Mousavi behind the attack on Marines in Lebanon?
posted at 12:11 pm on June 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Did Mirhossein Mousavi play a leading role in the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US Marines and caused Ronald Reagan to retreat? CQ Politics says yes, calling Mousavi the “Butcher of Beirut”. It serves as a reminder that the man whom the mullahs have suppressed was and perhaps still is of their regime:
He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran’s ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.
The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.
The connection to the attack is direct, according to the man in charge of American operations in the Mediterranean at the time:
“We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon,” retired Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.
“The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a ’spectacular action’ against the Marines,” said Lyons.
Mousavi and his allies, perhaps cognizant that this history would surface eventually, tried applying a little proactive balm on his reputation earlier this week. In a Guardian article defending himself against criticisms that there were few differences between himself and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mousavi’s spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbaf said that Mousavi previously “knew only Che Guevara,” but now “he knows Gandhi.” It does confirm that the government of Iran has waged war by proxy against the United States as well as Israel for three decades, and that Mousavi participated in that war.
Does that make the uprising in Iran less legitimate? No. In fact, as I’ve written many times in the past week, it just points out the stupidity of the mullahs in fumbling the rigged election in the first place. Mousavi would have played ball had mullahs allowed him to take office — perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically than Ahmadinejad, but still Mousavi would have worked within the system. They’ve practically forced Mousavi to serve as a beacon for the opposition that wants the mullahs out of power, and in doing so actually make Mousavi less important as a safety valve, a loyal member of the ruling class that could mainstream the opposition so as to make it benign to the real power in Tehran. It’s inexplicably stupid, like deliberately throwing gasoline on a fire.
Still, it’s good to remind people in the West of Mousavi’s actions within that ruling class. Perhaps he regrets his actions, and the Guardian statement seems to suggest that, but we’d need to see a lot more than a reference to Gandhi. We need to focus our support on the people of Iran and not Mousavi, and hope that they can soon choose leaders outside of the mullahcracy that has choked Iran for 30 years.
Update: Yes, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of Admiral Lyons, which I won’t do. I’d trust that he’s telling the truth, until someone proves him wrong.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Isn’t it still possible to bring freedom and liberty to the people of Iran and then stretch the neck of murderers like Mousavi?
Now that this killer is ID’d, what are we going to do about it? Those were Americans and Marines that were slaughtered.
Hening on June 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Mousavi isn’t really what the election is about. I’m sure if the people had a better choice than the ones the Supreme Council gave them, they’d have voted for it.
This was more like a Soviet-era election (or Venezualan). There may be more than one candidate, but they’re all toeing the party line.
Mousavi MIGHT be capable of changing his stripes. He may understand why his people are so angry at their political will being ignored. Then again, he may be trying to harness their anger for his own political ends, in which case the Iranian people are likely to revolt again, eventually.
hawksruleva on June 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Ah, the old ‘time heals all wounds’. Guess you must be ok with Bill Ayers too then. After all, it was a long time ago.
Sorry, I’m rooting for the folks in the streets taking down those scumbag hardline mullahs. If Mousavi falls down a flight of stairs and is accidentally shot 241 times, I’m not going to cry. They can dig up someone else to lead them forward who isn’t a scumbag former terrorist.
austinnelly on June 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
If true, this protesting would have happpened before the election.
exception on June 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Group guilt by association is never right.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Where did I claim I was? You just can’t control yourself, can you?
Or, Mousavi could be their next leader. If he wins and cracks down like the terrorist he is, are you going to own that? When this pos who murdered 241 US Marines demands entry into the US to appear at the UN, are you going to own that, too? Oh, wait, you personally don’t care.
Blake on June 23, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Backing Mousavi at this time means more chaos in Iran.
There are a number of potential outcomes.
1) The current leadership wins and DinnerJacket stays president.
2) The current leadership wins and Mousavi becomes president.
3) A compromise is reached with the protestors underwhich the current leadership stays but their powers are restricted somewhat.
