Amid questions raised by an opposition leader on sexual assault on prisoners detained in the post-election protests, Iran's Majlis Speaker dismisses the allegations.
"Claims of sexual abuse of detained protestors are sheer lies," Ali Larijani said on Wednesday.
"Following a precise and comprehensive inquiry into (the treatment of) detainees at Kahrizak and Evin prisons, no cases of rape or sexual abuse were found," he added.
If defeated presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, who first raised the prisoners' abuse issue, could present evidence of such outrages, then the Majlis would investigate them, Larijani said.
The issue of the alleged torture and abuse of protesters, who had been detained after the June 12 presidential vote, took a new turn after Karroubi, a leading Reformist cleric, raised questions about the sexual abuse of detainees.
In a letter - dated July 29 but revealed 10 days later - to the powerful head of the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Karroubi urged a probe into various abuses, including 'jail rape' reports, according to which male and female detainees in Kahrizak are said to have been subjected to serious sexual abuse.
"The people who informed me about these events hold sensitive positions in the country these officials told me of the things that happened in the detention centers that even if one count is true, it would be a tragedy for the Islamic Republic and it would overshadow the sins of many dictatorships including that of the deposed Shah, Karroubi said in his letter.
The letter prompted Larijani to assign a special parliamentary committee to seriously probe into the allegations.
In his Wednesday speech, Larijani warned politicians to 'be cautious about claims' and urged them not to publicize allegations before investigation.
Ayatollah Rafsanjani, in a Tuesday meeting with judiciary lawyers, touched upon the issue by insisting that respecting detainees' rights is essential for passing a fair and just verdict.
The developments come as courts are conducting televised mass trials of hundreds of opposition figures, protesters and journalists on various charges, including that of 'plotting to topple the system' in the wake of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election in June.
The official vote results were met by an outpouring of anger by supporters of defeated presidential candidates Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who alleged that serious 'allot rigging' had taken place and took to the streets in massive protests to press their demand for an independent enquiry and a re-run.
The crackdown on the demonstrations, which were held despite bans by the Interior Ministry, led to the arrests of thousands of protesters, many of whom have been released.
According to official figures, at least 30 people were killed in the post-vote unrest. The opposition, however, puts the number at about 70.
The Kahrizak detention camp south of Tehran gained particular notoriety for the maltreatment of detainees and the police have admitted that corporal punishment and other abuses had taken place there. It has been ordered shut in the past weeks and a number of its guards and directors are said to have been 'punished'.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 2:17 PM
Oh phew! Larijani said it's oke, so it must be oke! What did Khamenei say? lol
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
evidence that the taraneh mousavi story was fabricated^^
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
Larijani, the speaker of parliament states that no rapes ever took place and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Iran's official news agency, repeats this claim and you convinced that no rapes have taken place.
If I don't get rich by profiting off feeble minded individuals like yourself, I'm going to shoot myself.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
those two links aren't working I see. It wasn't simply the irib stating there were no rapes, infact they didn't state that at all, before you shoot yourself atleast watch the fixed link.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 4:06 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 4:03 PM
Tareneh Moussavi's alleged torture and death were unconfirmed as you rightly say and as we discussed in a thread about her . However I did make a thread about the CONFIRMED deaths inside the prisons due to recent events. So, why don't you enlighten us and defend your beloved rahbar and regime in that thread . If you can't why don't you at least accept that people have been killed and tortured
Oh come on now don't try and make out like those orders for killings came from khamenei, that's devilish and absolutely unbeneficial to anyone. Yes, unfortunately people have been killed and the perpetrators should receive the same fate as the victims (although I do lay some of the blame on mousavi and his calls for fruitless and baseless demonstrations). People from both sides have been killed and tortured, moreso demonstrators and people from both sides have spread rumours, lies and exxagerations, moreso demonstrators. Not every protestor was a vandal and not every jailguard was an executioner.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 4:59 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 4:58 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 4:56 PM
>>try and make out like those orders for killings came from khamenei
Shyt and here I was under the delusion that the orginal order AGAINST ARTICLE 21 of the fooking constitution to ban street demonstration came from your beloved Rahbar . Say, wasnt it he who encouraged your beloved basiji brothers to go out into the street and arrest these people? By the way can you tell me WHO had confirmed heads of Interior and information (security) ministries in their posts? Who put this mofo in charge of judiciary? You do know that over 2 years ago members of judiciary wrote a report about Kharizak,and asked this particular prison to be closed, right? You do know that nothing was done, right?
