June 15, 2009
Iran
Message From Mousavi:
I AM UNDER EXTREME PRESSURE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE SHAM ELECTION. THEY HAVE CUT ME OFF FROM ANY COMMUNICATION WITH PEOPLE AND AM UNDER SURVEILLANCE. I ASK THE PEOPLE TO STAY IN THE STREETS BUT AVOID VIOLENCE
- Via Andrew Sullivan, who is covering events very comprehensively (much better than the MSM) here.
- On Twitter, go here, here, and many more here.
- Also, Andrew Sullivan has a feed of the best tweets out of Iran: Livetweeting the Revolution.
- BBC (whose reporters are being protected from the police by demonstrators) has live reports from Tehran here.
- The Telegraph: Unconfirmed reports that leaked election results show Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came third, here.
- The Huffington Post: Live blogging the uprising, here.
- Grand Ayatollah Sanei in Iran has declared Ahmadinejad's presidency illegitimate and cooperating with his government against Islam. From Andrew Sullivan.
- Al-Jazeera: Moussavi addresses
tenshundreds of thousands of supporters, says he will fight in new elections, if called. More here. - Leave links to any kind of direct reporting out of Iran in the comments.
- I'll be updating this page frequently, and adding stuff at the bottom as the day goes on.
Support the Uprising!
Security forces target computers in dorm raid at Tehran university:
Protester shields riot-policeman:
Hundreds of thousands defy rally ban:
Sky News Video:
Enduring America reports (via Andrew Sullivan):
Press TV is now reporting on “hundreds of thousands” in today’s rally from Enqelab Square to Azadi Square, protesting the outcome of the Iranian election. The gathering is in defiance of the Ministry of Interior’s refusal to give a permit. So far, based on video and on the correspondent’s report, the rally appears to be peaceful and calm.
Just to bring home the significance of the previous item, Press TV is state-owned media. Until this morning, it has given almost no attention to the protests against Ahmadinejad’s election. The sudden change to in-depth, even effusive coverage of the demonstrations points to a wider political shift: whether this is in line with a “compromise” accepting the legitimacy of the claims of the protests (and, beyond that, the appeal to the Guardian Council) remains to be seen.
Moussavi appears:
The BBC: Millions protest in iran against election fraud in Iran:
Tweets coming out of Iran (again, via Andrew Sullivan):
"Mousavi now, 'these masses were not brought by bus or by threat. they were not brought for potatoes. they came themselves'"
"Tens of thousands of protestors are chanting 'No fear, No fear, we are with each other.'"
"It's worth taking the risk, we're going. I won't be able to update until I'm back. again thanks for your kind support and wish us luck."
"Grand Ayatollah Saanei accompanies today's anti Ahmadinejad rally."
“These people are not seeking a revolution,” said Ali Reza, a young actor in a brown T-shirt who stood for a moment watching on the rally’s sidelines. “We don’t want this regime to fall. We want our votes to be counted, because we want reforms, we want kindness, we want friendship with the world.”
More here, in the New York Times.
BREAKING NEWS: From Nico Pitney at The Huffington Post:
12:43 PM ET -- Cracks in the armor. "A source tells us that least one state run media channel has shown pictures of the protests and announced that Mousavi would be at the rally, which indicates that some in the media are refusing marching orders."
12:44 PM ET -- At least one reported dead. ABC's Jim Sciutto: "sev reports of pro-govt militia firing on protesters, AP photog reports one protester dead" From emailer Susan: @kapanak: Eyewitness relative from North Tehran just got back to me. District One and Three are in total Chaos.
12:47 PM ET -- AP files. "TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- AP photographer sees pro-government militia fire at opposition protesters, killing at least 1." More from @persiankiwi: people are running in streets outside. There is panic in streets.people going ino houses to hide.
12:53 PM ET -- More people shot? Emailer Walt sends a link to this site, which is claiming (in Farsi) that she saw half a dozen hit by gunfire. I have seen no evidence corraborating this. But I note it because she also includes new cell photos from the scene:
And via Andrew Sullivan (who is providing amazing coverage of these events in real time):
Tehran University's Faculty Resigns En Masse
119 members of Tehran University faculty have resigned en-masse as a protest to the attack on Tehran University dorms last night. Among them is Dr Jabbedar-Maralani, who is known as the father of Iranian electronic engineering. They have asked for the resignation of Farhad Rahbari the appointed president of Tehran University, for his incompetence in defending the University's dignity and student lives.
