'Mass purges' at Iran universities

[cali]

By Frances Harrison
BBC News, Tehran


Iranian students say there is a second cultural revolution under way in the universities with scores of professors forcibly retired and politically active students being threatened with expulsion.

<snip>

"They have stepped up the pressure to scare students," says activist Ali Nikoo Nesbati.

"We think they've done this on purpose to frighten us; to send a message that if you want to be politically active you will have problems in the future," he says.

According to student activists 181 students have received letters warning them not to get involved in politics, while 47 student publications and 28 student organisations have been closed in the last year.

"They threatened me that if I talked to the media it might make things much worse for me," says Mehdi Aminzadeh, who has been banned from doing a masters in political science because he has been too active in politics.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6196069.stm
<snip>

[skooooo]

1. This will go over well...

..Iranian gov. winning the hearts and minds.

[BOSSHOG]

2. This is what the radical christian clerics in this country

want to do and would pursue harder if they thought they could get away with it. They are patient. Currently they are trying to infiltrate our military with evangelicals. For what purpose the freedom lover asks?

[anotherdrew]

26. exactly our "christian in name only" fascists are just dying to get this kinda power

they will fail

[ShortnFiery]

3. How do we know that the news we are fed by the "war profiteering"

media is "the truth?"

Look up "PsyOps Disinformation."

Just because I'm not going to whip myself up with indignation about Iranian leadership doesn't mean that I approve of them. We have our own fascist dictator wannabe here in the USA. First things first. ;)

[cali]

4. Don't you think

it's worthwhile keeping up with what's going on in the world? It's as simple as that. And this is from the BBC and a person in Tehran, so I doubt it's simply made up bullshit.

[The Magistrate]

5. Do You Seriouly Suppose, Ma'am, This Report Is A Fabrication?

Have you ever read the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch commentaries on Iran?

There is no doubt whatever this sort of repression is quite routine.

"The enemy of my enemy usually is another enemy of mine."

[ShortnFiery]

6. I concur,

However, I must pause when I see basically "the same" issue promoted by a OP, within two threads, at the same time within "Latest Breaking News." :shrug:

If we don't ACT to stop our own "Authoritarian Rule" dictator we won't be able to help those repressed within Iran. That is, if we don't address Our Own corrupt rulers, we may be the ones hanged and stoned HERE. Again, IMO, First things first. Further, the PsyOps programs within the UK and USA Corporate Media are alive and well. Sure there are atrocities in Iran, but we also have right wingers who wish for Liberals to "be disappeared." Which should be OUR priority?

[The Magistrate]

7. Why Does That Cause You Concern, Ma'am?

People have their own interests in life, and these are seperate accounts.

Your coincurrence seems to me a bit blurred by your recurring to the 'psy-ops' theme latter in your comment. This suggests you actually mean to press the idea that this is some sort of fabrication.

The fact is when left and progressive persons minimize and engage in apologetics for things like this, we badly weaken our standing to criticize excesses in our own country. It looks hypocritical, and makes our criticisms in the domestic sphere seem hollow and insincere.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Well, I find "the timing" of this incident and reaction - CURIOUS

to say the least. Yes, my theme of PsyOps modifying our National Corporate News Media Reports as well as those within the UK, a valid one. After all, have we not been lied to before?

Fool me once ... :P The timing is convenient, to say the least and will serve to whip up the FOX loyalists into a frenzy. It is just, well, curious. ;)

Remember, you are not paranoid if your claim is an ongoing valid practice, i.e., news reports being altered or fabricated by intelligence within the USA and UK.

[cali]

10. Yes, I'm interested in what's going

on in Iran. Yes, I post about it. I also post about many other events, places, and people. Your insinuation that I have some pernicious agenda to push, because I've posted on Iran, is both untrue and well, demonstrates a mindset I find narrow and unthinking.

[The Magistrate]

11. Plain Speech Has Many Virtues, Ma'am

What is it you find so curious? It seems quite normal and straight-forward to me.

Are you seriously putting foreward the proposition that criticism of the repressions carried out by the Iranian government is engaged in only by agents and dupes, and for nefarious purposes?