>>People from both sides have been killed and tortured, moreso demonstrators
Is that so? So it should be easy for you to at least name one holding place that the opposition used to torture the beloved basijs or members of security forces, no ? I can name Evin, Kharizak, prison 66 of Sepeh the 4th floor below ground of Interior Ministry. All confirmed even by Majlis members, how many can you name? While you are at it, maybe you can name one confirmed basijis or security force brother, of yours who was tortured . List of killed brothers is also helpful, you do remember that in the very first night of protests one of the mofos from top of of their buildings shot and killed 7 demonstrators CONFIRMNED, right? Do tell us whatever happened to that brave guy? Remember he was filmed? DO tell us whatever happened to that guy? Maybe I missed the reports of at least a commission that was set and exonerated him like what Israeli Army does .
So with the above two in mind in addition to current trials which breaks numerous laws, who has the greatest share of responsibility from the list below:
1: The man who put this mofo in charge of judiciary, also started breaking laws himself
2:Moussavi or someone else
3: My aunti or the grosser top of my road
You can deny the obvious as long as you want, doesn't change facts though . This mofo has to go , thats it
This message has been edited by fariborz_57 on Aug 12, 2009 5:35 PM
Relax you goof, i said the perpetrators should receive the same fate as those they killed didn't i. You say khamenei is responsible, thats your opinion give yourself a pat on the back. Furthermore I'm not a regime apologist like you're trying to make me out to be, and quit making silly lists will you. It's like if I were to go, who shares the greatest blame for the milk in my refrigerator going bad:
1. ahmadinejad
or..
2. your uncle bob
who are you going to choose?
And btw this here is article 21 of the constitution, I've read over it about 7 times now and I haven't managed to make any connection between how banning street demonstrations goes against the protection of pregnant women or orphans or any of the other 7 parts of the article.. you goof.
Article 21 [Women's Rights]
The government must ensure the rights of women in all respects, in conformity with Islamic criteria, and accomplish the following goals:
1) create a favorable environment for the growth of woman's personality and the restoration of her rights, both the material and intellectual;
2) the protection of mothers, particularly during pregnancy and child-rearing, and the protection of children without guardians;
3) establishing competent courts to protect and preserve the family;
4) the provision of special insurance for widows, aged women, and women without support;
5) the awarding of guardianship of children to worthy mothers, in order to protect the interests of the children, in the absence of a legal guardian.
get a life.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 6:59 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 6:50 PM
Papa, you are certainly a regime apoligist seeing how an apologist is a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution, in this case the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. When is the last time you've said anything critical about the regime?
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
>>People from both sides have been killed and tortured
Again ONE LAST TIME, either name at least one holding place and one basij or security force member who has been tortured or dont write things you cannot backup.Makes you look stupid . By the way if I am a goof but can backup what I write while you sulk like and dont answer questions, what does that make you ?
One more time because I like you to squirm when you crap talk, did at least one basij brother kill 7 people on the first night, yes or no BOY?
Has he been even investigated to your knowledge? Yes or No ?
>>Furthermore I'm not a regime apologist like you're trying to make me out to be
Actually you do give a very convincing imitation of one, as usual when I or someone else points to specifics, you lot keep going on a tangent, either answer my questions above or be silent, that simple.
>>And btw this here is article 21 of the constitution, I've read over it about
Oops sorry my bad it is article 27 . Unlike you I sometimes make mistakes
This message has been edited by fariborz_57 on Aug 12, 2009 7:18 PM
I only seek to defend my country, if I think that the islamic republic so happens to go against the interests of it or its people you can be rest assured that I would be critical of it. You and your kind on the other hand, no you don't seek to defend your country you only wish to turn it into a cheaper copy of the western models. Nothing iranian about you people, all I see when I look at your type is a bunch of western wannabe losers who are ashamed of their iranian shi'ite identities.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
fari, again, relax you goofy idiot. If you are trying to say that the opposition protestors were completely virtuous in their actions, then I apologise but I do not accept that just as I don't accept a claim that the basiji were virtuous in all their actions.
Article 27 states that
Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.
Again i fail to see any connection, explain to me how those demonstrations didn't go against the fundamental principles of islam will you.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
Well well, so you wrote things that you cannot backup, ha?
That makes you a CRAPPPPPPPPPP talker, you fooking bullshyt out of your mouth son, learn to think BEFORE you crap talk
Now don't sulk BOY, makes you look like a virgin girl on her first kir (maybe you should not have called me a goof, what do you think ?)
matter closed
BYE BOY
You silly drug addict, I wrote the post in reply to koz while you had already written and responded with yours. Then when I posted mine I saw yours and I replied to it.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
I only seek to defend my country, if I think that the islamic republic so happens to go against the interests of it or its people you can be rest assured that I would be critical of it. You and your kind on the other hand, no you don't seek to defend your country you only wish to turn it into a cheaper copy of the western models. Nothing iranian about you people, all I see when I look at your type is a bunch of western wannabe losers who are ashamed of their iranian shi'ite identities.
