really, truly, honestly believe that this is some kind of happy shiny peace movement, or you're here to spread and perpetrate misinformation. since you claim in your profile to be a 21-year-old college student, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former possibility. and if that's the case, i sincerely hope you use your college education to LEARN something about world history.

On edit: and so can we assume that when Preznit Chucklenuts unveils his new Glorious War For Democracy In Iran, you will be enlisting too? since you're, like, so into regime change there and all.

Not an extern invasion. So no I would never enlist in such a war. So much for your moronic strawman that anyone who doesn't think Iran is great must support invading it.

I don't see why you appear to be incapable that someone can despise the Iranian reigme and not support military action agains it.

idiotic, insane Truthseekers, who just doesn't buy some purported "Iran University Freedom Protest" story at face value. you're flinging around those accusations of "idiot", "mental issues", and "insane" pretty freely, for someone trying to catapult a story that, so far, hasn't been confirmed by any halfway reputable news service.

this is a story that has been reported ONLY by (1) Faux; (2) some RW blogger in Texas with less cred than "Talon News" and Jeff Gannon; and (3) a really shaky organization that is currently listed as a "terrorist threat" by the US.

and YOU would know that this is a "legitimate movement... for peace", exactly how?

What you are basically saying is there is no way this story can be true and any protest news must be BS. Therefore, there must be no pro-liberalization and democracy movement in Iran, which many here have provided links of that was very active during the Clinton years. But even if we ignore all this, you are either saying that:

1-There is no need for such a movement, because Iran is under a wonderful, perfect and democratic government with nothing to criticize about.

2-The Iranians are comletely incapable of calling for more freedom unless they are puppets of the US.

Needless to say, I find both propositions to be rather ridiculous.

your responses to my posts are O'Reilly-like in the extreme:

1. you assume things i never said.
2. you assert that my beliefs are based on your assumptions of things i never said.

you don't know how to debate. unless, of course, you think that O'Reilly and Limbaugh do is called "debate".

actually, what they do, and what you are doing here, is called "bait".

you're dismissed.

A) Your source is FOX News. 'Nuff said.
B) We've already seen reports that the US is engaging in small operations within Iran. Whether they're true or not is immaterial: Either way, it'll be believed by the Iranians and it will piss them off.
C) We've heard this claptrap before and the simple fact is... yes, not all Iranians think the United States is the Great Satan and instead seek to modernize their nation to stand alongside the West without becoming the West. However, they DO NOT want the US interfering with their efforts to bring about change within their own country.
D) What do the Democrats have to do with this anyway?

and I can't seem to find any other news links to this terribly important story of the struggle for freedom in Iran.

you're on the right track. i find it hard to believe that some DUers think this Faux-planted story is actually about some noble protest for freedom.

PS, not a lot of "truth-seekers" here :-) Think I will head out now and listen to Mike Malloy. Mike knows exactly what this BS is about.

New York Times, Washington Post will carry it tomorrow then what Mr. Conspiracy X? Are you one of those 911 was a conspiracy types?

"9/11 was done by 19 cavemen with box cutters" conspiracy types?

PS, the suffix "ette" in a name usually indicates a female.

The only additional sources, as of today, carrying this vital piece of international news on the noble Iranian students yearning for "freedom", are:

The Jawa Report, a conservative blog located in Texas:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185651.php

The Foreign Affairs Committee Of The National Council Of Resistance in Iran, the "Parliament In Exile" of the Iraqi resistance. The US currently holds this group as a "terrorist organization". Nice cover for US psy-ops, if you ask me.
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/2594/69/

That's it, pally. NO major news coverage, outside of Faux "News".

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say--much more coherently than I would've tried to say it!

I do agree with the post generally, and the view that Iranians don't want US interference, even those opposed to the regime. But some here seem to be arguing that there can be no opposition at all without US interference. Therefore they seem to believe that either everyone in Iran is hunky-dory with theocracy, or that they are incapable of acting without outside interference. I find both ridiculous.

another O'Reilly-like setup by you.

"Therefore (untrue and unfounded assumption A), or (untrue and unfounded assumption B)."

i find your "debate strategy" ridiculous.

