So apparently early reports are saying that around 65% of the votes are in and that they show Mir Hossein Mousavi as the victor but nobody is celebrating yet.
4.50pm: Update: Voting has been extended for a third time, Reuters reporters. Polls will now close at 9pm (5.30pmBST).
5.10pm: President Obama said that his government was "excited" about the debate surrounding the elections, Reuters report. "Whoever ends up winning, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.
6.35pm: As night fell on Tehran the heavens opened with a deliciously cooling downpour after a very long hot day, writes Ian Black in his final blog posting of the day.
Amazingly, polling stations are still open and heaving, with voting extended for a fourth extra hour to accommodate what by all accounts is a massive voter turnout that could even break the 1997 record.
Friends in the Mousavi camp can hardly contain their excitement at what they think is the likelihood of imminent victory. But they say they are worried about a last-minute hitch: the meaning of a reported shortage of ballot papers in some places, for example, and ominous predictions that the regime may lash out if Ahmadinejad does lose.
A Revolutionary Guard warning about not tolerating a "velvet revolution" by the Iranian "greens" has been noted with some alarm. The blocking of SMS messages throughout the day was almost certainly designed to disrupt contact between Mousavi supporters.
"We are all very excited," said a North Tehran photographer, "but we fear that we may have to pay for our empowerment."
Hope everything remains peaceful and can't help but wonder if Ahmadinejad will attempt something.
The president of Iran is more of a figurehead than anything...he holds very little power. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the real power in Iran.
On June 13 2009 04:45 iamtt1 wrote: the elections are bullshit, religious leaders have been running iran for the past 40-50 years since the shah got overthrown
On June 13 2009 04:45 iamtt1 wrote: the elections are bullshit, religious leaders have been running iran for the past 40-50 years since the shah got overthrown
Oh, nice! I see TL has a PhD candidate in Near Eastern Studies!
It's a real shame the Shah couldn't stick around to see the Beatles before he got overthrown in 1959.
EDIT: The electon means a lot, and Khomeini doesn't wield his power absolutely like most of you think.
Trita Parsi, the president of National American Iranian Council, told Al Jazeera that the emphatic nature of the victory raised "a lot of question marks".
"There are so many inconsistencies. They are even reporting that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz, which is Mousavi's home town, with 57 per cent. That seems extremely unlikely.
"How come the votes were counted so quickly, even though the polls were open six hours extra?"
Ahmadinejad's supporters took to the street in the early hours of Saturday, waving Iranian flags and honking car horns, after the official Iranian Republic News Agency (IRNA) had declared the election for the incumbent president.
"Where are the greens? In a mousehole," some of them said, referring to the campaign colours of Mousavi, whose supporters held mass rallies in recent weeks.
The two other candidates up for election - Mohsen Rezai, a former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and Mehdi Karroubi, an ex-parliament speaker - finished a distant third and fourth.
Karroubi added his voice to those criticising the result, saying it was "illegitimate and unacceptable".
On June 13 2009 22:52 D10 wrote: Yep iranians got shafted, now you see how the world saw bush winning his second term.
Difference being we did it to ourselves, since he did legitimately win that election. You can't just declare an election rigged if you don't like the winner, which I guess I should keep in mind before saying anything about Iran's.
I would've preferred seeing Mousavi win, too bad. Especially since I expected him to win, since 2/3rd of the Iranians are below 30 and Mousavi is especially popular with this group. A victory of this magnitude is hard to believe.
Oh it hasn't been mentioned yet in this topic but apparently the results are that Ahmadinejad won with 63% (wtf).
every picture i see of Iranian elections all the women are beautiful, in regards to the election itself, i wonder, even if Ahmadinejad is really the winner, will it change at all there given the public support for another candidate/policies, I mean would the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad be more open to some reformist movements to sort of satisfy some of the opposition? hope that question made sense
On June 13 2009 23:25 XoXiDe wrote: every picture i see of Iranian elections all the women are beautiful, in regards to the election itself, i wonder, even if Ahmadinejad is really the winner, will it change at all there given the public support for another candidate/policies, I mean would the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad be more open to some reformist movements to sort of satisfy some of the opposition? hope that question made sense
The answer to that question is most likely No. Iran is not the United States. It's not a country where you have someone like Obama who adds Clinton to his cabinet after beating her in the primaries. The schism in Iranian politics between reformists-conservative groups is much much bigger than in the United States. Also, the margin was not very close. If it was 51%-49% maybe there would be some sort of pressure to appease the reformists but Ahmadinejad got about 63% of the vote. He has a firm mandate to rule.
You guys have to realize; in Iran the incumbent has NEVER lost the election. It's not even rigging, Khatami (reformist) won as an incumbent as well. People here who likely haven't been following the election or Iranian politics very much just browsed through the Western election coverage, which only started earlier this week, and thought "oh I'm hearing a lot about Moussavi (obviously because ALL the election coverage was taking place just in Tehran which has a lot of young educated people who are Moussavi supporters) it seems like he has an Obama vibe and is going to win".
The thing that most people don't realize is that Iran is a huge country and although Moussavi appeals to some young intellectuals, Ahmadinejad has such a broader base of support. Practically everyone outside of Tehran supports him, and many of the old generation support him, people in South Tehran support him, A LOT of people support him. People here in the West talk about Ahmadinejad as if he's bad (and I'm not arguing that he's good) and not friendly to the West so they automatically assume that the Iranian people don't want him in power. But the fact of the matter is, they do. Despite the fact that he's done a TERRIBLE job with the economy, he is a really strong and charismatic figure who resonates a lot with a majority of Iran's population and you can't ignore that.
Ahmadinejad is one of the most popular and recognizable figures in the Middle East for a reason. So don't be too surprised at these election results. Most likely they weren't rigged in any significant way. The Moussavi camp is just shocked at the loss, because many of them just failed to see the reality. Think about the 2004 election here. John Kerry campaigned so hard to get young people to vote and to energize them, but in the end he lost. Why? Because Bush appealed to a larger segment of the population. Same story with Ahmadinejad.
On June 13 2009 23:24 Frits wrote: I would've preferred seeing Mousavi win, too bad. Especially since I expected him to win, since 2/3rd of the Iranians are below 30 and Mousavi is especially popular with this group. A victory of this magnitude is hard to believe.
Oh it hasn't been mentioned yet in this topic but apparently the results are that Ahmadinejad won with 63% (wtf).
Again, this is wrong. Just because most Iranians are under 30 and Moussavi is generally more popular with young people than old people doesn't mean ALL young people support him. Quite the contrary actually, many young people in Iran are pretty fanatical, conservative, and think Ahmadinejad is a sort of West-defying inspirational figure.
During the Gaza war, sooooo many young Iranians volunteering to willingly to fight against Israel. Khamenei had to give an official order to stop them from doing that. And there were a LOT of people who were like that, young ones, and people who likely would not support Moussavi.
Telephone communication between Tehran and the rest of Iran has been completely disconnected. This corresponds with the beginnings of the arrests of the opposition. It is suspected that this is being orchestrated by the son of Mojtaba Khamenei son of The Supreme Leader, Ali.
Pyknet: Mousavi has been place under house arrest. He was arrested on his way to Khamenei's house. All communication has been shut off. Khamenei has issued a statement claiming that HE that he is leading this coup to SAVE the Islamic Government (Nezam)
This just makes me think of what would happen if this happened in the us? Because in the recent months we have had at least two different threads about elections and riots that correspond to each other.
On June 14 2009 04:22 Xeris wrote: what the fuck........ Moussavi supporters need to stop. they're going to fuck up the country if they can't peacefully accept the election results.
I'd be pretty pissed too if the party in power started to arrest the opposing party members and have armed forces threatening supporters etc.
Another Washington-based Iran watcher said at about 11pm EST that Iranian-state-officials are claiming vote counts in the Iranian city of Isfahan show Ahmadinejad winning 3-1. Which would seem a bit absurd - or else a total contrary result from what pre-election reporting indicated.
At about 7:30am Tehran time, the U.S.-based Iranian academic writes, "I have been exchanging emails, phone calls, and been in touch with young, old, men, women, ...and been in touch with people from inside each campaign (AN and Mousavi). These numbers have surprised even the supporters of AN. What is more, the journalists are saying in the Interior Ministry there has been no explanations, no interviews, just reading the numbers to journalists. It is mind-boggling at this point. It is not over by any means; unless reformers want to lay down and play dead."
"The loser either way is Khamenie (if there is a widespread belief that this was rigged). However, I cannot believe given the scope of participation that it would be such a blow out (even as the percentage of booths has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote give because the size of these booths are not the same). However, no one I know can believe these numbers. Something does not add up."
One man who worked in the Ministry of Interior, which carried out the vote count, said the government had been preparing its fraud for weeks, purging anyone of doubtful loyalty and importing pliable staff members from around the country.
"They didn't rig the vote," claimed this man, who showed his ministry identification card but pleaded not to be named. "They didn't even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it."
Voters were obliged to choose a candidate and fill in a code. Though Mr. Moussavi was Candidate No. 4, the code No. 44 signified Mr. Ahmadinejad.
One would think all it would take is someone to write an additional 4 and even a recount wouldn't have helped or solved anything.
On June 14 2009 04:22 Xeris wrote: what the fuck........ Moussavi supporters need to stop. they're going to fuck up the country if they can't peacefully accept the election results.
? what else can they do, the only way they can get change is by rioting and pressuring the goverment.. they need to overthrow the regime(violence is obviously part of the equation).. but it has be organised and needs alot of support which it doesnt have, the majority of the population are just too scared to go against the regime (the issue goes beyond the current government)
On June 14 2009 04:22 Xeris wrote: what the fuck........ Moussavi supporters need to stop. they're going to fuck up the country if they can't peacefully accept the election results.
America should have just peacefully accepted King George's rule as well. u_u
Sometimes things are so blatantly wrong that not standing up for it just begets more moral injustices. Its the sad necessary evil.
On June 14 2009 04:22 Xeris wrote: what the fuck........ Moussavi supporters need to stop. they're going to fuck up the country if they can't peacefully accept the election results.
This hurts my head to such an extreme degree. There are reports that the main opposition even lost voting in his HOME TOWN supposedly. You dont think thats even a LITTLE suspicious?
Please... there is something evil going on here :\
some of you forgot Martin Luther King, and that peaceful protest can go a long way, although a much harder road to walk, it is a more righteous one, and one with less blood.
On June 14 2009 02:04 Jibba wrote: Ahmadinejad really is like Iran's Bush, except Iran's rural population is a much greater % than America's.
The more I look at it the more this seems true. Who are we in the west most likely to hear from? students, the internet savvy, the English speakers, etc.
Just like 2004 in the US: if you were on the internet all you heard about was how Bush was crap: you'd have expected John Kerry was going to win. It didn't happen, because of the masses of people who weren't on the net or protesting at colleges going out and voting for Bush due to plays to religion or fear or whatever. You may not like it, but that can happen with democracy.
Ahmadinejad is a man of the people, with his little apartment and everything. I think he has more appeal than people may realize with the average Iranian. The scope of his victory is a little suspicious, but I wouldn't be surprised if he really did win. That's democracy for you. The winner is the one with the most supporters, not the one whose supporters are more vocal, or university educated, or better connected with the West or whatever the case may be.
If we're going to advocate democracy we have to be cool with the idea that people are going to vote for their preferred candidate, not ours. Now I can't say for sure that candidate is Ahmadinejad, I don't know all the details. But I could certainly believe it is him.
Holy crap some are believing that Ahmadinejad is now underway of performing a Coup.
We have information that Ahmadinejad is thinking about changing the Constitution to allow the president to serve more than two terms, to make his presidency more or less permanent.
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
A coup d'etat? They've already made one! They've created a dictatorship, in fact. Do you know that last night the security forces occupied the offices of many newspapers, to make sure that their reporting on the election was favorable? They changed many headlines. They fixed the election.
The Guards are taking over everything, including many economic institutions. The ministry of the interior is increasing its control in all the provinces.
2:54 PM ET -- Reuters reporter injured. "A Reuters reporter said she and others were beaten by police with batons as police chased and arrested demonstrators staging a sit-in at Tehran's Vanak Square, one of the capital's busiest intersections. At least three people were injured in the clash, which broke out after the Interior Ministry announced the hardline incumbent's resounding victory in Friday's vote."
2:48 PM ET -- Report: Between 50-100 dead. Tehran Bureau, an independent Iran news site being widely cited by U.S. papers, reports: "Panic on the streets of Tehran. Outside mass protests. Between 50-100 dead. Police on motorcycles beating people as drive by; attacking women."
The Islamic Combatant Clergy Association (ICCA), which is close to former president Mohammad Khatami and supported Mir-Hossiein Moussavi in Friday's election, said on its website that the election should be nullified and held again in a calmer, more logical and more just atmosphere.
After an emergency session in Tehran, the ICCA regretted that the counting process was "widely engineered (manipulated)" and said there was enough evidence to prove the manipulation and to nullify the election.
"We will not leave Moussavi alone," the ICCA said in its statement.
More vids, it's becoming quite clear what is happening. Media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and even cell phones inside Tehran are being blocked. With the Clerics backing Moussavi, it seems, I wonder what the outcome will be or will Iran simply sit back and brood and complain in the dark.
There is a good article by Cenk Uygur over at the Huffington Post.
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
This is where I stop reading any post you make in this thread from now on.
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
This is where I stop reading any post you make in this thread from now on.
k.... Being as the is just one quote from a variety of sources.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the foreign media of coverage that harms the Iranian people after authorities claimed he was re-elected in a bitterly disputed vote.
He called on the public to respect the vote on Friday, after his main pro-reform challenger rejected the results and accused authorities of election fraud.
"This is a great victory at a time when the ... propaganda facilities outside Iran and sometimes inside Iran were totally mobilized against our people," Ahmadinejad said, according to an English translation of his victory speech carried on state television.
"The heaviest pressure and psychological warfare was organized against the people of Iran. A large number of foreign media ... organized a full-fledged fight against our people."
Also:
Security officials and riot police engaged in violent clashes with demonstrators in Tehran today in what one reporter called an "unprecedented scene" in Iran in recent years.
What started off as a small rally outside a pro-reformist newspaper swelled into a massive crowd of people chanting, "Death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad!"
Then, what started with a small amount of police pushing the crowd back turned into huge riot police in armored gear and motor bikes beating all the young students here with batons, knocking them back. The students responded by throwing stones, which the police then threw back. Now the police are coming off all the heart streets and main streets to try and disperse the crowd. But this is an unprecedented scene in Iran today.
its funny that most people i talk to, just ask, still think Ahmadinejad is a Dictator because of the way he is portrayed in teh US media. good thing we arent subjected to propaganda >.<
(BBC) A crowd of about 3,000 attacked the police, some of whom were on motorbikes, which they set on fire. The sky was thick with black smoke. Police attacked the crowd with sticks and maybe teargas.
I didn't expect to see people turning on the secret police. We were filming when we were surrounded by angry secret policemen. The crowd turned on them and chased them off.
I suspect we are not looking at a revolution but there is serious anger. It all depends on how the government responds - if they use violence, that could inflame the situation.
More vids, it's becoming quite clear what is happening. Media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and even cell phones inside Tehran are being blocked. With the Clerics backing Moussavi, it seems, I wonder what the outcome will be or will Iran simply sit back and brood and complain in the dark.
There is a good article by Cenk Uygur over at the Huffington Post.
wtf... that graph is complete bullshit. R-squared as 0.998, no way is that possible in such an election. Talk about lazy frauding... I mean why take the time to publish the data which is so obviously false, why not actually make the voter turnout at least somewhat plausible.
More vids, it's becoming quite clear what is happening. Media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and even cell phones inside Tehran are being blocked. With the Clerics backing Moussavi, it seems, I wonder what the outcome will be or will Iran simply sit back and brood and complain in the dark.
There is a good article by Cenk Uygur over at the Huffington Post.
wtf... that graph is complete bullshit. R-squared as 0.998, no way is that possible in such an election. Talk about lazy frauding... I mean why take the time to publish the data which is so obviously false, why not actually make the voter turnout at least somewhat plausible.
The fact that reports of millions of votes coming in very soon after the polls closes raised some suspicions. For example, when one polling station closed it would said that the ballots were counted as soon as half an hour after the station was closed. Where as thousands of votes had been cast. The result was that nearly 85% of said votes were for the President.
Even before the earliest of the election results, word had spread that Mir Hossein Mousavi’s private security team had doubled in size. Within an hour of the end of polling, the presidential challenger had announced a “decisive victory” but soon after the first results he was alleging massive electoral fraud.
Earlier in the evening a “pressure group” had raided one of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s campaign offices in the wealthy northern Tehran suburb of Qeytarieh. Information was spreading by word of mouth and through the internet. Iran’s mobile phone text message system had been offline since the beginning of polling on Friday.
What I don't understand is why haven't we hear ANYTHING from the Spiritual leaders such as Ali Khamenei who has to getting pressure from these riots. Also he is anti-nuclear while Ahmadinejad is surely pushing those boundaries. As well as being more democratic, yet we hear nothing.
I mean even the ICCA has to carry some weight with the religious conservatives in the country, yet we hear nothing. Where is the outcry from other Arab states.
sigh. i feel sry for those protesters. they fail to realize that it doesn't matter which party is elected. it's all the same bullshit. the mullahs need to be overthrown if they want real change to happen.
It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.
Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment. That he should have won Tehran is so unlikely as to raise real questions about these numbers.
It is claimed that cleric Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate, received 320,000 votes, and that he did poorly in Iran's western provinces, even losing in Luristan. He is a Lur and is popular in the west, including in Kurdistan. Karoubi received 17 percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections in 2005. While it is possible that his support has substantially declined since then, it is hard to believe that he would get less than one percent of the vote. Moreover, he should have at least done well in the west, which he did not.
Mohsen Rezaie, who polled very badly and seems not to have been at all popular, is alleged to have received 670,000 votes, twice as much as Karoubi.
Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations.
The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election [not declare them almost immediately]
In addition, you have a demographic time bomb in Iran's case, with a lopsidedly urban and young population which is only becoming more so, with clear ethnic divisions (18-20% Azeris, 7-10% Kurdish, 2% Baloch, 1 million Turkomen, 2% tribal groups, 2% Armenians, Georgian, Assyrians) This holds the Persian population somewhere between 60% to just under fifty at 49%. Where did Mahmoud obtain 65% of the vote, and why couldn't he have done it without day becoming night and up becoming down?
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
This is where I stop reading any post you make in this thread from now on.
On June 14 2009 15:00 Last Romantic wrote: Seriously? I can understand being anti-Fox but the overwhelming evidence points to election-rigging.
It's altogether too suspicious. Don't even need Occam's Razor for this one.
No kidding. I'm calling bullshit on the boycott of this thread based on that quote. It isn't even something fox news said, it's something THEY got from the government. And they really aren't THAT bad, despite how the internet hates them. Sure some shit they say is ridiculous at times, but usually it's isolated incidents and I think. people can't deal with the fact that a conservative network is out there while the rest of the entire media is liberal. /tangent
I'm going to have to agree with the rigging as well. I was watching the news when I heard that Mousavi had lost in his home territory and I nearly spit out what I was drinking. I mean they could at least put some effort into the faking. It's so bad, it's almost evidence for it being NOT rigged because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid.
On June 14 2009 15:00 Last Romantic wrote: Seriously? I can understand being anti-Fox but the overwhelming evidence points to election-rigging.
It's altogether too suspicious. Don't even need Occam's Razor for this one.
No kidding. I'm calling bullshit on the boycott of this thread based on that quote. It isn't even something fox news said, it's something THEY got from the government. And they really aren't THAT bad, despite how the internet hates them. Sure some shit they say is ridiculous at times, but usually it's isolated incidents and I think. people can't deal with the fact that a conservative network is out there while the rest of the entire media is liberal. /tangent
I'm going to have to agree with the rigging as well. I was watching the news when I heard that Mousavi had lost in his home territory and I nearly spit out what I was drinking. I mean they could at least put some effort into the faking. It's so bad, it's almost evidence for it being NOT rigged because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid.
Just for the record Fox is about as Conservative as the Soviet Union was Capitalist. I don't like any news network, I use a combination of NPR, PBS, BBC, and AP for anything world wide and national and local Fox - but against your argument, the 'liberal' networks, aka BBC and CNN have been reporting the election fraud for quite some time today so I don't think your tangent is justified yet neither is the boycott against fox. Hard line stances are useless and diminish from the problem at hand. Either way in a situation like this, where reporters lives are threatened and news is slow, like it was in Burma, I tend to rely on blogs for this type of thing.
Even the BBC is posting Iranians really pissed off. Most of the people are are okay with the election results are Westerner's who just like to think they're finally able to tell other people, "well I told you Iran wasn't bad, look they had a fair election"
On June 14 2009 15:00 Last Romantic wrote: Seriously? I can understand being anti-Fox but the overwhelming evidence points to election-rigging.
It's altogether too suspicious. Don't even need Occam's Razor for this one.
It seems suspicious at this point but we need to consider a few things before jumping to any conclusions. First, there is a lot of support for the incumbent in the country. I get the impression he had a popular last term. Second, the amount of time passed is little and the types of sources that we are getting are limited. When more information from within Iran becomes known it will be easier to see both sides of the issue. Much of the western media is screaming fraud at this point and you should not let yourself be caught up in that.
EDIT:
On June 14 2009 15:43 Railz wrote: Just for the record Fox is about as Conservative as the Soviet Union was Capitalist.
On June 14 2009 15:00 Last Romantic wrote: Seriously? I can understand being anti-Fox but the overwhelming evidence points to election-rigging.
It's altogether too suspicious. Don't even need Occam's Razor for this one.
It seems suspicious at this point but we need to consider a few things before jumping to any conclusions. First, there is a lot of support for the incumbent in the country. I get the impression he had a popular last term. Second, the amount of time passed is little and the types of sources that we are getting are limited. When more information from within Iran becomes known it will be easier to see both sides of the issue. Much of the western media is screaming fraud at this point and you should not let yourself be caught up in that.
On June 14 2009 16:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Also via mass twitter supporters are being told not to go to a certain protest at 12:30pm that it is a Police Trap.
There are rumors of a protest at Vali-Asr today at 12:30pm.
This is a trap. please pass this on to everyone you know. The official word from Mousavi HQ is hold back and wait for word.
DO NOT ATTEND THE VALI-ASR PROTEST.
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD
I hate to be the one to point this out but that sounds a lot like Tienanmen. The students knew exactly what was coming and egged on the police. I remember watching Front line and the leader of the Students actually wanted to call it off, but others spooked the police and they fired on them.
How're they supposed to protest; the police will always be around the corner, how will any other time make a difference.
By Saturday morning, the most often repeated exclamation in Tehran was: “It’s not possible!”…
A group of young men said they had talked to their families in the provinces, including Kurdish Kermanshah, Azeri Oroumiyeh and Ardeblil. Mohsen, 23, said, “Everyone in Tabriz [Mousavi's hometown] voted for Mousavi. The official count says a majority for Ahmadinejad. That’s not possible.” Mehdi, 27, chimed in, “Even if just Karroubi’s family in Lorestan had voted for him, he would have won more than 300,000 votes.”
More serious allegations came from officials involved in the various reformist candidates’ campaigns. Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, part of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi’s campaign, pointed out that the government “announced a wholesale figure of 70% for Ahmadinejad last night, as opposed to breaking it down province by province as they usually do.” The first figures were announced shortly after voting closed, he added. A breakdown of how people in each city and province voted has not been released yet.
At the Mousavi headquarters, former Interior Minister Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour protested that Mousavi observers had not gained access to many of the polling centers. He also said that in Tabriz, Mousavi’s birthplace, many of the polling stations had run out of ballots only two hours after opening, even though about 59 million ballots had been printed by the government, about 13 million more than the number of eligible voters.
Two interesting points on Iranian election:
1. After election results were announced, the election committee must wait for three days to accept any grievances for any irregularity before certify the results.
2. The results of election needs to be certified by the Council of Experts before it goes to the Leader for final approval
Today neither of these two rules were followed and the Leader in his speech approved the results of the election and asked all parties involved to work with Ahmadinejad.
And the post above me, that's an assload who didn't vote for ahmy, and an assload who did vote for Mousavi.
I find it funny all the people who were drawing comparisons to Bush's second term and the non election of ahmadinejad. You really can't take things at face value.
Also there are reports of the city of Tehran power being cut, may be hearsay. Police are scouring the city looking for satellites, and other forms of communication to stomp out. Right now news is being issued from Sports journalists but they are sure to be clamped down upon sooner or later.
Up to 100 members of major Iranian reformist groups have been arrested, accused of orchestrating violence after the disputed presidential election.
Backers of defeated reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi were rounded up overnight, reports said, including the brother of ex-President Khatami.
Mr Mousavi's whereabouts are unknown but he is thought remain free.
Crowds took to the streets of Tehran on Saturday to protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election.
Because it is breaking the original here will not have much info - but I wonder how much further the protests will go without leaders. Also I'm counting down till the Iran's higher ups blame western media/CIA for the protests.
Reports are that 3 are confirmed dead, no idea who. But with the other reports of 50 -100 dead I don't know if this is additional deaths from violent protests with Police.
EDIT: Update #1
Iran Analyst: Reformers "Widely Assumed" To Be Planning To Depose Ayatollah Khamenei...
Also, Ahmadinejad is planning on a Sunday "Victory Rally".
Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene`i publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to constitutional requirements
Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.
I honestly can't say I understand much about politics in Iran or revolts in general, but it seems to me if your going to try to have a coup. Why are they not going after the leaders of the opposing party? I understand they seem to be mostly young adults, but even 20 something have to understand a peaceful protest won't accomplish much. I mean that's the whole reason your out there after all. Your government does not care what you think. Any protest is better then none, but it seems very ineffective the way they are going about it.
If lets say Bush was like " nah fuck you all I'm not leaving, and I'm still president". I don't think I would walk around D.C protesting any old place. You go after the people in power and the symbols of power. I understand its easier said then done but fuck . Why are they taking over police stations ? If your going to go that far there must be a Iranian equivalent of the white house or congress you can take. Seems this green party needs to organize there Resistance a little better
This seems very very unlikely. Nothing of this difference could have been overturned, the difference would be simply too big to try and fraud it by any means. It's that 85% of the people did not vote for Ahmadi-nejad, that's simply too much and even to fraud it, it would take an enormous mobilization of way too many people who should work for Ahmadi-nejad. Beside, if that difference would be any near real then we're going to see over 50% of iranians going on the street against the goverment, which will lastly quit.
Also, damn that's one high turnout rate.
Can someone who knows iran and their system better explain me what do Ayatollah have to do in this story? Are they involved in politics or? I always thought of them like religious leaders.
Etherone wrote: some of you forgot Martin Luther King, and that peaceful protest can go a long way, although a much harder road to walk, it is a more righteous one, and one with less blood.
Yes, MLK's way is great, now all we need is someone willing to sacrifice himself and become a martyr. That's been the issue all along, the muslim world doesn't use martyrdom enough.
MamiyaOtaru wrote: That's democracy for you. The winner is the one with the most supporters, not the one whose supporters are more vocal, or university educated, or better connected with the West or whatever the case may be.
QFT, and that's why democracy is as retarded as monarchy, tyranny, dictatorship, republic and most other rules of government.
Nope, I'm serious, I hate democracy.
sith wrote: No kidding. I'm calling bullshit on the boycott of this thread based on that quote. It isn't even something fox news said, it's something THEY got from the government. And they really aren't THAT bad, despite how the internet hates them.
And THAT's where I stopped reading anything YOU write. ^^
The thing that has been circled, and what you should pay attention to, is the vote of the third party candidate Rezai.
That screenshot clearly shows that the vote for Rezai actually went backwards as the count was coming in, from 633048 votes to 587913 votes. Very strange indeed.
Now before we jump to conclusions, this isn't necessarily conclusive proof of fraud, but it is certainly an irregularity in the television coverage. While I have seen states in US elections and also electorates down here in Australia called too early for one candidate or the other, I have never seen a candidate's vote go DOWN in either case, except in the case of a recount. And you'd be hard pressed to see a vote go backwards like that.
Clearly, we have a few possibilities here. The first is that someone miscounted Rezai's votes when they were inputting it into the television. Which is certainly possible.
The other option is a bit more sinister - they were just making the numbers up, and someone was silly enough to make them up the wrong way.
For my friend's part, they think that the election was rigged, because none of the major candidates even won their own districts, which seems incredibly odd to any rational person.
Also apparently the Ayatollah's own daughter is under house arrest.
Stealth, all your information is coming from totally biased conservative american sources (aka Huffington post).. Even CNN's coverage is just not right. For example let me quote you something from a news on CNN:
"When the ballots were counted, the government declared Ahmadinejad the winner -- with 62.63 percent of the vote. Moussavi, the man many analysts had expected to win, received 33.75 percent." .
Sorry but that's just not right. These people at CNN only started covering the election about 1-2 weeks prior. They only stayed in major cities like Tehran, and even then, they were only in the Northern part of Tehran. Nobody with much of a brain thought Moussavi was going to win. Maybe it would be a close election, but there was little chance for him to win. In 10 presidential elections in Iran, the incumbent has NEVER lost. The odds were so far against Moussavi, the fact that he was able to get 12 MILLION votes is pretty amazing, and speaks to his ability to campaign.
Ahmadinejad enjoyed the advantages of an incumbent. He spent many months traveling throughout Iran, going to almost every province and city. He handed out bread and money to the poor people in the cities, he appeals to them, and they believe he represents a strong image of Iran that they aspire to.
Moussavi's support comes mainly from the North of Tehran (aka the upper/middle class educated and wealthy area). All of southern Tehran which is mostly poor is wildly supportive of Ahmadinejad. I have family throughout Iran; Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, Urumieh, etc. Most people support Ahmadinejad.
If we have people like Stealth, who arguably don't know anything about Iran or Iranian politics, posting one-sided and biased little clips of information it's going to skew everyone's opinions. Funny how nobody on TL cared at all about this until the day of the election. I've literally been following the campaign for a year. I wrote my thesis on Iran, I've read at least 60 books about contemporary Iran and politics, and I've been talking to a lot of my family there. Unless you know a lot of the facts and can see both sides then you should reserve your judgement.
Now again. I think that people are going too far talking about election rigging. It's hard to rig 12 million votes (I believe the numbers were something like ~24 million for Ahmadinejad and ~12 million for Moussavi). What I think people should take from this is that Moussavi was able to actually get 12 million votes. This actually sounds pretty accurate. Here's why:
1) The number of votes for Karroubi and Rezai (both got between 300-600k) seem pretty fair. Historically, incumbents have always done really well in elections, especially since Iranian politics doesn't see the same kind of campaigning as in the United States so incumbents have even MORE of an advantage than here.
2) Moussavi likely would have gotten a similar amount of votes as the other two if it wasn't for his campaigning.
3) Ahmadinejad probably would have gotten 85%+ of the vote if it wasn't for the amazing campaign of Moussavi.
4) Moussavi getting 12 million votes is really something to be proud of.
But really, what do people expect? Incumbent's have never lost in Iran. Despite what many believe, Ahmadinejad is wildly popular, not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East as well (among people).
On June 15 2009 02:19 Xeris wrote: Stealth, all your information is coming from totally biased conservative american sources (aka Huffington post).. Even CNN's coverage is just not right. For example let me quote you something from a news on CNN:
"When the ballots were counted, the government declared Ahmadinejad the winner -- with 62.63 percent of the vote. Moussavi, the man many analysts had expected to win, received 33.75 percent." .
Sorry but that's just not right. These people at CNN only started covering the election about 1-2 weeks prior. They only stayed in major cities like Tehran, and even then, they were only in the Northern part of Tehran. Nobody with much of a brain thought Moussavi was going to win. Maybe it would be a close election, but there was little chance for him to win. In 10 presidential elections in Iran, the incumbent has NEVER lost. The odds were so far against Moussavi, the fact that he was able to get 12 MILLION votes is pretty amazing, and speaks to his ability to campaign.
For the record, Huffington Post is probably the most liberal American news source to date, right up there with the DailyKoS. That being said, there are people who have been following for far longer. There is something strange when votes start to go backwards though. It is fishy how they rushed to get the results out when in the past they've waited before certification.
6. The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election, at which point they are to inform Khamenei of the results, and he signs off on the process. The three-day delay is intended to allow charges of irregularities to be adjudicated. In this case, Khamenei immediately approved the alleged results.
Well not all the links/sources are from Huffington post. Some are from Twitter, YouTube, BBC, Al Jazeera, and so forth. I think most of the unrest comes from the actual numbers and so forth, as well as the violent crackdown that started almost as soon as the polls closed.
Robert Fisk, a journalist with the UK's Independent newspaper, told Al Jazeera that Ahmadinejad was repeating the point that the high turnout proved that he was in the majority.
"But many of the people that did vote believe that the vote was switched," he said.
"So it was not the turnout that proved that Ahmadinejad is a popular president. It is what the figures actually were. And that of course is what is still being disputed.
Fisk said one Mousavi supporter had pointed out to him that "if the figures were being counted properly on Friday night, five million votes would have had to have been counted in two hours".
Winning the popular vote etc. is one thing it's whole different story when Cell Phones, Power, and media outlets are cut off. And the foreign press is told they should be prepared to leave the country, as well as the mass arrest of opposition officials.
On June 15 2009 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well not all the links/sources are from Huffington post. Some are from Twitter, YouTube, BBC, Al Jazeera, and so forth. I think most of the unrest comes from the actual numbers and so forth, as well as the violent crackdown that started almost as soon as the polls closed.
Robert Fisk, a journalist with the UK's Independent newspaper, told Al Jazeera that Ahmadinejad was repeating the point that the high turnout proved that he was in the majority.
"But many of the people that did vote believe that the vote was switched," he said.
"So it was not the turnout that proved that Ahmadinejad is a popular president. It is what the figures actually were. And that of course is what is still being disputed.
Fisk said one Mousavi supporter had pointed out to him that "if the figures were being counted properly on Friday night, five million votes would have had to have been counted in two hours".
Winning the popular vote etc. is one thing it's whole different story when Cell Phones, Power, and media outlets are cut off. And the foreign press is told they should be prepared to leave the country, as well as the mass arrest of opposition officials.
These things are hard to determine truthfully. If you ask Moussavi supporters, they'll say there was fraud. Not likely because there was actually fraud, but that they're shocked at losing. Here's the thing.
Do I think the election was 100% free and fair? Probably not. There are many elections in Iran that are rigged. HOWEVER, do I think possible election rigging were why Ahmadinejad won? No. If there was rigging (probably was some), it wasn't in any significant way. I would understand if the result was a dubious 51-49 win for Ahmadinejad. It's HARD to rig 12 million votes. Also, understand Iran's position. They're trying to maintain order. Pretty much all journalists are from Western nations, and I haven't read one good news about the election. Everything I've read is "Moussavi who was expected to win lost the election and his supporters are claiming election rigging." There's no news that says "Wow Iran had such an amazing voter turnout, they should be proud to be moving along a more democratic route".
If I was Iran's government I'd want foreign reporters to leave too. This is only hurting Iran.
Xeris, check out Juan Cole's blog. Cole is liberal (and never shuts up about anything), but he's also generally regarded as one of the new Mid East scholars.
Just two weeks ago I had the chance to meet with Vali Nasr (click link to read about who he is). If you don't know, he's probably one of the most well known Iran-experts in the United States. If you're an Iranian or Iranian-American I can almost 100% guarantee your family knows who he is. Anyways, I got to speak with him at a reception (he came to my school for a lecture) for about 20 minutes and I was talking to him about the upcoming election.
He even told me that he would be very surprised if Ahmadinejad lost, simply because of such a huge incumbency factor. I even asked about election rigging and he said that the chances were fairly slim that there would be major election rigging. Really what happened in Iran is not a surprise if you actually know the politics. What happened is what has always historically happened since 1979. Incumbent runs, incumbent wins.
The DIFFERENCE this time is that Moussavi is such a strong personality and through his campaign he was able to generate zealous support. There has never been such a wildly popular figure running against an incumbent before. This is why many people are "shocked" at the result. In the past, nobody has really campaigned against an incumbent (aka Rafsanjani, Khatami) because nobody thought there was a legit chance at victory. This time around, Moussavi campaigned really hard to have a chance.
And now people seem to forget that really nothing out of the ordinary has happened.
On June 15 2009 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well not all the links/sources are from Huffington post. Some are from Twitter, YouTube, BBC, Al Jazeera, and so forth. I think most of the unrest comes from the actual numbers and so forth, as well as the violent crackdown that started almost as soon as the polls closed.
Robert Fisk, a journalist with the UK's Independent newspaper, told Al Jazeera that Ahmadinejad was repeating the point that the high turnout proved that he was in the majority.
"But many of the people that did vote believe that the vote was switched," he said.
"So it was not the turnout that proved that Ahmadinejad is a popular president. It is what the figures actually were. And that of course is what is still being disputed.
Fisk said one Mousavi supporter had pointed out to him that "if the figures were being counted properly on Friday night, five million votes would have had to have been counted in two hours".
Winning the popular vote etc. is one thing it's whole different story when Cell Phones, Power, and media outlets are cut off. And the foreign press is told they should be prepared to leave the country, as well as the mass arrest of opposition officials.
These things are hard to determine truthfully. If you ask Moussavi supporters, they'll say there was fraud. Not likely because there was actually fraud, but that they're shocked at losing. Here's the thing.
Do I think the election was 100% free and fair? Probably not. There are many elections in Iran that are rigged. HOWEVER, do I think possible election rigging were why Ahmadinejad won? No. If there was rigging (probably was some), it wasn't in any significant way. I would understand if the result was a dubious 51-49 win for Ahmadinejad. It's HARD to rig 12 million votes. Also, understand Iran's position. They're trying to maintain order. Pretty much all journalists are from Western nations, and I haven't read one good news about the election. Everything I've read is "Moussavi who was expected to win lost the election and his supporters are claiming election rigging." There's no news that says "Wow Iran had such an amazing voter turnout, they should be proud to be moving along a more democratic route".
If I was Iran's government I'd want foreign reporters to leave too. This is only hurting Iran.
Who said they had to rig anything. It is possible to fake numbers.
Xeris, check out Juan Cole's blog. Cole is liberal (and never shuts up about anything), but he's also generally regarded as one of the new Mid East scholars.
Students & people fighting back a large group of police & Basij right now at university of physics! I'm going to join them. #iranelectionabout 1 hour ago from TwitterFox
is there any end to police's motorcycles?! how much more we should burn?! #iranelection
EDIT: For those who don't get it, Ahmadinejad's lead supposedly grew proportionately with Mousavi's when 7 official announcements were made. Election results don't come in that smoothly, they're generally filled with lots of spikes as different regions and ethnicities are counted, but a shitty cover up job wouldn't account for this (and often times such smooth curves are found in cases of election fraud.)
On June 15 2009 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well not all the links/sources are from Huffington post. Some are from Twitter, YouTube, BBC, Al Jazeera, and so forth. I think most of the unrest comes from the actual numbers and so forth, as well as the violent crackdown that started almost as soon as the polls closed.
Robert Fisk, a journalist with the UK's Independent newspaper, told Al Jazeera that Ahmadinejad was repeating the point that the high turnout proved that he was in the majority.
"But many of the people that did vote believe that the vote was switched," he said.
"So it was not the turnout that proved that Ahmadinejad is a popular president. It is what the figures actually were. And that of course is what is still being disputed.
Fisk said one Mousavi supporter had pointed out to him that "if the figures were being counted properly on Friday night, five million votes would have had to have been counted in two hours".
Winning the popular vote etc. is one thing it's whole different story when Cell Phones, Power, and media outlets are cut off. And the foreign press is told they should be prepared to leave the country, as well as the mass arrest of opposition officials.
These things are hard to determine truthfully. If you ask Moussavi supporters, they'll say there was fraud. Not likely because there was actually fraud, but that they're shocked at losing. Here's the thing.
Do I think the election was 100% free and fair? Probably not. There are many elections in Iran that are rigged. HOWEVER, do I think possible election rigging were why Ahmadinejad won? No. If there was rigging (probably was some), it wasn't in any significant way. I would understand if the result was a dubious 51-49 win for Ahmadinejad. It's HARD to rig 12 million votes. Also, understand Iran's position. They're trying to maintain order. Pretty much all journalists are from Western nations, and I haven't read one good news about the election. Everything I've read is "Moussavi who was expected to win lost the election and his supporters are claiming election rigging." There's no news that says "Wow Iran had such an amazing voter turnout, they should be proud to be moving along a more democratic route".
If I was Iran's government I'd want foreign reporters to leave too. This is only hurting Iran.
Who said they had to rig anything. It is possible to fake numbers.
Xeris, check out Juan Cole's blog. Cole is liberal (and never shuts up about anything), but he's also generally regarded as one of the new Mid East scholars.
That's true but I'm skeptical. I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I simply believe that the losing party just doesn't want to accept the loss. And Western journalists are fueling the fire.
I don't even like or support Ahmadinejad either, but I think national unity is far more important than this petty protesting.
People use it for easy sources of citing. If someone who is reading the blog doesn't know the subject at hand, Wikipedia is still the quickest way to learn a subject foreign to a person.