==
Then you must think that the Islamic Republic is perfect, because you haven't criticized it even once. At any rate, people "like me" understand that defending a country and its people is not the same as defending a corrupt and illegitimate regime that is in fact harming the country and its people. Something you yet have to understand. Of course, I didn't expect otherwise, seeing how you're defending the Iranian regime from Australia. It seems you're not as smart as your parents.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 12, 2009 8:02 PM
I only seek to defend my country, if I think that the islamic republic so happens to go against the interests of it or its people you can be rest assured that I would be critical of it. You and your kind on the other hand, no you don't seek to defend your country you only wish to turn it into a cheaper copy of the western models. Nothing iranian about you people, all I see when I look at your type is a bunch of western wannabe losers who are ashamed of their iranian shi'ite identities.
==
Then you must think that the Islamic Republic is perfect, because you haven't criticized it even once.
I don't think it's perfect, but believe it's better than any alternative and yes I am critical of it. Here I will be critical right now: Prison guards should not have beaten or killed demonstrators. Kahrizak should have been closed earlier, like guantanamo, which hasn't yet been closed. Enrichment should never have been suspended, I am disappointed that ever was. The petroleum industry should have been developed earlier so that Iran didn't rely on fuel imports to date. See? An apologist certainly wouldn't say that.
I would like to see you commend the regime for some things now? Can you do that? Of course you cannot. You are an apolgist more than I am, you could never criticise mousavi or khatami, could you?
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 8:37 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 8:36 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 12, 2009 8:32 PM
I only seek to defend my country, if I think that the islamic republic so happens to go against the interests of it or its people you can be rest assured that I would be critical of it.
==
Then how do you perceive the massive protests that have taken place since the elctions? Are they all staged? Why doesn't the government allow for open and free protests? What are they so afraid of?
You and your kind on the other hand, no you don't seek to defend your country you only wish to turn it into a cheaper copy of the western models. Nothing iranian about you people, all I see when I look at your type is a bunch of western wannabe losers who are ashamed of their iranian shi'ite identities.
==
First of all, you know nothing about me or my kind. Secondly, it is you who is hiding in Australia, while defending a regime you've never seen from within. Someone who still has to return to his beloved country. Finally, what do I care if it's based on a Western model or not? Aren't you the one cowering in the West? I only care about one thing: a system that provides the best opportunities for the Iranian people. A system based on freedom and equality.
I don't think it's perfect, but believe it's better than any alternative and yes I am critical of it. Here I will be critical right now: Prison guards should not have beaten or killed demonstrators. Kahrizak should have been closed earlier, like guantanamo, which hasn't yet been closed. Enrichment should never have been suspended, I am disappointed that ever was. The petroleum industry should have been developed earlier so that Iran didn't rely on fuel imports to date. See? An apologist certainly wouldn't say that.
==
How is that being critical of the regime? Khamenei ordered the closure of Kahrizak, and you support it. Well bully for you! As for the nuclear reactors and the petroleum industry, the regime itself is "critical" about its achievements, so what exactly is there that you are critical of?
Also, what other systems of governance do you know of? Could you for example tell me what other system would be second best for Iran and why?
I would like to see you commend the regime for some things now? Can you do that? Of course you cannot. You are an apolgist more than I am, you could never criticise mousavi or khatami, could you?
==
Nice try, but there have been plenty of times in the past that I've defended Iran's actions. Mostly with regard to its achievements in the international arena. And as far as I can remember I've never praised Moussavi in any way. I do have a great deal of respect for Khatami.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 13, 2009 12:40 AM
Then how do you perceive the massive protests that have taken place since the elctions? Are they all staged? Why doesn't the government allow for open and free protests? What are they so afraid of?
Because they are baseless, inevitably lead to looting and were instigated by mousavis false and unfounded accusation that he was cheated out of the election.
First of all, you know nothing about me or my kind. Secondly, it is you who is hiding in Australia, while defending a regime you've never seen from within. Someone who still has to return to his beloved country. Finally, what do I care if it's based on a Western model or not? Aren't you the one cowering in the West? I only care about one thing: a system that provides the best opportunities for the Iranian people. A system based on freedom and equality.