This should serve to remind thinking people that if/when Iran as a whole is portrayed as "evil", this is an oversimplification and an injustice. And every day it seems there is some attempt by our maladministration, or by the flaming neocons, to portray Iran as some sort of middle eastern "great satan". Well, I don't buy it.

Interestingly, at the very end of the original story posted, the students were quoted as saying they were protesting not only against internal oppression, but also against foreign interference. Looks to me like those students are not asking for help from us freedom-lovin' cowboys. So I think we should leave them alone.

I think you might agree that it takes effort to be informed when we have to depend on our major news outlets, such as Fox News. We have to dig into a subject if we really want to get the straight story, and it takes effort. Fortunately we now have the internet to help us. I'm really glad we are no longer at the mercy of TV and newspapers for news. For the first time, we get to actively search for information, instead of sitting passively and having it rammed down our throats. That's something to be thankful for.

Just look at the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq, to name but two projects embraced enthusiastically by Democrats.

during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, did Bush Sr. or Congress lift a finger to support a "free China"?
What makes Iran different?

Iran is probably more "free" than half the nations on the planet. And if it isn't, it can "free" itself.

Considering the collapse of all dictatorships in the Western Hempisphere and Europe (except Cuba and Belarus)

I agree with the second sentence though.

There is a true movement for greater liberalization and democratization in Iran on the part of the youth. It has been increasing in recent years but quieted down a tad when Bush referred to them as the "axis of evil". That doesn't mean Bushco caused this demonstration or was behind it. We sound crazy when we attribute EVERYTHING to them.

especially under the Bu$h Crime Family, and its logical corollary, Nixonites For Reagan?

i'm going to assume that you're just naive.

start with "Crossing The Rubicon" if you care to educate yourself about what your country does in your name.

Everyone there loves theocracy and fundie assholes! They would never rally against it on their own!

Being reactionary and jumping from one extreme to the next doesn't make an argument.

I'm well aware of US using covert action all over the world, particularly in South America. However, that doesn't mean that everything that happens that they could use politically is always their doing. That gives them more credit than they deserve and in this case is unfair to the young Iranians who are protesting.

n/t

everything.

Here's the deal: Bush and Cheney are itching to bring democracy to Iran (or whatever other really good-sounding lie they can come up with). What better thing to have going on that a student-led quest for FREEDOM?

Plus, this is an old CIA specialty, and it's been reported in the past that there are Block Ops folks already IN Iran.

You're foolish to think this is anything OTHER than a set up for where Bush/Cheney want to go anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2570340#2570348

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2228023

I'm sure there's lots more. Just the ones I found quickly.

You've done those of us who haven't started getting up to date on this info. yet a real service.

I've only read bits and pieces, on this destabilization work directed at Iran through their younger people over the last years, and always got sidetracked in the past. I can't wait to clear some time and start looking through this information.

I've stashed them away for future reference to make sure they don't slip away from me. Thank you.

:eyes:

But since it started before you were born, I don't hold your naivete too much against you. Learning history is good. This is a good group to get some Googling points from, in your quest to educate yourself on the history of US policy in the ME.

It involved Iran also, but there are no similiaries whatsoever past that.

that you know very, very little about which you are opining so very strongly. thank you for your transparency.

I just don't see the similarities between selling weapons to illegaly fund armed groups and protesting agains ta government.

you're a college student, right? do your own homework.

and I don't see your point. Are you saying Iranians are incapable of opposing theocracy on their own and any opposition must be US-backed?

and i'm not here to educate you. since you claim to be a student, you've got time on your hands that you could use to educate yourself, before you continue to make a fool of yourself about what is increasingly appearing to be a non-story.

which is no doubt what you're referring to. So shut up and quit insulting my knowledge.

What knowledge?