[ShortnFiery]

12. Oh you make me blush The Magistrate

I didn't know that you could use hyperbole. ;) <tease>

Just because I question the timing of the story, doesn't mean there may be a shred of truth to it. It's the overall atmosphere I'm analyzing at this time.

Remember the run up to the first Gulf War? You know where it was claimed that EVIL Iraqi soldiers were amassing at the Saudi Arabian border? When Iraqi soldiers were throwing newborns out of incubators after invading Kuwait? Hum ... gives one pause?

I believe that this news may be true but HYPED by the PsyOps teams who work with both our and the UK media. Why would THEY do that to US? Because they wish to whip up nefarious Persian Boogie Men to FULLY validate an continued presence in Iraq.

Instead of getting all upset about Iran, let's FIRST and FOREMOST *look within* at the Freedoms we have lost under our own Authoritarian Regime?

My point: We are being purposefully distracted. No, I do NOT believe anything that is not double sourced by somewhat reputable news sources.

[The Magistrate]

16. This Is Not Purposeful Distraction, Ma'am,

It is a timely report of an act of repression by the Iranian government. Its timing probably has some relation to the poorer than expected showing of prefered slates in the recent elections held there: such things are generally deemed the fault of vocal dissenters, and thus a signal for a new crack-down.

The presence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq hampers, rather than furthers, military action against Iran, since that would fire Shia feelings against us there past the breaking point, and Iranian agents and clients among them would be well placed to strike shrewd blows in retaliation against U.S. forces in Iraq. As things are now, the Shia are more or less aligned with the occupation of Iraq, as our guns are mostly aimed at Sunnis, and the puppet government we have installed is largely dominated by Shia.

Engagement on the left in apologetics for, and minimizing criticisms of, the Iranian government, greatly lessens the weight of its criticisms of domestic abuses. The course you are pressing here is extremely counter-productive.

[ShortnFiery]

18. The Iranian Government was NO LESS oppressive under "The Shah"

that our CIA had a large role into his successes.

No, this story may have a shred of truth, but Iran has been OPPRESSED for a long time, i.e., in times when they were "peaches" under The Shah, to after the revolution in 1979.

You wanna talk human rights violations, let's talk CHINA?

I stand by my claim that this incident is being hyped and spinned to excite the FOX fanatics. If you wish to be part of the disinformation bandwagon, then be my guest?

Now don't go and exaggerate my disbelief to equate that I agree with the current Authoritarian Leader. He's horrid, but no more so than *our BUDDY* The former Shah of Iran when he agreed with USA policy, i.e., The Shah chopped off as many heads and hands but he was OUR lovable thug. Now the forgoing is hypocrisy at it's most destructive.

[The Magistrate]

20. So What, Ma'am?

That was a quarter century and more ago. It has no shadow of relevance in this discussion --- one might even go so far as to call it a distraction....

The close distinction you are attempting to make, Ma'am, will pass wholly un-remarked by the general run of humanity: people generally take the view that those who defend someone in any manner from attack constitute that person's supporters. Protestations to the contrary that will not fit on a bumper sticker will go unregarded. Elements seen as defending Iran will have no credibility with the people when they engage in criticism pf the United States and its current regime.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Many of the elements in the USA who are displaced Iranians

were part of the former Shah's ruling elite. These influential Iranians are as zealot as Iraq's infamous expatriate Chalabi.

Let the Iranian People overthrow their Authoritarian government, but I'll be damned if I'll stand by and allow a group of Iranian Chalabis whip the USA populace into an invasion of Iran.

The forgoing and my argument has EVERYTHING to do with the distortions that we are being fed presently within the MSM.

I guess you forget how we were LIED TO often during the run up to the Iraqi invasion, not only by The Politicians but also by The Corporate Media.

I feel empathy for the plight of the Iranian people, but I also realize that it is a sovereign country that has oppressed it's populace for a long time. And yes, IMO, the foregoing fact is pertinent now more than ever.

We simply disagree. Happy Holidays Sir.

[The Magistrate]

27. Again, Ma'am, Quite Irrelevant To The Question Of The Students In Iran

And the question of whether the Islamic Republic of Iran should be criticized and condemned for its mis-deeds.

"I say to you, each man shall die of his own sin."