And you know nothing of me either. Of course you don't care that it's based on a western model, that is my whole point, it's a reflection of your lack of respect for preserving the iranian identity and religion and its independence from the rest of the world. No let's just throw that out of the window, replace 2500 years of religion and self identity to embrace the western idea of how everyone ought to live.
How is that being critical of the regime? Khamenei ordered the closure of Kahrizak, and you support it. Well bully for you! As for the nuclear reactors and the petroleum industry, the regime itself is "critical" about its achievements, so what exactly is there that you are critical of?
What the hell? How is that not critical of the regime. What do you want from me to douse myself in petrol set myself on fire and yell revolution revolution. Gee louis, get a life will you. Is it critical if I said some companies that are being privatised in the country should not be privatised, or is that some how also in support of the regime?
Also, what other systems of governance do you know of? Could you for example tell me what other system would be second best for Iran and why?
A democratic constitutional monarchy not seperate from religion. lol
Nice try, but there have been plenty of times in the past that I've defended Iran's actions. Mostly with regard to its achievements in the international arena. And as far as I can remember I've never praised Moussavi in any way. I do have a great deal of respect for Khatami.
You've never praised mousavi? Yet you blindly and unquestionably support him? And you call me the apologist. And it's good that we agree that the regime isn't ALL round terrible like you try to paint it to be.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 13, 2009 3:57 AM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 13, 2009 3:55 AM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 13, 2009 3:52 AM
I suggest you watch it if you want to have a balanced understanding and appreciation of the situation. If you want to live a lie, then by all means, don't.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
Because they are baseless, inevitably lead to looting and were instigated by mousavis false and unfounded accusation that he was cheated out of the election.
==
Then I'm guessing you're not a supporter of democracy since it's the people themselfs who are challenging the leadership. I'll put it more simply: the popular unrest IS the basis for the protests.
And you know nothing of me either. Of course you don't care that it's based on a western model, that is my whole point, it's a reflection of your lack of respect for preserving the iranian identity and religion and its independence from the rest of the world. No let's just throw that out of the window, replace 2500 years of religion and self identity to embrace the western idea of how everyone ought to live.
==
First of all I never claimed to know you, unlike what you've been doing. Secondly, I don't need to know you to read what imbecilic nonsense you've been spurring all this time. Thirdly, what is the Iranian "identity". Would you consider Zoroastrianism part of the Iranian identity? Because we didn't have Islam until the Arabs invaded us. Finally, why do you have a problem with a system the people can choose themselfs. A system that is best for them and the nation?
What the hell? How is that not critical of the regime. What do you want from me to douse myself in petrol set myself on fire and yell revolution revolution. Gee louis, get a life will you. Is it critical if I said some companies that are being privatised in the country should not be privatised, or is that some how also in support of the regime?
==
You are critical of what the regime itself is claiming to be critical of. Well bully for you! Is there anything you're critical of that the regime DOESN'T CLAIM to be critical of?
A democratic constitutional monarchy not seperate from religion. lol
==
Yes every funny, now answer seriously.
You've never praised mousavi? Yet you blindly and unquestionably support him? And you call me the apologist. And it's good that we agree that the regime isn't ALL round terrible like you try to paint it to be.
==
Where have I done this? Show me.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
By the way, the people defending themselfs against the unlimited tyranny of the regime isn't "wrongdoing on both sides" but rather selfs-defence.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
Then I'm guessing you're not a supporter of democracy since it's the people themselfs who are challenging the leadership. I'll put it more simply: the popular unrest IS the basis for the protests.
.66 > .33
It is not popular if it goes against the majority. You believe you are the majority, I believe you are not. If you are not the majority then why would the fact that I don't support you against the leadership run counter to my support for the voice of the people?
First of all I never claimed to know you, unlike what you've been doing. Secondly, I don't need to know you to read what imbecilic nonsense you've been spurring all this time. Thirdly, what is the Iranian "identity". Would you consider Zoroastrianism part of the Iranian identity? Because we didn't have Islam until the Arabs invaded us. Finally, why do you have a problem with a system the people can choose themselfs. A system that is best for them and the nation?
Zoroastrianism is an old iranian religion recognised by the state. Some Zoroastrian traditions and beliefs are still practiced by iranians and many of those traditions have permeated their place into our culture and customs. Iranians accepted islam as a faith with a similar and congruent belief system to that of zoroastrianism, that didn't go against zoroastrianism or the iranian culture yet was more complete than zoroastrianism and strengthened its culture. Most Iranians didn't convert until arab rule was persianised, infact only 10% of Iranians converted to islam while iran was under ummayad rule. Iranians also contributed to developing the islam present in the country and other countries today. Shiite islam was adapted by the countries rulers to replace sunni islam and free itself from caliphate rule. In the 15th century I believe, after which shi'ite islam gradually bonded, synthesised and blended with persian culture and interpretation and eventually formed an integral part of the Iranian identity that we have today.
