Telephones Cut Off, Mousavi Arrested, Rafsanjani Resigns

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby jingofever » Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:44 pm

Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities:

Iran's Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.

The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.

"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such an irregularity could be over 3 million and the council could, at the request of the candidates, re-count the affected ballot boxes, "it has yet to be determined whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.

Three of the four candidates contesting in last Friday's presidential election cried foul, once the Interior Ministry announced the results - according to which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with almost two-thirds of the vote.

Rezaei, along with Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, reported more than 646 'irregularities' in the electoral process and submitted their complaints to the body responsible for overseeing the election -- the Guardian Council.

Mousavi and Karroubi have called on the council to nullify Friday's vote and hold the election anew. This is while President Ahmadinejad and his Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli have rejected any possibility of fraud, saying that the election was free and fair.


And Col. Quisp had a post two minutes before my post moved the thread to the next page. I think posts are often missed in these situations. Just a heads up.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:14 pm

Streets of Tehran left empty as protesters wait in vain for sign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... -crackdown

During the 1979 revolution they had days of mourning, all day long, for days. A strike by another name.
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:58 pm

It is one thing to defend the Iranian state from outside assault and interference, all necessary and laudable, one thing to recognize the occasional political usefulness of the Iranian state on the world's stage, which is real enough if often exaggerated, one thing to admit that the replacement of the Shah's kingdom of thieves with the Islamic Republic was a positive historical development with real material gains for the Iranian working class, and quite another thing to cheer the crackdown on dissent and to root for state violence against a mass movement of people demanding basic civil and political rights, especially rights that our Gucci anti-imperialists enjoy in their safe(r) abodes. Furthermore, in so far as divide-and-rule is the lifeblood of imperialism, the pitting against each other of different forms of oppression, the demand that we chose exclusively, whether one is pro-Palestinian OR pro-civil rights in Iran, but not both, whether one is against Islamophobia OR for womens' rights, but not both, and so forth, in short, imposing whichever struggle we fancy to be more important on others and demanding that they put their demands for liberation on hold, is not anti-imperialist. On the contrary, it deepens the divisions on the basis of which imperialism flourishes.

As outside observers it is not our role to decide between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Nor it is our role to certify or decertify the elections or solve the legitimation crisis of the Iranian state. It is reasonably clear that much of the popular support behind Ahmadinejad is based on legitimate concerns and claims, including fears that Mousawi wished to deepen exploitation and collaborate with the West. It should be equally clear that the millions of working people who are now braving state violence in the streets also have legitimate concerns and claims, including true self-determination, which is not only freedom from U.S. imperialism, but also freedom from state violence and basic civil rights, including the right to form independent trade unions and parties that militate for real economic transformation and not just palliative populism.

As outside observers, we have two obligations now. First, we need to keep our own states from using the events in Iran to advance imperialist stratagems. But we also need to show solidarity with the struggle for greater freedom in Iran. And not much is demanded from us. All that is asked for is, as Hamid Dabashi phrases it,the active solidarity of ordinary people around the globe to be a witness to their struggles and demand from their media an accurate and comprehensive representation of their movement (Hamid Dabashi)

All we are asked for is to respect the Iranian people, all of them, both those who voted for Ahmadinejad and those who didn't, and not to confuse their voice and their interests with that of either their unelected ruling clique or the foreign "support" that seek to exploit them.

Is that too much to ask from the radical left?

http://tinyurl.com/neyc9v

My only complaint, does this only apply to the radical left?
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:57 am

Justin:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/21/iran’s-green-revolution-made-in-america/
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ben D » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:47 am

sunny wrote:Once again, I feel like a Kremlinologist, trying to decipher the US's true strategy/desires here. I can't figure out if they actually want Mousavi installed so the economy will be 'liberalized' to let Western corporations come in and rape resources in peace, or if they want Ahmadinejad to remain so that not only can he continue being "Hitler", but the crisis and turmoil has the potential to spiral out of control to the point US/Israel intervention is called for. Maybe it's something in between, something I can't even imagine.


The question that has also come to my mind is, is the potential for this crisis and turmoil to spiral out of control to the point US/Israel intervention is called for, being primed on purpose to do exactly that, unleash war on Iran?

And there also appears to be a trigger presently primed for war with Nth. Korea if and when it was considered appropriate.
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Sweejak » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:28 am

"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.

