Comments on: Neda

By: yg

yg — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:46:53 +0000

there is also the reason most of the experts have pointed out. had obama sided with the demonstrators early, that would have sunk nationwide iranian support for the movement, wounding their cause, because of the paranoia created by past history of US meddling, undermining their native grown democracy by assassinating their former president and installing a dictatorial puppet regime to do the US bidding. iranians are extra sensitive to even the slightest hint of manipulation engineered by americans.
it would have felt good for obama to side with the demonstrators early on, but that wouldn’t have done them any favors.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:05:40 +0000

Okay. But why was the chinese massacre any worse than what went on this week in Tehran? I think the Iranian regime actually learned a lesson from Tienanmen. They did not want to deploy massive brute force, so instead had sharpshooters pick off selected targets. You could be at the demonstration one minute and dead in the street the next. It only takes a few such cases, they learned, to frighten people off. You don’t have to mow down a crowd to do it. The regime then came down like a ton of bricks on her family, depriving them of their apartment, their chance to bury their daughter and sit in mourning while receiving the consolation of visitors. Taught people a lesson, as the supreme leader said this week he wished to do to the protestors. I still think Obama could have been “even keeled” AND quicker, far quicker to denounce the regime’s brutality.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:00:05 +0000

The school of the Americas — where’s that, next to Roswell? Hey, maybe it was a US soldier who shot the unfortunate Neda. Yeah, probably was. Just to “fuel conflict”. uh huh. make the ayatollahs look bad.

By: yg

yg — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:24:37 +0000

He seemed so curiously untouched by what went on, though, and his most recent statement about being “appalled” was delivered without any affect.
yes, i was struck by that too. on one hand, his keeping a lid on his emotions bothers me. it’s something i’ve objected to before. his dispassion in the public mask he wears at first makes him feel like an enigma. but i’m pretty sure he’s not apathetic to the events. it’s just that he doesn’t wear his emotions on his sleeve. while some of this caution, i think, is for strategic reasons* (he still has to worry about a strategy on working to prevent iran developing a nuclear arsenal,) on the other hand, i can appreciate this low key approach.
lesser politicians would exploit events like this for personal gain. see mccain. obama is doing the complete opposite. he respects the death of this woman for the tragedy it is and isn’t exploiting it like republicans have by ratcheting up the rhetoric. he isn’t being a narcissist and using her death to make it all about him. he isn’t using this murder for personal or political gain. it takes discipline to keep one’s emotions in check, to ensure keeping a cool head and long range objectives in mind. this is exactly what a good leader should do and be. this is the exact opposite of bush, who was an unthinking lunk, who reacted instinctively and emotionally with little sense and consideration for long term consequences.
this even-keeled approach by obama also debunks the conspiracy theorists, like israeltucker below, who claim that the US is exploiting the iranian uprising in order to pave the way for future invasion. if that was the plan obama had in mind or sanctioned, wouldn’t he more emotional about hyping the events?
*depending on the circustance, not an approach i always agree with. i think it was wrong to fail to denounce china’s regime, post tiananmen square, because it served in “our” interest to develop trade with that country. we traded support for a movement for democracy for the sake of corporate greed. that was unconscionable.

By: yg

yg — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:21:51 +0000

no problem. good to hear this format was playable. hard to find an alternative clip that wasn’t heavily blurred, from beginning to end.

By: israeltucker@gmail.com

israeltucker@gmail.com — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:38:22 +0000

Whoever shot her, had a scope. Knew she was beautiful. Knew her name meant, the voice. Whoever shot her, knew there were cameras on her. Two. Two cameras on her. Whoever shot her, whoever THEY were, knew this would cause such a reaction from the public. They knew we would react this way. THIS is another attempt by THEM to manipulate and control us through our emotions by upheaval. We must stand by our convictions of common sense and out hope for peace and not let THEM sucker us into going to war against anyone.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:02:33 +0000

According to the Guardian U.K Neda’s family has been forced out of its apartment and most shocking of all, her body has not been returned to them for burial. It seems like the streets are being “pacified” and it will be as the president said — we can only witness. I notice there has been nary a word on this site about his response, which was strangely slow, and finally adjusted to a sterner tone at his press conference. He seemed so curiously untouched by what went on, though, and his most recent statement about being “appalled” was delivered without any affect. This most worldly and cosmopolitan of presidents seems, paradoxically, to be the least engaged by dramatic world events of any president I have seen.

By: Bones AK

Bones AK — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:27:44 +0000

“These types of photos must exist in older conflicts” They do – look to Capra.
“Citizen journalism is the norm now and it doesn’t censor itself” AND the ruling establishment is finding it very hard censor it also, THAT is good thing.
Neda will become the man in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square. It is now 17 yrs later for China and and he still hangs over China (as he should) and Neda will hang over Iran (as she should)!

By: umlando

umlando — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:59:20 +0000

What is “Islamic fascism?” What’s in Iran is a fundamentalist, totalitarian state. When we call everyone we dislike “fascists,” we sap the strength of the word.
“fundamentalist” – based on literal interpretation of canonical texts
“totalitarian” – [of a government] holding all power and denying it to individuals not acting as agents of the government
“fascist” – (political philosophy) advocating the state’s control of economic affairs
Neda was apparently killed by basij, state-backed enforcers of selective laws and customs. They have nothing speficially to do with fascism, despite their similarity to brownshirts. Their purpose is to quell dissent, not to promote state corporatism.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:07:39 +0000

I watched the video, but I don’t have he gumption to listen to the audio.