Conclusion
by Arnold Evans
lifted from comment 211
I want to say that I am in favor of change in Iran and think there are policies of Iran's government that are wrong both morally in respect to its citizens and also in practical terms as in they prevent Iran from being as powerful as I'd like it to be.
I am not a regime supporter on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
But it seems plausible to me that Ahmadinejad won. The reports of the three million votes came with the explanation that they were the result of people voting away from their home district, which seems plausible in a very-high turnout election. I think it is possible that Ahmadinejad won the debates, despite the effect they had of turning you further against him, and Rafsanjani's letter against him may have made the aftermath of the debates more favorable to him still.
So there are protesters against Ahmadinejad and in favor of Mousavi. Mondale lost a landslide in 1984 and there was a large number of people who supported Mondale, enough to cripple the country if they organized together to do so. That did not mean they were the majority. I do not believe Mousavi supporters or protesters are the majority of the country.
The reports of Mousavi's claims of irregularities seem unconvincing to me. In his public complaint to the Guardian Council he did not claim that none of the votes were counted or that all local-based counting was suspended and even if he doesn't trust the Guardian Council, that was a place to give his best explanation of what exactly he believes went wrong with the election, why he does not trust it.
I feel that Mousavi is acting very irresponsibly, and that Mondale, in similar circumstances could have acted the same and gotten his supporters, especially his core supporters worked up enough that they would risk their lives, essentially for nothing, but Mondale could claim it is for fundamental change in the government or society or something.
If Mondale did that, I would wonder if he had some organized outside backing, but in Mousavi's case it could well be that his only backing is Rafsanjani and that faction, or it could well be that it is Mousavi's own ego driving this. Or it is possible, I don't claim and don't necessarily believe that it is driven by the CIA. But there are signs that Mousavi's tactics are similar to tactics of previous CIA-sponsored revolutions. But that could be coincidence. I don't think there is necessarily the connection.
I thought Mondale's supporters were right, and Reagan was a bad guy. I think Mousavi's supporters have a lot of valid criticisms of Iran's government.
I think Iran's government takes enough input a wide enough swathe of Iranian society that it is capable of change internally, and I do not see indications that Mousavi is more committed to the democratic process than Khomeini was. Khomeini could have transformed Iran into a hereditary dictatorship with no restraints from an elected Assembly of Experts and no input from Iran's people and did not because he felt it would have been religiously wrong to do so. I don't know that I would have trusted Khomeini to do that, but I don't trust Mousavi to do that. I see a Musharraf scenario, of ad-hoc usurpations of power and an indefinite suspension of any limitations on his office as just as probably under Mousavi.
To Mondale and Mousavi supporters I say, the vote indicates that you really do not have the popular support to win an election, much less complete a revolution.
Does Iran have a consensus behind a "go west" strategy as opposed to a "go east" strategy? No. If it did, Iran would go west. There is also no national consensus around relaxing religious restrictions, which I think is wrong but Iranians have to be convinced, and I'm sure the pro-Mousavi protests are not the way to convince them.
There is a consensus around reducing corruption, but Ahmadinejad and Mousavi both say they support that. Iran could easily believe Ahmadinejad, the one who carries his lunch from home to work and who named Rafsanjani by name, saying what a lot of people already knew but wouldn't say in public, is the best candidate to fight corruption.
By my understanding a major motivation behind Rafsanjani's support for a go west strategy is that he would benefit from it personally.
So those are my views on Iran's election and the situation today. I don't see a point in further protests. I expect a general strike to fizzle out, if it is really launched. I mourn all of the deaths. I wish they had not happened and consider them naive sacrifices to either Mousavi's ego or the forces behind Mousavi that I do not consider good, if they are the CIA or Rafsanjani.
Posted by b on June 23, 2009 at 14:25 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageTo Arnold Evans
In my opinion
Sizable urban and affluent segment of population in Tehran and few other cities more probable to vote for someone like Musavi than ANejad.
In Tehran , almost all anti regime people , wealthy class, reminiscent of old regime, members of usual suspects trio of Kargozaran, Mosharekat, Mujahedin Engelab Eslami semi parties and members and sympathizers of student branch ( Office for Consolidation of Unity ), etc.
In addition, Musavi gained sizable support from young women because of his wife Zohreh Kazemi. She is very respectful scholar. She deserves to be a candidate more than Musavi.
Kargozaran is associated with Rafsanjani and is pro wealthy bazari. Mujahedin Englelab, the other two fronts are leaders of reform groups, some of their leaders are old revolutionary (Nabavi) or former members of intelligent service (Rabiei, Hajarian, Tajik, Ghanbari, Ashena, Tehrani, Hejazi). Godfather of these groups ids Saeed Hajarian, former counter intelligent and interrogator (subject of attempt assassination) now advocate of color revolution.
Musavi had good support among conservatives in the past and this was main reason for reformers invited him and rallied behind him, because they had concluded they have nobody from their own to face ANejad and they needed Musavi to take some votes from conservatives.
That scenario failed during robust engaging TV debates. During Debates Musavi distance himself from his past and sounded more pro west.
I only know www.moi.ir for election records; unfortunately it’s only in Farsi.
But thanks to Musavi Google during election crisis added Farsi translation link
You can cut and past official record into translator:
MOI chart of representativies breakdown for each province in Farsi.
I have said before, I don't live in Iran but i follow events there closely.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 3:44 utc | 102
I have been dithering since the Iran election over whether there was fraud or not, but there does seem to be some indications of something fishy.
The Chatham House report at: link
is very much worth reading (Thanks Amir S @2)
Money quotes:
• In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded. (Add that to the 'infill' between, say, a 'normal' 85% turnout and just 100%, and the figures look cooked. Mazandaran, near the Caspian Sea, maybe overfull of holidaymakers, but Yazd, in the middle of the desert, isn't -R).
• In a third of all provinces , the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all
former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.
(That's a massive, and perhaps doubtful, swing - R)
• In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.
• According to the official data, Mahmud Ahmadinejad has received
approximately 13m more votes in this election than the combined conservative
vote in the 2005 Presidential election
Ahemdinajad 2009 - 24,515,209
Ahmedinajad 2005 - 5,711,254
Other Conservatives -2005 - 5,808,317
(In other words, Ahmedinajad almost quintupled his vote over the past 4 years. Surely a popular guy, so why the huge demonstrations? - R)
• In 2005, the more rural a province was, the less support there was for
the three conservative candidates combined. (Fig 5 in the report)
In 2009 the trends described by Fig.4 and Fig.5 have disappeared, and
Ahmadinejad is universally supported (Fig 6)
• The 2009 data suggests a sudden shift in political support with precisely these
rural provinces, which had not previously supported Ahmadinejad or any other
conservative (Fig.5), showing substantial swings to Ahmadinejad (Fig.6). At
the same time, the official data suggests that the vote for Mehdi Karrubi, who
was extremely popular in these rural, ethnic minority areas in 2005, has
collapsed entirely even in his home province of Lorestan, where his vote has
gone from 440,247 (55.5%) in 2005 to just 44,036 (4.6%) in 2009. This is paralleled by an overall swing of 50.9% to Ahmadinejad, with official results
suggesting that he has captured the support of 47.5% of those who cast their
ballots for reformist candidates in 2005. This, more than any other result, is
highly implausible, and has been the subject of much debate in Iran.
This increase in support for Ahmadinejad amongst rural and ethnic minoritiy
voters is out of step with previous trends, extremely large in scale, and central
to the question of how the credibility of Ahmadinejad’s victory has been
perceived within Iran.
(Now he may have captured this massive swing by doling out cash and potatoes, but either way it suggests either massive voter bribery, or fraud - R).
I wonder, by the way, why we hear so Ahmadinejad's suporters in Iran and outside?
This post was on the c thread but had disappeared by this morning. I have deleted my comments about the attackers on Parviz and Amir S, who are, after all, Iranians, and possibly better equipped to assess the situation.
Having said all of that, I am dithering again, due to b's comment that Chatham House ignored the second round of the 2005 elections, which Ahmedinejad won
It is based on a comparison of the 2009 election with the first round of the 2005 election which had multiple candidates. Chatham House simply ignores the second round 2005 election pitting Ahmadinejad against Rafsanjani which Ahmadinejad won in a landslide.
This election was, after the TV debates, pretty much like a runoff and Ahmadinejad's main electoral strategy was to portray Moussavi as a puppet of Rafsanjani, a corrupt clerical big businessmen plus he tried to achieve a high turnout.
Chatham House also ignores the large pool of non-voters in the 2005 election."
I don't find those statemenets altogether convincing.
Posted by: richard | Jun 24 2009 3:48 utc | 103
I have been dithering since the Iran election over whether there was fraud or not, but there does seem to be some indications of something fishy.
The Chatham House report at: link
is very much worth reading (Thanks Amir S @2)
Money quotes:
• In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded. (Add that to the 'infill' between, say, a 'normal' 85% turnout and just 100%, and the figures look cooked. Mazandaran, near the Caspian Sea, maybe overfull of holidaymakers, but Yazd, in the middle of the desert, isn't -R).
• In a third of all provinces , the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all
former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.
(That's a massive, and perhaps doubtful, swing - R)
• In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.