[ShortnFiery]

30. Again, we disagree.

But who am I other than blood related to people who used to live there. ;)

God Bless Us Everyone, Indeed! :hi:

[democratic]

51. ShortnFiery

This is news from the world does every piece of news have to be about Bush? I mean what kind of education do you want to have about the world?

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. How much profits from war does the BBC make?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

13. Oh, there are a number of UK companies that have been gifted

part of the Iraq war spoils. It hasn't fully worked out for UK as it has for USA corporations, but make no mistake, the UK has an EVEN MORE effective "spook system" (their MI5 to our CIA) than we are subjected to within the USA. They, the UK sticks with it's bully-boy big brother on all foreign affairs matters. Never doubt that fact. ;)

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Is the BBC on of those companies which has been 'gifted?'

If so, how much?

[daleo]

14. They are a crown corporation, as far as I know, therefore profit doesn't apply

However, the Blair government went to war against Iraq, and would quite likely join any operation against Iran that the U.S. might pursue. Therefore, the BBC could be used for propaganda purposes against Iran. Although the BBC is independent in principle, in practice it is subject to political pressures. The same is true of the CBC here in Canada.

[ShortnFiery]

15. I beg to differ ...

UK Corporations make HUGE profits out of occupied Iraq.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/prof-a01.shtml

On Edit: Here's another

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=3451

*I could glean out a dozen sources if you gave me some time. Some of them even FOX fanatics would deem reputable.

[daleo]

17. I just meant profit doesn't apply directly to the BBC, being a crown corporation

Naturally, there are many private corporations that profit from war in Britain.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Do you honestly believe that the BBC is not influenced by

their government? No, George Orwell saw this slow march toward totalitarian rule coming within his novel "1984." Our Country has had similar visionaries but none with more talent for reaching the masses.

[cali]

22. Here's what I believe:

The BBC is not part of a conspiracy to plunge the world into war- not with Iran or any other nation. They are a fairly good and reliable news organization that frequently breaks and carries news distinctly unfavorable to the government of GB and to the U.S. government. There is an abundance of evidence to support my second claim, although the first is clearly my opinion. Can you give me even one shred of evidence that points to the BBC being in collusion with Blair to attack Iran?

BTW, for the record I don't think Blair has any desire to attack Iran. Wish the same could be said for bushco.

[ShortnFiery]

25. We disagree...

Although our cousins in the UK seem wonderfully honest, there is corruption withing the lauded BBC too. No news organization can survive without "playing ball" with it's government.

Sure the Iranian people are being oppressed but they were also oppressed under The Shah. Why is it that everything was "great" with Persia back then? Hypocrisy, that's the ticket.

Now if you want to talk about massive and daily suppression of human rights, let's talk China?

[bidiboom]

33. Blair urges tougher action on Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/20/blair.iran.reut/index.html

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Reuters) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged world leaders on Wednesday to be bolder in supporting leading moderates against "forces of extremism" in Iran and elsewhere and in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Blair, on the final day of what may be his last Middle East tour, said Iran was openly supporting terrorism in Iraq, undermining the Lebanese government and blocking Israeli-Palestinian peace.

<snip>

Blair, who will leave office next year and whose popularity has been eroded by the Iraq war, rejected suggestions American or British action in the Middle East was fueling terrorism.

"We should stop buying into this wretched culture of blaming ourselves," he told business leaders in Dubai. "If our policy has a fault, it is that we are too shy of acting boldly to bring about change, to give succor to those trying to live for the better."

Blair called on moderate leaders across the Middle East to join a "monumental struggle" between democracy and extremism.

"We must recognize the strategic challenge the government of Iran poses; not its people, possibly not all of its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy," he said.

Iran wants "to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine", he added.

[daleo]

24. Well, in my original post I said the BBC could be used for propaganda purposes

So, yes I believe they can be influenced by the British government. Like the CBC in Canada, they have a fair degree of independence, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced by the government of the day. The government has power over corporate appointments to the BBC and over the purse strings, so it would be naive to think BBC decision makers don't take that into account.

That being said, I don't think they are mere mouthpieces of the government. Public broadcasters have to take their political environment into account, but they do have a fair degree of latitude in news and programming. They are complicated entities, at least in western democracies.

