Search forums

Forums

Export thread

There is trouble in Iran

Jun 14, 2009#1

The Lovely Boehner

The main story, the short version: There were fixed/sham elections re-electing Ahmedinejad. However, it looks like the people won't stand for it, and there have been widespread protests and violence, and de facto martial law declared in the capital.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

Some much more interesting primary sources:

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bahramks/RiotsInTehran#

http://iran.twazzup.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... g_now.html

Who wants to watch a theocratic dictatorship deal with a revolutionary uprising over twitter feeds and firsthand pictures and video today? It's 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwri ... 45130.html short NYT piece about CNN's failure and how people are using twitter to bypass the middle man.

Also I've been reading a lot of rumors about all foreign media being kicked out of the country and offices getting raided.

Jun 14, 2009#2

Cheesy1

Yeah, I've been watching all of this unfold. While an Iranian civil war MIGHT bring a more Western-friendly, democratic system about, there is also a shitload of bad outcomes that are possible as well. Kinda scary.

aranoid:

Jun 14, 2009#3

@Li3n

Meh, same thing happened in Moldova a few months back... twitter and everything... then they cut off mobile and internet services and nothing came of it... worlds sucks and all that.

Jun 14, 2009#4

Because Moldova and Iran are totally comparable.

Jun 14, 2009#5

Rob King

If it comes out in the next 20 years that all of this is CIA false flag action, a la 1953, I might have to join Al Queida.

If this is a matter of a populace getting upset at a corrupt government, hopefully they straighten it out, and hopefully at the end of the day it's a more western-friendly nation.

I'll definitely be watching it, at any rate.

Jun 14, 2009#6

Scarlet Varlet

Been following this steady.

The presidential election was rigged and stolen, with the blessing of the Guardian Council, Council of Experts and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that bad old Shah doesn't sound so much different from the new boss, does he?

I really do hope the people toss these bastards out. They really do deserve so much better.

Jun 14, 2009#7

Alex B.

Isn't the presidential seat in Iran pretty much meaningless? I've just always heard the president is little more than a figurehead. Seems like they're getting all worked up over very little.

Jun 14, 2009#8

Scarlet Varlet

Alex B. said:
Isn't the presidential seat in Iran pretty much meaningless? I've just always heard the president is little more than a figurehead. Seems like they're getting all worked up over very little.

The people wanted a president to take their case. They had very high hopes for Khatami to push for reforms but the theocratic dictators kept him from achieving much. With disillusionment many reformers didn't turn out for voting the election which saw Ahmadinejad come to power, mostly because all reform candidates were barred from running. Corrupt system from the start.

The people are growing extremely restless with the poor way the country is run and how their lives are constantly interfered with by the government and moral police. They'll have had enough at some point and there will be change.

Jun 14, 2009#9

Alex B.

That makes sense. They're making a statement and it looks like that statement has been overridden.

Jun 14, 2009#10

Scarlet Varlet

Alex B. said:
That makes sense. They're making a statement and it looks like that statement has been overridden.

Some peoples are sheep, whilst others are lions.

The sheep will just keep taking it, while they lions will fight back, eventually overthrowing their masters. I think the people of Iran will ultimately prove to be the latter.

Jun 14, 2009#11

Scarlet Varlet

A few things picked up from #iranelection on Twitter

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fhashemi/

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WU-cxEEJ-E:2be4fxik][/youtube:2be4fxik]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... o-die.html

http://twitpic.com/7f6tr

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/1 ... 15189.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Irani ... n_protests

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 592664479/

Jun 14, 2009#12

doomdragon6

Yay other countries. :falldown:

Jun 14, 2009#13

Scarlet Varlet

Sure looks like a coup.

An interview with a spokesman for Mousavi, Mohsen Makhbalbaf, says that "in the early hours after voting had ended, the Interior Ministry had called Mr. Mousavi’s campaign headquarters to inform them that Mr. Mousavi would be the winner and, therefore, Mr. Mousavi must prepare a victory statement. Mr. Mousavi was, however, asked by the Ministry not to boast too much, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. Many of the president’s supporters are among the ranks of the Basij militia, and thus armed.

"According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also informed of the developments. He also recommended a 'good management' of the victory statement, meaning not boasting greatly about the victory, because that would be in Iran’s national interests and stability.

"At the same time, the reformist newspapers were also informed that they can prepare their Saturday edition to declare Mr. Mousavi the winner, but were not allowed to use the word pirouzi (victory) in their articles, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. One reformist newspaper prepared its front page with the title, “People took back the flag of their country [from Mr. Ahmadinejad].”

"But, just a few hours later, a center that had been set up by Mr. Mousavi in Gheytarieh (in northern Tehran) for monitoring the election and vote counting, was attacked by armed security agents. They ransacked the center, destroyed computers, and attacked the staff. Supporters of Mr. Mousavi intervened and arrested 8 security agents. The police was called to take them to prison, but the police released the attackers."

Jun 14, 2009#14

JCM

For the next Iranian elections, I foresee the local telephone company replacing the ringtone with a "Naam (yes) Ahmadinejad!!", after all, it did get Saddam 99% of all "votes"

Jun 15, 2009#15

@Li3n

ZenMonkey said:
Because Moldova and Iran are totally comparable.

Meh, you've seen one dictatorship pretending to be a democracy you've seen them all...

Going by precedent most revolutions need either outside help or some sort of fracturing of the people in power to succeed.

But hey, here's hoping it actually works.

Jun 15, 2009#16

@Li3n said:
Meh

:eyeroll:

It's so nice to sit back, relax, and condescend while this shit goes on, isn't it?

http://twitter.com/change_for_iran

Jun 15, 2009#17

@Li3n

ZenMonkey said:
@Li3n said:

Meh

Click to expand...

:eyeroll:

It's so nice to sit back, relax, and condescend while this shit goes on, isn't it?

http://twitter.com/change_for_iran

Feels better at the end when i can say "Told you so!"

EDIT:

Man, this exchange kills me:

@RandyInman Mr.Potato lover is a lunatic selfish man think of himself as a God. so yes it does!

@Change_for_Iran Sounds like Obama to me.

Jun 15, 2009#18

The Lovely Boehner

@Li3n said:
ZenMonkey said:

@Li3n":ob52ifpl]Meh[/quote] :eyeroll: It's so nice to sit back said:

http://twitter.com/change_for_iran[/url]

Click to expand...

Feels better at the end when i can say "Told you so!"

[/quoteb52ifpl]

Maybe you could stick to what you're good at- impotently raging against reality TV when your favorite unprofitable and whimsical genre show gets canceled.

Click to expand...

Jun 15, 2009#19

@Li3n said:
Feels better at the end when i can say "Told you so!"

I join Charlie in being impressed by your insistence that people who didn't watch a TV show should die painfully, but what's going down in Iran only merits a "meh." Those are some...interesting priorities.

Jun 15, 2009#20

Steven Soderburgin

"Meh." - @Li3n, You Don't Mess With The Privileged Westerner

This is seriously a totally fucked up situation, and reading the tweets, seeing the pictures, and watching the videos has been extremely rough.

It also isn't helped by the shit that CNN has pulled or by the fact that YouTube, for a while at least, was taking down any videos of the protests, riots, and police backlash. The primary media has really done a shitty job of covering this, while certain twitter feeds have been right on top of everything that's happening.

Some amazing and chilling pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 4479/show/

EDIT:
oh my god. these pictures are from University of Esfahan. This is horrifying. http://entesabat88.persianblog.ir/post/2/#

Jun 15, 2009#21

Docseverin

I wish them luck, and I hope they meet their goals. I don't need a N.Korean campaign medal and an Iran campaign medal too.

Jun 15, 2009#22

@Li3n

Weird, i recall this area being called Eastern Europe... though i guess we are to the west of Iran...

And i'm well aware that venting my rage on a forum isn't going to do anything for any situation... same thing applies to taking some sort of moral stand on something in another country you have no influence on...

And most importantly... the Meh was in reference to ZM saying that the situation in Moldova isn't comparable... there might be less pictures, but they're pretty similar (net and mobiles where cut pretty fast and before the police really got into gear so there are less graphic). So close enough.

Jun 15, 2009#23

Kissinger said:
"Meh." - @Li3n, You Don't Mess With The Privileged Westerner

This is seriously a totally fucked up situation, and reading the tweets, seeing the pictures, and watching the videos has been extremely rough.

It also isn't helped by the shit that CNN has pulled or by the fact that YouTube, for a while at least, was taking down any videos of the protests, riots, and police backlash. The primary media has really done a shitty job of covering this, while certain twitter feeds have been right on top of everything that's happening.

Some amazing and chilling pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 4479/show/

EDIT:
oh my god. these pictures are from University of Esfahan. This is horrifying. http://entesabat88.persianblog.ir/post/2/#

GREAT post, Kissinger! Those pictures are amazing and nothing like what we get from the Western media.

Jun 15, 2009#24

sixpackshaker

I am surprised that it took 30 years for this change to come about again. The original student revolutionaries did not start their struggle to overthrow one tyrannical despot to be replaced by a tyrannical, religious despot. They wanted a democratic Iran and ended up going backwards when the mullahs took over the revolution and invited Lee Iaccoca (sorry, The Ayatollah) back from France.

Jun 15, 2009#25

Scarlet Varlet

Yes, amazing pictures ... just like the same pictures in the long post with media stuff I posted Sunday, except blown up and fuzzier.

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 592664479/)

Have you watched this, yet?

http://iranelection.posterous.com/in-es ... way-iranel

Another collection of pictures
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bahramks/RiotsInTehran#
(edit: This didn't take the first go, because Picasa's javascript doesn't seem to like me even copying from the URL window, what gits.)

I particularly appreciate the Wait-And-See of the US. Even though they could tip the tables with a handfull of jets and a cruise missile or two, they'd eventually be in another Iraq. Better for these people to overthrow their demons themselves.

edit: some pictures from today's march

http://i.friendfeed.com/48d860fd22ba06f ... a1a6ea44ee

Jun 15, 2009#26

Scarlet Varlet said:
Yes, amazing pictures ... just like the same pictures in the long post with media stuff I posted Sunday, except blown up and fuzzier.

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 592664479/)

Have you watched this, yet?

http://iranelection.posterous.com/in-es ... way-iranel

Another collection of pictures
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bahramks/RiotsInTehran#
(edit: This didn't take the first go, because Picasa's javascript doesn't seem to like me even copying from the URL window, what gits.)

I particularly appreciate the Wait-And-See of the US. Even though they could tip the tables with a handfull of jets and a cruise missile or two, they'd eventually be in another Iraq. Better for these people to overthrow their demons themselves.

edit: some pictures from today's march

http://i.friendfeed.com/48d860fd22ba06f ... a1a6ea44ee

Sorry about that, SV. I didn't click on all your links because I was busy. I didn't get to really sit down and look at stuff until this morning.

Jun 15, 2009#27

Alex B.

Has anyone else read or seen Persepolis? It's a great read (and solid film adaptation) with a pretty interesting perspective on all the political turmoil in Iran in the '70s and '80s.

Jun 15, 2009#28

Singularity.EXE

This video was on Reddit and I am honestly proud of what happens towards the end.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ:12d2m5j1][/youtube:12d2m5j1]

I'm not one to lose faith in humanity, but this video would help to restore it.

Jun 15, 2009#29

The way that the crowd was, that guy is lucky to be alive. There's pictures of him in Kissinger's (and possibly SV's) that show the guy being beaten and then they shield him and get him to safety.

More Americans need to see stuff like this. Those who think that the people in the Middle East are animals and should be "turned into a parking lot" should see that they are people just like us. Iran is not a backwards third-world country but you never see this side here in the US unless you are searching it out.

Jun 15, 2009#30

Mr_Chaz

This quote kinda gets me. From this BBC article

Mousavi we support you. We will die, but retrieve our votes

The chance to have their rightful say is all that matters to them at the moment.

Jun 15, 2009#31

Jay

Is it just me or looking at those 2 guys riding around per bike randomly hitting people with their batons completely causing the opposing reaction of what they are hoping to achieve? Instead of pacifying and calming the people, they are trying to intimidate and infuriating them.

To be brutally honest, this is the BEST thing to have happen in Iran, despite the unfortunate bloodshed. Instead of a mediocre and slow change of power with weak results that will build the years, they have sparked a bonfire revolution. Whatever they have feared to lose, has already been long lost and now they (being those who didn't want change) will regret what they have done.

Jun 15, 2009#32

DarkAudit

I was listening to the BBC a bit ago, and for the last 15 minutes of the hour they decide to... run another Susan Boyle story. Granted they touched on the Iran situation a good bit in the previous 45 minutes (along with the latest Israel controversy, but that's another thread), but come on. History is on the verge of happening before our very eyes, and this is what you think of your listeners?

When I'm watching this, I'm reminded a bit of Corazon Aquino and Ferdinand Marcos back in the 80s. The Filipino people took to the streets to protest an obviously blatant theft of an election. Will Iran go the same way? Do the protesters have the numbers to overcome the security forces and the mullahs? What of the radicals throughout the Arab world that look to Iran's leaders as justification for their cause? What will they do? Will they give up the fight? Will they rush to Iran to kill in the mullahs' name?