According to the Guardian Council spokesman, summering areas and places like district one and three in Tehran are not separable.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such issues could be over 3 million and the council could, at the request of the candidates, re-count the affected ballot boxes, "it has yet to be determined whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.

Three of the four candidates contesting in last Friday's presidential election cried foul, once the Interior Ministry announced the results - according to which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with almost two-thirds of the vote.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm? ... =351020101
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:33 am

Interesting article by Thierry Meissan (??!) -- all links in original:

From Mossadegh to Ahmadinejad
The CIA and the Iranian experiment

by Thierry Meyssan


The news of alleged election fraud has spread through Tehran like wildfire, pitching ayatollah Rafsanjani’s supporters against ayatollah Khamenei’s in street confrontations. This chaotic situation is secretly stirred by the CIA which has been spreading confusion by flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages. Thierry Meyssan recounts this psychological warfare experiment.


19 June 2009

From
Beirut (Lebanon)



In March 2000, the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted that the Eisenhower administration organized a regime change in 1953 in Iran and that this historical event explained the current hostility of Iranians towards the United States. Last week, during the speech he addressed to Muslims in Cairo, President Obama officially recognized that « in the midst of the cold war the United States played a role in the toppling of a democratically elected Iranian government » [1].

At the time, Iran was controlled by a puppet monarchy headed by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He had been placed on the throne by the British who forced his father, the pro-Nazi Cossack officer Reza Pahlavi to resign. However, the Shah had to deal with a nationalist Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh, with the help of ayatollah Abou al-Qassem Kachani, nationalized the oil resources [2].

Furious, the British persuaded the United States that the Iranian dissent needed to be stopped before the country became communist. The CIA then put together Operation Ajax to overthrow Mossadegh with the help of the Shah, and to replace him with Nazi general Fazlollah Zahedi who until then was detained by the British. Zahedi is responsible for having instituted the cruelest terror regime of the time, while the Shah would cover his executions while parading for Western ‘people’ magazines.

Operation Ajax was lead by archeologist Donald Wilber, historian Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Theodore Roosevelt) and general Norman Schwartzkopf Sr. (whose son with the same name lead Operation Desert Storm). This operation remains a textbook example of subversion. The CIA came up with a scenario that gave the impression of a popular revolt when in reality it was a covert operation. The highpoint of the show was a demonstration in Tehran with 8 000 actors paid by the Agency to provide credible pictures to Western media [3].

Is History repeating itself? Washington renounced to a military attack on Iran and has dissuaded Israel to take such an initiative. In order to « change the regime », the Obama administration prefers to play the game of covert actions – less dangerous but with a more unpredictable outcome. After the Iranian presidential elections, huge demonstrations in the streets of Tehran are pitching supporters of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ali Khamenei on one side, to supporters of defeated candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on the other. The demonstrations are a sign of a profound division in the Iranian society between a nationalist proletariat and a bourgeoisie upset at being held back from economic globalization [4]. With its covert actions, Washington is trying to weigh on the events to topple the re-elected president.

Once again, Iran is an experimental field for innovative subversive methods. CIA is relying in 2009 on a new weapon: control of cell phones. Since the democratization of mobile phones, Anglo-Saxon secret services have increased their interception capability. While wired phones’ tapping requires the installation of branch circuits – and therefore local agents, tapping of mobile phones can be done remotely using the Echelon network. However, this system cannot intercept Skype mobile phones communications, which explains the success of Skype telephones in conflict areas [5]. The National Security Agency (NSA) therefore lobbied world Internet Service Providers to require their cooperation. Those who accepted have received huge retribution [6].

In countries under their occupation —Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan—, the Anglo-Saxons intercept all telephone communication, whether mobile or wired. The goal is not to obtain full transcripts of any given conversation, but to identify « social networks ». In other words, telephones are surveillance bugs which make it possible to know who anyone is in touch with. Firstly, the hope is to identify resistance networks.

Secondly, telephones make it possible to locate identified targets and «neutralize» them. This is why in February 2008, the Afghan rebels ordered various operators to stop their activity daily, from 5PM to 3AM, in order to prevent the Anglo-Saxons to follow their whereabouts. The relay antennas of those that refused to comply where destroyed [7].

On the contrary, with the exception of a telephone exchange which was accidentally hit, Israeli forces made sure not to hit telephone exchanges in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead from December 2008 to January 2009. This is a complete change in strategy. Since the Gulf War, the most prevalent strategy was colonel John A. Warden’s « five circles theory »: the bombing of telephone infrastructures was considered a strategic objective to both confuse populations and to cut communication lines between commanding centers and fighters.