[rinsd]

39. Orwell was indeed a visionary

He had issues with new oppressors claiming their oppression was okay because the previous oppressors were so bad.

Meet the new boss and all that jazz.

[oblivious]

34. The BBC is an enthusiastic warmonger.

Opposition views are absent at Dyke's BBC
8 Dec 2003

...Let's look at what research shows about the BBC's reporting of Iraq. Media Tenor, the non-partisan, Bonn-based media research organisation, has examined the Iraq war reporting of some of the world's leading broadcasters, including the US networks and the BBC. It concentrated on the coverage of opposition to the war.

The second-worst case of denying access to anti-war voices was ABC in the United States, which allowed them a mere 7 per cent of its overall coverage. The worst case was the BBC, which gave just 2 per cent of its coverage to opposition views - views that represented those of the majority of the British people. A separate study by Cardiff University came to the same conclusion. The BBC, it said, had "displayed the most pro-war agenda of any broadcaster".

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=384

[Buck Rabbit]

35. Interesting, But in fairness to Frances Harrison the BBC reporter...

I read his whole article and then I read this one also by him titled "Iran's proud but discreet Jews" linked on the same page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

Frankly, after reading them both I came away with the impression that Iran is not as repressive as "I" had previously pictured. Go Figure. Prior to these articles I would have never suspected that dissidents in Iran would allow their pictures taken and allow their names to be published. That civil rights lawyers could practice and protest openly, that it appears to be a point of pride to allow more dissent than the Shah did. That Iranian security would defend a synagogue against an angry mob fueled by a media lie.

This is not to say things are all wonderful there, I mean after-all they have an asshole racist fundi President and practice Sharia law. My comment is that these two articles paint a better picture of Iranian freedoms than I would have previously imagined. So I am not so sure this BBC reporter is beating the drums of war.

[oblivious]

38. No I was speaking of the corporation, not individual reporters.

It's not that they ban anti-government views. It's the unequal time and space they give to the warmongers vs peace advocats.

Resist
by John Pilger

March 21, 2003

...And yet we have been forced to participate in this charade: to debate and analyse its specious agenda. BBC current affairs programmes, on radio and television, have consistently promoted the government's warmongering as legitimate by channelling and echoing its ever-changing deceptions.

A memorandum leaked last week, written by Richard Sambrook, a senior BBC executive, warns programme makers against broadcasting too much dissent and "attracting some of the more extreme anti-war views (even though) there is no question there is a majority public view which is against unilateral US action."

That he regards principled objection to the killing of innocent people as "extreme" while saying nothing about the murderous willingness of Blair and his apologists reflects the distortion of intellect and morality that pervades so much of BBC current affairs....

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3294

[cali]

37. John Pilger?

Please. He's a master of yellow journalism. And sorry, I have no idea what Media Tenor is, but I'd be interested to see other analysis, as I wouldn't trust any source Pilger used without checking it out thoroughly first.

[oblivious]

40. He quotes a Cardiff University study: Was the BBC really biased against the war?

Was the BBC really biased against the war?
A research team at Cardiff University has provided the first systematic analysis of the television coverage of the war in Iraq. Their findings put a serious dent in recent claims that the BBC coverage was biased against the war - suggesting that the BBC actually tilted the other way in its coverage.

The research team at the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies conducted a comprehensive analysis of the way the four main UK broadcasters - the BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Sky - covered the war. ...
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/newsevents/5309.html

Media Tenor (http://www.mediatenor.com/) did their study for Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper (see below).

The BBC: Liberal sacred cow no. 1
by Ian Sinclair
November 21, 2006

...A 2003 study carried out by Cardiff University’s School of Journalism regarding the way the four main UK broadcasters reported the invasion of Iraq concluded, "The BBC emerges as generally more respectful and sympathetic towards the government than other broadcasters."<6> 11% of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. Furthermore the BBC was least likely to use independent sources such as the Red Cross, to focus on Iraqi casualties and to report Iraqi unhappiness about the invasion.<7>

A second survey conducted by Media Tenor for Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper found that, of broadcasters in five countries, the BBC featured the lowest level of dissent of all, even lower than ABC news in the United States.<8>
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11453#_edn8

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. So, how much war profits did they reap?