Jun 15, 2009#33

Rob King

Singularity.EXE said:
This video was on Reddit and I am honestly proud of what happens towards the end.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ:3hawvzao][/youtube:3hawvzao]

I'm not one to lose faith in humanity, but this video would help to restore it.

Wow. I was not expecting that. But that adds a hundred more layers of legitimacy to the riots.

When I think of rioters, my mind immediately calls up images of anarchist punks who want to see the city burn. But it's clear here that these people are rioting for a reason. And even more incredible than that: they know who the enemy is. It's not the individual: it's the system.

You have no idea how much that video inspired me.

Jun 15, 2009#34

Pure Kamikaze

Looking through those pictures and listening to the Faunts I Think I'll Start a Fire, deeply moving. I for one have to say good luck to all of them, it takes balls to do what they're doing.

Jun 15, 2009#35

Steven Soderburgin

Reports are coming in that gunfire has broken out at the pro-Mousavi rally in Tehran where hundreds of thousands of people were protesting

EDIT

Breaking News: BULLETIN -- AT LEAST ONE DEAD AFTER PRO-GOVERNMENT MILITIA OPEN FIRE AT OPPOSITION SUPPORTERS IN TEHRAN.

URGENT -- A photographer with AP says at least 1 person dead after pro-government militia open fire at opposition protesters in Tehran.

persiankiwi: reliable soure from Ahvaz. Situation there is bad - violent clashes in streets. #Iranelection

Bassej are out in force in darkness. this is when they operate best. Streets are dangerous now for young people. #Iranelection

Jun 15, 2009#36

drawn_inward

My roommate is from Iran. I will have to ask his opinion on the situation. Hope it goes well for the people. People should not fear the government. Government should fear the people.

Jun 15, 2009#37

DarkAudit

Following two massively contrasting gatherings. Millions in the streets in Iran, and 250K in Pittsburgh for the Cup celebration. Hard to reconcile the two. Especially as the situation in Tehran deteriorates.

Tweets saying the Baseej like to operate at night, enforcing order by brutality and intimidation. There are more *people* than there are Baseej. Use that. Zerg them into retreat.

Jun 15, 2009#38

This is amazing and troubling at the same time. All the major news outlets are failing while Twitter is seeming to be the only way to get information.

Jun 15, 2009#39

Allen, who is Quiet

twitter is faster and isn't reliant on keeping people unoffended

Jun 15, 2009#40

These pictures and others at http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/0 ... ction.html.

Fucking amazing.

Jun 15, 2009#41

Kitty Sinatra

Allen said:
twitter is faster and isn't reliant on keeping people unoffended

twitter is also gossip. Makes it more reliable than CNN, less reliable than The National Midnight Star (it's true!)

Jun 15, 2009#42

@StopAhmadi: The Basiji police that killed 4 ppl in Tehran got killed by the ppl! eye for an eye! #iranelection

This is getting uglier and uglier.

Jun 15, 2009#43

Espy

Edrondol said:
@StopAhmadi: The Basiji police that killed 4 ppl in Tehran got killed by the ppl! eye for an eye! #iranelection

Click to expand...

This is getting uglier and uglier.

It's not gonna stop anytime soon.

Jun 15, 2009#44

Steven Soderburgin

Word is that they were unprovoked attacks on peaceful protesters

this is terrible.

Jun 15, 2009#45

RT @persiankiwi streets very dangerous now. groups of militia on motorbikes searching for protesters. #Iranelection

Jun 15, 2009#46

Allen, who is Quiet

Gruebeard said:
twitter is also gossip. Makes it more reliable than CNN, less reliable than The National Midnight Star (it's true!)

there are twitters of news organizations which help back up what some unofficial twitters are saying

Jun 15, 2009#47

DarkAudit

Guys on motorbikes are useless when they're suddenly surrounded by several hundred or several thousand protesters. Use the numbers to stand up to the thugs. There's more of you than there are of them.

Jun 15, 2009#48

Allen, who is Quiet

BULLETIN -- SHOOTING ERUPTS AT THREE DISTRICTS IN NORTHERN TEHRAN.

Jun 15, 2009#49

B

bhamv2

DarkAudit said:
Guys on motorbikes are useless when they're suddenly surrounded by several hundred or several thousand protesters. Use the numbers to stand up to the thugs. There's more of you than there are of them.

When the guys on motorbikes have machine guns and aren't shy about spraying the crowds, then it takes some major guts to zerg the motorbikes.

Now guys, please don't jump down my throat for suggesting this, but is it possible you guys are jumping to conclusions too easily and accepting what you're reading too easily? Getting your news from Twitter feeds is akin to accumulating all your knowledge from Wikipedia. You don't know if what you're reading's actually true or not.

Now, I have no doubt the situation in Iran is very ugly, and my heartfelt best wishes go out to everyone there. Let me repeat that, in bold, in case anyone doubts it: I have no doubt the situation in Iran is very ugly, and my heartfelt best wishes go out to everyone there. But the Tweets and photos we're seeing are presenting a fairly one-sided view, and they're from supporters of the losing candidate, who have every reason to be biased.

I'm not saying we should ignore the violence and injustice going on in Iran right now. But it would be folly to assume we're getting the whole story at the moment.

Jun 15, 2009#50

GasBandit

"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Jun 15, 2009#51

Chibibar

bhamv2 said:
DarkAudit said:

Guys on motorbikes are useless when they're suddenly surrounded by several hundred or several thousand protesters. Use the numbers to stand up to the thugs. There's more of you than there are of them.

Click to expand...

When the guys on motorbikes have machine guns and aren't shy about spraying the crowds, then it takes some major guts to zerg the motorbikes.

Now guys, please don't jump down my throat for suggesting this, but is it possible you guys are jumping to conclusions too easily and accepting what you're reading too easily? Getting your news from Twitter feeds is akin to accumulating all your knowledge from Wikipedia. You don't know if what you're reading's actually true or not.

Now, I have no doubt the situation in Iran is very ugly, and my heartfelt best wishes go out to everyone there. Let me repeat that, in bold, in case anyone doubts it: I have no doubt the situation in Iran is very ugly, and my heartfelt best wishes go out to everyone there. But the Tweets and photos we're seeing are presenting a fairly one-sided view, and they're from supporters of the losing candidate, who have every reason to be biased.

I'm not saying we should ignore the violence and injustice going on in Iran right now. But it would be folly to assume we're getting the whole story at the moment.

Yea. I understand the tweets are probably one sided, but remember that Iran is not really a "democracy" per se. They will use force if necessary and probably have no qualm spraying bullets into the crowd. That is what you get from military type rule.

Also if people (protester) get violent, the police/military are allow to use force if necessary.

Jun 15, 2009#52

B

bhamv2

GasBandit said:
"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

(I'm sorry, I just wanted to do that quoting thing from The Rock, I'll be quiet now, please don't hit me over the head)

Jun 15, 2009#53

Kitty Sinatra

"Gimme Puberty or gimme Breasts"

(I don't even think that makes sense, but there you have it.)

Jun 15, 2009#54

GasBandit

bhamv2 said:
GasBandit said:

"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

(I'm sorry, I just wanted to do that quoting thing from The Rock, I'll be quiet now, please don't hit me over the head)

Jun 15, 2009#55

The Lovely Boehner

Gruebeard said:
"Gimme Puberty or gimme Breasts"

(I don't even think that makes sense, but there you have it.)

what the fuck are you doing

Jun 15, 2009#56

WolfOfOdin

Well....

With Iran turning in on itself, this, from an American standpoint, removes one of the major roadblocks to pulling out of Iraq, which was the fear that Iran would sweep in and gulp up their old enemy in lockstep.

Hopefully the nation that emerges will be stronger, fairer and more humane than the old regimes of Iran's past.

Jun 15, 2009#57

GasBandit

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Gruebeard said:

"Gimme Puberty or gimme Breasts"

(I don't even think that makes sense, but there you have it.)

Click to expand...

what the fuck are you doing

I think he is doing this -

Jun 15, 2009#58

Seraphyn

WolfOfOdin said:
Hopefully the nation that emerges will be stronger, fairer and more humane than the old regimes of Iran's past.

Doubtful, but we can hope.

More realistically, if this really becomes a coup the guy in charge just becomes a new dictator, just like the last time Iran overthrew the government. So in order to truly succeed either NATO or the UN need to get involved. Being stretched out over Iraq/Afghanistan atm that'll most likely not really come off the ground in time.

If they do manage it somehow, awesome.

Jun 15, 2009#59

Singularity.EXE

Are you frakking kidding me Twitter?

We will have 90 mins of maintenance starting at 9:45p Pacific today, June 15.

Look, I know you have your business to look after, but you have a fucking REVOLUTION being broad casted over your service. You should be *encouraging* this, you should be helping them!

This is the time to shine Twitter! Don't fucking fail!

Jun 15, 2009#60

Espy

Rob King said:
If it comes out in the next 20 years that all of this is CIA false flag action, a la 1953, I might have to join Al Queida.

You know, you should just assume that and go for it. See how it works out for you.

Jun 15, 2009#61

The Lovely Boehner

The only thing I can think is that it might be a necessary maintenance based on twitter getting hit/used exceptionally hard the last few days. Or maybe doing something/changing something to help the Iranians use twitter more easily?

Jun 15, 2009#62

Espy

Twitter is totally down for me right now. I assume it's Iranian Black Ops.

Jun 15, 2009#63

sixpackshaker

I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.

Jun 15, 2009#64

Rob King

sixpackshaker said:
I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.

The difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Americans rolled in and kicked over the government in Iraq. We can argue about whether that was a good call or a bad call until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that in Iraq it was foreigners who lead to the downfall. In Iran it looks like it's the citizens who are responsible, so terrorists have already lost the 'We're fighting the foreign oppressors' card.

Jun 15, 2009#65

Singularity.EXE

Rob King said:
sixpackshaker said:

I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.

Click to expand...

The difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Americans rolled in and kicked over the government in Iraq. We can argue about whether that was a good call or a bad call until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that in Iraq it was foreigners who lead to the downfall. In Iran it looks like it's the citizens who are responsible, so terrorists have already lost the 'We're fighting the foreign oppressors' card.

Jun 15, 2009#66

Rob King

Singularity.EXE said:
[quote="Rob King":1hddi2h8]

sixpackshaker said:

I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.

Click to expand...

The difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Americans rolled in and kicked over the government in Iraq. We can argue about whether that was a good call or a bad call until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that in Iraq it was foreigners who lead to the downfall. In Iran it looks like it's the citizens who are responsible, so terrorists have already lost the 'We're fighting the foreign oppressors' card.

Which is why (presumably) the West is hesitant to lend their voices here. If they speak up on behalf of the rioters than they're trying to impose their will in Iran like Iraq. If they don't speak up they are called out for ignoring the tumultuous situation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.[/quote:1hddi2h8]

That AND, there's already enough Anti-American sentiment in the country. If they declare their support for one party, and the other party ends up victorious, it'll be that much more difficult to build (or re-build) friendly relations.

But I think someone else already said something to that effect here.

Jun 15, 2009#67

Iaculus

Remind me - the Baseej are the 'veterans'/pro-government thugs, right?

Jun 15, 2009#68

DarkAudit

Iaculus said:
Remind me - the Baseej are the 'veterans'/pro-government thugs, right?

Yep. They're the ones who (allegedly) went into a university dorm last night and shot up the place.

Jun 15, 2009#69

Enresshou

Iaculus said:
Remind me - the Baseej are the 'veterans'/pro-government thugs, right?

Courtesy of Tastuma from Fark:

Tatsuma said:
Currently, there are three groups who are suppressing the students on the ground:

1. The Basij
2. Ansar Hizbullah (which I will refer to as Ansar)
3. Lebanese Hizbullah (which I will refer to as Hizbullah)

- The Basij are your regular paramilitary organization. They are the armed hand of the clerics. The Basij are a legal group, officially a student union, and are legally under direct orders of the Revolutionary Guard. Their main raison d'être is to quell dissent. They are the ones who go and crack skulls, force people to participate in pro-regime demonstrations, and generally try to stop any demonstrations from even starting. They are basically located throughout the country, in every mosque, every university, every social club you can think of. They function in a way very similar to the brown shirts.

They were the ones who first started the crackdown after the election but it wasn't enough. While they are violent and repressive, they are still Persian and attacking fellow citizens. A beating is one thing, mass killings another.

- Another group was working with them, who are even more extreme, is Ansar. There is a lot of cross-membership between the Basij and Ansar, though not all members are members of the other group and vice-versa. The vast majority of Ansar are Persians (either Basij or ex-military), though a lot of Arab recruits come from Lebanon and train with them under supervision of the Revolutionary Guard. They are not a legal group, they are considered pretty much a vigilante group, but they pledge loyalty directly to the Supreme Leader and most people believe that they are under his control. They are currently helping the Basij to control the riots, but due to the fact that they are Persians and in lower numbers than the Basij, they are not that active.

- Hizbullah flew in a lot of their members in Iran, most likely a good deal even before the elections in case there were trouble. They are the ones who speak Arabs and are unleashing the biggest level of violence on the Persians so far. Another wave arrived recently and there is chatter that yet another wave of Hizbullah reinforcements are coming in from Lebanon as we speak. The Lebanese Hizbullah is a direct offshoot (and under direct control) of the Iranian Hizbullah (itself under direct control of the Supreme Leader) and cooperates closely with Ansar though Ansar occupies itself only with Iran's domestic policies, while Hizbullah occupies itself only with Iran's foreign policy unless there is a crisis like right now. They are the ones riding motorcycles, beating men women and children indiscriminately and firing live ammunitions at students.