On June 15 2009 02:57 Railz wrote: People use it for easy sources of citing. If someone who is reading the blog doesn't know the subject at hand, Wikipedia is still the quickest way to learn a subject foreign to a person.
ya but Wikipedia could easily be wrong. I could go and change those numbers right now and nobody would know O_O
On June 15 2009 02:59 Xeris wrote: that's not a counter argument, that's exactly my argument O_O
"Here's an academic's representation of your counter argument" is what I was trying to say. So instead of just being forum goer vs. forum goer, there's some legitimate opinions being weighed here.
I fully understand that you are disappointed with the result as any would if he was following this election without any "esprit critique" through the prism of western media and academia.
Indeed in the west there seemed to be throughout this campaign only one candidate in Iran and on type of supporter (the green-girls of Mousavi) – even media like Al-Jazeera managed this tour de force of having debates with invitees reflecting only one point of view. Furthermore from the onset we were getting softened up in case the results did not go well in favour of Mousavi by informing us of the "shutting down" of Facebook – as if that site has any statistical significance in that part of the world...
As far as irregularities and outside pushes goes lets here are two of them
– Al-Jazeera English managed to have an exclusive lengthy interview with Mousavi aired the day before the election when no campaigning is supposed to take place
– It is Mousavi that did not wait the official results and proclaimed immediately – few hours after the end of voting – that he is the winner, in full breach of what you highlight in your article (The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days etc.) and this was suspiciously carried over by all western media including Al-Jazeera – except PressTV which tried to stick to the rule. I was indeed stunned as PressTV itself did not expect to have the results before the next day.
Last but not least if I understand your thrust it is now a dogma that only pro or pseudo-pro western candidates can win fairly and squarely elections. I advise everybody to look at Lebanon were Hizb Allah accepted the electoral outcome despite its coalition got the majority popular vote and found itself in parliament in the opposition. I do not recall any media complaining of this outcome or cry foul.
Back to Iran, To me it sounds more like a velvet type revolution that was nipped in the bud... by the people of Iran.
On June 15 2009 02:57 Railz wrote: People use it for easy sources of citing. If someone who is reading the blog doesn't know the subject at hand, Wikipedia is still the quickest way to learn a subject foreign to a person.
ya but Wikipedia could easily be wrong. I could go and change those numbers right now and nobody would know O_O
Citation sources are usually quick to moderate. I remember when someone changed France to say "Losers" and it was changed like 5 minutes later.
From my uninformed point of view, it seems possible that Ahmadinejad was poised to win the election (and probably did win it legitimately) but there was panic up top when Mousavi made his announcement and as a result voting fraud did take place, accounting for some of the strange polling numbers. Obviously there's corruption taking place with censorship and so on, but Mousavi's supporters also need to learn that you don't judge the merit of an election based on whether your candidate wins or loses.
Yes exactly, this is why I'm so upset at Moussavi and his people. it makes me a bit embarassed to have been plugging for him so much in the past few months. I basically lobbied my whole family to vote for him (my grandma didnt want to vote though because she doesn't believe in politics).
Think about it. Iran is a very fragile democracy (stable state but democratically not so). With each election Iran has seemingly embraced many democratic tenets more and more. This election was supposed to be the height of that. Voter turnout was INSANELY high, the campaigns were well fought, with debates, coalition building, etc. Now Moussavi and his people are threatening that. The Ayatollah's could just as well consolidate their power more and become more autocratic. They're trying to become more democratic because they see this is what the people want and realize their power hinges on the continued support of the people.
But when you have people doing fucked up shit like not accepting election results when realistically there was little chance for victory anyways, it messes with the entire democratic process and makes it lose credibility. One of the signs of a stable democracy is power being transferred peacefully (in this case not transferred but retained). Despite Ahmadinejad being pretty dumb and overall not that great of a president, if he had lost I doubt he would have sent his followers into the streets to fight the new regime. Ahmadinejad above all wants to strengthen Iran, and despite all his shortcomings, that's at least the one thing that he has going for him. If Moussavi really is a supporter of IRAN he would tell his followers "I will run again in 4 years. For now though, let's do our best to support the government and try to fix our economy and support the democratic process" .
Xeris wrote: Now again. I think that people are going too far talking about election rigging. It's hard to rig 12 million votes
What exactly are you basing this on? Is there a graph that shows the difficulty on the Y-scale and "votes to rig" on the X-scale?
You might have read books, written reports and what not and 90% of your family might live there. While that should make your opinion more valuable and less biased, it doesn't mean that you are "just right".
My family's been in Iranian politics for more than 40 years.
Xeris wrote: But really, what do people expect? Incumbent's have never lost in Iran. Despite what many believe, Ahmadinejad is wildly popular, not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East as well (among people).
That's obvious. Anyone hating America can be successful in an area with people who have no reason to not hate America. Even I "dislike" America and the far majority of Americans (not all). The country/government for what it's done and its people for what they've let their government do.
On June 15 2009 03:11 Jibba wrote: From my uninformed point of view, it seems possible that Ahmadinejad was poised to win the election (and probably did win it legitimately) but there was panic up top when Mousavi made his announcement and as a result voting fraud did take place, accounting for some of the strange polling numbers. Obviously there's corruption taking place with censorship and so on, but Mousavi's supporters also need to learn that you don't judge the merit of an election based on whether your candidate wins or loses.
I think he said that because the very first few results that came in showed him with an advantage so he thought that trend would continue.
I think it quite hard for Mousavi to state he will run again in 4 years when he is under house arrest, his organizers are being arrested, and frankly the statement by the President.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declined Sunday to guarantee the safety of his defeated rival Mir Hossein Moussavi in response to a question from CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour.
"There is rule of law in this country and all the people are equal before the law," Ahmadinejad said when Amanpour asked if he would guarantee Moussavi's safety. She also asked why opposition leaders had been arrested.
"In a soccer match, people may become excited and there may be confrontation between the people and the police force. People who violate traffic regulations will be fined by the police no matter who he is. These are not problems," Ahmadinejad said.
I certainly would not feel comfort or even issue a statement about 4 years time when I'm not certain of tomorrow.
I must admit I was riding the foul-play-bandwagon until I read some of the retorts like one post above. It's so easy to believe what we're told in Western media, but hard to distinguish which version is the correct one. Guess keeping an open mind is all one can do.
On June 15 2009 03:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I think it quite hard for Mousavi to state he will run again in 4 years when he is under house arrest, his organizers are being arrested, and frankly the statement by the President.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declined Sunday to guarantee the safety of his defeated rival Mir Hossein Moussavi in response to a question from CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour.
"There is rule of law in this country and all the people are equal before the law," Ahmadinejad said when Amanpour asked if he would guarantee Moussavi's safety. She also asked why opposition leaders had been arrested.
"In a soccer match, people may become excited and there may be confrontation between the people and the police force. People who violate traffic regulations will be fined by the police no matter who he is. These are not problems," Ahmadinejad said.
I certainly would not feel comfort or even issue a statement about 4 years time when I'm not certain of tomorrow.
There's a reason Ahmadinejad avoided her question, because she's a bitch and just trying to stir up drama. Wtf question is "are you going to guarantee Moussavi's safety?", seriously? That just fuels the perception that Iran is some kind of authoritarian regime that silences dissidents at all costs (I'm not saying Iran doesn't do this to some extent). But what does that mean? Ya.. Ahmadinejad is going to have Moussavi killed. Sure.
I don't believe the Moussavi under house arrest story either.
On June 15 2009 03:20 foeffa wrote: I must admit I was riding the foul-play-bandwagon until I read some of the retorts like one post above. It's so easy to believe what we're told in Western media, but hard to distinguish which version is the correct one. Guess keeping an open mind is all one can do.
so many people are and I'll argue against it until I'm blue in the face because it's MOST LIKELY not true. Western coverage has just been SOOOOOOOOOO biased.
Honestly I think that has a lot to do with it. An interesting thing I found when I was working on my thesis is that many Arab governments are afraid of Iran and see it as a threat, but all the Arab people are very supportive, especially of Ahmadinejad because they see him as a figure who is not afraid to stand up to Western powers. That's what a lot of his popularity is based off of, even domestically.
He did a shitty job with the economy and many of his domestic policies were far from being notably good, but what he has done is fought against the West. Today many Middle Easterners still have a profound dislike/mistrust of the United States, and hatred towards England. Ahmadinejad being a person who is not afraid to tell them to go fuck themselves makes him really popular, unfortunately.
Mousavi has made a statement: "Ahmadinejad has had his big rally for his followers. I request a permit for the same. If I do not receive permission for a rally tomorrow, I will take refuge at Khomieni's shrine. This will cause much unrest and the political turmoil."
Some of the Ayatolla will probably join the march from the Holy City of Ghoum (The center of Shiite Scholarship).
The following people have not been heard from since the election results. The Supreme leader, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Speak of the House (Majles). No one knows where they are.
University of Isfehan (one of the largest in Iran) 700 students protesting the election began rioting, breaking windows, furniture. Approx 300 Rev Guards moved in chasing students back to their dormitory where the police entered and began beating and arresting almost all the students. 100 students have been critically injured and taken to hospital, 500 suffered have minor injuries. Many escaped and are hiding.
first of all: I am uninformed and didn't follow the Iranian election until this thread came up I read some articles of "good" german and austrian newspapers
secondly: I read these articles and they didn't really convince me. It were only assumption, no facts. Xeris posts(even though I don't completely agree with them sometimes on general level - but I don't know this exact situation) and the blog entry seemed more logical.
the only thing that strikes me as odd is that (I hope have understood this) Mehdi Karroubi go from 17.24% down to 0.85%
maybe it's just me that I cannot imagine such a big loss for one party in such a short time is there some kind of explanation for this? I would really be interested in it
@ could any of you iranians or iraniana immigrants give me a good source where I can read a little bit about the life in your country? Can you go out at night? How are women treated? Are you allowed to drink alcohol? How is it in the other cities of the country, how in the rural areas?
PS: I think it's the worst thing to send foreign press away , honeslty that's much worse than bad articles in newspapers (they are not all that negative btw) It's the worst sign you can give the world imo
Just got off the phone with my dad. He leaves in northern Tehran, off Afrika Blvd.
He said that most iranians believe that a lot of the "commandos" on the bikes are Hezbollah arabs brought in to do to the citizens what a Persian cop would refuse to do. Accordingly when the protesters knock one of the biker thugs off they are being particularly brutal, believing that the rider is Arab.
Also there are reports of Tanks in Tehran.
EDIT: UPDATE #1
Mousavi's wife speaking(?), cell phone footage so kind of slow.
Etherone wrote: some of you forgot Martin Luther King, and that peaceful protest can go a long way, although a much harder road to walk, it is a more righteous one, and one with less blood.
Yes, MLK's way is great, now all we need is someone willing to sacrifice himself and become a martyr. That's been the issue all along, the muslim world doesn't use martyrdom enough.
MamiyaOtaru wrote: That's democracy for you. The winner is the one with the most supporters, not the one whose supporters are more vocal, or university educated, or better connected with the West or whatever the case may be.
QFT, and that's why democracy is as retarded as monarchy, tyranny, dictatorship, republic and most other rules of government.
sith wrote: No kidding. I'm calling bullshit on the boycott of this thread based on that quote. It isn't even something fox news said, it's something THEY got from the government. And they really aren't THAT bad, despite how the internet hates them.
And THAT's where I stopped reading anything YOU write. ^^
You best be trollin'. If not...I have lost faith in humanity.
And whats with the liberal/conservative confusion? If you're not from America I can kinda understand, but let me lay it down for you.
Fox News: CONSERVATIVE news source in America, at least comparatively to other media like CNN and stuff (which is more liberal leaning usually). Huffington Post: as LIBERAL as you can get.
If Fox News claimed that they present the news from a conservative perspective, then I think a lot of people wouldn't have as much beef with them as they do now. But for a long time, their entire marketing spiel was that they're "fair and balanced," when they clearly aren't. By contrast, Huffington Post is unabashedly liberal and doesn't try to hide it.
Back on topic, this is the most exciting potential regime change since the fall of the Soviet Union. I can't wait to see how it turns out. Finally, America's terrible mistake in 1951 will be fixed once and for all.
ballets cast - 37.4 million (81%) Spoilt ballets - 600,000 (1.6%) Mir Hossein Mousavi - 21.3 million (57.2%) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - 10.5 million (28%) Mohsen Rezaei - 2.7 million (7.2%) Mehdi Karrubi - 2.2 million (6%)
No idea if that is what actually being said on that page or not.
Also reports of Guards not allowing wounded into Hospitals. Also some are reporting the invasion of the University forces used teargas and many injured, as well some Students dead.
wow bringing in foreign troops to support the government seems pretty desperate. I'm surprised these protest are still on going. These things especially when mostly backed by young adults seem to lose momentum quickly in the west.
WTF!Just woke up and saw some anti-riot polices breaking car windows to blame protests for it! Read same news from others areas on Twitter!
Tehran seems to have gone quite, I read, where people going to work or just tired or Revolutionizing. No idea if the general strike scheduled for tomorrow is still supported.
On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote: Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh
did you read anything in the thread before you posted?
On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote: Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh
Yeah the riots are all because of the Western media and/or CIA.
On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote: Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh
lol what the hell are you talking about?
Even if Ahmadinejad won fairly, the protests and responses should tell you that he shouldn't rule. I'm not much a fan of democracy in the best of times, however, the voting process seems hardly as transparent as it is here in the states (where voter fraud does still happen, but can only happen on much smaller scale. Though the elections are tighter, too in the US).
Its not like i know much of anything about his opponent other than he seems more moderate and more willing to negotiate with the United States and Europe. But anytime you can get someone who is a holocaust denier, who trying to develop a nuclear program out of power, and who has the support of religious fundamentalists, it can only be a good thing.
sith wrote: And whats with the liberal/conservative confusion? If you're not from America I can kinda understand, but let me lay it down for you.
Here's the thing though. I'll admit I don't watch FOX News daily, which yes DOES mean, that the bits I get from say the Daily Show are there to make them seem retarded.
But: That doesn't mean they aren't retarded. You only have to kill 1 person to be a murderer, it's not something you need to be doing on a regular basis. FOX on the other hand do talk negative ignorant crap a lot. And don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting for MSNBC or anything like that. Being an extremist is retarded, it doesn't matter what extreme you're talking about.
As for the issue of democracy, it does suck and it is flawed. It works in theory where you're assuming that everyone's opinion is worth the same, that just isn't the case though. My opinion about Starcraft and how I might feel like Zerg is the weakest race doesn't make my opinion worth as much as the pros or the people who've been part of the community for many years.
Likewise, on one hand you might have someone who has no idea about the world, human rights and the world situation is. Now that person's vote counts for the same as an educated unbiased person who has looked at things from all angles and drawn conclusion from years of discussion and experience.
That's democracy, and THAT sir, is unbalanced and BS.
On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote: Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh
Haha, what're you talking about. Most American News Sources aren't reporting Jack Shit. They're reporting riots - but they won't move on it because they're either kicked out or threatened. DailyKoS doesn't represent western media in the slightest. When NPR or AP makes a statement about it then you'll know. BBC is an international news source and Iranians were posting about it - now their using Twitter and youtube videos to report.
As for the issue of democracy, it does suck and it is flawed. It works in theory where you're assuming that everyone's opinion is worth the same, that just isn't the case though. My opinion about Starcraft and how I might feel like Zerg is the weakest race doesn't make my opinion worth as much as the pros or the people who've been part of the community for many years.
Likewise, on one hand you might have someone who has no idea about the world, human rights and the world situation is. Now that person's vote counts for the same as an educated unbiased person who has looked at things from all angles and drawn conclusion from years of discussion and experience.
That's democracy, and THAT sir, is unbalanced and BS.
I'll ignore the first part of your post because comparing opinions and experience isn't what democracy is.
A democracy only works if the population is educated and well equipped to make a decision - that much is a given - but if a population isn't educated in any form of government then they're fucked from the get go so it is moot point.
What you are describing is something called mob rule - which the US solved through slow Bureaucracy (yes not being able to get anything done does allow for the mob not to act completely irrational at a moments notice) and state rights (obviously one states opinion will not completely influence another which is something you described).
I'm not advocating democracy is the best for everyone - but this is a topic about Iran which just held elections which means that they're attempting to be democratic. What they're protesting over is being in a fraudulently democracy. Whether or not this is true isn't up for me to say with great certainty.
I will say one thing, only as basic observation - higher turnouts usually favor reform.
On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote: Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh
lol what the hell are you talking about?
Even if Ahmadinejad won fairly, the protests and responses should tell you that he shouldn't rule. I'm not much a fan of democracy in the best of times, however, the voting process seems hardly as transparent as it is here in the states (where voter fraud does still happen, but can only happen on much smaller scale. Though the elections are tighter, too in the US).
Its not like i know much of anything about his opponent other than he seems more moderate and more willing to negotiate with the United States and Europe. But anytime you can get someone who is a holocaust denier, who trying to develop a nuclear program out of power, and who has the support of religious fundamentalists, it can only be a good thing.
Uh no?
1) The protests just tell you that there's a bunch of angry kids who couldn't accept the loss. It's in large part the fault of Moussavi for not being a gracious loser.
2) Since when does the transparency have to be the same as in the USA? Just a thought... just because a country doesn't have the same political system as us doesn't make it bad.
3) Ahmadinejad isn't trying to develop a nuclear program out of power.
4) Do you even know what a religious fundamentalist is? You should read up on the origin of the word fundamentalist before ascribing it to clerics in Iran.
5) What's wrong with having support of clerics? Iran is a religious country, that's just how it is. And on top of that, the people WANT it that way.
No offense. Despite the fact that all these random twitter postings are cute and all, you have to be able to see through their bias. These people claim they're being attacked for no reason, that's bullshit.
If these morons weren't out on the streets violently protesting there wouldn't be this kind of violence.
On June 15 2009 10:25 fearus wrote: Wow the western media has done a real hit job on this. You preach democracy and freedom, then cry foul and cheat when you lose by a landslide.
sighhh
lol what the hell are you talking about?
Even if Ahmadinejad won fairly, the protests and responses should tell you that he shouldn't rule. I'm not much a fan of democracy in the best of times, however, the voting process seems hardly as transparent as it is here in the states (where voter fraud does still happen, but can only happen on much smaller scale. Though the elections are tighter, too in the US).
Its not like i know much of anything about his opponent other than he seems more moderate and more willing to negotiate with the United States and Europe. But anytime you can get someone who is a holocaust denier, who trying to develop a nuclear program out of power, and who has the support of religious fundamentalists, it can only be a good thing.
Uh no?
1) The protests just tell you that there's a bunch of angry kids who couldn't accept the loss. It's in large part the fault of Moussavi for not being a gracious loser.
2) Since when does the transparency have to be the same as in the USA? Just a thought... just because a country doesn't have the same political system as us doesn't make it bad.
3) Ahmadinejad isn't trying to develop a nuclear program out of power.
4) Do you even know what a religious fundamentalist is? You should read up on the origin of the word fundamentalist before ascribing it to clerics in Iran.
5) What's wrong with having support of clerics? Iran is a religious country, that's just how it is. And on top of that, the people WANT it that way.
I really respect your level headedness here so I'll just respond with what I know.
1) I don't know. I mean yes, most of the reports of violence have come from university grounds but I have seen videos of older men and women in the protest/riot crowds. Just for the record - riots are not a clear way to anything. Protests and Revolutions are one thing, but riots are not 'country first' so that is my poisition.
2) Transparency would stop riots/protests. Transparency can stop the spread of mis-information which could very well what could've stopped all these protests before they began.
3) I'm not going to comment on Geo-Politics, we're not in this mans head.
4) While I know what a religious fundamentalist is the comment was at the person you're quoting so I'll ignore that point for now. I don't know much about the Council enough myself to have a position on the matter, but theocracies just leave bad tastes in my mouth after seeing some States in the US practice it to a small extent.
5) Nothing is wrong with the support of the Clerics by itself. Political runners get Religious backing in the US pretty often - but when the Clerics run part of the government them self is when it comes to question. It is no different when say if...The US Supreme Court outright backed one candidate over another. While this was almost the case in 2000 it never really happened, but if it had happened, there'd public outcry here. The different Branches of Government should never enter twine. (The US Congress as a whole will never back a candidate, just individuals within it) Just for the record, I have nothing against the Theocratic branch of government Iran holds - but it shouldn't enter twine with the public servant position of it otherwise this is when legality comes into question.
I suppose I'll interject my own opinion it so that I don't appear to be hiding behind a curtain. - The Votes were counted too fast for such a large turnout - Normal Secular voters weren't voting as expected ( I know expectation is opinion but it is mine to hold) - The winner of the election has almost downplayed the protest as childish which doesn't help anyone's cause - Right after the election some services seemed to be cut and reporters expelled - which is eerily reminiscent of what happened in China in '89. So personally, I believe foul play happened - but not enough to warrant what is going on. If the people wanted, they could wait 4 (is it 4 per term, I honestly don't know) and try again. I doubt foul play would happen when there is no incumbent. They can't fool people twice.
1) How can you say the votes were counted too fast for the turnout? You realize that for our Presidential election that had many millions more votes cast we knew the results about 3-4 hours after polls closed? Although I don't know when the final results were posted; I had checked friday (PST) at about 1pm which and there were no results reported and polling was going on for another hour or so, and then I didn't see the official results until 7am Saturday morning (my time). So that's a pretty good amount of time.
2) Where are your statistics to back up that claim? I haven't seen any data that breaks down votes by whether people call themselvs religious or secular.
3) The reason Ahmadinejad is downplaying the protests is because he doesn't want any attention being drawn to it because he wants to move FORWARD and start his new term rather than being held back by these angry Moussavi supporters.
4) The reason services are being cut and reporters expelled is because what's going on isn't HELPING anything. a) Protesters are using media to propagate and fuel further protests and b) the Media is overhyping all the protests to make the government seem like some evil oppressive villain. If I was in charge of the government I'd tell the reporters to gtfo too; it's none of their business, and if they won't cover both sides of the story then they shouldn't cover it at all.
The protesters AND the media are taking advantage of the ignorance of people in order to draw more support. That's fucked up - most people don't understand the political or social situation in Iran well enough to make a judgment about who is right/wrong in this case, and they're being spoonfed shit by these guys that is jading public opinion. That's not journalism and it's no way to try and get the government to change.
Know what results from these activities? More violence and more oppression.
5) To your response to my first point. Obviously there aren't JUST kids out there protesting. In fact I was in Westwood today arguing with some Iranians who were protesting. There are women, old people, young people, etc... what they share in common is that they are Moussavi supporters. They felt cheated because Moussavi didn't win. Moussavi could put this all to rest if he told his supporters to STOP. He is losing credibility by doing what he's doing and he's going to fuck everything up.
I mean honestly. It's fucked up how one bitter politician could potentially ruin the country in a drastic way just because he can't accept the results of an election. The longer this goes on the more respect I lose for Moussavi. I thought he was better than this.
Did Americans go out on the streets and start a bunch of violence when Al Gore lost? THAT election was rigged in a more fundamental way than Iran's election might have been. If we weren't out on the streets fighting then what gives Iranians any right to do that? You can't let an election result mess up the democratic process as a whole, that tarnishes the legitimacy of the state.
If a largely free and fair election can't even be honored, what incentive does the government have to run free elections anymore? This will only lead to more authoritarianism and less democracy. If the Moussavi supporters are trying to cause Iran to lose all the progress it's made in the last 20 years because of their petty anger, then they're about to do a really good job.
1) How can you say the votes were counted too fast for the turnout? You realize that for our Presidential election that had many millions more votes cast we knew the results about 3-4 hours after polls closed? Although I don't know when the final results were posted; I had checked friday (PST) at about 1pm which and there were no results reported and polling was going on for another hour or so, and then I didn't see the official results until 7am Saturday morning (my time). So that's a pretty good amount of time.
2) Where are your statistics to back up that claim? I haven't seen any data that breaks down votes by whether people call themselvs religious or secular.
3) The reason Ahmadinejad is downplaying the protests is because he doesn't want any attention being drawn to it because he wants to move FORWARD and start his new term rather than being held back by these angry Moussavi supporters.
4) The reason services are being cut and reporters expelled is because what's going on isn't HELPING anything. a) Protesters are using media to propagate and fuel further protests and b) the Media is overhyping all the protests to make the government seem like some evil oppressive villain. If I was in charge of the government I'd tell the reporters to gtfo too; it's none of their business, and if they won't cover both sides of the story then they shouldn't cover it at all.
The protesters AND the media are taking advantage of the ignorance of people in order to draw more support. That's fucked up - most people don't understand the political or social situation in Iran well enough to make a judgment about who is right/wrong in this case, and they're being spoonfed shit by these guys that is jading public opinion. That's not journalism and it's no way to try and get the government to change.
Know what results from these activities? More violence and more oppression.
5) To your response to my first point. Obviously there aren't JUST kids out there protesting. In fact I was in Westwood today arguing with some Iranians who were protesting. There are women, old people, young people, etc... what they share in common is that they are Moussavi supporters. They felt cheated because Moussavi didn't win. Moussavi could put this all to rest if he told his supporters to STOP. He is losing credibility by doing what he's doing and he's going to fuck everything up.
1) This is still the largest counted and one of the fastest verified. I was under the knowledge that verification usually is a longer process in Iran.
2) I suppose I was playing this one too much like American Politics, but I read history about the loser's home town not voting as it normally would. That much I can't attest too.
3) It is a decision of unity - it makes the losers angrier, which begets more childishness. Yes I know it is foolhardy, but a simple plea to the losers after an election is more then a formality it puts country first. I read a translated quote that he equated these riots to something you'd find after a Soccer Game. Now I don't support the riots, but that just seems belittling to a good portion of the country.
4) They are trying to cover both side. Most of the Western Media reported how big Ahmadinejad's rally was. What can they expect to do. The protesters will be fueled by the fact they have to use proxy and go to the Western Media and shout, "see, see what they've made us do". They have no ground to stand on if the government had held the higher moral ground. All the west is able to rely on is the reports of these small first hand accounts which we know is utter BS.
Like I said, I don't back riots, and I know that it just makes those in charge just push harder down on the populace but you need to look back at the cause still first. It is like the Kent State riots in the USA. Not only did the government stop its clamp down of students, but Nixon heard their demands. There hasn't been a major incident like that since.
5) I agree with you there. He is being a sore loser. I'm not sure if he is allowed to Challenge the results like Gore did in 2000 which is probably leading to a lot of frustration in some people who are fed up. Like I said, I know it is only a small portion who is fed up - but in a good democracy, even a minority has to be protected.
On June 15 2009 16:34 Xeris wrote: I mean honestly. It's fucked up how one bitter politician could potentially ruin the country in a drastic way just because he can't accept the results of an election. The longer this goes on the more respect I lose for Moussavi. I thought he was better than this.
Did Americans go out on the streets and start a bunch of violence when Al Gore lost? THAT election was rigged in a more fundamental way than Iran's election might have been. If we weren't out on the streets fighting then what gives Iranians any right to do that? You can't let an election result mess up the democratic process as a whole, that tarnishes the legitimacy of the state.
If a largely free and fair election can't even be honored, what incentive does the government have to run free elections anymore? This will only lead to more authoritarianism and less democracy. If the Moussavi supporters are trying to cause Iran to lose all the progress it's made in the last 20 years because of their petty anger, then they're about to do a really good job.
God damn Iranians piss me off.
While I put some point into the last post about the Gore fiasco in 200, I'll make a bigger point here since you're trying to compare the 2. It is hard to compare a Republic Election with a Democractic Election. The US couldn't go out and riot like Iran is now - it wasn't our problem Florida caused the problem and we actually still to this day all have doubts in our mind if Florida can fairly hold elections, but is not other states to decide. We know it was rigged in Florida because 2 high Bush officials held office there, but legal options where all exhausted and gore couldn't win. American's were fighting against Florida's inability to hold proper elections but we couldn't do much more then that.
Is it comparable? Possibly - but the legal options were there for Gore to fight for the presidency (see the movie 'Recount' ) does that exist for Moussavi? I'm asking you for I don't know.
Xeris how can you be so sure the election was free and fair ? The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results. Expelling the media, shutting down communications with the outside world, and rejecting any investigation into the election is not the actions of a party that has nothing to fear. If they had won fair and square I could see using force to put down any violent riots, but you use the media to let the opposition and public at large know that they will have a chance to challenge the results peacefully. You don't kick them out and try to keep everyone in the dark. Ahmadinejad's is guilty of at best being are terrible leader or at worst a despot.
I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
On June 15 2009 17:04 InToTheWannaB wrote: The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results.
no I think it's mostly because we are all complacent
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote: I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
Ahmadinezhad's rivals have no faith that the Interior Ministry will respect the law and conduct a fair election. Mehdi Karrobi and Mir Hossein Moussavi suggested that a "committee for safeguarding the fairness of vote" supervise the election on behalf of the candidates, but the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council rejected the idea. It is not clear how much voting manipulation will occur on June 12, but it is abundantly clear that Iran's election procedures leave ample opportunity for massive voter fraud.
On June 15 2009 17:04 InToTheWannaB wrote: Xeris how can you be so sure the election was free and fair ? The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results. Expelling the media, shutting down communications with the outside world, and rejecting any investigation into the election is not the actions of a party that has nothing to fear. If they had won fair and square I could see using force to put down any violent riots, but you use the media to let the opposition and public at large know that they will have a chance to challenge the results peacefully. You don't kick them out and try to keep everyone in the dark. Ahmadinejad's is guilty of at best being are terrible leader or at worst a despot.
I'm not saying it was 100% free and fair, but I am saying that if there was any fraud or rigging, it wouldn't have changed the result. What evidence do you have to support any of your claims about Ahmadinejad? I don't even fucking like him but I'm smart enough to be able to look at his presidency in an objective manner and take both positives and negatives. He has not been a particularly good president, but in no way has he been what you claim. Let's look at it:
Terrible leader - that's simply false. In fact, if he's done anything right it has been his image as a leader. He is one of the most popular and recognizable figures not just in Iran but in the entire Middle East. He is seen as an anti-West champion who is leading his country to an increasing regional and world standing despite all the pressure from the West. If anything that makes him a GOOD leader. He has kept a simple lifestyle despite being extremely powerful, and has pursued a nuclear program even though the rest of the world doesn't want him to. Those are good qualities, so I'm not sure how you could claim he is a terrible leader.
He's done a lot of bad things - rolling back reforms, messing up the economy, and failing to distribute oil wealth to the people... but he's not as evil as people are making him out to be. He's a fervent nationalist.
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote: I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
Ahmadinezhad's rivals have no faith that the Interior Ministry will respect the law and conduct a fair election. Mehdi Karrobi and Mir Hossein Moussavi suggested that a "committee for safeguarding the fairness of vote" supervise the election on behalf of the candidates, but the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council rejected the idea. It is not clear how much voting manipulation will occur on June 12, but it is abundantly clear that Iran's election procedures leave ample opportunity for massive voter fraud.
from june 10th
Yes I'm aware of these factors. Again, this is why I am not claiming that the election was 100% free and fair, there was likely some kind of fraud, there ALWAYS is in Iranian elections, it's kind of an inescapable fact. HOWEVER, voter fraud on such a large scale would have been detected at some point. Not just after the results came in and people found out that Moussavi lost.
Here are the problems:
1) Moussavi's camp has not even explicitly given any sort of proof for election fraud. They've only made these claims like "oh, people KNOW who they voted for! there must have been fraud!!!".
2) None of the protesters or anyone else seems to have given any sort of hard proof that the election was fraudulent/rigged. In fact the best evidence supporting that theory (go back a few pages to the "statistical proof") was rebuked by an equally retarded analysis that can "show" that Obama winning the election was rigged.
3) Until someone can actually provide some sort of empirical claim for voter fraud, all these protests are pointless. Moussavi hasn't even given any real grounds for wanting to contest the election. He's basically just saying he's pissed at the result and he's "sure" there was fraud, but hasn't ever said a word about how specifically there might have been fraud. He talks about "the magicians behind the TV screens" but that's nothing more than rhetoric.
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote: I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
lol how can you say that? That's like saying Saddam Hussein really won his election because he had 100% of the vote lol. ITS SUCH A WIDE MARGIN OF VICTORY HOW CAN IT BE FAKE!!! Lets not even look into it lol. You are likely right and that there is no real way to investigate the results but shit. At least pay lip serves to it and calm people down.
Before anyone brings it up yes i know he ran against no one but the point remains the same
Quick story about rigged elections in Iran. Back during the time of the Shah my family (an uncle of mine) owned some land that the government wanted, aka Shah. So basically he was given a seat in the Majlis (my uncle) in exchange for selling the Shah the property. The funny thing was that they held a big party to celebrate my uncle's getting a seat on the Parliament (Majlis = parliament in Iran) before the election results were even announced.
People talk about corruption and stuff in Iran, but they don't realize that during the time of the Shah there was about 100x more corruption. That story that I just told you all can not happen in Iran today. Elections actually mean something in this country now, and the government understands this and does not want to fuck with the people, and therefore has a very small incentive to rig elections.
You all should go and read: Democracy in Iran by Vali Nasr if you want to learn more about why I'm very dubious that the election was rigged in any significant way.
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote: I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
lol how can you say that? That's like saying Saddam Hussein really won his election because he had 100% of the vote lol. ITS SUCH A WIDE MARGIN OF VICTORY HOW CAN IT BE FAKE!!! Lets not even look into it lol. You are likely right and that there is no real way to investigate the results but shit. At least pay lip serves to it and calm people down.
Before anyone brings it up yes i know he ran against no one but the point remains the same
That's not even a comparison. Iraq was a dictatorship, Iran is mostly democratic. Nice try. If you want to randomly interject into an argument you might try actually making reasonable and logical posts rather than coming with completely biased/wrong shit that for all we know you just pulled out of your ass.
I'm saying that if there was such mass-scale election fraud, people would have noticed it BEFOREHAND. The government didn't just mysteriously rig 12 million+ votes at the last second under everyone's noses. Remember, Western media was covering that shit in Iran for a little over a week, surely Christiane Amanpour would have sniffed out the election fraud if there was any long ago, right?!
Nope, didn't happen, because until the actual results came in nobody said a word about that shit.
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote: I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
This sort of thing leads to the same complacently that allowed Bush to win the 2000 election in a messed up Florida when he didn't even win the popular vote.
If you want to stop corruption you need to crack down on it no matter the amount. Now i'm not saying violent protests are the way to do that but rigging an election in ANY MANNER even if he won by 12 million votes can't be left unpunished or just forgotten because of the margin.
On June 15 2009 17:04 InToTheWannaB wrote: Xeris how can you be so sure the election was free and fair ? The only reason there was no riots in the US was because the opposition could challenge the results. Expelling the media, shutting down communications with the outside world, and rejecting any investigation into the election is not the actions of a party that has nothing to fear. If they had won fair and square I could see using force to put down any violent riots, but you use the media to let the opposition and public at large know that they will have a chance to challenge the results peacefully. You don't kick them out and try to keep everyone in the dark. Ahmadinejad's is guilty of at best being are terrible leader or at worst a despot.
I'm not saying it was 100% free and fair, but I am saying that if there was any fraud or rigging, it wouldn't have changed the result. What evidence do you have to support any of your claims about Ahmadinejad? I don't even fucking like him but I'm smart enough to be able to look at his presidency in an objective manner and take both positives and negatives. He has not been a particularly good president, but in no way has he been what you claim. Let's look at it:
Terrible leader - that's simply false. In fact, if he's done anything right it has been his image as a leader. He is one of the most popular and recognizable figures not just in Iran but in the entire Middle East. He is seen as an anti-West champion who is leading his country to an increasing regional and world standing despite all the pressure from the West. If anything that makes him a GOOD leader. He has kept a simple lifestyle despite being extremely powerful, and has pursued a nuclear program even though the rest of the world doesn't want him to. Those are good qualities, so I'm not sure how you could claim he is a terrible leader.
He's done a lot of bad things - rolling back reforms, messing up the economy, and failing to distribute oil wealth to the people... but he's not as evil as people are making him out to be. He's a fervent nationalist.
I was saying he a terrible leader or a despot because of the way he is handling this election. He could of just came before the media and told the public/opposition that they will have a chance to challenge the results, and people would of been alot calmer. That's what happens in nations that have free elections. His Soviet like actions are just pushing people to react violently.
If there is mass protest by the universities (aka the most educated groups), it seems likely there was fraud. I really don't know at all, but that's just my 2 cents.
* Early reports of mass resignations from Sharif Polytechnic University seem to be true. The summary I'm seeing on facebook reads as follows:
"Students from the Sharif Polytechnic University have organized a large protest on the university campus. As they tried to move the protest into the street, in order to march down the streets of Tehran, their exits and gates were blocked by the regime’s security guards and they were blocked from leaving the university grounds; at this juncture the students began to chant loudly and when the sound of their chanting was heard by passersby on the street, they began to gather by the thousands at the other side of the university gates. As reported by the human rights and democracy activists in Iran, the entire area was surrounded by the regime’s guards, who have begun to attack and beat the students and supporting demonstrators. Javan’eh Farda (Tomorrow’s Youth) website reported that, in a statement, 125 members of the Sharif Polytechnic University faculty have condemned the attacks on the students and have jointly announced their resignations, stating that until the time the people’s rights are given, they will neither appear in classes nor for any exams."
As I mentioned in comments earlier today, there are twitter reports that the main Iranian army told the Revolutionary Guard that it would not fire on Iranian citizens. This would square with the widespread reports indicating that the dissent-quellers involve many Arabic speakers. It's hypothesized that the regime is using Ansar-e Hezbollah forces to quell the protests.
Some hospitals were/are being surrounded by troops thereby preventing the injured from being taken care of.
Most or all Iranian news agencies appear to have been taken over by government forces.
Some are asking everyone to show their support for the Green Movement by wearing green on Tuesday.
ABC and NBC affiliates have had their film and cameras confiscated.
BBC has been ordered out of the country.
TehranBureau website has been gone for about half a day.
Mousavi and all other presidential challengers are apparently under house arrest.
Ayatollah Khomeini's granddaughter has reportedly been placed under arrest.
Ben Knight reports that the brother of former president Khatami has been arrested.
Reformist groups are reporting as many as 100 members arrested. Early information suggested that most of these arrests were made early, just after the election to try to decapitate potential protests. (This seems in line with SMS messaging being cut off before the elections and cell phone service going down more recently)
Tabnak, Mr.Rezaie's website, one of the candidates, just announced that Mousavi had a brief meeting with the supreme leader last night.
Here's an interesting comment left on 538's updated polling results:
I took a look at the spreadsheet another commenter linked to with the city reports and checked the frequency of all the last digits. In the Vietnam war, they faked body counts and this was statistically noticeable. Here are the counts:
All I know from Iran's politics is what I read in this thread + some other websites in these last few days. So please someone correct me if I'm mistaken. Which is highly likely. But this is what I've gathered so far:
- Ahmadinejad is against US foreign politics - Mousavi supports US foreign politics - Ahmadinejad won an election that was really expected to win by most Iranians - Western media accuses Ahmadinejad of fraud and says Mousavi was expected to win, and makes a big fuss about it
then - afraid of the media trying to ruin him. Ahmadinejad starts mass censoring - based on western media fraud accusations Mousavi protests and incentives supporters to protests, thus gets arrested - western media uses censorship, arrests and protests as fuel to pressure Ahmadinejad
I've been keeping a close eye on media reports of the election in Iran and it seemed to me that during the lead up to the election much of the media in Britain was reporting that Ahmadinejad was the strong favourite to win, although there was considerable interest in what the popularity of his opponent's relatively reformist agenda might tell us about Iran's future.
As far as my own experience of the coverage of the election goes, it was only on the day of the election itself that the media started to entertain the notion that Mousavi might have a real chance of winning.
Certainly the media in Britain now seems to have completely forgotten that it was predicting an Ahmadinejad victory.
As far as general consideration of the election goes, I think there is a strong tendency in the West to reason along the following lines: Ahmadinejad is a really bad guy so he cannot win, so if he does win then the election must have been rigged. This is obviously unsatisfactory thinking, and something people need to guard against.
Of course, I am open to reviewing any evidence of fraud.
On June 15 2009 17:06 Xeris wrote: I don't think there is really a legal avenue with which to dispute election results. If the situation was similar to Gore v. Bush in that it was something like 50.1% vs 49.9% with Ahmadinejad winning by a hair, and there being no formal method for contesting the results, THEN I could understand the frustration and bitterness.
The fact that he won by 12 MILLION votes leaves little doubt about the winner. You can't just make up that kind of shit in broad daylight. If you look at it, nobody was saying a word during the election process, people would have seen the signs of fraud if it was taking place on such a grand scale.
lol how can you say that? That's like saying Saddam Hussein really won his election because he had 100% of the vote lol. ITS SUCH A WIDE MARGIN OF VICTORY HOW CAN IT BE FAKE!!! Lets not even look into it lol. You are likely right and that there is no real way to investigate the results but shit. At least pay lip serves to it and calm people down.