Two videos from Fareed Zakaria at CNN:
From Nico Pitney at The Huffington Post: 3:10 PM ET -- Back to basics. An Iranian civics lesson, in comic form, for those who are just getting interested in this. Via emailer Moazzam-Doulat, BBC has an interactive version.
And now, Barack, "It would wrong for me to be silent," walks the fine line perfectly:
And a good article in Salon (thanks to Zara Houshmand) is here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 09:39 AM | Permalink
Comments
Thank you Abbas. Whoever Twitters, please consider following Change_for_Iran. And if you never wanted to Twitter, this is a good reason to change your mind.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 15, 2009 9:51:01 AM
Let's hope this rich and vibrant culture emerges from the yoke of religious superstition and islamic intolerance.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 15, 2009 10:54:38 AM
So far all the repression is evidence of(drumroll, please):.... repression, which nobody doubts is rampant in Iran. But it does not imply fraud. From what I've been reading, it was likely that Ahmadinejad could carry the elction, so I don't see why Khamenei would have to resort to fraud to get the results he was most likely to get anyways.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 15, 2009 11:00:40 AM
It's interesting and shameful to see how many commenters in the Left regions of the blogosphere are completely uncomfortable with the protests. So what if Ahmedinejad is vile, at least he stands up to Western Empire, etc. and is more of an enemy of privatization (what a saint! as if state control is always an improvement regardless of the state) than his rival. Fortunately the people in the street don't seem to give a shit, prioritizing as they are a rather more basic set of human needs.
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 15, 2009 12:12:36 PM
"Completely uncomfortable?" At least he stands up to.." I believe some here just see what they want to see. Mousavi is also critical of the crimes of the West. This is not an issue of right versus left or 'liberty' against 'tyranny'. The theocracy is not in danger and whoever wins will be subordinated to the decisions of the Ayatollah. The issue is the allegation of fraud. Did it happen? I don't believe so, at least not in any substantial way except for the usual irregularities. The only shameful thing in these kind of forums is the extents that some people go to project their idiotic fantasies of 'good vs. evil'on those who disagree with them and accuse them of being 'uncomfortable'.
Just to play devil's advocate: there is no more basic set of human needs that the one populists like Ahmadinejad prioritize: food and healthcare. Let's be honest: freedom of speech (not that Mousavi represents it, either) is secondary compared to the immediacy of the other human rights that are always at stake in issues like this one.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 15, 2009 1:23:37 PM
Pepito,
Very sorry to have upset you to the point where your reading comprehension has been severely diminished. I was not picking on you; though your quickness to stand up for the status quo's announced election result, when you cannot possibly know whether fraud is at work, is quite telling.
"The theocracy is not in danger" Who is claiming otherwise?
Mousavi's platform emphasized greater access to information, which is rightly going to look subversive to any dictatorship. I Know he didn't hand out potatoes at rallies, but do share why you think he's more against "food and healthcare" than Ahmadinejad.
"idiotic fantasies of good and evil" are you talking to the Zoroastrian behind me? I'm just pleased to see public courageousness demonstrated by many citizens of Iran for the sake of expanded freedoms.
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 15, 2009 2:03:22 PM
In my own super-nice way, I just have to say it: Pepito, while far, far, far left points of view are always welcome, provided they are somewhat thought through and not regurgitated, today you are going a bit too far just to be anti-American. Too far for my taste? No, it's not about that. Too far for the intelligent person I have seen you to be. Time to open your mind and listen to the grad students in Iran, who are actually risking something as we look on. If their souls cry out for larger freedoms than they now enjoy, and if they are brave enough to rise up, don't you think you can support them even if their hatreds are not aimed precisely where you would like?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 15, 2009 3:21:30 PM
Elatia:
What's 'Anti-American' and what makes me 'far-far-left'? Explain. I have never stated any admiration for the Iranian theocracy and I would certainly love for the Iranian people to enjoy more freedom. What I dislike enormously is the knee-jerk western liberal reaction that tends to oversimplify the issue and turn it into a fight between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'. Predictably enough, the 'good guys' apparently like us more. Or not. Hmm. Maybe they're 'bad guys' too?