Unless the army decides to intervene in the favor of the Council and to stop the (what now looks like) early beginnings of the new Revolution, Hizbullah members will be the ones doing the brunt of the killing and repression with Ansar as a support, while the Basij hit people with sticks, protect government sites and try to do crowd control (as the police seems to have for the most part disbanded in centers like Tehran, according to most twitter feeds. If the police has no disbanded, they will focus less on protection and crowd control, and more on cracking skulls).

Hope that helps

Also, as for Obama, I think the most prudent position to take would be neutrality with voiced support for human rights. The whole "US interference in public policy" seems to be a sensitive issue over in Iran, and I've got the impression that US support of one group--in addition to not being expressly welcome/providing fuel for the other side--could also lead to more difficult talks down the line in case the "wrong" party wins.

Then again, I know very little about Middle Eastern history, so feel free to tell me to STFU.

Jun 15, 2009#70

Rob King

http://twitter.com/change_for_iran

I am REALLY hoping that this kid's laptop is just out of juice. 14 hours is a long time to be inactive in a situation like this ...

Jun 15, 2009#71

Alex B.

That twitter feed is absolutely terrifying.

Jun 15, 2009#72

Espy

Alex B. said:
That twitter feed is absolutely terrifying.

I agree... does anyone have any proof it's real? I mean, not to be cynical but... it looks real, it's very dramatic, doe we know it's not some kid somewhere playing a prank?

Jun 15, 2009#73

Espy said:
Alex B. said:

That twitter feed is absolutely terrifying.

Click to expand...

I agree... does anyone have any proof it's real? I mean, not to be cynical but... it looks real, it's very dramatic, doe we know it's not some kid somewhere playing a prank?

I'd say "skeptical" rather than "cynical"; especially on Twitter, there's nothing wrong with asking for some proof. I didn't automatically believe it at first, myself, and honestly I'm not 100% sure I do, but something about the details has managed to convince me most of the way.

And if it is real, it's perfectly possible he's fine but simply unable to get the word out. People are tweeting and retweeting various proxies but who knows if he's seeing it.

Jun 15, 2009#74

Scarlet Varlet

Twitter reschedules down-time to assist events in Iran.

http://blog.twitter.com/2009/06/down-ti ... duled.html

:thumbsup:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdDmC7V_euE:134x53io][/youtube:134x53io]

Disturbing video of Basij shooting demonstrators

http://www.iranianuk.com/article.php?id=38535

Jun 15, 2009#75

Steven Soderburgin

EDIT: Nevermind, it was removed from the twitter feed

Jun 15, 2009#76

Espy

Kissinger said:
@tehranbureau just tweeted the following:

7 point statement distributed among the protesters in
Tehran today:
1. Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader
2. Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts
3. Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader
4. Recognition of Mousavi as the President
5. Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution
6. unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners
7. Dissolution of all organs of repression, public or secret.

Click to expand...

Good luck with all that. I admire their tenacity but thats a pretty big list.

Jun 15, 2009#77

Steven Soderburgin

yeah, it goes far beyond the scope of the original protests so I was somewhat skeptical anyway, and as I edited into the post, it was taken down.

Jun 15, 2009#78

Espy

I was gonna say they need some guns....

Jun 15, 2009#79

JONJONAUG

http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/h ... r-windows/

For any of you tech-savy guys who want to help out by setting up a proxy so that Iranians can access the internet.

Jun 15, 2009#80

Steven Soderburgin

holy fucking shit
Revolutionary guards arrested

Jun 15, 2009#81

JONJONAUG

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwKVLwckDYw&feature=channel_page:3ko9za5l][/youtube:3ko9za5l]

Jun 16, 2009#82

Scarlet Varlet

Kissinger said:
holy smurfing poop
Revolutionary guards arrested

As I read before, they were going to throw in with the protesters.

Things are fracturing.

Jun 16, 2009#83

@Li3n

Scarlet Varlet said:
As I read before, they were going to throw in with the protesters.

Things are fracturing.

That's actually a good thing for the protesters...

Jun 16, 2009#84

JONJONAUG

Jun 16, 2009#85

JONJONAUG

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 06010.html

An excellent little piece on the protests.

Jun 16, 2009#86

DarkAudit

There's one sick fuck using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.

Jun 16, 2009#87

Scarlet Varlet

DarkAudit said:
There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.

There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.

Jun 16, 2009#88

B

bhamv2

Scarlet Varlet said:
DarkAudit said:

There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.

Click to expand...

There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.

Send them to Tehran, there are no shortages of bats or beatings there.

Jun 16, 2009#89

sixpackshaker

I am a little shocked that the council is bringing in Arabs to quell the violence. If you think Iran is anti-American, you should see how they feel about Arabs. If it turns out that the Hezbollah is killing Persians, this will end up being a major powder keg.

Jun 16, 2009#90

Rob King

sixpackshaker said:
I am a little shocked that the council is bringing in Arabs to quell the violence. If you think Iran is anti-American, you should see how they feel about Arabs. If it turns out that the Hezbollah is killing Persians, this will end up being a major powder keg.

Apparently, the Lebanese Hezbollah was brought in because the Iranian arm of Hezbollah was too hesitant to shoot at other Iranians. But, I'm only getting this stuff from Twitter. I haven't been able to read much from official media.

The article about the Revolutionary Gurads is fascinating. Here's an article someone linked about twitter's role in all of this.

Twitter is interesting. I realize that it's basically just street-level word of mouth projected for the world to see, but I've been following three or four people who seem to be in the middle of it all, and ... It's just incredible to be that connected to such a big event a world away.

Jun 16, 2009#91

Scarlet Varlet said:
DarkAudit said:

There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.

Click to expand...

There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.

Are you guys new to Twitter? That's what always happens with trending topics.

Jun 16, 2009#92

DarkAudit

ZenMonkey said:
Scarlet Varlet said:

DarkAudit said:

There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.

Click to expand...

There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.

Click to expand...

Are you guys new to Twitter? That's what always happens with trending topics.

Hadn't really followed the big tending topics until now.

I feel a little left out. I'm not even getting the Britney spam followers.

aranoid:

Jun 16, 2009#93

DarkAudit said:
Hadn't really followed the big tending topics until now.

Oh. Well for your sanity, do as little as possible. Most of Twitter uses them to advertise their shit, be attention whores, spam, etc. etc.

Jun 17, 2009#94

@Li3n

ZenMonkey said:
Are you guys new to [strike:3vsap7ug]Twitter[/strike:3vsap7ug] The Internet? That's what always happens [strike:3vsap7ug]with trending topics[/strike:3vsap7ug].

Fixed.

Jun 17, 2009#95

Scarlet Varlet

It's hotting up now. (As if it hasn't before)

A direct challenge and call to rally from Mousavi.

Read this last night. Hearbreaking. Tells you it's the beast in the regime, not the divine.

6:03 PM ET -- "What I have witnessed." A powerful note from a female medical student in Iran, translated from Farsi by a trusty reader.

Hello,

It's painful to watch what's happening.

I don't want anything to do with what has been said this far, as I neither have the strength nor the resilience to face all these unfathomable events.
I only want to speak about what I have witnessed. I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help--I'm sure it will even be worst tonight.

What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?

This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people. They've put a baton in the hand of every 13-14 year old to smash the faces of "the bunches who are less than dirt" (government is calling the people who are uprising dried-up torn and weeds) .

This is what sickens me from dealing with these issues. And from those who shut their eyes and close their ears and claim the riots are in opposition of the government and presidency!! No! The people's complaint is against the egregious injustices committed against the people.
Posted by Nicotone at 7:53 PM

Jun 17, 2009#96

Scarlet Varlet

Photoshop Fail

Regime edits picture to make Amadi support rally look bigger.

Jun 17, 2009#97

DarkAudit

Reports this morning of 2 million protesters. All silent. "My silence is more powerful than your club."

Jun 17, 2009#98

GasBandit

Scarlet Varlet said:
Photoshop Fail

Regime edits picture to make Amadi support rally look bigger.

Jun 17, 2009#99

@Li3n said:
ZenMonkey said:

Are you guys new to [strike:2pwuwjas]Twitter[/strike:2pwuwjas] The Internet? That's what always happens [strike:2pwuwjas]with trending topics[/strike:2pwuwjas].

Click to expand...

Fixed.

Thanks, that was soooo fucking useful.

Jun 18, 2009#100

@Li3n

ZenMonkey said:
@Li3n said:

ZenMonkey said:

Are you guys new to [strike:271q88re]Twitter[/strike:271q88re] The Internet? That's what always happens [strike:271q88re]with trending topics[/strike:271q88re].

Click to expand...

Fixed.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that was soooo fucking useful.

Oh, sorry for taking away from this world changing thread... i hope the revolution doesn't fail because of me... :eyeroll:

Jun 18, 2009#101

Kitty Sinatra

When it fails, I'm blaming @Li3n.

Jun 18, 2009#102

@Li3n

Gruebeard said:
When it fails, I'm blaming @Li3n.

Damn... then Shego will be after me for taking credit for her work...

BTW, just because they want Ahme-dinner-jad out doesn't mean they'll stop hating you...

Jun 18, 2009#103

Rob King

@Li3n said:
BTW, just because they want Ahme-dinner-jad out doesn't mean they'll stop hating you...

This. I'm worried the hundreds of frothing-at-the-mouth Americans on Twitter don't realize this. I think Obama pointed this out as well: no matter which candidate got the presidency, there would be virtually no change in foreign policy, the nuclear program, etc. It's not like Bush -> Obama.

I'm still hopeful, though, if only for the sake of the Iranians. If they voted X, they should get X, even if X and Y both look very similar.

Jun 18, 2009#104

DarkAudit

The news reports over the years show that the Iranian people have no real love for the mullahs. That's where the real power is, and that's where the real hate is. Remove them, and who knows what will happen.

Jun 18, 2009#105

jwhouk

I don't think anyone in Iran's got the cajones right now to go after the Mullahs and other religious leaders. If they do go after them, they figure they'd have the entire Islamic world down on them in the space of minutes.

Jun 18, 2009#106

Scarlet Varlet

Guardian Council have looked into a recount. This is their result.

Jun 18, 2009#107

@Li3n

What?! Lookouts obviously won the elections... i demand a re-recount...

Jun 18, 2009#108

The Lovely Boehner

Scarlet Varlet said:
Guardian Council have looked into a recount. This is their result.

This is fucking stupid.

Jun 18, 2009#109

Rob King

Scarlet Varlet said:
Guardian Council have looked into a recount. This is their result.

/snip chart

I laffed.

Seriously, after reading a few articles on politics in Iran, a few defending the official results of the election, I'm not entirely sure about the claims about a rigged election. But it hasn't really been about that for a few days now. It's been about the crackdown.

I wonder. Regardless of the true or false results of the election, could it be a good thing that all of this outrage is coming out? Even if it happens that the election wasn't rigged, and Ahdaminijad did win, maybe challenging it was a good call.

I dunno. I'm just sort of thinking on my keyboard here now.

Jun 18, 2009#110

General Fuzzy McBitty

The only really interesting thing about this whole mess is that people are starting to question Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei instead of just blaming the President.

Jun 18, 2009#111

General Fuzzy McBitty said:
The only really interesting thing...

Seriously??

Jun 18, 2009#112

General Fuzzy McBitty

Well, that's the only thing that I really find interesting. The President doesn't have that much power in a system that is ruled by a corrupt counsel & a "supreme ruler."

Jun 18, 2009#113

Bubble181

All other things aside, this is, once again, time for one of those sleep dep moments of mine where I'll say something everyone is going to misunderstand and call me names over. I'm not actually as ignorant as I appear to be.
Anyway.

Ignoring what's happening in Iran now - which is a Good Thing for a number of reasons - this does show something you see over and over again in a LOT of countries that didn't gradually ease into democracy or go there of their own accord. That is, Russia, most of the Arabian world, most of Africa, large parts of Central Asia (all the -stans, basically). No matter what the results of an election are, the other side (yes, usually the opposition, and I'l even throw in that they're probably right half the time) cries "corruption", demands recounts, and starts something between peaceful protests that devolve into state-sponsored violence and a violent uprising that ends in semi-genocide. See the elections in Congo in the 90s, see this one, see Botswana, see Zimbabwe, see Kazakhstan, see...
Seriously. I'm absoutely anti-imperialistic and anti-neo-colonialistic, but sometimes I think somebody needs to get these people ot understand that, you know, if you can get 1,000,000 people to protest in favour of you, in a country of 30,000,000, this doesn't mean you obviously won the elections and the other side was defrauding the whole thing. You might just have lost and have a vocal support base. Try changing something inside the system, instead of necessarily trying to overthrow the system and more likely than not, instate yourself as the new supreme leaders who'll screw things over slowly in much the same way.

Iran's history is actually a lesson in this, partly. Some things *have* changed there...and changed right back, which I suppose is a bad thing, but still. Not everywhere and always is it possible to change the system from within (think Myanmar, North Korea, probably China) but it seems like the resistance in few countries even bothers to try anymore.