• According to the official data, Mahmud Ahmadinejad has received
approximately 13m more votes in this election than the combined conservative
vote in the 2005 Presidential election
Ahemdinajad 2009 - 24,515,209
Ahmedinajad 2005 - 5,711,254
Other Conservatives -2005 - 5,808,317
(In other words, Ahmedinajad almost quintupled his vote over the past 4 years. Surely a popular guy, so why the huge demonstrations? - R)
• In 2005, the more rural a province was, the less support there was for
the three conservative candidates combined. (Fig 5 in the report)
In 2009 the trends described by Fig.4 and Fig.5 have disappeared, and
Ahmadinejad is universally supported (Fig 6)
• The 2009 data suggests a sudden shift in political support with precisely these
rural provinces, which had not previously supported Ahmadinejad or any other
conservative (Fig.5), showing substantial swings to Ahmadinejad (Fig.6). At
the same time, the official data suggests that the vote for Mehdi Karrubi, who
was extremely popular in these rural, ethnic minority areas in 2005, has
collapsed entirely even in his home province of Lorestan, where his vote has
gone from 440,247 (55.5%) in 2005 to just 44,036 (4.6%) in 2009. This is paralleled by an overall swing of 50.9% to Ahmadinejad, with official results
suggesting that he has captured the support of 47.5% of those who cast their
ballots for reformist candidates in 2005. This, more than any other result, is
highly implausible, and has been the subject of much debate in Iran.
This increase in support for Ahmadinejad amongst rural and ethnic minoritiy
voters is out of step with previous trends, extremely large in scale, and central
to the question of how the credibility of Ahmadinejad’s victory has been
perceived within Iran.
(Now he may have captured this massive swing by doling out cash and potatoes, but either way it suggests either massive voter bribery, or fraud - R).
I wonder, by the way, why we hear so Ahmadinejad's suporters in Iran and outside?
This post was on the c thread but had disappeared by this morning. I have deleted my comments about the attackers on Parviz and Amir S, who are, after all, Iranians, and possibly better equipped to assess the situation.
Having said all of that, I am dithering again, due to b's comment that Chatham House ignored the second round of the 2005 elections, which Ahmedinejad won
It is based on a comparison of the 2009 election with the first round of the 2005 election which had multiple candidates. Chatham House simply ignores the second round 2005 election pitting Ahmadinejad against Rafsanjani which Ahmadinejad won in a landslide.
This election was, after the TV debates, pretty much like a runoff and Ahmadinejad's main electoral strategy was to portray Moussavi as a puppet of Rafsanjani, a corrupt clerical big businessmen plus he tried to achieve a high turnout.
Chatham House also ignores the large pool of non-voters in the 2005 election."
I don't find those statemenets altogether convincing.
Posted by: richard | Jun 24 2009 4:10 utc | 104
Arnold Evans @ 99 and 100
Request for scenario
If after reading the three posts you have only come up with this request and a bunch of questions some of which border on absurd, I will give you a scenario only when I am satisfied with your scenario with the same trappings and some more:
Please give me as plausible a detailed scenario as you can in which Ahmadinejad actually got 65% of the vote. I'm not asking you to tell me what happened. Just make up a scenario you consider plausible. I really do not think you'll be able to present a scenario even you think is plausible that meets these requirements and does not conflict with known information in the real world.
In your scenario:
1. Where, when and by whom was the decision not to falsify the results made?
2. How was this honest election carried out?
3. Who knows about the efforts of running an honest election?
4. Why is none of the election workers talking?
5. How is the information about this honest election kept from the Chair of Iran's Assembly of Experts, constitutionally entitled to review the performance of the Supreme Leader?
6. Why was the decision to release real results made?
7. Why were the real polling station results not given to the campaigns when Mr. Ahmadinejad's win was announced? Why wait eight days to release disaggregated data when they could simply do it the same day they called the election for Ahmadinejad?
8. Why did the Leader announce his support for Mr. Ahmadinejad while the GC was still considering complaints?
9. How many Basijis were used as GC representatives at each polling station? How many in total?
10. How many ballots were printed? Who printed them? Who made the decision to have them printed by the person chosen to print them? Why this print shop and none other?
11. Why don't we see a tiny fraction 3/24 = 12.5% of those who voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad on the streets? Aren't they supposed to support their choice?
12. Who voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad. Assume people vote for their interests. Then convince me that the number of people who could vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad adds up to 24 million.
Thank you and good luck.
The dying man
When I see a man with a sharp, deep wound in his head I know that he will most likely die if he is not given proper medical attention. I don't need to know who shot him, how many times, how and why. This is the logic of evidence. If you want a plausible story, sure. But first I want to hear your plausible story.
Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 4:18 utc | 105
Reading recent posts here on the Iranian protests really reminds me of the day I finally broke with the anti-anti-Communist left in the US -- it was the day in 1989 when I opened my copy of The Nation, to find a long editorial blaming the CIA for the overthrow of Ceaușescu in Romania, and arguing that the dictator's perverted version of socialism actually had some redeeming qualities.
At this point, I'm truly sorry I started the blog that eventually led to the creation of this blog. I believe I did the blogosphere a grave disservice by helping bring such a group of reactionary sectarian cultists together.
Posted by: billmon | Jun 24 2009 4:20 utc | 106
Important News:
Rezaei one of candidate changed his stand and accepted election results.
In an open letter he reverses his earlier stand and asked Guardian Council to dismiss his protest.
Rezaei is former commander of revolutionary Guard.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 4:20 utc | 107
With Rezaei reversing his stand , Guardian Council no longer obligated to recount 10% of random vote.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 4:22 utc | 108
Comparing Ronald Reagan's 1984 victory to his 1980 victory will produce "unbelievable" swings. The result itself is not proof or evidence of fraud. But a landslide looks different from a closer race with more serious entrants.
Ahmadinejad, relatively unknown in 2005 had more time to build a voter base beyond "conservative" voters. And was running against a candidate who doesn't have very good liberal credentials himself. And why compare what was clearly a two person race, where all the opposition united behind Mousavi to the first round instead of the 2005 second round which was another Ahmadinejad landslide? Especially since Rafsanjani, previously defeated in a landslide by Ahmadinejad, injected himself into the campaign on behalf of Mousavi (or was injected, but kept himself there) with Mousavi defending him from Ahmadinejad's charges?
How much time has passed between when the voter logs were made and the election? If there was ballot stuffing, Mousavi's faction knows where to look. Why have they found none?
But are you really claiming it is unreasonable to wait for any form of tangible evidence? Iran is releasing the result of every ballot box. Whoever stuffed the boxes left no trail? If the loser thinks an election is "fishy" then there should be a revote? Or a general strike? Where?
An incredibly powerful political faction with the majority of living ex-Presidents and the chair of the Assembly of Experts can't find one person willing to tell the truth about this supposed fraud?
Last week at this time, the story was the votes hadn't been counted, the ballots had been spirited in secret to Tehran, thrown out or at least the tallies ignored and numbers were made up. Mousavi at the time knew this story was false but had thousands of people believing it in the streets of Tehran. He's demonstrated to at least allow an outrageous lie to stand, if he was not involved in spreading it - but a general strike until there is a revote because he thinks a landslide was impossible?
Mousavi's faction is powerful enough that if it wants to claim fraud it should have to find evidence of fraud. If there was real fraud there would have been real evidence and Mousavi's faction would have found it. We're talking about the richest people in the country. Leaders of the most powerful organizations in the country. People with long-lasting and deep ties throughout Iran's political system
They are claiming an electoral fraud more vast then any I've ever heard of in a contested election. Their evidence, provided by some computer modelers in Britain, essentially is "We don't project that Ahmadinejad could have won a landslide". That is not evidence.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 4:26 utc | 109
Loyal thanks for the links.
B, do you mind shortening or putting spaces into the links because the length of them makes the posts unreadable here.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 4:28 utc | 110
You're being silly Dragonfly, which is what you can do to type something without admitting you can't create a plausible spectacular-but-undetectable fraud scenario.
Ahmadinejad was ahead in the election before the debates, won the debates and afterwards effectively tied Mousavi to the very unpopular Rafsanjani and won a landslide similar to his earlier landslide against Rafsanjani, but in this election he was much better known.
That's my plausible scenario. I think it answers all of my questions.
I don't need a big conspiracy you need a huge conspiracy that leaves no trace, but can't even make up a scenario in which such a scenario occurs.
You don't have to respond if you can't come up with a scenario. Just pretend you didn't read this.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 4:38 utc | 111
There's so much written that I'll answer only the comments that aren't abusive (in 2 posts):
Juannie, thanks, you've made me think of ceding all debate to the vast majority of highly principled people on MoA who support the Totalitarian Religious Kleptocracy of Iran. There's no point arguing with the vast majority who have the Rooseveltian view that "He may be a sonofabitch but he's our sonofabitch".
Arnold (94), the suspicion of a rigged election comes from one point above all: the fact that 20 million boycotted the election 4 years ago and half of them surged to the polls this time, by the regime's own admission, inspired by the debates in the final week that provided those previous boycotters with a reluctant leader (in fact 2). As Chatham House pointed out, it beggars belief to imagine those 20 million voted for Ahmadinejad in a crumbling economy, sky-high inflation, vastly increased social repression (which particularly affects the largest group of youth voters) and the transfer of the economy to the Revolutionary Guards.
Sorry for shouting.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 4:44 utc | 112
Arnold: "Why was the decision to falsify the results made?"