Jesse:
You're right: I cannot possibly know there was fraud at work, and you can't either. What I'm decrying is the readiness to support the alegations of fraud from people who should know better. You're not supposed to assume guilt first, but innocence unless you see enough evidence in the other direction. But then you call Iran a 'dictatorship' which is not exactly true and makes me think you just don't know what you are talking about.
If you guys want to get more info on this check out Juan Cole's blog. He's claiming fraud. What's more interesting is the answers of several commenters, some of them from inside Iran, critiquing his critique.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 15, 2009 4:08:23 PM
Robert Fisk on Iran:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 15, 2009 4:28:16 PM
A'sad Abu'khalil (the angry ay-rab) says it much better than I do, but oooh, shucks. He's AntiAmewican too:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/western-primer-on-elections-in.html
June 13, 2009
Western Primer on Elections in Developing Countries
Some Western principles in assessing elections in developing countries:
1) When the favored candidates win, the elections are free and fair. And when they lose, elections are certainly unfree and stolen.
2) Violent protests against elections that produce winners favored by the West, are to be strictly condemned and protesters are to be called terrorists, hooligans and mobs (can you imagine if Lebanese opposition supporters were to engage in violent protests against the election results in Lebanon), while violent protests against enemies of the US when they win elections (like in Moldova) are to be admired (and the protesters in those cases are called "democracy activists".
3) It is not against free elections to have Western governments interfere in elections and in funding candidates through Western groups for the promotion of democracy.
4) Candidates (or even dictators) who serve Western interests are automatically labeled as "reform candidates" (even the Saudi tyrant is referred to as "reform-minded"), while candidates who oppose Western economic and political interests are to be labeled enemies of reform....
6) Western observers of elections are always on hand to declare an election unfair and rigged if the favored candidates lose.
7) The corruption of pro-US candidates (like the March 14 bunch in Lebanon) is preferred to the corruption of, say, Mugabe.
8) The democratic credentials of dictators immediately improve if they change their policies toward the US and if they express willingness to serve US economic and political interests.
9) Countries where dictators do a good job in serving US economic and political interests need not hold elections.
10) If favored candidates can't guarantee electoral victory (like the Palestinian Authority's Abu Mazen, whose term has expired months ago), they don't need to hold elections and will be treated as if they won an election anyway.
11) It is just not logical to assume that people in developing countries can freely ever decide to make choices that are not consistent with political and economic interests of the US....
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 15, 2009 4:36:10 PM
These folks in the Washington Post are of the opinion that the official results are in line with earlier independent opinion polls.
This is rather a dilemma for liberal democrats. We can fail to support the resistance to a hard-line coup, or we can interfere in the free choice of Iranians to pick their president, take your pick.
Posted by: Sagredo | Jun 15, 2009 6:01:18 PM
Pepito,
Now you're just quibbling. All parliamentary candidates and legislation must be approved by the Guardian Council in Iran. We are dealing with a country controlled by a handful of people, who are unaccountable to the populace that = dictatorship, oh sorry + God = theocracy, you win Pepito!
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 15, 2009 7:01:39 PM
I haven't yet been to a single country which is not controlled by a handful of people. The levels of accountability might vary, but the world is not neatly divided into 'democracies' and 'dictatorships', Jesse. There are several systems in between and most governments in the world usually partake of both up to a certain degree. Iran's theocratic government has probably as many democratic elements as dictatorial ones, I'm sorry to inform you. Such an enlightened member of a civilization that claims to be the non plus ultra of democracy should know more about its meaning(s).
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 15, 2009 7:38:02 PM
Thanks Abbas for all the links.
I admire the passion that has brought so many into the streets. Too bad we didn't do the same after Bush stole the election from Gore.
Posted by: Harry | Jun 15, 2009 10:00:30 PM
"And now, Barack, "It would wrong for me to be silent," walks the fine line perfectly"
How odd then that The One found it perfectly proper to remain silent over the slaughter in Gaza. Furthermore, I recall waiting in vain for this much liberal hand-wringing over the election shenanigans in Mexico.