4) The current leadership is overthrown.
4a) A more western style democracy is created.
4b) A new Islamic style govt is created, but one that is not as oppressive as the one just overthrown.
——-
Options 2 and up work out well for the US.
Even with options 1 and 2, lots of energy and resources will be consumed. Resources that the govt of Iran could have been using to make mischief elsewhere in the region. Going forward, more resources will have to be devoted to watching their own people as well. So even options 1 and 2 benefit US, and the longer the chaos continues, the more it benefits us.
MarkTheGreat on June 23, 2009 at 12:58 PM
We elected the wrong guy to the White House to do anything about it.
The protest wasn’t even initially about Mousavi but about an obviously rigged election.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I am sure that anyone who is anyone in Iranian politics is probably involved in a lot of things that got Americans killed.
But hey, Obama does not have any problem healing the wounds of the past…so there you go.
But any revolution or change in that country literally has to start somewhere. And it seems that the young people of Iran, have decided it will start here with this man.
Terrye on June 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
It is getting harder to project western fantasy on Iran isn’t it?
BL@KBIRD on June 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
First, this doesn’t make the Iranian revolution any less legit. Everyone should have known that Mousavi had a shady background because the regime was okay with him running for President in the first place. We’re not going to get a pure as white as snow candidate in Iran, but anything is better than Dinner Jacket and Khamenei. The best we could have hoped for is a revolutionary willing to change his stripes. Some of the Awakening Committees that we’ve given guns to in Iraq were responsible for killing Iraqi soldiers.
Second this just shows exactly how stupid the regime by blatantly stealing this election. Mousavi went from a “company man” who would have been stifled by the mullahs to a guy leading anti-government protests and stating that he’s prepared for martyrdom in the course of a week.
Thirdly, if Mousavi actually wins, he’s going to have to deliver quite a bit to his people quickly. They have 30% to 40% unemployment there, so the gov’t is going to have to modernize the economy quickly or there are going to be quite a few cranky student protesters that he’s going to have to deal with. That means Iran will be willing to play ball with the West and their nuclear program.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
But Lyons is also saying that if it were Mousavi (though how does Lyons know for sure it was?), that he was acting under orders. People can change their stripes and be sorry for actions they participated in (unlike say Bill Ayers), especially when it was 20+ years ago.
But if nothing else a Mousavi victory would weaken the mullahs and might even see the Guardian Council become a thing of the past or at least weakened. Either would be a good thing.
Zaggs on June 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM
exactly. stop hating our our troops. stop supporting terrorists.
on a serious note, stop bashing obama for not declaring his unequivocal support for a movement that coalesced around a terrorist.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM
You said that no one was listening. I countered that. End of story.
Why should I own that anymore than you do? You were in that same thread with the rest of us talking about how it’s OK to mourn Neda. How am I suddenly different than you?
I get that you don’t like me, but quit making this personal.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM
+∞
The Monster on June 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM
and you’d still be an a$shole.
DarkCurrent on June 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Try actually reading what we’re asking Obama to do. We’re asking him to outright condemn the violence against innocent people.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Wasn´t Ahmadinejad one of the handlers of US embassy hostages in the Iran during the Carter years?
albill on June 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM
So do you still want Obama to come out in support of Mousavi’s camp? Do you finally comprehend one of the many reasons why it would be foolish for Obama to stick the US’s nose into their internal affairs?
orange on June 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Did anyone actually think Mousavi was a good guy? I don’t even think they care about Mousavi beyond his getting the shaft. I care in spite of Mousavi.
emailnuevo on June 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I’ll tell you what.I’ll continue to think of Iran and it’s citizens as an enemy, as a group, you can bother sorting out the few “good ones”.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I’m concerned so many people seem to be shocked, not just in relation to this post, but in general that Mousavi wasn’t an American Loving Iranian. Not that I don’t support the protesters but this makes me worried some people were going “Rah Rah” for this for the simple fact that this guy was the opponent of Ahmadinejad. Foolhardy if true…
Norvell on June 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Considering that if he wins, it’ll be because of people power, I’d think that he’d be hesitant to initiate a brutal crackdown and become a dictator. If he does, then there are going to be quite a few student protesters who helped put him in power in the streets, and this time they’ll have plenty of practical experience.