Jun 18, 2009#114

Scarlet Varlet

Interesting considerations, Bubble, though the expectations of reform were high, I truly believe a lot of the anger is over the crude and sloppy way the Ministry of the Interior (and whomever else was party to this) fixed the election are what have drawn so much ire.

Here's the MoI spreadsheet if you wish to examine it yourself.

Prior protests haven't been a shade on what is transpiring now. When the government calls up it's own support they come in the 10's of thousands. Many of them are bussed in. So if you favour the status quo and have the protection of the government, plus a free bus ride at the behest of the Supreme Leader, why are your numbers so low? So low that the government has to 'shop the photo to increase teh apparent size.

Various theories I've heard kicked around are the Revolutionary Guard are behind this and are playing to control all the strings or the MoI, Amadinejad, the Guardian Council, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and various other 'hardliners' have staged the coup to keep Iran a Revolutionary State (with all that entails), where Mousavi favours Post-Revolutionary. Whichever, there are clearly strong splits and polarisation within the 30-year old Regime and the majority of the population was born after the 1979 revolution and would prefer to ditch the headscarves, listen to western pop music openly and not have their skulls cracked for voicing dissatisfaction with the way things are.

I think should things eventually result with tipping in their favour they'll have to reshape the government and remove some of these pretzel twists which give people power who haven't been elected. Even Mousavi may think that's going a bit far.

Jun 18, 2009#115

Had they given some areas to Mousavi and had Amadinejad only winning by a few percentage points none of this would have happened.

Jun 18, 2009#116

Scarlet Varlet

Edrondol said:
Had they given some areas to Mousavi and had Amadinejad only winning by a few percentage points none of this would have happened.

Oh, no doubt. If they had made Amadi win by a modest margin and done a better job rigging together the turnout for areas they would have only faced a brief protest as they did in 2005. Clearly whomever said, "Make up a spreadsheet", didn't plan carefully or take the necessary time. Probably like a load of burglars they threw it together desperately and stupidly. Very telling in the intellect of those who plotted the rigging.

Jun 19, 2009#117

@Li3n

Rob King said:
Seriously, after reading a few articles on politics in Iran, a few defending the official results of the election, I'm not entirely sure about the claims about a rigged election.

As i understood it: $40 million votes, mostly paper ballots, and the results where announced 24 hours later, and the oppositions representatives where kept out of the voting areas...

Jun 19, 2009#118

Kitty Sinatra

@Li3n said:
As i understood it: $40 million votes, mostly paper ballots, and the results where announced 24 hours later, and the oppositions representatives where kept out of the voting areas...

I don't know where you're from (and thus how you vote) but paper ballots don't take long to count. That's all that's used in Canada and we get our results announced within a couple hours of polls closing . . . in Ontario. Hell, people are still voting in British Columbia when the networks announce the winner. Those are statistical projections and not final counts, obviously, but within 24 hours they're all counted. Iran's greater number of voters won't matter because you just have more people counting. So that doesn't make this look at all fishy.

Keeping the opposition (and presumably foreign observers) out of the voting areas does, however.

Jun 19, 2009#119

@Li3n

Some how i doubt that they're as well organized as Canada... not to mention that those where supposedly the final results...

Jun 19, 2009#120

Kitty Sinatra

As I said, all our votes are counted within 24 hours.

But I'm agreeing with you limiting the oversight of that count makes it looks rigged.

Jun 19, 2009#121

DarkAudit

I'll have to look for it, but there were timestamped screenshots from the count in Iran where one of the opposition candidates tally went *down* by a significant number as the count progressed.

Jun 19, 2009#122

I couldn't read the numbers on the timestamp. :tongue:

Jun 19, 2009#123

DarkAudit

Edrondol said:
I couldn't read the numbers on the timestamp. :tongue:

Jun 19, 2009#124

B

bhamv2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108661.stm

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is basically saying, "Knock it off with the protesting before I kick your ass."

Jun 19, 2009#125

sixpackshaker

I just wonder how far this will go. They had protest similar to this over the years. So far this is the biggest one. Usually they vent their rage and then go back to the status quo.

Jun 19, 2009#126

Bubble181

Scarlet Varlet said:
Various theories I've heard kicked around are the Revolutionary Guard are behind this and are playing to control all the strings or the MoI, Amadinejad, the Guardian Council, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and various other 'hardliners' have staged the coup to keep Iran a Revolutionary State (with all that entails), where Mousavi favours Post-Revolutionary. Whichever, there are clearly strong splits and polarisation within the 30-year old Regime and the majority of the population was born after the 1979 revolution and would prefer to ditch the headscarves, listen to western pop music openly and not have their skulls cracked for voicing dissatisfaction with the way things are.

This, however, is a very Western point of view, and far from entirely correct. A lot - according to observers, most - protestors still want an Islamic democracy, adn don't want to give up the Shari'ah as the law or try and begin a seperation of church and state. They're not as conservative, but they're still very pro-Iran and pro-Islam. You haven't seen anyone burning Iranian flags or bras or scarves, have you? No, you haven't, except for some very, very small minorities shunned by the protestors themselves just as much as by the rest.

Jun 19, 2009#127

They want to keep the same government - just with a president they voted for, not the one that stole the election.

Jun 19, 2009#128

Bubble181

Sort of my point. Some people seem to think this'll be a Revolution. it won't be - it's not what these people want. Give it 20 mre years...

Jun 19, 2009#129

sixpackshaker

Edrondol said:
They want to keep the same government - just with a president they voted for, not the one that stole the election.

No, they did not want the government that they have. They did not want it 30 years ago. They wanted Democracy/Self Determination. Instead they got hosed by the elite religious class. They just know it is too dangerous to call for the scrapping of this current system. Every election the people vote for the most reform minded of the cherry picked candidates that have to be on the same page as the ruling mullahs.

Jun 19, 2009#130

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
Sort of my point. Some people seem to think this'll be a Revolution. it won't be - it's not what these people want. Give it 200 mre years...

Fixed it for you.

Jun 19, 2009#131

sixpackshaker said:
Edrondol said:

They want to keep the same government - just with a president they voted for, not the one that stole the election.

Click to expand...

No, they did not want the government that they have. They did not want it 30 years ago. They wanted Democracy/Self Determination. Instead they got hosed by the elite religious class. They just know it is too dangerous to call for the scrapping of this current system. Every election the people vote for the most reform minded of the cherry picked candidates that have to be on the same page as the ruling mullahs.

I've been following this pretty regularly. Those interviewed say that they don't want regime change. They point out that that's something the West gets right.

I know what you're going to say about coerced statements or fear of reprisal, but the reports I'm hearing are backing that up.

But as neither of us are Iranians, we're kind of talking out of our asses.

Jun 19, 2009#132

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
Bubble181 said:

Sort of my point. Some people seem to think this'll be a Revolution. it won't be - it's not what these people want. Give it 200 mre years...

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

You don't know that. 20 years is all there isbetween Tsarist Russia and Bolsjewik Russia; early 1900s booming Germany with the strongest economy in the world and 1920 defeated broken destroyed Germany; between 1948 Israel's founding as a modern state after WWII and Israel being the strongest power in the Middle East after defeating all oposition in the six day war; between Apartheid South Africa and now; and the list goes on. 20 years is a bloody long time (and, unfortunately, in most of these cases a long and bloody time).

It's entirely possible that today's events are the first moves in a nation-changing revolution ending in Iran being a truly modern democratic state on a similar level to some of Eastern Europe now. I wouldn't count on it, but you never know. 200 years is, frankly, a ridiculously long time to think this sort of thing will last - considering history has that odd tendency to be forever increasing in speed.

Jun 19, 2009#133

JCM

http://www.hulu.com/watch/16771/saturda ... ran-so-far

Jun 19, 2009#134

sixpackshaker

I am pretty close to several Iranians, closest is Sis-in-Law and her family. The Shah was overthrown because he was a despot that was infringing on the rights of the people. The Mullahs are as brutal as Reza Pahlavi ever dreamed of being. They hated America because we put that 'king' on the throne, but expected to get European levels of freedom after the Revolution. Damn few really wanted the mullahs in their everyday life.

Jun 19, 2009#135

Then I withdraw. I know only a couple of Iranians and we are by no means close and have never discussed politics. You may be right but the interviews I heard were not the same - much as if you interviewed a large cross-section of the US you'd get differing views.

Jun 19, 2009#136

Chibibar

Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

Jun 19, 2009#137

sixpackshaker

A dozen or so ex-pats is not a wide sample. Of course they were also fairly well off, The dad was an accountant for an American Oil company. He also belonged to a family that kept Zoroastrianism alive for the millennium since the Arab invasion and the destruction of the Persian culture. The country was growing very dangerous over the last couple of years of the Shah's reign. So he came across I believe around '75. Then brought his wife and daughters over around '77. Being from a Zoroastrian family at that time was kinda like being a Jew in Germany in '36, you could see that trouble brewing.

Another Father in law of one of my bro's was Air Force Intel right before the revolution too, his story was fairly similar.

The poor shepherds and religious types do back the gov't, but the middle class, students and old wealth are scared of the mullahs.

-- Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:30 pm --

Chibibar said:
Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

It is kinda like why our system has such low turn out. The two parties are very similar except for a handful of social/cultural issues.

But instead of being dishearten, I think they vote to give a big middle finger up to the powers that be. After all some one will count the actual votes.

Jun 19, 2009#138

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Jun 19, 2009#139

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
Chibibar said:

Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

Click to expand...

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.

Jun 19, 2009#140

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
GasBandit said:

Chibibar said:

Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

Click to expand...

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Click to expand...

Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.

Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.

Jun 19, 2009#141

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
Denbrought said:

GasBandit said:

Chibibar said:

Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

Click to expand...

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Click to expand...

Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.

Click to expand...

Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.

Or even in the federal legislature. And I'm saying that as a card carrying Libertarian.

Jun 19, 2009#142

Shakey

Chibibar said:
Denbrought said:

GasBandit said:

Chibibar said:

Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

Click to expand...

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Click to expand...

Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.

Click to expand...

Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.

Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.

Jun 19, 2009#143

Chibibar

Shakey said:
Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.

I know that you can do write in vote for president. So you think it is possible even with electoral college that if 51% of the voters wrote Chibibar for president that I can be president?

Jun 19, 2009#144

GasBandit

Shakey said:
Chibibar said:

Denbrought said:

GasBandit said:

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Click to expand...

Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.

Click to expand...

Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.

For the most part, yes, but it's a self-perpetuating system. It's also effectively quashed by the way committee memberships are done. All the procedures for such positions of power within the legislature are based upon the assumption of there being only 2 parties.

Jun 19, 2009#145

sixpackshaker

Shakey said:
Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.

The problem is not the people, it is the Two Party System.

It is hard to get a party off the ground. You need to present candidates for office, you need to get them on county, city, and state wide ballots, all the ballots are controlled by public servants that serve one of the two parties. The laws require a high number of signatories on a petition to get candidates on the ticket.It is easy to get signatures if you belong to an established party. Then the third party needs to get the word out about their platform and candidate. Oh, and the TV, radio stations and print media outlets each have loyalties to particular parties. If you can buy space, then you have to pay for it, without having a national party behind you throwing $2,000 a plate fundraisers it is almost impossible to compete against the Goliaths.

It is the system...

Jun 19, 2009#146

Shakey

Is it hard? Yes. I'm not saying it isn't, and it could be better. The two party system is kept in place only because the majority of Americans are OK with it though. We do have other parties on ballots, they just don't get the votes because people feel the need to vote their party.

Jun 19, 2009#147

ThatGrinningIdiot!

sixpackshaker said:
Shakey said:

Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.

Click to expand...

The problem is not the people, it is the Two Party System.

It is hard to get a party off the ground. You need to present candidates for office, you need to get them on county, city, and state wide ballots, all the ballots are controlled by public servants that serve one of the two parties. The laws require a high number of signatories on a petition to get candidates on the ticket.It is easy to get signatures if you belong to an established party. Then the third party needs to get the word out about their platform and candidate. Oh, and the TV, radio stations and print media outlets each have loyalties to particular parties. If you can buy space, then you have to pay for it, without having a national party behind you throwing $2,000 a plate fundraisers it is almost impossible to compete against the Goliaths.

It is the system...

There's plenty of blame to spread around, and the people are not exempt from this.

Jun 19, 2009#148

Denbrought

Nah, it's definitively the system. See, if a party needs 51% of the votes to have a say on who is the next president, it quickly defeats the ambition of power that would drive individual factions to make parties. If you had a system based on party alliances, by contrast, smaller parties would have a much bigger say in politics, because if you're the president thanks to your own party and the supporting votes of three minority parties... Damn, you're going to keep those happy too. Spain's system, while far from perfect either, gives much more flexibility to the voter and the politician.

Jun 19, 2009#149

GasBandit

The american people are largely to blame for what their country has become, for sure. I think everyone agrees on this, if for different reasons.

Jun 19, 2009#150

DarkAudit

Nothing to see here. move along. But I'm sure the later quotes will remain to bite me in the ass.

Jun 19, 2009#151

Rob King

Scarlet Varlet said:
Probably like a load of burglars they threw it together desperately and stupidly. Very telling in the intellect of those who plotted the rigging.

That's one of the things that makes me wonder if it was rigged at all. I'd have thought if they were going to rig an election, they would do a better job of it. And yes, I'm honestly wondering if "it looks too rigged to be rigged."