Before anyone brings it up yes i know he ran against no one but the point remains the same
That's not even a comparison. Iraq was a dictatorship, Iran is mostly democratic. Nice try. If you want to randomly interject into an argument you might try actually making reasonable and logical posts rather than coming with completely biased/wrong shit that for all we know you just pulled out of your ass.
I'm saying that if there was such mass-scale election fraud, people would have noticed it BEFOREHAND. The government didn't just mysteriously rig 12 million+ votes at the last second under everyone's noses. Remember, Western media was covering that shit in Iran for a little over a week, surely Christiane Amanpour would have sniffed out the election fraud if there was any long ago, right?!
Nope, didn't happen, because until the actual results came in nobody said a word about that shit.
Why does it matter if Iran is mostly democratic and Iraq was a dictatorship? The point is that a large margin of victory does not mean the election was legit. As for your point that 12 million votes could not be rigged the day of an election. Well.... I really don't know how long it would take, or if it can be hidden from people. I have never tryed to rig an election before, but i am betting nether have you. So maybe someone should be aloud to investigate rather then just boldly proclaming it could not have possibly been done and he would of won anyway because you really just don't know do you?
On June 15 2009 17:55 VIB wrote: All I know from Iran's politics is what I read in this thread + some other websites in these last few days. So please someone correct me if I'm mistaken. Which is highly likely. But this is what I've gathered so far:
- Ahmadinejad is against US foreign politics - Mousavi supports US foreign politics - Ahmadinejad won an election that was really expected to win by most Iranians - Western media accuses Ahmadinejad of fraud and says Mousavi was expected to win, and makes a big fuss about it
then - afraid of the media trying to ruin him. Ahmadinejad starts mass censoring - based on western media fraud accusations Mousavi protests and incentives supporters to protests, thus gets arrested - western media uses censorship, arrests and protests as fuel to pressure Ahmadinejad
Am I correct?
your 3rd and 4th points are definitely up for debate / have little support
- Western media accuses Ahmadinejad of fraud and says Mousavi was expected to win, and makes a big fuss about it
wtf?
All i heard in western media before the actual results is that Ahmadinejad was expected to win but Mousavi has at least a chance / is doing better than most people would have thought.
On June 15 2009 17:40 travis wrote: If there is mass protest by the universities (aka the most educated groups), it seems likely there was fraud. I really don't know at all, but that's just my 2 cents.
Mate, this is the problem with this kind of democracy. It's all about the masses of uneducated people, not about the elites.
Of course, they are upset, because as far as i understand most educated people/elites voted for Moussavi instead of Ahmani-nejad. But that simply does not involve a real fraud.
VIB, yes, but it's nothing new.
And that comparison with Saddam... does it mean that if Saddam would have won elections it was fraud just because he was a "bad guy"? (in western vision). Also don't try and make a silly claim like that, 100% isn't anyway near 70-80% (which have been happening in many countries).
As for statistics, can anyone post the official statistics of the votes?
I don't understand you Xeris. You or your parents had to flee the current regime in Iran.
While you are getting an education and organizing SC tournaments, those people you condemn are, out of total desperation, risking their lives for your vote and your country. You are basically supporting Ahmadinejad. Why? You already gave up on Iran? Or do you plan to return? Not everyone has the luxury of leaving Iran to live elsewhere. In the mean time Iran is becoming the Zimbabwe of the middle east. Despite oil riches the economy has some of the worst inflation. People with university degrees can't get any jobs. And woman have little rights. Sure, not Saudi Arabia. But the Iranian people are different from those of Saudi Arabia.
Iran is being destroyed. All young educated people will leave if they have the chance. It's isolated in the world; Iran has no allies and that's exactly how Ahmadinejad wants it. That's why his supporters support him. And the economy is in freefall.
Change has to happen. But there is an authoritative government so they have to resist change or lose all power. Now these people are up against the famous Iranian paramilitary units. And you are angry at them? Why? Yes, stuff is being destroyed. People are hurt at both sides. But this has to happen. Authoritive regimes like this one cannot last. Especially not when the economy fails like it is doing now. Young men now have to fight for their votes. Even more so in a country where like 2/3rd is under 30 and the elite is trying to enforce Saudi Arabia style religious morals.
Yeah, its the US fault they were even able to get to power. But this is all ugly dirty business. Freedom you can only have with bloodshed. In every country where people have freedom many had to die.
It doesn't even mean if Ahmadinejad supporters are truly the majority. They can't oppress the more liberal thinking western oriented young people like they are doing now. They are forcing their religious way of life on others, not the other way around. If they can't then there will be violence. The more suppressive a regime, the more force is on it trying to pull it down. All these authoritative governments erode themselves and fall. And they always know this. That is why they are responding so desperately. And it works. Look at China. The only difference is that there Deng Xiaoping learned his lesson and only barely was able to do away with communist dogma and make China an oppressive state with impressive economic growth. Then freedom doesn't matter that much anymore. Ahmadinejad is more about dogma than anyone else. But it's better to ruin the country with Ahmadinejad than to have a revolution and lose all power.
If I were an Iranian I would seriously be very pissed off at what you say. You are there living your cosy life in the US, 'the arch enemy', and you tell them to just surrender and accept their fate. If not everyone supports the protest despite the risks and possible violence and destruction then it will never work. Imagine being there inside that university believing a revolution may be within reach while being besieged by some very hardline Ansar-e Hezbollah or Basij paramilitary units, all to eager to beat you up as close to death as they can if given the oppertunity. And then you read some stuff on the internet and you see all these American-Iranians condemning you. Angry for what you are doing to their country. I would call them traitors.
Oh, and all those people critical of democracy. You really need to think a lot harder about this. You can't have human rights without democracy. Yeah, it has some huge disadvantages. But without it there are no safety checks.
On June 15 2009 17:40 travis wrote: If there is mass protest by the universities (aka the most educated groups), it seems likely there was fraud. I really don't know at all, but that's just my 2 cents.
Mate, this is the problem with this kind of democracy. It's all about the masses of uneducated people, not about the elites.
I would expect if they were actually going out to protest the election as a fraud, they would have some sort of proof and/or it would be obvious.
- Western media accuses Ahmadinejad of fraud and says Mousavi was expected to win, and makes a big fuss about it
wtf?
All i heard in western media before the actual results is that Ahmadinejad was expected to win but Mousavi has at least a chance / is doing better than most people would have thought.
Quite. But I think you misunderstood at least part of Velr's point.
As I noted above, as far as I could tell the British media was predicting an Ahmadinejad victory right up to election day. That is, before the election. Now, in much of the British media at least, this has been consigned to the memory hole and the prevailing framework is that that Mousavi was expected to win.
You pay more attention. I said he is angry at those that are risking their life for his vote to be counted. Or at least that is what they believe.
What the true result has been doesn't even matter anymore. They probably made it look like it was rigged to trigger a response.
Yes he is basically supporting Ahmadinejad eventhough he voted for Mousavi. He is against a revolution. Even if Mousavi lost there should still be a revolution. Even those that agree with Ahmadinejad on every issue should support a revolution. Imagine the west somehow gets a new puppet in place. How are you going to get rid of it if you have such an oppressive government?
As for the actual result. No one knows.But if you compare it to last election, which was boycotted, then it makes sense for it to have been much closer. So many new people went out to vote. They didn't vote this time and not last time to vote for Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad got like 7 million more votes this time. That's like 42% more. You think denying the holocaust, offending the world and letting the economy get destroying got him so many new votes? Not saying he didn't win but it was made so to be obviously rigged.
And there are many reported irregularities and no international observers. Then when there are protests they respond the way they do. What can one say? Either it's a coup or they are very Incompetent.
How the hell would any of us be able to answer that with any certainty? But yeah sure, the people of Iran could all be complicit in some Yanqui plot, rioting at our beck and call.
Hahahaha, saying this election wasn't rigged is quite funny. Anyway doesn't matter. Iran with it's current structure is a piece of shit and quite backwards anyway. How is the economy going Mr blacksmith boy Ahmanazijad? Do you still enjoy hanging 18 year old boys for being homosexual? Are you still kissing that nazi beard of heil ayatollah? Still want to eradicate every last Jew in Israel? Got nukes yet to use them against Israel?
A person like Masouvi with a broad base among the more educated people of Iran could change things for the better. So if it was a fair election, the results are still rubbish. A holocaust denier, state destroyer, mass gay murderer, intolerant piece of shit should not be president of a nation with more than 70 million people and people rightfully so protest against that.
On June 15 2009 19:45 Glaucus wrote: As for the actual result. No one knows.But if you compare it to last election, which was boycotted, then it makes sense for it to have been much closer. So many new people went out to vote. They didn't vote this time and not last time to vote for Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad got like 7 million more votes this time. That's like 42% more. You think denying the holocaust, offending the world and letting the economy get destroying got him so many new votes? Not saying he didn't win but it was made so to be obviously rigged.
And there are many reported irregularities and no international observers. Then when there are protests they respond the way they do. What can one say? Either it's a coup or they are very Incompetent.
Ehh... I actually think denying the holocaust and attacking the west and Israel would get you more votes in Iran, especially if you constantly remind people it is the west that has imposed the sanctions and embargos on your country that has made the economy what it is and when has attacking israel ever hurt your political prospects in an islamic state?
Yes he is basically supporting Ahmadinejad eventhough he voted for Mousavi. He is against a revolution. Even if Mousavi lost there should still be a revolution. Even those that agree with Ahmadinejad on every issue should support a revolution. Imagine the west somehow gets a new puppet in place. How are you going to get rid of it if you have such an oppressive government?
He's for stability, because the country is moving in a positive direction and the claims of Mousavi's supporters are unsupported up to this point. The people making the claims of rigging, aside from a few dots like Cole, are completely unfamiliar with Iranian politics and are making terrible assumptions as if they operate just like domestic US politics. And hell, Gore didn't win his home state either, but that was never levied as evidence of fraud, even when the election results were extremely questionable.
So many new people went out to vote. They didn't vote this time and not last time to vote for Ahmadinejad.
New people, in select areas. Ahmadinejad lost in Tehran (the Interior Ministry reported this) but won most everywhere else.
You think denying the holocaust, offending the world and letting the economy get destroying got him so many new votes?
I think we know the extent of your prior knowledge about Iran and Ahmadinejad. That is, none.
And there are many reported irregularities and no international observers. Then when there are protests they respond the way they do. What can one say? Either it's a coup or they are very Incompetent.
Are you criticizing the government's response or the election or what? There's no smoking gun between one and the other. This was the most progressive election in Iran's history, but the one of the points of democracy is to settle power transfers without violence. For it to work, people need to accept it when their candidate doesn't win. His policies might be terrible, but Ahmadinejad is by far the best politican of the lot. http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=37609&t=1&c=62&cg=4&mset
Now, we can do statistical analyses to find irregularities, but those can be manipulated fairly easily as well, just based on the very simple numbers we've gotten to see so far, like the analysis of 0s up above. You need to look much further and those numbers haven't been released yet.
An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."
My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Hahahaha, saying this election wasn't rigged is quite funny.
No, it's not... it's exactly in times like this when noone knows the whole truth, and things have to be taken with a grain of salt. Remember the venezuelan election.
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Do you still enjoy hanging 18 year old boys for being homosexual?
I don't like this, but listing it together with other statements doesn't make them true. Like this doesn't mean the election was rigged, for instance.
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Still want to eradicate every last Jew in Israel?
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Got nukes yet to use them against Israel?
You do know that Israel has way more nukes than Iran could ever make, don't you? And that they've thretened their neighbours with military attacks many times?
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: A person like Masouvi with a broad base among the more educated people of Iran could change things for the better. So if it was a fair election, the results are still rubbish. A holocaust denier, state destroyer, mass gay murderer, intolerant piece of shit should not be president of a nation with more than 70 million people and people rightfully so protest against that.
I don't really like how he is handling this situation at all, or the hanging of homosexual people, but the fact that someone like him can get elected if the people want him (and the hanging of homosexuals seems to be an accepted part of the iranian culture) still gives me hope in democracy.
Glaucus, Xeris does not support Ahmadinejad, please carefully read his messages. He is calling for a more objective state of view, not the pure biased western one.
Strafe, i'm sure Iran would be much better with Massouvi, but that's simply not up to us, it's up to the iranian people. And unless there are found real proofs of the election being rigged, it's the same as saying that the US elections were rigged.
Let's not judge by double standards, that's what most do and it sucks. There's that democratic justice principle of innocent until proved guilty.
Ahmadinejad: Now is the time for friendship TEHRAN, June 14 (MNA) – To heal the rifts between supporters of different candidates, Ahmadinejad, who was declared the winner of Friday’s presidential election, said it is time for “friendship”.
“The elections are over and now it is time for friendship and cooperation,” Ahmadinejad told a press conference on Sunday.
He said in his second term as president he will focus on economic development.
On reports that his rivals have questioned the fairness of presidential votes, he said elections in Iran are held in a “transparent way”.
He added he is asking his rivals why they question the result of the election in which about 40 million people took part and determined the fate of the country in the four years ahead.
“I still have seen no document for their claims,” the president stated.
Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who came second in the presidential polls, and Mahdi Karroubi have claimed there was election fraud.
That fact that some have protested the results of election is natural since they had launched an intensive campaign and hoped to be the winners of the election, the president explained.
He also said the 24 million people who voted for him in Friday’s presidential election said “no” to foreigners’ interference.
Ahmadinejad went on to say that in the 2005 presidential election, which he won, was held by those persons who are now protesting the results of the elections.
He likened the presidential race to a football match in which there is losers and winners.
President Ahmadinejad said the Guardian Council, as an independent body, is ready to seriously investigate the complaints by the rivals.
He stated the differences in the number of votes that each candidate has received are so great that there is no question about the fairness of election.
In a speech among his supporters who had gathered in Vali-Asr Square in Tehran to celebrate his election victory, Ahmadinejad also said the people’s main demand from the government is to lower inflation, implement justice, and curb corruption.
Democracy sucks and should not exist in underdeveloped countries, such as Iran who have too many uneducated people. Democracy only worked in western Europe at the start, because voting was limited to the upper class and gradually everyone was allowed to vote. This should be the start for other countries as well. Giving popular vote all at once usually has disastrous consequences. It results in people like Ahmynazijad getting elected. It's for example when you suddenly give the entire uneducated black population voting rights in South Africa. Look what good that did lolz.
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Hahahaha, saying this election wasn't rigged is quite funny.
No, it's not... it's exactly in times like this when noone knows the whole truth, and things have to be taken with a grain of salt. Remember the venezuelan election.
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Got nukes yet to use them against Israel?
You do know that Israel has way more nukes than Iran could ever make, don't you? And that they've thretened their neighbours with military attacks many times?
On June 15 2009 21:30 {ToT}Strafe wrote: A person like Masouvi with a broad base among the more educated people of Iran could change things for the better. So if it was a fair election, the results are still rubbish. A holocaust denier, state destroyer, mass gay murderer, intolerant piece of shit should not be president of a nation with more than 70 million people and people rightfully so protest against that.
I don't really like how he is handling this situation at all, or the hanging of homosexual people, but the fact that someone like him can get elected if the people want him (and the hanging of homosexuals seems to be an accepted part of the iranian culture) still gives me hope in democracy.
Israel is really small and 1 nuke already threatens the entire country. AFAIK it is what he said repeatedly to whipe out the Jewish Zion state.
The fact that hanging of homosexuals is a integrated part of Iranian culture, gives me no hope for democracy at all.
It is possible this election was rigged by false counting of the results.
It is also possible that Ahmadinejad is significantly more popular than Mousavi and the vote count is broadly accurate.
The latter is the prima facie position because we have election figures to support it, and it's perfectly consistent with the anecdotal evidence available, given the obvious pro-Mousavi bias in the sources used and reported by our press and media. If we are to declare that there has been a false count, we need a reasonably strong case to base it upon, particularly as the consequence is likely to be violence. There is no such strong case made out as yet, and the Iranian opposition and our press and media are profoundly irresponsible (or in many cases undoubtedly maliciously motivated) in declaring fraud proven and inciting hotheads to go out and riot.
The strongest indication towards possible fraud seems to be the speed of the count. That needs to be explained (and quite possibly can be - I don't know).
Other arguments put forward for rigging are more doubtful and require considerable research and analysis: -
- statistical regularity or otherwise in results or reporting (much more information and analysis required, if trustworthy bodies can be found to do it)
- speculation that Ahmadinejad's results were too good in particular areas, or too consistent across the nation (but he was Mayor of Tehran and won it in 2005, and had very strong supporters' rallies in both Tehran and Tabriz, I understand, plus this was a highly polarised, high turnout election reportedly more on class lines than reformer/hardliner lines, and it wouldn't be at all surprising if voting patterns shifted a lot to become more consistent nationally, based upon class distinctions rather than past ethnic or reform/hardliner lines)
- surprisingly poor numbers for the two minor candidates (but you would expect them to get "squeezed" in such a highly charged contest)
Many of the claimed pieces of "evidence" for fraud are simply based upon either subjective fantasy (the idea that most of the 2005 non-voters were mostly pro-reform people who would be expected to vote for Mousavi this time round) or simple error (all the minor repressive actions - closing off SMS etc before the elections, post election security measures such as arresting opposition figures, banning demonstrations, etc, are sensible precautions against the inevitable US-funded attempt to organise post-election "colour revolution"-style unrest to destabilise the regime).
On June 15 2009 22:36 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Democracy sucks and should not exist in underdeveloped countries, such as Iran who have too many uneducated people. Democracy only worked in western Europe at the start, because voting was limited to the upper class and gradually everyone was allowed to vote. This should be the start for other countries as well. Giving popular vote all at once usually has disastrous consequences. It results in people like Ahmynazijad getting elected. It's for example when you suddenly give the entire uneducated black population voting rights in South Africa. Look what good that did lolz.
Yes, well, you don't win your first iccup games when you start playing starcraft, but this doesn't mean you should stop playing altogether. The US, a first-world country, did elect Bush for his second term, so I'm not sure education has anything to do with intelligence or common sense when I look at it this way.
The thing with democracy is not that the right choices will always be made, not at all, but democracy does get a country the president their population collectively deserve and want, and if that is to be a complete moron, then so be it.
On June 15 2009 22:36 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Democracy sucks and should not exist in underdeveloped countries, such as Iran who have too many uneducated people. Democracy only worked in western Europe at the start, because voting was limited to the upper class and gradually everyone was allowed to vote. This should be the start for other countries as well. Giving popular vote all at once usually has disastrous consequences. It results in people like Ahmynazijad getting elected. It's for example when you suddenly give the entire uneducated black population voting rights in South Africa. Look what good that did lolz.
This is ridiculous. You have no knowledge to back up any of this, and you're basically just spewing uninformed shit from your mouth because you're upset about the result. First your problem was fraud, now your problem is that Iranians aren't "educated" enough to have democracy. Give us all a break and shut the hell up.
And wiping Israel off the map was a mistranslation of farsi, because all the Western media outlets combined have about -5 farsi speakers. The original BBC translators have even rescinded their original translation but that's gone completely unreported outside of a few Guardian articles.
The most ridiculous thing about this is Hezbollah's loss in Lebanon was a surprise to everyone, in a voting system that we know for a fact is unfair, yet there's barely any coverage of what went on or that those "dirty Islamists" peacefully accepted defeat. In Iran, where the expected happened, 200,000,000 unqualified sources have come out of nowhere to declare voter fraud.
On June 15 2009 22:36 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Democracy sucks and should not exist in underdeveloped countries, such as Iran who have too many uneducated people. Democracy only worked in western Europe at the start, because voting was limited to the upper class and gradually everyone was allowed to vote.This should be the start for other countries as well. Giving popular vote all at once usually has disastrous consequences. It results in people like Ahmynazijad getting elected. It's for example when you suddenly give the entire uneducated black population voting rights in South Africa. Look what good that did lolz.
That was the general thinking in the United States during the late 18th century. To have the educated (or intellectuals, wealthy) make decisions for those who were less fortunate (not educated, poor).
discussion on npr right now on iran elections if anyone is interested, also live on www.drshow.org. good discussion so far, they also have a woman from tehran on the phone.
I don't know much about Iranian politics, but Mousavi was hyped up by most western news channels as an Iranian version of Obama. Apparently he was only popular in Tehran but not in the rest of the other provinces/states
You people are so disgusting drawing at any straw to defend a totalitairian regime from your nice western country. Even launching into ad hominim attacks to be able to do so. Why? I get the feeling you people would defend any regime in power just because of them having power. All out of pure narcissism and spite. Iran is inherently unstable to way it's run. And you are underestimating the Iranian voters. The people of Iran are paying the price for Ahmadinejad's image. Then he can brag while the people suffer the consequences. Yes, people vote against their interests. But saying Mousavi has no support but in Tehran is silly. When journalists went out of Tehran secret prolice was sure to stage interviews so they would talk to only Ahmadinejad supporters. Ahmadinejad provoces the Mousavi supporters at every oppertunity he can get, riciduling then and daring them to protest so he can violently crack down on them.
You people don't deserve the freedom you have here in the west. Good thing I don't have to fight for freedom with you immoral weaklings on my side.
On June 15 2009 23:09 Jibba wrote: The most ridiculous thing about this is Hezbollah's loss in Lebanon was a surprise to everyone, in a voting system that we know for a fact is unfair, yet there's barely any coverage of what went on or that those "dirty Islamists" peacefully accepted defeat. In Iran, where the expected happened, 200,000,000 unqualified sources have come out of nowhere to declare voter fraud.
Uhm, your point is a little strange.
Yes the Lebanon election was *nice* and *quiet*. That was in the news, the result is in the news... What shall the news agencies do? Create some stories about it just because they could? I bet you don't get big news coverage of swiss or other elections in small countries that went just fine and are not really important on a global scale/to your country?
Iran is more important to the west, it's way bigger, it's president is *controversal* (at best) and there are actually big scale demonstrations/riots happening.
Really strange that the news are more over Iran than over Libanon (a country that probably would never be mentionet in most media if not for it's neighbour Israel).
Glaucus, after the last post... i don't really know what to say. Are you american? Because i'd bet a big bunch of money you are after the last line you wrote, and not the smart american we usually find on tl.net.
You people are so disgusting drawing at any straw to defend a totalitairian regime from your nice western country. Even launching into ad hominim attacks to be able to do so.
You simply have a pure subjective view on this, only able to think through your cultural paradigm, not being able to move from it one inch. I don't see you are able to correctly analyze the so called "defender" posts as well. Maybe you've been left alone in front of a tv for too long.
You haven't even understood that people who you see are defending "totalitarism" (which ain't the case in iran) are actually defending "democracy", which relies on accepting the winner of the elections be it someone you like or dislike, being able to accept the majority's decision.
And you are underestimating the Iranian voters. The people of Iran are paying the price for Ahmadinejad's image. Then he can brag while the people suffer the consequences. Yes, people vote against their interests.
How do you know that the iranian people are voting against their interests? That's nothing but a big absurdity. People always vote according to their interests. I bolded that because you need to understand that THEIR interest does not have to correspond with YOUR interest.
When journalists went out of Tehran secret prolice was sure to stage interviews so they would talk to only Ahmadinejad supporters.
So you throw out claims like that... how about if the journalists actually staged their interviews that they would only talk to Moussavi supporters? That seems even more likely than your theory since the western media has always been creating a very negative image on ahamninejad and iran as a whole.
You people don't deserve the freedom you have here in the west.
So by your understanding, being free means being free to think as you. Then indeed, maybe we do not deserve being free.
I can't say what the truth is with all the misinformation flying around, but I can relay some view points from other sources...
The annoying thing is no matter what viewpoint you believe, you can find some evidence to support it. I guess time is the only way out of this.
Here's Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick's analysis of the situation.
Iran's political coup
If the reports coming out of Tehran about an electoral coup are sustained, then Iran has entered an entirely new phase of its post-revolution history. One characteristic that has always distinguished Iran from the crude dictators in much of the rest of the Middle East was its respect for the voice of the people, even when that voice was saying things that much of the leadership did not want to hear.
In 1997, Iran’s hard line leadership was stunned by the landslide election of Mohammed Khatami, a reformer who promised to bring rule of law and a more human face to the harsh visage of the Iranian revolution. It took the authorities almost a year to recover their composure and to reassert their control through naked force and cynical manipulation of the constitution and legal system. The authorities did not, however, falsify the election results and even permitted a resounding reelection four years later. Instead, they preferred to prevent the president from implementing his reform program.
In 2005, when it appeared that no hard line conservative might survive the first round of the presidential election, there were credible reports of ballot manipulation to insure that Mr Ahmadinejad could run (and win) against former president Rafsanjani in the second round. The lesson seemed to be that the authorities might shift the results in a close election but they would not reverse a landslide vote.
The current election appears to repudiate both of those rules. The authorities were faced with a credible challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had the potential to challenge the existing power structure on certain key issues. He ran a surprisingly effective campaign, and his “green wave” began to be seen as more than a wave. In fact, many began calling it a Green Revolution. For a regime that has been terrified about the possibility of a “velvet revolution,” this may have been too much.
On the basis of what we know so far, here is the sequence of events starting on the afternoon of election day, Friday, June 12.
* Near closing time of the polls, mobile text messaging was turned off nationwide * Security forces poured out into the streets in large numbers * The Ministry of Interior (election headquarters) was surrounded by concrete barriers and armed men * National television began broadcasting pre-recorded messages calling for everyone to unite behind the winner * The Mousavi campaign was informed officially that they had won the election, which perhaps served to temporarily lull them into complacency * But then the Ministry of Interior announced a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad * Unlike previous elections, there was no breakdown of the vote by province, which would have provided a way of judging its credibility * The voting patterns announced by the government were identical in all parts of the country, an impossibility (also see the comments of Juan Cole at the title link) * Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene`i publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to constitutional requirements * Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.
All of this had the appearance of a well orchestrated strike intended to take its opponents by surprise – the classic definition of a coup. Curiously, this was not a coup of an outside group against the ruling elite; it was a coup of the ruling elite against its own people.
It is still too early for anything like a comprehensive analysis of implications, but here are some initial thoughts:
1. The willingness of the regime simply to ignore reality and fabricate election results without the slightest effort to conceal the fraud represents a historic shift in Iran’s Islamic revolution. All previous leaders at least paid lip service to the voice of the Iranian people. This suggests that Iran’s leaders are aware of the fact that they have lost credibility in the eyes of many (most?) of their countrymen, so they are dispensing with even the pretense of popular legitimacy in favor of raw power.
2. The Iranian opposition, which includes some very powerful individuals and institutions, has an agonizing decision to make. If they are intimidated and silenced by the show of force (as they have been in the past), they will lose all credibility in the future with even their most devoted followers. But if they choose to confront their ruthless colleagues forcefully, not only is it likely to be messy but it could risk running out of control and potentially bring down the entire existing power structure, of which they are participants and beneficiaries.
3. With regard to the United States and the West, nothing would prevent them in principle from dealing with an illegitimate authoritarian government. We do it every day, and have done so for years (the Soviet Union comes to mind). But this election is an extraordinary gift to those who have been most skeptical about President Obama’s plan to conduct negotiations with Iran. Former Bush official Elliott Abrams was quick off the mark, commenting that it is “likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.” Two senior Israeli officials quickly urged the world not to engage in negotiations with Iran. Neoconservatives who had already expressed their support for an Ahmadinejad victory now have every reason to be satisfied. Opposition forces, previously on the defensive, now have a perfect opportunity to mount a political attack that will make it even more difficult for President Obama to proceed with his plan.
In their own paranoia and hunger for power, the leaders of Iran have insulted their own fellow revolutionaries who have come to have second thoughts about absolute rule and the costs of repression, and they may have alienated an entire generation of future Iranian leaders. At the same time, they have provided an invaluable gift to their worst enemies abroad.
However this turns out, it is a historic turning point in the 30-year history of Iran’s Islamic revolution. Iranians have never forgotten the external political intervention that thwarted their democratic aspirations in 1953. How will they remember this day?
Rise of the Military Brian Ulrich Jun 13 2009 - 4:06pm Iran
This account by Iranian film director and Mousavi spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbaf makes a great deal of sense:
"According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, in the early hours after voting had ended, the Interior Ministry had called Mr. Mousavi’s campaign headquarters to inform them that Mr. Mousavi would be the winner and, therefore, Mr. Mousavi must prepare a victory statement. Mr. Mousavi was, however, asked by the Ministry not to boast too much, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. Many of the president’s supporters are among the ranks of the Basij militia, and thus armed.
"According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also informed of the developments. He also recommended a 'good management' of the victory statement, meaning not boasting greatly about the victory, because that would be in Iran’s national interests and stability.
"At the same time, the reformist newspapers were also informed that they can prepare their Saturday edition to declare Mr. Mousavi the winner, but were not allowed to use the word pirouzi (victory) in their articles, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. One reformist newspaper prepared its front page with the title, 'People took back the flag of their country [from Mr. Ahmadinejad].'
"But, just a few hours later, a center that had been set up by Mr. Mousavi in Gheytarieh (in northern Tehran) for monitoring the election and vote counting, was attacked by armed security agents. They ransacked the center, destroyed computers, and attacked the staff. Supporters of Mr. Mousavi intervened and arrested 8 security agents. The police was called to take them to prison, but the police released the attackers.
"According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, the central headquaters of Mr. Mousavi’s campaign was also surrounded by security forces, as was the Interior Ministry building. Then, new data began to be released by the Ministry, indicating that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won the elections decisively."
A coup that originated with the military rather than the clerical or lay political leaders resolves what I saw the the main flaw with Juan Cole's reconstruction. It also dovetails well with Interior Ministry employees' warnings that Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, who is influential in the military, issued a fatwa authorizing manipulation of the elections.
A coup led by the military is also easier to explain than one ordered by Ayatollah Khamene'i. I had been thinking about the implications of a Mousavi victory, and concluded that, given the continuing conservative dominance of Parliament, the most important changes for Iranians would be a different economic policy and the replacement of someone hostile to the old revolutionary establishment embodied by the likes of Rafsanjani with someone who was actually a part of it. With that in mind, let's go to Walter Posch's election backgrounder:
"On the other hand, if Ahmadinjed wins, the relatively broad scope of political participation for various ideological and political trends will be dramatically reduced, as the reformists will be pushed aside and purged. This in turn will lead to an ideological monopoly for Mesbah-Yazdi and the Haqqaniye network, where a new generation of political clerics is trained. This also means a final legitimization of the Revolutionary Guards’ control over the economy, complementing the tax-free cash cows of the 'pious' foundations and further suffocating free enterprise. Finally, it would mean the strengthened indirect and direct control of the Revolutionary Guards over the executive branch. Former IRGC members already control most of the Parliament, are present in the government, and, of course, in the Higher National Security Council (HNSC)."
In other words, the often anti-democratic and militarily inclined forces which have been rising in Iran were threatened by the more traditional establishment, and acted to preserve their interests. We already saw, starting in 2005, how this movement had pushed together reformists and centrist pragmatists, resulting in Mousavi's alliance with the likes of Rafsanjani and Khatami's conservative 1997 opponent Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri. If so, this was not a coup perpetrated by the clerical establishment, but by a rising hard-line counter-establishment that did not want a repeat of the 2006 elections for the Assembly of Experts.
UPDATE: Khamene'i's role in this affair is emerging as a key issue within analysis. Above, I followed Makhmalbaf's account, in which the Leader initially accepted the results. Gary Sick, however, credibly suggests that the Mousavi camp was lied to so as to make them complacent.
UPDATE: Just a quick clarification: "Military" in this case refers to the IRGC and basij militias.
From 3:30 P.M. until 4:15 P.M., the scene at the Hyatt was festive, despite the news earlier in the day that the reformist headquarters had been sacked and prominent reformists arrested. Everyone had a story about a relative who had never voted before, who was a royalist or an all-purpose skeptic, who was wearing green in the streets or simply casting a vote for Mousavi. There was only one way this could go. Turnout, we heard, was over eighty per cent.
But then the first ominous Facebook update came in. The Ministry of Interior had announced that of twenty-five million votes counted thus far, sixteen million were for Ahmadinejad. The time, in Tehran, was just past midnight. The polls in the cities had just closed. It was not time to panic yet; maybe this was just the rural vote. But the mood in our little circle darkened. It wasn’t true, came another update; only five million had been counted, and of them, both candidates were claiming sixty per cent. Then the tally reached ten million, with sixty-seven per cent for Ahmadinejad. And then the most sinister news of all: the public had been told that if anyone approached the Interior Ministry, which would be the obvious site for a protest of the vote count, the police had orders to shoot.
There can be no question that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election was stolen. Dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying as much. Government polls (one conducted by the Revolutionary Guards, the other by the state broadcasting company) that were leaked to the campaigns allegedly showed ten- to twenty-point leads for Mousavi a week before the election; earlier polls had them neck and neck, with Mousavi leading by one per cent, and Karroubi just behind. Historically, low turnout has always favored conservatives in Iranian elections, while high turnout favors reformers. That’s because Iran’s most reliable voters are those who believe in the system; those who are critical tend to be reluctant to participate. For this reason, in the last three elections, sixty-five per cent of voters have come from traditional, rural villages, which house just thirty-five per cent of the populace. If the current figures are to be believed, urban Iranians who voted for the reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001 have defected to Ahmadinejad in droves.
What is most shocking is not the fraud itself, but that it was brazen and entirely without pretext. The final figures put Mousavi’s vote below thirty-five per cent, and not because of a split among reformists; they have Karroubi pulling less than one per cent of the vote. To announce a result this improbable, and to do it while locking down the Interior Ministry, sending squads of Revolutionary Guards into the streets, blacking out internet and cell phone communication and shuttering the headquarters of the rival candidates, sends a chilling message to the people of Iran—not only that the Islamic Republic does not care about their votes, but that it does not fear their wrath. Iranians, including many of the original founders and staunch supporters of the revolution, are angry, and they will demonstrate. But they will be met with organized and merciless violence. Already, Youtube clips are streaming out of Iran, many of them showing riot police savagely beating protestors.
...
That the reformists, who urged participation in the system in order to change it, have been so thoroughly shown up this June is depressing on many levels. For all its failings, the reform movement has been the most constructive and effective channel for Iranian frustrations and desires under the Islamic Republic. While Iranian opposition activists have fiercely debated the efficacy of voting—whether it provided a fig leaf for dictatorship or a necessary choice among evils—hardly anyone in Iran’s opposition wants a bloody uprising. That road has been too well traveled in Iran, and so the contemporary debate has been among nonviolent tactics, some with longer timelines than others. But now the regime has forced the issue, leaving Iranians who oppose strong-arm tactics and hard-line policies with just two cards in their hands. One is passivity, and the other is revolt. The outcome depends in part on how high a price the regime is willing to extract from its people.
In the days before the vote, my Iranian contacts breathlessly compared the atmosphere in Iran to that of 1979, the year of the Islamic Revolution. In the last twenty-four hours, the unavoidable analogy has become 1989. The big question is where we are: Wenceslas Square or Tiananmen.
On June 15 2009 23:43 Glaucus wrote: You people are so disgusting drawing at any straw to defend a totalitairian regime from your nice western country. Even launching into ad hominim attacks to be able to do so. Why? I get the feeling you people would defend any regime in power just because of them having power. All out of pure narcissism and spite. Iran is inherently unstable to way it's run. And you are underestimating the Iranian voters. The people of Iran are paying the price for Ahmadinejad's image. Then he can brag while the people suffer the consequences. Yes, people vote against their interests. But saying Mousavi has no support but in Tehran is silly. When journalists went out of Tehran secret prolice was sure to stage interviews so they would talk to only Ahmadinejad supporters. Ahmadinejad provoces the Mousavi supporters at every oppertunity he can get, riciduling then and daring them to protest so he can violently crack down on them.
You people don't deserve the freedom you have here in the west. Good thing I don't have to fight for freedom with you immoral weaklings on my side.
I don't really see anyone here "defend a totalitarian regime". And, if I may say, you appear to have an overly simplistic view of elections, the psychology of voters and how real political change, and real progress, may actually come about in a complex country like Iran.
Feeble and groundless insults are not going to help your argument, either.
Glaucus must be an Iranian. People like him are the ones out there protesting right now. Having an oversimplified understanding of the nature of Iranian politics. It's not totalitarian, and I'm not defending Ahmadinejad. I'm defending the stability of Iran.
Funny thing about Stealthblue's random copy pasting of stuff:
"Moussavi is under house arrest"
...
"Moussavi went to meet the Supreme Leader"
How can he go meet the Supreme Leader if he's under house arrest? And how are there pictures of him at rally's if he's under house arrest. Goes to show you can't take random twitter sources as truth.
On June 16 2009 01:34 Last Romantic wrote: Re: British media, IIRC the Economist suggested high turnout = Mousavi win; low turnout = Ahmedinejad win.
Re: American media... well, the Journal cited poll #s that favored Mousavi; it gave me the vibe that he had a serious chance to win.
Ya but these guys don't know anything about Iran. High turnout didn't necessarily correlate to a Moussavi win because there are actually a ton of young people + women that are fervent Ahmadinejad supporters just as there are a bunch that <3 Moussavi
While I don't feel german media coverage was all that biased in favor of Moussavi and some things look a bit fishy your point of view is very interesting Xeris. However I don't think the stability of Iran is in serious danger and riots like these are not uncommon in western countries as well. Like the student riots in Germany or the more recent riots in Greece (and countless other examples). What triggers the riot is of no importance as they always represent deeper problems (mostly generation conflicts I'd guess) and while you may disagree with the actions of the rioters in the past sometimes riots have changed the country for the better (I'd say oftentimes but as this is not my field of expertise I don't want to make bold statements). So perhaps you could see this nevertheless as a chance for Iran.
As for the vote, I'd love to have some official numbers to do the math myself.
ahmadinejad is a piece of shit but mousavi is another type of garbage aswell, theyre both puppets to the mullahs who are the root cause of every problem in the middle east, religion is the main reason why our fucked up world is the way it is
On June 16 2009 01:53 silynxer wrote: While I don't feel german media coverage was all that biased in favor of Moussavi and some things look a bit fishy your point of view is very interesting Xeris. However I don't think the stability of Iran is in serious danger and riots like these are not uncommon in western countries as well. Like the student riots in Germany or the more recent riots in Greece (and countless other examples). What triggers the riot is of no importance as they always represent deeper problems (mostly generation conflicts I'd guess) and while you may disagree with the actions of the rioters in the past sometimes riots have changed the country for the better (I'd say oftentimes but as this is not my field of expertise I don't want to make bold statements). So perhaps you could see this nevertheless as a chance for Iran.
As for the vote, I'd love to have some official numbers to do the math myself.
I think that riots in Iran like this are much worse than student riots in Germany or Greece because of the religious factor. These guys are mostly deeply religious and especially because Shi'a religious places a high emphasis on suffering and martyrdom the protests have a very big chance of getting WAY out of hand very quickly.
Basically: Protest reached 5 miles long (hundreds of thousands). Gunshots have been fired now at the organized rally (at least 1 confirmed dead from AP photographer eyewitness, others wounded, unknown details as to the extent of the shooting yet).
im sitting here playing bw while my cousins are getting their hands burnt by iron presses in jail.. this is how productive my life is duran just talking about whats right or wrong is easy when your sitting safely at home.. the same goes for me, nobody outside the country knows what the people are going through apart from themselves, the culture in iran has changed and the youth are tired of this idiotic backwards regime
i just spoke with my relatives, theyre saying the main problem has nothing to do with the election, the majority of the people dont even give a shit about mousavi, all they wanted was an event to spark something so everyone could get together, dont get me wrong.. right now theyre protesting against the election results but theyre hoping the riots escalade so they can go against the regime, the only problem is that the mullahs are a different type of animal, theyll just kill you if you defy them
On June 16 2009 02:29 iamtt1 wrote: im sitting here playing bw while my cousins are getting their hands burnt by iron presses in jail.. this is how productive my life is duran just talking about whats right or wrong is easy when your sitting safely at home.. the same goes for me, nobody outside the country knows what the people are going through apart from themselves, the culture in iran has changed and the youth are tired of this idiotic backwards regime
i just spoke with my relatives, theyre saying the main problem has nothing to do with the election, the majority of the people dont even give a shit about mousavi, all they wanted was an event to spark something so everyone could get together, dont get me wrong.. right now theyre protesting against the election results but theyre hoping the riots escalade so they can go against the regime, the only problem is that the mullahs are a different type of animal, theyll just kill you if you defy them
Trust me I know my family feels exactly the same. Like gunpowder waiting for a spark. But again, I don't this this is the right way to go about it. It IS possible to achieve their goals through peaceful and democratic means, I believe.
maybe in a civilized society but how are you going to achieve something peacefully in a type of regime where they just torture/kill any type of opposition? do you think someone could have changed hitlers beliefs just by talking with him? come on man
Xeris, I'm all for stability and rationality but this doesn't look like rioting to me. This is what protest en masse means. When the Police can only stand by idly and let the people voice.
I mean we're seeing updates that they're going back to the Council to verify. While it might mean nothing in the short run - it does show those in power are either afraid (as they should be - it should never be the other way around) or concerned about their people.