Now the opposite applies: telecommunication infrastructures must be protected. During the bombings in Gaza, the operator Jawwal [8] offered additional talk time to its users – officially to help them but de facto serving Israel’s interests. Going one step further, Anglo-Saxons and Israeli secrets services developed psychological warfare methods based on an extensive use of mobile phones.

In July 2008, after the exchange of prisoners and remains between Israel and Hezbollah, robots placed tens of thousands of calls to Lebanese mobile phones. A voice speaking in Arabic was warning against participating in any resistance activity and belittled Hezbollah. The Lebanese minister of telecommunications, Jibran Bassil [9], files a complaint to the UN against this blatant violation of the country’s sovereignty [10]. Following the same approach, tens of thousands of Lebanese and Syrians received an automatic phone call in October 2008 to offer them 10 million dollars for any information leading to the location and freeing of Israeli prisoners. People interested in collaborating were invited to call a number in the UK [11].

This method has now been used in Iran to bluff the population, to spread shocking news and to channel the resulting anger.

First, SMS were sent during the night of the counting of the votes, according to which the Guardian Council of the Constitution (equivalent to a constitutional court) had informed Mir-Hossein Mousavi of his victory. After that, the announcing of the official results — the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with 64 % of cast votes — seemed like a huge fraud. However, three days earlier, M. Mousavi and his friends were considering a massive victory of M. Ahmadinejad as certain and were trying to explain it by unbalanced campaigns. Indeed the ex president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was detailing his grievances in an open letter. The US polling institutes in Iran were predicting a 20 points lead for M. Ahmadinejad over M. Mousavi [12]. M. Mousavi victory never seemed possible, even if it is probable that some fraud accentuated the margin between the two candidates.

Secondly, Iranian citizens were selected or volunteered on the Internet to chat on Facebook or to subscribe to Twitter feeds. They received information —true or false— (still via SMS) about the evolution of the political crisis and the ongoing demonstrations. These anonymous news posts were spreading news of gun fights and numerous deaths which to this day have not been confirmed. Because of an unfortunate calendar overlap, Twitter was supposed to suspend its service for a night to allow for some maintenance of its systems. The US State Department intervened to ask them to postpone it [13]. According to the New York Times, these operations contributed to spread defiance in the population [14].


Image
Messages describing death threats, police bursting into homes, etc. sent by authors who cannot be identified or located.

Simultaneously, in a new type of effort, the CIA is mobilizing anti-Iranian militants in the United States and in the United Kingdom to increase the chaos. A Practical Guide to revolution in Iran was distributed to them, which contains a number of recommendations, including:

- set Twitter accounts feeds to Tehran time zone;
- centralize messages on the following Twitter accounts @stopAhmadi, #iranelection and #gr88 ;
- official Iranian State websites should not be attacked. « Let the US military take care of it » (sic).

When applied, these recommendations make it impossible to authenticate any Twitter messages. It is impossible to know if they are being sent by witnesses of the demonstrations in Tehran or by CIA agents in Langley, and it is impossible to distinguish real from false ones. The goal is to create more and more confusion and to push Iranians to fight amongst themselves.


Army general staffs everywhere in the world are closely following the events in Tehran. They are trying to evaluate the efficiency of this new subversion method in the Iranian experimental field. Evidently, the destabilization process worked. But it is unclear if the CIA will be able to channel demonstrators to do what the Pentagon has renounced to do, and what they do not want to do themselves : to change the regime and put an end to the Islamic revolution.

[1] « Obama Speech In Cairo », Voltaire Network, 6 June 2009.

[2] « BP-Amoco, coalition pétrolière anglo-saxonne », Arthur Lepic, Voltaire Network, June 10 2004.

[3] On the 1953 coup, the reference work is All the Shah’s Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, by Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley & Sons éd (2003), 272 pp.

[4] « La société iranienne paralysée », Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 5 février 2004.

[5] « Taliban using Skype phones to dodge MI6 », Glen Owen, Mail Online, September 13 2008.

[6] « NSA offering ’billions’ for Skype eavesdrop solution », Lewis Page, The Register, February 12 2009.

[7] « Taliban Threatens Cell Towers », Noah Shachtman, Wired, February 25 2008.

[8] Jawwal belongs to PalTel, Palestinian billionaire Munib Al-Masri’s company.