As for Mousavi himself, I’m really not sure what his actual motivations are considering that he’s been out of politics for 20 years and was a “company man” up until last week. But I’d prefer his enigma to a crazy person who wants to use nukes to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Mousavi is part of the Iranian Mullah regime. I assume he was in on Iranian crimes and terrorist acts just like most of the senior members of the Iranian government were in on such crimes and terrorist acts. Whether he refutes that radical past remains to be seen. I am not sure that is the case or not. My guess he is less radical than Ahmadinejad and what is interesting is the Mullahs, by doing this, have pushed Mousavi to be less extremist.
The better analogy (granted it is a very rough one) might be Mousavi is the Gorbachev of this change, and the Mullahs fear the Yeltsin that may follow. Both China and Iran saw what happened in Soviet Union when change was allowed to ferment.
Still, the Iranian democracy and reform movement is far broader than Mousavi.
Mr. Joe on June 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM
And for crying out loud, stop feeding the trolls!
CurtZHP on June 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM
No. An Obama endorsement would not help the protesters anyway.
Here is a good article on the subject:
The Tiananmen Moment
aengus on June 23, 2009 at 1:11 PM
What, the ice cream jokes hurt your feelings?
You still don’t get it. One can support liberty without supporting terrorism. Clearly Chumpy hasn’t figured this out… or more scary, he has and he just doesn’t care. Now, go back to Dairy Queen…
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM
There is another difference: we are talking about the difference between what one (essentially covert) solder/operative does to an enemy country, and what one citizen does against his own.
I’m not going to go and call for the execution of every Japanese officer involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, nor would I really even ask for an apology.
Count to 10 on June 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM
The various Iranians being interviewed on talk radio allow that the next regime has a 50/50 chance of being more severe than the current, but that the present regime most certainly has utterly lost its “integrity” or legitimacy in Iranian society.
A Descent Into The Maelstrom, and the useful cylinder vs. sphere as Poe described:
Also Sprach Zarathustra
maverick muse on June 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Yes, I really don’t think that anyone wants Obama to come out and state that we’d prefer Mousavi because he’ll be easier to negotiate with than the mullahs. I think that we all understand that this will crush the movement. What we did want was Obama to come out with a strong condemnation against killing innocent protesters like Neda in the streets, which he finally did about a week late.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM
he did that over a week ago. since then you’ve been demanding that he take sides and voice support for mousavi and his followers. according to ralph peters, obama would have blood on his hands if he didn’t support a terrorist with the blood of 240 marines on his hands.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Good, be just like the people you claim to disdain. Brilliant.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not seeing all the shocked people here. I know many who knew Mousavi was less than what he’s claimed to be but who still supported innocent Iranians’ right to protest without being slaughtered. It really doesn’t even seem complicated.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:15 PM
So Esthier has said that Obama must side with Mousavi? Really? Where?
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Why do you assume they heard it first from me as opposed to knowing their history? Doesn’t fit into you attack on me. End of your story.
Because you’re the one that doesn’t care if a mass murderer of US Marines is elected president – not me. That’s the difference.
What you never seem to get or have the honesty to admit is that you jumped in *first* and made it personal to me. Follow your own damn advice for once.
Blake on June 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
On a serious note, the protesters are protesting the process more then the person.
It is the process not the person that should be “bashed”.
And Obama by him not declaring anything, is, by his “present” vote, supporting the process.
A corrupt process and murderous process.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Obama should stand up for democracy, and decry murdering dictators. A pretty simple concept.
right2bright on June 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Just so you know, there are some on here that would take the above statement as a demand for support for Mousavi… I guess I can’t read the invisible sentences though.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I wish I knew the specifics of the Soviet collapse better, but I’ve been thinking something along these lines. Once the first guy cracks the gate to reform, he seems to get overrun quickly by the rush.
