Iran election roundup #2

Bring out yer Twits, Bring out yer Twits
Police batter Protesters: Iran or Georgia?

U.S. State Department speaks to Twitter over Iran

VASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it had contacted the social networking service Twitter to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that would have cut daytime service to Iranians who are disputing their election.

Confirmation that the U.S. government had contacted Twitter came as the Obama administration sought to avoid suggestions it was meddling in Iran's internal affairs as the Islamic Republic battled to control deadly street protests over the election result.

For Comparison purposes only (i.e. To be completelly ignored by anyone that used Twitter to follow recent events in Iran):

Police in Georgia beat opposition protesters
Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:45am EDT

By David Mdzinarishvili

TBILISI (Reuters) – Masked police beat dozens of opposition protesters in the Georgian capital on Monday in the latest flare-up during a weeks-long street campaign against President Mikheil Saakashvili, witnesses said.

Dozens of black-clad police officers armed with truncheons confronted a protest of about 50 people at Tbilisi’s main police station demanding the release of six opposition activists detained since Friday, a Reuters photographer said.

He said several protesters and a photographer for the European Pressphoto Agency were severely beaten. Senior opposition official Zurab Abashidze was admitted to hospital.

Police seized cameras from photographers and cameramen, including a Reuters photographer. The cameras were later returned but the Reuters photographer’s images had been erased. Other photographers said their memory cards had been taken.

Tensions are running high in the former Soviet republic, after more than two months of opposition protests and roadblocks demanding Saakashvili quit over his record on democracy and last year’s disastrous war with Russia.

The volatile country of 4.5 million people sits on Russia’s southern border, at the heart of a transit region for oil and gas to the West.

“This is absolutely unacceptable,” protest leader and former Saakashvili ally Nino Burjanadze said of the violence. “We demand a response from our Western partners, to give their assessment of the situation.”

Saakashvili said he was tolerating a state of “lawlessness” and accused his opponents of trying to provoke him.

“They think Saakashvili is hot-headed, they insult (parliament speaker David) Bakradze and (Prime Minister Nika) Gilauri, and they try to make us crush them, “ he told a televised meeting of the parliamentary majority.

Police firing tear gas and rubber bullets dispersed the last mass demonstrations against Saakashvili in 2007. Watched closely by the West, authorities are wary of taking a hard line again, but analysts question how long the stalemate can continue.

“CRIMINALS AND BANDITS”

Both sides have traded blame for a spate of violent incidents, vying for the sympathy of Georgia’s Western allies.

The opposition said that statements by several Western embassies on Friday, in which they criticized opposition protesters for throwing rocks and bottles at Bakradze’s official car, had encouraged the government to take a hard line.


“The statements made by the U.S., French and Czech ambassadors clearly gave impetus to the authorities to act as criminals and bandits today,” opposition leader David Gamkrelidze said.

The Interior Ministry said in a statement that protesters were hampering traffic and resisted police efforts “to unblock the entrance to the police station and restore traffic movement.” It said 39 protesters were detained.

US envoy praises Georgia’s handling of opposition protests

Jun 10, 2009

TBILISI (AFP) — A senior US envoy on Wednesday praised the government of the former Soviet republic Georgia for how it has handled weeks of opposition protests calling on President Mikheil Saakashvili to resign.

“We appreciated the way the government is dealing with the protests,” Philip Gordon, the US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told a press conference in the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

What the Georgians lack is of course an Army of Twits to get all hot and bothered on their behalf. That's the problem with Twits though. Never there when they actually could be useful.


US Defense Department sees protests as terrorism

Antiterrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense teach that public protests should be regarded as “low-level terrorism,” according to a letter of complaint sent to the department by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

:Low Level Terrorist?


I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. — US President Barrack Obama commenting on the recent unrest in Iran

Twits out fer the lads . . .

See Also:
Iran election roundup

Update:

Perusing UrbanDictionary.com I found this:

Twitterolution: A revolution instigated, orchestrated and subsequently propagated and promoted by the WEB 2.0 Sensation Twitter.

Example: The protests seen in Iran against the disputed election is the World's first Twitterloution.