[9] Jibran Bassil is one of the main leaders of the ‘Courant patriotique libre’, the nationalist party of Michel Aoun.

[10] « Freed Lebanese say they will keep fighting Israel », Associated Press, July 17 2008.

[11] The author of this article witnessed these phone calls. Also see « Strange Israeli phone calls alarm Syrians. Israeli intelligence services accused of making phone calls to Syrians in bid to recruit agents », Syria News Briefing, December 4 2008.

[12] Quoted in « Ahmadinejad won. Get over it », Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Politico, June 15 2009.

[13] « U.S. State Department speaks to Twitter over Iran », Reuters, June 16 2009.

[14] « Social Networks Spread Defiance Online », Brad Stone and Noam Cohen, The New York Times, June 15 2009.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160670.html
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:45 am

http://www.counterpunch.org/bratich06222009.html

Iran, Social Media and the Rise of Genetically Modified Grassroots Organizations

The Fog Machine

By JACK Z. BRATICH



Occasionally, an event gushes through media channels, spectacularly belying the notion that news outlets have major ideological differences. The current surge is a Green Wave, emanating from Iran. But there is more going on here than a uniform support for the anti-Ahmadinejad forces. We are witnessing something older, what media scholars have called the “technological sublime”. In this quasi-mystical sentiment, each media development brings with it a promise for a new age, even revolutionary. The twittering enthusiasm over the role of social media in the election protests has invoked this archaic link.

Let me say upfront that

1) I’m not interested in supporting Ahmadinejad’s regime nor the theocracy that would be preserved whether he or Mousavi were elected. These internecine battles within a religious state, resulting in a palace coup at best, are not my concern.

2) I don’t disagree that there are democratic aspirations circulating on the streets and in the air from Iran. Any mass mobilization of opposition will contain these and a variety of other impulses, including patient Shah-era vestiges and neoliberal/traditionalist hybrids. The point is to not mythically dissolve these differences into a wave.

3) Most importantly, I do believe that networks, technical and social, have a role to play in composing and organizing oppositions. I fully support a number of domestic cyberactivist projects, so there’s no use Luddifying me. Rather, the point is to understand the contexts and alliances that shape an event. Every network has a number of layers: it’s time to unpeel one that involves some not-so-new patterns.


We can start with a telling anecdote. State Department advisor Jared Cohen earlier this week emailed the co-founder of Twitter, requesting that they postpone a scheduled maintenance downtime. The reason? It was a critical moment for the demonstrators, and service needed to go uninterrupted. Twitter complied. The fact that a US government official is able have such pull, while not surprising, tends to get lost in a green wave of reports about social media belonging to “people power”. Who gets to place these calls and get results?

Cohen’s access should be even less surprising, given his role in State Department efforts to harness the power of social media. To wit, his role as press contact for the Alliance of Youth Movements. Launched in late 2008 with a Summit in NYC, the AYM gathered together an ensemble of media corporations, Obama consultants, social network entrepreneurs, and youth organizations, under the auspices of the State Department. Representatives came from Media Old (MTV, NBC, CNN) and New (Google and especially Facebook). The AYM produced a Field Manual and a series of How-to videos (How to Create a Grassroots Movement Using Social-Networking Sites, How to Smart Mob, How to Circumvent an Internet Proxy). The goal was to have youth leaders from around the world learn, share & discuss how to build powerful grassroots movements.

A few months ago, I wrote about this Alliance, calling it a “Genetically Modified Grassroots Organization” (GMGO). Neither wholly emerging from below (grassroots) nor purely invented by external forces (the Astroturfing done by public relations groups), these emergent groups are seeded (and their genetic code altered) to control the direction of the movement.

Through the How-to videos we are incessantly reminded about the code of this genetically modified activism: Make sure you avoid violent extremism. Respect property. Use leaders. Speak forcefully without being incendiary. Avoid obscenities and violent imagery. Use as your model Cold War Latin American anti-Communism (anti-Castro, -Chavez, -FARC).

And these are purely exports: Apparently the election of Obama means not only that social networks are electorally effective, but that they no longer need to be used for organizing within the U.S. Now it’s just time to sit back and click your social media support for sanctioned “democracy” movements elsewhere.

