|
Iran Lost The Propaganda War
Der Spiegel once was a somewhat lefty German weekly magazine. Recently it turned into a propaganda tool of the right. It has quite an influence, its sold circulation is over one million each week.
The increase of such quite ridiculous but effective propaganda like the above is the direct consequence of Mousavi's challenge of the state of Iran. He declared himself the winner in the election even before the vote count began. When the results were announced he alleged massive fraud without presenting any convincing evidence.
That again triggered big demonstrations of people who believed his allegations. When these non-rebellions turned into violent youth riots the state of Iran, like any other state on this planet would have done, asserted itself and suppressed them.
This again was a real gift for anti-Iran propagandists and their work will hurt Iran's image in the 'west' for a long time. When Iran's leaders are openly associated with bin-Laden in major publications Iran has lost the propaganda war.
I will not be surprised to see Mousavi punished for the obvious damage he has done to his country. But that would again only play right into the hand of the propagandists. Maybe he should be send off to some small town in the counryside where he can learn how the people living there really think. Give him a stern advice not to talk to the media and let him paint more pictures.
In many ways the arguments although it is probably unwise to dignify most of what has been posted here with the title argument which implies a series of responses to each other’s point of view with supporting facts, anyway these arguments, for want of a better word have little or nothing to do with what happened in Iran. That is secondary to the need many participants have to attack another probably for some slight incurred in a debate from a years old thread.
I have no doubt in believing that Parviz believes what he says, but then I have no doubt believing that other points of view from other Iranians who don’t agree with Parviz are also sincerely held. Yet because Parviz has chosen to make Iran ‘his/her’ area of expertise anyone else, even if they appear equally qualified that is they are Iranian in Iran, can be dismissed as lying, traitorous or a tool of the oppressor. To me who currently only dips into these Iranian threads from time to time, (because there is no substance here) it seems as though Parviz is behaving like a dog (Note I am not calling Parviz a dog I am comparing Parviz’ territorial behaviour to the way a dog maintains its territory. I state that in the vain hope that any response won’t denigrate into the namecalling which characterises these Iranian threads)who has marked out his territory pissing along the border and anyone who comes into that territory (the territory of being an Iranian at MoA) has to either submit to Parviz by agreeing with Parviz’ point of view or they are viciously set upon by the pack. Facts, beliefs, different subjective filters, all are cast aside as cries of “communist” “armchair leftie” “traitor” etc are hurled at the interloper.
ATo me, this appears to be driven by a need to address past debates where Parviz has been called out for his/her seeming support of the neo-liberal economic policies that have destroyed so many around this planet. (eg support for Oblamblam tipping billions into banksters and fuck all into more modest humans) Parviz seems to be saying “You cannot fault me here, here in this subject, I am the expert, as such, more qualified to speak on this than anyone else”
Were it that simple – residence within a community made one an expert on all facets of that community including the beliefs of people in other social groupings within that community. Politicians who spend a great deal of resources and effort trying to discern community attitudes – the better to exploit them – would never get it wrong again.
The reality is that there are many Iranians even those outside Iran who one would expect are less likely to be supportive of the status quo, who don’t share Parviz’ point of view, so those of us who care about the beliefs of every individual are left with a real uncertainty about whose point of view is in the majority and/or the point of view which deserves to prevail. If our point of view, whatever it may be, is even relevant.
For that is what elections are meant to be for and I have to say that while I have no doubt that voter fraud went on in various parts of Iran – from both sides – much of the fraud may even have been instigated locally without the orders or even the knowledge of the candidate – and that applies to all candidates too (many amerikan dems who were so vocal about the blatant theft in Florida during Prez 2000, never have much to say about the years of dem frauds throughout amerika when their machine was running smoothly. Rethugs could prolly claim that JFK’s texans [thanks to old LBJ whose texans they really were] stole him the election against Nixon) more digression sign of an untidy mind etc- anyway fraud went on and that’s bad but claiming fraud and claiming an election isn’t necessarily the same thing.
There has been a murder case going on here through appeal, retrial, appeal final trial for about 12 years. I have no doubt that the police planted some evidence – why I am less sure of, because the untainted evidence should have been enough to convict the killer. Lots of arguements deteriorating to name calling just like here – many claimed the convicted killer should have been pardoned as soon as tampering was demonstrated. The murderer was released from jail and another trial held a ta distant venue, using a fresh investigative team. I felt that was fair enough – reason being that the police sometimes frame a guilty man. Remember justice is about what is best for the community not whether or not the police ‘deserve’ to ‘win’.
Pretty much the same with elections. Given polling in the lead up to the Iranian election along with reports from observers, it could be credibly argued that the result does represent the will of most voters. I say could be because I don’t have enough data to prove that point of view or the contrary one. And I have read nothing here to convince me of anything different.
Because no one really knows many people here have been discussing the issue in relation to what they do know. That is that the amerikan empire has expended a vast amount of material , money, natural resources including worst of all millions of human lives to engender hegemony over the Mid East. Much of this effort has included casting Iran and its people in the role of something evil, an enemy that must be subjugated. Iranians have attempted to deflect this ill-deserved enmity in many different ways; from straight out appeasement to open and honest assistance where realistic and relevant, to open opposition and sabre rattling. None of this has worked and it would be reasonable to infer from the empire’s reaction along with imperial behaviour in towards other sovereign states, that nonthing short of unconditional surrender will ever work.
Therefore given that many MoA poster know that the amerikan empire has been actively involved in destabilising the political infrastructure of any MS state who isn’t under it’s hegemony that the empire is actively involved in causing trouble in Iran right now.
Can anyone offer up a cogent theory as to why amerika wouldn’t be taking advantage of Iran’s schism right now? As many others have stated amerika openly allocated hundreds of milliosn of dollars to destabilise Iran, amerika’s best mate england coincidentally began forcing a farsi language tv station into Iran just 8 weeks before this election. During the first few days of the protesting after the election the BBC news homepage had a green background which the BBC claim was just coincidence not any covert attempt to identify with the Mousavi protestors who were also wearing green. Some may choose to believe that, some may not, but only a fool would imagine that USukil are not trying to turn Iran’s instability to their own ends.
There has been no real debate at MoA on the extent which this outside interference has effected what has happened. One group denies it has had any effect and the other appears to argue it is 100% responsible.
Generally if people try to discuss any of that they are shouted down, accused of all sorts of peversions, sexual, moral and political.
This is crazy because there is plenty of stuff around from all sides about the techniques of and effectiveness of strategies used in other countries other election. There is checkable data even if not always agreed upon (eg how much infuence did amerikan election consultants have on Yeltsin’s re-election)
Antifa reckons he/she has shot through for good, which if true I am saddened by.
I do hafta say some posters are displaying extreme histrionics, shouting, name-calling, walking out, all of which remind me of a wife of long ago. Always wanting to argue, scream, caterwaul at the slightest provocation ( well this how it appeared to me the objective husband lol) She was at her worst when she had least to justify her stance, on the weakest ground about the issue which was upsetting her so much.
I don’t understand many of the behaviours in this thread. Most of us are mature enough to recognise that no one has ever been convinced of an alternative point of view by this sort of argument. Even presenting someone with a well constructed argument supported by checkable facts rarely gets a person to say “You’re correct I am wrong, lets proceeed on that basis”. Yes the well constructed argument will convince a fair minded person. Just usually not immediately. Acknowledgement of the change of heart comes at a later date when a well adjusted person allows superior evidence to out, but only when issues of ego (ie nobody around shouting “see I told ya so ya fucking idiot”) are off the table.
So why is this thread still yammering away? Blind Freddie could see no one is going to agree with their opponent.
B kicks off a thread with a piece about how Spiegel is firmly in the election was stolen, innocent demonstrators are being murdered camp – what should we make of this stance by speigel? what does it mean inside Iran that Iran’s obvious enemies are using the situation to further vilify Iran in the ‘west’?
Reasonable questions that are worth considering – does anyone?
After a few posts from those who believe the election wasn’t rigged and who therefore claim b’s post supports that position – which it doesn’t – those who claim that the election was rigged wade in. But not with any discussion of the spegiel article or the larger situation it represents, no what comes next is ahuge dummy spit as in B’s a bad person and I’m never coming back.
Then back to the name calling. Which apparently is ‘permissible’ if it is conveyed as doggerel.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 25 2009 0:57 utc | 162
|