I don't have a problem with any system so long as it does not conflict with the iranian identity, specifically its culture and religion, that is to say the iranian and persian culture and shi'ite islam (ja'fari). Some people want state seperate from religion, such as yourself, imo state can't be seperate from religion because religion isn't just something you practice on sundays it is a big part of who you are and ideally part of the system which governs you.
Only a small faction of pro mousavi supporters are secularists and they are living in a fantasy world, the rest support him not as someone who is protesting the fundamentals of the system but the election outcomes and ahmadinejad (ie the dictator).
You are critical of what the regime itself is claiming to be critical of. Well bully for you! Is there anything you're critical of that the regime DOESN'T CLAIM to be critical of?
I don't know, what did I write?
Yes every funny, now answer seriously.
Maybe an elective monarchy, not based on british ideals, but iranian and shi'ite islamic ones where the people elect the house who elects the leader. This is not to be confused with a caliphate. This of course is second to my first preference of islamic republic.
You've never praised mousavi? Yet you blindly and unquestionably support him? And you call me the apologist. And it's good that we agree that the regime isn't ALL round terrible like you try to paint it to be.
So you don't support him on everything? Mind telling me what that is?
By the way, the people defending themselfs against the unlimited tyranny of the regime isn't "wrongdoing on both sides" but rather selfs-defence.
I never said self defence is wrong, I don't know where you got that from. Are you suggesting that all the opposition supporters did is defend themselves, and that they are free of all and any wrong doing in recent events? Is that what you are suggesting?
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 13, 2009 5:18 PM This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 13, 2009 5:17 PM
No let's just throw that out of the window, replace 2500 years of religion and self identity to embrace the western idea of how everyone ought to live.
I may be ignorant, but Islam isn't Iranian and isn't 2500 years old.
Democracy has nothing to do with Western way of life, it is a representative government founded on the idea that the people (citizens), choose a leader through a vote of the majority, rather then through divine will (divine right of kings as an example), might of force, inheritance or power broking (Venetian Republic, Communism on party system etc).
You are linking the Liberalism movement in the West to democracy, which generally does come true, because the majority of people in a democracy tend choose how the society advances as social trends and acceptances evolve. This makes the West dynamic, rather then stagnant, where a regime forces a status quo then waits till it erupts from within. Over 100 years of democracy, most have gone from conservative to liberal... Because society evolved that way and democracy simply allows it to shift naturally rather then forcefully or denying change.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I may be ignorant, but Islam isn't Iranian and isn't 2500 years old.
Democracy has nothing to do with Western way of life, it is a representative government founded on the idea that the people (citizens), choose a leader through a vote of the majority, rather then through divine will (divine right of kings as an example), might of force, inheritance or power broking (Venetian Republic, Communism on party system etc).
You are linking the Liberalism movement in the West to democracy, which generally does come true, because the majority of people in a democracy tend choose how the society advances as social trends and acceptances evolve. This makes the West dynamic, rather then stagnant, where a regime forces a status quo then waits till it erupts from within. Over 100 years of democracy, most have gone from conservative to liberal... Because society evolved that way and democracy simply allows it to shift naturally rather then forcefully or denying change.
I wasn't specifically referring to islam when I said religion but to the historical tendancy and tradition of iranian rulers to mix state with religion. I'm not referring to pahlavi dynasty in this, but when I said 2500 years I also meant to say zoroastrianism under achaeminid and sassanid state (not sure of parthian).
I don't believe in complete democracy rzec. I believe in some democracy and this is possible even under a monarchial rule such as an elective monarchy. The reason I don't believe in western democracies is because they encourage seperation of religion and state which I am against.
As for the shift from conservative to liberalism, what is your view on that. Will this or should this shift ever stop. After gay marriage, is that the end or will there be more and more freedoms. Wouldn't it naturally lead to other things currently frowned upon by society growing acceptance and eventual lawfulness?
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
It is not popular if it goes against the majority. You believe you are the majority, I believe you are not. If you are not the majority then why would the fact that I don't support you against the leadership run counter to my support for the voice of the people?
==
Really? So the millions of people who have taken to the streets in protest of the election results shouldn't be seen as a reason to hold new idependently controlled elections? Neither is the undemocratic position of the leadership a problem? How about the way the government is responding to the protests? All of these are very democratic according to you?
Zoroastrianism is an old iranian religion recognised by the state. Some Zoroastrian traditions and beliefs are still practiced by iranians and many of those traditions have permeated their place into our culture and customs. Iranians accepted islam as a faith with a similar and congruent belief system to that of zoroastrianism, that didn't go against zoroastrianism or the iranian culture yet was more complete than zoroastrianism and strengthened its culture. Most Iranians didn't convert until arab rule was persianised, infact only 10% of Iranians converted to islam while iran was under ummayad rule. Iranians also contributed to developing the islam present in the country and other countries today. Shiite islam was adapted by the countries rulers to replace sunni islam and free itself from caliphate rule. In the 15th century I believe, after which shi'ite islam gradually bonded, synthesised and blended with persian culture and interpretation and eventually formed an integral part of the Iranian identity that we have today.
==
So you agree with me that Islam is traditionally an Arab religion and that it was imposed on Iranians only after the Arab invasion of Iran? In other words, Zoroastrianism is at least, as much part of the Iranian identity as is Islam?
I don't have a problem with any system so long as it does not conflict with the iranian identity, specifically its culture and religion, that is to say the iranian and persian culture and shi'ite islam (ja'fari). Some people want state seperate from religion, such as yourself, imo state can't be seperate from religion because religion isn't just something you practice on sundays it is a big part of who you are and ideally part of the system which governs you.
==
First of all, culture is dynamic. It is constantly changing. Both internally and externally and there is nothing you can do to change it. Secondly, you still have to explain to me what the Iranian identity is, especially since you're living in Australia. Thirdly, it is not up to you to decide what the Iranian identity is or is going to be, but it is up to Iranians themselfs, in particular the ones living inside of Iran. Finally, if religion IS to be a part of the system of governance, it is going to be YOU who is going to bow down to my god. Because my god, a huge dildo with magical powers, is much more powerful than your god. And the Holy Magical Dildo is the one and only god.
Only a small faction of pro mousavi supporters are secularists and they are living in a fantasy world, the rest support him not as someone who is protesting the fundamentals of the system but the election outcomes and ahmadinejad (ie the dictator).
==
If that is a fact, I want your source. If it's an opinion, which it is, it's unfounded and shortshighted one.
I don't know, what did I write?
==
Why don't you read back, and tell me if there is anything you're critical of that the regime hasn't already claimed to be critical of?
Maybe an elective monarchy, not based on british ideals, but iranian and shi'ite islamic ones where the people elect the house who elects the leader. This is not to be confused with a caliphate. This of course is second to my first preference of islamic republic.
==
Who is going to elect the monarch? If it's the people, than why do you need a monarchy? If it's not the people, then who is going to to do the electing? And what if the people want to worship the Holy Magical Dildo instead of your interpretation of god?
So you don't support him on everything? Mind telling me what that is?
==
Yes I do mind.
I never said self defence is wrong, I don't know where you got that from. Are you suggesting that all the opposition supporters did is defend themselves, and that they are free of all and any wrong doing in recent events? Is that what you are suggesting?
==
Certainly they defended themselves. What would you do if someone cracks you over the head with a truncheon? Take it like a man?
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
Really? So the millions of people who have taken to the streets in protest of the election results shouldn't be seen as a reason to hold new idependently controlled elections? Neither is the undemocratic position of the leadership a problem? How about the way the government is responding to the protests? All of these are very democratic according to you?
Annuling the votes because the opposition isnt happy would mean to discredit the votes of the majority in favour of the minority and that is by no means democratic. The elections featured representatives from all four candidates partaking in the monitoring process.
If a protest isnt authorized like those during the post election, and rightfully so, then it is illegal to take part in it.
So you agree with me that Islam is traditionally an Arab religion and that it was imposed on Iranians only after the Arab invasion of Iran? In other words, Zoroastrianism is at least, as much part of the Iranian identity as is Islam?
Only as far as the language the koran was written in. If I or anyone else believes that god exists then the religion we accept would not originate from a race or peoples, but from god. Furthermore Islam is an Abrahamic religion that believes and accepts all the prophets that Judaism and Christianity also accept, so its leaders were not explicitly Arab.
Only a small minority still follow Zoroastrianism, islam is the main religion of the people and it is pertinent of their identity as Iranians. Zoroastrianism as a faith is equally part of your Iranian identity so long as you are Zoroastrian, but it is a minor religion.
First of all, culture is dynamic. It is constantly changing. Both internally and externally and there is nothing you can do to change it. Secondly, you still have to explain to me what the Iranian identity is, especially since you're living in Australia. Thirdly, it is not up to you to decide what the Iranian identity is or is going to be, but it is up to Iranians themselfs, in particular the ones living inside of Iran. Finally, if religion IS to be a part of the system of governance, it is going to be YOU who is going to bow down to my god. Because my god, a huge dildo with magical powers, is much more powerful than your god. And the Holy Magical Dildo is the one and only god.
No one is forced to believe in any god because a religion is part of the system of governance, but that religion will shape how the country is run. Mate, if you want to run Iran based on your belief in a huge dildo with magical powers, then sh*t go nuts, just make sure you have the support of the people in doing so.
Furthermore Ive already explained the issue of identity go and read it more carefully this time.
If that is a fact, I want your source. If it's an opinion, which it is, it's unfounded and shortshighted one.
If youre saying the opposite is true, which is ridiculous given mousavi is not a secularist, why dont you substantiate that claim yourself.
Why don't you read back, and tell me if there is anything you're critical of that the regime hasn't already claimed to be critical of?
Ive already explained it, if you are semi illiterate that is not my problem. But it is disconcerting given you are a lawyer.
Who is going to elect the monarch? If it's the people, than why do you need a monarchy? If it's not the people, then who is going to to do the electing? And what if the people want to worship the Holy Magical Dildo instead of your interpretation of god?
Once again, read more carefully. It is not my problem if you are semi illiterate.
Yes I do mind.
Then I can only assume youre a lowly mousavi apologist.
Certainly they defended themselves. What would you do if someone cracks you over the head with a truncheon? Take it like a man?
Thats bull****, theres recorded footage of basiji armouries being attacked by Molotov cocktails in an attempt to over run them and take the weapons. Footage of people breaking cars. People setting cars on fire. People beating up unarmed government supporters. Spreading of false rumours about students dying who havent died, which fueled further violence. Shops being attacked and fires being lit, rocks being thrown at by standing policemen. None of that is self defence.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 14, 2009 6:02 AM
I wasn't specifically referring to islam when I said religion but to the historical tendancy and tradition of iranian rulers to mix state with religion. I'm not referring to pahlavi dynasty in this, but when I said 2500 years I also meant to say zoroastrianism under achaeminid and sassanid state (not sure of parthian).
Most nations on Earth mixed a form of religion with State, such as the Divine rule of Kings (or Emperors), State cults, State religions etc. However, like I said, society is dynamic, democracy compliments this the best, as when the majority feels a certain way, the social norm shifts rather then gets repressed. In Europe, is so happened that in France, the majority wanted a secular State. You must note the UK is not secular, the State Religion is Anglican technically.
However, the Persian Empires tended to not mix religion fully into codified law. There was a State religion, but it did not rule the State, that is the distinction.
I don't believe in complete democracy rzec. I believe in some democracy and this is possible even under a monarchial rule such as an elective monarchy. The reason I don't believe in western democracies is because they encourage seperation of religion and state which I am against.
Do you advocate denying the majority of peoples wishes?
Also, you are mixing up democracy and secularism. Secularism in democracy is a modern concept. You can still use laws from religion, so long as the people want it there. Democracy just means there are elections for representation/leadership, with no overlord deciding with an absolute right if that is right or wrong. Hence, a democracy can work with a state religion, but not a theocracy.
As for the shift from conservative to liberalism, what is your view on that. Will this or should this shift ever stop. After gay marriage, is that the end or will there be more and more freedoms. Wouldn't it naturally lead to other things currently frowned upon by society growing acceptance and eventual lawfulness?
If society chooses to accept this as the majority, who are you to decide they are wrong?
About gay marriage, how does that effect you, your family or society? So long as they don't force religions that forbid gay marriage to conduct these ceremonies, what is your problem with it? Beyond the fact your religion, which mind you is 1400 years old, frowns upon it?
I doubt if two gay men get married, that'll turn your son gay. If your son turns gay its probably because he was born gay, that is he is attracted to males on a biological level.
I personally have no qualm of letting people choose to do what they want, so long as it doesn't take away from your liberties, doesn't impact society negatively (like burning down a store for whatever reason) and doesn't harm anyone, including the nation.
For the entirety of history, overlords have tried to suppress humanities natural progression. I'm much happier living in a society where peasants don't exist, there is a middle class, I am innocent till proven guilty, I have the liberties and rights to do a multitude of things I wouldn't have been allowed even 30 years ago over what came before us.
You might be happy living in a theocracy, where women are forced to wear veils by religious police and you can't have your hair the 'western' way. I don't judge the fact you might like that, but I do judge the sanity of it.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Actually the whole premise of this thread is based on Larijani expressing horror and disbelief and one younf highly emotional (read without logic ) completely ill-informed person beating his chest. They both behave as though this is just impossible, ok then here is another documented case of our beloved Basiji brothers raping and killing people that happened before. The report is only in Farsi I am afraid, so whoever can read it, fine, others among us that cannot read, have someone read it to you.