And in case we had doubts about whether these protests were democratic, thankfully they’ve been given an official color. Green is the shade of this season’s infowar-paint. We don’t know if Gene Sharp, the Albert Einstein Institute, or the National Endowment for Democracy (the folks who influenced other branded youth movements and color-coded oppositions such as Serbia’s Otpor and the post-Communist Oranges of Ukraine) were directly involved in Iran. But Sharp’s fingerprints (even if only via printed matter) are all over it. In any event, US ambitions of destabilizing Iran have been well publicized, reported by Seymour Hersh among others.

What would clear proof look like in an infosphere that is cloudy (perhaps deliberately so)? There is no direct evidence that the Iranian election was stolen either, but that hasn’t prevented U.S. journalists from operating as though it were so (“faith-based reporting” as Dave Lindorff calls it). Wild speculations, repeated through media channels, come easily out of what media scholar Jayson Harsin names diffuse “rumor bombs.” What are the “facts on the ground” when social media produce a bottom-up mist? In these latest infowar escapades, we need to revise our concepts: not the fog, but the fog-machine of war.

One thing is clear: cyberwar has once again taken front stage. Here traditional ambitions meet new technical developments. And there’s even an “old media” angle here. In November 2008 French authorities jailed readers and a suspected author of The Coming Insurrection for “associating with a terrorist enterprise”. The Tarnac 9, as they’ve come to be known, were accused of being inspired by the manifesto/manual, pseudonymously penned by The Invisible Committee.

The book’s recent translation into English (and last week’s smart mob prank-reading at a New York City Barnes and Noble) might be a portent of media-galvanized domestic action. Will Jared Cohen’s efforts to “counter-radicalize” foreign populations find a domestic twist? How do we distinguish among cyber-assisted youth movements? While Gene Sharp’s books are secreted into populations via well-funded sources and considered inspiration for people power, other books are deemed terrorist tracts worthy of criminalization. For some youth movements, we change our Facebook profile pics; for others, Facebook ‘em, Danno!

Immediately, the hackles are raised: “These tracts espouse violence while the Sharpies are nonviolent!” But let’s not let delude ourselves into thinking the State Department has suddenly been stricken by pacifism fever. Cyberwar is part of information war connected to broader warfare (in which State violence is not very far behind). In the big picture, networked “people power” should be nonviolent because violence belongs exclusively to the State. Nonviolence from below, violence from above. Remember that Otpor destabilized from the streets, but NATO bombs rained from the sky. Will this Green wave wash over Obama’s public reticence, resulting in an American thumbs-up to Israel’s recurring announcements about launching strikes? Which alliance-cloud is on the horizon: one that saturates the soil for the spread of anti-repressive measures everywhere or one that unleashes a torrential downpour of condensed violence?



Jack Bratich is Assistant Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University. He is also a zine librarian at ABC No Rio in New York City. This summer he will be co-teaching a course on Affect and Politics at Bluestockings Bookstore through their Popular Education program.

Related Links/Further Reading

GMGOs: Direct(ed) Action and social movement networks http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/

The Youth Movements How-To Hub http://youthmovements.howcast.com/

The Rumor Bomb:
http://flowtv.org/?p=2259

Liberating Lipsticks and Lattes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:04 pm

The following blog posting is one week old already, keep that in mind.

http://travellerwithin.blogspot.com/200 ... xpert.html

Tuesday, June 16, 2009


To You, the new Iran 'expert'

Yes, you.

Who, until this morning, thought that 'Shiraz' was just the name of a wine

Who's beaming with pride you can now write 'Ahmadinejad' without copy-and-pasting it from a news website

Who only heard of Evin prison when Roxana Saberi was there (Roxana who?)

Who changed your Facebook profile picture to a green rectangle saying "Where's my vote?" even though you don't actually vote in Iran

Who actually thinks that Mir-Hossein Mousavi is a secular
And that his election means that Iran will give up its nuclear claims
And allow you to visit Tehran for Christmas

Who joyfully makes Azadi/Tiananmen square comparisons
Who first heard of Azadi square last Sunday

Who's quick to link to articles you haven't read, debunking other articles you've barely heard of

Who has just discovered that Iran has a (quasi-)democracy, and elections, and the like

Who blinked in disbelief at the images of women - oh, they have women! and they're not in burkas! - demonstrating

Who has never heard of Rezai or Karroubi before (hint: they ran for election in a Middle-Eastern country last Friday)

Who staunchly believes that the elections have been stolen - either by ballot box stuffing, (14 million of them!) or by burning some ballots, or both (somehow?), regardless of the absence of any proof (yet)

... But who nevertheless

Has been tweeting, and re-tweeting, and polluting cyberspace with what is essentially hearsay, rumours, and unconfirmed truncated reports or falsification coming from people who actually know about the realities of Iran's political world and have an agenda:

You know nothing. Abso-fucking-lutely nothing about what happened, or is happening across Iran at the very moment. Most of us don't, actually. What we see is a tiny slice of reality, mind you, what is happening on the main squares in the big cities, under camera lenses.