Count to 10 on June 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
No, I haven’t, but thanks for trying to tell me what I’ve been doing. That was fun.
As to that response, it’s pathetically weak, and that’s our point, the one that seems to be over your head.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Right, but if the dissidents are supporting Mousavi, then by supporting the dissidents, we are defacto supporting Mousavi. Which is not good.
Michael in MI on June 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM
What do you get when you mix Obama, Realpolitik, and The Moral Authority? Well… just turn on the TV…
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Maybe that’s because I wasn’t attacking you, Blake. I don’t know who they heard it from, and that really wasn’t my point either. All I was trying to say is that many people have heard that point. That’s it.
Neither one of us have a say in the matter. Caring is a little pointless.
I really wasn’t attacking you and have said nothing negative about you. You see every comment I write to you as an attack, and I really don’t even know why.
I think we’re missing the decoder pens.
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Mousavi is Iran’s Chalabi
- The Cat
MirCat on June 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM
I’ll feel bad for every one that publicly denounced the Beirut Bombing or 911.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM
So let’s just hope they all die?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM
No, we can define the issue of one of democracy, of integrity…we don’t have to choose a person, we can just be on the side of having an honest election…allowing the people to vote for whom they want, but have the freedom to select that person.
We don’t have any say as to who runs, but we can have a say to how things are run…if they have a “free election” then we have every right to have them own up to that, and they haven’t.
The protests are for the process, not the person.
right2bright on June 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM
But you still believe they should all die?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Yes. Obviously you prefer we continue to have the old regime continue running things. May I also assume you think their nuclear efforts are internal affairs amd should not be addressed? How should that be done? Any evidence that “dialogue” without preconditions will be successful if you feel their nuclear ambitions may affect us?
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM
let me see you apply the same nuanced thinking to palestinians. most of them only support terrorists, afterall.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Both of these guys are reprehensible, but we can view this as a path towards a better leader in the future.
If we just allow the process to be corrupt, then their will never be a change.
We don’t need to take “sides” except be on the side of free and open elections.
right2bright on June 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
No he didn’t. He gave the weakest statement ever…
Yes, I support the rights of people to have their voices heard, to demonstrate against their gov’t, and to not get brutally shot in the street like Neda. Seems sort of an easy thing to support.
And again… I’m really sorry to tell everyone this, but we really aren’t going to get to negotiate with Mother Teresa. We negotiate with bad actors all the time in the Middle East, including handing guns to Sunni Iraqis who were responsible for killing our troops, because we both wanted to get rid of Al Qaeda.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
No matter if it’s Ahmadinejad or Mousavi, we’re talking about a puppet with the Supreme Leader’s hand shoved up his ass. This uprising has very little to do with Mousavi himself.
Roc on June 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
And Chalabi was a pretty shady guy who we played ball with for a few years because he was lots better than Sadam.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Who were they supposed to support? The mullahs vetted the origianal candidates and only allowed 4 to run. None of them were snowflakes. Don’t blame the protestors if they had lousy choices.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM
So… What’s your point? We can’t encourage a liberalized society in the Palestinian “territories?”
Your solution: Don’t do anything except eat ice cream or send in NATO!
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Does it really need to be pointed out that not all the protesters are protesting FOR Mousavi?
Technically you could call a faction supporters of Mousavi because they voted for him.
They voted out of who they were offered.
How many of you voted for McCain? Do you still call yourselves supporters of him? or was it simply because he was a better choice than Obama?
A little Logic please.
A lot are protesting now not for that man but for Freedom. Are they going to love the USA and Israel? Probably not. Would there be instability and fighters going into Iraq? Well, I would submit that no more than current. But Iran would be focusing on internals rather than Nukes and Iraq if the regime were to fall.