Ninja edit here: I got a giggle from this, one of the Twitters from Iran started this little post
"RT @davyde TOOL FOR ATTACKING PROPAGANDA SITES IN IRAN: http://ow.ly/ecMz#iranelection"
@stopahmadi PLEASE SHARE LINK. TOOL FOR ATTACKING PROP SITES IN IRAN: http://ow.ly/ecMz use on iribnews.ir #iranelection
Fight fire with fire I guess. No harm in DDOS sites I suppose. >_> little 4chanish <_<
The claimed information lock down sort of forced the hand on both sides and escalated into a confrontation. The opposition fears that they'd have no means to verify the vote results and thus had to uprise regardless of the actual vote.
Crowds in a situation of chaos is something that is not easily controlled by any individual. If one wants to blame anything, blame the mentality since there is no one person that can shoulder the thing.
Ah, history is a story of structure tensions and messy accidents.....
lol... mousavi is a clown, do you seriously think iran is going to be free(i wanted to say democratic but that word makes me laugh) with either mousavi or ahmadinejad? the first sign the regime would see someone with liberalist ideals they wouldnt even allow him to run in an election, the main problem is that iranians dont even have a vote, theyre voting for the same piece of shit
I'm not an expert on Iran by any means, but as far as I understand the hierarchy over there (Supreme Leader, Guardian Council, Assembly of Experts, etc.) voting seems simply to be a way of placating the people into believing they actually have a democracy. I mean, even if a reformist is elected president, all the policies that the Supreme Leader doesn't like can simply be thrown out. These protesting students thought they had the power to elect officials and determine national policy through them democratically, but Iran never has had democracy, has it? It's been a theocracy all along, the veil has been lifted, and they're pissed.
Insofar as the rigging goes, I suppose it's possible, but honestly, why fabricate such a substantial margin of victory? If you were going to make up the numbers, it seems to me that a slight (though still convincing) victory would garner far less attention than a massive blowout...
As Xeris said, the incumbent always wins. Even when it was the reformist Katami seeking re-election, the higher-ups still "let" him win, then stomped all over the policies they didn't like. Why destabilize themselves by so brazenly interfering, as is thought now?
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's state television says the supreme leader has ordered an investigation into claims of fraud in last week's presidential election.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is ordering the powerful Guardian Council to examine the allegations by pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims widespread vote rigging in Friday's election. The government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner in a landslide victory.
It is a stunning turnaround for Iran's most powerful figure, who previously welcomed the results.
Mousavi wrote an appeal Sunday to the Guardian Council, a powerful 12-member body that's a pillar of Iran's theocracy. Mousavi also met Sunday with Khamenei.
Mousavi's backers have waged three days of street protests in Tehran.
Don't know what the outcome will be seeing how he has already "congratulated" Ahmadinejad on his win.
I wonder if this will play out like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and they'll have international observers there on hand for a recount. The manner in which this went down seems pretty shoddy.
On June 16 2009 04:44 Hawk wrote: I wonder if this will play out like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and they'll have international observers there on hand for a recount. The manner in which this went down seems pretty shoddy.
International observers seem very unlikely. They have a "probe" going on for the election right now (as ordered by the supreme leader) but the confidence in that is not too high.
On June 16 2009 02:29 iamtt1 wrote: i just spoke with my relatives, theyre saying the main problem has nothing to do with the election, the majority of the people dont even give a shit about mousavi, all they wanted was an event to spark something so everyone could get together, dont get me wrong.. right now theyre protesting against the election results but theyre hoping the riots escalade so they can go against the regime, the only problem is that the mullahs are a different type of animal, theyll just kill you if you defy them
Ohh... this post clarifies a lot of stuff. Now it all makes much more sense. Thanks for that.
"75 percent of the population live below the poverty line, 66 percent of women are victims of some form of domestic violence, and over 70 percent of women suffer from varying degrees of depression. Iran remains, in the words of UN Human Rights Rapporteur Maurice Copithorne, “a prison for women.” I think these make excellent voters.
The true power lies with the Ayatollah, but he's not chosen democratically is he?
On June 15 2009 23:09 Jibba wrote: The most ridiculous thing about this is Hezbollah's loss in Lebanon was a surprise to everyone, in a voting system that we know for a fact is unfair, yet there's barely any coverage of what went on or that those "dirty Islamists" peacefully accepted defeat. In Iran, where the expected happened, 200,000,000 unqualified sources have come out of nowhere to declare voter fraud.
Uhm, your point is a little strange.
Yes the Lebanon election was *nice* and *quiet*. That was in the news, the result is in the news... What shall the news agencies do? Create some stories about it just because they could? I bet you don't get big news coverage of swiss or other elections in small countries that went just fine and are not really important on a global scale/to your country?
Iran is more important to the west, it's way bigger, it's president is *controversal* (at best) and there are actually big scale demonstrations/riots happening.
Really strange that the news are more over Iran than over Libanon (a country that probably would never be mentionet in most media if not for it's neighbour Israel).
No offense, but comparing Lebanon to Switzerland (aside from all the money held in Swiss banks) is a bit of a stretch. Hezbollah still wields a large amount of power in the Middle East, and they ARE constantly a news item with regards to Israel. Their elections were actually fishy and nothing was said about it. That's my point.
EDIT: At the very least, this should prove to everyone that Iranians aren't Arabs. Arab women don't look like that.
On June 16 2009 02:29 iamtt1 wrote: i just spoke with my relatives, theyre saying the main problem has nothing to do with the election, the majority of the people dont even give a shit about mousavi, all they wanted was an event to spark something so everyone could get together, dont get me wrong.. right now theyre protesting against the election results but theyre hoping the riots escalade so they can go against the regime, the only problem is that the mullahs are a different type of animal, theyll just kill you if you defy them
This is actually really interesting if you're into social movement theory. In the past there's always some institution that facilitates organization and protest (ie. Church in Poland, religion in the first Iranian revolution, student volunteers in El Salvador, etc.) I'm sure universities are one of the main drivers here, but I wonder how large the internet footprint is on this movement.
It seems that the current structure of the Iranian government is doomed, whether they step up repression or not. I'm talking, of course, within a 5-10 year timeframe, and basing this off past modern social movements. Even if the election numbers are valid, 30% is a large enough minority that they can't simply be shut out and there's not much you can do to appease that group outside of the realm of politics (ie. improving the economy won't cut it.) And if I'm not mistaken, the % of people that would like to see a democratically elected Council is the vast majority.
# foreign news reported us on twitter - we have too much ppl looking at us - #Iranelection6 minutes ago from web
# motorbikes all over Tehran - outside now - they break windows of houses some have pepper gas - they want to scare ppl #Iranelection9 minutes ago from web
# we are routed thru mirror proxies - but service is unreliable - keeps cuting out - have to switch off lights now - #Iranelection11 minutes ago from web
# Gov hackers are on twitter now - we are getting threats - #Iranelection14 minutes ago from web
On June 16 2009 07:09 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Interesting that the "where is my vote" signs are in english?
They know how to work the media.
Who are "they"? It is not as if everyone protesting individually came to the same conclusion on how to play the media on this. I think it is to early to make any assumptions about what has happened with the election, but I think it would be fair to say that there is probably some level of undo influence coming from multiple avenues.
Hundreds of thousands went onto the streets today, protesting peacefully knowing very well the violence of the police and militias days earlier. Knowing very well they risk everything. Not knowing how many would show up. Not knowing the outside world would ever know about this. And this was all done peacefully and it was all self-organized. There is basically no functioning leadership. People protest spontaniously.
Western journalists are all gone. Only coverage right now is by Iranians themselves and western people with a tourist visa. What a failure by the international media. They know that when stuff gets ugly like this they kick out all people on journalist visas.
The whole world is amazed at the bravery of these people. Yet Xeris is ashamed at the instability? The ayatolla's aren't totalitarian? You got to be kidding. Ask your parents. You are supporting this shameful regime, the one you refuse to live under, and you speak out against your brave countrymen who are fighting your battle. Ahmadinejad ridiculed and provoked the protests. Now Khamenei is taking the possibility of fraud seriously forced by the people in the streets. He knows his regime is inherently unstable. He knows how totalitarian it is. Like all Iranians, Xeris, you should cry of happiness at this miracle. At the bravery of your people.
As for evidence of fraud. The turnout was 85%. So many new voters. We know for a fact these people don't support the conservatives. Elections don't have much integrity in Iran. Even Mousavi is a questionable candicate. That's why he was even allowed to run. Therefore, many people never vote. But they did vote this time. And they basically forced Mousavi to protest. If the council had known beforehand this would happen Mousavi wouldn't have been allowed to be a candicate. So yes, all these new voters voting for Ahmadinejad is very hard to believe. These new voters have all largely been boycotting all previous elections because they want democratic elections.
The other two candidates are also calling for a fraud. These candidates, one of them another conservative, also all have their own estimates. And it's way off from the actual results. Rezaee estimates his votes between 3 and 6 million. Yet he only got like 600000.
There is also stuff leaking right now from the Internal Ministery. Some of these leaked documents say Mousavi got 20 million votes and Ahmadinejad only 8 million. We don't know the actual result and Ahmadinejad very well could still have more supporters. But such a big victory from Mousavi is also a possibility.
Fact is those in power fear these protests. They fear the media coverage. They are trying everything in their power to stop what is happening.
what i'm confused with this whole situation is what the Iranian people are thinking.
Basically, they're angered at the vote fraud, but this anger is directed at Ahmadinejad. Why do they feel that Ahmadinejad have the powers to rig the votes?
Because the people who were reporting the election results report directly to Ahmedinejad + co. It's like the RNC counting votes for an American national election. [Not really, but roughly analogous].
After seeing some of the videos of the broken dorm rooms coupled with twitter being oddly quiet when Twitter gave them the up-time they wanted kind of worries me.
Seven people were killed when a military post was attacked near a rally held a day ago in Tehran to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, radio Payam announced.
"Several thugs wanted to attack a military post and vandalise public property in the vicinity of Azadi Square," the radio said referring to the site of the rally held on Monday.
"Unfortunately seven people were killed and several others wounded in the incident."
However, a source told AFP that the emergency services department had information that eight people were killed and several wounded in the incident.
On Facebook, Iranians are asking the South Koreans to wear green for the Iran Korea World cup qualifying game on June 17th in Korea, as a show of support for Iranian people.
I know some of you live there or know people there or know forums where you might be able to post about it. That place should be a fuckin' sea of green. In the words of all of the old SC greatest game ever polls - SOMEONE TELL THE KOREANS!
No update for almost 24 hours, getting worried. He was updating from the University while it was besieged and a friend was badly wounded. Either he was arrested, or can't access a computer due to the guards destroying them, or worse.
No update for almost 24 hours, getting worried. He was updating from the University while it was besieged and a friend was badly wounded. Either he was arrested, or can't access a computer due to the guards destroying them, or worse.
Not sure if you missed it, but he clearly says he was going to a Mousavi rally and wouldn't update twitter until he got back. So maybe it's just taking long to get the rally together and going.
No update for almost 24 hours, getting worried. He was updating from the University while it was besieged and a friend was badly wounded. Either he was arrested, or can't access a computer due to the guards destroying them, or worse.
Not sure if you missed it, but he clearly says he was going to a Mousavi rally and wouldn't update twitter until he got back. So maybe it's just taking long to get the rally together and going.
The Mousavi rally was yesterday though. Other students who were there are already updating.
Obama saying he supports the protesters and wants to help the issue peacefully, diplomatically, and leave it for the iranian people to choose their leader:
"We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.
Currently, there are either two or three groups who are suppressing the students on the ground that you'll read about throughout this thread:
1. The Basij 2. Ansar Hizbullah (which I will refer to as Ansar) 3. Lebanese Hizbullah (Unconfirmed but highly probable. Der Spiegel, based on a Voice of America report, says that 5,000 Hizbullah fighters are currently in Iran masquerading as riot police, confirming the independent reports. Many different independent reports and video point that way. Even in the last hours other independent twitter feeds have declared witnessing thugs beating on people while shouting in Arabic; I will refer to them as Hizbullah)
- The Basij are your regular paramilitary organization. They are the armed hand of the clerics. The Basij are a legal group, officially a student union, and are legally under direct orders of the Revolutionary Guard. Their main raison d'être is to quell dissent. They are the ones who go and crack skulls, force people to participate in pro-regime demonstrations, and generally try to stop any demonstrations from even starting. They are located throughout the country, in every mosque, every university, every social club you can think of. They function in a way very similar to the brownshirts.
They were the ones who first started the crackdown after the election, but it wasn't enough. While they are violent and repressive, they are still Persian and attacking fellow citizens. A beating is one thing, mass killings another.
- Another group was working with them, whose members are even more extreme, is Ansar. There is a lot of cross-membership between the Basij and Ansar, though not all are members of the other group and vice-versa. The vast majority of Ansar are Persians (either Basij or ex-military), though a lot of Arab recruits come from Lebanon and train with them under supervision of the Revolutionary Guard. They are not functioning under a legal umbrella, they are considered a vigilante group, but they pledge loyalty directly to the Supreme Leader and most people believe that they are under his control. They are currently helping the Basij to control the riots, but due to the fact that they are Persians and in lower numbers than the Basij, they are not that active.
- The Lebanese Hizbullah is a direct offshoot (and under direct control) of the Iranian Hizbullah (itself under direct control of the Supreme Leader) and cooperates closely with Ansar though Ansar occupies itself only with Iran's domestic policies, while Hizbullah occupies itself only with Iran's foreign policy unless there is a crisis like right now. However, Hizbullah has been called to stop violent riots in Iran in the past.
(the following paragraph includes some speculation based on reports from ground zero) Hizbullah flew in a lot of their members in Iran, most likely a good deal even before the elections in case there were trouble. They are the ones who speak Arabs and are unleashing the biggest level of violence on the Persians so far. Another wave arrived recently and there is chatter that yet another wave of Hizbullah reinforcements are coming in from Lebanon as we speak. According to Iranians on the ground, they are the ones riding motorcycles, beating men women and children indiscriminately and firing live ammunitions at students.
What will happen
Unless the army decides to intervene in the favor of the Council and to stop the early beginnings of the new Revolution, Ansar & Hizbullah members will be the ones doing the brunt of the killing and repression with Basij as a support while also protecting government buildings and try to do crowd control. The police seems to have for the most part disbanded in centers like Tehran according to all reports, including international media. If the police decides to come back, they will focus less on protection and crowd control, so the Basij will start to crack more skulls).
Currently, this is what is happening.
Timeline (updated and revamped!) note: I built this through both articles and twitter feeds, so I do not claim that this is a 100% factually correct representation of reality, but this is the general narrative.
14th of June - While the previous day had been witness to some protests, they were for the most part peaceful. However, as time grew the protests turned more and more violent. When the first spontaneous riots erupted, the first wave of violence was unleashed. The Iranian Riot Police was called in to support the regular police officers controlling the protests, and shortly after the Basij also took the scene, moving from a passive to active role of repression. The RP concentrated mostly around public buildings and streets while the Basij took position around student groups, especiallly universities.
- As things got more out of hand, more and more Basij troops were called in, as the police started dispersing. The riot police are less inclined (or, rather I should say the Basij are more inclined) to use violence so they retreated and leaving the place to the Basij. The repressive forces concentrated their assault mostly around the main Iranian universities, while the riot police were concentrating on protecting various government buildings such as the Interior Ministry. At least two people had been killed already.
- On the telecommunication front, this is when we started to hear more and more from twitters while videos were being freely updated to youtube (while youtube started to delete the more violent ones a few hours later). This is also the moment where the government realized what was happening, and ordered for the internet, phone lines and cellphones to be cut off, in order to avoid people communicating with the outside world.
late 14th, early 15th of June - This is the second wave of violent repression. At this point, violent riots had spread all over the main cities of Iran. The violence against citizens was not only the fruit of the Basij anymore, but also came from Ansar Hizbullah members. This is the point where firearms started being used. There were reports of a few murders but it was mostly fired in the air or on walls in order to scare away protesters in University dorms. It's also around the same time that the first reports and videos of an important number of non-Persian thugs shouting in Arabic and violently beating people with chains, clubs and electric batons (similar to cattle prods), which led to many speculating that lebanese Hizbullah members were now in Iran. Der Spiegel, through Voice of America, later claimed that 5000 Hizbullah fighters were passing off as Riot Police, validating the claims of many independent sources and twitter feeds.
- Universities have been the hotbed of protests, serving as a hub of anti-government demonstrations and preparations. 120 teachers from the Sharid University resigned in protest over the election results. Perfectly away of this, the Basij, Ansar and possibly Hizbullah members concentrated their attacks on University Dorms all over the country, storming them and beating students, destroying everything, especially computers.
- The end of the second wave came right before the beginning of the current manifestation. Things were getting quieter with only sporadic reports of dissenters being assaulted. Important to note: at this time. the Supreme Leader authorized the plainclothes militias to use live ammunition against the crowd if things were to get out of hands. By the end of the first two waves of protests, hundreds of people had been arrested.
midday, 15th of June - This brings us to the third wave, which just began around 12:30PM for those of us on the East Coast. Plainclothes militia opened fire on civilians protesting peacefully. Possibly up to 2 million protesters took the street. Chaos erupted in the streets, with reports of fighting all over Tehran and spreading over Iran as the news circulated. Pictures of people shot, some to death, finally surfaced and were published in the mainstream media. Violent and murderous repression has started. At least a twenty people had been killed at this by the end of the 15th of June.
- There is a major national crackdown on students, especially those with connections to the outside world going on right now. Students are fighting back in some areas. Telephones are being bugged and everyone twittering and sending videos outside of Iran are being rounded up. ISPs were shut down, government hackers are threatening people who twitter, and some of them have vanished in the last 24 hours.
- Eventually, the people started to fight back. First, they took over and burned down a Basij base, killing its commander. Later, a Basij shot a young man in the face in front of their HQ, at which point a policeman went to confront them. The Basij beat the policeman, at which point students stormed the compound, throwing molotov cocktails, burning it to the ground.
- During the night, the police entered certain neighbourhood to arrest public servants and force them to appear at tomorrow's pro-Ahmadinejad manifestation, but the people went out in the street and forced them out of their neighbourhoods. The Basij have kept on storming dorms. So far the reports are conflicting, but it appears that the death toll could be as high as 40 for the protesters, with two dead on the side of the repressive militias. This is the end of the third wave.
16th of June - Supporters of Moussavi have a manifestation planned for 5pm, Tehran time. Roughly the same number or more is expected to attend. People are dressed in black and told to protest silently.
- The pro-Ahmadinejad crowd however are planning a counter-demonstration at the very same place the supporters are supposed to gather at 3pm. Most agree that basically they are simply going to gather for a confrontation. Rumours are that they are taking position in buildings next to the parade and in bunkers to attack. Basij from all over the country are moving to Tehran and supporters are being bused from all over the country. A major showdown is expected to unfold.
- The crackdown on people using telecommunication is as strong as ever. Anyone with a laptop, camera or cellphone is attacked in the street by plainclothes militias. Tehran hotels are under lockdown to prevent the members of the foreign press not yet expulsed from reporting what is happening.
- As for the Iranian Government and different branches, there are rumours that many Army Generals have been arrested for plotting a Coup d'État, but this is still speculation at this point. The Supreme Leader has also called for a 10-day inquiry into the claims of fraud, but it has been widely dismissed as cosmetic. Moussavi and his supporters have rejected this, claiming that they want new elections. Khameini is now using the armed Basij as his own bodyguards, hundreds of them are surround him and his residence to protect from attempted assassinations. Ahmadinejad himself is in Russia right now, for a planned visit, and tries to pretend that everything is good as usual.
- The fourth wave of violence has yet to start, but it is expected to flare up once the Basij and Supporters see each others at Valli Asr, most likely attacked without provocation once again.
The Revolution lives on.
Demands from the protesters
1. Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader 2. Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts 3. Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader 4. Recognition of Mousavi as the President 5. Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution 6. unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners 7. Dissolution of all organs of repression, public or secret.
Who is Grand Ayatollah Montazeri?
Ayatollah Montazeri is a pro-Democracy, pro-Human Rights Ayatollah who was at one point on the short list of possible successors of Khomeini, but became marginalized as he adopted what was seen as a too pro-Western, pro-Democracy stance.
Since the beginning of the Revolution, he has been one of the fiercest critics of the Regime, and one of the biggest proponents of women and civil rights for ALL Iranians, including much-maligned minorities like the Baha'is. In fact he goes further than the protections afforded to them under Sharia.
He is also a big critic of Ahmadinejad and has been seen for years as the best hope for Iran if he ever was to come to power, something that was unthinkable a mere week ago.
important: The Iranian government is looking for dissident twitterers, so if you have an account, change your location and timezone to tehran!
This summary / update comes from another place I frequent ( http://www.fark.com , poster Tatsuma on the most recent thread, here). He has been updating it for every thread news post they greenlight (the 6 threads combined are over 20,000 postings there).
EDIT: There are reports that the protest today is in the millions (compared to the hundreds of thousands yesterday). Sadly, all foreign media is prohibited from reporting today (the government has them under active surveillance), and hence it cannot be fully confirmed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8103577.stm is a BBC article that officially mentions the restrictions.
Interesting and dangerous times in Iran, and the violence against protesters is very alarming indeed. It will be interesting to see where this goes, as this is the first time Iran has seen anything like it since the revolution.
Mousavi, for all his reformist tone, is basically part of the Iranian establishment and I do not see a Mousavi presidency bringing any significant change to the country. But reformist and revolutionary protests can be fast moving and the sentiments that fuel them can move on rapidly. Will these protests turn into something which threatens the Islamic republic itself? I think we have seen some signs that they might but only time will tell.
On June 17 2009 00:34 MarklarMarklar wrote: apparantly the millitary is moving in now, not sure of source
Unconfirmed. According to those twitters that have been posting since the beginning (and who have been verified by their information becoming official news later on), the government has started spreading fake information (including via new twitter accounts) to spread that rumor to scare people from showing up.
There are, however, rumored (by verified twitters) ~2000 basiji (read my post before, not the military) outside the dorms in Tehran now. As the students have fled, many of them are now homeless.
This is fucked up. Hopefully some sort of solution can be found, preferrably involving a recount/new election and not senselessly beating your own citizens.
a recount will do nothing, as the people recounting it will be the people who oversaw the election in the first place (and, rumor has it, burned the ballot boxes)
at least it's calmed down. recount will do nothing because the election wasn't rigged... nothing else.
Moussavi would be a fairly noticeable improvement over Ahmadinejad but it wouldn't be some sort of earthshattering improvement. It's not like Moussavi is the knight in shining armor who is going to save Iran, he's just a pretty reasonable guy who is going to put a lot of emphasis on the economy and is more liberal.
According to the Cyrus News Agency, Tuesday morning 16 senior members of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were arrested. "These commanders have been in contact with members of the Iranian army to join the people's movement," CNA reports. "Three of the commanders are veterans of Iran-Iraq war. They have been moved to an undisclosed location in East Tehran."
State Department to Twitter: Keep Iranian tweets coming
senior officials say the State Department asked Twitter to refrain for going down for periodic scheduled maintenance at this critical time to ensure the site continues to operate. Bureau’s and offices across the State Department, they say, are paying very close attention to Twitter and other sites to get information on the situation in Iran.
In a video report on the graphic images of violence that have been uploaded to the Web from inside Iran in the past few days, The Guardian’s Cath Brazier points to this video, apparently shot outside the Basij militia base on Azadi Square in Tehran on Monday evening:
This video does look like it might have been shot from a location very close to that shown in the video obtained by Channel 4 News of the shooting death of a protester in Azadi Square. That same shooting was described in the audio interview we linked to in our previous update.
The amateur video above shows gunfire coming from the Basij building before some sort of Molotov cocktail seems to have been thrown in response. The footage Channel 4 aired on Monday was edited and only showed gunfire by the Basij after their building had been set alight.
The exact sequence of events last night in Azadai Square will not be established firmly by these scraps of evidence gathered from the Internet, but it does seem important. If the authorities can say that violence was started by opposition protesters, it might be easier for them to justify a security crackdown on protest across the country.
Near the beginning of the video, the crowd’s shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” (”God is great”) can be heard clearly. As many people have mentioned, the opposition is using this rallying cry, exactly as it was used during the early days of the Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah in Iran.
Thousands of supporters of Iran’s defeated presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi marched on Tuesday toward the state television building, despite his call for them to call off a planned rally. [... ]
Wearing wristbands and ribbons in his green campaign colors, the Mousavi supporters carried his picture and made victory signs. Unlike Monday’s demonstration where marchers chanted anti-Ahmadinejad slogans, they walked largely in silence.
Some were passing on messages to others to meet again on Wednesday for a rally at Tehran’s central Haft-e Tir Square.
Dozens of riot police, flanked by Basij militia forces, watched them as they passed through one major square. Near the marchers a riot police motorbike lay on the road in flames, but the demonstration appeared to be peaceful.
Who cares. You can't push for reform in a country other then your own. If Iran wants democracy, they'll grab it themselves.
Other then that,
-Iranian women are pretty hot -Every of these protesters deserve to be shot for trying to run out Ahmadinejad and replace him with Moussavi. That would've been the equivalent of the U.S. engaging in rioting to run out president Bush and have him replaced by Cheney.
On June 17 2009 02:26 Last Romantic wrote: I still don't understand why Xeris refuses to see that the election was so transparently rigged.
Reports of the strike say most Tehran offices/businesses are deserted.
As I said before, I think, I kind of have an open mind on thist. That said, as I observed in a previous post of mine, certainly the British media were pretty uniformly predicting an Ahmadinejad victory prior to the election.
Could you direct me to those items of evidence which lead you to believe it was rigged?
On June 17 2009 02:26 Last Romantic wrote: I still don't understand why Xeris refuses to see that the election was so transparently rigged.
Reports of the strike say most Tehran offices/businesses are deserted.
I still don't understand why you're posting here when you have no clue what you're talking about? Maybe try reading my posts in this thread. What evidence do you have that the election was "so transparently rigged" ? You shouldn't make outlandish claims when you don't understand the situation at all.
Also, none of you seem to understand how Iranians protest, if you did the violence might not seem so one sided. Iranians are really firey and passionate, their protests are not like any protest you might see here in the United States. They are unruly, they cause havoc.
During the Revolution, Iranians in Los Angeles protests, my dad was an organizer of a lot of protests, and they were so bad that American police forces used violence against them. If even American police used violence, what do you think Iranian police would do (aka, Iranian police are much more aggressive and there is not an established culture of nonviolnce etc)? Everyone's making the protesters out to be these happy go lucky Iranians peacefully sitting around protesting. No, they're probably starting fires, breaking shit, insulting the government, etc.
I'm not condoning the violence used against them - but it goes both ways and you need to understand that. If they were protesting in a perfectly peaceful way, the government wouldn't be killing them. The fact that thousands of Iranians get together, start protesting, get into a frenzy, and can't control themselves is cause for concern and explains the government's reactions. There is no right or wrong in this case because at this point both parties are equally guilty.
On June 17 2009 02:26 Last Romantic wrote: I still don't understand why Xeris refuses to see that the election was so transparently rigged.
Reports of the strike say most Tehran offices/businesses are deserted.
I still don't understand why you're posting here when you have no clue what you're talking about? Maybe try reading my posts in this thread. What evidence do you have that the election was "so transparently rigged" ? You shouldn't make outlandish claims when you don't understand the situation at all.
This is beyond the matter of whether it was rigged or not. There is simply no transparency in the electoral system. Even if it wasn't rigged, the elections in Iran are carried in an unacceptable way for a country claiming to be a functioning democracy. Because the system is so poorly and unfairly designed, it is expectable that people will feel the elections are unjust. Iranian authorities use tyrannical supression measures and disallow freedom of press and expression, it is then no wonder there is outrage and riots in the streets.
I understand why stability in Iran would be desireable for some, but it is a stability that leads to a continuation of awfully poor economic policies, an increasing international isolation and a an illiberal state.
On June 17 2009 02:26 Last Romantic wrote: I still don't understand why Xeris refuses to see that the election was so transparently rigged.
Reports of the strike say most Tehran offices/businesses are deserted.
I still don't understand why you're posting here when you have no clue what you're talking about? Maybe try reading my posts in this thread. What evidence do you have that the election was "so transparently rigged" ? You shouldn't make outlandish claims when you don't understand the situation at all.
To be fair, the idea that this was rigged is being spoken about as if it were fact in the western media. I think it is to early to say what has happened. Obviously if there was foul play that is a problem, but if this was a legitimate victory there needs to be some respect for the institution and the democratic process. On the flip side, I would be surprised if foreign governments were not in some way involved in organizing these protests. In the long run the health of government as an institution is more important than a temporary leader. The access to what is happening on the ground is very interesting, and certainly changes the dynamics of how propaganda can be used.
On June 17 2009 02:26 Last Romantic wrote: I still don't understand why Xeris refuses to see that the election was so transparently rigged.
Reports of the strike say most Tehran offices/businesses are deserted.
I still don't understand why you're posting here when you have no clue what you're talking about? Maybe try reading my posts in this thread. What evidence do you have that the election was "so transparently rigged" ? You shouldn't make outlandish claims when you don't understand the situation at all.
What does that article have to do with my post? CNN is pretty biased, just because they've written a few neutral newses (like the one you just linked) doesn't change that? If you read my thesis I have a whole chapter basically talking about democracy in Iran and I went through several public opinion polls (also taken by Terror Free Tomorrow, among other sources) which found that many Iranians approve of the job Ahmadinejad has done as President.
Again, most evidence points to the fact that Ahmadinejad would win the election, sure Tabriz seems like an anomaly but also you need to consider this: people are saying how it is "strange" Ahmadinejad picked up a large % of votes. These people seem to not consider several factors
1) In 2005, Ahmadinejad was running against 7 people at first, plus he did not have an incumbency advantage. He was not a clear favorite, he was relatively unknown, and he didn't have major clerical support back then.
2) In the run-off he ended up picking up ~60ish percent of the vote
3) Now (2009) Ahmadinejad has an incumbency advantage, which in Iran is HUGE (incumbent has never lost, as I've said about 50x in this thread)
4) Pre-election polling and polls taken in 2006, 2007, and 2008 (each surveying ~1000 different Iranians from all over the country etc etc) show that a majority think Ahmadinejad has done a fairly decent job as President.
5) Ahmadinejad wins 2009 election with 62% of the vote. Surprise? All evidence leaned towards him winning and all of a sudden people are shocked that the expected result actually happened?
Seriously there are very few grounds that the election was rigged. Neither Moussavi or anybody else has put forth any serious challenge other than "IT WAS RIGGED, I KNOW IT!"
On June 17 2009 03:27 warding wrote: This is beyond the matter of whether it was rigged or not. There is simply no transparency in the electoral system. Even if it wasn't rigged, the elections in Iran are carried in an unacceptable way for a country claiming to be a functioning democracy. Because the system is so poorly and unfairly designed, it is expectable that people will feel the elections are unjust. Iranian authorities use tyrannical supression measures and disallow freedom of press and expression, it is then no wonder there is outrage and riots in the streets.
I understand why stability in Iran would be desireable for some, but it is a stability that leads to a continuation of awfully poor economic policies, an increasing international isolation and a an illiberal state.
Why are you assuming an illiberal state is good? Do you not understand that there is more than one conception of what a successful state can be? Have you considered that people in the country are fairly pleased with how things are? Sure Iran is not a utopian society, but it is not this "backward, oppressive regime" that you people are making it out to believe. I know there are even many Iranians who think this way, most Iranians living outside Iran think this way, and there are perhaps even a few million IN Iran who also think that way. But a majority of the country doesn't. A majority of the country are deeply religious and are generally happy with the way things are. It is not our business to tell Iran what kind of government they should have, what they should do with their media, and how they should run elections.
Elections have not been a major problem up until now, because a reformist lost who happened to run a pretty strong, modern campaign... that's the only reason. If Iran was such a tyrannical, conservative state there is NO WAY Khatami would have been President for 8 years. Anyone who thinks Iran is some sort of authoritarian/dictatorship country would have a pretty hard time explaining why a massively popular Khatami (he was probably 10x more popular than Moussavi ever will be) was elected and RE-elected to the Presidency. If any election were to be rigged to put a conservative in office it would have been either the 97 election or the 2000 election
1. You in your willful ignorance have simply been insisting the vote was fair and Ahmedinejad was a sure win. This completely circumvents the points that:
a) Every opposition candidate lost in their home district by a margin roughly equal to the total supposed vote [2:1ish] You insist on incumbent victory precedent - but you ignore hometown victory precedent. This is an odd double standard. Karroubi's votecount went from 5 million four years ago to a few hundred thousand this year; he has done nothing to lose that much popularity. If we accept the premise that 85% of the ~400,000+ party members he has registered in his home district went to vote, he would be expected to get more votes in his hometown than the national results gave him nationwide. This is patently absurd.
b) pre-election polling does not favour Ahmedinejad as much as you so vehemently trumpet. There are multiple polls suggesting 55-60ish for Mousavi and 20-25ish for ANejad. The polls that do give massive support for ANejad are the ones conducted by state-controlled media overseen by the President/Supreme Leader. Western talking heads suggested that it would likely go to a second round runoff, as in previous elections.
[I do not read Farsi; however one of my best friends is an Iranian nat'l whom I have been asking for updates from]
c) The very way the elections were run - counted by a ministry controlled by the President - allows for easy manipulation. You have not addressed how the results were announced MUCH faster than in any previous election [instead of 3-10 days, hours].
d) Increased voter turnout in every election in human history suggests dissatisfaction with the current regime. The election results say that, of the extra ~11m voters, ~7.5m voted for the incumbent, assuming ANejad's original voters voted the same way. This is eminently illogical.
2. I've been keeping up with every verified twitter feed; a # are Ministry officials saying that they were instructed to say 62% without even counting. Journalist interviews corroborate this, as does the massive baseej/police/revolutionary guard force around vote-counting buildings.
3. Unlike previous protests in '99 and '03, this one is NOT primarily student based, as you can see even "poorer" elements of Tehran [road workers, civil servants] demonstrating alongside the doctors, students, etc. [cf. youtube videos] This shows broader support than the wealthy/affluent/educated.
4. Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a high-ranking cleric and intimate/student of the founder of the IRI, has said himself in an official address that the election was not free/fair. While midranking/minor clerics have been doing this, the fact that a huge and influential Ayatollah has thrown in further reinforces popular religious as well as political sentiment against the fairness of the elections.
5. While the Guardian Council / Supreme Leader have allowed a recount/investigation, for some reason - though it is technically within their right - voided the election and called for a new one. GC claims it is illegal; a look at Iranian Republic law says otherwise. Fear of a revote suggests irregularities/rigging.
P.S. I agree that ANejad has regional/national popularity, and has increased it during his tenure as president. However, he is a polarizing figure - while his supporters may have increased / become more insistent, his detractors have also become more vocal [either b/c he's screwing the economy or they disagree with his expansionist/regional intent]. It is unfair to say his political capital has only increased over the past 4 years.
@Xeris baseless claims of ignorance are insipid, petty, and unbecoming of forum veterans. If anyone in this thread has been making uncorroborated statements devoid of factual evidence, it is you. Your Iranian heritage does not somehow give you carte blanche to trumpet your beliefs without any backing, just as my heritage does not somehow make me dumb and unworthy to comment. I expected more responsible posting from a noted member of the community.
Xeris, your data is only supported by your fingers so far.
Its obvious that it was rigged, and the reason is the following, no one in the opposition really belives in the plausability of the vote counting, theres no trust in the vote count, and since its so extremelly simple to solve that issue (put a bunch of people from the opposite party to count the votes) all leads to believing that there is indeed a conspiracy to keep the true count as mysterious and secret as possible, therefore indicating fraud.
1) I already mentioned that irregularity of Tabriz. That itself isn't grounds for assuming the election "was so transparently rigged"
2) Karroubi got almost no press and throughout the entire election campaign he was a pretty marginal candidate. Khatami and a bunch of reformists essentially urged Karroubi supporters to vote for Moussavi in order for the reformist-leaning vote to not be split among two candidates. So it really isn't that much of a surprise that he went from 5 million votes to just a few hundred thousand.
3) Difference between polling that you're referring to and those that I used are that the polls (multiple) that I used came from credible international sources, yours are from liberal Iranian media. Who's to say which is correct? I suppose nobody would really know, it's tough to get truly accurate information from Iran.
4) Perhaps the people conducting the election made a ton of extra preparations and put in a lot of extra work in order to be able to quickly get the results out. If you'd been reading news about this prior to the election you would know that they had been saying all along that they were going to work hard to get the results counted within 24 hours (which they did). Why is it so unreasonable for Iran to become efficient at vote counting/tallying?
5) What if there were twitter feeds saying exactly the contrary? You can't believe everything you're hearing especially if you aren't there.
6) For every hundred thousand protesters there are a million people who aren't protesting.
7) I never claimed the election was fully free and fair. Just because he claims it was not doesn't mean the whole thing was rigged. Again if you had read any of my previous posts you would know my stance.
8) How can you assume fear of a recount suggests rigging? You could easily say that they don't want to recount because they didn't make a mistake the first time and they don't want to waste time / harm their image by admitting the election system is flawed (I am saying it is flawed just in case you didn't understand)
9) I never said Ahmadinejad has ONLY become more popular. I've also said that he's a polarizing figure. However a majority of Iranians do support him. Just because his detractors have become louder doesn't mean the election was rigged, this just gives them a reason to fight.
To recap:
a) I never said the election was totally free and fair b) I've backed up all of my claims c) I'm not making these claims just because I'm Iranian. I'm making these claims (as I said before) because I wrote a 100+ page paper about Iran, I've read over 60 books about Iranian politics/etc, and I've been following the election for many months now, plus I've been in communication with my family in Iran, plus I've been able to speak personally to some very influential Middle East scholars, plus I've talked to several of my professors about this very issue. d) Quote me stuff I've said that had no backing.
Next,
- you can't trust with a lot of confidence numbers you get coming out of Iran, regardless of the source, so they should be used as a guide rather than fact - your claim that the election was totally "transparently rigged" is false. at best there are a few irregularities in the voting that suggest something fishy, but nothing that outright says "THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED". unless you think you and your best friend are more of an authority on whether the election was rigged than most Middle East specialists.
On June 17 2009 04:20 D10 wrote: Xeris, your data is only supported by your fingers so far.
Its obvious that it was rigged, and the reason is the following, no one in the opposition really belives in the plausability of the vote counting, theres no trust in the vote count, and since its so extremelly simple to solve that issue (put a bunch of people from the opposite party to count the votes) all leads to believing that there is indeed a conspiracy to keep the true count as mysterious and secret as possible, therefore indicating fraud.
Uh if Moussavi counted the votes then you would have the EXACT same problem? Ahmadinejad supporters would call foul if Moussavi won.
Until I see serious scholarly articles/etc giving solid evidence of why they think the election was rigged, I'll continue to have faith that it was not. Most scholars that I've read so far say that there isn't enough evidence to confidently say it was rigged.
All democratic elections are to be completely transparent. Saying there isn't "enough" evidence of rigging has the entire burden of proof completely backwards. There should be no evidence whatsoever.
On June 17 2009 04:42 Xeris wrote: Claiming that the election was rigged because it wasn't transparent is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equate to causation.
I think my main problem with your posts is that you keep making straw man arguments. He never claimed that because the election wasn't transparent, that it was rigged.
On June 17 2009 04:42 Xeris wrote: Claiming that the election was rigged because it wasn't transparent is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equate to causation.
On June 17 2009 04:42 Xeris wrote: Claiming that the election was rigged because it wasn't transparent is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equate to causation.
so what? why not run a transparent election?
why not? I'm not defending the way they run the elections, I'm defending the results...
it would be nice if they ran transparent elections; but they don't really do that unfortunately. but just because they aren't transparent doesn't mean there's always foul play going on. that's all I'm saying.
Look Xeris, I understand your point of view and I agree with most of the things you're posting. But you can't realistically assume the elections wasn't rigged simply because it wasn't proved otherwise. The evidence you have that it wasn't might be strong. But you have to at least agree that your evidence just as circumstantial as their evidence. You can't be sure of either.
The only way to be 100% sure that the flaws (that you admit) didn't change the winner would be well fiscalized (does this word exists?) recounting. There is no fair justified reason to not recount. You should be even glad that recounting is possible. If it was here in Brazil there would be no recounting because it is technically impossible in our system, that is even more flawed than Iran's lol
So all in all I do support the protesters for demanding a recount, regardless if that would change anything.
538 was an amazing website during the American Elections. Their number crunching is unmatched by any MSM
Again, as we have mentioned on several occasions, the numbers still do not prove any wrongdoing, as large scale changes in public opinion do happen regularly around the world. However, given the polling data in the run-up to the balloting, and the historical trend away from electoral domination in the first round by one candidate, this very fishy regional data tends to strongly support that which the canceled Mousavi protest was meant to express.
On June 17 2009 05:20 VIB wrote: Look Xeris, I understand your point of view and I agree with most of the things you're posting. But you can't realistically assume the elections wasn't rigged simply because it wasn't proved otherwise. The evidence you have that it wasn't might be strong. But you have to at least agree that your evidence just as circumstantial as their evidence. You can't be sure of either.
The only way to be 100% sure that the flaws (that you admit) didn't change the winner would be well fiscalized (does this word exists?) recounting. There is no fair justified reason to not recount. You should be even glad that recounting is possible. If it was here in Brazil there would be no recounting because it is technically impossible in our system, that is even more flawed than Iran's lol
So all in all I do support the protesters for demanding a recount, regardless if that would change anything.
I'm not saying for sure that the election wasn't rigged. It's possible, I think there might have been some rigging (but not that would have significantly changed the results). What I AM saying is that I have more faith in Iran than most people and I'd like to believe that it was a fairly legitimate election. I was disappointed that Ahmadinejad won because I'm a big Moussavi fan, but more than the particular regime in power, I am a supporter of Iran.
The results of an election that wasn't transparent is meaningless. The results of an election that was held in the absence of free press is meaningless. Yeah, every election in Iran is that way. And that's precisely what is wrong with Iran. It's a totalitarian state. Even Mousavi has been part of a government executing ten thousands of political opponents. There are no freedoms and no human rights. The government controls all media. Every day newspaper content has to be approved by government officials.
The people have every moral right to go unto the streets and protest. And no one can give strong evidence that the election was rigged. That's the point. That's why the people are angry. And the Iran government likes it that way. There is a reason why they crack down on every journalist. Why they don't allow international observers. Why put the burden of proof the way you do? Isn't a government corrupt unless proven otherwise? Doesn't history show that?
But right now it doesn't even matter anymore if the election was rigged or not. It doesn't matter if we think the election was rigged. It doesn't matter if 'experts' in the western media think it was rigged. A very large part of the Iranian people think it's rigged or they are at least angry enough about not being able to know if they were cheated or not. They are on the street risking 20 years in prison by official law and they risk to be killed by paramilitary units. Iran is not the worst tyranny in the world. But it's a perfect example of a tyranny.
As for the Islamic republic. It's a fairy tale. The clerics were never able to enforce their vision of what is an Islamic republic. No matter how cruel and extreme the punishments, people still disobey them. There is no way they are going to enforce their morality on the Iranian people. Especially not after these few days. They better figure this out and give up on that for their own good. Or else they regime will be even more vulnerable. But their problem is that with Achmedinejad that probably isn't possible. He is a polarising figure with little pragmatism, trusting in that the Basij and Ansar thugs to keep him in power no matter what the common people think. And trusting in that Khamenei can't give up on him because of his popularity under Khamenei's most important supporters. It's not easy for Khamenei to drop Ahmadinejad because right now without Ahmadinejad and his supporters he will have problems vs Rafsanjani and co.
Xeris, it's sad to hear that you support the Iranian regime over the Iranian people. I don't know how you can say this. Half of Iran is female and even if they support politicians that enforce their Islamic morality, they still don't get the human rights they have. Woman have all the human rights everyone else has even if they vote against it. The whole islamic regime is build on violence and tyranny. Maybe a bit less than the last shah. But that doesn't matter. You can't defend this government. Their human rights record speaks for itself. You are on the wrong side of history.
On June 17 2009 05:24 Xeris wrote: (but not that would have significantly changed the results)
That's what I'm saying that you can't be sure of. Just recount and get over with it. No matter what you believe is more "probable", you should be supporting recounting either way. It's the only way to guarantee fairness.
I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
just like to throw out a huge thank you to all the heavy posters in the thread for some awesome discussion and plenty of sources and facts. I knew absolutely NOTHING straying into this thread (i'd have trouble pinpointing iran in a map) and now that i've reached the current end of it, i feel like i've taken a crash course on the current iranian election and i've got a boat load of different sources to fish more info from. The local perspectives also make things interesting.
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
Actually "Nat'l" means National which generally means someone who uh... lives there.
I would take the word of someone who lives there pretty well.
I can't take Xeris seriously after reading this thread. Brings nothing to the table except "trust me guys everyone is sooooo biased its soooo unfair". I had to lol when he said the Huffington Post was a conservative news source.
Kudos on those, especially Stealth, who have continued to post news from a large variety of actual sources and not just spun some theories with disregard for the facts.
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
While not an expert on the matter, I consider myself fairly well read in general; I can identify most national capitals tyvm and have at least basic understanding of most international politics [being a student of the 2nd-best political science program in the nation]. I am not some ignorant punk just mouthing off about anything and everything.
I only used that reference to explain how I can understand Farsi-written sources despite not knowing the language myself. Don't give me that shit.
I'm not saying for sure that the election wasn't rigged. It's possible, I think there might have been some rigging (but not that would have significantly changed the results). What I AM saying is that I have more faith in Iran than most people and I'd like to believe that it was a fairly legitimate election. I was disappointed that Ahmadinejad won because I'm a big Moussavi fan, but more than the particular regime in power, I am a supporter of Iran.
Having faith and liking to believe are rarely legitimate grounds, eh.
actually it was a demonstration of - at most - 200 people in front of the consulate general of iran. Only five persons (exil-iranians) tried to climb over the fence of the consulate.
At least that's what the news is about. You can't really call that a riot.
I'm not saying for sure that the election wasn't rigged. It's possible, I think there might have been some rigging (but not that would have significantly changed the results). What I AM saying is that I have more faith in Iran than most people and I'd like to believe that it was a fairly legitimate election. I was disappointed that Ahmadinejad won because I'm a big Moussavi fan, but more than the particular regime in power, I am a supporter of Iran.
Having faith and liking to believe are rarely legitimate grounds, eh.
You obviously can't follow logic, or haven't read the whole thread. The evidence supporting election rigging is dubious outside of the anomaly of Ahmadinejad winning in the hometown's of his rivals. Although suspicious it is hardly concrete proof of election fraud. Many of the other irregularities can be explained, aka police forces being stationed outside of where the votes were being counted in order to keep it a safe/secure location and whatnot.
Not only is the evidence supporting election rigging hardly concrete, I personally don't believe it was. Understand now?
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
Actually "Nat'l" means National which generally means someone who uh... lives there.
I would take the word of someone who lives there pretty well.
Yeah? And what Iranian nationals have posted here? And even if so, does that make them an expert? How knowledgeable are you about what goes on at Capitol Hill? Moreso than a specialist academic on American politics at LSE or Tübingen? Of course not.
The argument that someone knows what they're talking about based on their country of origin is as fallacious as anything else in this thread. There's only one person in this thread that has done serious academic work on Iran and that happens to be Xeris.
actually it was a demonstration of - at most - 200 people in front of the consulate general of iran. Only five persons (exil-iranians) tried to climb over the fence of the consulate.
At least that's what the news is about. You can't really call that a riot.
If you go by Twitter, Huffington Post and Wikipedia as your news sources you can.
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
While not an expert on the matter, I consider myself fairly well read in general; I can identify most national capitals tyvm and have at least basic understanding of most international politics [being a student of the 2nd-best political science program in the nation]. I am not some ignorant punk just mouthing off about anything and everything.
I only used that reference to explain how I can understand Farsi-written sources despite not knowing the language myself. Don't give me that shit.
First of all, you're a sophomore? So what's the farthest you've gotten, because I've never seen you post in any other political discussion here. And you can't seriously be hoping to prove your merit by mentioning the "rank" of your department. You're better than that.
a) Every opposition candidate lost in their home district by a margin roughly equal to the total supposed vote [2:1ish] You insist on incumbent victory precedent - but you ignore hometown victory precedent. This is an odd double standard. Karroubi's votecount went from 5 million four years ago to a few hundred thousand this year; he has done nothing to lose that much popularity.
You can't make these claims without an intricate knowledge of its domestic politics. Do you realize how much has changed in the past four years and how do you know what he's done? He lost those votes because of Mousavi.
b) pre-election polling does not favour Ahmedinejad as much as you so vehemently trumpet. There are multiple polls suggesting 55-60ish for Mousavi and 20-25ish for ANejad. The polls that do give massive support for ANejad are the ones conducted by state-controlled media overseen by the President/Supreme Leader. Western talking heads suggested that it would likely go to a second round runoff, as in previous elections.
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf That's the main poll people are talking about. 34% Ahmadinejad, 14% Mousavi, 27% undecided.
d) Increased voter turnout in every election in human history suggests dissatisfaction with the current regime. The election results say that, of the extra ~11m voters, ~7.5m voted for the incumbent, assuming ANejad's original voters voted the same way. This is eminently illogical.
What? "Suggests?" It can suggest a lot of things, but it doesn't suggest with any decent accuracy that the new voters were willing to vote for Mousavi. Maybe they're ultraconservatives who aren't happy about the youth movement or Obama's presence in the Middle East. Anytime there's a movement, there's always backlash against it. You simply have no way of knowing who those new voters are.
All I see in your post are assumptions and selective information strung together with weak inferences. Honestly, man, take a scopes and methods course.
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, pre-election polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organisations from 11 May to 20 May was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighbouring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasised his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favoured Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Lol, Iran might be bad but what I see from American police and military force in terms of suppressing dissent is pretty much the same. America is just smoother in it's approach. The sheep are loving their chains and claiming they represent their freedom.
"CFI 1. I wonder if Admiral Shamkhani makes a move tomorrow, marines already prevent IRG from arresting him. he's also a war hero & ex-def minister.half a minute ago from web"
what kind of move, huh? this is a interesting post
On June 17 2009 09:10 frankbg wrote: Lol, Iran might be bad but what I see from American police and military force in terms of suppressing dissent is pretty much the same. America is just smoother in it's approach. The sheep are loving their chains and claiming they represent their freedom.
On June 17 2009 09:10 frankbg wrote: Lol, Iran might be bad but what I see from American police and military force in terms of suppressing dissent is pretty much the same. America is just smoother in it's approach. The sheep are loving their chains and claiming they represent their freedom.
You obviously see nothing from America
I think you need to take off your rose-colored glasses. Every reports coming out of the United States in the last few years have been indicating a decline in press freedom and increase in police abuse of political protests.
Sure, you don't shoot the protesters down but you charge them just as easily. The only way you can protest in the U.S. without getting in trouble is if you walk on the sidewalk. Maybe you should go to one of these protest sometime and see that your country isn't all that much greater than Iran when freedom is regarded.
I think you need to take off your rose-colored glasses. Every reports coming out of the United States in the last few years have been indicating a decline in press freedom and increase in police abuse of political protests.
Sure, you don't shoot the protesters down but you charge them just as easily. The only way you can protest in the U.S. without getting in trouble is if you walk on the sidewalk. Maybe you should go to one of these protest sometime and see that your country isn't all that much greater than Iran when freedom is regarded.
are you basically insinuating that there is no difference between the US and Iran ? Comon, you can't be serious.
On June 17 2009 09:10 frankbg wrote: Lol, Iran might be bad but what I see from American police and military force in terms of suppressing dissent is pretty much the same. America is just smoother in it's approach. The sheep are loving their chains and claiming they represent their freedom.
yeah, arresting opposition party members and shutting off news websites to the country happens all the time in the US
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
While not an expert on the matter, I consider myself fairly well read in general; I can identify most national capitals tyvm and have at least basic understanding of most international politics [being a student of the 2nd-best political science program in the nation]. I am not some ignorant punk just mouthing off about anything and everything.
I only used that reference to explain how I can understand Farsi-written sources despite not knowing the language myself. Don't give me that shit.
1) Being "well read" doesn't make you an expert, or even qualified to be in an informed discussion about Iranian politics
2) What does knowing national capitals and having a basic understand of international politics have to do with this? We're talking specifically about Iranian politics here.
3) What does being a student in Cal's poli sci program mean? Are you somehow better or more qualified than me because your school is ranked 2nd and mine is ranked 6th? Have you written a 100 page thesis on Iran? How many books specifically have you read about Iranian politics? How often do you read Iranian news sites, and how often do you ask your Iranian best friend "hey what's the latest goings on in Iran?" I bet the answer to those questions are No, None, and Rarely.
Just because you can look at a few random websites and find some numbers and try to insinuate that they make claims and you're somehow more qualified than me to know what you're talking about is pretty insulting, especially since I'm graduated with honors and literally spent the entire year learning about Iran in depth, etc etc (I've already said my qualifications). Just because I'm not quoting random websites doesn't mean I'm pulling these things out of my ass.
Obviously nobody in this thread is supposed to take my word as law, but at least look at it from a logical perspective and perhaps you can see I'm making reasoned and logical posts. Funny how until someone with a red-bolded name criticized me not many other people in this thread were doing it. Red names don't make you an authority on a subject.
Ayatollah Montazeri is now supporting a split in votes.
No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad
"A government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy," he declared in comments on his official Web site. "I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to 'sell their religion,' and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God."
This just add fire to the rumors that there is a split between the senior Ayatollah's. Whether this will change anything is anybody's guess.
Montazeri has been anti Khamenei for quite awhile, especially because he and many other Ayatollah's believe that Khamenei doesn't have the religious qualifications to really be qualified to be the Supreme Leader. He was actually never an Ayatollah (Khamenei), Khomeini just made him the next Supreme Leader because he didn't feel anyone else was fit for it (or anybody that he thought would continue with his policies, etc)
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
While not an expert on the matter, I consider myself fairly well read in general; I can identify most national capitals tyvm and have at least basic understanding of most international politics [being a student of the 2nd-best political science program in the nation]. I am not some ignorant punk just mouthing off about anything and everything.
I only used that reference to explain how I can understand Farsi-written sources despite not knowing the language myself. Don't give me that shit.
1) Being "well read" doesn't make you an expert, or even qualified to be in an informed discussion about Iranian politics
2) What does knowing national capitals and having a basic understand of international politics have to do with this? We're talking specifically about Iranian politics here.
3) What does being a student in Cal's poli sci program mean? Are you somehow better or more qualified than me because your school is ranked 2nd and mine is ranked 6th? Have you written a 100 page thesis on Iran? How many books specifically have you read about Iranian politics? How often do you read Iranian news sites, and how often do you ask your Iranian best friend "hey what's the latest goings on in Iran?" I bet the answer to those questions are No, None, and Rarely.
Just because you can look at a few random websites and find some numbers and try to insinuate that they make claims and you're somehow more qualified than me to know what you're talking about is pretty insulting, especially since I'm graduated with honors and literally spent the entire year learning about Iran in depth, etc etc (I've already said my qualifications). Just because I'm not quoting random websites doesn't mean I'm pulling these things out of my ass.
Obviously nobody in this thread is supposed to take my word as law, but at least look at it from a logical perspective and perhaps you can see I'm making reasoned and logical posts. Funny how until someone with a red-bolded name criticized me not many other people in this thread were doing it. Red names don't make you an authority on a subject.
So you spent a year learning about Iran, in depth even! Yet all you can say is, the poll is not rigged, even though it clearly is. You should know Mr Scholar that if you do not give a source for anything you say, you actually did pull it out of your ass. You aren't making any logical posts other than: "Look guys I'm from Iran, my word is better than yours, therefore you are wrong." I've stopped reading your posts at one point, because you are painfully annoying, stubborn and bland.
It's even hilarious that you read LastRomantics post as a criticism to you, whilst it clearly was a response to another person asking him questions. He never said knowing the capital of Iran had anything to do with anything, yet you perceive it as such.
To be honest though, my post is biased. I never liked you anyway, so whatever I said is wrong.
I feel like half the people in this thread wouldn't pass Philosophy 101 because they're completely failing to comprehend the difference between positive and negative statements. Right now, there is a lack of evidence upon which to make a reasonable inference that the election was rigged. Does that mean the election was fair? No. But it means that with the current evidence and using logic (real logic, as in "if p, then q"; not an internet user's idea of being "logical") you can't make a sound judgment on the legitimacy of the election.
Crap like "but this happened before" or "they lost their hometown" (which happens in the US all the time, btw) or even pointing towards the horribly mishandled reaction by the government all amount to weak circumstantial evidence to build a theory on. In a court of law, you need forensic evidence to make use of circumstantial evidence, and right now there is none. None of you would ever submit a university paper with this weak of logical underpinnings, so what allows you to claim these elections are "obviously rigged?"
The speed of the vote count raises concern, but that's merely questionable. It is not proof.
- an important factor in the Iranian elections (like in many other nations lately) is communication among people these days: it is getting harder and harder to maintain power using old methods, or for that matter commit injustice in private and out of the public eye, for this we have to thank the internet. - Iran has currently over 24 million internet users (a third of its population), the number has doubled almost on a yearly basis, and the vast majority of its population is under 25. There are as many Iranians with internet access that than all the other countries in the Middle East combined (Including Israel). It is the urban youth that has the greatest access and internet use.
- the youth has very different perspectives than the establishment in Iran. And, when the youth becomes politically active, change comes, sooner or later (this last sentence goes for any other nation too).
- to everything else that is going on one must add a budget of over 400 million US$ specifically assigned to undermine religious authority in Iran, all ongoing for years, eventually it will bring about results in one form or another (and I am not even go into the alleged covert operations by Israel and Saudi Arabia in Iran).
- so yeah, a lot is going on and I doubt anyone will ever have the last word on this subject..
jibba is a moron cause he cannot comprehend that the government behaviour to it all strongly indicates cheatin.
fuck proof, they gave it long ago, and there's no court in a revolution. screw proof, and its not even about the vote anymore, it's about change, remove the regime.
On June 17 2009 12:39 MarklarMarklar wrote: jibba is a moron cause he cannot comprehend that the government behaviour to it all strongly indicates cheatin.
fuck proof, they gave it long ago, and there's no court in a revolution. screw proof, and its not even about the vote anymore, it's about change, remove the regime.
Your behavior indicates that you could be severely brain damaged due to your mother's alcoholism while pregnant, but would I say it strongly indicates that to be true? No, I wouldn't. It's just a possibility right now, just like the rigging of this election.
I don't know... if I legitimately won an election, and that legitimacy was in question, I would probably try to convince people by some other method than trying to shut down all communication with the outside world.
No, we don't have a smoking gun here, but I don't see the motivation behind the behavior of Ahmadinejad if he really did win. I see plenty of motivation for his actions if he has something to hide.
We don't really know where the orders are coming from (or which orders actually happened.) If there's a power to blame, it's probably Khamenei more than Ahmadinejad.
One explanation I've heard about phone and internet going down, from an Iranian, is partly that the country's infrastructure is terrible and there's widespread outages any time a major event occurs.
On June 17 2009 12:58 ninjafetus wrote: I don't know... if I legitimately won an election, and that legitimacy was in question, I would probably try to convince people by some other method than trying to shut down all communication with the outside world.
No, we don't have a smoking gun here, but I don't see the motivation behind the behavior of Ahmadinejad if he really did win. I see plenty of motivation for his actions if he has something to hide.
If you think that you don't know Ahmadinejad. He's not a good President, and he does this kind of shit all the time. It's not because the election may/may not have been rigged, it's that he uses these kinds of strong-man tactics quite often to quiet dissenters when they get loud enough.
On June 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
And Glaucus is a pretty obvious troll. That should've been clear to everyone by post #4.
While not an expert on the matter, I consider myself fairly well read in general; I can identify most national capitals tyvm and have at least basic understanding of most international politics [being a student of the 2nd-best political science program in the nation]. I am not some ignorant punk just mouthing off about anything and everything.
I only used that reference to explain how I can understand Farsi-written sources despite not knowing the language myself. Don't give me that shit.
1) Being "well read" doesn't make you an expert, or even qualified to be in an informed discussion about Iranian politics
2) What does knowing national capitals and having a basic understand of international politics have to do with this? We're talking specifically about Iranian politics here.
3) What does being a student in Cal's poli sci program mean? Are you somehow better or more qualified than me because your school is ranked 2nd and mine is ranked 6th? Have you written a 100 page thesis on Iran? How many books specifically have you read about Iranian politics? How often do you read Iranian news sites, and how often do you ask your Iranian best friend "hey what's the latest goings on in Iran?" I bet the answer to those questions are No, None, and Rarely.
Just because you can look at a few random websites and find some numbers and try to insinuate that they make claims and you're somehow more qualified than me to know what you're talking about is pretty insulting, especially since I'm graduated with honors and literally spent the entire year learning about Iran in depth, etc etc (I've already said my qualifications). Just because I'm not quoting random websites doesn't mean I'm pulling these things out of my ass.
Obviously nobody in this thread is supposed to take my word as law, but at least look at it from a logical perspective and perhaps you can see I'm making reasoned and logical posts. Funny how until someone with a red-bolded name criticized me not many other people in this thread were doing it. Red names don't make you an authority on a subject.
So you spent a year learning about Iran, in depth even! Yet all you can say is, the poll is not rigged, even though it clearly is. You should know Mr Scholar that if you do not give a source for anything you say, you actually did pull it out of your ass. You aren't making any logical posts other than: "Look guys I'm from Iran, my word is better than yours, therefore you are wrong." I've stopped reading your posts at one point, because you are painfully annoying, stubborn and bland.
It's even hilarious that you read LastRomantics post as a criticism to you, whilst it clearly was a response to another person asking him questions. He never said knowing the capital of Iran had anything to do with anything, yet you perceive it as such.
To be honest though, my post is biased. I never liked you anyway, so whatever I said is wrong.
Good thing you never even read my posts. Strafe, thanks for your opinion.
I was reading some of those for kicks. I find it funny how most of them accuse the west of starting the uprising and lying about it - then turn around and use the Washington Post as indicators of good pre-election pools. @_@
Two Iranian soldiers kiss before they go to battle (Iran-Iraq war).
I was born in 1984, amid a devastating war that had laid waste and destruction to my country. I was born between two subsequent nights of bombing raids. I was born into rationing, despair and hardship. I was born when young lives perished at the fronts. My father later told me that when I was born 1984 sounded so much like the 1984 predicted by Orwell. But my birth had turned over the glum outlook for my parents and 1984 had become a sign of hope, a hope for a future to come, or as my father put it, “a better future for my child to live.”
My parents were not alone in this. During the baby boom of 1983 to 1986, millions of us came into this world, mouths to feed and miracles to be cherished. There and then a new generation was born, a generation who would bear witness to the legacy of generations of their parents, a legacy that was mainly composed of one thing, “the Islamic Republic.”
In later years, in our schools, on TV, in books and newspapers they told us that before our time lived a tyrant who held a firm grip on our country, and that the defiant and valiant nation of Iran had risen up and overthrown him to establish three things, “Esteghlal, Azadi, Jomhouri Eslami.”
Independence.
Freedom.
Islamic Republic.
We were fascinated by the epic tales of young students, some as young as thirteen who during the war had sacrificed themselves for the greater good of the society. We were made to believe that we were living in Utopia, but the delusion only lasted a few years. Before long, that once naïve and innocent generation of 1984 had grown to be the young men and women of Iran, the so called third generation of the revolution.
Faced with harsh realities of life we quickly came to realize that our world was far from the Utopia painted for us. It was more like a Dystopia where we had to fight for every single right, every single freedom.You have denied us so much.
Out of this dark age one day emerged a man with qualities of a hero who would lead this generation out of this Dystopia and into that promised paradise. His name was Mohammad Khatami. Yet it turned out that he was neither the hero everyone expected him to be, nor did he have the capacity or desire to lead them out. To be fair things started crawling toward progress and modernization; there was a smaller degree of social rights and freedom, but it did not come at the pace that this restless third generation wanted.
Thus a hero fell, and four years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started.
By the end of the four years, we were desperate for change. Hope materialized in the shape of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who happened to be the prime minister that now long gone 1984. But the totalitarians ruling the Dystopia swooped in and crushed that last bit of hope.
In Brecht’s “Life of Galileo,” Galileo’s students condemn him at the end of the court proceedings with these words: “Pity the nation that doesn’t have a hero.”
“Pity the nation that needs a hero,” he responds wisely.
My generation is tired of being disillusioned. We refuse to accept the status quo and we have risen up in defiance. I am not sure how long it will take for the totalitarians to crush our resistance. For now though, we’re holding up just fine. We’re holding up fine even though our brothers at Basij and the police are murdering their dear fellow Iranians. We’re holding up even though you bash us with clubs and batons and try to suffocate us with your tear gas.
A nation stands tall refusing to succumb that easily.
Yesterday among the crowds who were just back from the warzone with their wounds and anger and sadness, I spotted an old friend of mine.
“Welcome to 1984, my friend,” he said in great anguish.
I nodded in agreement; we’d come full circle.
He went on, “There we were facing the bloodthirsty riot police, hand in hand, like that ‘Brothers in Arms’ song from Dire Straits.”
It was in that moment that I realized why the French Revolutionaries added “Fraternity” to their revolutionary slogan.
Ahmadinejad is in Russia right now and he's not talking about the situation in Iran. At the same time, he's trying to shift attention from the protests to U.S imperialism.
Iran hasn't seen such public outcry since the Iran-Iraq war and he's still in Russia. This just boggles the mind. Why in hell is the 'elected' leader of his country avoiding the situation, while the Supreme Ayatollah has to resort to calming down his people?
Meanwhile, Obama is being very cautious, but is giving signals that he's willing to talk with whoever will be the President of Iran after the election has been settled. It's a great political decision.
On June 17 2009 15:05 broz0rs wrote: Ahmadinejad is in Russia right now and he's not talking about the situation in Iran. At the same time, he's trying to shift attention from the protests to U.S imperialism.
Iran hasn't seen such public outcry since the Iran-Iraq war and he's still in Russia. This just boggles the mind. Why in hell is the 'elected' leader of his country avoiding the situation, while the Supreme Ayatollah has to resort to calming down his people?
Meanwhile, Obama is being very cautious, but is giving signals that he's willing to talk with whoever will be the President of Iran after the election has been settled. It's a great political decision.
Ahmadinejad isn't a very good President, that's why.
On June 17 2009 03:27 warding wrote: This is beyond the matter of whether it was rigged or not. There is simply no transparency in the electoral system. Even if it wasn't rigged, the elections in Iran are carried in an unacceptable way for a country claiming to be a functioning democracy. Because the system is so poorly and unfairly designed, it is expectable that people will feel the elections are unjust. Iranian authorities use tyrannical supression measures and disallow freedom of press and expression, it is then no wonder there is outrage and riots in the streets.
I understand why stability in Iran would be desireable for some, but it is a stability that leads to a continuation of awfully poor economic policies, an increasing international isolation and a an illiberal state.
Why are you assuming an illiberal state is good? Do you not understand that there is more than one conception of what a successful state can be? Have you considered that people in the country are fairly pleased with how things are? Sure Iran is not a utopian society, but it is not this "backward, oppressive regime" that you people are making it out to believe. I know there are even many Iranians who think this way, most Iranians living outside Iran think this way, and there are perhaps even a few million IN Iran who also think that way. But a majority of the country doesn't. A majority of the country are deeply religious and are generally happy with the way things are. It is not our business to tell Iran what kind of government they should have, what they should do with their media, and how they should run elections.
Elections have not been a major problem up until now, because a reformist lost who happened to run a pretty strong, modern campaign... that's the only reason. If Iran was such a tyrannical, conservative state there is NO WAY Khatami would have been President for 8 years. Anyone who thinks Iran is some sort of authoritarian/dictatorship country would have a pretty hard time explaining why a massively popular Khatami (he was probably 10x more popular than Moussavi ever will be) was elected and RE-elected to the Presidency. If any election were to be rigged to put a conservative in office it would have been either the 97 election or the 2000 election
You are crossing the line of BS, I don't know where you are getting this information. All you have to do, to get a clear picture of what majority think, is to travel from city to city, talk to people in buses, taxi etc. and you will change your mind. Don't fucking assume what majority of our people want. I know we have stability and security, but saddam's regime had that too....It's not enough.
The main reason so many people went to vote, was to prevent Ahmadinejad from staying in power, and he wins with 63% of votes? yea rite. WHERE'S MY VOTE?
Do you live in Tehran? One person's vote doesn't win an election. Your vote is probably with the other 12 million who voted for Moussavi.... 24 million people voted for Ahmadinejad O_O
On June 17 2009 09:10 frankbg wrote: Lol, Iran might be bad but what I see from American police and military force in terms of suppressing dissent is pretty much the same. America is just smoother in it's approach. The sheep are loving their chains and claiming they represent their freedom.
You obviously see nothing from America
I think you need to take off your rose-colored glasses. Every reports coming out of the United States in the last few years have been indicating a decline in press freedom and increase in police abuse of political protests.
Sure, you don't shoot the protesters down but you charge them just as easily. The only way you can protest in the U.S. without getting in trouble is if you walk on the sidewalk. Maybe you should go to one of these protest sometime and see that your country isn't all that much greater than Iran when freedom is regarded.
I think you need to take off your black-colored glasses. You cannot see the difference between Iran and the USA. You are wrong.
Sorry, but try to protest in the USA before you lie to everyone here. I have done it. You are wrong.
I would love if someone could translate the main points of that ^^
But there was an interesting post some pages ago doing some basic statistic analysis of the official pool numbers, which looks pretty convincing imho: + Show Spoiler +
On June 15 2009 17:53 benjammin wrote: Here's an interesting comment left on 538's updated polling results:
I took a look at the spreadsheet another commenter linked to with the city reports and checked the frequency of all the last digits. In the Vietnam war, they faked body counts and this was statistically noticeable. Here are the counts:
If the Administration took a side it would be the absolute worst thing to the protests and it's supporters. Ahmadinejad would use that as an excuse to move in troops and so forth which could end in bloodshed.
Wow theses videos and reports are geting more compelling by the day it seems. BTW StealthBlue U>CNN. This maybe the most importent event in world history for the past 3-4 years and I get better coverage from fucking Youtube, Twitter, and Stealthblue then any major media outlet in the west. Its a bad fucking joke.
On June 17 2009 12:30 Jibba wrote: I feel like half the people in this thread wouldn't pass Philosophy 101 because they're completely failing to comprehend the difference between positive and negative statements. Right now, there is a lack of evidence upon which to make a reasonable inference that the election was rigged. Does that mean the election was fair? No. But it means that with the current evidence and using logic (real logic, as in "if p, then q"; not an internet user's idea of being "logical") you can't make a sound judgment on the legitimacy of the election.
Crap like "but this happened before" or "they lost their hometown" (which happens in the US all the time, btw) or even pointing towards the horribly mishandled reaction by the government all amount to weak circumstantial evidence to build a theory on. In a court of law, you need forensic evidence to make use of circumstantial evidence, and right now there is none. None of you would ever submit a university paper with this weak of logical underpinnings, so what allows you to claim these elections are "obviously rigged?"
The speed of the vote count raises concern, but that's merely questionable. It is not proof.
Now that is a very good summary of the current situation regarding the validity of the election results.
Not related to the topic but I just hate Iranians. They loiter around our country nowadays, trying to study. First of all their English is very poor and they intend to learn Dentistry in our university. Also they are very rude and they don't have manners, they don't respect other people even their own country men. One incident is where they scratched about 3 professors cars and the Deans car. They also stabbed one Filipino. Just from my experience with Iranians here in my country. They are dirty people they don't even wash their clothes and they stink.
On June 17 2009 19:03 oneill wrote: Not related to the topic but I just hate Iranians. They loiter around our country nowadays, trying to study. First of all their English is very poor and they intend to learn Dentistry in our university. Also they are very rude and they don't have manners, they don't respect other people even their own country men. One incident is where they scratched about 3 professors cars and the Deans car. They also stabbed one Filipino. Just from my experience with Iranians here in my country. They are dirty people they don't even wash their clothes and they stink.
There is certainly a nasty stink here but I don't think it is your Iranians who are to blame.
On June 17 2009 19:03 oneill wrote: Not related to the topic but I just hate Iranians. They loiter around our country nowadays, trying to study. First of all their English is very poor and they intend to learn Dentistry in our university. Also they are very rude and they don't have manners, they don't respect other people even their own country men. One incident is where they scratched about 3 professors cars and the Deans car. They also stabbed one Filipino. Just from my experience with Iranians here in my country. They are dirty people they don't even wash their clothes and they stink.
Funny, I always thought the same about people from the Philippines in my country.
Xeris wrote What evidence do you have that the election was "so transparently rigged" ?
The same evidence you have that rigging 12 million votes is hard.
Xeris wrote Everyone's making the protesters out to be these happy go lucky Iranians peacefully sitting around protesting. No, they're probably starting fires, breaking shit, insulting the government, etc.
God forbid someone should insult their government.
Xeris wrote it's tough to get truly accurate information from Iran.
Unless you're Xeris?
Jibba wrote I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
JFC.. You think people who've read books know more about the country than the people of the country?
choboPEon wrote You obviously see nothing from America
No, they do a great job at concealing it.
Xeris wrote 3) What does being a student in Cal's poli sci program mean? Are you somehow better or more qualified than me because your school is ranked 2nd and mine is ranked 6th? Have you written a 100 page thesis on Iran? How many books specifically have you read about Iranian politics? How often do you read Iranian news sites, and how often do you ask your Iranian best friend "hey what's the latest goings on in Iran?" I bet the answer to those questions are No, None, and Rarely.
Seriously dude. Now THAT is the coolest EPEEN contest ever!
I wanna join too! Xeris, how many family members have you lost in the 70's-80's to the Iranian government?
Oh oh.. and about your politically active family (the ones you haven't lost) how many books, articles, news papers have they WRITTEN on Iran since the 70's up untill now?
Hurry up an answer so we can see who's more correct!
On June 17 2009 19:03 oneill wrote: Not related to the topic but I just hate Iranians. They loiter around our country nowadays, trying to study. First of all their English is very poor and they intend to learn Dentistry in our university. Also they are very rude and they don't have manners, they don't respect other people even their own country men. One incident is where they scratched about 3 professors cars and the Deans car. They also stabbed one Filipino. Just from my experience with Iranians here in my country. They are dirty people they don't even wash their clothes and they stink.
Funny, I always thought the same about people from the Philippines in my country.
Sometimes I wonder whether if Ahmadinejad had a chance to prove his victory if he did win. The secrecy that the Iranian government may have operated under make suspicion easy to fuel and hard to dispel and made this actually quite difficult even if he won mostly clean. Open and monitored elections is not there to protect the people from stolen elections, it is there to protect the government from the population as well.
His response of both ignoring and repression after the calls of vote fraud makes him more suspicious to those that already distrust him, but is it possible it is actually not that abnormal in the context of Iranian politics and it only flared up this time? (for example, if unsupported calls of fraud happens after every election and thus generally discredited on default?) From an outsider perspective and without accurate polling, we can't really say who really "ought" have won and can only speculate from the responses of the people involved after all.
Xeris wrote Everyone's making the protesters out to be these happy go lucky Iranians peacefully sitting around protesting. No, they're probably starting fires, breaking shit, insulting the government, etc.
God forbid someone should insult their government.
Jibba wrote I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
JFC.. You think people who've read books know more about the country than the people of the country?
Xeris wrote 3) What does being a student in Cal's poli sci program mean? Are you somehow better or more qualified than me because your school is ranked 2nd and mine is ranked 6th? Have you written a 100 page thesis on Iran? How many books specifically have you read about Iranian politics? How often do you read Iranian news sites, and how often do you ask your Iranian best friend "hey what's the latest goings on in Iran?" I bet the answer to those questions are No, None, and Rarely.
Seriously dude. Now THAT is the coolest EPEEN contest ever!
I wanna join too! Xeris, how many family members have you lost in the 70's-80's to the Iranian government?
Oh oh.. and about your politically active family (the ones you haven't lost) how many books, articles, news papers have they WRITTEN on Iran since the 70's up untill now?
Hurry up an answer so we can see who's more correct!
Hamin ke beduni, manam irani hastam <3
Good thing your name isn't LR. I've lost quite a bit of family members actually, thanks for your concern.
Jibba wrote I find it amusing that people who never paid any attention to Iran before (and probably still can't find Tehran on a map) are name dropping like crazy, and acting as if they understand the inner workings of Iranian domestic politics more than a poli sci grad student specializing on Iran. LR's post is especially ridiculous. Oh, you've got a friend and/or relatives of Iranian descent? Yeah, that doesn't mean shit.
JFC.. You think people who've read books know more about the country than the people of the country?
Yes. There's empirical learning and rational learning, and ideally you'll have both, but just because you're from a country doesn't mean you have either with regards to things like politics and so on. People who study a subject generally know more about it than people who don't. It's that simple. There's millions of people in every country who aren't engaged citizens, aren't that well educated and don't know much about their country simply because they live there. Even among those who are engaged, it doesn't mean they have a very clear view of the issues. This is hugely apparent in large countries. Would you rely on just New Yorkers to provide the political climate for the entire United States?
Interesting editorial out of Haaretz:
ANALYSIS / Don't write off Iran regime just yet By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: Israel News
The scenes from Tehran are beginning to remind us of the tumultuous period leading to the fall of the Shah over three decades ago. Yet it is still too early to eulogize the Ayatollah's regime. Who better than clergymen to understand the structure and the history of revolutions in Iran.
Street protests, marches, and strikes make up the formula that has twice brought about regime change. It happened the first time in 1953, when a large-scale strike of workers in the oil industry led by Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, who was swept into power and who forced the young Shah Reza Pahlavi to flee the country.
That same year, Mosaddeq was overthrown following riots that were organized by the CIA and British intelligence (MI6), and the Shah was restored to the throne. Mossadeq was placed on trial for treason and sentenced to three years in prison.
In 1979, the Shah was removed from power, thus marking the end of the Pahlavi dynasty. The Iranian revolution was characterized by massive demonstrations initiated by the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.
If Mossad chief Meir Dagan is correct, and the alleged voting irregularities in Iran are no different than the mishaps which occur in democratic countries, then the latest developments further highlight the notion that the current tensions have less to do with the election results per se. At the most, allegations of voter fraud are just an excuse, or a pretext.
The power struggle behind the scenes, which is important in and of itself, between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani does not lie at the heart of the matter. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are in a tug-of-war for influence, control, and power within the regime.
Indeed, Rafsanjani is perceived by Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as the individual backing Mousavi and the reformist camp. But Rafsanjani, Khamenei, and Mousavi are all products of the Islamic Revolution. They are proteges of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Khomeini. Their goal is not to change the character of the Islamic regime.
But the supporters that have rallied around Mousavi have other goals in mind. This is a coalition of students and young people whose future holds limited opportunities for meaningful employment, women who have been marginalized from the public landscape, and a middle class that has taken up the cause of human rights. They are not willing to settle for the crumbs that have been sent their way by Khamenei, who is now proposing a partial recount of the votes, perhaps even new elections. They want freedom and democracy. Some of them wish to go further, demanding that Iran become a full-fledged democracy.
Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards, the pillar on which the regime's power rests, all understand the dilemma with which they have to deal: if they give the order to brutally crack down on the riots, which have already spread to other cities, they are liable to ignite an even bigger conflagration.
If they do not suppress the demonstrations, they will be perceived as weaklings who blinked first. In turn, this could whet the appetites of the demonstrators, perhaps moving them to issue more demands.
Iran has reached its fork in the road. The direction in which it turns depends only on the working class. The demonstrators today are those from the middle class, those who are not deprived and who are now working towards attaining freedom and liberty. If they gain the support of the working class, the weaker sectors of the society, the poor, the texture of the campaign will take on a completely new dimension. The demand for freedom will be coupled with the demand for bread. In this case, it is difficult to assess whether the regime can withstand such a development.
BTW, here's the article with the Mossad chief's comments. Granted, the Israeli government would probably prefer Ahmadinejad in power, but Mossad still is probably the best intelligence agency in the Middle East.
On June 18 2009 00:45 Jayve wrote: That's it.. you only comment 1 thing..?
So how many books, articles, news papers and all that? Did I just win the epeen contest?
What epeen contest? It would be unbecoming of me to get into an argument with someone who hasn't even contributed to the thread at all; I was replying to LR. Frankly what you or your family has or hasn't done doesn't concern me because I wasn't arguing with you.
Mostly interesting as it has a video of the Iranian Soccer Team sporting green wristbands in the game against Korea (video towards the middle of the article).
Also from the article, in relation to today's turnout: "Some estimates say between 70,000 and 100,000, others up to 500,000."
I found this thread quite informative, and really interesting however I feel like its getting deraield by everyone attacking xeris, can we just stick to reports, perhaps speculate/debated in a different thread?
Just saying I don't want to wade through 10 posts of arguement just to find an update.
holy shit.. those protests pics are amazing. i'm really touched by the fact that the protests have been relatively non-violent. The soccer tribute was awesome. It gives me faith in humanity. lol
Mousavi, I don't know much about him, but I'm amazed by how he's able to gather people en masse, while defying the suggestions of the Supreme Ayatollah.
Famed film director, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, on behalf of Mousavi's campaign, was on BBC just now, He accused Ahamdinejad of giving up Iran's rights in Caspian Sea and other areas in the last 4 years and now is enjoying Russia's firm backing. Then he called it a Russian Coup! He said he has information that high ranking Russian advisers are teaching Ahmadinejad's thugs as to how to oppress the opposition effectively. This is Mohsen Makhmablf, not just any director. Already Iranians are gathering in front of Russian consulate in Toronto.
From Andrew Sullivan's blog. This shit just got a whole lot more complicated.
It sounds to me like maybe Makhmalbaf or Mousavi maneuvering. It's akin to Ahmadinejad being able (or not) to pin US support on Mousavi, to be able to accuse Mousavi of being a stooge of the Great Satan. If they can accuse Ahmadinejad of being a stooge of Moscow, then they can oppose him without betraying Iranian nationalism or the Revolution.
I've been thinking a lot about 1989, trying to figure out if Tehran 2009 is more like Berlin 1989 or Beijing 1989. The similarity to me is more like Beijing, in that there's no foreign power to shrug off, like the East Germans did to the Soviets in 1989. Or the rest of Central Europe did as well. So far it's all internal to Iran, like Tianamen Square was to China. But if either side can connect their opposition to outside forces, then maybe the game changes. So for Ahmadinejad, it's connecting the opposition to the US. For Mousavi, it would be connecting Ahmadinejad to Moscow. That Ahmadinejad just went to Moscow, immediately after 'winning' the election, is very helpful to doing that.
So Medvedev yuks it up with Ahmadi in Moscow; and Obama plays it cool in Washington. Advantage: Obama and Mousavi.
Jibba wrote: Yes. There's empirical learning and rational learning, and ideally you'll have both, but just because you're from a country doesn't mean you have either with regards to things like politics and so on. People who study a subject generally know more about it than people who don't. It's that simple.
So you can learn more from reading about torture than a torture victim? I'm aware that just being from Iran doesn't make you an expert, Xeris is a perfect example of this as are most Americans.
What bothers me is being from the region and watching these "experts" on the news debating about stuff they first of all are wrong about and secondly, can't even pronounce correctly.
Xeris wrote: Frankly what you or your family has or hasn't done doesn't concern me because I wasn't arguing with you.
It should, since that's the very reason that my word is clearly worth more than yours.
I think that instead of wasting half of this thread's space arguing who is more right, you guys should just present your point of view and let readers decide
Jibba wrote: Yes. There's empirical learning and rational learning, and ideally you'll have both, but just because you're from a country doesn't mean you have either with regards to things like politics and so on. People who study a subject generally know more about it than people who don't. It's that simple.
So you can learn more from reading about torture than a torture victim? I'm aware that just being from Iran doesn't make you an expert, Xeris is a perfect example of this as are most Americans.
You learn different things. You don't need to undergo torture in order to understand its effects on policy, but you don't begin to understand that without studying it. You obviously don't know how it feels without undergoing it, but if you want to argue on the basis of "feeling right" then you might as well join the Colbert Report.
More and more it's becoming clear that whether the votes were rigged or not is irrelevant. Mousavi isn't the great reformer that the idiotic Western pundits have painted him as and he's probably just as corrupt as anyone in the Middle East. Right now we're looking at the outcomes of resource mobilization and political opportunity. The election, aided heavily by the internet, provided a vehicle for mobilization and the political opportunity comes when the rest of the world is focused on Iran (again, notice the signs in English) and when the country is least stable, ie. during an election. The most telling part of the TFT poll is that the majority of Iranians, regardless of who they favored in the presidential election, wanted democratic reforms and most importantly 70% thought the Supreme Leader should be voted upon. This is like textbook social movement theory. The next step is what comes next, and increased repression by the government is probably the best choice for self preservation. :/
Makes a good argument, but you could spin that poll any number of ways.
Yeah, it's easy to speculate about where the other 42.5% of the votes would end up, but the important thing is how high that number is. Basically just makes the poll results much less meaningful.
On June 18 2009 05:25 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Hihi, drama, I love it. It's strange sometimes how easy it is to be prosperous yet everyone struggles to achieve it.
hihi, try to start over with nothing in a place like iran and tell me how easy it s to be prosperous
On June 17 2009 09:11 MarklarMarklar wrote: "CFI 1. I wonder if Admiral Shamkhani makes a move tomorrow, marines already prevent IRG from arresting him. he's also a war hero & ex-def minister.half a minute ago from web"
what kind of move, huh? this is a interesting post
I was hoping there would news or some result on what has happened since the last Tweet regarding Ali Shamkhani. Marines were preventing the guard from arresting him? That can't be the end of the story there has to be some developments since then.
One employee of the Interior Ministry, which carried out the vote count, said the government had been preparing its fraud for weeks, purging anyone of doubtful loyalty and importing pliable staff members from around the country.
"They didn't rig the vote," claimed the man, who showed his ministry identification card but pleaded not to be named. "They didn't even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it."
And from a Huffington Post:
As a smart Iranian-American reader pointed out, the best evidence of potential fraud is that the alleged results indicate that Mousavi did not even win his hometown. Now, Mousavi comes from a minority background in Iran, and in his hometown, virtually everyone is from the same minority. As the reader noted, "it's almost like having Obama getting only 20-30% of the African American vote." It's not direct evidence of fraud -- just highly improbable.
Though as been said neither are proof of fraud, as well as the Benford's Law hasn't been proven either. Still haven't found a translation of the said page yet. Hoping someone can just translate the Math and prove if it is valid or not.
Recent Tweets:
Ahmadinejad supporters setting up sites to claim we & other reliable sources r spammers: http://bit.ly/3DdvYA pls debunk #IranElection
Men in civilian clothes attacked Day hospital in Tehran http://bit.ly/aSe4s #iranelection
ABC Reports: Bay Area Iranian community starts marathon 24-hour protest against the election http://tiny.cc/7bgSg #iranelection
Students were taken to the underground of the interior ministry. Plainclothes attacked the university, insulting them and beating them up. Once they were taken to the underground, guards continued to torture them. Some of them went to the Evin prison A group of around 46 with a minibus were taken to the basement of the interior ministry blindfolded. When in the bus, they were put in seats where above above them were metal cans. Basij would come by and hit the cans to torture them. This was awful mental torture. They noticed at the point the bus turned that they were going underground. From Basij comments, they knew they were going to the basement of the interior ministry. The place they were held appeared 100 m size (not sure if square or distance) The floor was covered with black ash and steam was coming out of it. Students were forced to lie on the ground and roll across it. If they hit someone elses feet, they'd get hit with baton. The guards kept asking, "are you going to make revolution?" and issued family insults Around 50 students, 20 plainclothes/guards Later, when sitting on the ground, they were continuously told to look down and then up. After a few minutes of staring at the ground, they would receive a kick to the face. "why aren't you looking at the ground?" they'd then say. While doing this, there was the sound of breaking bricks. They were told it was from workers who were behind the building working, but it was obvious it was purposeful. This was awful mental torture. The bathrooms were inhumane. They did not have doors or covers, and students only had 30 seconds to go to the bathroom. One student whose pants was down was kicked out to be revealed to others. One student was injured in the eye earlier. He said his eyes were hurting badly, said losing eyesight. He then received a kick to his face. Another student with a broken leg, and in the corner, they didn't treat well. Almost no water offered. Students were lined up in 5s one behind another, and a little water was poured over them quickly. One of the head officers asked jokingly if their thirsts were quenched. The officers responded saying yes. The head officer then asked "then why is one in corner dying?" Soldiers took a hose and shot boiling water at all of them. Students were given old macaroni in their hands. They were fearful to eat the food because they were told that if it fell to the floor full of ash, they'd have to eat it or suffer kicking otherwise. The morning after, they received a old, dry piece of bread with piece of cheese. They had to split the bread with the person next to him. Since the bread was so dry, many crumbs would fall, and they had to pick the pieces up from the ashes.
Another ugly and dirty torture was sexual torture. They are so embarrassed that they don't want to say what happened. Once transferred to police station, the sexual torture continued.
This one day stay was the worst of their lives. Sometimes, they felt like they'd be there forever, and that no one would help. after an hour in the place, while rolling in the ground, one student began to cry, which led to the rest breaking down as well.
One of the agents who went to the basement said to the students that their experience would be 1000x worse than guantanamo.
The students were taken later to security police. They were taken to a press conference with Chancellor Dr Rahbar and a member of Majlis. The students were given shirts to cover up their blood, and the government media showed up to report. The Chancellor said the students of Tehran University were fine, but that they would still look into the allegations that the Basij had treated students poorly. If he was caring for the students, he would have prevented the attacks to begin with.
How is it possible in a country claiming to be islamic that such crimes to humanity could happen? Who is responsible for these actions? Why is the interior ministry that is supposed to protect the people a place of torture? It is the duty of all people from the universities to guard the truth and safeguard the integrity of the universities, and they swear to reveal these torture places in the country.
I just wish they would stop using election rigging as a pretext for protesting. What they are really after are more freedoms and increased rights and a reduction of the power of the Supreme Leader. It's not about the election it's about freedoms, that is a cause I can more easily rally behind rather than people talking about election rigging.
I think some students who were released are sayin they were beaten. Also some protesters who were arrested have yet to be released there whereabouts are unknown. There were also reports of authorities just coming into hospitals and arresting wounded protesters.
In Parl: Some MPs wanted 2 reveal "real identity" of plain cloth police&Ahmadinejad supporters disagreed&fight broke.(etemaad) #iranelection
[Update] International calls TO iran still possible using calling cards. No words on fax yet. #iranelection
[Trusted] International calls from iran now only possible through the state-run land-line. #iranelection
In the parliament, discussion on illegal acts by plain cloth police turns into physical fights! (etemaad.ir) #iranelection
On June 18 2009 15:48 Xeris wrote: I just wish they would stop using election rigging as a pretext for protesting. What they are really after are more freedoms and increased rights and a reduction of the power of the Supreme Leader. It's not about the election it's about freedoms, that is a cause I can more easily rally behind rather than people talking about election rigging.
Fair enough statement. Everyone knows either politician is bull crap. Still, sometimes the catalyst is there and you have to use it to start. For Americans, a small protest over a tea tax spilled over into what became the Revolution War - the election rigging (if true) is a prime example of a shadow government. Once you can band enough people you can make demands. Until then they need a specific cause to stand behind.
On June 18 2009 15:48 Xeris wrote: I just wish they would stop using election rigging as a pretext for protesting. What they are really after are more freedoms and increased rights and a reduction of the power of the Supreme Leader. It's not about the election it's about freedoms, that is a cause I can more easily rally behind rather than people talking about election rigging.
Fair enough statement. Everyone knows either politician is bull crap. Still, sometimes the catalyst is there and you have to use it to start. For Americans, a small protest over a tea tax spilled over into what became the Revolution War - the election rigging (if true) is a prime example of a shadow government. Once you can band enough people you can make demands. Until then they need a specific cause to stand behind.
Yes I'm aware of that, however I think its just worse that they are protesting the election specifically when that's really not the issue at hand.
I am inclined to agree with at least this sentiment that it is reasonable that Ahmadinejad would win this election legitimately. Respectable people like Juan Cole, and Fred Kaplan are calling it a fraud, but they are getting a lot more play in the media than respectable sources saying otherwise. Most of the coverage has been about the post election reaction rather than the election itself, which I think are separate issues. I also think it would be naive to think that there is not some sort of foreign influence involved in these protests. There are countries that have a vested interest in destabilizing Iran, and I don't see them standing back and watching this opportunity pass by. That being said, what if Ahmadinejad really did win?
Summary of today's updates from another thread (few major news station confirmed - harder to get information from normal news due to Iran's news ban).
18th of June - The protests show no signs of slowing down, and the fact that the government has been less violent so far and concentrating on discrediting the protesters instead shows that they are losing grip and painfully aware of all the attention given to what is happening right now, CNN notwithstanding. It's also a worrying step, because the moment they start feeling they are losing grip even more is the moment where they might begin to unleash brutal waves of violence again, much worse than what we've seen so far.
- There is a (so far) quiet march going on, where all the protesters are dressed in black and mourning those who have died so far. The crowds are estimated to be as big as they have been for the last few days, so that puts them between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 in Tehran alone.
- The State TV has been turned into a full-blown anti-Revolution machine, constantly hammering on how evil the "thugs" who are smashing around private property are. Problem is that those thugs are in fact Basij dressed in green, but IRIB is reporting it as pro-Moussavi supporters. They have also been showing documentaries about the evils of the internet and how the US, UK and Israel are behind the protests. State Radio is not much better, with talking heads calling for the death of those evil thugs destabilizing the country at the behest of external forces. They have also issued false reports that Moussavi was "condeming the rioters".
- The Government has closed Iran to all foreign communication and coverage, according to many reports. It would also seem that the Iranian government has opened an account in the name of Ayatollah Khameini on Twitter. There are reports that senior aides to all reformist candidates have been arrested, but it has yet to be collaborated and this is not the first time we hear such reports.
- According to Reuters, Iranian prosecutors have warned of the death penalty for the rioters who are involved in violence. Islamic cleric have warned that not going to Friday's prayer service makes you worthy of the death penalty. It is unclear yet what isn't worthy of death penalty at this point if you protest against the regime.
- All the violence reported over Iran is now exclusively done by the Basij, Ansar and, if the rumours are true, Hizbullah and Hams. The police have completely stopped participating in the repression of the population, and both the Army and IRG are standing still and not doing anything. This is good news, but the Basij are sadly not reducing the level of violence they are unleashing on the population, beating up everyone they can get their hands on. It continued all throughout the night and during the day, but due to the mass of people involved it seems that they are restraining themselves when it comes to the mass rallies, preferring to pick isolated targets.
- Universities have cancelled all exams all over the country, and a long list of rebel students was given to all universities and they have to report the students, who are to be arrested on sight.
- There have been a few confirmed cases of people threatened inside the United States for providing proxies for the revolution. Their details were available on the internet so they were passed around pro-Government forces. If you are helping this revolution, be careful to do so as anonymously as you can. It doesn't mean you are risking your life, but it could potentially result in harrassment or vandalism
On June 18 2009 15:48 Xeris wrote: I just wish they would stop using election rigging as a pretext for protesting. What they are really after are more freedoms and increased rights and a reduction of the power of the Supreme Leader. It's not about the election it's about freedoms, that is a cause I can more easily rally behind rather than people talking about election rigging.
Fair enough statement. Everyone knows either politician is bull crap. Still, sometimes the catalyst is there and you have to use it to start. For Americans, a small protest over a tea tax spilled over into what became the Revolution War - the election rigging (if true) is a prime example of a shadow government. Once you can band enough people you can make demands. Until then they need a specific cause to stand behind.
Yes I'm aware of that, however I think its just worse that they are protesting the election specifically when that's really not the issue at hand.
By switching attn from 'rigged election' to 'popular freedom' or whatever, it gives the government more of an excuse to crack down on the demonstrators; they can spin it as an attack on the Islamic Republic's fundamental tenets
so I think it's a wise move, even if it's not the actual contended issue.
- Universities have cancelled all exams all over the country, and a long list of rebel students was given to all universities and they have to report the students, who are to be arrested on sight.
- Universities have cancelled all exams all over the country, and a long list of rebel students was given to all universities and they have to report the students, who are to be arrested on sight.
wow... what is going on..
That's the thing. What is going on? Most of what we are hearing is so clearly extremely biased. I don't mean to discredit it but it certainly isn't a reliable body of information on its own.
On June 18 2009 05:25 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Hihi, drama, I love it. It's strange sometimes how easy it is to be prosperous yet everyone struggles to achieve it.
hihi, try to start over with nothing in a place like iran and tell me how easy it s to be prosperous
On June 18 2009 05:25 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Hihi, drama, I love it. It's strange sometimes how easy it is to be prosperous yet everyone struggles to achieve it.
hihi, try to start over with nothing in a place like iran and tell me how easy it s to be prosperous
Not as an individual, as a whole group together.
how is it easy when u have to rely on other people? that doesn't make any sense.
if it's so easy it clearly would happen...
or maybe you're just trying to say that in ideal it is easy, which I will agree with.
No in theory it is easy for the whole world to be prosperous now. Looking at this shit from my comfy chair here in the US it's just ridiculous how people, even educated people beat down on each other. I'm not calling them all morons, it's just interesting to see how stubbornness and selfishness denies large populations of wealth.
It's hard enough for the US population to agree that social and economic freedom creates an environment where prosperity can grow. Do you really expect the population of a country that's never had such an environment to realize "as a whole group together" how "easy it is to be prosperous"? I would guess the next generation has an idea of what they could have; that's why they're protesting, even if an election is the catalyst.
I don't see why people turn this into a democratic thing, I thought Iranian government was an autocracy , which works for self preservasion and uses elections as a tool to appear democratic to the western world and to the population. Am I wrong here ?
Anyway, reformists should have went for a DT rush. Iranian doesn't have any detection ..
On June 19 2009 15:42 Locke. wrote: Khomeini says to Mousavi either to accept the results of the election or he will be thrown out of Iran. What do you think will happen?
If he is exiled I think that will just worsen the situation.
Leader: If they don't[Mousavi,Karroubi] put an end to protests they are responsible #iranelection
I also got the impression that iF the protests don't stop they "will get to know the commanders"...
Take some parts of on the fly translations with a grain of salt. Farsi to english doesn't work so well. That's how we ended up with "wipe Israel off the map."
On June 19 2009 22:03 {ToT}Strafe wrote: As if he didn't mean that
He didn't, you fucking nitwit. It was the exact same phrasing as Iranians used during the 79 revolution, and obviously they didn't mean they wanted to wipe Iran off the map.
well, i wanted to check out that weeping part of Khamenei's speech and here it is:
honestly, it would take a miracle for this movement to continue. I have a feeling there's going to be some sharia type acts where Khamenei followers will start killing the protestors.
On June 19 2009 18:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Now chants of "Death to America"...
Wait... why? Oh was this at Khamenei's speech?
Also, I laughed.
"LEADER: Iran is the main defender of human rights"
Yeah this was during the Friday sermon. There was also something about ambassadors and Britain but couldn't really make sense of it. I assume if the British diplomat was kicked out of the country it would be on the news.
Tomorrow is Saturday. Tomorrow is a day of destiny.
Tonight, the cries of Allah-o Akbar are heard louder and louder than the nights before.
Where is this place? Where is this place where every door is closed? Where is this place where people are simply calling God? Where is this place where the sound of Allah-o Akbar gets louder and louder?
I wait every night to see if the sounds will get louder and whether the number increases. It shakes me. I wonder if God is shaken.
Where is this place that where so many innocent people are entrapped? Where is this place where no one comes to our aid? Where is this place that only with our silence we are sending our voices to the world? Where is this place that the young shed blood and then people go and pray -- standing on that same blood and pray. Where is this place where the citizens are called vagrants?
Where is this place? You want me to tell you? This place is Iran. The homeland of you and me. This place is Iran.
Human rights don't matter. If they feel there are not enough protesters and they have not enough support from the general public they will use any means necessary to quell this uprising. You don't have to mow down that many people to rout hundred thousands of peaceful protesters. And once you have cleaned the streets and terroristed the civilians you can keep the streets clean, arrest ringleaders and execute them.
In the Tiananmen Square protests soldiers were switching sides and they still choose to kill 2000 to 10000. And it worked out great. It payed off bigtime. Anyone who wants to hang unto power will do the same in a heartbeat.
So now it's a matter of judgment. Does Mousavi sent people out to die on the street? Or is he sure he can win? Is Khamenei sure he has enough power to kill many many protesters or is it just a bluff? It's hard for us to estimate how they estimate their odds. This is all chapter 1 of Sun Tsu.
But even if Khamenei coms out on top after causing so much bloodshed, he still has problems. Deng Xiaoping did away with the dogmatic hawks and reformed himself. He realized that communist isolationism was very bad for the prosperity of China. The current regime is also very bad for the prosperity of Iran. Khamenei will hae to reform himself as well. But how is he going to do that with a dogmatic hawk like Nejad?
Thing is, Khamenei is a religious leader foremost while Deng Xiaoping wasn't. And we all know religious people have problems with their judgment. But then again, Khamenei never was very interested in religion itself. So maybe he has enough sense to sacrifice religion for power.
Unlike the Chinese, the Iranian mindset will adopt martyrdom to fuel the fire for additional protest; do not expect the movement to die out even in the face of massive bloodshed.
Tomorrow is Saturday. Tomorrow is a day of destiny.
Tonight, the cries of Allah-o Akbar are heard louder and louder than the nights before.
Where is this place? Where is this place where every door is closed? Where is this place where people are simply calling God? Where is this place where the sound of Allah-o Akbar gets louder and louder?
I wait every night to see if the sounds will get louder and whether the number increases. It shakes me. I wonder if God is shaken.
Where is this place that where so many innocent people are entrapped? Where is this place where no one comes to our aid? Where is this place that only with our silence we are sending our voices to the world? Where is this place that the young shed blood and then people go and pray -- standing on that same blood and pray. Where is this place where the citizens are called vagrants?
Where is this place? You want me to tell you? This place is Iran. The homeland of you and me. This place is Iran.
man, this one got to me. one can't imagine how fearful everyone must be, but it looks like the movement is going to carry on.
dirty mother fuckers.. its easy to fucking walk around with your guns shooting unarmed people, soon the people your shooting are going to get weapons too and then we'll see how big your balls are
Holly shit, those bastards in Iran are really losing control, sending the army, tanks and choppers with freaking acid? wtf is wrong!! Hope the protesters keep this fight.. they cant give up now :S
On June 21 2009 10:26 iamtt1 wrote: i regret watching that video
Yeah it has strong content, however I have seen that in real life (Im a medical student so.. yeah), however its good that these videos are going public so that people all over the planet can see the atrocities Iran goverment is doing, fucking pricks.
Think for a moment what the ramifications are if Ahmadinejad did in fact win. Who's going to want democracy in their country now? If his win was faked, these riots are the fault of his (or his backers') cheating. But if he did win like a few pre-election polls seemed to predict, what will his tell non democratic countries about democracy?
They'll see a losing faction resort to violence. The people were given a choice, and a group of them were unhappy when more people chose the other option. Are certain governments going to think "stuff this, better not give them the choice". I mean in 2004 how many people were threatening to move to Canada if Bush won? How many wingnuts are super pissed with Obama in office?
Give people a choice, and the ones on the losing side are going to be unhappy. If Ahmadinejad did win, the situation in Iran is the worst advertisement for democracy possible.
the only purpose of the election was to unite the people, apart from that whoever won or loss is pretty much meaningless, mousavi and ahmadinejad are both the same trash
On June 21 2009 12:14 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Think for a moment what the ramifications are if Ahmadinejad did in fact win. Who's going to want democracy in their country now? If his win was faked, these riots are the fault of his (or his backers') cheating. But if he did win like a few pre-election polls seemed to predict, what will his tell non democratic countries about democracy?
They'll see a losing faction resort to violence. The people were given a choice, and a group of them were unhappy when more people chose the other option. Are certain governments going to think "stuff this, better not give them the choice". I mean in 2004 how many people were threatening to move to Canada if Bush won? How many wingnuts are super pissed with Obama in office?
Give people a choice, and the ones on the losing side are going to be unhappy. If Ahmadinejad did win, the situation in Iran is the worst advertisement for democracy possible.
this is no longer an issue of the election or democracy, but about survival for Iranians who defied the Ayatollah. its clear this whole fraud, and even the politics of Ahmadinejad, were orchestrated by the Ayatollah.
all that stuff that happened with the "where's my vote" doesn't mean anything now. the Ayatollah gave word to every Iranian: if you don't accept the vote, you'll face consequences.
the Ayatollah supporters are killing civilians without any hesitation now like it's their god given right. the "democratic" aspect of Iran's theocratic rule was a fucking fraud. all the Iranians who believed in it are getting massacred.
On June 21 2009 12:27 iamtt1 wrote: the only purpose of the election was to unite the people, apart from that whoever won or loss is pretty much meaningless, mousavi and ahmadinejad are both the same trash
no I don't think so
im pretty sure mousavi would move in the direction of relations with the west
On June 21 2009 12:14 MamiyaOtaru wrote:They'll see a losing faction resort to violence. The people were given a choice, and a group of them were unhappy when more people chose the other option. Are certain governments going to think "stuff this, better not give them the choice". I mean in 2004 how many people were threatening to move to Canada if Bush won? How many wingnuts are super pissed with Obama in office?
Not likely due to several reasons (as I live in America, I can only use that as an example).
A) After election polls would likely come close to the results and there are independent pollsters (unlike the State supported ones in Iran).
B) We release vote totals by precinct (we have tens of thousands of them), which makes it easier to verify the likely results in each area and figure out where variance occurred in the results. While one doesn't know who one voted for, the people who are registered to vote is available, and hence someone could theoretically verify a precincts results if they had that area's voluntary cooperation (ie. tons of citizens stating the results didn't make sense).
C) If something did get this out of hand, I'd guess the government would just be transparent with the results and not keep the anonymous ballots hidden / locked up. Iran likely cannot due this as there are rumors the paper ballots were burned (simply showing them or making them available to a trusted independent group would likely crush this protest peacefully).
D) I also do not believe if it was legit that a government would shut down cell phones, block web sites, and disable text messaging. After all, blocking the spread of information is usually only used when the truth is what one is trying to hide. By allowing people to communicate, they can better deduce whether there was fraud or not and stop the spread of mis-information as the election results are verified.
On June 21 2009 12:27 iamtt1 wrote: the only purpose of the election was to unite the people, apart from that whoever won or loss is pretty much meaningless, mousavi and ahmadinejad are both the same trash
no I don't think so
im pretty sure mousavi would move in the direction of relations with the west
the mullahs(the islamic ruling class, i.e: ali khameni, i.e: a piece of shit) wouldnt let someone who doesnt share the same beliefs/values as them run in an election, hes just a puppet
a real leader is one thats picked by the people only, not one that is picked by religious extremist
edit: btw ali khameni has some sort of disease(i think its cancer but i dont know what type specifically) so hopefully he'll be dying soon
On June 21 2009 12:27 iamtt1 wrote: the only purpose of the election was to unite the people, apart from that whoever won or loss is pretty much meaningless, mousavi and ahmadinejad are both the same trash
no I don't think so
im pretty sure mousavi would move in the direction of relations with the west
the mullahs(the islamic ruling class, i.e: ali khameni, i.e: a piece of shit) wouldnt let someone who doesnt share the same beliefs/values as them run in an election, hes just a puppet
a real leader is one thats picked by the people only, not one that is picked by religious extremist
edit: btw ali khameni has some sort of disease(i think its cancer but i dont know what type specifically) so hopefully he'll be dying soon
Considering his intentions and stances do you honestly think his successor will be any different.
On June 21 2009 12:27 iamtt1 wrote: the only purpose of the election was to unite the people, apart from that whoever won or loss is pretty much meaningless, mousavi and ahmadinejad are both the same trash
no I don't think so
im pretty sure mousavi would move in the direction of relations with the west
the mullahs(the islamic ruling class, i.e: ali khameni, i.e: a piece of shit) wouldnt let someone who doesnt share the same beliefs/values as them run in an election, hes just a puppet
a real leader is one thats picked by the people only, not one that is picked by religious extremist
edit: btw ali khameni has some sort of disease(i think its cancer but i dont know what type specifically) so hopefully he'll be dying soon
Considering his intentions and stances do you honestly think his successor will be any different.
i didnt fully understand your question but what i ment was in order for the people to live freely they have to overthrow the islamic regime, until this regime is in place whoever is president at that time wouldnt matter
Saw this in a friends away message, not sure if it has been posted
I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children.
On June 21 2009 13:17 keV. wrote: Saw this in a friends away message, not sure if it has been posted
I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children.
“Iran and the West” (8 p.m. Monday, National Geographic) originally aired in England and is redubbed here with American voices. This two-hour program melds terrific video and brisk storytelling to give a complete, if not thorough, history of the past 31 years since the legs of the shah’s throne started to wobble.
Nat Geo is the most non-bias thing you can hope to get real info about this revolution from. tune in!
Iran is as shining an example as any of how religion, when taken too seriously, can go haywire and control an entire society; nothing scares me quite like the prospect of a theocracy, because there is literally no limit to what you can justify if you use religion as your justification.
From wiki: "Rafsanjani has three sons: Mohsen, Mehdi, and Yasser, as well as two daughters, Fatemeh and Faezeh."
Yeah, the 1st.
Although, it'd seem rather foolish to do anything to him/his family, considering:
Currently he holds the position of Chairman of the Assembly of Experts[2] (a deliberative body of Mujtahids that is charged with electing, monitoring, and dismissing the Supreme Leader of Iran)...
What did you expect when you heard there was a video on a home invasion at night? A hollywood directed and scripted scene? Right now amateur videos is all that is coming out of Iran.
On June 21 2009 15:54 MMC.Lazerflip wrote: Iran is as shining an example as any of how religion, when taken too seriously, can go haywire and control an entire society; nothing scares me quite like the prospect of a theocracy, because there is literally no limit to what you can justify if you use religion as your justification.
Every human belief is fundamentally irrational because there is no *complete* rational basis for any human action (i.e. we cannot know for certain the outcome of an event and largely we cannot predict it either). So every government is founded on fundamentally heinous assertions and every government is as scary as a theocracy.
On June 21 2009 15:54 MMC.Lazerflip wrote: Iran is as shining an example as any of how religion, when taken too seriously, can go haywire and control an entire society; nothing scares me quite like the prospect of a theocracy, because there is literally no limit to what you can justify if you use religion as your justification.
Religion is never the source of these issues. It's used as a tool, usually because you can mobilize through it, and it's difficult for the government to intrude on it like it can in other sectors of community. It's used in response to other problems in society.
Well from what I understand the protests have been attempting to become more peaceful (which is a very good thing for many reasons). However, government crackdowns on the protesters is still going on although not as badly as if they were to be really unruly. It's less about the election at this point and more about rights (although I guess it's been this way for awhile now but it's more open at this point) - people are rallying behind Moussavi although he's likely just a figurehead for this movement, in reality he's just a more sophisticated/less abrasive version of Ahmaeindjad...
I suppose the main things they want are more transparency, increased freedoms of expression, and less censorship; those are probably the three big demands that are likely to be granted at the end of this process. I suspect there won't be any groundbreaking changes in Iran, the protests will die down and there will be negotiated settlements in which the government will likely grant the above mentioned rights (or at least move in the right direction towards granting these things), and everything will be fine. For all that people say about Ahmadinejad and Khamenei - they're not stupid.
The only way this will escalate into revolutionary fervor is if Khamenei outright refuses to grant these rights, which I guess is a possibility, but is not likely. At the end of the day and when the dust has settled, Iran will be a slightly freer place to live. I think it would also be pretty interesting to see Ahmadinejad bring Moussavi into his government as the head Economic guy (I don't know what the title would be for that... head of the ministry of economy or something). My dad says that's not very likely, but it seems like it would go a long way to quelling some unrest.
On June 22 2009 01:18 Xeris wrote: Well from what I understand the protests have been attempting to become more peaceful (which is a very good thing for many reasons). However, government crackdowns on the protesters is still going on although not as badly as if they were to be really unruly. It's less about the election at this point and more about rights (although I guess it's been this way for awhile now but it's more open at this point) - people are rallying behind Moussavi although he's likely just a figurehead for this movement, in reality he's just a more sophisticated/less abrasive version of Ahmaeindjad...
I suppose the main things they want are more transparency, increased freedoms of expression, and less censorship; those are probably the three big demands that are likely to be granted at the end of this process. I suspect there won't be any groundbreaking changes in Iran, the protests will die down and there will be negotiated settlements in which the government will likely grant the above mentioned rights (or at least move in the right direction towards granting these things), and everything will be fine. For all that people say about Ahmadinejad and Khamenei - they're not stupid.
The only way this will escalate into revolutionary fervor is if Khamenei outright refuses to grant these rights, which I guess is a possibility, but is not likely. At the end of the day and when the dust has settled, Iran will be a slightly freer place to live. I think it would also be pretty interesting to see Ahmadinejad bring Moussavi into his government as the head Economic guy (I don't know what the title would be for that... head of the ministry of economy or something). My dad says that's not very likely, but it seems like it would go a long way to quelling some unrest.
That misses the main point of the protests though; the alleged fraudulent election. There can be no settlement as long as that issue is still alive - why would the people accept some minor concessions from a government that shoots at protesters and most likely cheated in the election? That would have to be some SERIOUS concessions if people would even consider keeping an illegitimate government; and if that happens it will still have been a serious blow to Iranian democracy that sets a pretty low standard for the future.
On June 22 2009 01:30 sushiman wrote: That misses the main point of the protests though; the alleged fraudulent election. There can be no settlement as long as that issue is still alive - why would the people accept some minor concessions from a government that shoots at protesters and most likely cheated in the election? That would have to be some SERIOUS concessions if people would even consider keeping an illegitimate government; and if that happens it will still have been a serious blow to Iranian democracy that sets a pretty low standard for the future.
That isn't the main point of the protests... sure hardcore Moussavi fans think it was rigged, but for the most part the election is just a pretext to give people a reason to go out and demonstrate for more rights.
On June 22 2009 01:18 Xeris wrote: Well from what I understand the protests have been attempting to become more peaceful (which is a very good thing for many reasons). However, government crackdowns on the protesters is still going on although not as badly as if they were to be really unruly. It's less about the election at this point and more about rights (although I guess it's been this way for awhile now but it's more open at this point) - people are rallying behind Moussavi although he's likely just a figurehead for this movement, in reality he's just a more sophisticated/less abrasive version of Ahmaeindjad...
I suppose the main things they want are more transparency, increased freedoms of expression, and less censorship; those are probably the three big demands that are likely to be granted at the end of this process. I suspect there won't be any groundbreaking changes in Iran, the protests will die down and there will be negotiated settlements in which the government will likely grant the above mentioned rights (or at least move in the right direction towards granting these things), and everything will be fine. For all that people say about Ahmadinejad and Khamenei - they're not stupid.
The only way this will escalate into revolutionary fervor is if Khamenei outright refuses to grant these rights, which I guess is a possibility, but is not likely. At the end of the day and when the dust has settled, Iran will be a slightly freer place to live. I think it would also be pretty interesting to see Ahmadinejad bring Moussavi into his government as the head Economic guy (I don't know what the title would be for that... head of the ministry of economy or something). My dad says that's not very likely, but it seems like it would go a long way to quelling some unrest.
That misses the main point of the protests though; the alleged fraudulent election. There can be no settlement as long as that issue is still alive - why would the people accept some minor concessions from a government that shoots at protesters and most likely cheated in the election? That would have to be some SERIOUS concessions if people would even consider keeping an illegitimate government; and if that happens it will still have been a serious blow to Iranian democracy that sets a pretty low standard for the future.
Even if it was - protests don't change who is elected, just how the system works next time. Transparency should be one of the things they want.
An amateur video uploaded to YouTube on Sunday shows a mass of protesters marching and shouting what the video blogger translates as: “Have no fear, we are all together,” and then “Down with dictator.” The video is said to be of a demonstration on Sunday on Shirazi Street in Tehran.
The belief in martyrdom is central to modern politics as well as Shiite tradition dating back centuries in Iran. It too helped propel the 1979 revolution. It sustained Iran during the eight-year war with Iraq, when over 120,000 Iranians died in the bloodiest modern Middle East conflict. Most major Iranian cities have a Martyrs' Museum or a Martyrs' cemetery.
The first Shiite martyr was Hussein, the prophet Mohammed's grandson. He believed it was better to die fighting injustice than to live with injustice under what he believed was illegitimate rule.
In the seventh century, Hussein and a band of fewer than 100 people, including women and children, took on the mighty Umayyad dynasty in Karbala, an ancient city in Mesopotamia now in modern-day Iraq. They knew they would be massacred.
Fourteen centuries later, Hussein's tomb in Karbala is one of the two holiest Shiite shrines — and millions of Iranians still make pilgrimages there every year. Just as Christians reenact Jesus' procession bearing the cross past the fourteen stops to Calvary before his crucifixion, so too do Shiites every year reenact Hussein's martyrdom in an Islamic passion play during the holy period of Ashura.
Because of Hussein, revolt against tyranny became part of Shiite tradition. Indeed, protest and martyrdom are widely considered duties to God. And nowhere is the practice more honored than in Iran, the world's largest Shiite country.
The revolutionaries exploited the deep passion about martyrdom as well as the timetable of Shiite mourning in whipping up greater opposition to Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. With the deaths of "Neda" and others, they may now find the same phenomena used against them.
I think the hard liners are definitely trying to impose control again. Recently, the relatives of former President Rafsanjani were arrested, and the government pretty much admitted it. This is a warning to Rafsanjani since he was kind of falling away from the hard liner clerics.
If you don't know what Rafsanjani actually does now in Iranian politics, he heads the Assembly of Experts that can oust Khamenei and he also heads the Expediency Council, which mediates disputes between the elected Parliament and the unelected General Council. Although the government has released most of Rafsanjani's relatives that they arrested, they're pretty much keeping his eldest daughter hostage.
With a fracturing among the religious clerics that lead the country, who knows where this revolution is heading. Thanks to the Internet, we actually know what's going on in the streets of Iran since all reporters in Iran are banned from entering the streets, and many have already been arrested (I think Newsweek's Iranian correspondent was the most recent arrest). The clear act of defiance against the Khamenei's orders by the Iranian public is, I think, a signal that this might be foreshadowing a second Iranian Revolution. At the very least the current Iranian power structure will be shaken to its very foundations.
Two European companies — a major contractor to the U.S. government and a top cell-phone equipment maker — last year installed an electronic surveillance system for Iran that human rights advocates and intelligence experts say can help Iran target dissidents.
Find out how Iran has acquired such conspiciosly sophisticated spying technology http://bit.ly/Rldsw #iranelection
You're oversimplifying the Rafsanjani situation. Xeris or iamtt can clarify better, but I believe he's also one of the richest men in the country, widely considered the most corrupt and a major backer of Mousavi. Mousavi's ties to Rafsanjani actually hurt him in the election and debates. He's a threat to the Ayatollah, but he's also as dirty as anyone.
Religious leaders are considering an alternative to the supreme leader structure after at least 13 people were killed in the latest unrest to shake Tehran and family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani were arrested amid calls by former President Mohammad Khatami for the release of all protesters.
Oh Al Arabiya... I wonder who's still reporting in Iran since their offices there got shut down earlier this month.
Jibba: I agree. Rafsanjani may be using this opportunity to gain more power (although he's pretty much already the leader of Iran), but that doesn't negate the fact that Iran is undergoing a revolution that threatens the current power structure. Just look at the article above. Might just be rumors (although it is Al Arabiya so I doubt it), but it's an indication of social upheaval.
So if i get some things out of this situation right, Ahmadinejad's power is actually very little? Not a dictator by any means... And second, this protests aren't actually against Ahmadinejad's win but against the so called supreme leader.
I still don't understand much of the iranian leading system....
Man this just keeps escalating and so far, just getting worse. That video was pretty graphic, and I hope the civilians actually do something about this.
On June 22 2009 18:25 Pika Chu wrote: So if i get some things out of this situation right, Ahmadinejad's power is actually very little? Not a dictator by any means... And second, this protests aren't actually against Ahmadinejad's win but against the so called supreme leader.
I still don't understand much of the iranian leading system....
Not exactly. Understanding Iranian politics, while not exactly Kremlinology, is a difficult business. It is a hybrid of a democracy and theocracy, although one might argue that recent events call this comparison into question; the full name of the country is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In practice what this entails is that people actually do vote for leaders and their votes do matter, to some extent, pending the approval of the ruling clerical apparatus, the most important member being the Ayatollah, Khamenei. For the past several years, Khamenei has been content to stay out of the fore of politics and let Ahmadinejad at least appear to control policy. Khamenei has largely, if my recollection serves me right, supported all of his major policy initiatives, with Iran's nuclear policy being the most conspicuous case.
Ahmadinejad has thus far enjoyed, and appears to still enjoy, Khamenei's favor. But the president before Ahmadinejad was Khatami, who despite being more reformist than the clerical elite, still was elected without a hitch. Thus to some extent, although not entirely clear how much, elections in Iran permitted candidates that dissented from the clerics a little bit. If Khatami had been more efficacious as a politician, though, the story might be different.
elections in Iran permitted candidates that dissented from the clerics a little bit.
From what I understand the clerics have to approve of the candidates before they can run.
That's true, but they don't just disapprove people because they don't like them... otherwise Khatami would have never been President.
Right now the people are fighting against Khamenei, and not Ahmadinejad as much.
What kind of qualifications are they looking to exclude? I have only read in a few articles that said they pick candidates based on ideological grounds.
I wonder what will happen later tonight, if the general strike will do anything, I guess the IRG and Basij forces broke up and defeated the rallies today. The IRG and Militia reaction could only get more harsh.
Still no news on the Armed Forces of Iran, or any of the, apparent, IRG officials who are supporting the opposition.
It seems that the more powerful backers of the protesters have yet to do anything, and if they have, it has yet to show.
I really don't see how this could lead to anything good. The protests will either fizz out, or there will be a mass crackdown. The foreign community hasn't seemed to take sides, and especially Obama hasn't seemed to openly support the protesters. It seems the best thing that could happen at this point is people going back to their homes and reorganizing for the next election, before this gets really, really bloody. Of course, a revolution/coup is also an option , but I don't think the protesters have the capability to do anything of the sort.
Obama could never openly support the protesters... Because as far as he knows, they're impeding the work of democracy (Not saying I agree, it's just that there isn't concrete proof yet). Plus I don't think Obama wants to deal with more middle eastern stuff at the moment.
Obama should say nothing. The minute he says he supports what the opposition is doing expect news from Iran on how the President has announced that America is attempting a coup, or something familiar. In which he has the political, and excuse to use force against the protests.
I find it ironic that the conservatives of the country, the U.S., are decrying that he isn't supporting freedom etc. When the conservatives as early as 6 months ago were saying Iran hated our freedom, and should be bombed.
On June 23 2009 12:24 il0seonpurpose wrote: Sorry to sound cynical; I applaud the Iranians protesting against the results but will the government actually do anything about it?
Yep, they will try to quench the dissent, doing horrible and atrocious things like the ones we have seen.
Its sad but, theres only 2 ways for the protesters to get their change.
1 - An armed revolution, leading to civil war.
2 - The international community recognizes whats happening as wrong and acts on it (And boy right now seems like you would need a genocide for that)
On June 23 2009 12:24 il0seonpurpose wrote: Sorry to sound cynical; I applaud the Iranians protesting against the results but will the government actually do anything about it?
Yep, they will try to quench the dissent, doing horrible and atrocious things like the ones we have seen.
Its sad but, theres only 2 ways for the protesters to get their change.
1 - An armed revolution, leading to civil war.
2 - The international community recognizes whats happening as wrong and acts on it (And boy right now seems like you would need a genocide for that)
3. Government crushes the protests using any method necessary.
What kind of qualifications are they looking to exclude? I have only read in a few articles that said they pick candidates based on ideological grounds.
There's the million dollar question. While ideology certainly plays a part, who's to say exactly what specific criteria the Ayatollah uses when determining which candidates can run. After all, I believe he could have constitutionally prevented Mousavi from running to begin with. But he did not. But beyond that who knows.
Not sure how recent this news is, but the Guardian Council (kind of like the Supreme Court of Iran, but with a lot more power) has announced that there was no fraud in the election and a revote will not be cast.
This is total BS. First of all, the Guardian Council is not elected at all. There's no popular say in this at all. Secondly, the Guardian Council is the most conservative body in all of Iran. Their leader, Jannati, openly attacks the US and believes that there is no way to reconcile the differences between Iran and the United States. This guy loves Hezbollah too.
There's no way the protesters are going to take this lying down.
On June 23 2009 17:28 Mystlord wrote: Not sure how recent this news is, but the Guardian Council (kind of like the Supreme Court of Iran, but with a lot more power) has announced that there was no fraud in the election and a revote will not be cast.
This is total BS. First of all, the Guardian Council is not elected at all. There's no popular say in this at all. Secondly, the Guardian Council is the most conservative body in all of Iran. Their leader, Jannati, openly attacks the US and believes that there is no way to reconcile the differences between Iran and the United States. This guy loves Hezbollah too.
There's no way the protesters are going to take this lying down.
lol dude. Are you seriously surprised? Nothing that has happened so far has surprised me
On June 23 2009 17:28 Mystlord wrote: .... Their leader, Jannati, openly attacks the US and believes that there is no way to reconcile the differences between Iran and the United States. This guy loves Hezbollah too.
There's no way the protesters are going to take this lying down.
Concerning the history I don't think you need to be some hardcore religious right wing Iranian to think that way about the US-Iranian connections...
On June 23 2009 21:50 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: I found this to be interesting - the government really doesn't seem to understand how to handle this situation:
On June 23 2009 21:50 [-Bluewolf-] wrote: I found this to be interesting - the government really doesn't seem to understand how to handle this situation:
Eniram: I never said I was surprised, just posting updates and my reaction to them. I just felt that the announcement would anger protesters more.
Velr: He actually barely gives a crap about the history. He just thinks there is a fundamental difference between Islam and the USA's beliefs (whatever he thinks they are) that makes them incompatible at the core.
Oh, and two British diplomats got expelled. I won't comment on it this time though
On June 23 2009 17:28 Mystlord wrote: Not sure how recent this news is, but the Guardian Council (kind of like the Supreme Court of Iran, but with a lot more power) has announced that there was no fraud in the election and a revote will not be cast.
This is total BS. First of all, the Guardian Council is not elected at all. There's no popular say in this at all. Secondly, the Guardian Council is the most conservative body in all of Iran. Their leader, Jannati, openly attacks the US and believes that there is no way to reconcile the differences between Iran and the United States. This guy loves Hezbollah too.
There's no way the protesters are going to take this lying down.
lol dude. Are you seriously surprised? Nothing that has happened so far has surprised me
Oh. Can you please predict how this will all turn out?
I know I've been surprised with the stamina of the protesters. It's been amazing.
I'm actually surprised that the protests are still going on after 10 days or so... The most important thing for Iran is to not make this into another Tienanmen Square.
What I don't find cool though is people in the media asking for U.S intervention. See, U.S intervention makes us look like opportunistic bastards. Because we pick and choose which country to intervene in. Not for some ideological sense of democracy and freedom but for profit. We have yet to intervene in Darfur and we certainly did not intervene in China or when Egypt rigged its elections with 80% victory for the incumbent.
We didn't like democracy back when Hamas won the elections in palestine. So at best, our administration's sense of what is a democracy comes down to whether it helps to benefit our interests. It seems to me that if we are gonna spread democracy all over the world, then we should be consistent about it. Remember the Saudis? They have the most backwards laws against women. Raping your wife is legal in Saudi Arabia, but since they supply a lot of our oil we keep our mouths shut about it.
On June 23 2009 13:21 L wrote: Question at this point isn't 'were there irregularities', but rather who's responsible for them, and who gains the most from it.
Isn't it clear that the Ayatollah is the one more interested in this and manipulating the election? Or am I missing something? This post seem way too simple for L's standards
On June 23 2009 13:21 L wrote: Question at this point isn't 'were there irregularities', but rather who's responsible for them, and who gains the most from it.
Isn't it clear that the Ayatollah is the one more interested in this and manipulating the election? Or am I missing something? This post seem way too simple for L's standards
These are elections not for the Ayatollah but for Ahmadinejad. I feel as if the Ayatollah is just stepping in, because he would rather have Ahmadinejad lead the country. If something the clear thing is that it was Ahmandinejad and his party manipulating the elections, possibly with the support of the Ayatollah...
I'm not certain that the Ayatollah is directly involved in the election itself. I think his priority at this point is to stop the rebellion rather than to support Ahmedinejad. Getting Ahmedinejad into office is probably a secondary goal though. As of now, it's the direct threat to his authority that he's probably afraid of rather than a threat to the conservative hold on the Iranian government (since he has other ways of getting his way anyway).
Wait, I haven't been keeping up with the news, whats happening, wtfs up with the protests? I assume its something about mekmed mekmedinajahd staying in office when the people voted for moozekawi.
Edit : before anyone gets their pant's in a not, I don't want to google their fucking names, I'm just typing what they sound like
On June 24 2009 09:58 Clasic wrote: Wait, I haven't been keeping up with the news, whats happening, wtfs up with the protests? I assume its something about mekmed mekmedinajahd staying in office when the people voted for moozekawi.
Edit : before anyone gets their pant's in a not, I don't want to google their fucking names, I'm just typing what they sound like
On June 24 2009 09:58 Clasic wrote: Wait, I haven't been keeping up with the news, whats happening, wtfs up with the protests? I assume its something about mekmed mekmedinajahd staying in office when the people voted for moozekawi.
Edit : before anyone gets their pant's in a not, I don't want to google their fucking names, I'm just typing what they sound like
On June 23 2009 13:21 L wrote: Question at this point isn't 'were there irregularities', but rather who's responsible for them, and who gains the most from it.
Isn't it clear that the Ayatollah is the one more interested in this and manipulating the election? Or am I missing something? This post seem way too simple for L's standards
You realize there are more countries than Iran interested in Iran, right?
On June 23 2009 13:21 L wrote: Question at this point isn't 'were there irregularities', but rather who's responsible for them, and who gains the most from it.
Isn't it clear that the Ayatollah is the one more interested in this and manipulating the election? Or am I missing something? This post seem way too simple for L's standards
You realize there are more countries than Iran interested in Iran, right?
Of course, but those would rather want the opposition to win, right?
I cannot imagine why would someone other than Ahmadinejad + Ayatollah to rig the elections for themselves. Maybe I'm not being creative enough? :S
On June 23 2009 17:28 Mystlord wrote: Not sure how recent this news is, but the Guardian Council (kind of like the Supreme Court of Iran, but with a lot more power) has announced that there was no fraud in the election and a revote will not be cast.
This is total BS. First of all, the Guardian Council is not elected at all. There's no popular say in this at all. Secondly, the Guardian Council is the most conservative body in all of Iran. Their leader, Jannati, openly attacks the US and believes that there is no way to reconcile the differences between Iran and the United States. This guy loves Hezbollah too.
There's no way the protesters are going to take this lying down.
lol dude. Are you seriously surprised? Nothing that has happened so far has surprised me
Oh. Can you please predict how this will all turn out?
I know I've been surprised with the stamina of the protesters. It's been amazing.
Theres a difference between not being surprised and predicting the future, lol.
On June 23 2009 13:21 L wrote: Question at this point isn't 'were there irregularities', but rather who's responsible for them, and who gains the most from it.
Isn't it clear that the Ayatollah is the one more interested in this and manipulating the election? Or am I missing something? This post seem way too simple for L's standards
You realize there are more countries than Iran interested in Iran, right?
Of course, but those would rather want the opposition to win, right?
I cannot imagine why would someone other than Ahmadinejad + Ayatollah to rig the elections for themselves. Maybe I'm not being creative enough? :S
Khamenei has, at least in the public eye, remained aloof from politics for, like, 20 years, and even allowed a reformist politician (Khatami) to be elected in the past... why suddenly "rig the election" for himself, when he has been much safer standing above it all?
He supports Ahmadinejad because ideologically, they're conservative... just like Grand Ayatollah Montazeri supports Mousavi because they're reformist.
The Guardian Council will go with the Supreme Leader, because he appoints them. What Khamenei has to worry about is the Assembly of Experts (i.e. Rafsanjani) growing a pair and dismissing him, because it has never been done before.
Of course, but those would rather want the opposition to win, right?
I cannot imagine why would someone other than Ahmadinejad + Ayatollah to rig the elections for themselves. Maybe I'm not being creative enough? :S
If you rig an election, you are 100% assured the ability to make it public. Rigging an election then getting someone to tattle about it is a surefire way to destabilize a country.
So now think about people who would like Iran destabilized, how much capability they have, the payoffs, the cost and the risk of getting caught.
Of course, but those would rather want the opposition to win, right?
I cannot imagine why would someone other than Ahmadinejad + Ayatollah to rig the elections for themselves. Maybe I'm not being creative enough? :S
If you rig an election, you are 100% assured the ability to make it public. Rigging an election then getting someone to tattle about it is a surefire way to destabilize a country.
So now think about people who would like Iran destabilized, how much capability they have, the payoffs, the cost and the risk of getting caught.
Was there any one specific person making claims of fraud though? From what I remember it was the people as a whole realizing things didn't add up. I think most people realized it didn't make sense that Mousavi lost in his home town and the margin of victory was so great even though there were record numbers of new voters who would likely vote for Mousavi.
Nobody is going to know for sure whether or not it was rigged - so much time has passed that anything could have happened to the original ballots, so anything short of a total re-vote wouldn't cut it. But at this time it's not about the election it is about Khamenei's power.
Of course, but those would rather want the opposition to win, right?
I cannot imagine why would someone other than Ahmadinejad + Ayatollah to rig the elections for themselves. Maybe I'm not being creative enough? :S
If you rig an election, you are 100% assured the ability to make it public. Rigging an election then getting someone to tattle about it is a surefire way to destabilize a country.
So now think about people who would like Iran destabilized, how much capability they have, the payoffs, the cost and the risk of getting caught.
Does makes sense, the US could pull that off. But then Ahmadinejad should have no reason to fear a recounting. He denied the recounting himself. Plus the Ayatollah himself also denied recounting and told Mousavi to shut up and accept the results.
Any kind of rigging could be confirmed/denied with a recounting. If Ahmadinejad knew he didn't rig it himself, then he would just do it and be done with the protests.
Of course, but those would rather want the opposition to win, right?
I cannot imagine why would someone other than Ahmadinejad + Ayatollah to rig the elections for themselves. Maybe I'm not being creative enough? :S
If you rig an election, you are 100% assured the ability to make it public. Rigging an election then getting someone to tattle about it is a surefire way to destabilize a country.
So now think about people who would like Iran destabilized, how much capability they have, the payoffs, the cost and the risk of getting caught.
Does makes sense, the US could pull that off. But then Ahmadinejad should have no reason to fear a recounting. He denied the recounting himself. Plus the Ayatollah himself also denied recounting and told Mousavi to shut up and accept the results.
Any kind of rigging could be confirmed/denied with a recounting. If Ahmadinejad knew he didn't rig it himself, then he would just do it and be done with the protests.
They actually allowed a partial recount, Moussavi and Karroubi denied it. Honestly, a recount would do absolutely nothing. The government has had the ballots for over a week at this point. Even if they recounted and they found that Ahmadinejad won again, people would claim that the government just made fake ballots, etc... a recount would not solve anything. That's why Moussavi has rejected the idea of a partial recount.
Only a total re-voting overseen by an impartial 3rd party would be sufficient, but it remains to be seen whether the government would do such a thing (probably not).
One thing that jumps out about this data is that the share of the vote for the candidates varies a lot from precinct to precinct within a given city. You'll somewhat routinely come across cities where Ahmadinejad won 25% of the vote in some precincts and 90% or more in several others. Let me give you some idea about what I mean
Obviously they have the numbers to back it up.
Also, remember to take things with a grain of salt
What we need to know is whether Iran is more like St. Paul, Minnesota, which is relatively homogeneous across different precincts, or more like Columbus, Ohio, which has big divides between black and white and student and nonstudent populations. If the former, this evidence is pretty damning; if the latter, it may be nothing much.
I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
lol.. Mousavi isn't the one who disputed the voter fraud, the people did. The people took the streets themselves, I don't know what this person is talking about.
On June 24 2009 05:05 Rev0lution wrote: I'm actually surprised that the protests are still going on after 10 days or so... The most important thing for Iran is to not make this into another Tienanmen Square.
What I don't find cool though is people in the media asking for U.S intervention. See, U.S intervention makes us look like opportunistic bastards. Because we pick and choose which country to intervene in. Not for some ideological sense of democracy and freedom but for profit. We have yet to intervene in Darfur and we certainly did not intervene in China or when Egypt rigged its elections with 80% victory for the incumbent.
We didn't like democracy back when Hamas won the elections in palestine. So at best, our administration's sense of what is a democracy comes down to whether it helps to benefit our interests. It seems to me that if we are gonna spread democracy all over the world, then we should be consistent about it. Remember the Saudis? They have the most backwards laws against women. Raping your wife is legal in Saudi Arabia, but since they supply a lot of our oil we keep our mouths shut about it.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
The problem of that guy is that he thinks the US has been trying to promote democracy in the past. And then he doesn't see what he expected which forced him to conclude promoting democracy will reduce freedom.
That guy is just stupid. The US rarely promotes freedom and democracy. Why would he even think the US has?
It's true that freedom and democracy aren't the same thing. But generally promoting freedom will promote democracy to some extent as well and vice versa.
You need partial freedom to have democracy and democracy to have freedom.
On June 24 2009 19:29 Glaucus wrote: The problem of that guy is that he thinks the US has been trying to promote democracy in the past. And then he doesn't see what he expected which forced him to conclude promoting democracy will reduce freedom.
That guy is just stupid. The US rarely promotes freedom and democracy. Why would he even think the US has?
It's true that freedom and democracy aren't the same thing. But generally promoting freedom will promote democracy to some extent as well and vice versa.
You need partial freedom to have democracy and democracy to have freedom.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
lol.. Mousavi isn't the one who disputed the voter fraud, the people did. The people took the streets themselves, I don't know what this person is talking about.
As far as I gathered myself. Both did. But the support from Mousavi definitely encouraged the people forward a big bunch.
Overcoming the Revolutionary Guards influence seems like a pretty daunting task for the protesters.
What is happening in Iran today is part of a twenty-year power struggle between Khamenei, who assumed power in 1989, and the other veterans of the Islamic Revolution, such as former presidents Akbar Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, as well as current opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousav
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
These Middle Eastern Leaders don't think about threats like that. They don't see National Security like the western world does. A military threat by us is received by them as a reason to use even more force. In fact, they welcome it, it helps us prove their point.
No, we can't fight their war for them, this isn't the same scenario like in Korea where there was a political split.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
These Middle Eastern Leaders don't think about threats like that. They don't see National Security like the western world does. A military threat by us is received by them as a reason to use even more force. In fact, they welcome it, it helps us prove their point.
No, we can't fight their war for them, this isn't the same scenario like in Korea where there was a political split.
You seriously belive that difference in scenario is what led to the invasion contrary to todays iran ?
The USA has always sticking his finger in everybody's pie, it only slows down when there a democrat in power.
On June 24 2009 17:38 VIB wrote: I just read this article on Michael Moore's site written by Trita Parsi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trita_Parsi ). About Obama's position on Iran. It does makes sense and changed my opinion about it a little bit (used to think Obama should be acting more directly). And made me more optimist about the future:
Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.
These Middle Eastern Leaders don't think about threats like that. They don't see National Security like the western world does. A military threat by us is received by them as a reason to use even more force. In fact, they welcome it, it helps us prove their point.
No, we can't fight their war for them, this isn't the same scenario like in Korea where there was a political split.
You seriously belive that difference in scenario is what led to the invasion contrary to todays iran ?
The USA has always sticking his finger in everybody's pie, it only slows down when there a democrat in power.
No, I'm not trying to compare Iraq's situation to Irans at all. I'm talking about decades of history prior. All our military might was all for naught in that region. There is no point in even throwing around that type of weight there. Groups like Hama and Hezbollah can be a good of example of whats wrong with this method. They treat western influence like their gasoline.
As for being in everyones pie, we're constantly bitched at if we don't get involved (Like right now for instance there is a lot of call for the USA to back the protesters? Why, so that its not done perfectly, we can be scapegoated? Please) and bitched at when we do get involved so I really tend to ignore how people view the speed of our foreign politics. I'd just wish information was more readily available to the public before rash foreign decisions. Democrat in office has little to do with it. Democrats have generally been what some would call weak in foreign politics, but I called the Teddy Roosevelt style; speak softly and carry a big stick.
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.
The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.
I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.
Frankly, the US shouldn't go tramping about the world unless it has the support of the UN.
And Democrats are only perceived as "weak" because when compared to the "go in guns blazing" approach of the Republicans, the "let's actually negotiate" approach used by the Democrats is pretty weak.
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.
The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.
I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.
The link I posted, below your quote, gives a clear outline of what rights I have in mind. Individual rights. A quick glance at context of the article would almost certainly have led you to the precise definition of individual rights.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.
The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.
I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.
The link I posted, below your quote, gives a clear outline of what rights I have in mind. Individual rights. A quick glance at context of the article would almost certainly have led you to the precise definition of individual rights.
My apologies. But the point remains. Many people, for reasons I do not have the time to completely flesh out at the moment, would not agree with the account given in that article. Even what "individual rights" means spelled out in that article requires a great deal of interpretation; any glance at the history of the Supreme Court will recall this fact.
But that might be to conflate the issue of what is the case and what ought to be. I find that articles similar to the one you posted, and many coming from the Ayn Rand Institute, for that matter, blur the distinction of conceptual use as it stands and how concepts, such as individual rights, ought to work. (Although we might wish to reject this distinction together, as Murdoch, Diamond et. al do.)
Why Rand and her intellectual successors are wrong, or oversimplifying the issue, requires quite a bit of in depth explanation that I unfortunately do not have time to enter in tonight, would be off topic, and discussed in another thread, although (in my opinion, once again) the sophistication required to discuss the finer points of rational egoism, the Randian brand included), were never brought to bear. The salient point, and again worth emphasizing one that I have not offered any decent justification for, is that many Americans would not agree with the framework offered in that article. I need to study right now, so for the moment, I'll take a break from this pedanticness and simply offer, "Some other time, MacLeod!"
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
for the U.S?
what does this mean exactly?
what diplomatic work are they doing for us?
Well, I know it might not mean much for people who want action but I suppose it is better then nothing:
UK Expelling Iran ambassadors EU denying the presidency UK Freezing bank accounts
Iran won't listen to what we have to say and anything we do say is used against the protesters. The EU parliament challenging the legitimacy is going to do far more then the US challenging it. Iran wanted to switch to Petroeuros not too long ago so Iran will listen to what the EU says.
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
for the U.S?
what does this mean exactly?
what diplomatic work are they doing for us?
Well, I know it might not mean much for people who want action but I suppose it is better then nothing:
UK Expelling Iran ambassadors EU denying the presidency UK Freezing bank accounts
Iran won't listen to what we have to say and anything we do say is used against the protesters. The EU parliament challenging the legitimacy is going to do far more then the US challenging it. Iran wanted to switch to Petroeuros not too long ago so Iran will listen to what the EU says.
These happened because Iran accused Britain of somehow being totally responsible for the whole mess that's going on over there.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.
The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.
I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.
The link I posted, below your quote, gives a clear outline of what rights I have in mind. Individual rights. A quick glance at context of the article would almost certainly have led you to the precise definition of individual rights.
My apologies. But the point remains. Many people, for reasons I do not have the time to completely flesh out at the moment, would not agree with the account given in that article. Even what "individual rights" means spelled out in that article requires a great deal of interpretation; any glance at the history of the Supreme Court will recall this fact.
But that might be to conflate the issue of what is the case and what ought to be. I find that articles similar to the one you posted, and many coming from the Ayn Rand Institute, for that matter, blur the distinction of conceptual use as it stands and how concepts, such as individual rights, ought to work. (Although we might wish to reject this distinction together, as Murdoch, Diamond et. al do.)
Why Rand and her intellectual successors are wrong, or oversimplifying the issue, requires quite a bit of in depth explanation that I unfortunately do not have time to enter in tonight, would be off topic, and discussed in another thread, although (in my opinion, once again) the sophistication required to discuss the finer points of rational egoism, the Randian brand included), were never brought to bear. The salient point, and again worth emphasizing one that I have not offered any decent justification for, is that many Americans would not agree with the framework offered in that article. I need to study right now, so for the moment, I'll take a break from this pedanticness and simply offer, "Some other time, MacLeod!"
I find your entire approach baffling. First, you bring up the point that different people mean different things by rights. You go on to claim that people mean different things even when rights are limited as "individual rights" and these different views can have important consequences. Your initial post urges me to "watch my wording" because of the above reasons. You then go on to give an overview of your position -- ie., how the Ayn Rand Institute confuses the concept of individual rights or distorts how that concept "ought" to be used. You also state that the Objectivist view is wrong or oversimplifies the concept mentioned above. So far so good. But after stressing the importance of being clear you go on to say that you don't have time to be clear about your position.
I gave a very brief overview of my position and then linked an article that I hoped would spark some interest in that position. My post was not meant to lay out the entire philosophic position for individual rights anymore than (apparently) yours was.
Perhaps what you could have said was "|OvO|UNiMEDiA, I think your post is interesting but somewhat vague, would you be interested in having a more precise, philosophic (conceptual) discussion about individual rights?"
That is my best guess about your involvement.
If it is true I am right, unfortunately I am not interested in laying out my case. However, on the off chance that you are interested, I will drop some links to give you an idea of where my thoughts are coming from.
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
for the U.S?
what does this mean exactly?
what diplomatic work are they doing for us?
Well, I know it might not mean much for people who want action but I suppose it is better then nothing:
UK Expelling Iran ambassadors EU denying the presidency UK Freezing bank accounts
Iran won't listen to what we have to say and anything we do say is used against the protesters. The EU parliament challenging the legitimacy is going to do far more then the US challenging it. Iran wanted to switch to Petroeuros not too long ago so Iran will listen to what the EU says.
These happened because Iran accused Britain of somehow being totally responsible for the whole mess that's going on over there.
Well the post was in response to someone saying the USA wasn't acting enough. I said that it wasn't the USA who needed to act since our meddling isn't wanted there in Iran so I pointed out how the EU was doing the right moves.
From my perspective the United States should not be trampling around the globe supporting democracy, capitalism or anything else. The only time the United States government should be interacting with other nations is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I believe I understand the spirit of your point and to a large extent agree. But watch your wording: you say that only legitimate reason to go trampling around the world is to protect the rights of its citizens. From a foreign policy perspective, what are the rights of its citizens? Because if cheap oil for their cars is one of them, then this justifies, in theory, a wide range of actions that go against the apparent spirit of your argument. Or consider it from the Iranian's perspective: the government of Iran states that citizens have the right to nuclear energy.
The rights of citizens, particularly safety, has been used to justify wars since antiquity, notably in the years of prominence of Rome, for example.
I highlight this not to censure your diction, but to point to the ambiguity, potentially unresolvable, at issue here.
The link I posted, below your quote, gives a clear outline of what rights I have in mind. Individual rights. A quick glance at context of the article would almost certainly have led you to the precise definition of individual rights.
My apologies. But the point remains. Many people, for reasons I do not have the time to completely flesh out at the moment, would not agree with the account given in that article. Even what "individual rights" means spelled out in that article requires a great deal of interpretation; any glance at the history of the Supreme Court will recall this fact.
But that might be to conflate the issue of what is the case and what ought to be. I find that articles similar to the one you posted, and many coming from the Ayn Rand Institute, for that matter, blur the distinction of conceptual use as it stands and how concepts, such as individual rights, ought to work. (Although we might wish to reject this distinction together, as Murdoch, Diamond et. al do.)
Why Rand and her intellectual successors are wrong, or oversimplifying the issue, requires quite a bit of in depth explanation that I unfortunately do not have time to enter in tonight, would be off topic, and discussed in another thread, although (in my opinion, once again) the sophistication required to discuss the finer points of rational egoism, the Randian brand included), were never brought to bear. The salient point, and again worth emphasizing one that I have not offered any decent justification for, is that many Americans would not agree with the framework offered in that article. I need to study right now, so for the moment, I'll take a break from this pedanticness and simply offer, "Some other time, MacLeod!"
Do you realize that you just wrote three paragraphs saying absolutely nothing of value? You wrote three paragraphs about how you didn't have time to explain what you meant, when you could have actually explained something in those three paragraphs
The last thing Iran needs is America and Britain sticking their noses in, simply because the governments of those two countries cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Iranian people.
On June 26 2009 03:10 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The last thing Iran needs is America and Britain sticking their noses in, simply because the governments of those two countries cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Iranian people.
On June 26 2009 03:10 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The last thing Iran needs is America and Britain sticking their noses in, simply because the governments of those two countries cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Iranian people.
Especially when both countries were directly involved in orchestrating a coup to get rid of Mossadegh in the 50s, and neither country made any public admission of being involved for many many years after the fact. Iran has anything but trust for the United States, and ESPECIALLY England.
On June 25 2009 04:52 D10 wrote: The only reason democrats are weak, its because everytime a republican is elected, all diplomatic efforts towards several nations goes back to 0
I never said Democrats were weak personally. I said they've always had a different approach. For example, right now in Iran, British seem to be doing most of the dirty diplomatic work for the US.
for the U.S?
what does this mean exactly?
what diplomatic work are they doing for us?
Well, I know it might not mean much for people who want action but I suppose it is better then nothing:
UK Expelling Iran ambassadors EU denying the presidency UK Freezing bank accounts
Iran won't listen to what we have to say and anything we do say is used against the protesters. The EU parliament challenging the legitimacy is going to do far more then the US challenging it. Iran wanted to switch to Petroeuros not too long ago so Iran will listen to what the EU says.
These happened because Iran accused Britain of somehow being totally responsible for the whole mess that's going on over there.
Well the post was in response to someone saying the USA wasn't acting enough. I said that it wasn't the USA who needed to act since our meddling isn't wanted there in Iran so I pointed out how the EU was doing the right moves.
I guess what I am getting at, is that the way you worded it, you claim that it is the job of the U.S. to get involved in their affairs.
On June 26 2009 03:10 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The last thing Iran needs is America and Britain sticking their noses in, simply because the governments of those two countries cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of the Iranian people.
Especially when both countries were directly involved in orchestrating a coup to get rid of Mossadegh in the 50s, and neither country made any public admission of being involved for many many years after the fact. Iran has anything but trust for the United States, and ESPECIALLY England.
Well the U.S. did finally admit it about a month ago.
A senior cleric on Friday urged Iran's protest leaders to be punished "without mercy" and said some should face execution — harsh calls that signal a nasty new turn in the regime's crackdown on demonstrators two weeks after its disputed election.
Obamas doing a great job by just voicing out his concerns on the safety of the protesters instead criticizing they're government. It does seem like meddling but everyone can see for themselves where all the violence is leading to.
Btw that cleric is so fucking retarded it's starting to piss me off how every reason to kill is because of god or for god seriously wtf
Wow that video is pretty good. Also pretty sneaky to tie it to a MJ song lol. If you search youtube for that song thats the first video that pops up lol. Very smart indeed.
EDIT: Did not even notice you wrote it was posted b4 he passed away. Thats makes that video even more amazing really
On June 28 2009 04:01 Boblion wrote: How can people shoot unarmed civilians ...
I recall a certain benevolent King of France who once held the same scruples, and who was eventually murdered along with his friends and family for them.
On June 28 2009 04:01 Boblion wrote: How can people shoot unarmed civilians ...
I recall a certain benevolent King of France who once held the same scruples, and who was eventually murdered along with his friends and family for them.
ahahah Please stop making stupid comparison between a random police dickhead in Iran in 2009 shooting unarmed civilian in the head and a king who was tried for high treason in 1792 and executed in 1793. Although i'm not a partisan of the death penalty, it wasn't a murder. It was a trial and an execution.
On June 28 2009 04:01 Boblion wrote: How can people shoot unarmed civilians ...
I recall a certain benevolent King of France who once held the same scruples, and who was eventually murdered along with his friends and family for them.
ahahah Please stop making stupid comparison between a random police dickhead in Iran in 2009 shooting unarmed civilian in the head and a king who was tried for high treason in 1792 and executed in 1793. Although i'm not a partisan of the death penalty, it wasn't a murder. It was a trial and an execution.
Eh, it really wasn't much of a trial; they were kind of in a rush to chop off his head.
On June 28 2009 04:01 Boblion wrote: How can people shoot unarmed civilians ...
I recall a certain benevolent King of France who once held the same scruples, and who was eventually murdered along with his friends and family for them.
ahahah Please stop making stupid comparison between a random police dickhead in Iran in 2009 shooting unarmed civilian in the head and a king who was tried for high treason in 1792 and executed in 1793. Although i'm not a partisan of the death penalty, it wasn't a murder. It was a trial and an execution.
I was comparing no such thing. The utter want of patience on your part completely precluded any rational reading of my actual allusion.
I do not know whether the state of republican propaganda in France is so strong that her citizens have come to automatically regard any violence against her ideological enemies to constitute "justice", or whether the state of historical education in your country is so deplorable, that the trial of Louis XVI is considered legally defensible, rather than seen for the political show trial it was. The fact that you seem to take the charge of "high treason" seriously against the King of France, the man who was treasoned against, shows that your bizarre word play matches that of Jacobin propaganda. This monarch, who had not broken a single law, who permitted radical reformers concession after concession, who overturned the ancient constitution of France to satiate mob appetites, who was placed in extreme duress and practical imprisonment by that national assembly who illegally usurped authority, whose family was exposed for over three years to the most appalling slander and humiliations, whose servants were indiscriminantly slaughtered by lynch mobs. Executed for high treason. A bad joke? I suppose you also believe that Marie Antoinette pursued an incestuous relationship with her son, since the accusations of the national convention seem to be as good as historical fact in your eyes.
And such risks also naturally attend people who protest in Iran. Except the King of France was first, the King and France and secondly, a privately honourable, mild and decent man, whatever his intellectual or political shortcomings, which is more than I can say for the Iranian mobs.
I don't think he's trolling. He's awesome, says stuff no one else would ever think of or say. I mean I guess it's possible that's trolling, but if so it is very very subtle.
However, moltke, I am curious. Are you suggesting that the iranian mobs not protest? Or that getting shot should be an accepted risk of such protest? Or are you simply trying to say that people shouldn't apply elevated importance to a protester getting shot?
Anyways, I would think that it is much healthier for the government to fear the people than the other way around.
Not trolling. Slightly tipsy, and consequently intolerant of Jacobins.
However, moltke, I am curious. Are you suggesting that the iranian mobs not protest? Or that getting shot should be an accepted risk of such protest? Or are you simply trying to say that people shouldn't apply elevated importance to a protester getting shot?
I was not making a political observation but an epistemological one. One can trivialize the fate of the entire human race as the outcome of nature, or one can sentimentalize a single instance of human emotion, and magnify its meaning. One can see the world with Rousseau's eyes, or with Wordworth's. I am not much bothered about what is happening in Iran, but at the same time I would not trivialize the issue for other people.
That would be like saying upon someone's mother dying: "thousands of mothers die in Africa every day." True, but is it really useful?
On June 28 2009 04:01 Boblion wrote: How can people shoot unarmed civilians ...
I recall a certain benevolent King of France who once held the same scruples, and who was eventually murdered along with his friends and family for them.
ahahah Please stop making stupid comparison between a random police dickhead in Iran in 2009 shooting unarmed civilian in the head and a king who was tried for high treason in 1792 and executed in 1793. Although i'm not a partisan of the death penalty, it wasn't a murder. It was a trial and an execution.
I was comparing no such thing.
So why are you posting about Louis XVI ?
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: The utter want of patience on your part completely precluded any rational reading of my actual allusion.
Nah you just wanted to troll with your pompous prose.
On June 28 2009 06:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: I do not know whether the state of republican propaganda in France is so strong that her citizens have come to automatically regard any violence against her ideological enemies to constitute "justice",
No he wanted to flee to Austria
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: or whether the state of historical education in your country is so deplorable, that the trial of Louis XVI is considered legally defensible, rather than seen for the political show trial it was.
On today standart it was clearly a biased trial. However in comparison with the trials through the history of monarchy in France it was clearly a fair trial. I don't want to be mean with you so i will avoid further references to people tortured by kings or nobles.
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: The fact that you seem to take the charge of "high treason" seriously against the King of France, the man who was treasoned against, shows that your bizarre word play matches that of Jacobin propaganda.
So why he tried to fled to Austria ?
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: This monarch, who had not broken a single law,
He lied about his intentions.
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: who permitted radical reformers concession after concession, who overturned the ancient constitution of France to satiate mob appetites,
No he did that because he would have died otherwise.
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: who was placed in extreme duress and practical imprisonment
Poor boy like 95% of the population lived in worse conditions than him.
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: by that national assembly who illegally usurped authority,
Since when an absolute monarch "de droit divin" is legitimate ?
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: whose family was exposed for over three years to the most appalling slander and humiliations, whose servants were indiscriminantly slaughtered by lynch mobs.
I never said that i agree with this kind of behviour. Lot of cruel things happened during this era but well i still fail to understand your comparison with this video about Iran in 2009...
Oh wait i see you are trolling.
On June 28 2009 08:35 MoltkeWarding wrote: Executed for high treason. A bad joke? I suppose you also believe that Marie Antoinette pursued an incestuous relationship with her son, since the accusations of the national convention seem to be as good as historical fact in your eyes.
I have to admit that the trial of Marie Antoinette was unfair. And ? You really think that i approve everything that happened during the revolution ?
You are just trying to make me mad. However i'm really relaxed. I don't have posters of Robespierre in my bedroom and i'm against death penalty. You failed.
On June 28 2009 08:55 MoltkeWarding wrote: And such risks also naturally attend people who protest in Iran. Except the King of France was first, the King and France and secondly, a privately honourable, mild and decent man, whatever his intellectual or political shortcomings, which is more than I can say for the Iranian mobs.
Moltke are you scared for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad lives ?
On June 28 2009 09:10 travis wrote: However, moltke, I am curious. Are you suggesting that the iranian mobs not protest? Or that getting shot should be an accepted risk of such protest? Or are you simply trying to say that people shouldn't apply elevated importance to a protester getting shot?
Moltke is a royalist. He thinks that democracy is a perversion because people are less educated than kings.
On June 28 2009 09:10 travis wrote: I don't think he's trolling. He's awesome, says stuff no one else would ever think of or say. I mean I guess it's possible that's trolling, but if so it is very very subtle.
You're right, no one else would see an unarmed civilian in the 21st century get shot by riot police and then compare it to an 18th century monarch. It's not some profound viewpoint, he's a history buff that just wants to talk about history.
Theres only one thing right now that separates the iranian mob from a bunch of people who go out on the streets to die, and the motherfuckers killing them is a bunch of these.
sadly, the delivery is delayed due to technical problems.
On June 28 2009 14:30 D10 wrote: Theres only one thing right now that separates the iranian mob from a bunch of people who go out on the streets to die, and the motherfuckers killing them is a bunch of these.
I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you trying to say the Iranian protesters are not shooting people because they have no access to guns? If so, you would be wrong. They have been clearly spreading the word of a peaceful unarmed revolution since the beginning. Here's an example of many others:
RT Iran: to supporters of Mousavi: bring flowers with yourself for today's rally at 4 in 7-tir sq to give to Basijis #iranelection #gr88
What im saying is that its a one sided civil war, and to me its very clear the side that is going to lose in the long term, but its also very clear the side who is dying on the streets hoping the guys with the guns will come to their senses.
Im starting to believe that the situation will culminate in a civil war, after some huge ass massacre by the iranian government and failure by the international community to be able to help people on the ground.
I watched some videos about it yesterday. Young people getting shot and killed because they only express their opinion. There are a lot more killing going on than the videos or reports on the news.
On June 28 2009 18:05 Ecorin wrote: I watched some videos about it yesterday. Young people getting shot and killed because they only express their opinion. There are a lot more killing going on than the videos or reports on the news.
Truth is they aren't being shot and killed, it just happened a couple of times... don't generalize. And it's not about expressing their opinions, it's about how they are doing it. Large street manifestations over a couple of days isn't just expressing opinions.
Another part that you don't see is that there are profiteers who take advantage of the chaos created and rob, rape, destroy public property etc. This always happens during big riots.
And the police's job is the hardest there. They have to protect themselves, they have to protect the protesting citizens and they have to protect public and private property.
On June 28 2009 18:05 Ecorin wrote: I watched some videos about it yesterday. Young people getting shot and killed because they only express their opinion. There are a lot more killing going on than the videos or reports on the news.
Truth is they aren't being shot and killed, it just happened a couple of times... don't generalize. And it's not about expressing their opinions, it's about how they are doing it. Large street manifestations over a couple of days isn't just expressing opinions.
Another part that you don't see is that there are profiteers who take advantage of the chaos created and rob, rape, destroy public property etc. This always happens during big riots.
And the police's job is the hardest there. They have to protect themselves, they have to protect the protesting citizens and they have to protect public and private property.
Let me guess, you didn't really see the videos you're commenting about. You just think it's smarter to give your opinion about a topic before you actually know anything about that topic.
On June 28 2009 12:08 Xeris wrote: Can we please not fuck this thread up? =P
I've been trying to not derail this thread any more than I need to. My original point was allusive, and I will defend its legitimacy, rather than the more concrete aspects of history.
1) To clarify myself, I was not comparing the "execution" of Louis XVI to the murder of Iranian demonstrators, but the incentive of a government to use force against rioters.
To quote Pat Buchanan's reaction to the Tehran riots:
Louis XVI let the mob lead him away from Versailles, which he never saw again. When artillery captain Bonaparte asked one of the late king's ministers why Louis had not used his cannons, the minister is said to have replied, "The king of France does not use artillery on his own people."
To which Napoleon is said to have replied, "What an idiot."
2) More importantly, Boblion's counterarguments reveal that he is not really interested in justice, but in ideology. His responses reveal how thin his concern for constitutional legality and standards of justice are:
On one hand, he is claiming that Louis XVI had no choice but to accept the restoration of Necker, the doubling of the Third Estate, the acceptance of the Charte octroyee, the forcible relocation to Paris, the constitution of 1791, and the nationalization of French churches. Of course, this conclusion is only conditionally justified; the King did not have the character of a Mazarin. However, in Boblion's interpretation, he clearly believed that the King was forced to act under duress. Actions under duress are not legally binding.
On the other hand, he seems to think that the same powers usurped under duress are legally competent to try the source of their authority for treason.
He seems to hold this strange notion that laws can be formulated ex post facto on arbitrary whim, previous legal definitions can be inverted by the same whim, that justice in society stems from men rather than laws, that any breach of law can be justified in the name of democracy or progress. One cannot reason with such people on the basis of shared axioms, because their entire understanding of the world is the consequence of ideas rather than principles.
One question I would pose to Boblion: On the 13. Vendemiaire, Napoleon saved the Republic and National Convention by firing on the royalist mobs storming Paris with "a whiff of grapeshot." In your opinion, is government violence against mobs never justified, or are they only justified when they are directed against kings and royalists?
P.S. Last night I was a little more than tipsy, I must admit
On June 28 2009 18:05 Ecorin wrote: I watched some videos about it yesterday. Young people getting shot and killed because they only express their opinion. There are a lot more killing going on than the videos or reports on the news.
Truth is they aren't being shot and killed, it just happened a couple of times... don't generalize. And it's not about expressing their opinions, it's about how they are doing it. Large street manifestations over a couple of days isn't just expressing opinions.
Another part that you don't see is that there are profiteers who take advantage of the chaos created and rob, rape, destroy public property etc. This always happens during big riots.
And the police's job is the hardest there. They have to protect themselves, they have to protect the protesting citizens and they have to protect public and private property.
Let me guess, you didn't really see the videos you're commenting about. You just think it's smarter to give your opinion about a topic before you actually know anything about that topic.
You failed to guess. I actually did saw the videos and did read every reply in this thread.
On June 28 2009 21:01 MoltkeWarding wrote: Actions under duress are not legally binding.
And an absolute monarchy is "legal binding" perhaps ? La liberté ne se donne pas, elle se prend.
One question I would pose to Boblion: On the 13. Vendemiaire, Napoleon saved the Republic and National Convention by firing on the royalist mobs storming Paris with "a whiff of grapeshot." In your opinion, is government violence against mobs never justified, or are they only justified when they are directed against kings and royalists?
It depends if those people were armed. Anyway Moltke as i said before people during this era were way more violent than nowadays ( at least for Western standarts ) and i have already said that i'm against violence, death penalty and the slaughter of innocent civilians. However there is a difference between people asking for freedom and democracy and a minority of bigots rioting because they have been brain-washed since the dawn of time to love their king ( "de droit divin haha" ).
So far the Iranian "mob" burn some police cars and throw some stones to the riot police but they have not killed anyone ( we can't say the same of the police and bassidjis )
And an absolute monarchy is "legal binding" perhaps ? La liberté ne se donne pas, elle se prend.
First of all, you seem to confuse "absolute monarchy" with the modern phenomenon of "totalitarianism." The most absolute monarchs of the Ancien Regime could not exercise a fraction of the total power or control of the modern bureaucratic state. The summoning of the estates general itself establishes one central limitation of absolute monarchical power: it was much more difficult for monarchs to raise revenues than for modern governments. The loosening of feudal law in the early modern age disrupted the natural checks and balances of feudal society, but without defending or accusing them in the particular, Louis XIV and XV, Louis XVI for most of his reign, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria were largely popular monarchs. When a monarch breaks or abuses the law of the realm, such as Richard II or Charles V of Spain, it is usually met by negative consequences.
Secondly, monarchy and liberty are no more incompatible than democracy and liberty; on the contrary, perhaps the former is less a political contradiction than the latter.
However there is a difference between people asking for freedom and democracy and a minority of bigots rioting because they have been brain-washed since the dawn of time to love their king
The Bastille was stormed by fewer than 1000 rioters out of a population of 600 000 Parisians and 25 million Frenchmen. It is largely since the French revolution that French history has been made by a minority; by what happened in Paris.
Anyhow your categories are contradictory. If I told you that Royalists in 1795 rose up against the Republic, you say that they were a "minority." If I told you that Louis XV was extreme popular in Paris as well as in the provinces, you say that the people were "brainwashed" to feel so. (Why am I reminded of False Consciousness from Marxist doctrine?) No doubt I am also brainwashed for my fondness for Franz Joseph II of Austria.
Well, fairness is an English and not a French virtue.
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: First of all, you seem to confuse "absolute monarchy" with the modern phenomenon of "totalitarianism." The most absolute monarchs of the Ancien Regime could not exercise a fraction of the total power or control of the modern bureaucratic state. The summoning of the estates general itself establishes one central limitation of absolute monarchical power: it was much more difficult for monarchs to raise revenues than for modern governments. The loosening of feudal law in the early modern age disrupted the natural checks and balances of feudal society, but without defending or accusing them in the particular, Louis XIV and XV, Louis XVI for most of his reign, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria were largely popular monarchs. When a monarch breaks or abuses the law of the realm, such as Richard II or Charles V of Spain, it is usually met by negative consequences.
Moltke you are disgusting. You want to talk about all the jacqueries and the slaughters of peasants by the monarchy ? You want to talk about the forced exile of thinkers during the 18th century ? The king had way more power than any presidents ( at least in Western democracies ).
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: Secondly, monarchy and liberty are no more incompatible than democracy and liberty; on the contrary, perhaps the former is less a political contradiction than the latter.
haha
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: It is largely since the French revolution that French history has been made by a minority; by what happened in Paris.
There were riots in the whole country. Maybe the "active" rioters were a minority, but most of the people disliked the king and the monarchy.
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: Anyhow your categories are contradictory.
ooops
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: The Bastille was stormed by fewer than 1000 rioters out of a population of 600 000 Parisians and 25 million Frenchmen
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: Louis XVI for most of his reign, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria were largely popular monarchs.
Contradiction. Looks like his dear "sujets" didn't really care about his fate. Maybe he wasn't that popular ?
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I told you that Royalists in 1795 rose up against the Republic, you say that they were a "minority." If I told you that Louis XV was extreme popular in Paris as well as in the provinces, you say that the people were "brainwashed" to feel so.
Yea Vendéens were retarded bigots ( and some still are ).
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: (Why am I reminded of False Consciousness from Marxist doctrine?) No doubt I am also brainwashed for my fondness for Franz Joseph II of Austria.
Well, fairness is an English and not a French virtue.
Moltke there is a reason why there are no more absolute monarchies in Western countries. Because it is unfair, ineffective and because people enjoy freedom. But maybe you would have enjoyed to be a peasant during the 18th century ...
This thread is for discussion of the Iranian elections and their aftermath. Take anything not directly related to the elections and their aftermath to another thread if you wish to debate it further.
I don't expect to see any more posts about Louis XVI in this thread.
Moltke you are disgusting. You want to talk about tall the jacqueries and the slaughters of peasans by the monarchy ? You want to talk about the forced exile of thinkers during the 18th century ? The king had way more power than any presidents ( at least in Western democracies ).
You are obviously confused about the legal order of feudal society: the checks on monarchial power were implemented not by the peasantry, (who, in your terms, were often "brainwashed" by religious fanatics or political utopianists into revolt,) but by the aristocracy. Regarding the Jacquerie uprising in particular- it was an instance not of tyrannical monarchial power, but of the breakdown of monarchial power. The suppression was initiated not by the King of France, who was held in English captivity, but by the aristocracy (you seem to equate monarchy with aristocracy, which is a particularly fallacious attitude for the Middle Ages).
Concerning the enlightenment, of course, the monarchy was the prime source of intellectual patronage. But Voltaire was not exiled for his ideas (he had no original ones of his own) but for his propensity for making domestic enemies throgh his merciless teasing. Under Louis XV, censorship and more importantly, the selective policing of philosophes was the extension of court politics. On one side stood the clerical faction, on the other side, enlightened noblemen, and Mme. de Pompador, who often protected Voltaire from the King's justice. Of course, every Kingdom was different: exiled Philosophes often migrated to liberal England, with her powerful aristocracy, and the enlightened Prussia of Frederick II.
Your attribtion of every evil which occurs under a monarchy to the perils of monarchism in general is fraudulent and simple-minded.
The notion that Kings had more power than presidents can be challenged very simply and directly:
Could any monarch have initiated laws of this kind?
Contradiction. Looks like his dear "sujets" didn't really care about his fate. Maybe he wasn't that popular ?
Louis XVI reigned for eighteen years from 1774 to 1792. Anyone who understands the least thing about the fickleness of French popular sentiment will understand that it is entirely possible for the public to love a figure one day and distain him the next, particularly in France.:
From the Coronation of Louis XVI:
While traveling from Compiègne to Frismes—where His Majesty spent the night on 8 June–, the King received the most dazzling, the most sincere and already the most deserved proof of love from His Peoples...the King entered Reims escorted by the troops of the royal household and made his way through a People intoxicated with joy—which did not decrease but rather intensified as the procession moved along.
Moltke there is a reason why there are no more absolute monarchies in Western countries. Because it is unfair, ineffective and because people enjoy freedom.
This is not only wrong, but entirely unhistorical. As Tocqueville himself summarized in L'Ancien Regime: Revolutions against monarchies begin not when they are at their most oppressive, but when their grip on power has begun to relax.
The Fronde failed against Mazarin, while the French Revolution succeeded in deposing the far milder Louis XVI. Nicholas I crushed the Decembrist rising with an iron fist, while Nicholas II pursued moderation, and was eventually murdered. Henry VIII brutally suppressed all domestic opposition, while Charles I was chased from his throne after granting numerous concessions to Parliament. Stalin defeated popular risings against collectivization with brutality, while Gorbachev inadvertently toppled the state he was trying to reform.
Which is the better proposition? Louis XVI or Robespierre and Napoleon? Nicholas II or Lenin? Charles I or Cromwell?
Freedom, efficiency and fairness indeed.
P.S. By decree, this will be all I have to say on the subject, since I have nothing to say on Iran apart from the observation that it would be astonishing if protests of that magnitude were not suppressed by the government.
:O Er, I don't see this panning out very well in the near future. One can only hope this doesn't get even worse. On a side note - it's amusing what Iran will try to deny/claim to cover up the atrocities they are committing :/.
Well I'll just give a little update. Also interesting, my aunts and cousin went to Iran a few days before the election (got there June 9th) and just got back today. They traveled around Iran; Tehran, Shiraz, Esfahan, and Orumiyeh (don't know the english spelling of this), and a few other towns. My aunt told me that things were surprisingly calm for the most part. She said most of the protests and demonstrations took place between 5-9pm which caused a lot of congestion / traffic in the streets.
She also told me how she actually felt very safe walking around the streets and stuff, and she also noted how at least for women, things were quite a bit better than they had been the last time she had been there (5 years ago). For example, she was able to walk around on the streets wearing makeup without being stopped by the "Morality Police", which would not have happened 5 years ago. Another interesting thing she told me was that being in Iran no longer feels like you are in a 3rd world country. Most people now have really fast internet, cell phones, etc etc. She said in general people are a lot better off than they have been before.
So here are some interesting things to note:
a) She was in Iran for nearly a month, and spent a lot of time in Tehran and was out and about so to speak, and her life wasn't hindered by all the protests going on; this means to me at least that a lot of it is not as bad as it has been portrayed by the Western media. I'm not saying they're making all the stuff up obviously, but again I think the magnitude that was being shown was disproportionate to reality. If my aunt could spend a month in Iran and the worst thing that happened was being 2 hours late to my grandma's house because of traffic, then it seems like the media was doing a fair bit of sensationalism.
b) My aunt is like ultra liberal, to the point where it annoys me, and she admitted today that "its no wonder the people elected Ahmadinejad, a lot of people have much better living conditions than they have had in the past".
c) Women have a lot more rights and freedoms than they have had in the last decade in Iran, so clearly the regime has made slow, but noticeable progress
d) She said there is a lot of Russia/Chinese influence that can be seen in the country, and she said it seemed as if Iran was selling itself to Russia and China (economically speaking) - which seems fairly accurate considering the shitty state of the economy in Iran and all the sanctions and shit the West has placed against it.
*isclaimer: someone might say "omg you just said people were doing better and now you say the economy sucks! you're full of shit". An increase in the standard of living doesn't mean the economy can't be doing badly as well, just a head sup. There is high speed internet, appliances are modern, people are walking around the streets in fashionable clothes, women are wearing makeup... these things are really widespread in the cities; 10 years ago this was not the case (ya I know there wasn't high speed internet 10 years ago, but I'm talking about comparative luxuries here). People have much more of these things, but at the same time the country as a whole is doing poorly, high unemployment, inflation, etc.
Overall... as I've said before, and what is clearly well established at this point; Khamenei now is the main focus of the protesters. Moussavi and Karrubi are still arguing that there should be a re-vote... however the chances of that happening are slim to none. Ahmadinejad is likely going to serve out his Presidency. What can be expected to happen in the coming year is a lot of intense negotiations which will likely result in the reduction of Khamenei's powers, at this point I don't forsee him being removed from office despite what some may claim. He'll have a reduced role in the government, and I think in 2013 (next election) is when you will really see a HUGE push for major reforms, especially because by that time Khamenei will have a lot less power, Ahmadinejad won't be able to run for office again, etc.
I doubt the protests are going to escalate any further, it seems as if they're dying down and life is returning to normal. However, even though things on the surface might seem more calm, the real tumult has been internalized... and really I think that change this time (unlike 1979) will come from within the government as opposed to being mandated by a mass movement. There isn't a Khomeini type figure to really serve as a focal point for the people, AND the protest movement hasn't captured the absolutely critical portions of the Iranian people (the merchant class and the oil workers) to make the needed changes. If those two groups don't join the protest movement, the government won't really be pressed to make changes. Moussavi isn't really a hugely charismatic focal leader like Khomeini was. He's more of a "well, he's pretty liberal and not as bad as Ahmadinejad, so I'm gonna vote for him" type guy rather than being some sort of Obama type "change is coming!" guy.
PS.
Actually my grandma voted for Moussavi and it was literally the first time she had voted since the Revolution. It was a big affair.
Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and NAZILA FATHI New York Times Published Online: July 4, 2009 Published In Print: July 5, 2009
The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called for the results to be thrown out, the most public sign of a major split in the clerical establishment.
CAIRO -- The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country's supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country's clerical establishment.
A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult -- if not impossible.
"This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic," said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. "Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei."
On July 07 2009 01:52 Unforgiven_ve wrote: i cmae here just to see some opinions about that StealthBlue, but i think Iran is so last year, its all about Honduras now! weepee
i'd appreciate it if you didn't brush off the suffering of the iranian people because of the dictatorship government as a fad that needs to be forgotten/replaced.
On July 07 2009 01:52 Unforgiven_ve wrote: i cmae here just to see some opinions about that StealthBlue, but i think Iran is so last year, its all about Honduras now! weepee
i'd appreciate it if you didn't brush off the suffering of the iranian people because of the dictatorship government as a fad that needs to be forgotten/replaced.
Yes but there isn't a dictatorship. And iranian people's problem isn't the government but the supreme leaders, the clerics.
On July 07 2009 01:52 Unforgiven_ve wrote: i cmae here just to see some opinions about that StealthBlue, but i think Iran is so last year, its all about Honduras now! weepee
i'd appreciate it if you didn't brush off the suffering of the iranian people because of the dictatorship government as a fad that needs to be forgotten/replaced.
Yes but there isn't a dictatorship. And iranian people's problem isn't the government but the supreme leaders, the clerics.
.... that is very wrong my friend. my father has been a supporter of the anti-iranian government group (the mojahedin) for a good 30 years now, and i think i'm a little more experienced in this matter then most if not all members of this board. the clerics control the government. it's all the same shit. who cares if people's rights are slightly being increased? most of the population still lives in poverty and people are killed mercilessly every day. not to mention that the iranian government supports terrorists groups operating in several countries (such as Iraq). Even the States acknowledges this, yet still they do nothing.
On July 07 2009 01:52 Unforgiven_ve wrote: i cmae here just to see some opinions about that StealthBlue, but i think Iran is so last year, its all about Honduras now! weepee
i'd appreciate it if you didn't brush off the suffering of the iranian people because of the dictatorship government as a fad that needs to be forgotten/replaced.
On July 07 2009 01:52 Unforgiven_ve wrote: i cmae here just to see some opinions about that StealthBlue, but i think Iran is so last year, its all about Honduras now! weepee
i'd appreciate it if you didn't brush off the suffering of the iranian people because of the dictatorship government as a fad that needs to be forgotten/replaced.
Yes but there isn't a dictatorship. And iranian people's problem isn't the government but the supreme leaders, the clerics.
In case you forgot, but the Clerics are the government. The Ayatollah is the supreme leader of Iran who is not elected. If you wish to not call it a dictatorship, which technically it's a theocracy, it is nevertheless in all forms of the word a tyranny.
My only hope was that Barry would have been like Reagan and supported those seeking (Poland, Czech's behind the Iron Curtain) freedom and liberty. Of course, Barry didn't support them, rather he took notes so as to build a foundation on the next American upheavel.
An interesting thought. The Poles and Czech's so revere Reagan that he is a national icon to those people for what he did to bring them out from under the Iron Curtain. You see, when you base your politics on moral alignments and philosophy and actually follow through on those people come to respect you. No people come to respect power or government. In all it's iterations government serves to deprive people of their rights, as such that is why America was founded on the ideal of limited government with many checks and balances.
I only hope that despite the President's best effort to undermine those seeking Freedom and Liberty that the people of Iran rise up, much as my forefathers who founded America did and hold out until the day we have a President who supports those seeking ideals cherished here in America.
I am with the people wherever they choose liberty and freedom in whatever name they wish to call themselves and will oppose tyranny and oppression in all corners of the world. Domestic and Foreign oppressors, beware.
Let's all hope the people of Iran obtain their unalieable rights.
I did shoot at people myself. I am a military man I have to obey my orders. The crowd was attacking us like crazy people; throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. We had to protect ourselves; to show we were serious, and we did warn them, shouting several times, before opening fire. But they continued to attack. I don't remember who I shot, I just tried to shoot at the people's feet.
eyewitness: many who got arrested were not among protesters, but got beaten & taken away by force and violently #iranelection
witness says he saw 2 killed by gunfire. "we were in the red zone and it was nothing less than war.pray for us"#iranelection
Plainclothes Basijis stood in front of a line of riot police and pumped canisters of tear gas, which young protesters with green bandanas over their faces kicked away across the pavement, away from the crowds. Some set a bonfire in the street and waved their hands in the air in victory signs.
TEHRAN, Iran – Hard-liners attacked senior pro-reform leaders in the streets as tens of thousands marched in competing mass demonstrations by the opposition and government supporters. Opposition protesters, chanting "death to the dictator," hurled stones and bricks in clashes with security forces firing tear gas.
dictator! dictator! this is the last warning! the green people are Iran are ready to rise! http://tiny.cc/xlljI #iranelection
videos of Fri Sep 18th Protests. People still don't consider Ahmadinejad as the elected president http://tiny.cc/DaCAJ #iranelection
Also:
Larijani secretly meets with Ayatollah Makarem
Tabnak | Sept. 18, 2009
Majlis speaker Ali Larijani has secretly met with Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem-Shirazi at his residence in Qom.
According to the Rasa news agency report, while details of last night’s meeting were not disclosed, it is believed that the country’s current state of affairs were discussed.
It should be noted that in recent days the number of private meetings held between the Sources of Emulation in Qom, Ayatollahs Makarem-Shirazi, Safi-Golpayegani and Nouri-Hamadani and Iranian political figures and other clerics has been on the increase.
Bumping due to blogs, tweets, and even news sources confirming that there are rumors/worries of the impending arrest of Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Nothing on the cable news outlets, or BBC as far as I know.
At least 4 protesters were killed during recent fighting, including the nephew of of Mousavi (the presidential candidate who was 'defeated' by Ahmadinejad). This is pretty controversial since these our holy days during which violence/killing is especially looked down upon. Also the main spiritual leader of the opposition movement (a really high-ranking 'priest') recently passed away. Also, Iranian courts recently charged a bunch of prison guards with torturing/beating to death protesters.
Freedom in Iran!!!!!... hopefully without violence
Iran's government makes me sick. What kind of backward ass state is ruled by a fucking theocracy. Seriously, their government is fucked because the Ayatollah has all of the real power. The elected "president" doesn't have shit for power so the election doesn't even matter to begin with.
Oh, and by the way Iran... your Ayatollah is a pedophile. He sanctions grown men raping 9 year old girls. Are 9 year old girls too old for you? Well if you're a pedophile, pack you bags and move to Iran because you can still perform "sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing, and sodomy" to girls younger than 9.
Also, he allows something called "thighing" to toddlers. Basically "thighing" is sticking your penis between the thighs, so a man could simulate sex. Theoretically, someone could do this to a 2 day old infant and even then the Ayatollah wouldn't even consider it morally offensive. WTF
More about "thighing":
No progress is going to be made even if fair elections are held. The Ayatollah holds the real power and he's not elected. Additionally, if the Ayatollah disagrees on anything with the president of Iran, then he has the power to overrule him. So basically any elected president is either going to be a puppet of the Ayatollah or become a non-factor in the government.
On December 28 2009 16:32 Mooga wrote: Oh, and by the way Iran... your Ayatollah is a pedophile. He sanctions grown men raping 9 year old girls. Are 9 year old girls too old for you? Well if you're a pedophile, pack you bags and move to Iran because you can still perform "sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing, and sodomy" to girls younger than 9.
Also, he allows something called "thighing" to toddlers. Basically "thighing" is sticking your penis between the thighs, so a man could simulate sex. Theoretically, someone could do this to a 2 day old infant and even then the Ayatollah wouldn't even consider it morally offensive. WTF
Iran will do perfectly fine if Israel and USA leave it alone. I love mass media propaganda assault on Iran and Ahmadinejad, bbc and other crap. Not your business.
Behind the drama unfolding in the streets of Iran, the regime is quietly clamping down on some of the nation's best students by derailing their academic and professional careers.
On Wednesday, progovernment militia attacked and beat students at a school in northeastern Iran. Since last Sunday's massive protests nationwide, dozens of university students have been arrested as part of an aggressive policy against what are known as Iran's "star students."
In most places, being a star means ranking top of the class, but in Iran it means your name appears on a list of students considered a threat by the intelligence ministry. It also means a partial or complete ban from education.
The term comes from the fact that some students have learned of their status by seeing stars printed next to their names on test results.
Mehrnoush Karimi, a 24-year-old law-school hopeful, found out in August that she was starred. She ranked 55 on this year's national entrance exam for law schools, out of more than 70,000 test-takers. That score should have guaranteed her a seat at the school of her choice. Instead, the government told her she wouldn't be attending law school due to her "star" status.
Ms. Karimi says she thinks she got starred because she volunteered in the presidential campaign of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi last spring. She also participated in several antigovernment "Green Movement" protests that are convulsing Iran.
"They tell me, 'You are not allowed to study or work in this country any more.' Why? Because I voted for Mousavi and wore a green scarf?" says Ms.Karimi in a phone interview from the city of Isfahan, where she lives.
More than 1,000 graduate students have been blocked from higher education since the practice began in 2006, according to statements by Mostafa Moin, a former education minister, in official media in September.
Star treatment is reserved for graduate students, although undergrads also face suspension for political activity, according to student-rights activists. Several hundred undergrads have been suspended for as many as four semesters, according to student activists and human-rights groups in Iran. Under Iran's higher-education law, students are dismissed from school if they miss four terms.
BBC has aired footage of Government attacks on the Dorms where students were trapped, last June:
iran88
Video: BBC airs new video of June attacks on U. of Tehran dorms filmed by the Basij attackers! http://bit.ly/cDcAP4 #IranElection about 1 hours ago from web Retweeted by IranRiggedElect and 3 others
Has nothing to do with the elections and this is a very big bump in terms of time but there is apparently movements to start protests in Iran:
Amid reports of a low turnout for the annual march commemorating the anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution on Friday, there are calls among opposition leaders for nationwide marches against the government on Monday.
Protesters, including university students, truck drivers and gold merchants are said to be organising marches across the country under the umbrella of the country's Green Movement, apparently inspired by recents demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia.
The movement, also known as the Green Wave, made international headlines after the disputed 2009 presidential elections which saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win a second term in office.
Monday's protests have been called at the behest of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, which the movement backed as opposition presidential candidates in the election two years ago.
The governments of both Tunisia and Egypt were successfully toppled via massive and prolonged protests and rallies.
Permission to hold rallies in Egypt was sought prior to the demonstrators' actions but no such permit has not been granted in Iran, and the country's Revolutionary Guard has already promised to forcefully confront any protesters.
Some of the posters advertising Monday's rally on Facebook refer to February 14 day as a "valentine to Iran's freedom". The main Facebook page calling for demonstrations has over 43,000 followers.
On December 29 2009 16:12 Magic84 wrote: Iran will do perfectly fine if Israel and USA leave it alone. I love mass media propaganda assault on Iran and Ahmadinejad, bbc and other crap. Not your business.
i am a iranian and i do agree with him
everytime usa is involved in other peoples matters it get worse ...i mean really worse
and most of the stuff is media proganda
true there are many things that are not right in iran
that is no of their business
usa support other countries that are worse and more corupted then iran and do nothing
because other wise they dont become what they need like oil gas or other advantages
iran is not the nicest country but trust me usa has allies
that are much worse or are alike iran and are tolerated with the way they do
Interesting that while Egyptian protest removed a government that US wanted to keep, while Iranian protest aims to remove a governement that US can't stand. If I know correctly, much of Middle East is run by monarchs and dictators. Things should be interesting in the next few months...
On February 14 2011 02:52 Fa1nT wrote: Has there ever not been a problem in the middle east for the last 5000 years?
Or, like, you know, the rest of the world.
The reason the revolutions in the middle east are now is because before the tunisians, everyone was scared as hell to even think of opposing the government. Now that two corrupt governments have fallen, everyone sees that demonstrations are actually helping them get rid of fallous reigners. Either that or everyone in the middle east played Z and the leaders are playing terran.
Though I forsee a much bloodier battle in Iran than in Egypt or Tunisia. Ahmedinijad is quite a nut.
Iran's government is paranoid but can we really blame them? They have israeli/american spies trying to kill their scientists and destroy Iran's infrastructure from within. Unlike Egypt, people in Iran VOTED for the current president: Ahmadinejad. Whether the elections were 100% transparent or not is debatable but what we read in the news coming from sources such as CNN and BBC is the most biased shit I've ever seen. Also, the voices coming from iranians abroad are often very biased as well. These are second generation kids born to exiled iranian parents, parents who left due to having ties with the former Shah. Funny enough, Iran wasn't faring better when this puppet was in government. In fact, it was American interference which prevented a democratically elected prime minister Mosaddegh from staying in office.
Simply put, the WEST is the major blame in the instability currently reigning the middle east...Who put the taliban in power in Afghanistan? It was the USA who gave them the weapons and helped organize their resistance against the Russians. Who put Saddam in power? It was America that put him in power to help fight off Iran after its 1979 revolution. Who caused turmoil in Iran to the point where the people were fed up with a puppet-dictator ruling over them as a monarch and causing by the same token, an islamic revolution that has been a thorn in the backside of the West ever since? Who decided to give land near Jerusalem to Jews after WW2, land which was bought extremely cheaply or simply taken away from their owners and which has now resulted in a climate of never-ending turmoil between palestinians and jews?
These are all easy facts to forget but to me, its plainly clear that USA put the mid east in all this shit...Not the other way around. Interfering recklessly in other countries' politics rarely ends well.
everytime usa is involved in other peoples matters it get worse ...i mean really worse
and most of the stuff is media proganda
true there are many things that are not right in iran
that is no of their business
usa support other countries that are worse and more corupted then iran and do nothing
because other wise they dont become what they need like oil gas or other advantages
iran is not the nicest country but trust me usa has allies
that are much worse or are alike iran and are tolerated with the way they do
So I take it then you support the government crackdown on democratic protesters and believe that they are simply brainwashed/manipulated by the Zionist/Americans to otherwise ruin what is a free and open state?
Seriously, I wouldn't be here defending my country if it did that. For the same reason I don't defend cops that beat up black guys, or riot police who beat up non-violent protesters. I certainly wouldn't turn around and go "Damn, protesters I blame Communist Russia" like so many Americans have done throughout history.
The fact that USA has a dark political history DOES NOT defend the crimes of the Iranian regime. Anymore than the crimes of Soviet Russia defend US foreign policy during the Cold War. As the old adage goes 'Two wrongs do not make a right.'
As far as the 'none of your business' argument is concerned. Nations have a right to Sovereignty, but fears of losing that Sovereignty are used as tools to control it's population clearly something has gone very wrong.
On February 14 2011 03:12 PlaKen wrote: Iran's government is paranoid but can we really blame them? They have israeli/american spies trying to kill their scientists and destroy Iran's infrastructure from within. Unlike Egypt, people in Iran VOTED for the current president: Ahmadinejad. Whether the elections were 100% transparent or not is debatable but what we read in the news coming from sources such as CNN and BBC is the most biased shit I've ever seen. Also, the voices coming from iranians abroad are often very biased as well. These are second generation kids born to exiled iranian parents, parents who left due to having ties with the former Shah. Funny enough, Iran wasn't faring better when this puppet was in government. In fact, it was American interference which prevented a democratically elected prime minister Mosaddegh from staying in office.
Simply put, the WEST is the major blame in the instability currently reigning the middle east...Who put the taliban in power in Afghanistan? It was the USA who gave them the weapons and helped organize their resistance against the Russians. Who put Saddam in power? It was America that put him in power to help fight off Iran after its 1979 revolution. Who caused turmoil in Iran to the point where the people were fed up with a puppet-dictator ruling over them as a monarch and causing by the same token, an islamic revolution that has been a thorn in the backside of the West ever since? Who decided to give land near Jerusalem to Jews after WW2, land which was bought extremely cheaply or simply taken away from their owners and which has now resulted in a climate of never-ending turmoil between palestinians and jews?
These are all easy facts to forget but to me, its plainly clear that USA put the mid east in all this shit...Not the other way around. Interfering recklessly in other countries' politics rarely ends well.
1) How do you hand count all the votes in the country in 3 hours?
2) It's convenient how Mousavi lost his home town where people hate Ahmadinejad
3) Accusations of rigging aren't a spawn ofthe Western world.
Only 105 out of the 290 members of Parliament came to the victory celebration for Ahmadinejad. Allegations of rigging stem from inside Iran even among prominent Islamic clerics among many other prominent figures in Iran . Why would people inside Iran say the elections were rigged when you run the risk of getting arrested, beaten, shot, or having your nephew killed? None of this happened when Ahmadinejad won his first election.
4) US-first style politics are sure to blame for the turmoil, and Israel has admitted to sabotage of Iran's nuclear program. But however good or bad the US is doesn't mean Iran isn't doing it wrong in the elections.
Iran's government is paranoid maybe, but the people aren't so closed-minded.
On February 14 2011 03:12 PlaKen wrote: Unlike Egypt, people in Iran VOTED for the current president: Ahmadinejad. Whether the elections were 100% transparent or not is debatable but what we read in the news coming from sources such as CNN and BBC is the most biased shit I've ever seen.
As much as I dislike posting in a super-bumped thread, I have to mention that Iranians most definitely did NOT vote for Ahmedinijad. All signs were suggesting the opposition would win... and then Ahmedinijad wins in a landslide? Give me a break, he stole the election and everyone knows it. Iranians as a people are getting really fucked because of their batshit loony government. Replace them and there could be much more stability in the middle east.
I will also mention, however, but the US of A doesn't exactly want stability in the middle east. Oil flow is fine, but arms manufacturing is a huge business and it benefits select group of the ultra-influential ultra-wealthy in the States when there is conflict. The USA loves Israel exactly because it fucks shit up in the region. It lets them say they are trying hard to have peace but nobody is giving it to them.
1) How do you hand count all the votes in the country in 3 hours?
2) It's convenient how Mousavi lost his home town where people hate Ahmadinejad
3) Accusations of rigging aren't a spawn ofthe Western world.
Only 105 out of the 290 members of Parliament came to the victory celebration for Ahmadinejad. Allegations of rigging stem from inside Iran even among prominent Islamic clerics among many other prominent figures in Iran . Why would people inside Iran say the elections were rigged when you run the risk of getting arrested, beaten, shot, or having your nephew killed? None of this happened when Ahmadinejad won his first election.
4) US-first style politics are sure to blame for the turmoil, and Israel has admitted to sabotage of Iran's nuclear program. But however good or bad the US is doesn't mean Iran isn't doing it wrong in the elections.
Iran's government is paranoid maybe, but the people aren't so closed-minded.
You're getting all your stats from so-called expert analysts OUTSIDE a country where information like this isn't readily available. Go on Wikipedia and read up...According to BBC; according to british based researcher...Seriously, whoever quotes BBC when arguing about iranian affaires has no idea how biased they are...Their whole Iranian branch is run by ex-shah regime exiles. Now, that being said, who do you think these people get their statistics off of? Mousavi and his supporters of course!!!...What you have to remember is that even if the margins weren't this wide, Mousavi would have lost the elections either way...The rallies you see in the news were all in major cities (80% of them in Tehran) but Iran's rural population, which HEAVILY favors Ahamdinejad is much more numerous than the Urban population. Not to mention that people from Mousavi's region are very religious and traditional so I wasn't TOO surprised even though he lost in his home town. Lastly, you are a little naive to believe that if Ahmadinejad's government would want to rig the elections, he'd do so in such a blatantly obvious manner...They may be crazy but they aren't retards either.
Oh and one last fact that you might not know, Mousavi is no less a hardliner than Ahmadinejad and his government, so it's not as though voting for Mousavi would have started a renaissance in Iranian politics. Things would have pretty much stayed the same.
On February 14 2011 00:38 don_kyuhote wrote: Interesting that while Egyptian protest removed a government that US wanted to keep, while Iranian protest aims to remove a governement that US can't stand. If I know correctly, much of Middle East is run by monarchs and dictators. Things should be interesting in the next few months...
Iran('s leader Khamenei) is the US' asshole in the closet. If they run out of options to distract their citizens from the shit that's going on inside the US, they grab the good ol' fella and (try to) give him a good talkin' to, usually involving carpet bombing of big cities and other civilian settlements (see the last 100 years for reference, some country always had at least one asshole they could demonise, if not, they killed the current leader and installed a new one, a potential asshole preferably). Why in the world would the US want a true peaceful democracy in Iran? No fucking way, Israel's myth of being at risk would be even further from the truth than it is already. I think the US has at least one very good reason to prevent democracy movements in the Middle East.
You make yourself look really bad when conquering peaceful countries.
TehranBureauTehranBureau.com Kaleme is reporting that nightly chants of Allah o Akbar were heard not only in Tehran, but also Tabriz, Shiraz, Rasht and Isfahan.
A day of protest in the Iranian capital of Tehran have been marked by clashes between demonstrators and security forces.
Thousands of demonstrators marched on Monday on Enghelab and Azadi streets [which connect and create a straight path through the city centre], with a heavy presence in Enghelab Square and Vali-Asr Street.
Quoting witnesses, the AP news wire reported that least three protesters injured by bullets were taken to a hospital in central Tehran while dozens more were hospitalised because of severe wounds as a result of being beaten.
Al Jazeera's Dorsa Jabbari, in Tehran, confirmed reports that security forces used tear gas, pepper spray and batons against the protesters. As with other foreign media, she was prohibited by government order to witness the demonstrations.
Jabbari said that she had received reports of up to 10,000 security forces had been deployed to prevent protesters from gathering at Azadi Square, where the marches, originating from various points in Tehran, were expected to converge.
The AFP news agency reported that police fired paintball bullets on protesters. One video, posted on Youtube (claiming to be from Monday's protests) shows people chanting, "political prisoners must be freed" when a woman cries that tear gas has been deployed, dispersing the crowd.
I feel so fucking bad for youth trapped under that horrible regime. Hundreds and thousands of people our age have been killed by the regime after the previous revolt, and god knows how many are imprisoned. Such a tragedy.
I was born in Iran and lived there till I was 14, then my family moved to Canada. My relatives all live in Iran still, and I feel so damn bad for them.
There are no jobs, food is expensive, liberties are limited. I remember visiting last year, and hanging out with my cousins and their girlfriends in some shopping mall, and the "Moral" police was doing its usual raid in the mall and all of a sudden someone yelled a warning for impending "Moral" police search and every girl and boy separated, until they left. But they dragged away and took a couple of young couples who were being defiant.
On February 14 2011 03:12 PlaKen wrote: Unlike Egypt, people in Iran VOTED for the current president: Ahmadinejad. Whether the elections were 100% transparent or not is debatable but what we read in the news coming from sources such as CNN and BBC is the most biased shit I've ever seen.
As much as I dislike posting in a super-bumped thread, I have to mention that Iranians most definitely did NOT vote for Ahmedinijad. All signs were suggesting the opposition would win... and then Ahmedinijad wins in a landslide? Give me a break, he stole the election and everyone knows it. Iranians as a people are getting really fucked because of their batshit loony government. Replace them and there could be much more stability in the middle east.
I will also mention, however, but the US of A doesn't exactly want stability in the middle east. Oil flow is fine, but arms manufacturing is a huge business and it benefits select group of the ultra-influential ultra-wealthy in the States when there is conflict. The USA loves Israel exactly because it fucks shit up in the region. It lets them say they are trying hard to have peace but nobody is giving it to them.
Actually amigo, you're not counting on facts. If you search this thread a while back someone explained and showed proof with different surveys that showed Ahmadinejad as a winner by even bigger percent. So it's definitely not like that.
There aren't as much similarities between Egypt and Iran as people tend to look at all that region as same people just like for most japan/sk or china are nothing but same asian people.
And Iran isn't a dictatorship. They have a very weird system though.
CAIRO – Iranian authorities briefly detained the daughter of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the most powerful opposition supporter inside the country's clerical leadership, the official news agency reported.
Faezeh Hashemi, who has appeared at opposition protests in the past, was detained Sunday while trying to cause unrest by chanting anti-government slogans in one of the main streets of Tehran, the IRNA news agency said. Another pro-government news service reported that she was released a short while later.
Iran's opposition had called for rallies Sunday to mark a week since the deaths of two people in Feb. 14 clashes between security forces and opposition protesters in Tehran. Hashemi's detention suggested crowds did attempt to gather Sunday, despite severe warnings from authorities.
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/12/1244802962006/Irans-President-Mahmoud-A-001.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq130/BalzacKB/61x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq130/BalzacKB/610x.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/gallery/2009/6/13/1244910034421/Iran-Election-Aftermath-I-002.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/gallery/2009/6/13/1244910037587/Iran-Election-Aftermath-I-008.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/gallery/2009/6/13/1244910038604/Iran-Election-Aftermath-I-010.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/gallery/2009/6/13/1244910038084/Iran-Election-Aftermath-I-009.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/VanakSquare.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-12.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-13.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-18.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-19.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/144/iranianprotestelectionr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3958/2mi13de2335176.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3624004576_67d99b5156_o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/261kpjl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8052/6a00d83451c45669e201157.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SjQFbTrz9pI/AAAAAAAABOQ/tTZvulsWhwE/s400/iran2.PNG)
Guess keeping an open mind is all one can do.
![[image loading]](http://www.jomhoriyat.net/gallery/view/src/images/20090614201953.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6559/36263489313f96c38181o.png)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00238533.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/14062009048660.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00261533.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00251966.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xs940.xs.to/xs940/09240/dsc00380986.jpg)
Xeris is just pointing out that the western media coverage was misleading. That doesn't mean he is supporting Ahmadinejad.![[image loading]](http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1843/irancrowd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/12555329.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1245089543&Signature=BwYF95RT0ngYweIAIO0iewxZGU8%3D)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/12553886.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1245089743&Signature=7KMz6iqIMqc%2B2uJOlhQ2EnP%2F3as%3D)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/86367/original.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1753/slide_1753_23740_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1753/slide_1753_23739_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-28.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-25.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-27-1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-13.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-14.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Tehran-March-3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00187/tehran-crowd_187925s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00187/tehran-crowd2_187927s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00187/tehran-mousavi_187973s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_24040_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_24041_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_24018_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_24022_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_24033_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1769/slide_1769_24036_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/war26.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/110eijo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2hf0zcy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/2gukx7m.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/Images/Article/lilazzEN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://kheirkhah.ir/media/Image/Weblog%202/Keyhan-ehtics.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/12807273.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/12798624.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_pmBkdFjBm94/Sjl89aiy_mI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/QlOU2YnWj78/s912/supriseSuprise.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.webneveshteha.com/images/gallery/shamkhanw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/12827615.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1245304380&Signature=Pd%2FlYb3HQ4gPZxVghAEgh%2BklZeA%3D)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/large/12827787.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1245304397&Signature=ASdwkfimcMsd1pOMfeeCuIU8m3o%3D)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1796/slide_1796_24144_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1796/slide_1796_24171_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1796/slide_1796_24154_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1796/slide_1796_24157_large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-49.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-13.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-51.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Mossadegh-Iran-protest.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Realfaceofaliardictator.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-47.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-venice.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-35.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-53.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20IV/Tehran-Street-Photos-45.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Tear-Gas-Confrontation.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-46-2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-43.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-44.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-17.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-38.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-37.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-14.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-47.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Tehran/Street%20Photos%20V/Tehran-Street-Photos-18.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/bg4jh3.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0906/wright_neda_0621.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/neda.png)
![[image loading]](http://warincontext.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/neda.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YgRuMxV6A60/Sj-mngNMEeI/AAAAAAAAAHg/r0mm_F-_xQg/s400/tasvir.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img2.tinypic.info/files/xvx23y8p5l26t1rikkxo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cloggie.org/proggold/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ak47.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/images/cinema/lord-of-war.jpg)
isclaimer: someone might say "omg you just said people were doing better and now you say the economy sucks! you're full of shit". An increase in the standard of living doesn't mean the economy can't be doing badly as well, just a head sup. There is high speed internet, appliances are modern, people are walking around the streets in fashionable clothes, women are wearing makeup... these things are really widespread in the cities; 10 years ago this was not the case (ya I know there wasn't high speed internet 10 years ago, but I'm talking about comparative luxuries here). People have much more of these things, but at the same time the country as a whole is doing poorly, high unemployment, inflation, etc. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Official_portrait_of_Mir-Hossein_Mousavi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/2/12/201121214372552140_20.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Iran_gov_power_structure.svg/500px-Iran_gov_power_structure.svg.png)
