Re: OT: IRAN

Crisstti wrote:
On 17 jun, 11:45, Dale Houstman <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LookingGlass wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:06 am, Dale Houstman <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BlackMonk wrote:
The *powers that be* picked all of the candidates. They win no matter what.
If tossing Ahmenedjad under the bus is what they have to do to avoid a major
uprising, it won't be too much of an inconvenice to them.
It could happen, although it is difficult to imagine that the mullahs -
after giving their "divinely inspired" approval of the little tyrant's
victory - will expose themselves to claims of being "merely" human by
reversing their statements. It is - unfortunately - easier for them to
just call out the military in force, which - according to reports -
might occur within 48 hours or so. I suspect that would be the end of a
public display of protest, although not its private manifestations.
And to be honest, the philosophical differences between the two
candidates is not nearly as inspiring as some Westerners seem to
believe. So neither outcome will tickle the fancy of people who have the
crazy Cheney vision of U.S.-style superficial democracy/capitalist
tyranny sprouting up wherever we can install a Pepsi machine. These
protests are probably the only unabashedly positive event that is going
to be occurring in Iran for quite some time. Unless the CIA sticks in
its oafish hands and we get something even worse.
dmh
I heard last night that the *Supreme* Mullah bought his
credentials...he's not legitimate. *Lesser* Mullahs are jockeying for
power. I do not know enough about the philosophical differences
between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.
Neither do I. I am just passing on the "wisdom" (or possible lack of
same) I have heard here and there in the ether. Considering the
theocratic atmosphere in the nation, I can't say it seems probable that
a truly divergent reform platform would get by the "let's disappear this
troublemaker" cult, but perhaps i'm wrong.

I do know that a large portion of the
population voted for M...or at least want A out. Obama states (wisely)
we will deal with the outcome. ;^)
His words are correct, but - as I said - Presidents have mouthed
non-interference in the past, even as the CIA goes about its merry
business. As for the "large portion" - it appears so, but I really
haven't seen any definite evidence that "M" indeed managed a majority of
the vote: even though some comparisons between what he previously
garnered in his own region and what he got this time are suspicious. At
the moment, all the commentators seem to be either going on "mad-eyed
agenda adrenalin" (rightwing radio "tubes") in lieu of facts, or are
surfing along on a sea of "common sense" conjectures, which are wrong as
often as they are correct.

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

But we won't get any evidence unless the Iranian governement wants us
to. Therefore, we probably should make an assumption unless the
government provides evidence on the contrary. Otherwise, I think one
would be supporting the repression...

Well - I don't think Iran has any more obligation to prove to us that its elections were legitimate than we have to prove to them that - in fact - ours were. Which I doubt we could if all the evidence were allowed. We may not be happy with the results in Iran, we have every right to suspect corruption, and even to voice our concerns over that corruption. But Iran doesn't have to prove anything to us. And merely stating - as I have - that you suspect that there is foul-play while also admitting that - so far - no evidence exists to prove that suspicion is hardly a support for the repression. Unless you think repressing the truth HERE will bolster the truth THERE. I don't, and I simply do not believe I am under an obligation to make an assumption in the absence of facts to support that assumption. Like many, I suspect a corrupt process is at play here, but I don't claim that is a reality. And nothing I or you says one way or another will either support or undermine the repression, which acts independent of our opinions.

dmh

dmh
.