I'll answer that one for Dragonfly: Because Khamenei cannot stand Moussavi, they had constant angry battles when Khamenei was President and Moussavi P.M. and, more importantly, Moussavi (and Karroubi) openly threatened on TV to hand the economy back to the people, destroy the monopolies, improve foreign relations while maintaining the nuclear energy programme, reduce social repression, permit more individual freedoms and in general do away with the state sponsored theft of the nation's assets by the new religious and criticism-intolerant oligarchs. THAT is what brought the additional 10 of previously boycotting 20 million voters onto the streets and, believe me, they didn't vote for maintenance of the status quo.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 4:44 utc | 113
Arnold Evans @ 111
You're being silly Dragonfly
Thank you.
you can't create a plausible spectacular-but-undetectable fraud scenario.
As I said I can do that. It is just that I need to see yours first.
Ahmadinejad was ahead in the election before the debates
Says who? A dubious survey whose holes are apparent to an undergraduate student in statistics?
won the debates
How do you know that? Did you watch the debates? Do you read, understand or write Persian? Do you have survey data for this?
and afterwards effectively tied Mousavi to the very unpopular Rafsanjani
How do you know Rafsanjani is unpopular? Unpopular to who? How much? Where is your data?
How do you know Ahmadinejad succeeded in tying Mousavi to Rafsanjani? How many Iranians have you asked that question from? Again where is your data for this claim?
won a landslide similar to his earlier landslide against Rafsanjani
So people hate Rafsanjani, Mousavi reminds them of Rafsanjani, so they voted Ahmadinejad? What about Ahmadinejad's governance record? It played no role in any of this? People just forgot the last four years they had lived and remembered they hate Rafsanjani? What sort of fools do you take Iranians for? Is this a joke?
That's my plausible scenario. I think it answers all of my questions.
It doesn't answer mine. Actually it doesn't even answer yours. Who decided to have a clean election for example? Do you know? If you do, how do you know that?
I don't need a conspiracy. I just need to have you on equal terms.
So where is my scenario?
Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 4:50 utc | 114
Riochard (103) no need to dither on this point:
"Having said all of that, I am dithering again, due to b's comment that Chatham House ignored the second round of the 2005 elections, which Ahmedinejad won"
In 2005 Ahmadinejad fought the run-off against the most unpopular person in Iran (Rafsanjani, a Rasputin-like figure), allegedly the most corrupt member of the regime and who bankrupted the nation before Khatemi resurrected it from 1997 onwards.
Thank you for highlighting much of the evidence pointing to a totally rigged election this time round.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 4:52 utc | 115
hey, look who stopped by to express regret for planting the seed that's become MoA? how's dkos going for ya, billmon? you've got some really enlightened folks over there, cheerleading for team blue. is the delusion over there, in your virtual neck of the woods, starting to fade yet, or is it still to early to criticize our smooth-talking savior-in-chief?
I believe I did the blogosphere a grave disservice by helping bring such a group of reactionary sectarian cultists together.
yeah, poor blogosphere, it's really taken a hit of credibility, hasn't it? distancing yourself from reactionary sectarian cultists is definitely a smart career move. in fact, why risk besmirching your good name by dropping by at all?
anyway, might as well thank you, billmon, for planting that seed. you may regret what this place has become, but lots of folks would disagree with your assessment.
Posted by: Lizard | Jun 24 2009 4:55 utc | 116
#106
Billmon?
WTF???
other day someone suggested that the parviz we're seeing now is not the parviz we've seen before [sound of sirens]
Posted by: rudolf | Jun 24 2009 4:57 utc | 117
Loyal @ 107
Please do not spin the news. If you cannot understand the political language of your mother tongue some schooling is in order. If you do and you choose to spin the news then you are political hack, someone like Karl Rove, but not as good.
Nowhere does it say in Rezaee's letter that he "accepted election results".
This is the relevant passage of the letter:
However, given limited time and that fact that the political, security and social conditions of the country have now entered a critical and sensitive phase that are more important than election results, it is incumbent upon me to encourage myself and others to contain the current situation. Therefore, since I have pledged to God to remain forever a selfless soldier for the Islamic Revolution, the Leader and the people, hereby I drop my complaint about the elections.
Can't you read between the lines? He's saying he has dropped his complaint just because he is a selfless soldier, i.e. he is obeying the commands of his Commander in Chief Ayatollah Khamenei, not because he is convinced that the election results are OK.
Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 5:03 utc | 118
To 117
I think he is Billmon base on his style of writting. I used to visit his homepage often unfortunately have not seen his recent work except few at Dailykos.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 5:04 utc | 119
Dragonfly:
When a thread reaches the second page, I don't know how many people are still reading it. I don't believe you can create a plausible spectacular-but-undetectable fraud scenario. You say you can. I still don't believe you. Either prove me wrong or not. I don't care either way.
I tried to give you a plausible Ahmadinejad-wins-without-fraud scenario. You don't buy it? I don't really care about that either. The terms were that you (or I) don't have to say what happened, just give a scenario that could have happened. I think I did. You didn't even try, which is what I would have done if I was arguing from your position.
I'll rely on the idea that a reader of this thread, if there actually are any, who is not previously disposed to believe a fraud scenario will find my response reasonable and yours not. If I'm wrong, I'll live.
Parviz:
I really cannot believe there was this big fraud that the Assembly of Experts cannot detect. You really have not addressed this issue. Please walk me through it. We now know the counting was done locally, and I am still angry that the false story that the counting was moved was circulated and Mousavi did not stop that. But thousands of people know the results they transmitted back to Tehran, all over the country. None can go to Mousavi or Rafsanjani and say they can verify that the results have been falsified? If someone did that would be a critical blow to Khamenei. What makes this fraud undetectable? I honestly think you get angry when this question is posed because you cannot answer it. But prove me wrong.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 5:07 utc | 120
Thank you, Billmon. I finally have a highly respected intellectual on my side. Would you please explain to these distant armchair critics how widespread the hatred of the regime is domestically? I've been fighting a 2-week long battle with people who give the FULL benefit of the doubt to this murderous, kleptomaniac regime, with every thread except mine claiming this totalitarian regime supervised fair elections.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 5:13 utc | 121
As Dragonfly points out, where are the 62 % of voters for Ahmadinejad? I'll tell you: He had only 35 % support, most of them bribed during the final weeks of the election and/or consisting of the 12 million Rev. Guards, Baseej, paramilitary thugs plus their families living off the regime, = 4 million directly employed plus 2 adults per family. This 325 % is preventing the 65 %, by clearly brutal means, from making its voice heard.
On Thursday after the election 3 million people protested the results in Tehran, according to current Tehran Mayor Qalibaf, despite Khamenei's declaration of the 'gathering' as illegal. On Friday Khamenei himself only managed one million consisting of bribed/coerced and bussed in participants. Brutal repression and live bullets, knives, spiked chains and city-wide roadblocks have reduced the 3 million in Tehran to a few thousand thereafter (which many here choose to interpret as 'incontrovertible evidence' that the protest has 'ended"!).
MoA is full of hypocritical revolutionaries who will support ANY brutal regime as long as it's anti-American. I'm also anti-American, as are most Iranians, but I call a spade a spade.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 5:13 utc | 122
Rudolf, I feel like Parviz writes like Parviz I've interacted with before, except we often agreed until the issue of this election, and disagreement on this issue hits closer to home for him than disagreements on other issues.
Billmon's appearance was funny, whether intentionally so or not.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 5:14 utc | 123
Arnold Evans @ 120
Could you please stop the worn-out American naivete and not ask excuse my French stupid questions?
I really cannot believe there was this big fraud that the Assembly of Experts cannot detect.
Heavens! We have a saying in Persian: How is a fart related to a skull? Do you even know the constitutional mandate of the Assembly of Experts? Where does it say they can intervene in Presidential elections?
Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 5:16 utc | 124
Parviz: Why can the Assembly of Experts or Rafsanjani not find one person to break with the conspiracy? There is not one honest polling official in Iran?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 5:20 utc | 125
dragonfly @ 118: Please do not spin the news.
and you are not spinning the news by reading between the lines. no where does it say he is obeying the commands of his Commander in Chief Ayatollah Khamenei. that is your interpretation. similarly, loyal made an interpretation. you are both inferring intent where intent can't be completely verified.
*
loyal @ 119: last time a person claiming to be billmon stopped by, it was during US elections last year. he was somewhat horrified that some folks hanging around the bar were being so negative and cynical during the great moment of hope and change, and demanded that b stop linking to his secretions at dkos.
unfortunately billmon seems to be buying what parviz is selling: that skepticism of fraud=support of ahmadinejad. and i guess we support north korea, too, and want iran to be the north korea of the middle east, because, ultimately, "we" are just americaempirehating-hitlerhusseinahmadinejadloving-armchairintellectuals. oh, and soulless to boot.
Posted by: Lizard | Jun 24 2009 5:29 utc | 126
Thank you, Billmon. I finally have a highly respected intellectual on my side. Would you please explain to these distant armchair critics how widespread the hatred of the regime is domestically? I've been fighting a 2-week long battle with people who give the FULL benefit of the doubt to this murderous, kleptomaniac regime, with every thread except mine claiming this totalitarian regime supervised fair elections.
MAN, that was AWESOME. thanks, parviz. rarely do i get to honestly type out the letters LOL, but that's what i just did, and it was great. thank you.
Posted by: Lizard | Jun 24 2009 5:31 utc | 127
oh, and parviz, why are you appealing to an american, if you are anti-american like you claim? you are "on the ground" billmon is not. he's busy writing up something delicious for the kos-kids to nibble on. because he's scrumptious. are you that desperate for someone to agree with you?