Which I do. Although I don't see what something very wrong that the US did over 50 years ago has to do with the fact that many Iranians might not be happy with their government.

learning history is like connecting the dots. history doesn't just end, never to be connected to any future event(s). throwing out a name of two that you Googled, without any discussion to bolster your claims, is just lazy, and might i add, intellectually dishonest.

it looks like you are continuing to be very, very agitated over defending what increasingly seems to be a NON-story. it's STILL only being reported by three non-reputable websites: Faux; right wingnut blog; and a group considered by the current administration to be a terrorist threat. since i don't think you work for Faux, i am left to assume that your allegiance is with one of the other two non-reputable websites.

you're not interested in history or in facts. you're interested in pumping up some non-story that has ONLY the support of non-reputable websites, and that looks very fishy, to say the least.

your level of agitation, your ad-hominem insults, your refusal to debate, your O'Reilly-style "questioning" in which you assert that i said things i never said, and your tenaciousness in "catapulting the propaganda", have caused me to deduce that you have an agenda about attempting to perpetrate this False Flag "news story".

on edit: see the links post 85 just for starters. read "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. learn something about the history of US imperialism and the agenda of destabilization in the ME. and show some guts and debate the many other posters in this thread who agree with my opinion on this non-story. that is, if you're serious about this, and you're not here just to promulgate disinformation.

Yes, I'll admit the way it's being reported is suspicious. My issue here though, isn't so much the story itself, as it appears your entire attitude toward the Iranian democracy movement. Regardless of this story or not, there has been a large pro-democracy and liberalization movement in Iran for a very long time which many other posters have provided links about. I don't see how any progressive person can not support this. Yet you seem to be denying this and basically taking the position that there is either nothing wrong at all with the Iranian government or that the people aren't capable of acting against it without outside intereference. Your cynicism of this story seems to be based more not only on the suspicious reporting, but the possibility of it happening altogether, for example the way you put "freedom" in quotation marks. Then there is also your strawman argument used against me and another that any peson who apparentely is not happy with the Iranian government and would like to see it changed must be in favor of a military attack on Iran.

I am a little insulted at your claim that I apparnetely knew nothing of Mossadegh and the Shah until now and that I merely googled it up, but hey, neither of us can prove what we're saying.

Just to prove you are wrong and full of it. Now will you apologize?

From the Iranian Student News Agencys official website stationed in Iran for you spaceos doubting this story:



">


http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-841113&Lang=P

my opinion is that this is a psy-ops event. nothing has occurred to change that opinion.

and photos, these days, are proof of absolutely nothing.

maybe you'd care to talk about how the ISNA has the backing of "University Jihad".

on edit: i see where there was a protest TODAY, attended by about 50-60 students. the Guardian IS a trusted news source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1969808,00.html

Guardian article says today's protest was "the first sign of open dissent since (Ahmadinejad) took office last year".

also mentions in passing, "Last week, hundreds of students at Tehran university were confronted by police as they chanted: "We only want freedom of expression." sounds quite a bit different from your original report.

"Clean up on the PsyOpic Spin published and posted as fact within this thread. Please report ASAP and bring your squeegees to sop-up the sorted remains of this lead balloon. :P :hi:

I certainly don't blame them for not liking to live under fundie assholes.

want to kill.

Very true

While the Neo Cons would like to overthrow the theocracy in Iran for the same realpolitik reasons that they got us into Iraq, the fact is that there is a legitimate push for political freedom in Iran, which is being stymied by Bush's policies. If you want to see a sucessful democratic and Islamic country, then Iran is a better candidate than any other country in the region. Unlike Iraq, Iran is mostly homogenous (although there are some small Kurdish and Armenian and Azarbeijani populations, they don't have a huge inmpact compared to Iraq) and Iran has a history of democratic rule, which was stymied by the CIA when it put the dictatorial Shah back in power.

which is exactly what the nice folks who bring us Fox News would love to see Bushco do. It's pretty obvious what people are saying here, that while the Iranian democratic movements themselves may not be linked to PNAC, the coverage certainly is. 2,000 students rallying? That wouldn't make the cut if it weren't already on someone's agenda.

The reporters do note that one of the banners reads "Our struggle is twofold: Fighting against internal oppression and external foreign threats."

Gee, I guess the kids are smart enough to catch the drift after all. Where do you think the PNAC realpolitikos would like to see the balance of power in the Middle East and Asia? Right now, Iran is playing a very strong hand in the region, and the neo-Kissingers are thinking that could all change in a day if the central government were suddenly destabilized... you know as well as I do someone in the Pentagon has that all done up nice & tight on a powerpoint slideshow. Maybe just a few long distance airstrikes to kick things off, and the students will rise up and carry the country the rest of the way to freedom! Sure! Easy as pie.

Hell, it's like the exit strategy for Iraq just wrote itself: replace a difficult, failed occupation with an easy, successful one, while democracy blooms like flowers in springtime across Persia. Suddenly it's all fresh air and sunshine again! Wheee!

If we go the route of destruction and invasion, I'll bet you whatever you care to wager that the youthful Iranian democratic movement Fox News is so proud to display for us now will turn very quickly into a youthful Iranian nationalist movement that Fox will call "foreign Al Qaeda terrorists."

There's been an anti-mullah movement in Iran for a long time, and it has been brutally repressed.

However, it is despicable of the neocons to use it has an excuse to invade Iran.

First of all, it would be a violation of international law.

Second, all those anti-government demonstrators would become ardent nationalists if the Bushies invaded them. For heaven's sake, even Stalin was able to call upon nationalist sentiments when the Germans invaded during World War II, and that was right after some of his worst repression.

A much better argument against invading Iran than actually arguing that Iran is a wonderful place and there is absolutely nothing wrong or abusive with the government at all, and anyone discontent with it MUST be a PNAC plant.

could possibly be supported by less than a vast majority of its citizens.

If Kerry or Gore were in the White House now, I doubt we'd be seeing any negative comments here at all.

From the Iranian Student News Agencys official website stationed in Iran for you spaceos doubting this story:



">


http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-841113&Lang=P

I hate to break this news to some starry-eyed freedom fighters in this thread, but you're quite naive if you think student rebellion takes the pulse of a society.

Literate, well-read students are to be heard and valued because, in some cases, they speak as visionaries for a place and time. But their aspirations are often likely to be different from that of the less educated majority.

Just look around at these United States. How many Wal-Mart workers do you see crying for greater freedoms, or even over the ones we have lost in this decade?

Or consider not-too-distant history. Literate, well-read students marched at Kent State. They were right. They were visionary.

And a more representative side of America repaid them.

I'd think you'd have learned some lessons about where imperial intervention leads if not in Vietnam then surely in Iraq. But warrior Dems aren't really different from warrior Repugs; in fact, you're Siamese twins.

Where are these warrior Dems on this thread to whom you're speaking? Someone saying they support a free Iran doesn't mean they want to go "liberate them." I support a free China, but do I think we should sent our military to 'free' them? No.

I love DU, but when people jump to silly conclusions and twist what people say to make baseless arguments they are no better than the clowns at the Free Republic.

that apparently support attacking Iran because it's supposedly impossible to disapprove of Iran's government and not support military intervention against it.

barely competent "New Spooks" left within the bowels of the Rumsfeld's Pentagon.

There's a reason CNN, MSNBC and ABC are NOT reporting this *protest.* ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/11/iran.students/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2717030&page=1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16150338/

Yes. It's all a conspiracy.

to their viewers in a court of law.

Please pass the salt.

From the Iranian Student News Agencys official website stationed in Iran for you spaceos doubting this story:



">


http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-841113&Lang=P

The population of Iran is young. And many Iranians want a more liberal government. But when Bush began rattling sabers, the conservative religious leaders & military gained power. (That's the Iranian religious leaders & military--although our own have been flourishing.) This is not a new story.

Regularizing diplomatic relations with Iran & NOT threatening War is the best thing to do for the Iranian people. And for us.

Sending money to Iranian "interests" to foment rebellion is not a good idea. It makes the "freedom fighters" lose credibility in their own country.

And this is BEFORE the administration and neocons have formally thrown their weight behind a full-fledged and overt communications campaign.
---
http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

"Please tell me whether or not you would support the following kinds of U.S. military action against Iran if that country continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. What about . . . ?"


Air strikes against military targets and suspected nuclear sites in Iran
10/19-20/06
Support 38 Would Not Support 54 Undecided 8
--

A shift of 9% of citizens means a majority of Americans think bombing Iran is the right thing to do and would support it. Meanwhile intelligence agencies believe Iran is 10 years away from the bomb. I realize Ahmenajad (sp?) has threatened other countries, but has he ever threatened the US?

Never mind that the IAEA has found no indication that Iran is lying in its insistance that it is developing nuclear energy srictly for peaceful purposes.

What a fucking biased poll question.