Posted by: Coldtype | Jun 15, 2009 10:09:30 PM
today you are going a bit too far just to be anti-American
Elatia-- we may need to be a little more history literate. If the US would of not overthrown the elected parliamentary democracy in 1953, it would be a very different world today, and we all would not be having this discussion.
Followed by Guatemala in 1954-- and we all know the rest.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 15, 2009 10:31:38 PM
Pepito: I am against anyone who beats or shoots at unarmed people. That's my western bias. How about you?
Posted by: Kris Kotarski | Jun 15, 2009 10:36:28 PM
"Iran's theocratic government has probably as many democratic elements as dictatorial ones, I'm sorry to inform you."
Don't be sorry comrade, but do show me how elections within a bubble of theocratic pre-selection adds up to democracy by any modern standard. And your shades of gray argument, well why in the first place? An agenda of the apologetic of: not-so-bad as Western hegemony, whatever the human price, is obviously at work. CIA pitchforks are not behind the brave people in the streets of Tehran and yet you keep pretending that the issue is the Western response rather than the Persian discontent. What a sad memory this will one day be for you no matter how it turns out.
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 16, 2009 1:09:57 AM
"I am against anyone who beats or shoots at unarmed people. That's my western bias. How about you? "
I am against anyone who beats, shoots OR BOMBS unarmed people, Kris. That's my 3rd world bias.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 16, 2009 8:07:36 AM
I don't know why most liberals are so passionately supporting the uprising. It's not at all clear that the election was stolen, there is no independent confirmation. Some predictions said that it'll be tight election. Some said Ahmadinejad was going to win. Some said Moussavi.
Have we forgotten Georgia already? That's not too far back in history. (Not counting the numerous other ones in the past century.)
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Jun 16, 2009 9:40:29 AM
Yeah, too many Americans like to think that their favorite most recent Third World atrocities are always examples of spontaneous combustion, or flow naturally from the primitive level of socio-political hygiene bedevilling the browner nations. Trying to bring the average American's attention to the fact that gross American "self-interested" intervention/subversion is responsibile for the great majority of post-War messes on the planet is like trying to take a basket of cats through a car wash.
"We", in our trademark rush to flatter ourselves that ours is the noblest democracy evuh, are just a wee too ignorant of (even documented, "mainstream")history to bring much insight to these tragic spectacles, an astonishing ignorance we more than make up for with sheer, super-credulous... obedience.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Jun 16, 2009 10:06:34 AM
OK, a clarification is in order, because some of the posters here are being deliberately obtuse in their interpretation of my comments:
I am not denying or justifying the repression that the Iranian theocracy is resorting to. But that was not the main point I was trying to make. I talked about the allegations of fraud. That hasn't elicited much response here. The truth is that I find it difficult to believe Khamenei would need to resort to fraud when the candidate he apparently supports was the frontrunner in the polls prior to the election. We in the 'west' have been bombarded by a continuous stream of news about how bad Ahmadinejad was doing and how hard it was going to be for him to win the elections. You have to be an idiot not to see the clear anti-Ahmadinejad agenda laid out by western news corporations. They were clearly either lying about the possible outcome or were just the victims of their own incompetence. Either way it doesn't tell me anything good about those who are bringing the news to us.
Iranian discontent in a large segment of the population is evident and I never contested it. It is also evident to me that an even larger segment seems to be happy with Ahmadinejad. You can call it 'bribing', 'buying off votes' or whatever the fuck you want to call it, but the poor, who are a majority overwhelmingly support the guy.
And that, my dear 'comrades' (using the snide but grossly off remark by Jesse, who apparently has me pinned down as a big bad communist)is the gist of the problem for you western liberals, as Sagredo correctly pointed out. In particular I am really puzzled at the idea that most of you have that democratic government is not only procedurally, but morally superior. Democratic elections (because that is what these are, although badly flawed due to the constraints imposed on them by the theocracy that oversees it)sometimes bring you results you don't like. Not accepting them is just plain old hypocrisy that apparently some of you are very adept at practicing.