Posted by: Lizard | Jun 24 2009 5:36 utc | 128
lizard
It is quite commonsensical for me to interpret what he says that way. It is the "common" understanding of folks brought up in that culture. Also note that I simply said read between the lines, which means I am giving an interpretation, unashamedly so because I know it is indeed the common understanding. I don't call it news.
Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 5:38 utc | 129
Yes. Dragonfly clearly violated the rules of the game.
Of course, that's always allowable for anyone who claims to be fighting for the good guys.
Damn shame so many of those who claim it are actually conscienceless weasels.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 5:40 utc | 130
fair enough. and i should add i have read and appreciated your point of view. i still really don't know what to think, i just know there is a lot of vigorous coercion at work to get me to think one way, and to deny any nagging skepticism i might harbor. so far, my skepticism has served me well. don't begrudge me for thinking this uprising isn't 100% organic, and that the scale of fraud necessary to pull it off seems unlikely.
Posted by: Lizard | Jun 24 2009 5:47 utc | 131
Parviz: I hope when you come back you either answer or say you cannot answer this question.
There is a power struggle going on between two factions. Both factions contain people with powerful roles in the Iranian political system and the Iranian economy. You say one of the factions committed a tremendous crime that thousands of people have to know about. This crime has resulted in at least dozens, maybe hundreds of Iranian deaths.
Why has the other faction not found one of the thousands of witnesses and used the facts that witness knows as a tool in the power struggle?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 5:49 utc | 132
billmon saying a pox on our sectarian house and pronouncing a biblical sort of curse, wishing he could unmake us, after breathing life into us, is quite funny. Like a father disowning his errant children.
Sure Lizard
"oh, and parviz, why are you appealing to an american, if you are anti-american like you claim?
Your weak intellect can't distinguish between anti-American and anti-Americans. Do I have to teach YOU English? Apparently.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 7:43 utc | 134
132, Arnold, you are so naive it's sickening. Do you think people here are sitting in Zurich or Amsterdam, and can simply make legal representations and innocently 'submit evidence'? And to whom? To the dreaded Interior Ministry that has pofficially announced that anyone supporting the 'fake' line would be treated as a U.S. co-conspirator?
ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE protesting the result is imprisoned and merely beaten up if he/she is lucky. At worst, goodbye world.
There is complete information lock-down and massive anti-protest propaganda by the regime which now officially claims on state-run TV that the protestors themselves shot Neda Soltan for political effect. All the other blood is allegedly fake, or red paint, or whatever. the protestors are 'filth' (Ahmadinajad's own words) and that's the end of it.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 7:57 utc | 135
Did I answer your question? If not, go back in time to Nazi Germany and figure out what happened to anyone protesting the Nazi regime, whether political opponents, intellectuals, disappointed ex-followers of Hitler, homosexuals or gypsies. Who could they have complained to?
We are living in a permanent state of terror, and you can sit there and ask why ordinary ballot supervisors do not present 'evidence' of a massive fraud perpetrated by the Khamenei regime (brutally supported by the Rev. Guards and Baseej) to hold onto its power and ill-gotten gains? What do you think the Interior (= Intelligence) Ministry would do with such information? Have you forgotten the serial killings in which poets and artists protesting censorship were carved up into tiny pieces in their homes as a warning to others, something which Khatemi temporarily put a stop to?
The problem is: You have no idea, not the slightest clue, why the regime has become so nationally unpopular, and the tragedy (for Iranians) is that you really don't care.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 7:57 utc | 136
"Like a father disowning his errant children."
'Errant' is correct. MoA has lost its soul, which is what has upset Billmon. You applaud atrocities, refuse to post photos and videos that illustrate the regime's thuggish nature, support the Revolutionary Guard Republic of Iran in literally everything it does and cannot imagine, for even a milli-second, that the entire presidential (s)election process was fake.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 8:00 utc | 137
More and more details about the attempted coup against President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela are beginning to emerge, although much of it still remains shrouded in mystery.The perhaps biggest unsolved mystery is who were the snipers who started the shooting at the April 11 demonstrations, which resulted in 17 dead, and provided the justification for the coup? It appears that there were as many as five or six snipers, firing from various buildings, some of whom might have been arrested, but who were subsequently freed during the brief coup regime, before they could be identified. Earlier reports that two members of the radical and violent left-wing opposition party Bandera Roja were among the snipers have become less certain. Chávez supporters here, though, have little doubt that the only ones who could have stood to gain from shooting at demonstrators were those who planned the coup. Anti-Chávez forces, though, seem to argue that Chávez is so mentally instable that he would place snipers, even to shoot his own supporters and even if it is against all logic and self-interest.
Justice to Rachel Corrie
Posted by: hans | Jun 24 2009 9:04 utc | 138
The problem is: You have no idea, not the slightest clue, why the regime has become so nationally unpopular, and the tragedy (for Iranians) is that you really don't care.
No. The problem is that we haven't seen any evidence that these protests and political actions don't involve more than a minority -- a substantial minority, but still clearly a well-outnumbered minority -- of wealthy, privileged youth and some cynical, behind-the-scenes political players.
Would i like to see Iran experience a loosening of its political and cultural strictures? I hope that you know i do.
Do i want to see a small minority of Iranis take over the political ministries by force, and impose those liberal reforms by force?
Absolutely not.
What's happened vis-a-vis the protestors -- Neda included -- isn't all that much worse than what has happened to a great many protestors around the world. How many innocent people have been locked up and tortured in Gitmo, these last few years? Iraq and Afghanistan have been reduced to rubble, and its people -- its children -- turned to prostitutes and wandering beggars. Gaza remains under siege.
What's happening to the Iranian people, right now, is nothing compared to those atrocities, each of which has been forced upon entire nations by the aggression and short-sightedness of the US.
Be thankful that you still have a country to worry over, Parviz, and be thankful that your people still enjoy enough privilege that they can protest, strike, organize and fight. But don't point fingers at us, here, and say we have no sympathy, or that our reluctance to join voices and minds with the Americans who insist that we must "do something" is inhumane.
You have seen what happens when America goes down that road; do you want help and sympathy like Haiti got, when it overthrew Aristide? Do you want help and sympathy like Iraq got, when it was liberated? Do you want help and sympathy like Nicaragua got, when the Contras were so determined to liberalize their homeland?
Don't misinterpret our reluctance to give support to the forces of destruction as callous insensitivity, or alliance with your enemies. You have been here a year, now; you should know who we are, and what we stand for.
Appreciate us for what we are, and let us agree to disagree. I, for one, promise to keep my eye on things, and i will change my mind when enough proof has come out to convince me. Where is that general strike?
In the meantime, i do hope Montazeri, or Mousavi, or Khatami, or Rezai, and other Irani patriots will find some way to come together, and curb the excesses of the Basij. I hope they'll rid the land of the corruption you decry. There's nothing i hate more than a bully, and a pack of them is certainly something i'll join to fight against.
But as things stand, Iran remains what it is. There's nothing i can do to change things, and nothing i should do except let them -- y'all -- work it out on your own.
And i call your attention to this: already, the Zionists are turning on Mousavi, painting him in the worst possible light. Already, the enemies of Iran, who have been so intent on invading, are marshalling their forces to restart the momentum.
How long are you going to sit around, here, and beat this dead horse you're flogging? Even if you were to convince every last person here that your vision is the right one, and verify it beyond any shadow of a doubt, what the hell good would it do? What could we do?
Yet soon, if you really have been coming here for the camaraderie you claim, i think you may be needing it more than ever.
So do you really want to burn those bridges?
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 9:06 utc | 139
ndahi@17,
the authors are two Phd candidates in political-science and they present the analysis as their own work rather than the work of others. But there is no reference to an actual published report that would allow one to assess the rigor applied.
theres no question that their approach is fundamentally sound for analyzing scenarios where the data's are actual raw numbers provided by human input. However, the data's they used for both the Iran & Obama elections are aggregates rather than raw human inputs (i.e. a manual lottery number pick).
still, its a useful analysis & assuming it was conducted properly, in my opinion, it does point to irregularities in the Iran election. However, there's no indication in the article of the actual scale of irregularities.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 24 2009 9:23 utc | 140
china_hand, thanks but we're still going in circles. For every example you can give me of a 'liberalized' society or nation that went down the drain I can give you bigger examples of superpowers that collapsed under the weight of their own corruption and internal degeneration (the USSR being the prime example and some U.S. politicians in the U.S. doing their best to ensure their nation follows suit).
What is wrong with the Indian model? Open, successful, religiously tolerant and politically independent? = Run by proud, nationalistic technocrats instead of by regime mercenaries, para-militaries and just plain thugs.
The one thing I will agree with you on is that I'm wasting my breath here. Maybe it's your most important point.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 9:25 utc | 141
china_hand, thanks but we're still going in circles.
No, we're not; because you have neglected the major elements of what i said to focus on something much smaller.
The sphere of influence inhabited by me, and these other posters, does not include Iran.
So what do you want us to do? Urge the US to intervene? Support invasion? Call out for justice and send money for weapons?
All of those are utterly antithetical to what i believe in.
Now, if i knew you personally; if i were confident in you, personally, and the people who surrounded you; if i knew there was some measure of support i could provide that would empower you, personally, to persuade all of Iran to join you in standing against the Basij --
then perhaps i'd consider some of those options.