- The Cat
MirCat on June 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
ummm, mousavi and his followers seem to be on the same side… you can’t denounce the man without denouncing his followers – who apparently consider him to be the greatest lad since carlos the jackal.
sesquipedalian on June 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I don’t believe anyone should die. The point I was making is that I’d feel bad for those who were killed who had publicly denounced those thiongs.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
oopppss..things
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Mousavi was basically a “none of the above” choice for most Iranians. He certainly didn’t win a landslide victory based on his charisma and personality. It was essential a protest vote against the mullahs. Now, of course, many of the protesters would probably “vote” for Mousavi rather than against the gov’t. But that has more to do with the mullahs turning him into Lech Walesa sort of symbol of the resistance than anything else.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM
How many people were running in the election? Not just 2. Further, why do you think they are all his supporters?
Fine, let’s say all of these protesters are his supporters. Why can’t the US say, “We will always support a liberal Iran”? This is not support to those that would not have a free Iran.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM
The Iranian General Council chooses who gets to run in their elections and you know they would never choose a true blue democratic thinker.
It isn’t the person the people chose that is important, it’s their ability to choose with faith in the system that matters.
At least for now. One hurdle at a time.
pugwriter on June 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I believe you said the only good Iranian is a dead Iranian. can you parse that out for us, so it explains how you don’t believe anyone should die?
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Yes, you were.
No, your point was to take a cheap shot at me. Now you’re into your plausible denialability spin.
My view and caring on what is in the best interest of the US is not pointless. Yours may be because you have given no thought to the fact that what you are supporting may result in a mass murderer of US Marines being elected president.
Only those where you specifically attack me as if you really didn’t know. You keep telling me not to comment to your posts. I never do unless you take a shot at me first. So, again, follow your own advice for once.
Yours is more an ethical problem.
Blake on June 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Now a lying a$shole
DarkCurrent on June 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
getalife.
Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I knew that about Mousavi this past weekend. He also has linkage to Hezbollah. I found it (a) unsurprising, and (b) mostly irrelevant to the current situation.
The political world in Iran was formed by the Islamic Revolution, and most prominent figures have a background of revolution and opposition to the US and Israel. They are Iranian politicians, and they have a history of operating in Iranian interest. It should not be surprising that a candidate for president in 2009 has a history of attacks against the US. It would be hard to find a person of political stature in Iran that does _not_ have that history.
The promotion of liberty and self-determination in other nations is not _directly_ linked to US interest. Democracies are not automatic US allies, and we shouldn’t expect the Iranians to become our BFFs in the middle east, just because we support them in reforming their government.
Rather, the promotion of liberty and self-determination is demanded by our Declaration of Independence, which declares these as Rights bestowed on all people by the Creator. If we believe this, we must live it. Whenever we see the chance, promotion of these principles should trump the playing of diplomatic games. It may also require that we watch men with dirty hands gain power.
Democracies are preferred because they tend to moderate political power. If the Iranians choose to overthrow their theocratic dictators, they will still be an _Iranian_ democracy. History shows that it will benefit their people with greater human rights and prosperity. An Iranian democracy would be less imperialistic, and less extreme in policy with regard to the region. However, they will act in their own interest and probably will not become our allies.
With that in mind, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Mr. Mousavi is definitely not perfect, but he is better than the alternative.
blueguitarbob on June 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Sure, they tried to hedge their bets and got caught,..then it snowballed. I doubt anyone cast a vote for him because he was involved with the Beruit bombings. He(and his wife) were the closest thing to change that was available.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Benjamin Franklin joked that he didn’t know how many kids he had! If you supported the American Revolution you support Dead Beat Dads!
- The Cat
MirCat on June 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Do you support our troops and their mission? Simple yes or no.
Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM
They are reading Barry’s polling data trends and need relief. So, they come here.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
OK. So you do not support genocide. That’s good. And I do understand your anger about what this regime has done to Americans and the threat it and its Islamist ideology continues to pose.