I hear your objection though:

Yes, you are entitled to an opinion, to formulating it, to blog it, and to discuss it. I do that too. (this my blog after all).

But do everyone, and you first and foremost, a favour.
Learn from the people who know a thing or two about the issue at hand.

Be selective about you read, listen to, and watch. A simple way is to follow an Iranian friend's updates and the links they put up.
(Even the State Dept is reading tweets from Iranians.)

Ask questions more than you volunteer answers.

And when you get a tweet that says UNCONF or 'can anyone confirm?', for Pete's sake, that says "This is potentially bullshit". Don't spread nonsense. Don't spread unconfirmed or unsourced information.

And rather that getting all excited following live some current events taking place in a country you probably cannot place on a map, read analysis of what it means, what the candidates actually stand for, and what the result will mean for the Iranians and the world.

Then, I would be delighted, truly, to read what you have to say.
Until then, please, pretty please - SHUT UP.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

As for what I think? I don't know. I think the results could be fake - and they also could be real. We probably will never know.

And I don't think we're watching a Ukraine '04 redux or a 'Green revolution'.

And I think that the people on the street will tire of getting beaten up by a government that is currently revoking foreign media licenses and will forfeit. We're - well, Iran is - likely stuck with Ahmadinejad for four more years.

And while the troubles on the street are unlikely to lead to a change of government, they'd have had the benefit of showing the Iranian people in a new light - they're normal people, only with more courage than most of us have.

******
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:10 pm

From Sibel Edmonds' blog:

http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -both.html

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Iran one Last Time: Twitter Works Both Ways

Image
Seeking Our Iranian Comrades’ Solidarity

Dear Activists in Iran:

We stand in solidarity with you and your movement against the alleged election fraud you’ve claimed. In return we hope you will reciprocate by supporting us in our struggle here in which we’ve been engaged for hmmmm…more or less eight years now – the following is an abbreviated list of our grievances:

We the people of the United States have been spied upon by our government around the clock. All our communications - phone, cell, e-mail, fax, are being monitored. This even includes our ‘twitting’ with you; that’s right! They keep saying it’s for our own safety and that it’s to catch terrorists among us. They have yet to catch any, but they keep saying ‘it don’t matter - soon the results will show you.’ What do they mean by this?

Our representatives are not giving us answers, instead declaring their own solidarity with the spying program targeting all of us. This should matter to you, since many here are afraid to follow you on twitter out of their fear of becoming one of those ‘results’ our government has been promising to show. Imagine how many more of us you’d get without this oppressive pressure! So please join us and declare your solidarity with us in this regard.

We the people of the United States have been coerced into financing and supporting atrocious torture practices and killing of civilians in defenseless third world countries, who happen to be your neighbors. We’ve been financing it directly with our taxes, and supporting it through those representatives we somehow keep electing to speak and decide for us.

We know your media is not that much better than ours, but surely you have heard our torture stories. To make it fit today’s graphic news we even have thousands of pictures to show. Does your government photograph or capture theirs on video? Exactly; it’s that bad! In our name and with our votes our military and their mercenary contractors have been piling up tens of thousands of civilian bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We don’t seem to be able to put a stop to that either. We keep going to the booths and voting, but things remain the same; they keep getting our tax dollars at the end of each week’s hard work, they keep getting ‘yeah’ votes from our representatives, and they keep killing, kidnapping, and torturing. We are not bad people, as you are not ‘axis of evil’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘fanatics.’ We really don’t believe in building empires, torturing, and killing. But we are stuck, and we keep continuing the same cycle, only worse with every new turn. Please help us figure out a way to help ourselves. We really need your solidarity in finding a way to stop these atrocious human rights violations committed in our name and with our money.