But i don't know you. You're words on a screen. I don't know who you keep company with: it may as well be Liz Cheney as Ayatollah Montazeri. You're not asking for money, and you're not asking for guns. You haven't presented any of us here with a plan, or a forum, where we can join you in welcoming a new Iran.
The only thing that's been going on, here, AFAIC, is that you and i and many others here have been debating whether or not the protests in Iran were:
A) Being misled;
B) Being directed from behind the scenes, and if so, by who;
C) Going to have any sort of material effect upon US/Iran/Israel relations;
D) Represented any sort of real challenge of the ruling system;
E) Represented any sort of genuine, mass protest by the Irani people aimed at the ruling system.
Now, you don't believe A) as much as i do; you've pretty much side-stepped the entire quetsion of B); C) we all pretty much agree upon (i.e.: varying degrees of "Not much."); we all agree that "D" would be "Perhaps a lot in terms of foreign policy", but we disagree on to what degree domestically: you say massive, many of us say "Eh. Not so much."; yet you appear to have fixated upon E), insisting that yes, indeed, it is --
While i and many others here say "Eh. We don't really see it, yet." What i see is a bunch of wealthy, well-educated, western-oriented youth pushing for better more freedoms and better relations with the West.
So can we just agree to disagree? It's not as if i wouldn't let you come stay at my house, if you ever were to ask. It's not as if i wouldn't build a secret room for you and hide you, if you needed it.
But let's be realistic: we're not a charity organization, here. Much as i'd love to do any of those things, you're never going to ask. We're a bunch of people discussing what can and can not be trusted in the news, and trying to glean what we can about how the world of international relations, human rights, and economic forces is actually playing out.
Believe me: i understand your frustrations. But until i can read Farsi and start getting underground newspapers from trusted journalists representing genuine Irani mass-movements, then i can only make my decisions on the sparse information i can glean from the internet. And so far, that info just leads me to different conclusions than you appear to be hoping for.
So there you go: if you need help setting up that website, then we can negotiate. I'll be glad to help as i can; i'm an excellent english language editor (it's what i do), and i'll be happy to help as i can. It should be an easy thing for me to find an ISP here in Taiwan that'll host your website, and i'll be glad to look after it for you.
Beyond that, though --
It's time to lay this argument to rest.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 10:44 utc | 142
Grandma knows best. Conversation with a Grandma after Iran’s elections
Posted by: hans | Jun 24 2009 10:47 utc | 143
Parviz:
There is a power center in Iran other than Khamenei's faction. This power center is currently struggling with Khamenei's faction. Rafsanjani's faction is able to call people to protest on the streets, risking their lives but cannot convince any of the thousands of people who can personally witness that the government-released vote tallies are wrong to tell the truth, anywhere in the country? Why is that?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 11:11 utc | 144
Parviz, so far you have not answered the question, though your tone has gotten angrier in sidestepping the question. I'm concluding that it is an impossible question to answer. I'll stop asking it, but it seems to me to point to a major flaw in the fraud theory of the election.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 11:19 utc | 145
Arnold, Khamenei (and in conjunction with his puppet Ahmadinejad) controls every lever of intimidation, including all sectors of the military, the Revolutionary Guards, the Baseej, the Ministry of Justice and the infamous Evin Prison where dissidents are tortured and often killed.
Those who tryb and report the truth meet the fate of the Interior Ministry's Chief of IT who has mysteriously 'disappeared'.
I'm sure in the Soviet Union there were official vehicles for the population to complain through. Do you think these vehicles were ever used?
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 11:23 utc | 146
Did silence in any totalitarian state ever mean that the majority was in favour of the regime?
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 11:25 utc | 147
China_hand, I couldn't even send this in 2 parts, so I'll try 3. SoonI'll be transmitting line by line!
china_hand, I don't need your help. This forum is only for debating current affairs, as far as I can see, the idea being to try and figure out between us what's best for societies, individual nations and the world at large. In the process of debating we learn from each other, and we also try and remove misconceptions. In this case it's clear that the respective sides are so entrenched in their views that there is little mobility of opinion. It always stays the same no matter how much is written.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 11:30 utc | 148
Why it was so easy for me to agree with almost everything written on this Blog during the past 12 months, and to provide my own input, is that the targets were easy: Neocons, Zionists, Capitalism, Israel.
Iran is far more complicated. It's not just a case of "political independence" versus "domestic freedom" but the whole question of
-- how long Iran's independence will last if it develops from a cosmetic democracy into full-fledged military rule (and it has relentlessly moved in this direction since 2005);
-- whether the dual demands of domestic freedom and political independence can be better secured if Iran reverts to the Khatemi mode, especially as Iran is no longer threatened with outright destruction by the Neocons who finally fathomed that "Iran is not Iraq".
I was all in favour of Iran's fully justified siege mentality in 2005, but today is different. The regime wants a monopoly of both power and money, and kills opponents literally like flies. Ahmadinejad called them 'rubbish'.
As for state-sponsored election fraud, the truth will be revealed one day when the dust has settled.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 11:30 utc | 149
Just one final point: The protestors are mainly frustrated, desperate youth from all walks of life and social sectors. What you see is "a bunch of wealthy, well-educated, western-oriented youth pushing for better more freedoms and better relations with the West."
No, they want:
jobs, jobs, jobs (currently youth unemployment is 40 %)
end of media and internet censorship
freedom to entertain in their homes (currently forbidden)
an end to stiflingly propagandistic TV and film programmes
an end to brutal beatings and the rule of semi-formal militias
etc.,.
If they could have the above they wouldn't give a damn about relations with the West.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 11:31 utc | 150
"...All of this is not to say there are not tremendous tensions within the Iranian political elite. That no revolution broke out does not mean there isn’t a crisis in the political elite, particularly among the clerics. But that crisis does not cut the way Western common sense would have it. Many of Iran’s religious leaders see Ahmadinejad as hostile to their interests, as threatening their financial prerogatives, and as taking international risks they don’t want to take. Ahmadinejad’s political popularity in fact rests on his populist hostility to what he sees as the corruption of the clerics and their families and his strong stand on Iranian national security issues.The clerics are divided among themselves, but many wanted to see Ahmadinejad lose to protect their own interests. Khamenei, the supreme leader, faced a difficult choice last Friday. He could demand a major recount or even new elections, or he could validate what happened. Khamenei speaks for a sizable chunk of the ruling elite, but also has had to rule by consensus among both clerical and non-clerical forces. Many powerful clerics like Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani wanted Khamenei to reverse the election, and we suspect Khamenei wished he could have found a way to do it. But as the defender of the regime, he was afraid to. Mousavi supporters’ demonstrations would have been nothing compared to the firestorm among Ahmadinejad supporters — both voters and the security forces — had their candidate been denied. Khamenei wasn’t going to flirt with disaster, so he endorsed the outcome.
The Western media misunderstood this because they didn’t understand that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the clerics but against them, that many of the clerics were working for his defeat, and that Ahmadinejad has enormous pull in the country’s security apparatus. The reason Western media missed this is because they bought into the concept of the stolen election, therefore failing to see Ahmadinejad’s support and the widespread dissatisfaction with the old clerical elite. The Western media simply didn’t understand that the most traditional and pious segments of Iranian society support Ahmadinejad because he opposes the old ruling elite. Instead, they assumed this was like Prague or Budapest in 1989, with a broad-based uprising in favor of liberalism against an unpopular regime. ...
Now, as we saw after Tiananmen Square, we will see a reshuffling among the elite. Those who backed Mousavi will be on the defensive. By contrast, those who supported Ahmadinejad are in a powerful position. There is a massive crisis in the elite, but this crisis has nothing to do with liberalization: It has to do with power and prerogatives among the elite. Having been forced by the election and Khamenei to live with Ahmadinejad, some will make deals while some will fight — but Ahmadinejad is well-positioned to win this battle."
Posted by: hans | Jun 24 2009 12:33 utc | 151
well, well, billmpn has become the malcolm muggeridge of his generation
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 12:51 utc | 152
Parviz, I'm not asking about why the official vehicles for complaint are not used. You know what I'm asking. It's not an answerable question. I really shouldn't be pressing this at this point. One last time, then I'm done. I really shouldn't be pressing this time.
I'm asking why the other rival power faction, a very resourceful faction that contains many ex-presidents and the chair of the Assembly of Experts that constitutionally oversees the Supreme Leader (who is also the richest Iranian), cannot find someone who can say that votes were changed, out of the thousands who know, for sure, because they sent transmissions to Tehran reporting more votes for Mousavi and now look at the newspapers and see their districts reported with Ahmadinejad majorities.
Don't go through approved channels, go to the very public and very powerful rivals of the faction that committed this crime.
In the power struggle between Khamanei and Rafsanjani, proof that Khamenei changed ballot numbers would decisively tip the balance to Rafsanjani's faction. And if the elections are fraudulent there are thousands of witnesses, in every city and town of the country, many of them with good reputations who know with certainty that the votes were changed and could use this information, through the opposing faction in Iranian politics, to force the faction that committed the crime out of power.
If there was fraud, why has this not happened? Why is Mousavi asking students to go to the streets and hold rallies that have been banned but not asking any of these thousands of well-respected witnesses all over the country to come forward and tell the truth?
There's no answer. Sorry for asking.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 12:55 utc | 153
I wasn't offering my help on these boards, Parviz; i was simply saying that i have only the best of wishes for you.