Gruebeard said:
I don't know where you're from (and thus how you vote) but paper ballots don't take long to count. That's all that's used in Canada and we get our results announced within a couple hours of polls closing

This.

DarkAudit said:
I'll have to look for it, but there were timestamped screenshots from the count in Iran where one of the opposition candidates tally went *down* by a significant number as the count progressed.

That doesn't scream 'rigged' at me. I just assume it means that their software, or calculators, or abacii, or whatever just spat out a projection based on the votes that had already been counted. I've never rigged/ran an election in Iran, so I couldn't tell you if that's what's going on or not. But like I said, numbers going up and/or down don't really concern me on the whole.

sixpackshaker said:
A dozen or so ex-pats is not a wide sample.

Case in point: Even the official tally shows that Iranians who voted from outside the country preferred Mousavi. I'm surprised no 'election fraud' yellers have harped on this point.

Not saying it would be a good point to harp on. Just that I expected someone to be harping.

Denbrought said:
If you had a system based on party alliances, by contrast, smaller parties would have a much bigger say in politics, because if you're the president thanks to your own party and the supporting votes of three minority parties...

Canada isn't a two party system, (well, kindasorta, but ... ) and you should have heard the cries of anguish when we tried to get a coalition all up in here. Not speaking out against party alliances. They have a place and purpose, and I was rooting for one here in the great white north. But when people aren't familiar with that concept, it just isn't going to fly.

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit said:

The american people are largely to blame for what their country has become, for sure. I think everyone agrees on this, if for different reasons.

Click to expand...

Not a chance, kind sir. The CIA != the American PEOPLE. Just because the folks in power rearranged things after they got there, it would be ignorant to blame the population for what happened before or since 1979. And I say, would you like a scone?

90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.

Jun 19, 2009#152

Shakey

Rob King said:
DarkAudit said:

GasBandit said:

The american people are largely to blame for what their country has become, for sure. I think everyone agrees on this, if for different reasons.

Click to expand...

Not a chance, kind sir. The CIA != the American PEOPLE. Just because the folks in power rearranged things after they got there, it would be ignorant to blame the population for what happened before or since 1979. And I say, would you like a scone?

Click to expand...

90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.

I'd up that to 99%. Someone wasn't paying attention to where this conversation went.

Jun 20, 2009#153

Bubble181

Yeah, I'm pretty sure someone wasn't reading all of the conversation :-P

Also, as others haev said, the US has devolved into a de facto 2 party system - it's not a matter of having a good idea and getting the word out to a few friends; it's money, influence, attention, and so forth. Getting even 5% of all votes with a new party would be a major thing to do, but you'd still have fuck all to say.
Split it up!
- Religious right-wing nutjob party
- Libertarian / extreme freedom and minmalist government party
- Conservative party
- Progressive/social-democratic party
- Liberal party
- Green party
- Some other stuff
:-P

Jun 20, 2009#154

DarkAudit

Rob King said:
90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.

Fuck tactful. It's GasBandit.

Jun 20, 2009#155

Rob King

DarkAudit said:
Rob King said:

90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.

Click to expand...

Fuck tactful. It's GasBandit.

Fair enough. I just thought it would be fun to play with your post.

Jun 20, 2009#156

DarkAudit

Rob King said:
DarkAudit said:

[quote="Rob King":1gr8shi0]90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.

Click to expand...

Fuck tactful. It's GasBandit.

Fair enough. I just thought it would be fun to play with your post.[/quote:1gr8shi0]

Fair enough. And GasBandit is just the type of troll to go ahead and blame the Americans as a whole for what's happened in Iran.

Jun 20, 2009#157

JCM

90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful

If you let your two-party government fuck you in the arse, then wipe up and still demand you pay for it, and you dont-

a) move to another country,
b) vote against the same two-party system
or
c) fight against it,

You are pretty much to blame for allowing them to rape you over and over and say nothing about it, so that does make most americans guilty for the state their country is in, and if this is what Gasbandit is saying, I must say I agree 100%.

Chibibar said:
Denbrought said:

GasBandit said:

Chibibar said:

Here is my question.

Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.

Why even bother to vote?

Click to expand...

It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.

Click to expand...

Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.

Click to expand...

Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.

Well, to be fair, its still better to be an american and be the bitch of two parties, than be british and have a bloody queen or be brazilian and have your ass owned by the highest bidder.

And people still ask me why I have multiple citizenship. :puke:

Jun 20, 2009#158

@Li3n

Now where did i put that link to that guy mathematically proving that the US's voting system (winning with under 50%) always leads to a 2 party system...

than be british and have a bloody queen

Yeah, but they get to put Royal in front of all sort of neat things... also, you do know she doesn't have much power, right? (she's also the Queen of Canada, Australian and all other Commonwealth countries... don't really mean nothing though).

Jun 21, 2009#159

Iaculus

'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

Jun 21, 2009#160

AshburnerX

Iaculus said:
'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

And yet she gets to live a life of luxury and do pretty much anything she wants. In fact, anyone related to her gets to do pretty much anything they want.

She may not have a lot of official power but if the Queen of England asks for something to be done, it'll usually be done.

Jun 21, 2009#161

Iaculus

AshburnerX said:
Iaculus said:

'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

Click to expand...

And yet she gets to live a life of luxury and do pretty much anything she wants. In fact, anyone related to her gets to do pretty much anything they want.

She may not have a lot of official power but if the Queen of England asks for something to be done, it'll usually be done.

Unless they happen to be in government. The Royals are very carefully-managed - the important ones, at least.

Jun 21, 2009#162

Enresshou

NSFW, a video of an Iranian protestor who was shot by the Basiji.

And I can't stop crying.

Jun 21, 2009#163

CrimsonSoul

Enresshou said:
NSFW, a video of an Iranian protestor who was shot by the Basiji.

And I can't stop crying.

damn...

Jun 21, 2009#164

Frankie Williamson

Iaculus said:
'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

Yeah, she's technically queen of Canada but it would be funny if the governor general actually tried to veto a bill of law here I'd imagine that would be the end of that arrangement.

Jun 21, 2009#165

Rob King

JCM said:
90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful

Click to expand...

If you let your two-party government fuck you in the arse, then wipe up and still demand you pay for it, and you dont-

a) move to another country,
b) vote against the same two-party system
or
c) fight against it,

You are pretty much to blame for allowing them to rape you over and over and say nothing about it, so that does make most americans guilty for the state their country is in, and if this is what Gasbandit is saying, I must say I agree 100%.

That is what he was saying, and I don't disagree either. Someone misunderstood, and thought he was blaming Joe the Plumber for the mess Iran was in. I was just straightening it out.

Jun 22, 2009#166

@Li3n

'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

Well she can order people "accidented", so there's that... :aaahhh:

NSFW, a video of an Iranian protestor who was shot by the Basiji.

And I can't stop crying.

Man... i really am an awful human being...

Jun 22, 2009#167

Iaculus

@Li3n said:
'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

Click to expand...

Well she can order people "accidented", so there's that... :aaahhh:

Welp, looks like we've found the board's resident reader of the Daily Express.

BURN THE WITCH!

Jun 22, 2009#168

JCM

Iaculus said:
@Li3n said:

'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.

Click to expand...

Well she can order people "accidented", so there's that... :aaahhh:

Click to expand...

Welp, looks like we've found the board's resident reader of the Daily Express.

BURN THE WITCH!

Does she weigh as much as a duck?

Jun 22, 2009#169

Chibibar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_ ... as_nuclear

Well, there is a loophole

So if a ship leave NK has "illegal" cargo and they refuse to be search, you can't do anything can you?

Jun 22, 2009#170

GasBandit

Yes, I was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what AMERICA has become. Not Iran. Since at the most recent, we had been discussing the american de facto 2-party system, and the relative inability to break out of it.

Jun 22, 2009#171

Papillon

@Li3n said:
Now where did i put that link to that guy mathematically proving that the US's voting system (winning with under 50%) always leads to a 2 party system...

But Canada has a similar voting system (for the legislative branch of government), and we're only down to 4 major parties, after having 5 major parties for awhile. One of the parties (Bloc Quebecois) is a strongly regional party, to which the proof probably doesn't apply, but I don't think it explains why we have 3 other major political parties.

Jun 22, 2009#172

Kitty Sinatra

You're kinda forgetting that Reform and the Bloc were very recent. Most of Canada's federal history involved only 3 parties, and the same 2 have formed every government to this day. We're damn close to being a 2-party nation; but our system supports more far better than the US system.

Jun 22, 2009#173

Papillon

Gruebeard said:
You're kinda forgetting that Reform and the Bloc were very recent. Most of Canada's federal history involved only 3 parties, and the same 2 have formed every government to this day. We're damn close to being a 2-party nation; but our system supports more far better than the US system.

Actually, this supports my point: according to the theory referenced above, any plurality voting system should tend to a two party system. In Canada, the opposite has happened. We started with a two party system, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The NDP were formed in the 60's, and then the Bloc has formed more recently. The theory that pluralities tend to two party systems doesn't explain the continued "success" of the NDP.

Jun 22, 2009#174

Covar

I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.

The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.

Jun 22, 2009#175

DarkAudit

Covar said:
I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.

The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.

The only other times since where a third party candidate actually won a couple of states, it was Strom Thurmond and George Wallace running racist campaigns that took blocks of southern states.

Jun 23, 2009#176

@Li3n

Of course pure math doesn't take into account irreconcilable differences in ideology...

But the proof doesn't supply any timeframe, so there's still time Canada... you guys are just always slow on the uptake. Unlike your neighbours, who decided to just skip to the logical conclusion from the get go (it helped that they had a main idea to split over).

Jun 23, 2009#177

JCM

GasBandit said:
Yes, I was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what AMERICA has become. Not Iran. Since at the most recent, we had been discussing the american de facto 2-party system, and the relative inability to break out of it.

This.

Iranians pretty much did vote that loon in the first time around, a terrible step backwards after its previous president´s reforms, improvement of women´s rights and dialogue between civilizations project.

Jun 23, 2009#178

GasBandit

Covar said:
I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.

The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.

Instant runoff elections would solve this.

That way, last election, a hypothetical person could have turned in a ballot that said

In order of preference:
1)Kinky Friedman
2)Ron Paul
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton

... it would have allowed him to try to vote for a non uberparty candidate, but if his first (and second) choices were eliminated in the runoff, he still would have voted Obama in the runoff round.

Jun 23, 2009#179

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Covar said:

I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.

The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.

Click to expand...

Instant runoff elections would solve this.

That way, last election, a hypothetical person could have turned in a ballot that said

In order of preference:
1)Kinky Friedman
2)Ron Paul
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton

... it would have allowed him to try to vote for a non uberparty candidate, but if his first (and second) choices were eliminated in the runoff, he still would have voted Obama in the runoff round.

Some regional elections in Minnesota are likely to use this method in the future. http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/47774887.html

I find it interesting that the method was challenged as violating one person/one vote.

Jun 23, 2009#180

Papillon

GasBandit said:
Instant runoff elections would solve this.

That way, last election, a hypothetical person could have turned in a ballot that said

In order of preference:
1)Kinky Friedman
2)Ron Paul
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton

... it would have allowed him to try to vote for a non uberparty candidate, but if his first (and second) choices were eliminated in the runoff, he still would have voted Obama in the runoff round.

Instant runoffs aren't the greatest system either. It doesn't eliminate strategic voting.

Suppose there's a left, moderate, and right wing candidate. The left candidate has by far the most popular support, at about 40%, but the moderate and right wing candidate both have about 30% of the vote, with the remaining 5% going to lesser parties. Now, if there's a runoff between the right and left candidates, the moderate vote is going to split roughly evenly between the two giving the election to the left candidate. On the other hand, if the runoff is between the left and the moderate candidate, most of the right voters are going to vote for the moderate, handing him the election. But if the left candidate gets about 5% of his people to vote for the right candidate, he will still get 55% of the vote in an instant runoff with the right candidate, ensuring he will be elected.

Jun 23, 2009#181

GasBandit

Not perfect, sure, but better than what we're doing here. At least the 3rd party candidate in your example stands a chance rather than just being at best a futile laughingstock and at worst a direct act of sabotage against whatever major party candidate has the closest platform.

Jun 23, 2009#182

Chibibar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_ ... n_election

You know the last sentence got me thinking. Iran is REALLY cracking down on reports and such during the riots and what not. Does Iran is trying to hide something or just following policy?

Jun 23, 2009#183

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
at best a futile laughingstock

Perot.

GasBandit said:
at worst a direct act of sabotage against whatever major party candidate has the closest platform.

Nader.

Jun 23, 2009#184

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit said:

at best a futile laughingstock

Click to expand...

Perot.

GasBandit said:

at worst a direct act of sabotage against whatever major party candidate has the closest platform.

Click to expand...

Nader.

Actually, I considered Perot to be the latter as well. The laughingstock I was thinking of was Harry Browne, who I voted for in 2000.

Jun 24, 2009#185

Jay

Chibibar said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

You know the last sentence got me thinking. Iran is REALLY cracking down on reports and such during the riots and what not. Does Iran is trying to hide something or just following policy?

A bit of column a and a bit of column b

Jun 24, 2009#186

YAOMTC

Two things of note.