SO I sent this alternative definition to the people at UrbanDictionary.com:

Word: twitterolution

Definition: What occurs when a bunch of gullible twits are let loose on the internet to whip themselves into a frenzy regarding an election fraud that probably never occurred

Example: Boy, that was some load of twitterolution in Iran recently, weren't it?

They sent me a very rapid reply:

Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to not publish it.

A good blog on this subject:

Contrasting protest coverage Iran vs G-20 and Georgia

Iran, Iran, Iran. You would think this was the only news in the world. Odd isn't it?

All you need to know about an Obama Administration Foreign Policy direction, in 30 seconds flat!

The 3 Rappers of the Apocalypse?


2 from Counterpunch today . . .

Obama, Emanuel and Israel
By JOHN V. WHITBECK

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

In rapid response to this news, the editorial in the next day's Arab News (Jeddah) was entitled "Don't pin much hope on Obama -- Emanuel is his chief of staff and that sends a message". This editorial referred to the Irgun as a "terror organization" (a judgment call) and concluded: "Far from challenging Israel, the new team may turn out to be as pro-Israel as the one it is replacing."

That was always likely. Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.

Still, one of the greatest advantages for the United States in electing Barack Hussein Obama was the prospect that the world's billion-plus Muslims, who now view the United States with almost universal loathing and hatred, would be dazzled by the new president's eloquence, life story, skin color and middle name, would think again with open minds and would give America a chance to redeem itself in their eyes and hearts -- not incidently, drastically shortening the long lines of aspiring jihadis eager to sacrifice their lives while striking a blow against the evil empire.

The profound loathing and hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States, which has always had its roots for America's unconditional support for the injustices inflicted and still being inflicted on the Palestinians, can fairly be considered the core of the primary foreign policy and "national security" problems confronting the United States in recent years. Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment? Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the ealiest opportunity?

A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off "think tank", the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

and


"WIBDI: What If Bush Did It?"
A Prism for the New Paradigm
By CHRIS FLOYD

This user-friendly analytical tool provides a quick and easy way of determining the value of any given policy while correcting one's perception for partisan bias. Simply take a particular action or proposal and submit it to the WIBDI test: If Bush did this, would you think it was OK? Or would you condemn it as the act of a warmonger, or a tyrant, or a corrupt corporate tool, etc.? The just-concluded campaign has already shown us how our hordes of our quondam dissidents have signally failed this test, excusing, countenancing, defending or even embracing the actions and positions enumerated below by Chris Hedges:

"Sen. Barack Obama’s vote to renew the Patriot Act, his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war, his backing of the FISA Reform Act, his craven courting of the Israeli lobby, his support of the death penalty, his refusal to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, his call to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, his failure to call for a reduction in the bloated and wasteful defense spending and his lobbying for the huge taxpayer swindle known as the bailout..."

To which we could add his bellicose saber-rattling at Iran, his promise to roll back "Russian aggression" and extend war-triggering treaty protection to an aggressive Georgian regime (which cluster-bombed its own people, as we learned this week), his advocacy of destabilizing and civilian-shredding military strikes in Pakistan, his opposition to gay marriage (and campaigning with gay-bashing preachers), and his support for extending the death penalty to cover non-fatal offenses, and so on.

Any one of these positions would be roundly condemned by "progressives" if they were taken or advocated by George W. Bush -- as in fact many of them have been. Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about this campaign is how Obama has managed to embody the deep and desperate thirst for change among millions of America -- hence the genuinely moving scenes of jubilation and revived hope that have greeted his victory -- while his actual positions in many if not most key areas track very closely with Bush's, if they are not actually identical with them.

Take Iran, for example. Obama has taken what is regarded as a more nuanced position, holding out the promise of direct negotiations with Iranian leaders. Yet he has repeatedly stated what the outcome of these "negotiations" must be: Iran must "abandon its nuclear program." If it does not, then more and more draconian sanctions will be applied, with the clear threat of military action if these don't bring Tehran to heel. This is, chapter and verse, the precise policy followed by Bush, who has also repeatedly offered to "negotiate" with Iran as long as they agree to surrender on every point before talks begin.