...how long Iran's independence will last if it develops from a cosmetic democracy into full-fledged military rule (and it has relentlessly moved in this direction since 2005)
You don't think the increase in harsh strictures since 2005 might have a bit more to do with the brutal US invasion just next door?
Further -- compared to its neighbors, and taking into consideration the hostility it suffers from the West and its regional proxies -- Iran is -- did you get those qualifications there? -- a model -- you're not going to quote me out of context on this, are you? -- democracy.
In point of fact, Iran is more democratic and free -- by far -- than Israel.
whether the dual demands of domestic freedom and political independence can be better secured if Iran reverts to the Khatemi mode, especially as Iran is no longer threatened with outright destruction by the Neocons who finally fathomed that "Iran is not Iraq".
So let me get this straight:
Because the US no longer has Cheney running things, but has instead traded him for Obama, then Iran should let down its guard, decide that the US is no longer a threat, embrace Western reforms and just trust that these liberalizations aren't going to be used to destabilize it?
Parviz: you're smarter than that. If the US spends 30 years threatening Iran with nukes, bombing it, financing terrorist cells, assassinating its citizens, blowing up civilian airliners, and starting wars of aggression on its borders, then don't you think it's just a little naive for you to believe that six months after the election of a black man to the presidency, the Irani people and Irani reactionaries are going to just say "Hey, it's a new day -- let's set aside our differences with the US and build a new Hollywood!?!"
The regime wants a monopoly of both power and money...
As it did under Rafsanjani. As it did under Khatami. As it did under Mousavi. Apparently, AhmadiNejad is the one seen as the anti-corruption candidate, and apparently that's why so many voted for him.
Setting aside whether he really is anti-corruption or not (Chen Shuibian, the Taiwanese president under trial for embezzling state funds, ran successfully on an anti-corruption platform, so i have some experience with these sorts of frustrations), the public apparently supports him because he's able to successfully pose as someone clean.
...and kills opponents literally like flies.
As they did under Rafsanjani. As they did under Mousavi. Khatami wasn't all that much better, either.
jobs, jobs, jobs (currently youth unemployment is 40 %)
end of media and internet censorship
freedom to entertain in their homes (currently forbidden)
an end to stiflingly propagandistic TV and film programmes
an end to brutal beatings and the rule of semi-formal militias
The likelihood that Mousavi would be any better at creating jobs is slim.
Mousavi would almost certainly maintain the internet censorship; probably, he would only make it less-intrusive.
The other things would be good to change, too; but all have been features of Iranian life since the revolution, throughout the administrations of both Khatami and Mousavi.
Perhaps what is needed is the rise of a new leader? Someone who can really stand for something new?
But complaining about how this election was stolen isn't going to make that happen any sooner, and doing so when the vast majority of natives believe it wasn't will actually hurt.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 12:58 utc | 154
Latest from Recount:
According to official MOI, recount at request of Rezaei has been finished Representative of Rezaei has been present during recount.
Result of recount is same as election result.
Perhaps that is reason for his new stand.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 13:00 utc | 155
after all is said & done - billmon resembles muggeridge far more than he does, izzy stone or even the cockburn boys da, claud cockburn. deïty he might be for those at dkos - you are or you are not - working for the man
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 13:02 utc | 156
well done Loyal keep us informed.
"The current political, social and security situation has entered a sensitive and decisive phase, which is more important than the election"
Words of wisdom for sure, too bad he did not come to that conclusion as soon as it had become apparent that
a) Ahmadinejad had won by a huge, unfakable, margin
b) That the USraelian Empire and the Guccis would use any pretext to destabilize Iran
c) Violent riots would engulf the streets
Posted by: hans | Jun 24 2009 13:11 utc | 157
Loyal, where can I find out more about Neda Sultani, is she "real", rumor has it she was a singer, who just stepped out of her car with her music teacher to see what all the fuss was about in the streets.
Posted by: hans | Jun 24 2009 13:21 utc | 158
Do y'all really think that was the real billmon?
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 13:42 utc | 159
To: Hans.
I don’t know much about her.
I am extremely sad about her murder. If there is a heaven, she is there right now. My respect and heart goes to her.
I hope those who are responsible for this horrible crime suffer agony for rest of their miserable life.
Iranian will remember her forever with love and respect.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 13:43 utc | 160
@ 159
ô yes - though sometime slothroph morphs into billmon
but there is the telltale muggeridgian arrogance - as if he is responsible for all things on heaven & earth
the facts that the singual events in a very singular romania have nothing to do with the current discussion & his own lear like protestations hint more at billmon than that eternal undergraduate, slothrop
the perfect master, visit from time to time - to demonise the host, or any one of us that displeases him & if he gets anry enough he will write a psuedomencken piece that will be celebrated as a hallmark of american literature
me - i think he would like me to be urinating on the electric chair like ethel rosenberg
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 13:54 utc | 161
Arnold, I'll try to offer an answer to your question for Parviz. If Musavi were to announce today that 100 election workers told him they were ordered to stuff ballot boxes, but that he could not identify them for their safety, would you believe him? After all, for the opposition to protect their witnesses, they have to conceal their identity. And yet, secret witnesses are not proof. Sooner or later, they would have to make official and public accusations. That would be a death sentence.
I agree that presenting reliable witnesses would make the fraud story incontrovertible. I agree that their absence raises a question, but it does not disprove the fraudulent election claim.
Second, where exactly are Musavi and Rafsanjani right now? Rafsanjani has been nowhere to be found. For all we know, he is dead. (I'm not saying he is, but who knows?) If they had such information, how could they announce it? Musavi has made statements, but he seems to be cautious about confronting the government forcefully.
Again, I don't know what really happened. Again, I say it no longer matters. Iran needs new elections to restore credibility of its government. It does not matter who wins. Suppressing an angry populace, even if its only a large minority, is a very shortsighted strategy.
Posted by: Lysander | Jun 24 2009 13:56 utc | 162
To Laysander:
I don't think anyone for sure can claim cheating one way or another but fact remain Musavi so far has not provided any smoking gun or direct specific case of fraud that constitute nullification.
There are numerous errors and violence’s register by all candidates and subject to criminal investigation; however none evidence of kind of claims that will support Musavi claims.
Musavi provided two letters with lists of various violation claims, but nowhere has he talked about secret witness or request for protection for fearful witness.
If there is witness at least he could have said that without referring to their name for the record
Every box had at least 10 withness.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 14:11 utc | 164
It wouldn't be for me to believe Mousavi's claim of 100 witnesses or not.
The Assembly of Experts, and the Guardian Council, where the current power struggle is being fought would be in a position to evaluate the claim and if it was true, it would decide the power struggle.
While a lack of evidence does not prove the negative of lack of fraud, I do not think it is reasonable to begin making accusations of fraud before there is evidence of fraud.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 14:13 utc | 165
to put it very bluntly, i prefer the caster range of territory that b covers & covers quasi systematically. in these last weeks he has been demonised by donkeys & i include billmon amongs that gaggle. what be has done - since the beginning has been to contextualise events. from a little blog he works against the tidal wave of a propoganda - that this time has a united fron from the most cretinous children of the mass media - to the darlings of the left liberal bourgeoisie. he does that with fuck all resources except his own intelligence & those who write for this site
& there is a multiplicity who have offered their considered opinion that are not in the least homogeneous - over half the posts come from the supporters of the opposition. yeh, that's a real sect, jack. & even those of us who agree with one another - the agreement is on different terms & hardly constitutes a monolith
& billmon has given me the key - that type of anti anti anti communists are the element of my generation most responsible for the betrayal not only of socialism, not only social democracy but in fact have betrayed almost everything human & decent since the juggernaut of thatcher & reagan. & it took these little lineral shits the open madness of the cheney bush junta to wake up - but they have not woken up entirely - no they are ready to retire, ready to go back to sleep.
my own argument with billmon was in an area he shares with slothrop - the dimunition of the personal crimes of armed forces in iraq & his complete misreading of the sectarian battles in iraq. tho at the time there was clear evidence that these were being formented by u s imperialism - only a dull silence came from these apologists. boohoo stories of the savagery of the arabs, buying into the absurd notion of the existence of a q - in iraq, no salvador option, no understanding of al hakim & friends etc etc
billmon is an ideologue just like the rest of them - tho he might try to dress that up in the clothes of left liberal culture - it is in essence - nothing other than sean hannity with his hair tied up in a bun
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 14:30 utc | 166
I expect those on the Right to accuse people, such as myself, of being commies. But I'd never expect this sort of childish name-calling from a fellow leftist. All I can figure is that billmon, whoever the hell he is, isn't a real leftist. Instead, he's one of those pseudo-leftist who only cares about putting Dems in power, even though most of them are about as left-of-center as the most right-leaning ideologues in the GOP.
Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 24 2009 15:25 utc | 167
Well, then:
Fuck him.
DKos is about as lame a bunch of dickless wannabes as i've ever seen.
They'll still be whining to the heavens about law and order as the tanks roll over them.
Glad you rescued the community, b.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 16:05 utc | 168
Very Important news:
BrooJerdi, Chairman of national security committee of parliament today (tonight in Tehran) met with Rafsanjani and Musavi. Last nigh the met with Rezaei result was a success.
Today's meeting with Musavi lasted 1:45 minutes and both sides discussed ways to deal with crisis.
Meeting with Rafsanjani took longer and both side agreed to work for acceptable solution
Broojerdi will meet with head of Judiciary tomorrow.
My speculation is whatever agreement he had with Rafsanjani and Musavi, Shahroudi head of Judiciary has to approved in case that involve realize of all pro Musavi who has been arrested or himself facing possible criminal charge.
Good Move by Ali Larjany Parliament speaker.
Interesting read :
http://www.rense.com/general86/irnn.htm
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 16:13 utc | 169
just received a forwarded email from MoveOn.Org. while they have largely abandoned any antiwar action now that a center-right neoliberal is in charge of US killing, it seems this current situation in iran has rekindled their fake-fervor for "democracy"
Dear MoveOn member,
The Iranian people's courage in the face of brutal repression has been inspiring.But the situation is getting worse. The Iranian regime has begun a violent crackdown against the protesters—including hundreds of arrests and a number of deaths.
Now, it's crucial that the Iranian regime knows that the world is watching and that they must stop their violent repression of peaceful dissent.
So our friends at Avaaz—a global MoveOn-type organization—have asked people all over the world to stand with the Iranian protesters. Avaaz is aiming for 1 million signatures worldwide and is going to deliver this message of solidarity to other governments, concentrating on the countries with the most influence over Iran's regime. Can you add your name?
http://civ.moveon.org/irancrackdown/?id=16437-9335757-qUZQc0x&t=1
A clear message from people all over the world can help put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop the violence. Other Muslim countries in the region and key trading partners like China and Turkey have been mostly silent since the election, but a worldwide outpouring of support can convince them to take action.
Involvement by the American government could be used by the Iranian regime as an excuse to crack down further. But if we, as individuals, join with folks around the world, we can help create a global outcry. The petition will be delivered directly to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement, the E.U., and the U.N. to show them that the world wants them to act.
Iranians have shown that regular people, using new technologies like Twitter and Facebook, can have a profound impact on world affairs. As they face enormous danger to stand up for democracy and freedom of speech, we should stand with them. Can you add your voice to the chorus of people calling for an end to the violence?
Posted by: Lizard | Jun 24 2009 16:24 utc | 170
Give billmon a break.
I think it is painful, very painful, for someone who struggles to provide a clear sightline of truth - or at least good interpretation - when the issues are not at all resolveable. We are discussing matters where people like Parviz are probably dead accurate in the vision they have of a corrupt and lethal regime. But where people like b are also right that in modern regimes people-killing is endemic, more feature than bug, and that we have to keep our eyes on the rending violence perpetrated by empire.
Even if Parviz does not always present the best evidence, I do hear humanity in his arguments. I expect that many in Iran share his views. And it pains me to find myself wanting to reply - "Yes, you and your countrypeople are suffering, but from inside the belly of the beast we can say that the devil you know is far preferable to invasion and subversion from abroad."
But I expect that he and billmon and others would/do reply - "Why accept this tyranny? Capitalism is too busy to crush this moment of nationalism. And even if we are wrong here, we only lose if we resign ourselves, so we do not resign ourselves to tyranny."
No solution. Just trying to get by without dehumanising anyone.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2009 16:31 utc | 171
reactionary sectarian cultists
!!!!
i am deeply offended! it is nice to see billmon is still reading moon on occasion. old habits die hard.
;)
Posted by: annie | Jun 24 2009 16:39 utc | 172
Billmon, from afar your brief appearance has the resemblance of a magician’s apprentice who called on the big ghosts and then can’t handle them. Way back, when you ran the Whiskey Bar, and I remember some really well written posts of yours, you made an effort to look through the charade we are presented with day after day, and by doing so attracted a readership which in large parts appreciated your insights and questioning of the MSM’s published “facts”, which to this day is imho the hallmark here at the Moon. As it happens though, people, after similar mental exercises to yours, do arrive at different points of view, a fact of life I would have thought an open-minded blogger would be pleased about. But it seems you are not, instead you leave the rare snipe, bemoaning how the bar’s contributors are all indoctrinated fools sucking on their communist thumbs who fail to see Emperor Obama’s and his Democrats clothes.
I mean calling Bernhard and the Moon’s patrons “reactionary sectarian cultists” who you are sorry for having brought together, is close to being on par with some of the remarks you closed your comments section down for. Over the years I got the impression that B is fortunately more tolerant of opposing standpoints and his reasoned thinking has produced in my eyes one of the most interesting and well informed blogs available, and done so consistently for the 5 years I’ve been coming here. I wouldn't go along with all his conclusions but I certainly respect his investigative skills and healthy skepticism.
Since you feel you brought about this site I am surprised the only courtesy you afford it is the odd drive by shooting. Speaking for myself I would welcome your assessments of events, not necessarily agree with them, but certainly value them. If the opinions raised here are really that far of the mark as you make them out to be, why don’t you engage in a meaningful dialog to help us see your point of view? I understand you are a busy man and the last thing you want to waste your time on is discussing politics with analytical yet to some extent unsympathetic minds, but what exactly was the purpose of your comment if not to walk in, use the toilet and walk out?
Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 24 2009 16:40 utc | 173
@China_hand2 #168
Damned right !
@R'Giap
Hm, time to proudly don my virtual "I'm a Stalinist Fruitcake too" T-shirt, R'Giap ... wear 'em if you've got'em :)
'Stalinist Fruitcake', freshly baked and sliced, grab yourself a piece at The Bar ;)
Thank you, b.
General disclaimer: Er, Um, uh ... I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist, stalinist or member, nay even visitor of an associated bookshop (though I did, ahem, surveil one once ... long ago ...), nor am I a Harry Potter fan and proudly affirm there ARE more than two(2) types of music ...
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 24 2009 16:41 utc | 174
But I expect that he and billmon and others would/do reply - "Why accept this tyranny? Capitalism is too busy to crush this moment of nationalism. And even if we are wrong here, we only lose if we resign ourselves, so we do not resign ourselves to tyranny."
I don't see how such sentiment -- which i can wholly condone -- provokes one to condemn fellow investigators as "sectarian reactionary cultists".
But c'mon --
Capitalism is already as long dead as Communism.
We are already living in a post-Marxist world.
The only problem is the US elite haven't yet realized it, and the diehard Marxists are too busy sparring to enjoy the victory.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 16:53 utc | 175
china hand,
you make a fun comment
But I am just using the term capitalism to identify a global interactive system that does have human regulators, but that is nevertheless working on rules of its own - rules that Marx helped identify by quoting a lot of businessmen. Post-Marxist? OK, sure, but post-capitalist? hardly.
I don't think the empire makes sense as an American thing, but as a system that integrates human action by forces that are not quite centered anywhere, because all money interacts with all other money.
has that changed? No. So, that's why I think we are commenting on Iran, despite being so far away. Because we ARE related, through money.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2009 17:24 utc | 176
oops, sorry inner academic snuck out there
I agree, billmon didn't need to try to eat 'his' young, and it is truly weird for someone to see this group as sectarian reactionary cultists. I guess once one has been traumatized by 1989, some kinds of thinking-for-yourself won't feel like thinking anymore. Sounds like some part of him died in 1989, and the way we talk about the world really did re-orient that year.
You're right ch2 about some people being stuck in the past, that it is a post-1989 world, and it's hard to navigate while still stuck there.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2009 17:36 utc | 177
Interpretation of @106. Why can't you whiners just shut up and finally give in and support the exportation of NeoLiberlism around the globe. It's quite harmless, really, it won't hurt, but you may feel a little sick.
Thank you, billmon. If it wasn't for you I never would have known I was bat shit crazy and a scum and a moron and a piece of crap.
Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 24 2009 17:42 utc | 178
No worries, citizen. I can't be here 24/7. I'm embarrassed taht i've been on as often as i have, these last 15 days.
But i've learned so much more about what goes on in Iran than i've ever known, and i'm an Iran fan, so to speak.
You agree post-Marxist; but your understanding of "capitalist" is crude, at best. It's as if you accept the definition invented by post-WWII anti-Soviet Americans.
"Capitalism" was defined, technically, by Marx. He based that, essentially, upon the populist interpretation of Adam Smith's idea of "free markets'.
The only problem is that subsequent Leninist and anti-Soviet interpreters, alike, have forced that critique into a combative relationship.
Smith and Marx were aiming at the same sorts of reforms. A "free market" didn't mean "free to hurt whatever you want", but rather "a market managed to guarantee participant freedom".
The post-WWII US elite has interpreted the phrase in the former manner; the Soviet went along with it, because it made for convenient and numbskull translation of their favored term, "Capitalism".
We are certainly as "post-capitalist" as we are "post-marxist"; we are also, unfortunately, way past any meaningful usage of the term "free market", as well.
Overusage of a word like "cool", "phat", or "G" results in it becoming meaningless.
"Free Market", "capitalism", "communism" and "Marxism" -- along with the political terms "left" and "right" -- all long ago suffered that fate.
I don't think the empire makes sense as an American thing, but as a system that integrates human action by forces that are not quite centered anywhere, because all money interacts with all other money.
I sympathize with your sentiment on this, but i protest:
When a country overtly finances activist groups like the NED, or the CIA, or the FBI, then one is really only dealing with an empire. There is no other word for it. But those are only the most overt examples; essentially, when the third world looks at the international environment, these days, they're confronted with a choice:
Join in the Russo-European-American bloc, which will dictate to you the terms of their cooperation, or --
Join in the Sino-Asian bloc, which will only try to find some way to get along.
Africa, South America, Australia, and large parts of Northern- and Central-Asia are currently facing these decisions. In the long run, i think the inevitable tendency will be to join Asia.
