WASHINGTON — Every revolution needs a unifying symbol, and members of Iran's opposition movement now have theirs.
That was one dumb sniper who took out the young woman millions now know as Neda. Or was he?
No one seems to know the identity of the rooftop shooter who pierced Neda's heart with a bullet a week ago. Was he a Basij sniper, as some witnesses have reported? Was it a mistake? Or did the shooter see an opportunity to create a necessary martyr?
The thought is inescapable that the beautiful Neda Agha Soltan might have been selected from the crowd not to scare away protesters, but to unite them.
It is not impossible to imagine that someone had a greater purpose in mind for the young philosophy student. If stories emerging from Iran are accurate, even Neda seemed to anticipate what might happen. When a friend begged her not to join the protesters, Neda said: "It's just one bullet and it's over."
Just one bullet was all it took. Neda reportedly died within two minutes, blood seeping from her nose and mouth as onlookers shouted "Do not be afraid." That phrase, a single word in Farsi, has become a chant among protesters.
In a matter of hours, a video of Neda's death was circulated through YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. No matter who pulled the trigger or why, Neda is now the undisputed symbol of reform-minded Iranians' demand for freedom.
What follows next is by no means predictable, but history provides hints. Neda's anointment as a martyr could become crucial in the next month. Followers of the Shiite branch of Islam participate in cycles of mourning — on the third, seventh and 40th days after death. These cycles served as rallying points during the 1979 revolution and conceivably could serve the same purpose now.
In the meantime, it is reasonable to ask why Neda so captured the imagination when many others have died since the June 12 election. On the same day that Neda died, at least nine other protesters were killed.
At first, reports were that she was a teenager, just 16, walking with her father. Perhaps the world's initial reaction was tied to the belief that the government had slaughtered a child. Later, we learned that Neda was 26 and that the man with her was her music teacher. By then, the image of the young woman's dying face was firmly imprinted on the international psyche and the mythology of Neda had taken root.
(2 of 2)
What of all those others? Were they only men? Were they not as beautiful?
We are a video culture attracted to drama and beauty, an admission of which does not diminish the tragedy of Neda's death or the terrible loss for her family and friends. But as the days unfold, it will be interesting to watch how Neda, whose name means "The Voice" or "The Calling," is incorporated into the developing narrative of Iran and especially of Iranian women.
In fact, the protest movement's martyr needed to be a woman. And she needed to be a modern woman. It is noteworthy that Neda was wearing jeans and sneakers, uniform of the West, rather than the traditional garb of hijab or chador. Whatever's one attitude toward Muslim dress — and many women don't feel the need to buck tradition — it was clearly Neda's choice to ignore her government's preference that women hide their feminine features.
What better symbol for the repressive rule of old clerics than a liberated beauty brutally cut down in the prime of youth? Symbolically, Neda's death isn't about voting irregularities, but about the clash between superstitions that justify men's dominion over women and the universal yearning for freedom.
Women's rights were at the center of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's reform agenda. His wife, Zahra Rahnavard — in stark contrast to the nearly invisible wife of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — was front and center throughout the campaign urging a "religious democracy, which would allow young women of our time to thrive and flourish by providing them with security, freedom, and employment."
That message may have been the sniper's target. With his bullet, he delivered another: Women either will behave and follow the rules, or they will die. Whatever the shooter's true aim, the body he left in the street has become immortal in the story of Iran.
Neda — the voice of freedom — can never be silenced now.
Kathleen Parker writes for the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071. Send e-mail to kparker@kparker.com.
__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem
What's a little embellishment when the momentum of history is on our
side! We don't know who killed her, but let's just assume it was the
evil Iranian regime!
Well, if the revolution-that-was-not-televised
in Venezuela in 2002 taught us anything, it's that the source of the
sniper's bullet is pivotal to understanding just who is responsible for
instigating the violence and thus who is manipulating events for
ulterior motives. The similarities between what is happening in Iran
today and what happened in Venezuela in 2002 are striking.