We the people of the United States have been kept in the dark on so many issues directly related to us and affecting us due to our mainstream media - which has to come to resemble the ‘Pravda’ we used to look down upon. They don’t tell us much, and what they tell us is usually what they get directly from our government. At least you all know that what you’re getting over there is sanitized and censored, since there seems to be no pretense to otherwise. Our situation is worse! Many of our people still think they’ve got ‘freedom of the press’ and independent reporting, so they don’t bother ‘twitting’ or searching the net for real news. Many who do ‘twit’ limit it to a few key words like Brittany or Brangelina or Kate, and this is after they get bombarded with them from our ‘news’ channels. Please don’t get discouraged or offended when you come across many of us who don’t know where Iran is located, or think you ride camels over there, or that you speak Arabic, or,...Instead come and lend your solidarity in helping us find a way to inform our masses and help them see the light.

We the people of the United States have our own black-listed people in the hundreds of thousands. Have you heard of our ‘No Fly List’? Last time we heard more than 400,000 of us had made it onto this dangerous but still mysterious list. They don’t even tell us why. If we participate in any peaceful demonstration, we mean any, whether for the homeless or to stop our wars, we get ‘listed.’ Well hell, based on what we choose to wear, such as ‘Doc Marten shoes,’ or a funny T-shirt, we end up on their list.

Nobody knows exactly how people end up getting on this list, and certainly no one knows how to get off of it. Our government doesn’t tell us because it says the reasons are classified. Our media doesn’t dig much either. We keep hearing ‘legitimate’ rumors about ‘other’ secret lists and databases, but here in the United States, any whistleblower who chooses to disclose these violations gets punished, fired, even taken to courts - so those who know don’t dare talk about it. In fact, you may know more than we do. Please let us know if you know, and do so via twitting. We encourage you to stand in solidarity with us against these oppressive black-listings.


Of course we can go on and on with our list of urgent causes in need of your support and solidarity, but this should suffice for this particular ‘twit’. After you have had a chance to reflect upon our own sorry state of democracy, once you understand our own pathetic situation, you may find seeking our solidarity for your cause ironic and decide to cease and desist your twitting with us. We understand; we won’t blame you; rest assured. Here we are the richest and most powerful nation in the world with a powerful safeguard left to us by our ancestors and founding fathers called the Bill of Rights. Here we are a nation who prides herself of being a representative government and having the freedom to vote. Yet here we are sinking deeper each day, losing our rights, freedom, privacy, and dignity a little every day in the name of ‘national security’ and under an irrational fear of ‘terrorism.’ Understanding these realities you may find it preposterous for some of us to even attempt meddling in your own causes and affairs. And you’d be right. We wish those of you who truly seek and work for a democratic form of government lots of luck. And finally, don’t forget your history with us. We certainly hope you are informed and wise enough to see the ‘oil barrel’ signs in the eyes of those of us who wave their support and solidarity candy before your eyes.

.
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:39 pm

This guy has been very busy, usually he only puts out an article a month, or at least that is what my google alert finds.

'Color' revolution fizzles in Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF23Ak02.html
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:49 pm

Chatham House Study Definitively Shows Massive Ballot Fraud in Iran's Reported Results:

An authoritative study from Chatham House (pdf) , the renowned UK think tank, finds that with regard to the official statistics on the recent presidential election in Iran released by the Interior Ministry, something is rotten in Tehran. The authors compared the provincial returns in the 2005 and 2009 elections against the 2006 census and found:

' · In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of
more than 100% was recorded.

· At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased
turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion
that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously
silent Conservative majority.

· In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that
Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all
former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former
Reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two
groups.

· In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and
Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.
That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim
that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces
flies in the face of these trends.'



Note that many reformists did not vote in 2005, because they had become discouraged by the way the hard liners had blocked all their programs. Some 10.5 million persons who did not vote in 2005 did vote in 2009. It is highly unlikely that most of these non-voters in 2005 were conservatives who now came out for Ahmadinejad in 2009. But to do as well as the regime claimed, Ahmadinejad would have needed to attract substantial numbers of these voters to himself.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani got 6.2 million votes in 2005. He is a centrist, pragmatic conservative. How likely is it that his constituency abandoned pragmatic conservatism for Ahmadinejad's quirky hard line? Over 10 million voted in 2005 for reformist candidates.

Ahmadinejad got 13 million more votes this time than the combined total for all conservatives in 2005. The authors of this study concede that Ahmadinejad could have held on to all the 11.5 million hard line voters from 2005. But how likely is that, really? Some of those who voted hard line surely found Ahmadinejad's style abrasive and his policies, such as provoking high inflation through pumping too much oil money into the economy as a reward to his constituents, annoying.

So over all, let's say he captured Rafsanjani's entire faction in the face of Rafsanjani's own dislike of him. That would have give him less than half of his new votes. So he would have had to convinced over half of the voters who sat 2005 out to vote for him; but those were the ones most disgusted with the hardliners. Or he would have needed to win over substantial amounts of the old Khatami reformist vote. Not likely.

And in 10 of 30 provinces, the hard liners did poorly enough in 2005 that Ahmadinejad would have had to gain the votes of all those who did not vote that year but did vote in 2009, of all the Rafsanjani pragmatic conservatives, and of nearly half the reformist vote.

Even in East Azerbaijan, here were the numbers in 2005

Ahmadinejad: 198,417
Hard Liners 232,043
Non-voters: 684,745
Rafsanjani (pragmatic conservatives): 268,954
Reformists: 690,784

and the result in 2009:

Ahmadinejad: 1,131,111

We could say that a little over 400,000 of these votes are not surprising, since that is the number that was hard line in 2005. But Ahmadinejad picked up over 700,000 votes after 4 years. The non-voters may probably mostly be counted as reformists. So again, Ahmadinejad needed all the non-voters in 2005 to switch to him in 2009 plus a large proportion of the Rafsanjani voters. It makes not sense. And this outcome requires us to believe he picked up all those votes among people who deeply disliked him 4 years ago despite running against a favorite son from Azerbaijan! (And no, that Ahmadinejad speaks broken Azeri would not make Azeris vote for him any more than Latinos voted in 2008 for all those Republicans who speak good Spanish.)

As I had noted earlier, the official results ask us to believe that rural ethnic minorities (some of them Sunni!) who had long voted reformist or for candidates of their ethnicity or region, had switched over to Ahmadinejad. We have to believe that Mehdi Karroubi's support fell from over 6 million to 330,000 over all, and that he, an ethnic Lur, was defeated in Luristan by a hard line Persian Shiite. Or that Ahmadinejad went from having 22,000 votes in largely Sunni Kurdistan to about half a million! What, is there a new organization, "Naqshbandi Sunni Sufis for Hard Line Shiism?" It never made any sense. People who said it did make sense did not know what a Naqshbandi is. (Quick, ask them before they can look it up at wikipedia).

I was careful in my initial discussion of why I thought the numbers looked phony to say that catching history on the run is tough; and I later characterized myself as a mere social historian (i.e. not a pollster or statistician). But this study bears out most of my analysis with the exception that the authors dispute any rural bias toward Ahmadinejad. I think they are too categorical in this regard, however. When people, including myself, said that rural people liked Ahmadinejad, we meant Shiites living in Persian-speaking villages on the Iranian plateau, in fair proximity to cities such as Isfahan, Tehran and Shiraz. We weren't talking about Turkmen or Kurds (both Sunnis), or about Lurs (everyone suspected Karroubi would get that vote). I suspect that some of those to whom we referred as rural are being categorized as living in 'small towns' by the Chatham House authors. But field workers even in the Shiite, Persian-speaking villages point out that they often encounter anti-Ahmadinejad sentiments there, as well.

But that is neither here nor there. The numbers do not add up. You can't have more voters than there are people. You can't have a complete liberal and pragmatic-conservative swing behind hard liners who make their lives miserable.

The election was stolen. It is there in black and white. Those of us who know Iran, could see it plain as the nose on our faces, even if we could not quantify our reasons as elegantly as Chatham House.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:58 pm

Chatham House ... the renowned UK think tank


Who/what is Chatham House? "Think tank" usually means 'intelligence front'.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Sweejak » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:48 pm

Defeated in its aim, the US government unleashed a PSYOPS disinformation war against the Russian government, claiming falsely that Russia had initiated the conflict by attacking Georgia. The US government’s blatant and transparent lies were force-fed to the American public by the US media.

British disinformation services cooperated with their American masters, but the rest of the world blew the whistle. The real facts emerged, and an American disinformation campaign experienced a rare failure.

Now 10 months later, US “black ops” is at it again, pumping out disinformation about the “stolen” Iranian election. The US media is again serving the government’s disinformation campaign. This despite the fact that on May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert ‘black’ operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell . . . ABC News.”

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”


The waning power of truth
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... 4828.shtml
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:52 pm

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DAH241597.htm

Iran confirms first case of H1N1 flu - IRNA
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 guests