I’m trying to focus my contempt solely on the Iranians who pose an immanent threat to the world, us, the region, Israel and their own citizens. And then, focus my support for the Iranian people disenthralling themselves of their tyrants and the destructive aspects of their ideology.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Hang the murderous mullahs and absolutist ayatollahs and then the next group of latent theocratic crazies will have a useful reference point.
Better than a dangling chad.
profitsbeard on June 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I wonder what would happen if the current Shah formed a government in exile, with the policy of forming a temporary government while true elections were held?
I bet a lot of Iranians would get behind that.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Didn’t Ben die from an STD?
Randy old coot.
Count to 10 on June 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Oh, look! A thread so the prObama shills can pretend Barry isn’t EPIC FAIL on Iran.
You’re too kind, Ed!
Christien on June 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM
So do you suppose all those “contemptuous mullahs” forced those nice people out of their homes so many times to chant death to America?
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I wouldn’t bet on that. I haven’t heard one protester call for the return of the monarchy.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Yes… It was the Iranian version of Hope! and Change!, which makes it sort of shocking that Barry isn’t more supportive. Frankly, I’m thinking that Mousavi was allowed to run because they hoped that it would allow some of the reformers to blow off some steam. They weren’t expecting that much support for him (and it seems that the U.S. gov’t was caught flatfooted as well). In fact, it seemed like Dinner Jacket was going to win up until two weeks before the election. But it seems that Mousavi got a fairly decent sized landslide. So they hastily (and shoddily) rigged the election to remain in power.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM
In the USSR people had to clap until their hands bled for Stalin for fear they’d end up dead or in a gulag. So, I imagine some of those people (though certainly not all)felt obligated to chant.
Disturb the Universe on June 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM
If the protests continue to build, I think Mousavi might start to feel that he is in front of a freight train, either climb onboard or be crushed.
mbs on June 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I doubt it would be hard to round up a fairly sizable crowd in the US for a rousing chant of “Death to America”.
Count to 10 on June 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM
From headlines:
Disturb the Universe on June 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Certainly seems like the protesters are leading him, not the other way around. It really didn’t seem like he has an action plan for what happened after Saturday’s confrontations. I’d suspect that he’d thought that he’d have been arrested by now (and I’m not sure exactly why he hasn’t been).
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Fine. Madison was right. You’re really not worth it. I was wrong for thinking I could have a rational discussion with you. I won’t attempt one again.
Apparently. If Palestinians are being slaughtered by their own people, I guess we’re supposed to cheer it?
Ha.
So every time I denounce Obama I’m also denouncing people like you? So when I say he’s wrong and bad for this country I’m really saying all of you are as well?
I’m trying to learn liberal speak, but it’s tough.
You said a good Iranian is a dead one. How does that now mean you don’t want them to die?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM
So everyone, even those that weren’t born in 1982 or who were young kids during that period should have to apologize to you. It sounds sort of like the African American community demanding reparations for slavery.
Most Iranians, like Neda, just want to get on with their normal lives and would just like their vote to count.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 2:14 PM
The Palestinians have raised some doubts for me about the universal goodness of democracy.
In terms of U.S. interests, political infighting and instability in Iran seem preferable to Mousavi (or Dinnerjacket) having consolidated power.
jazz_piano on June 23, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Of course not. The dominant ideology is dangerously Islamist.
However, a majority of American voters put into office the most anti-American president and Congress in our history, but I don’t want every American man, woman and child punished for that vote, or have a civil war here. Instead, I want a debate that will change hearts and minds. I have hope we can take back the Senate in 2010.
Similarly, I have hope that a majority of the Iranian people will someday have a government that supports Liberty and Justice for all.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Scary, isn’t it?
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Perhaps they’ll give the chant a try at the 2012 DNC convention.
jazz_piano on June 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Reverend Wright would be happy to lead it.
Disturb the Universe on June 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Well, okay, being in the middle of such a crowd would be scary, but I find the idea that you could generate that crowd to be more sad than scary.
300,000,000 is a lot of people.
Count to 10 on June 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM
If ‘them Jews’ will let him.
jazz_piano on June 23, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »