Iran election crisis...

[goadam1]

Re: Iran election crisis...

here we go!

Probably. But invasion and liberation are one thing, but defending the existing regime is another.

[goadam1]

Re: Iran election crisis...

The generational dynamics guy has an interesting take on Iran. Some voodoo. But the fact that half the population is under 25 can't be denied as an influence.

http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/...090620#e090620


Iran's government panics, as Supreme Leader hints at violence against protesters
Friday's speech by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a significant escalation in the war of words, and may be signaling a major confrontation in the streets in the next few days. Tehran's streets have been filled with literally hundreds of thousands of protesters and demonstrators every day this past week, and Khamenei's speech provides the justification for taking very drastic counter-measures.

In his speech, Khamenei focused on themes that related the current crisis to Iran's last generational Crisis war, which began with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and continued with the Iran/Iraq war. (Recall that President John Kennedy's inauguration speech related back to World War II.)

It's worth remembering that the Iranian people, including government officials, believe first and foremost that Iran's Persian civilization is perhaps the greatest that the world has known. To Khamenei and to many other Iranians, the "religious democracy" that was instituted in 1979 is the best and freeest government in the world today.

Thus, among the major points in Khamenei's speech, he emphasized that the high turnout in the election, with over 40 million voters, showed the people's solidarity with the Islamic government.

Thus, Khamenei's implied threats were particularly ominous. He said that the illegal street protests must stop, since they were aimed at reversing the result of a legitimate election. Thus, the leaders of the protests would be responsible for the consequences (implying violence and bloodshed) if they did not stop.

He returned to a commonly used theme of the Islamic regime by blaming the protests on western governments and media, especially Britain and the BBC.

According to an informal translation from the Farsi, Khamenei continued:

"Remember God, Iran has gone through a lot since the revolution. [Many] have put us in turmoil, even our neighbors.
Our youth are in a materialistic world, in a time of turmoil. They don't know what to do. They need to understand spirituality. They need to get back to spirituality, but they don't know how.

It's been two centuries since the west has been destroying cultures. But our nation wants to regain that spirituality back, so that the revolution can be regained."

I want to mention here that that although Khamenei's speech has received almost universal scorn in the west, these are not the typical sleazy words of a politician (such as would be spoken by Ahmadinejad). These are spiritual words by a man who has devoted his life to Iran and the Islamic revolution, and who is very worried that the country is being threatened -- both from within and from outsiders.

He continued by calling for the support of today's youth, just as the previous generation of youth fought in the Iran/Iraq war:

"This is the largest number of people that have taken part in an election in Iran since the founding of the republic and the passing of the constitution. I would like to deeply thank you. The youngsters in our country showed especially, that they are partaking in the political process since the beginning of the revolution.
Now we'll see the same responsibilities from them that we saw during the Iraqi Aggression War. ... We saw everyone, men women, the young and the old, people participating from all over the country to make this [election] a success.

This election is a political defeat for your enemies, and for your friends all over the world a celebration, a historic one. People are showing love and loyalty for their Imam and martyrs, and for the system.

This election was a religious democratic event. Everyone saw it. It was a showing against the dictators and oppressive regime, and FOR a show of support for the religion and system. ...

Also another point about the election. The election of June 12 showed that people with beliefs and hopes and joys is living in this country."

Khamenei came down very hard on the west.

"The enemies are trying [to harm Iran] through their media - which is controlled by dirty Zionists. The Zionist, American and British radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who support and those who didn't support the state.
Everyone supported the state. I know everything about these candidates. I have worked with them. I know all of them."

His point was that all four of the candidates, including the reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, are all working within the system, and are all supporting the Islamic religious democracy. Those who claim that some candidates are trying bring down the Islamic regime are, well, "dirty Zionists."

He says that the youth "need to get back to spirituality, but they don't know how." In expressing the bafflement of the youth, he's really expressing his own bafflement. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Iran's government is in a state of panic.

The fear of Khamenei and the hard line mullahs is a reversal of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which also began with massive street demonstrations. Once again, this isn't just political overstatement by Khamenei, but a deeply held belief by a very religious cleric.

Khamenei promised some unnamed "consequences" if the demonstrations continue, but for outsiders, the question is whether those "consequences" would include a Tiananmen-square type massacre, as happened in China in 1989, when the army turned its tanks and guns on unarmed demonstrators, killing hundreds or thousands of them.

It's worthwhile briefly looking back at the last week, since the June 12 elections. Up until now, Khamenei has been advising restraint on all sides, and has been approving only limited counter-measures, including the following:

Arresting several top-level leaders of the opposition, though not the opposition candidates themselves.
"Selective violence," such as singling out "troublemakers" and beating or killing them individually. About ten people have been killed this week.
Sending the police into Tehran University dorms, smashing up dorm rooms of supposed troublemakers.
Offering to do a vote recount. This would not have satisfied the opposition anyway.
Blaming the international media, and the US and Britain, for inciting the demonstrations. This is standard operating procedure for the Iranian government, though it's wearing pretty thin with the opposition.
Restricting foreign journalists from attending opposition rallies.
Shutting down Twitter, YouTube, and other internet services. This has triggered an international "denial of service" attack on some government servers.
It's clear that Khamenei and other government clerics are baffled by what's going on, not understand what a generational Awakening era is, and have been trying anything and everything, hoping to stop it.

(For information about generational eras, see "Basics of Generational Dynamics." For information about America's Awakening era in the 1960s, see "Boomers commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love.")

Iran's governmental structure makes Khamenei the most powerful government official, but he doesn't have absolute powerful. His decisions can be overriden by other clerics, and they're not all unified in Khamenei's strategy.

The leader of the internal government faction opposing Khamenei is former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who supported Mousavi in the election, and who is now opposing government violence. If "something" happens to Rafsanjani, then that may be the signal that the hardline Khamenei-led faction has won within the government, and will move ahead with the feared Tiananmen-style massacre.

The most familiar historical analogy we can look at is what happened following America's 1967 Summer of Love, and then the violence at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. This violence did not quell the demonstrations, or end the "long, hot summers." The Summer of Love launched almost a decade of these protests and demonstrations, culminating in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974.

Following that analogy, we can expect the demonstrations in Tehran to continue this summer, and then continue for several years.

Like the Summer of Love and the Boomer demonstrations in the 1960s, the demonstrations in Tehran have a high erotic component, as young people free themselves from the austere restrictions that followed the last crisis war (the 1979 Islamic Revolution, followed by the Iran/Iraq war).

One thing that's fun to watch is how young women are moving their headscarfs back, exposing more and more of their hair, just like American young women in the 1960s adopted miniskirts and hot pants, exposing more and more of their legs, and freaking out their parents.

One act that will really signal the younger generation's rejection of the clerics' rules will be when young women remove their head scarves entirely. It's not entirely frivolous to mention this, because the removal of headscarves seems to be a minor thing, but it would actually be a major act of defiance, striking at the heart of the Islamic religous regime. This act alone would be considered justification by the mullahs for violent countermeasures.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Friday speech appears to provide sufficient justification for increased violence by the security forces against the protestors, but even now, increased violence is not a certainty. Iran's clerics can read the newspapers as well as we can, and they're well aware of how an overreaction would destroy whatever moral high ground they believe they have. They are also well aware of the continuing worldwide revulsion at the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and they would be loathe to risk bring similar opprobrium to their own Islamic regime.

On the other hand, the protests are going to continue and get worse, as they do in every country's Awakening eras. It would require a great deal of perserverance for the clerics to suffer through the unending protests without overreacting. If the protests get significantly worse, Khamenei may have to give in to the hard liners and strike back. This is still a possibility, but not a certainty.

The next test will apparently come on Saturday, and it may provide a guide to the future. Khamenei has said, "the protests must stop." However, it is believed that there will be more large protests on Saturday. How Iran's security forces act on Saturday may indicate how they're going to continue to act throughout this long, hot summer, and into the future.

[Munger]

Re: Iran election crisis...

The generational dynamics guy has an interesting take on Iran. Some voodoo. But the fact that half the population is under 25 can't be denied as an influence.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita - a game theory guru - has made many successful predictions over the years through careful application of his methods. For instance, he correctly predicted the sucessor to Khomeni back in the day - a prediction that contradicted other experts' common knowledge.

In this video, from about six months ago, he makes some predictions for the current Iran. Pretty interesting stuff:



http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/20...ita-on-tedcom/

[flintlock]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I'm hoping to see a general strike. You can't shoot people who aren't there.

Funny you say that. Its exactly the same conclusion I came to while thinking about it this morning.

[Basil]

Re: Iran election crisis...

This is of course true. As I have pointed out before man is the same always and everywhere. There is no REAL change. Just the appearance of change. JK pointed out the end of salvery was change. A noble thought. But how was it accomplished. Slavery was ended by one group imposing their will on another through war and bloodshed. Nothing changes.

Some estimate that slavery is more widespread today than at any point in history. It is widespread, but just not state sanctioned, at least not officially.

[stanley2008]

Re: Iran election crisis...

First post in comments section.

2334.
I'm from Tehran (capital of Iran). I think it is our duty to get our votes back & we will try for it more & more. But it is better for Americans to solve their problems & stop meddling in the others countries'. We don't need Obama's protect (which some comments recommend). Where ever USA government has tried to help, lead to a long time war. So please just pray for our success without official interfering in our inner problems.

Inspiring to see at least one nation's citizens risking life and limb to fight for their freedom. Their actions puts the USA to shame.

[KGW]

Re: Iran election crisis...Stratfor's Take...

The Iranian Election and the Revolution Test

June 22, 2009






By George Friedman

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.
Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces — who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators — and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.
A Question of Support

This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators — who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents — failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.
Later, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke Friday and called out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they failed to understand that the troops — definitely not drawn from what we might call the “Twittering classes,” would remain loyal to the regime for ideological and social reasons. The troops had about as much sympathy for the demonstrators as a small-town boy from Alabama might have for a Harvard postdoc. Failing to understand the social tensions in Iran, the reporters deluded themselves into thinking they were witnessing a general uprising. But this was not St. Petersburg in 1917 or Bucharest in 1989 — it was Tiananmen Square.
In the global discussion last week outside Iran, there was a great deal of confusion about basic facts. For example, it is said that the urban-rural distinction in Iran is not critical any longer because according to the United Nations, 68 percent of Iranians are urbanized. This is an important point because it implies Iran is homogeneous and the demonstrators representative of the country. The problem is the Iranian definition of urban — and this is quite common around the world — includes very small communities (some with only a few thousand people) as “urban.” But the social difference between someone living in a town with 10,000 people and someone living in Tehran is the difference between someone living in Bastrop, Texas and someone living in New York. We can assure you that that difference is not only vast, but that most of the good people of Bastrop and the fine people of New York would probably not see the world the same way. The failure to understand the dramatic diversity of Iranian society led observers to assume that students at Iran’s elite university somehow spoke for the rest of the country.
Tehran proper has about 8 million inhabitants; its suburbs bring it to about 13 million people out of Iran’s total population of 70.5 million. Tehran accounts for about 20 percent of Iran, but as we know, the cab driver and the construction worker are not socially linked to students at elite universities. There are six cities with populations between 1 million and 2.4 million people and 11 with populations of about 500,000. Including Tehran proper, 15.5 million people live in cities with more than 1 million and 19.7 million in cities greater than 500,000. Iran has 80 cities with more than 100,000. But given that Waco, Texas, has more than 100,000 people, inferences of social similarities between cities with 100,000 and 5 million are tenuous. And with metro Oklahoma City having more than a million people, it becomes plain that urbanization has many faces.
Winning the Election With or Without Fraud

We continue to believe two things: that vote fraud occurred, and that Ahmadinejad likely would have won without it. Very little direct evidence has emerged to establish vote fraud, but several things seem suspect.
For example, the speed of the vote count has been taken as a sign of fraud, as it should have been impossible to count votes that fast. The polls originally were to have closed at 7 p.m. local time, but voting hours were extended until 10 p.m. because of the number of voters in line. By 11:45 p.m. about 20 percent of the vote had been counted. By 5:20 a.m. the next day, with almost all votes counted, the election commission declared Ahmadinejad the winner. The vote count thus took about seven hours. (Remember there were no senators, congressmen, city council members or school board members being counted — just the presidential race.) Intriguingly, this is about the same time in took in 2005, though reformists that claimed fraud back then did not stress the counting time in their allegations.
The counting mechanism is simple: Iran has 47,000 voting stations, plus 14,000 roaming stations that travel from tiny village to tiny village, staying there for a short time before moving on. That creates 61,000 ballot boxes designed to receive roughly the same number of votes. That would mean that each station would have been counting about 500 ballots, or about 70 votes per hour. With counting beginning at 10 p.m., concluding seven hours later does not necessarily indicate fraud or anything else. The Iranian presidential election system is designed for simplicity: one race to count in one time zone, and all counting beginning at the same time in all regions, we would expect the numbers to come in a somewhat linear fashion as rural and urban voting patterns would balance each other out — explaining why voting percentages didn’t change much during the night.
It has been pointed out that some of the candidates didn’t even carry their own provinces or districts. We remember that Al Gore didn’t carry Tennessee in 2000. We also remember Ralph Nader, who also didn’t carry his home precinct in part because people didn’t want to spend their vote on someone unlikely to win — an effect probably felt by the two smaller candidates in the Iranian election.
That Mousavi didn’t carry his own province is more interesting. Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett writing in Politico make some interesting points on this. As an ethnic Azeri, it was assumed that Mousavi would carry his Azeri-named and -dominated home province. But they also point out that Ahmadinejad also speaks Azeri, and made multiple campaign appearances in the district. They also point out that Khamenei is Azeri. In sum, winning that district was by no means certain for Mousavi, so losing it does not automatically signal fraud. It raised suspicions, but by no means was a smoking gun.
We do not doubt that fraud occurred during Iranian election. For example, 99.4 percent of potential voters voted in Mazandaran province, a mostly secular area home to the shah’s family. Ahmadinejad carried the province by a 2.2 to 1 ratio. That is one heck of a turnout and level of support for a province that lost everything when the mullahs took over 30 years ago. But even if you take all of the suspect cases and added them together, it would not have changed the outcome. The fact is that Ahmadinejad’s vote in 2009 was extremely close to his victory percentage in 2005. And while the Western media portrayed Ahmadinejad’s performance in the presidential debates ahead of the election as dismal, embarrassing and indicative of an imminent electoral defeat, many Iranians who viewed those debates — including some of the most hardcore Mousavi supporters — acknowledge that Ahmadinejad outperformed his opponents by a landslide.
Mousavi persuasively detailed his fraud claims Sunday, and they have yet to be rebutted. But if his claims of the extent of fraud were true, the protests should have spread rapidly by social segment and geography to the millions of people who even the central government asserts voted for him. Certainly, Mousavi supporters believed they would win the election based in part on highly flawed polls, and when they didn’t, they assumed they were robbed and took to the streets.
But critically, the protesters were not joined by any of the millions whose votes the protesters alleged were stolen. In a complete hijacking of the election by some 13 million votes by an extremely unpopular candidate, we would have expected to see the core of Mousavi’s supporters joined by others who had been disenfranchised. On last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when the demonstrations were at their height, the millions of Mousavi voters should have made their appearance. They didn’t. We might assume that the security apparatus intimidated some, but surely more than just the Tehran professional and student classes posses civic courage. While appearing large, the demonstrations actually comprised a small fraction of society.
Tensions Among the Political Elite

All of this 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.
Tehran in 2009, however, was a struggle between two main factions, both of which supported the Islamic republic as it was. There were the clerics, who have dominated the regime since 1979 and had grown wealthy in the process. And there was Ahmadinejad, who felt the ruling clerical elite had betrayed the revolution with their personal excesses. And there also was the small faction the BBC and CNN kept focusing on — the demonstrators in the streets who want to dramatically liberalize the Islamic republic. This faction never stood a chance of taking power, whether by election or revolution. The two main factions used the third smaller faction in various ways, however. Ahmadinejad used it to make his case that the clerics who supported them, like Rafsanjani, would risk the revolution and play into the hands of the Americans and British to protect their own wealth. Meanwhile, Rafsanjani argued behind the scenes that the unrest was the tip of the iceberg, and that Ahmadinejad had to be replaced. Khamenei, an astute politician, examined the data and supported Ahmadinejad.
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.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Iran election crisis...

First -define fascism -and you shall see (again) that the US fits the description along with France/Italy and of course the Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

The primary examples are all from Western (Christian/Catholic) nations -Italy and Germany. Parroting an embedded term does not require effort or energy that critical thinking does. Reactionary comments judging another nation and worse -having the utter hypocrisy -to 'rally' the people whom you embargo for 26 years -is pathetic.

The embargoes are of course intended to increase the discontent of people -and then place your 'alternative' as a solution. It has been documented through American journalists that atleast 400M dollars have been put into this effort since 2007 -what more would you need to reserve judgment -other than common sense!!

Why isn't Saudi on this list -with most of their bombers, and their known connectin to Wahabist terrorist, not to mention their dictatorial regime which is at best a heriditary monarchy and at worst a servile agent of the US. The hypocrisy and self-righteousness of many of the poster's boggles the mind and leads one to question the vey definition of sanity. Eygpt.El Salvador/Columbia/Guatemala -millions murdered with the direction, training and financing of the US -yet many here express outrage that the Iranian gvernment is trying to restore order and deliberate how to resolve this issue.

They have started with the promise of a limited recount and have broached conciliation -but it seems that is not enough. Also the riots should clearly show -how unafraid of the police the general Iraqi public is- picture this happening in Eygpt/Saudi/Kuwait and mostimportantly ISrael.

Yup -I said it Israel's method of dealing with protests by Palestinians NEVER seems to generate this much response -despite all sources (UN/Human Rights etc) showing conclusively the willing murder of thousands.

Just a few quick thoughts in reply:

If Stalin would have worried about political correctness or defining fascism when his Red Army rolled westward, the nazis would still be entrenched in Eastern Europe even to-day. One quick look at WWII film footage shows how Stalin dealt with the nazis: His Red Army came with katusha rockets and flame-throwers, and left with the nazis in ashes. The problem of fascism in Eastern Europe was solved for good, and humanity was never better served. Stalin solved the problem of the liberation of Eastern Europe, a he did it fast, in a matter of months.

You remarked about the authoritarian and backward regime in Saudi-Arabia, and to an extent, you are right. But the king of Saudi-Arabia has helped the West with energy. He also has helped to try to hammer-together a regional peace treaty between Isreal and its neighbours, including the Palestinians.

Another thing I would give the King of Saudi-Arabia credit for is his productive use of money to develop his country, especially the productive use of energy to de-salinate and pump sea water. Saudi-Arabia is now one of the world's twenty major economic powers.

Finally, you implied that Isreal is a fascist state. While some of Isreal's fighting against the Palestinians is difficult to defend, that fighting against the Palestinians occurred in response to homocide bombers entering Isreal thru the Gaza entry and then proceeding to blow themselves up in restaurants and in buses.

While I am not really a Zionist because I dislike all religion, I do think the Jewish people are entitled to live in a homeland, free of threats to their very existence. Isreal is that homeland. But I have no problem with the idea that Palestinians could live in Isreal, too. Why not?

I noticed that Isrealis and Palestinians made a circle of peace in Jeruselem yesterday by holding hands. That is the way to achieve a peace: tolerance and compromise. And religious fundamentalism has to stop.

So, there is hope for the Middle East.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Iran election crisis...

But the Saudi's gave energy to the West??? Are U kidding me -so if Columbia kills thousands of people/or El Salvador of its own people to help the "West' -that's a good thing? I have no reply -I am in awe of your ability to wrap your mind into complex geometric shapes that defy the the 3 dimensional space and most importantly the ability of your hypocrisy to blindfold you to common sense and fairness. Bravo --I surely wish I had your gift-because my life would be so much easier and my pockets so much fatter.

When ever someone says 'While I am really not a RACIST/ZIONIST/BIGOT/AHOLE- umm- I think you get the rest. Of course - I mean it's all self -defense. It's just really funny how the Israeli's always bring an F16 and Cluster bombs to a Knife fight eh?

Put it to rest -no amount of media, internet trolling, arguing, and countless millions spent on propagandizing, varnishing and worst of all-justifying heinous action will ever convince people otherwise. While there may be muted/forced/ or even out right false agreement to your infantile and morally bankrupt process of reasoning/rationalizing/brainwashing. It doesn't change the fat- that millions upon millions harbor in their heart an increasing distaste, distrust and unfortunately a building of seething resentment to the people who mercilessly foist upon people these lies tat feed upon the decaying carcasses of false assertions (even if they are repeated for millenia and been inscribed in so called spiritual texts).

Beware- the powder keg sits for thee -ask not for whom the bell tolls -for it tolls for thee. I am sure -that even you in the quiet of the night can not fail to see the cold moonlight reach out and pull the tides of humanity toward reason and therefore the surreptitious and hidden conclusion as to who is responsible. It remains hidden for you only because you will accept no other way -but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Russia/Spain/France/Poland/Germany already demonstrated there is only so much a people can take of this and ultimately the US - will develop the same aversion to this incessant bullying of a view point based in falsehood and speciousness.

[makimanos]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Friedman is a part of the system. They will never understand theocracy. Let him read Savonarola.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Iran election crisis...

But the Saudi's gave energy to the West??? Are U kidding me -so if Columbia kills thousands of people/or El Salvador of its own people to help the "West' -that's a good thing? I have no reply -I am in awe of your ability to wrap your mind into complex geometric shapes that defy the the 3 dimensional space and most importantly the ability of your hypocrisy to blindfold you to common sense and fairness. Bravo --I surely wish I had your gift-because my life would be so much easier and my pockets so much fatter.

When ever someone says 'While I am really not a RACIST/ZIONIST/BIGOT/AHOLE- umm- I think you get the rest. Of course - I mean it's all self -defense. It's just really funny how the Israeli's always bring an F16 and Cluster bombs to a Knife fight eh?

Put it to rest -no amount of media, internet trolling, arguing, and countless millions spent on propagandizing, varnishing and worst of all-justifying heinous action will ever convince people otherwise. While there may be muted/forced/ or even out right false agreement to your infantile and morally bankrupt process of reasoning/rationalizing/brainwashing. It doesn't change the fat- that millions upon millions harbor in their heart an increasing distaste, distrust and unfortunately a building of seething resentment to the people who mercilessly foist upon people these lies tat feed upon the decaying carcasses of false assertions (even if they are repeated for millenia and been inscribed in so called spiritual texts).

Beware- the powder keg sits for thee -ask not for whom the bell tolls -for it tolls for thee. I am sure -that even you in the quiet of the night can not fail to see the cold moonlight reach out and pull the tides of humanity toward reason and therefore the surreptitious and hidden conclusion as to who is responsible. It remains hidden for you only because you will accept no other way -but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Russia/Spain/France/Poland/Germany already demonstrated there is only so much a people can take of this and ultimately the US - will develop the same aversion to this incessant bullying of a view point based in falsehood and speciousness.

iyamwutiam; I am not sure if you rant is directed at me, but please note that the content of the clips I post do not represent my personal views (there are simply too many of them )

Also, although I replied to your post, mine was not intended as a response to your particular comment/article (I have not even read it), but I did so simply because your post was the "last from the stream at the top".

Lastly, I simply posted this clip from "Good News Hour" because they are usually funny and full of black humor and happens to be on the subject somewhat. However, if the content is offensive to you, I will remove it.

[flintlock]

Re: Iran election crisis...

Edit edit edit.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I could only stand watching about half that video, but it looked like they were comparing the 2000 US election to what Iran is going through now. Oh please!.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Iranians are not protesting and dying in the streets due to a 300 vote discrepancy and hanging chads. Lot more at stake here than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

I too didn't like that video, sufficiently so that I initially walked away from the keyboard rather than reply. For one thing, the video made a big thing of the Bush-Gore 2000 election "not representing the will of the people", because the popular vote went for Gore. Dad burn it. We have rules for elections, and our American rules specify an electoral college. If you don't like the rules, work to change them. But it would be a far greater travesty to just ignore the rules and "do what seems fair". The bar for ignoring rules due to their manifest unfairness has to be set rather higher than this.

[D-Mack]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I'm surprised people think the election was clean

More than a full year after I wrote the original draft for them, Hustler is now running my story on the mysterious "suicide" of Raymond Lemme, of the Florida Inspector General's office. This is the first time that uncovered police photos --- the ones which were not supposed to have existed --- have appeared in print, not counting the Internet, to our knowledge.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3024

[LargoWinch]

Re: Iran election crisis...

I could only stand watching about half that video, but it looked like they were comparing the 2000 US election to what Iran is going through now. Oh please!.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Iranians are not protesting and dying in the streets due to a 300 vote discrepancy and hanging chads. Lot more at stake here than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

I removed the clip now due to the negative feedbacks from many of you.

flintlock; can you amend your post to remove my quoted msg, which includes the clip?

Anyway, the part I liked from the clip was the fact that the MSM cannot be trusted [we all knew that] and that citizens of the West seems to be more or less passive about serious social issues, although as you guy pointed out the 2000 US election should not have been employed to make the point, but the banksters takeover should have been used instead.