First,

http://iran.whyweprotest.net/

Second,

http://insurgen.info/wiki/Project_Greenwave

Iran's government is putting pictures of targeted protestors on the web for the Basij to identify and harass, arrest, or worse. These individuals could be jailed, or worse, dead by tomorrow. This website needs to die.

Note that if gerdab.ir goes down, all other sites (shahabnews and others) which link to their images won't function properly either.

The linked page explains more about how to contribute.

Targets:
http://shahabnews.com/ -- still up as of this post
http://bultannews.com/ -- down right now
http://bultannews.ir/ -- down right now
http://gerdab.ir/ -- up as of this post

Do not try to bandwidth-DoS the gerdab.ir site, as it is physically in Iran and you might overload the country. Slowloris or a syn-flood on port 25 is an option.

Jun 24, 2009#187

@Li3n

Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.

Jun 24, 2009#188

Iaculus

@Li3n said:
Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.

Maybe they aren't the most tech-savvy of regimes?

As far as I know, they don't have anything akin to the 'Great Firewall of China'. Might not be registering the 'net as a serious threat yet.

Jun 24, 2009#189

Chibibar

Iaculus said:
@Li3n said:

Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.

Click to expand...

Maybe they aren't the most tech-savvy of regimes?

As far as I know, they don't have anything akin to the 'Great Firewall of China'. Might not be registering the 'net as a serious threat yet.

I thought one of the phone company does give the country to monitor traffic within the country (Iran has it, I read an article in BBC. I'll try to find it when I'm at work. I'm at home right now)

Jun 24, 2009#190

Something interesting happening today on my campus:

Cultures in Conflict: The Iranian Election and its Aftermath
________________________________________
Panel Discussion
Wednesday, June 24th
Noon to 1:00 pm
Humanities Building Room 202
________________________________________
The College of Arts and Sciences and its Cultures in Conflict class invite you to a panel discussion about the recent elections in Iran and the days of demonstrations which have followed. What is happening? How are things changing? What does it mean for the United States? How might this affect you?

Panelists include Dr. Majid Nabavi of Bellevue University's College of Business, Adjunct Professor Matthew Eggleton of our College of Arts and Sciences, and Professor Pat Artz, also of our College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Nabavi is a native of Iran and has many close personal contacts in Iran today. Professor Eggleton is Chief of Partner Nation Intelligence Education in Stuttgart, Germany with a specialty in counterterrorism and peacekeeping operations. Professor Artz teaches an interdisciplinary course on the Middle East for the College of Arts and Sciences.

Please feel free to bring your lunch to the Humanities Building Room 202 on Wednesday, June 24 at noon. Bring a friend. Bring a relative. Don't forget to bring a lunch. We will see you then. Questions? Please direct them to Pat Artz at pat.artz@bellevue.edu

FYI: The event also will be available on the web at http://stream.bellevue.edu/mediasite/Vi ... 1731267b36

Jun 24, 2009#191

@Li3n

Iaculus said:
@Li3n said:

Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.

Click to expand...

Maybe they aren't the most tech-savvy of regimes?

As far as I know, they don't have anything akin to the 'Great Firewall of China'. Might not be registering the 'net as a serious threat yet.

They did block many sites and there where some reports that the net slowed down to 5kb/s... i was wondering why no total shutdown, like they did in Moldova. Also, mobile phones...

Jun 24, 2009#192

Things are heating up again:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, with one witness saying security forces beat people like “animals.”

At least two trusted sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.

“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.”

“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.

Around “500 thugs” with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said.

The security forces were “”beating women madly” and “killing people like hell,” the source said.

“They beat up a woman so bad she was all bloody,” the source said in a description that underscores the growing and central role of women in the uprising.

Jun 24, 2009#193

Denbrought

Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.

Jun 24, 2009#194

Chibibar

Edrondol said:
Things are heating up again:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, with one witness saying security forces beat people like “animals.”

At least two trusted sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.

“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.”

“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.

Around “500 thugs” with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said.

The security forces were “”beating women madly” and “killing people like hell,” the source said.

“They beat up a woman so bad she was all bloody,” the source said in a description that underscores the growing and central role of women in the uprising.

Click to expand...

you know, I understand that Iran thinks the west has influence over their people's protest, but I think Iran has to look a little deeper into their own politic and see when people has more access to information and knowledge (back to education defense) your common people will be smarter and probably do not want a "despotic" leader.

It looks like the Iran Supreme body think the people want to change the government. It is not, at least from what I understand, the people just want a full recount or a revote of their president (even if it is just a sham) but that is what the Iranian want. Why not give it to the people? If the government did that, I'm sure there won't be riots in the streets. I mean Iran admit to some unaccountable votes and such.

-- Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:37 am --

Denbrought said:
Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.

Well, it is because this is an internal conflict. Anyone outside of Iran can't really interfere with this matter. It is a civil matter that needs to be handle by their government.

Jun 24, 2009#195

Denbrought said:
Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.

The hell does that mean? What choices do the world leaders have? Anything they do will make it worse! If they back the current regime they are hanging several million people out to dry. If they back the protesters and they fail to get anything done they have irrevocably ruined any ability to deal diplomatically with Iran.

People can talk shit all they want about what's going on over there, but if we act in any way it'll only get worse.

What would you have them do? Seriously.

Jun 24, 2009#196

WolfOfOdin

Ed's got a point.

Right now the West must not intervene, to do so would only make the Ayatollah's rantings seem truthful. This movement must sadly continue to be what it is, an organic, Iranian-grown movement.

Jun 24, 2009#197

Laurelai

That's what irritates the bugfuck outta me with the GOP nagging Obama to back Mousavi. Wtf good do they think *that* will do?? The minute the U.S. makes any opinion known, the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad will immediately wrap themselves in their flag and point fingers at the Devil West and people will rally to them. Let the situation implode as it will and then deal with the pieces left- no way in hell we should be sticking our noses in right now.

Jun 24, 2009#198

Denbrought

Edrondol said:
Denbrought said:

Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.

Click to expand...

The hell does that mean? What choices do the world leaders have? Anything they do will make it worse! If they back the current regime they are hanging several million people out to dry. If they back the protesters and they fail to get anything done they have irrevocably ruined any ability to deal diplomatically with Iran.

People can talk shit all they want about what's going on over there, but if we act in any way it'll only get worse.

What would you have them do? Seriously.

Whoaaaaah, calm down. Didn't you read what I said? I *don't* care what they decide, I'm just amused at their declarations and current predicament. Me saying "Hahah, that's a funny trainwreck to watch" doesn't imply "Bah, I would surely prevent this accident if given power."

Jun 24, 2009#199

Fair enough, Den. :goes off looking for other fights to pick:

Jun 24, 2009#200

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
Edrondol said:

Denbrought said:

Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.

Click to expand...

The hell does that mean? What choices do the world leaders have? Anything they do will make it worse! If they back the current regime they are hanging several million people out to dry. If they back the protesters and they fail to get anything done they have irrevocably ruined any ability to deal diplomatically with Iran.

People can talk shit all they want about what's going on over there, but if we act in any way it'll only get worse.

What would you have them do? Seriously.

Click to expand...

Whoaaaaah, calm down. Didn't you read what I said? I *don't* care what they decide, I'm just amused at their declarations and current predicament. Me saying "Hahah, that's a funny trainwreck to watch" doesn't imply "Bah, I would surely prevent this accident if given power."

I guess I misread your words (like many have done to mine hehe...) You think it is hilarious, but I think it is serious. It is important that NONE of the country directly or indirectly interfere with Iran's INTERNAL issues. I do like President Obama's stance that to let Iran handle their own situation. Why back Mousavi? It is totally pointless IMO since the Supreme leader is well... Supreme. The president of Iran is just a puppet consider the Cleric Grand Council (12 of them) and Supreme leader can "veto" any decision the president can make (hence Supreme Leader title)

It is internal conflict and thus let Iran government handle it. Why give fuel to them to rally against "the West?" I'm sure Iranian Government is trying to spin this so they can continue their nuclear goals without opposition. If they can blame the west for their people's death, the other will rally behind them and Iran will be worst off (IMO)

Jun 24, 2009#201

JCM

The Iranian embassy is not accepting visitors here in Brazil, and have put extra guards inf ront of it.
How´s it over there?

Jun 24, 2009#202

WolfOfOdin

Technically, we don't have an embassy for Iran in the US, they more or less work out of Pakistan's under the Iranian Interests section so.....yeah

Jun 24, 2009#203

Denbrought

I heard they've thrown out of the country a few british ambassadors, guessing they will do the same with other countries--and they will reciprocate?

Jun 24, 2009#204

MindDetective

GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.

Jun 24, 2009#205

Chibibar

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -election/

Here is another spin on it.

I am not sure what is the newspeople are trying to do. There are separate goals in this issue.

1. The U.N. is trying to deter Iran to develop nuclear weapon program. (hence the letter)
2. Iranian people protest the election result thinking it is a fraud.

I see it as two separate issue and not relate to each other. The U.S. does not want to ruin the chance of talking Iran out of its nuclear weapon program (or research that can lead to it) so U.S. is staying out of the Iran protest. Obama is just condeming the action of oppression not the government. I know it is a fine line, but I see it as two separate issues.

Jun 24, 2009#206

WolfOfOdin

Denbrought said:
I heard they've thrown out of the country a few british ambassadors, guessing they will do the same with other countries--and they will reciprocate?

They've already expelled Britain's ambassadors, which prompted Britain ousting the Iranian ones.

Jun 24, 2009#207

Jay

Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.

Jun 24, 2009#208

Chibibar

WolfOfOdin said:
Denbrought said:

I heard they've thrown out of the country a few british ambassadors, guessing they will do the same with other countries--and they will reciprocate?

Click to expand...

They've already expelled Britain's ambassadors, which prompted Britain ousting the Iranian ones.

Eye for an Eye.

Backstory: The British government originally brought back the extended family of those diplomat as a safety measure since the family member can't go out due to violence against Britain. So Iran boot out British Ambassadors and British boot Iran's ambassador in return.

Jun 24, 2009#209

Laurelai

SeriousJay said:
Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.

Most likely just wrong place, wrong time

Jun 24, 2009#210

Denbrought

SeriousJay said:
Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.

She was shot down by the government, if they didn't label her terrorist it would be as good as accepting they weren't entitled to kill her, and that's not wise.

Jun 24, 2009#211

WolfOfOdin

Denbrought said:
SeriousJay said:

Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.

Click to expand...

She was shot down by the government, if they didn't label her terrorist it would be as good as accepting they weren't entitled to kill her, and that's not wise.

The worst is that they're denying her any type of memorial service.....and the government is burying all the people killed in graves set aside, the bodies taken by the government.

Jun 24, 2009#212

Denbrought

WolfOfOdin said:
Denbrought said:

SeriousJay said:

Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.

Click to expand...

She was shot down by the government, if they didn't label her terrorist it would be as good as accepting they weren't entitled to kill her, and that's not wise.

Click to expand...

The worst is that they're denying her any type of memorial service.....and the government is burying all the people killed in graves set aside, the bodies taken by the government.

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Jun 24, 2009#213

JCM

MindDetective said:
GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.

Gasbandit?

Anyway, fuck Brazil and our neutrality, which means even if Iran´s president is a pedophile who eats roasted babies and kittens for dinner while masturbation over the pope, we still will allow Iran to have its embassies and not do anything.

Jun 24, 2009#214

Espy

Denbrought said:
Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Jun 24, 2009#215

Denbrought

Espy said:
Denbrought said:

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Click to expand...

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

Jun 24, 2009#216

B

bhamv2

Denbrought said:
Espy said:

Denbrought said:

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Click to expand...

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

Do you mean people who have been deemed terrorists in Spain aren't even allowed a funeral? If so, I agree that's a bit much. But if it's just that the terrorist acts etc of the person aren't allowed to be publicly lauded, then there isn't really anything wrong with that.

Hmm, now that I've typed it out, it seems there's a rather large gap between those two options.

Jun 24, 2009#217

Denbrought

bhamv2 said:
Denbrought said:

Espy said:

Denbrought said:

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Click to expand...

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

Click to expand...

Do you mean people who have been deemed terrorists in Spain aren't even allowed a funeral? If so, I agree that's a bit much. But if it's just that the terrorist acts etc of the person aren't allowed to be publicly lauded, then there isn't really anything wrong with that.

Hmm, now that I've typed it out, it seems there's a rather large gap between those two options.

It's more of a legal witch hunt syndrome. Unless you cry out loud that you are enraged at their mere existence and spend a copious amount of time and effort in demonstrating so, you'll be labelled antidemocratic or somesuch (and that leads to whole political parties being outlawed, people being harassed, etc). I'll look it up later but iirc we do have laws against honouring the memory of such people.

But hey, it's also illegal to burn a picture of the king, so what do I know.

Jun 24, 2009#218

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
Espy said:

Denbrought said:

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Click to expand...

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

So remembering a person (basically is what memorial is about, remember the deed of the person more or less) a drunk driver = terrorist?

edit: I don't think we should "idolize" i.e. memorial of a terrorist, but refuse them to be buried is a different matter I think.

Jun 24, 2009#219

JCM

Denbrought said:
bhamv2 said:

Denbrought said:

Espy said:

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

Click to expand...

Do you mean people who have been deemed terrorists in Spain aren't even allowed a funeral? If so, I agree that's a bit much. But if it's just that the terrorist acts etc of the person aren't allowed to be publicly lauded, then there isn't really anything wrong with that.

Hmm, now that I've typed it out, it seems there's a rather large gap between those two options.

Click to expand...

It's more of a legal witch hunt syndrome. Unless you cry out loud that you are enraged at their mere existence and spend a copious amount of time and effort in demonstrating so, you'll be labelled antidemocratic or somesuch (and that leads to whole political parties being outlawed, people being harassed, etc). I'll look it up later but iirc we do have laws against honouring the memory of such people.

But hey, it's also illegal to burn a picture of the king, so what do I know.

Not to mention that every other year, some terrorist group suddenly becomes a freedom fighter in the eyes of the West (IRA for example), and some freedom fighters the West supports are cast as terrorist (the Taliban, post-Sept 11)

Jun 24, 2009#220

Espy

Denbrought said:
Espy said:

Denbrought said:

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Click to expand...

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

How would that go...

"Bob was a good guy, let's remember him for his 9-5 job at the convenience store back in 88, the macaroni art he made for his mom in 79 and the 32 schoolchildren he killed when he blew himself up, the families who have been torn apart, the bus driver who was literally torn in half by the bomb blast."
Yeah... I agree. They should be memorialized as long as we can be honest.

Jun 24, 2009#221

Denbrought

Espy said:
Denbrought said:

Espy said:

Denbrought said:

Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).

Click to expand...

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

Click to expand...

How would that go...

"Bob was a good guy, let's remember him for his 9-5 job at the convenience store back in 88, the macaroni art he made for his mom in 79 and the 32 schoolchildren he killed when he blew himself up, the families who have been torn apart, the bus driver who was literally torn in half by the bomb blast."
Yeah... I agree. They should be memorialized as long as we can be honest.

People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.

Jun 24, 2009#222

sixpackshaker

Denbrought said:
People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.

Strapping dynamite to your chest is not an error. It is an act of volition. The group that the terrorist belongs to will use the occasion to walk down the streets, wave propaganda, and tell everyone what a good boy he was in killing a bunch of school children.

Jun 24, 2009#223

Denbrought

sixpackshaker said:
Denbrought said:

People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.

Click to expand...

Strapping dynamite to your chest is not an error. It is an act of volition. The group that the terrorist belongs to will use the occasion to walk down the streets, wave propaganda, and tell everyone what a good boy he was in killing a bunch of school children.

So you believe people are not capable of errors of judgement? Oh man, how wonderful the world you live in must be. Sorry but I'll keep on believing that most people, to not say all, go on their lives misled and are tantamount to little children. So I'm not judgemental after they're dead.

Jun 24, 2009#224

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
sixpackshaker said:

Denbrought said:

People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.

Click to expand...

Strapping dynamite to your chest is not an error. It is an act of volition. The group that the terrorist belongs to will use the occasion to walk down the streets, wave propaganda, and tell everyone what a good boy he was in killing a bunch of school children.

Click to expand...

So you believe people are not capable of errors of judgement? Oh man, how wonderful the world you live in must be. Sorry but I'll keep on believing that most people, to not say all, go on their lives misled and are tantamount to little children. So I'm not judgemental after they're dead.

People ARE capable of error in judgment, but there is a fine line where you cross it. Lets say you want to blow up your school and you decide to threat first, that is error in judgment, but if you plan it for months even YEARS and eventually go with it, that is no longer an error in judgment.

Jun 24, 2009#225

Denbrought

Given enough misguidance and delusion, a man is capable of going to great lengths to be wrong.

Jun 24, 2009#226

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
Given enough misguidance and delusion, a man is capable of going to great lengths to be wrong.

Then it is no longer error in judgment.

Given in any society even if the rest of the population maybe "brain wash" (like China since it is only reference I can make from experience) there are some people who rise above the delusion and misguidance and make the right decision on their own. That is what Free will is all about. Sure you can blindly follow someone, but you chose to do so cause you don't choose to think for yourself. It is a choice. It is an act that YOU do. I am not sure on the fact on these suicide bombers, but most of them are volunteer if I read it correct cause they believe in something. They believe that killing everyone else who doesn't follow them is a good thing. Many religion in the past did thought the same thing but has grown past that (like the Crusade) because genocide is a bad thing (well killing people is just bad overall)

Jun 24, 2009#227

Denbrought

I'm not getting you. Are you saying that just because it's a person's decision it automatically is their path to trace, and it marks their worth? I believe that a person's only quality is their existence and, once dead, their having existed. Deeds and crimes are of little importance once you're gone, might as well accept that and don't judge those that can't defend their footsteps.

Jun 24, 2009#228

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
I'm not getting you. Are you saying that just because it's a person's decision it automatically is their path to trace, and it marks their worth? I believe that a person's only quality is their existence and, once dead, their having existed. Deeds and crimes are of little importance once you're gone, might as well accept that and don't judge those that can't defend their footsteps.

that is how it is in almost all society.

How do you judge your worth? how does other judge you? by your action, by your deeds. Even in most holy book (any really) are judge by your action, your decisions, your deed in life.

I have lost a few friends and relatives and all their memorial service reflect their deeds, action and kind of person they once was and we cherish that.

Some crime can be forgiven, but some crime last a lifetime and beyond. If that crime is genocide (like Hitler), he shouldn't be idolize and worship (like some white supremist do) cause what he did was bad. He made that choice and made other people follow that idealism.

Memorial service is a service to reflect the memory of the person. We are talking about a memorial for a person. If a person is just going to buried and forgotten I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem people "memorize" (I think that is a good word) a person who commit nothing but bad deeds in their live and destroy lives of many (one, ten, hundred, thousands)

Jun 24, 2009#229

Denbrought

And that's why it's my opinion and not yours. I'm explaining myself, not trying to convert you :tongue:

Jun 24, 2009#230

MindDetective

Why does a person automatically deserve a memorial?

Jun 24, 2009#231

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
And that's why it's my opinion and not yours. I'm explaining myself, not trying to convert you :tongue:

Well I am trying to understand that, in your view, everyone should have a memorial? or everyone should have the right be buried? (I think what spark this debate is Spain will not allow memorial of terrorist, I wasn't sure about the bury part)

Jun 24, 2009#232

Denbrought

It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.

Jun 24, 2009#233

Espy

Denbrought said:
Espy said:

Denbrought said:

Espy said:

... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.

Click to expand...

How would that go...

"Bob was a good guy, let's remember him for his 9-5 job at the convenience store back in 88, the macaroni art he made for his mom in 79 and the 32 schoolchildren he killed when he blew himself up, the families who have been torn apart, the bus driver who was literally torn in half by the bomb blast."
Yeah... I agree. They should be memorialized as long as we can be honest.

Click to expand...

People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.

...I'm speechless.

Well, except for that.
And this.
And this.
Dammit.

Jun 24, 2009#234

sixpackshaker

Denbrought said:
It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.

I think that is why Spain denies the memorials for terrorists, to cut down on making heroes/villains out of these guys. Just see how out of control the funerals for terrorists get in Gaza and other places.

Jun 24, 2009#235

@Li3n

Ah, good all salting the earth... weirdly we still know about Carthage...

Jun 24, 2009#236

strawman

In before Godwin's law is invoked all over Denbought's perspective...

:rofl:

-Adam

Jun 24, 2009#237

Denbrought

sixpackshaker said:
Denbrought said:

It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.

Click to expand...

I think that is why Spain denies the memorials for terrorists, to cut down on making heroes/villains out of these guys. Just see how out of control the funerals for terrorists get in Gaza and other places.

Yet they make heroes, martyrs and the epitomes of hispanic valour of each and every one of the victims. I don't like one sided crap.

Jun 24, 2009#238

strawman

Denbrought said:
Yet they make heroes, martyrs and the epitomes of hispanic valour of each and every one of the victims. I don't like one sided crap.

Why should society provide the same benefits for one that chooses not to participate in that society? Why should they recognize someone that hates that society? What benefit does society get from allowing others to laud and honor such a person?

This is no different than putting someone in prison - if they choose not to participate in society by breaking the laws and rules, they are locked up and the rights they enjoyed are denied.

Further, they knew when they decided to be terrorists that if they died they would not be honored, so they must have accepted that outcome.

Given that they don't deserve it, and they chose not to have such honor, what argument still exists that it is a "right" they should have as a human being?

Lastly, if they are dead, then what rights do they have at all?

At best, one might argue that their living family should have to right to mourn them in whatever fashion they so desire - they may have rights that are being trampled on by the gov't, but the dead certainly have few, if any, rights, especially if they intentionally chose a path divergent from what society has deemed acceptable.

-Adam

Jun 24, 2009#239

Denbrought

Stieny, the dead victims didn't choose to be given homage ~_~ I don't argue that society shuns or stops shunning yadder yadder. I'm just saying I don't like posthumous interaction other than to acknowledge the person and for history-keeping purpouses.

Behind the game of societies we live in there's a bigger one called race, I choose to dance in that groove.

Jun 24, 2009#240

GasBandit

JCM said:
MindDetective said:

GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.

Click to expand...

Gasbandit?

Oh is THAT who those guys were? All I know is I rolled up my sleeves and grabbed these two trouble makers, threw em off the curb and said "Listen here, pally! I..."

Oh wait, I think he meant Great Britain.

Jun 24, 2009#241

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
JCM said:

MindDetective said:

GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.

Click to expand...

Gasbandit?

Click to expand...

Oh is THAT who those guys were? All I know is I rolled up my sleeves and grabbed these two trouble makers, threw em off the curb and said "Listen here, pally! I..."

Oh wait, I think he meant Great Britain.

Or any of these: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/GB

Jun 24, 2009#242

@Li3n

stienman said:
This is no different than putting someone in prison - if they choose not to participate in society by breaking the laws and rules, they are locked up and the rights they enjoyed are denied.

Like the right to be Spanish even if you don't want to?!

And unless the government is providing the funeral this is denying them a right some might consider basic. (that's why they don;t torture people in jails anymore).

Further, they knew when they decided to be terrorists that if they died they would not be honored, so they must have accepted that outcome.

And that's where you proven that you haven't even tried to think why ppl would blow themselves up...

Jun 24, 2009#243

strawman

@Li3n said:
stienman said:

This is no different than putting someone in prison - if they choose not to participate in society by breaking the laws and rules, they are locked up and the rights they enjoyed are denied.

Click to expand...

Like the right to be Spanish even if you don't want to?!

I don't understand what you mean by this. My best guess is that you believe that the right to be spanish is denied to dead terrorists? Sorry if I misunderstand...

@Li3n said:
And unless the government is providing the funeral this is denying them a right some might consider basic. (that's why they don;t torture people in jails anymore).

Yes, some people believe that burials and memorial services should be basic rights fundamental to human beings.

Some don't.

Participate in your political process if you believe this should be changed, and see if you can get society as a whole to agree with you.

@Li3n said:
Further, they knew when they decided to be terrorists that if they died they would not be honored, so they must have accepted that outcome.

Click to expand...

And that's where you proven that you haven't even tried to think why ppl would blow themselves up...

They blow themselves up to KILL other innocent human beings to get attention.

They may think their cause is greater than the life of an uninvolved child, and therefore they feel it's ok to blow up a bus full of children.

There are perishingly few causes that are worth that cost.

Please tell me the causes that you believe are worth far more than a few uninvolved human beings - who had rights that the terrorist chose to remove from them. Then explain to me how killing these people will, with certainty, move the cause forward significantly.

Now give me some examples where "revolutionaries" targeted innocent civilians, and succeeded primarily due to the murders they caused.

-Adam

Jun 24, 2009#244

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
sixpackshaker said:

Denbrought said:

It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.

Click to expand...

I think that is why Spain denies the memorials for terrorists, to cut down on making heroes/villains out of these guys. Just see how out of control the funerals for terrorists get in Gaza and other places.

Click to expand...

Yet they make heroes, martyrs and the epitomes of hispanic valour of each and every one of the victims. I don't like one sided crap.

Ah. I understand now. I think.

I can see that you don't agree the one sided view on the homage of the dead. I don't think it is FOR the dead per se. It is for the living. People are funny creature. People need something to look up to. A person who lived a good life and show GOOD example of what a "good" person should be or at least did a good deed (or several like Mother Theresa) to set example of other living people to follow it. Technically, the person is dead. The dead itself probably doesn't really care if they have a memorial or not. It is the living. The society closure or acceptance.

The memorial service is to show the good person or what people should follow. Restricting the "celebration" for the "bad" people (i.e. Terrorist) so they are not "worship" or "idolize" like the good people.

That is what I see.

Jun 24, 2009#245

Denbrought

Yes, and it irks me. But eh, that's like you not liking a type of food, personal preferences 'n all.

Jun 24, 2009#246

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
Yes, and it irks me. But eh, that's like you not liking a type of food, personal preferences 'n all.

I think it is more than that.

It is human nature to do good or at least have idols/leaders. We (the human race) always want to strive to be a better person. Now of course the definition of a "better person" differ in each culture.

Most of the civilize culture believe of helping others regardless of race, creed, religious belief etc etc and do the best as you can (Mother Theresa, Ghandi is a good example)

and some believe that killing other people in the name of their god by blowing yourself up and get 40 virgins after your dead is a good deed which majority of the society doesn't believe in.