The Textbook CIA Coup That Failed
Wherever in the woods of rural Virginia the CIA teaches it's
masters course in coup plotting & execution, the template
undoubtedly studied therein is the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime
Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, the CIA's perfect black ops coup. Mossadeq
was the last democratically elected Iranian head of state. "Mosaddeq was a
nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention
in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the
Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control." Sound
familiar? Yes, substitute "Chavez" and "Venezuela" for
Mosaddeq and Iran; substitute "American" for British and you have the
same fact pattern of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela circa 2002.
The CIA made an alliance with the Venezuelan elite who controlled the
majority of the television stations in the country and top generals of
the Venezuelan military. The CIA initiated a progranda campaign through the
controlled television stations followed by street demonstrations. Then the
CIA used snipers to create chaos in the streets.
Chaos was used as the pretext for the military to demand the ouster of
Chavez. The military went so far as to arrest Chavez but he never
resigned. The whole plan unraveled after 48 hours when Chavez
supporters flooded the streets of Caracas and junior officers within
the military (especially the palace guard) defected back to Chavez.
Once the countercoup forces gained control of the main television
station, the game was up. The people overwhelmingly demanded the return
of Chavez.
In spite of the apparently limitless predations demonstrated by agents
of deception like the CIA, their limited creative abilities reveal
unmistakable signature patterns. Reinsert "Ahmadinejad" for "Chavez"
and "Iran" for "Venezuela" and the same CIA-scripted scenario repeats,
like an outdated computer program that its users are loath to upgrade
for fear of venturing into the unknown.
And for those who don't like to read too much:
There may also be some connection with the cia and "digital camera pens" that were
distrubuted by Iranian media outlets and it's been reproted that Neda's assassination may have been recorded on a "Pen Camera".
The C.I.A. is such a busy organization. Importing illicit drugs, funding both sides of the war, creating other wars to fund. Brainwashing. Murder. False flag sabotage and bombings. Makes me want to go down there and just give all my money to the Amerikaan Government so they can keep up such wonderful work.
__________________
A true patriot is always ready to stand up against his own government.
We can't be using plants that come from the Lord for beneficial purposes. Now hurry up, or we'll be late for church.
The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.-Adolf Hitler
Teddy Roosevelt's grandson "Kermit Roosevelt" single handly over threw the
Iranian government in just three weeks.
When I say single handley, I mean he had help from Herbert Norman
Schwarzkopf father of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of all
coalition forces for Operation Desert Shield/Storm, and
He was also best known for his involvement in the Lindbergh kidnapping case.
One wealthy man, bribing
t.v.
Military
Several Dual Opposition Street Gangs (agent provacatuers)
Leading up to the Coup
^^^I wish I had the answers to everything all the time. Sometimes motives don't become clear until hindsight. Back in 1953 the democratically elected Iranian leader, Mohammed Mossadeq, nationalized Iran's oil fields, and denied BP a monopoly. The capitalist powers-that-be were like, "Oh, no you don't!" So they (CIA and willing participants) staged the anti-Mossadeq street chaos, making it look like genuine civil protest... and after several weeks of chaos in the streets, Mossadeq was arrested and overthrown.
Although a short answer to Terry's question would be: the dominating powers in the world (esp USA) have a vested interested in maintaining domination through control of the world's natural resources. Therefore, these powers need excuses to have permanent military bases and outposts in these strategic corners of the world. As such, they love to see chaos and instability in such regions as it serves as a perfect excuse for us to intervene. Anyway, we'll see how the currently developing history plays out.
__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem
Although a short answer to Terry's question would be: the dominating powers in the world (esp USA) have a vested interested in maintaining domination through control of the world's natural resources. Therefore, these powers need excuses to have permanent military bases and outposts in these strategic corners of the world. As such, they love to see chaos and instability in such regions as it serves as a perfect excuse for us to intervene. Anyway, we'll see how the currently developing history plays out.
Kameelyun, et al, how does the Suez Crisis of 1956 fit into this worldview? Happening only years after the 1953 Iran situation, it involved many of the same situations you list, yet the US response was to let Egypt nationalize the canal (by way of not supporting Britain, France and Israel). Why one and not the other?
__________________
"Creating something is not a democracy. The people have no say. The artist does. It doesn't matter what the people witter on about: they and their response comes after. They're not there for the moment of creation."
We're still in control but Instead of the CIA we sent in the UN
The "lease" was up for the french,
so they used a smiley face: they sent in the U.N.