For all the 'Save Darfur' T-shirts that I have seen western liberals wearing nowadays I have yet to see a single 'Save Iraq' t-shirt. Why? Because Darfur is an easy cause to support and doesn't bring you trouble with the establishment. Basically the same thing is going on here with Iran. I don't doubt you have a golden heart, but it's almost grotesque to see that citizens from the same countries that not that long ago advocated toppling governments they didn't like because they were sitting atop abundant resources now decided to get on the Human Rights bandwagon. Knowledge of the recent behavior of your governments should give you pause before you become so willing to be yet again their useful idiots.
That being said, I admire all those who live under the brunt of a theocracy and revolt against it. But I doubt that a Mousavi victory means a break form that terrible system of government.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 16, 2009 10:18:10 AM
That's a bold voice, Pepito.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Jun 16, 2009 10:53:24 AM
Pepito,
Here is some Juan Cole: "There is very little variation in Ahmadinejad's numbers across provinces, except in two cases. In past elections the numbers have been all over the place. And that he took Isfahan province, with its big urban center, by 69% would, well, require explanation. Although this press release is now admitting that Ahmadinejad lost in largely Sunni Sistan & Baluchistan, where he is hated, on Saturday the government was leaking that he had won there. My guess is that by Sunday night they had been roundly told that announcing such an outcome made them look ridiculous, so they toned it down.
That Karoubi got 5% of the vote in his home province is also suspicious."
Sorry for the "comrade " crack, but there is something rather boilerplate old Left to your rhetoric here. You see the incredible spectacle of people risking their lives in the streets of Iran as an opportunity to change the subject to the failures of the media, faux liberal sympathy for Darfur, an absence of sympathy for Iraq, etc. In other words the events in Iran seem to have interrupted your anti-western tirade. How rude of them.
"Not accepting them is just plain old hypocrisy that apparently some of you are very adept at practicing. " Not sure who that's aimed at, but it is obviously many Iranians themselves who don't seem to be accepting the results, and their side wants greater freedoms, so I support them. What the hell is so hard to understand here?
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 16, 2009 11:10:29 AM
Pepito, you write as if the West were a monolith. The Unelected One, W, did not represent me or anyone I know well. I did my share of volunteering against him, but only by moving to NZ could I have truly cut the cord. You are really simplifying the political thinking of anyone who disagrees with you in the very same way you object to being, yourself, simplified as a Leftie from Central Casting. I realize you're more complex than that -- give others credit for the same, please.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 16, 2009 12:26:38 PM
I'm going to be geeky and impose a coordinate system upon these results. Seems like there are two relevant axes here:
x: who's 'better', going from definitely Ahmadinejad to definitely Mousavi. (This complicates further into better for Iran, US, Israel, the world and so on. I'm restricting myself to what I'd paternalistically will for the Iranians for their sake.)
y: who actually won the elections, once you resolve these issues of rigging etc, again going from Ahmadinejad in a landslide to Mousavi by a mile.
I place Pepito somewhere in third quadrant (A better, A won), and Jesse and Elatia in the first (M better, M won). I trust there's not much in II quadrant, and place myself in fourth (M better, A won).
Mine in fact seems to me the default response for a group of mostly Democrats. Can Obama really have made us forget so quickly?
Posted by: D | Jun 16, 2009 12:39:44 PM
Defining a coordinate axis seems rather wasteful. A simple 2by2 matrix would've done.
Posted by: Kumar | Jun 16, 2009 12:50:18 PM
That's lucid, D! But while I would like M to have won, I realize he may have lost by a much smaller number than the cooked results indicate. Having that number would be very important in knowing how to deal with Iran. I am concerned with who the Iranian people really are after their long hell or perhaps at the beginning of the beginning of the end of it. The students and demonstrating others are showing me that Ahmadinejad is not their face to the world; they are not showing me the election went their way, really. Maybe you need a fifth category -- those who think we'll never really know. People in that category could cozy up to those who believe the Gulf War could have been averted by sanctions, etc. So show me how to graph the ponderable but unknowable, please!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 16, 2009 12:54:15 PM
D, you are placing me in the wrong quadrant. Maybe Kumar is right, a 2x 2 matrix would do if those are the only possibilities. I'll stake my possition clearly: A & M are probably as bad, A most likely won.