:shrug:

[oblivious]

49. You'll notice I called the BBC "warmongers", not "war-profiteers".

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

45. Not this shit again.

What's with some people's obsesive need to make Iran look like paridise? :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

23. Only an idiot would find this a reason to bomb and/or invade Iran....

But there are plenty of idiots out there. Obviously, improving relations between our countries is the best thing that could happen to us & the Iranians. But war threats only strengthen the extremists.

I'm glad that most DU'ers understand how this story could be bent to support interference in Iran.

[The Magistrate]

28. One Might Just As Easily Turn That Around, Ma'am

And suggest a similar qualification was required for suggesting persons expressing anger, or engaging in criticism, over this incident, sought the bombing of Iran by doing so.

[cali]

29. First of all I really doubt that those hot to attack Iran

will use this as a pretext. Not when they can bluster about Iran's nuclear program. Second of all, I hope you're not suggesting that legitimate news should be supressed for fear of it being used nefariously, or that people shouldn't post legitimate stories on DU. Christ knows, that DUers are not about to start agitating for war with Iran because of a story like this.

And yes, obviously we need an administration who will work towards re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iran.

[Bridget Burke]

31. Of course, it's obvious that DU'ers won't take this story the wrong way.

But some people are more weak-minded than we.

Why do you assume that I'm suggesting you suppress this story?

[ShortnFiery]

32. Think again and if you still doubt that this MAD Administration

is not hot for Iran, watch Glen Beck and Fox News.

There may well have been a crack down, but I'm not going to back off from my submission that it is overblown, if for no other reason than to justify our PERMANENT stay in Iraq.

Wake up and smell the manipulation. :shrug:

[cali]

36. Of couse I didn't say

that I doubted that this administration isn't hot to attack Iran. I said that those hot to attack Iran (obviously the admin) won't use this. And even if they do, that's no reason to not talk about events there. Not tom mention that Mr. Ahmadinejad is being as provocative as he can, for whatever reason.

Anyway, you don't have a clue whether this is overblown. You're simply whittling information to fit your pre-conceived world view. It may be so that it is overblown (stopped clocks and all), but you don't know that, anymore than I know it's perfectly accurate. Given the choice of taking your word or a BBC reporter in Tehran, I'll go with the BBC reporter. And a crackdown on student political activism in Iran is not going to be used as an explanation for staying permanently in Iraq, particularly when the admin has Iran's nuclear program to rail about.

[ShortnFiery]

41. Again, with true respect, we disagree ...

I submit Blair's delusional statement that the USA should deal with Iran (:wtf: does that truly mean?) as a follow through to an "exaggeration" of a student crack-down.

Please don't get me wrong, I've talked with immediate family members who were sent by the USA Government to assist the Shah during the late 50s and early 60s.

I fully acknowledge that the populace (especially women) are oppressed beyond belief of the average USA citizen. My argument at this time is only that it seems a little too convenient given current events.

My family members have seen the functioning of the Iranian Government, up close and personal. My heart cries out for their freedom. But not through the intercession of the USA. It is only through the people of Iran that true and lasting change/reform can be realized.

[superconnected]

42. Pay attention du kids, this is also what the christian talibon would

like to do to america.

[oblivious]

43. Do you think this headline might be a bit of an exaggeration?

"Mass purges"

- It seems to be all at one university.
- 181 students have received letters warning them not to get involved in politics
- 47 student publications and 28 student organizations have been closed
- Mehdi Aminzadeh...has been banned from doing a masters in political science because he has been too active in politics. Mr Mehdi has twice been arrested and still has court cases pending against him.
- The new chancellor forcibly retired 45 teachers from Tehran University. He said they were past the retirement age...and didn't manage to do any research to improve their position

Mass purges?

[ShortnFiery]

44. IMO, the corrupt son of the former Shah of Iran is chomping at the

bit to "make the case" for mass bombing if not a full scale invasion of Iran.

May the good Lord (or Allah or Higher Power) give us the common sense to turn away from bloodshed.

[ama]

48. i´m sure if * visited a University in the US

He ¨would be greeted with flowers and candy¨

[oblivious]

50. And if 200 students protested at his visit, would it be international news?

On international discussion boards?