And that is about as post-capitalism as one can get.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 18:28 utc | 179
citizen
i respect you deeply & you know that but i couldn't be more at odds than with your post
outside of the odd rgiap/slothrop slapstick routine - there is a landscape of opinions on these threads - & they mirror all sorts of perceptions, feelings & perhaps even strategies
i respect william faulkner but it does not mean i have to be in a state of obeisance with his works, which i'm not
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 19:01 utc | 180
ch2,
Really, so if Iran joins Asia, that makes it post-capitalist? Cool, what are they going to use instead of money?
Sorry to be flip, but I'm still smarting a bit from having my short bloggy explanation equated with the entirety of my understanding, and then later having the explanation called a sentiment.
Yes, the empire is American, but just as you say, it can easily become non-American. The rules will evolve together with money. Not with nationality, or religion.
The ancient Greeks actually give us a clue with the idea that either money is the one universal equivalent, or there is no way of equating things. Digital era = capitalist era. You see, previous understandings of capitalism are not eternally valid. When money changes, capitalism changes. I'm sure Marx would approve of that idea too.
post-capitalist? More like post belief in capitalism. But I think Marx was also pointing out the rotten conscience of the capitalist. I would like to add, though, that people are always rotting out the beautiful system that capital is trying to set up. It's a natural enmity between two vastly different dimensions of reality: personal (what we experience) and social (what we cause amongst ourselves but can only understand symbolically/metaphorically because our felt awareness of relations is purely personal).
The more money diverges from something like gold that is accorded independent value, the more we ENTER capitalism. We're actually getting closer and closer to achieving everyday commonsense understandings of Marx's weird terms such as abstract value.
And I think that helps explain why we're taking such a weird take on events in Iran, because we're looking for the social angle as well as the experiential/personal one.
Remember, social=money, or anything else that will actually provide a digital understanding where everything can be reduced to one flat, dead dimension of equivalent units.
ick
(That was the sentiment part)
@r'giap
sorry to come off as obeisant (word?)
I was trying to express sympathy for billmon, but probably it's arrogant of me to dismiss his name-calling as a kind of pathology. After all, arguing is our fellowship here.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2009 19:41 utc | 181
citizen (171), thanks for an appraisal I agree with 1000 % (I'm not a mathematician!). That's exactly how I feel and where I'm coming from. The idea of having to tolerate a government of brutal, corrupt and illiterate religious fanatics AD AETERNAM, just to protect ourselves from the U.S. and observe dire warnings from leftist armchair critics, is too much to stomach for most of my people. We Iranians do not deserve to be 'saved' from 150 years of foreign domination by thugs who rely for their survival on domestic intimidation and unprecedented brutality. We deserve better, and I'm prepared to take the risk, as are many of my people, of jumping from the Mullah frying pan into the U.S. fire with the probability that we'll emulate India, for example.
You guys/gals don't have to make that choice. My countrymen already have. What do the 40 % unemployed youth have to lose? You think they worry about "U.S. hegemony"?
The regime, like every brutal, totalitarian regime before it, has dug its own grave.
Posted by: Parviz | Jun 24 2009 20:06 utc | 182
parviz
where is the general strike then - or even anything that would resemble it - it is wishful thinking on your part
sorry citizen it is oeveissance - it just mean formal submission - that is to say - i tthink celine made the most important technical advances in french literature but i would have been quite happy to put a bullet in his head
billmon has been given thanks - he is not a godhead - he is just another worker in the financial sector with a bit of nous
i stopped learning from him some time ago but thankfully the community of resistance has both beautiful & blessed speakers more acute than i - & i learn from them
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 20:16 utc | 183
meanwhile in italy berlusconi has his cock caught in a door - or the sex of an albanian child prostitute - ahmadinejad might be a bastard but leaders like berlusconi & blair are pure scum
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 20:19 utc | 184
@citizen:
Didn't mean to come off as brusque or dismissive, but i guess i did. Please forgive the error; i was just trying to quickly say something that would take a lot more than a blog-post or two to get into. You explained you were going "academic", and regrettably that's kinda my default. I have to try hard not to analyze everything down to its minutest detail.
But that said: as i'm sure you probably know, "Capitalism" does not equal merely "money" or "buying and selling". "Capitalism" is the modus operandi of the industrial era tycoons. While the tycoons and massive income disparities remain with us, a lot of adjustment mechanisms (and the awareness that accompanies them) have been introduced since then: socialist or social democratic measures like universal health care, social security, etc; corporations; other forms of technological and post-industrial collectivism. I'm sure there are many others.
Another big change from Marx' era is the (too) slowly growing recognition -- at least among scientists (both hard and soft), educators, and (far too few) policy makers -- that an effort must be made to protect indigenous peoples, and that there is no inherent value in technological progress.
So yeah -- the world we live in is now a post-capitalist society, and you hint at what i'm getting at in your own post: these days, people in modern, technological societies can't help but acquire personal, direct understandings of things like "abstract value", "alienation", "commodification", and "division of labor". These experiences motivate them to turn to social and political mechanisms for rectification of what they perceive as wrong, or adjustment of what they perceive as merely corrupt. At the same time, people all across the world -- Iran, China, Russia, the US, Europe, Brazil, Venezuela -- are demanding admittance to elite markets via stock exchanges, digital trading, and systemic reforms. They are also developing collectives that operate outside the industrialized marketplace, and demanding that these be accorded safe, secure legal and social spaces where they can thrive.
The world has already long outgrown the "capitalist" label, just as what most folks in the US and Europe call "Marxism" isn't but a tiny, stunted, and distorted version of what Marx was actually saying.
Most people equate "capitalism" with "buying and selling", "ownership", and "the acquirement of wealth", while that same group equates "Marxism" with "communism", "money-less societies", and "enforced public entitlement for the everyman".
But really: what serious, socially-adjusted people in our present world are actually arguing for a universal, enforced rejection of money? Nobody i've ever heard of has. And who in our world is actually arguing for a universal enforcement of public exposure? Nobody i've ever heard of.
When use din their typical, sloppy, mediated fashion, these two words set up an utterly false, illogical, and rather sociopathic dichotomy.
I could go on but work's pressing. If you care to continue, i'll be happy to oblige.
And please don't take anything that seems implied as an insult. I'm the sorta guy who'll say the worst, to your face, come hell or high water. So if it seems/-ed like i'm implying something -- or just being an ass -- i do beg pardon. It was unintentional.
Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 25 2009 4:29 utc | 185
remembereringgiap said:
i stopped learning from him some time ago but thankfully the community of resistance has both beautiful & blessed speakers more acute than i - & i learn from them
That truly is the beauty of the moon. They come, they go. We learn something and then they pass on before they totally inundate us with their viewpoint. Seems only the ones open to still learn persist. But I still learn from you r.
Posted by: Juannie | Jun 25 2009 4:47 utc | 186
b @ 23:
Why do you feel that you need to lie about this, several times. Even after it has already been exposed as a lie.
There are no 3 million "extra votes".
Parviz @ 33:
b (23), and why do you have to insist that the following sentence uttered by the GC Spokesman contradicts what I'm saying? He says there will be further investigations
"to determine whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results,"
If it were only a matter of slight discrepancies instead of massively stuffed ballots he wouldn't have made the above statement. Use your famed analytical skills for a second:
The GC announced that the (O.K., let's call them) 'discrepancies' in the vote tally "could be over 3 million". Agreed or not?
"Could be over 3 million" means it "could also be over 5 million", and remember that they only monitored 10 % of the votes!!!
10% of the votes is 3+ million votes. If they only counted 3+ million votes how can there possibly be a discrepency of 3+ million votes. Are you saying that evry vote was a dicrepency or are you saying they investigated 10% of the vote and discovered 20% of the vote? How can anybody take this moron seriously?
Posted by: Sam | Jun 26 2009 12:45 utc | 188
The comments to this entry are closed.
To Arnold Evans
In my opinion
Sizable urban and affluent segment of population in Tehran and few other cities more probable to vote for someone like Musavi than ANejad.
In Tehran , almost all anti regime people , wealthy class, reminiscent of old regime, members of usual suspects trio of Kargozaran, Mosharekat, Mujahedin Engelab Eslami semi parties and members and sympathizers of student branch ( Office for Consolidation of Unity ), etc.
In addition, Musavi gained sizable support from young women because of his wife Zohreh Kazemi. She is very respectful scholar. She deserves to be a candidate more than Musavi.
Kargozaran is associated with Rafsanjani and is pro wealthy bazari. Mujahedin Englelab, the other two fronts are leaders of reform groups, some of their leaders are old revolutionary (Nabavi) or former members of intelligent service (Rabiei, Hajarian). Godfather of these groups is Saeed Hajarian, former counter intelligent and interrogator (subject of attempt assassination) now advocate of color revolution.
Musavi had good support among conservatives in the past and this was main reason for reformers invited him and rallied behind him, because they had concluded they have nobody from their own to face ANejad and they needed Musavi to take some votes from conservatives.
That scenario failed during robust engaging TV debates. During Debates Musavi distance himself from his past and sounded more pro west.
I only know www.moi.ir for election records; unfortunately it’s only in Farsi.
But thanks to Musavi Google during election crisis added Farsi translation link
You can cut and past official record into translator:
Link for numbers of representatives
link
Same records with breakdown for each province.
link
I have stated before i don't live in Iran and Farsi is not my first language , but i follow events in iran very closely.
Posted by: Loyal | Jun 24 2009 3:11 utc | 101