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 16, 2009 1:08:19 PM
I'm not in that plane. More like in the third dimension- Don't know.
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Jun 16, 2009 1:29:08 PM
I'm not in that plane. More like in the third dimension- "don't know."
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Jun 16, 2009 1:46:09 PM
"Trying to bring the average American's attention to the fact that gross American "self-interested" intervention/subversion is responsibile for the great majority of post-War messes on the planet is like trying to take a basket of cats through a car wash."
Yep. That's where it all started, all right. What accent do you speak English with Steven?
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 16, 2009 2:31:55 PM
"Mine in fact seems to me the default response for a group of mostly Democrats."
What do you suppose the mostly Republican response is?
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 16, 2009 3:31:41 PM
Carlos:
Rush Limbaugh isn't the best rhetorician to ape here, but, since you ask, the "accent" I speak English with isn't much like that of the "average" (note the qualifier) American. However: care to explain how my accent might in any way invalidate my comment about America's atrocious (and comedically illegal) geopolitical adventurism of the past half century... and those ugly chickens that just keep on coming home to roost as a result?
You wanna to start with initial American installation of and/or support for Saddam, The Taleban, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Noriega or the Shah of Iran...?
Let’s Start HERE
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Jun 16, 2009 3:48:25 PM
"like trying to take a basket of cats through a car wash." :)
Posted by: maniza | Jun 16, 2009 5:34:21 PM
Carlos, I think Republicans, like Yankees fans, know to expect victory for their side. I don't know who a Republican would or should prefer between A and M, but he should expect electoral victory in either case. Good Democrats anticipate a heartbreaking loss.
Matrix shmatrix. On these lovely axes, I can straightforwardly place Pepito on the positive y-axis. Do that with a matrix. Elatia / Manas's 'don't know' doesn't easily separate in this scheme from 'am ambivalent' though, so you guys just live off the grid :)
Posted by: D | Jun 16, 2009 6:42:05 PM
" care to explain how my accent might in any way invalidate my comment about America's atrocious (and comedically illegal) geopolitical adventurism of the past half century"
My mistake. I thought you were English, and wondered if that might be the reason that you didn't feel the previous century(s) of non-American colonialism might have played some role in the mess "over there," preferring instead to restart the clock in the middle of the third inning.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 16, 2009 10:05:20 PM
"I thought you were English, and wondered if that might be the reason that you didn't feel the previous century(s) of non-American colonialism might have played some role in the mess "over there," preferring instead to restart the clock in the middle of the third inning."
Oh, I get it. Amewican libruls are deeply sorry about their own country's history of colonialism and want to make up for it by joining their own government on its opportunistic condemnation of the Iranian regime. They really want to help, honest to Gawd!
Haberlo dicho antes...
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 16, 2009 10:45:17 PM
D. Not sure why you hinged your comment on mine?
Amewican libruls are deeply sorry about their own country's history of colonialism
Although that view (in my view) was surely what inspired Carter to kick the fuel cans over 30 years ago. Very helpful.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 17, 2009 9:16:21 AM
"Although that view (in my view) was surely what inspired Carter to kick the fuel cans over 30 years ago. Very helpful."
Is that why Carter provided military aid to Indonesia's genocide in East Timor, and ignored Arnulfo Romero's plea not to send aid to the military dictatorship in El Salvador?
Posted by: Pepito | Jun 17, 2009 10:09:03 AM
I am with you to fight for your rights and your freedom, iranian people. Shout your freedom, scream your rights!!! Every human being should not feel fear to live in his town. I will stand for your rights with you all.
Margherita, Italy.
Posted by: Margherita | Jun 17, 2009 12:42:16 PM
Good questions Pepito. Any Carter apologists out there who could provide an answer to this?
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 17, 2009 12:53:13 PM
Thanks god, for the internet, mobile phones,wi fi, and all the devices that helps the world to be aware of that kind of situation, I am sure that if not in the next days , soon all those who create that problem will regret.
Posted by: Jack | Jun 24, 2009 6:04:15 PM
Post a comment