BUT, I think it is boils down what you believe. I presume that you don't have any heroes who are dead? if you do, you do give them a "memorial" indirect way, by respecting them for what they did and try to strive similar deeds or you honor them enough to be one of your "ideal" person to become.

If you don't have any dead heroes, then I can totally understand

my hero is Leonardo Da Vinci since he is an innovator, scientist, scholar, and artist (plus many more) and I do try to be like him in a way that I experiment with everything that is good in life (i.e. I don't go out there and kill people, but I do try to be a good person and help people, write, dabble in art, and learn all I can)

Jun 24, 2009#247

Denbrought

I have not one person to look up to, alive or dead, at least not one that I have found out about. It kind of comes included in my whole egocentric and ethnocentric package.

Jun 24, 2009#248

@Li3n

stienman said:
I don't understand what you mean by this. My best guess is that you believe that the right to be spanish is denied to dead terrorists? Sorry if I misunderstand...

ETA? Basque nationalists?! Any of this ring a bell?

stienman said:
Yes, some people believe that burials and memorial services should be basic rights fundamental to human beings.

Some don't.

Participate in your political process if you believe this should be changed, and see if you can get society as a whole to agree with you.

Most change in human history has hardly won by political process... or even political process alone...

But i see you got the point.

stienman said:
They blow themselves up to KILL other innocent human beings to get attention.

They may think their cause is greater than the life of an uninvolved child, and therefore they feel it's ok to blow up a bus full of children.

There are perishingly few causes that are worth that cost.

Please tell me the causes that you believe are worth far more than a few uninvolved human beings - who had rights that the terrorist chose to remove from them. Then explain to me how killing these people will, with certainty, move the cause forward significantly.

Now give me some examples where "revolutionaries" targeted innocent civilians, and succeeded primarily due to the murders they caused.

-Adam

As you said before, some do, some don't... the idea was that it's unlikely that they believed they where choosing not to be honoured... martyrdom and all that... what your own morals tell you about what they did won't influence them much.

And asking for definitive proof that terrorism works?! Yeah, i think i'll stay away from that one...

Jun 24, 2009#249

Chibibar

Denbrought said:
I have not one person to look up to, alive or dead, at least not one that I have found out about. It kind of comes included in my whole egocentric and ethnocentric package.

Then now I totally understand where you are coming from. By your view, I agree that it is silly to praise or shun the dead since it serves no purpose afterwards (by your view and I'm not making fun of you. I'm understanding a little more on how other think)

Jun 24, 2009#250

AshburnerX

The only instance of Terrorism that I'd say has ever worked in a world changing way... is the American Revolution.

Surprised? Think about it from a British point of view: A bunch of unruly hicks are making a mess of British owned businesses by destroying their goods and harassing their owners. They are amassing rag tag armies to fight against the legitimate rulers in the area. They are murdering British soldiers and citizens in an attempt to upset the power balance in the region.

Sure sounds like Terrorism to me. You could probably use similar examples like the charging of the Bastille in France too.

Jun 24, 2009#251

Chibibar

AshburnerX said:
The only instance of Terrorism that I'd say has ever worked in a world changing way... is the American Revolution.

Surprised? Think about it from a British point of view: A bunch of unruly hicks are making a mess of British owned businesses by destroying their goods and harassing their owners. They are amassing rag tag armies to fight against the legitimate rulers in the area. They are murdering British soldiers and citizens in an attempt to upset the power balance in the region.

Sure sounds like Terrorism to me. You could probably use similar examples like the charging of the Bastille in France too.

heh, you sound like my history teacher. It is a form of terrorism back then, but does the act go further than that? what cause the terrorism?

Now of course, the "modern" society never let the terrorism finish their work, so I'm not sure if these new terrorism people are trying to establish a new government or just terror people?

Jun 24, 2009#252

AshburnerX

Isn't the self proclaimed goal of Al Quada (I know I spelled it wrong) to establish a world wide Islamic State? Terrorists rarely do things for no reason... it's usually in response to a local problem.

Jun 24, 2009#253

Chibibar

AshburnerX said:
Isn't the self proclaimed goal of Al Quada (I know I spelled it wrong) to establish a world wide Islamic State? Terrorists rarely do things for no reason... it's usually in response to a local problem.

possible, but is that type of world better for the people? do the countries of Al Quada have the same freedom we (as in U.S. and Europe) possess right now? Do women have equal rights? do they believe that the nation should be equal across the board?

The "new world" only consist of them (the Al Quada) be the top supreme leader of everyone while everyone else is their slave, then it might be a good world to live in.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while both post above are terrorist acts, but the ultimate goal differ by a huge margin.

Jun 24, 2009#254

Chummer

One mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary.

Traitor or Liberator?

Crusader or Invader?

Etc

It's all a matter of who wins and gets to write the history books.

If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

Jun 24, 2009#255

Papillon

AshburnerX said:
The only instance of Terrorism that I'd say has ever worked in a world changing way... is the American Revolution.

and the French Revolution, the Revolt of the Maccabees, the French Resistance in WWII, ...

Jun 24, 2009#256

Chibibar

Chummer said:
One mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary.

Traitor or Liberator?

Crusader or Invader?

Etc

It's all a matter of who wins and gets to write the history books.

If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

This is true. The victor writes the history. If Hitler won the war, many country would be speaking German.

Jun 24, 2009#257

Kitty Sinatra

Denbrought, do you mean that funerals for terrorists aren't permitted? If that's the case I wholly agree with your position that that doesn't seem right. Their family deserves to hold that funeral, to say goodbye. That's who a funeral is for, anyway.

As an aside, I dislike the terrorist label as it's been applied so often now. The Western world seems to be using the word as though we're actually terrified by their acts. We seem really pathetic about it right now.

Jun 24, 2009#258

tegid

Wait a minute...

Are you (Den) COMPLETELY sure they aren't allowed to have a funeral? I thought they were...

Public acts of remembrance that laud them as 'freedom fighters' or whatever are forbidden, and it is not such a bad thing, because they're done to make heroes out of these people. Dammit, heroes because they killed people! I don't care why, or for who's freedom they thought they were fighting (and I say 'thought' because usually they were just making some sonovabitch richer than he already is).

Of course, I'm with you that the anti-terrorist, anti-nationalistic attitude is pretty much terrible in that it's tooo exagerated. And hypocritical, since it's only anti-nationalistic when it isn't Spanish nationalism we're talking about. But the situation in Spain is already skewed: you don't see politicians of Baskish parties [strike:3bzla7oi]die[/strike:3bzla7oi] get killed every other day, and it's not the same situation when a politician who has never killed someone dies than when a fucking terrorist who has does.
(this paragraph may be pretty much unreadable. I hope Den, having the context and everything, will be able to understand it)

Of course, I think it is very, very, VERY exaggerated, antidemocratical and hypocritical to outlaw politic parties only because they don't actively condemn terrorism (specially given that one of the major spanish political parties didn't condemn Franco's dictatorship until about 5 years ago).

(Oh god... A gazillion posts since I clicked 'reply'... I'm so NOT gonna read all of them)

Jun 24, 2009#259

AshburnerX

Chummer said:
If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.

Papillon said:
and the French Revolution, the Revolt of the Maccabees, the French Resistance in WWII, ...

To be fair, I did mention the charging of the Bastille, which was the defining moment of the French Revolution. And French Resistance in WWII wouldn't technically be considered Terrorism because they were fighting against a hostile invasion force, not the legitimate governing body. They would be considered Insurgents, like the various militia groups the US is fighting in Iraq.

I'm not familiar with the Revolt of the Maccabees... enlighten me?

Jun 24, 2009#260

Denbrought

tegid said:
Wait a minute...

Are you (Den) COMPLETELY sure they aren't allowed to have a funeral? I thought they were...

Public acts of remembrance that laud them as 'freedom fighters' or whatever are forbidden, and it is not such a bad thing, because they're done to make heroes out of these people. Dammit, heroes because they killed people! I don't care why, or for who's freedom they thought they were fighting (and I say 'thought' because usually they were just making some sonovabitch richer than he already is).

Of course, I'm with you that the anti-terrorist, anti-nationalistic attitude is pretty much terrible in that it's tooo exagerated. And hypocritical, since it's only anti-nationalistic when it isn't Spanish nationalism we're talking about. But the situation in Spain is already skewed: you don't see politicians of Baskish parties [strike:2sadkavu]die[/strike:2sadkavu] get killed every other day, and it's not the same situation when a politician who has never killed someone dies than when a fucking terrorist who has does.
(this paragraph may be pretty much unreadable. I hope Den, having the context and everything, will be able to understand it)

Of course, I think it is very, very, VERY exaggerated, antidemocratical and hypocritical to outlaw politic parties only because they don't actively condemn terrorism (specially given that one of the major spanish political parties didn't condemn Franco's dictatorship until about 5 years ago).

(Oh god... A gazillion posts since I clicked 'reply'... I'm so NOT gonna read all of them)

Firstly, I'm talking about a dignified passing, and right now convicted terrorists aren't even respected in life (ex post facto laws have been passed against them, just to put one of a myriad of examples), but then again I'm not only disgusted by the way the law is set up but how the spaniard society plays the accomplice in all of this. Yes they're killing people, yes that's not nice, but once dead they're as dead as you or me will be. So what if someone wants to call them freedom fighters? It's just matter of then expressing your own opinion and doing so in bigger numbers.
Shit, people today still call Franco the greatest thing to happen to Spain in the last centuries, and right they should be able to. I'd much rather we had a liberty of speech closer to that which americans enjoy.

On this, quick note, it's perfectly democratic to parade around lauding the great deeds that Franco performed in life, but don't you dare laud the work of ETA lest you incur the wrath of ze law.

tegid, I'mma look up some facts later (instead of the factoids I'm drawing from tired memory) and see what's what.

Jun 24, 2009#261

tegid

Denbrought said:
On this, quick note, it's perfectly democratic to parade around lauding the great deeds that Franco performed in life, but don't you dare laud the work of ETA lest you incur the wrath of ze law.

Well, I'd say legal instead of democratic. But yeah, nitpicking aside, this is something I hate with passion. One thing or the other. Everybody or nobody. But hell, not this hypocritical stance. :S

Jun 24, 2009#262

Twitch

AshburnerX said:
Chummer said:

If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

Click to expand...

I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.

I don't think that's right.

Jun 24, 2009#263

Kitty Sinatra

Twitch said:
AshburnerX said:

Chummer said:

If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

Click to expand...

I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's right.

Certainly not. The term is "Loyalist"

Jun 24, 2009#264

Papillon

AshburnerX said:
Chummer said:

If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

Click to expand...

I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.

Papillon said:

and the French Revolution, the Revolt of the Maccabees, the French Resistance in WWII, ...

Click to expand...

To be fair, I did mention the charging of the Bastille, which was the defining moment of the French Revolution. And French Resistance in WWII wouldn't technically be considered Terrorism because they were fighting against a hostile invasion force, not the legitimate governing body. They would be considered Insurgents, like the various militia groups the US is fighting in Iraq.

One could argue that the Vichy government was the legitimate French government at the time, even though they were collaborating with the Germans, so in a sense the French Resistance was resisting the legitimate government and a hostile invasion at the same time.

AshburnerX said:
I'm not familiar with the Revolt of the Maccabees... enlighten me?

The Revolt of the Maccabees was a revolt in present day Israel around 160 BC, where a group of revolutionaries lead by the Maccabee brothers were able to gain independence from the Greeks for about a hundred years before they were conquered by the Romans. I don't know much more than that.

Jun 26, 2009#265

JCM

Chummer said:
One mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary.

Traitor or Liberator?

Crusader or Invader?

Etc

It's all a matter of who wins and gets to write the history books.

If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.

Pretty much this.

Jul 3, 2009#266

Scarlet Varlet

U2 - Barcelona, July 2 @ Camp Nou, Sunday Bloody Sunday - dedicated to the Iranian Protest.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR8d1qM-GqE:3l7py3ll][/youtube:3l7py3ll]

Jul 5, 2009#267

@Li3n

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8134904.stm

Jul 5, 2009#268

Scarlet Varlet

@Li3n said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8134904.stm

Something not quite right in all this. It's such an obviously rigged election and the government is acting like the anger and frustration of the people is the fault of outsiders.

In some ways it reminds me of the Soviet Union and in others the rise of Nazi Party in Germany. Not particularly good to be an Iranian in Iran these days.

Jul 6, 2009#269

@Li3n

Scarlet Varlet said:
Something not quite right in all this. It's such an obviously rigged election and the government is acting like the anger and frustration of the people is the fault of outsiders.

Which is standard operating procedure... i mean it's not like they can admit it's their fault.

At least the people aren't quitting the protests just because of the passage of time...

Jul 6, 2009#270

@Li3n

Hey look, China is joining the party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8135203.stm

Jul 6, 2009#271

sixpackshaker

@Li3n said:
Hey look, China is joining the party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8135203.stm

:blue: I've watched the news several times this weekend, and no mention of China... 2 weeks on and Micheal Jackson's death still leads news coverage.

Jul 6, 2009#272

@Li3n

Hmmm... at first i thought that the uighurs got fed up, but maybe this is just China taking advantage of MJ's death to oppress some people on the down low... DUN DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNN....

Forums