In other words we got cheated out of a war by a Canadian.
And it was pretty hairy;
We wanted a quick scary war for money with a bully and nerd
not a war with all super powers fighting for
who can sell cheap furniture to each other the fastest.
from wiki:
In 1854 and 1856 Ferdinand de Lesseps obtained a concession from Sa'id
Pasha, the viceroy of Egypt, to create a company to construct a canal open
to ships of all nations, according to plans created by Austrian engineer Luigi
Negrelli. The company was to operate the canal by leasing the relevant land,
for 99 years from its opening.
The Suez Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez) came into being on 15 December, 1858.
The excavation took nearly 11 years using forced labour of Egyptian workers.
Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were forced to work on the
canal. [27]
The British recognised the canal as an important trade route and perceived
the French project as a threat to their geopolitical and financial interests.
The British Empire was the major global naval force and officially condemned
the forced work and sent armed bedouins to start a revolt among workers.
Involuntary labour on the project ceased, and the viceroy condemned the
slavery, halting the project.[28]
Angered by the British opportunism, de Lesseps sent a letter to the British
government remarking on the British lack of remorse a few years earlier when
forced workers died in similar conditions building the British railway in Egypt.
Main article: Suez Crisis
After the United Kingdom and the United States withdrew their pledge to
support the construction of the Aswan Dam due to Egyptian overtures
towards the Soviet Union, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised
the canal in 1956, intending to finance the dam project using revenue from
the canal, while at the same time closing the Gulf of Aqaba to all Israeli
shipping by closure of the Straits of Tiran. This provoked the Suez Crisis, in
which the UK, France and Israel colluded to invade Egypt. The intention was
for Israel to invade on the ground, and for the Anglo-French partnership to
give air and other support, later to intervene to resolve the crisis and control
the canal.
To stop the war from spreading and to save the British from what he thought
was a disastrous action, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Lester B. Pearson, proposed the creation of the very first United Nations
peacekeeping force to ensure access to the canal for all and an Israeli
withdrawal from the Sinai. On 4 November 1956, a majority of nations at the
United Nations voted for Pearson's peacekeeping resolution, which mandated
the UN peacekeepers to stay in the Sinai Peninsula unless both Egypt and
Israel agreed to their withdrawal. The United States backed this proposal by
putting financial pressure on the British government, which then agreed to
withdraw its troops. Pearson was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
As a result of damage and ships intentionally sunk under orders from Nasser[
32] the canal was closed until April 1957, when it was cleared with UN
assistance. A UN force (UNEF) was established to maintain the neutrality of
the canal and the Sinai Peninsula.
Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973
In May 1967 President Nasser ordered the UN peacekeeping forces out of the
Sinai Peninsula, including the Suez Canal area. Despite Israeli objections in
the United Nations, the peacekeepers were withdrawn and the Egyptian army
took up positions on the Israeli border, closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli
shipping. The canal itself had been closed to Israeli shipping since 1949,
except for a short period in 1951-1952.
These actions were key factors in the Israeli decision to launch a pre-
emptive attack on Egypt in June 1967, and to capture the Sinai Peninsula to
the Suez Canal. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, also called the Six Day War,
the canal was closed by an Egyptian blockade until 5 June 1975. As a result,
fourteen cargo ships known as "The Yellow Fleet" remained trapped in the
canal for over eight years. In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, the canal
was the scene of a major crossing by the Egyptian army into Israeli-occupied
Sinai. Much wreckage from this conflict remains visible along the canal's edges.
The UNEF mandate expired in 1979. Despite the efforts of the United States,
Israel, Egypt, and others to obtain an extension of the UN role in observing
the peace between Israel and Egypt, as called for under the Egypt-Israel
Peace Treaty of 1979, the mandate could not be extended because of the
veto by the USSR in the security council, at the request of Syria.
Accordingly, negotiations for a new observer force in the Sinai produced the
Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), stationed in Sinai in 1981 in
coordination with a phased Israeli withdrawal. It is there under agreements
between the United States, Israel, Egypt, and other nations. [33].
You really have no idea what it's like to be opressed, do you?
If in 2004, thousands and thousands of people in every city in the US rejected the Bush "victory" over Kerry (it was stolen every bit as much as '00, do the research) and took to the streets, even peacefully, it would have been a similar situation in this country. The 1960s were a more politically passionate decade than this one in terms of large numbers of protests, and during that period this country had its own Tiananmen Square with the series of massacres, most notably Kent State. We have our own riot police. During Katrina, the National Guard shat on the Second Amendment when they went through entire neighborhoods knocking on doors and demanding that the citizenry give up any guns. I was in NYC during the 2004 Republican Convention and was one of thousands of protesters relegated to a so-called "free speech zone." Which, by the way, was basically a gigantic cage. (And yes, the DNC, the other side of the same coin, had these "zones" also.) And believe me, if protesters would try to assert that their First Amendment rights apply to any inch of American soil that is not private property, and dare defy the police and their "zones," they would indeed be chased away with clubs and even beaten, just as we've been seeing in scenes in Iran. And, furthermore, I'm sure that many people in America, while gloating over how "free" they are, would probably blame the protesters themselves for getting beaten, arrested, harassed, etc. Oh, they didn't follow the police's edicts, they were engaging in "douchebaggery," yada ya. I can think of some people on this forum who would take such a pro-fascist stance based on past threads.
Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places — building vestibules, parking garages, or vans — and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO NOT CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained—some for nearly two days."[14] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".[12]
__________________
"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem
I remember traveling for the first time up north, to the rest of the states.
About 200 miles north of the valley is an immigration check point( @ the #15 on the map),
where everyone is suppose to declare themselves legal citizens,
and dependin on accent further questions.
I didn't think nothing of it, until we reached wyoming and no other check points were encountered.
There were also no immigration check point going back home to the valley.
That was when i was a kid on a family vacation.
The most recent was the 2003 redistricting in texas where
republicans saw a wave of new hispanic voters and dicided to gerrymander
the state with the districts radiating like a pin-wheel from the Austin.
Dicing up all the districts into rural and urban strips running 300 miles long.
My district ends in south San Antonio suburbs or something like that.
Senate committee approves redistricting - Front Page
One district starts in Travis County and winds its way south to Hidalgo County along the border.
Another district, currently represented by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, starts in Travis County and heads east into Harris County.
I went to the scheduled town meeting to meet the representatives voting to pass or regect the map, and the look on their faces was 'can't wait to get outta here'.
The meeting started with a group of people storming the auditorium with signs and chanting disrupting it for some time, then others had their moment on the mic.
The stacks of petitions signed meant nothing.
And that was just our town.
It was too complicated with Russia joining Egypt,
for something that was going to be shared anyway by Britian USA and Isreal.
Why go to a full out world war when you only get 1/3 of the bounty?
Send in the U.n. under "our" control.
Then later on and international Force was named and positioned.
Whether we would have used war or diplomacy is a question for the CIA,
I can't read their mind, but I can read the writing on the wall.
It was a conflict that lasted 30 years,
i'm glad the CIA didn't go to war with Russia over a canal.
And I still don't think you've answered it. Assuming the CIA is this big, underground, omnipotent Illuminati-style organizaton you portray it to be, I still don't see why how they risk war with the USSR in Iran but not in Egypt.
The 1/3 ownership argument doesn't do it for me. Thank you, try again..
Quote:
What do you all think of the Honduras Coup and US is not calling it a coup so it can continue to supply aid to the country.
It's last president was closely aligned with Venezuela.
The Military arrested him and deported him to costa rica.
It really 'served our interest' just by coinicidence, again.
Now you're just making huge jumps in logic without a paddle. Are you saying the CIA orchestrated this? The coup was done by middle and upper class Hondurans afraid that Zelaya was turning the country into the next Venezuela, yes, but the US and Obama administration had nothing to do with it. If anything, Obama and the State Dept were caught with their pants down in regard to Honduras.
I'm not sure what you want in this case. You seem to suggest that the best answer is for A) the US to stop all aid to Honduras and B) go in with troops and restore the old government.
__________________
"Creating something is not a democracy. The people have no say. The artist does. It doesn't matter what the people witter on about: they and their response comes after. They're not there for the moment of creation."
We know you're smokin wherever you are.
Linear Mode
