Protests in Iran increase

[Ihatetomatoes]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7y0579lp8o.amp

Sorry misunderstood

I am going to come back to my comment here about Russia - basically what I meant by this was that in the early days quite a few posters explained the roots of the conflict and talked about peace, but it was made clear that peace was not an option, and there was threat, and people stopped posting. However, it might be that now peace is formally on the table, there will be more discussion on MN about solutions which would satisfy both sides and bring longlasting peace. However, again, this is only the basis that that peace stays formally on the table, I suppose. George Galloway said he had talked a lot about peace, and said he was arrested by anti terrorist police as a result, so it isn't entirely clear what is and is not permitted.

The other point relating to this, to quote from the post I quoted: "They have consistently defended violent and oppressive governments — China, Russia, Venezuela, Syria, Gaza, and now Iran" what ties all these countries together is the geopolitical interest, that there are interest groups in the west who state they are interested in those countries because of geopolitics, power and money and I think the poster who wrote the above doesn't understand geopolitical dynamics or playbooks and has a too simplified impression.

I am really surprised at your question, but I will give a simplified version of what I have said and explain the words I used.

My first post about this was clearly distinguishing between rioters (the subject of many western reports by the BBC, Guardian etc which referred to "rioters" from memory) and the peaceful protesters which were referred to in the tiktok video someone posted upthread in which they explain why they are "peacefully protesting against the rioters" - these are their words - if you look at that you will see why the distinction was made. But even giving those words their natural meanings will surely explain why the words were used? Rioters are generally understood to cause damage, maybe violence against other people or property, lighting fires, throwing things, etc etc whereas peaceful protesters generally is understood to mean people not being violent or causing damage?

Yes, language matters. I tend to try to use neutral, accurate language.

In terms of credible sources, you will need to watch the video I mention and see whether you find it credible. It shows huge numbers of people on the streets and contains interviews with many women as well as men. You either take it at face value or you don't. I have also mentioned youtube videos - none of these are reports, they simply walked through streets filming as they go, so you get to see unedited footage of real people going about their daily lives. And the only other report I mentioned was the PM of Iran talking about various things and the evidence Iran had - so this is a video of the PM talking and as such is credibly the PM talking - whether you personally accept what is being said is a different issue, the source itself is clearly what it says it is.

Is there anything else unclear? If I have by error used unclear wording I am happy to clarify and correct.

This is a good point. The posts here refer to "propals" who are "antisemetic" and my post was trying to clarify who they meant and what they meant.

The posts referring to "propals" are not friendly or clear and I assumed that they were saying they were "antipals". If this is wrong, that is good news.

"propals" is probably not the most helpful thing to write.

I personally have never seen antisemetic posts, but perhaps that is because they are deleted before I see them.

Last time I looked, the entire ME supported a two state solution including Hamas funders and Hamas were talking in that direction. Israel said it couldn't support a two state solution. But there was a lot of talk about negotiation. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. I am not completely clear about the pathway ahead right now.

When you say "Palestinians" do you mean the population? The same as for "Israelis" in that there will be a lot of different opinions amongst the population. I think it is more helpful to talk about official state positions.

@Addybee sorry, I have just looked again at reports and I see western reports are now only using "rioters" in quotes so I think what you are saying is that it is denied that there were rioters, that they were all peaceful protesters, is that right? Are you saying that it is untrue that buildings and vehicles were set alight or attacked?

I did also answer your question about why I had used the words - see the tiktok video which someone posted upthread which i watched and commented on, and you will see how the Iranians in the video use the words

@Addybeehow are you and the people you know in Iran, are they able to get any info out at all? Maybe not. Just to say your posts were moving and I’m thinking about people there.

Unfortunately we haven’t had any further contact with loved ones. A few other friends have had brief calls but the calls are cut off after a min or so.

thank you, appreciate your message ❤️

Satisfy both sides? Putin won't be satisfied without complete control of Ukraine and possibly beyond.

Galloway is a friend of terrorists and dictators. That's hardly peace loving.

There is a clear difference between rioters, who aim to cause destruction, and protesters, who are resisting oppression without harming civilians. Just because some sources label them “rioters” does not make it true. Calling these protesters “rioters” misrepresents reality and diminishes the courage of the people on the streets

I have looked closely at the ONE video you keep referring to , and already see that a small clip of a so-called pro-regime rally to be fake, we already know is from five years ago at a state funeral not an ongoing demonstration-

first picture is from the link of the supposed massve crowd of pro regime rally- and tbe scond pic is from a state funeral, The long white vehicle in the middle? That’s the lorry that carries the bodies of the deceased

also as mentioned any ‘statements’ from the Iranian PM or state media are propaganda, not neutral evidence so I will not take anything they say seriously and anyone who does is part of the problem tbh. Accuracy, context, and critical evaluation of sources matter

Exactly this.

They are repressed people who want improvements in their society. Labelling them as 'rioters' plays right into the hands of the regime. The regime were slaughtering them. They also planned for other protesters to be executed, threats from the US of action id they did that paused the executions.

I stand against the regime and with the people of Iran who want a less repressive society.

If you burn a mosque you are a rioter

As I said context matters in things you see and hear do you know why these mosques were burned?

No you're an arsonist. Which Europe are having an issue with re churches.

Completely agree. Can't believe we have people on here defending the regime. And Galloway is the absolute scum of the earth, while we're at it.

If you burn a Mosque which has doubled up as a venue for arrest, interrogation and oppression, as well as being the symbol of the oppressive regime that murders young women for dancing, you are a freedom fighter.

Thank you @Addybee.
I’m deeply suspicious of anyone defending the Iranian government’s position .
According to a report by Amnesty International , Iran was responsible for 64% of all recorded executions worldwide in 2024.
homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, apostasy, rebellion ( amongst many others) can all be punishable by death

The civilian protesters are among the bravest people on the planet - and they are fighting for their freedom.
I support them all the way.

👏👏👏

Absolutely.

If there was burning of Mosques as symbols is state then I am sure those in support of the regime will gladly distribute images as propaganda. I think we have to be wary of those (including pro pals) to try and set up a narrative that the protestors were organised by the US and Israel with the addition of is Islamaphobic. This is a poor attempt to unite Mulsims against the protests and a way of presenting the regime as defenders of Islam; a cynical way of using religion to defend one of the most brutal regimes in the planet.

Are you Iranian? The people there determine their actions. You’d post this if it were the regime you cared more about.

I’ve seen a few of people on here who seem to be oddly preoccupied for the Iranian regime.

Agreed and there was me thinking something Mumsnetters could all agree on would be that this awful regime is terrible for the men, women & children living in Iran. Overthrowing it would surely be a positive thing albeit the replacement may not be without their own issues.

Exactly. I think it really shows that for some people it’s not really about human lives and human suffering after all, but about ideologies.

many people outside Iran ( especially other muslim nations) engage with the regime symbolically rather than based on reality. The Islamic Republic is framed as a defender of Islam or “resistance,” to them, while what it does to its own people is brushed aside. For Iranians, Islam has not been an abstract faith. It has been a state enforced ideology used to control, punish, and silence.

Calling the protests Islamophobic or foreign-orchestrated is a well-worn tactic. It shifts focus away from the regime’s brutality and reframes it as a protector of religion. To clarify to any muslims on this board- this is not an attack on Islam.