Pay special attention to the last paragraph, regarding where the people named in the criminal case ended up. Here is another example of justice that this mofo president and the heads of judiciary appointed by a dictator are really all about.
Please dont let me stop all the supporters of this disgusting regime in Iran from daydreaming about giving BJ to Rahbar .
Annuling the votes because the opposition isnt happy would mean to discredit the votes of the majority in favour of the minority and that is by no means democratic. The elections featured representatives from all four candidates partaking in the monitoring process.
If a protest isnt authorized like those during the post election, and rightfully so, then it is illegal to take part in it.
==
Firstly, the majority can always go out and vote again IF that majority really exists. But if the societal opposition openly runs in the millions (and we're only referring to the active ones who have defied the security forces) it is essential that the government takes their objections seriously. A new independently monitored vote would be nothing short of fundemental under the circumstances. Secondly, the elections did NOT feature representatives from all four canditates, since many of the representatives were barred from being present at the polling stations. Finally, demonstrating is a constitutional right that can't be infringed merely because the Supreme Leader wishes so.
No one is forced to believe in any god because a religion is part of the system of governance, but that religion will shape how the country is run. Mate, if you want to run Iran based on your belief in a huge dildo with magical powers, then sh*t go nuts, just make sure you have the support of the people in doing so.
Furthermore Ive already explained the issue of identity go and read it more carefully this time.
==
Again, whose religion and interpretation, yours? If I'd say that god told me yesterday that you should be hanged by your neck until you were dead, would you believe me? What if the people want a secular state, would you agree to that? And since you haven't answered my question, I will repeat it until you do: what is the Iranian identity? Keep what I wrote earlier in mind: "First of all, culture is dynamic. It is constantly changing. Both internally and externally and there is nothing you can do to change it. Secondly, you still have to explain to me what the Iranian identity is, especially since you're living in Australia. Thirdly, it is not up to you to decide what the Iranian identity is or is going to be, but it is up to Iranians themselfs, in particular the ones living inside of Iran. [...]"
If youre saying the opposite is true, which is ridiculous given mousavi is not a secularist, why dont you substantiate that claim yourself.
==
Because it is not up to me to prove a negative. You made the claim, so it is up to you to prove it. "Why don't you prove you're not a transsexual?"
Ive already explained it, if you are semi illiterate that is not my problem. But it is disconcerting given you are a lawyer.
==
Well I'm not a lawyer yet, but why don't you quote me one of the points you've been critical of, that the regime hasn't been critical of already?
Once again, read more carefully. It is not my problem if you are semi illiterate.
==
Lol, QUOTE! Where is this so called answer of yours?
Then I can only assume youre a lowly mousavi apologist.
==
You can assume I'm the anti-Christ as far as I'm concerned.
Thats bull****, theres recorded footage of basiji armouries being attacked by Molotov cocktails in an attempt to over run them and take the weapons. Footage of people breaking cars. People setting cars on fire. People beating up unarmed government supporters. Spreading of false rumours about students dying who havent died, which fueled further violence. Shops being attacked and fires being lit, rocks being thrown at by standing policemen. None of that is self defence.
==
Ahhh poor basiji, they attack the people with truncheons, knives, axes, guns, motor cycles, and when the people hit back they're suddenly the victims. Poor babies! How dare THE PEOPLE, spread rumours about the massive arrests and the disappearances of their OWN! NAUGHTY NAUGHTY NAUGHTY!
Papa, are you on some kind of medication I should be aware of?
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 14, 2009 6:37 PM
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
You know I noticed something else too, maybe one use for his magical powers would be to hang the fooker from under a helicopter and circle Tehran if and when there is a power failure. Maybe the mofo can reflect this divine light and actually do some good
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
"""Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.
"I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over," he said. "I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her."
Returning to the events of the last few weeks, and his decision to set free the two teenage detainees, he said he "honestly" did not know why he had released them, a decision that led to his own arrest, "but I think it was because they were so young. They looked like children and I knew what would happen to them if they weren't released."
He said that while a man is deemed "responsible for his own actions at 13, for a woman it is 9," and that it was freeing the 15-year-old girl that "really got me in trouble.
"I was not mistreated or really interrogated while being detained," he said. "I was put in a tiny room and left alone. It was hard being isolated, so I spent most of my time praying and thinking about my wife and kids." ""
Firstly, the majority can always go out and vote again IF that majority really exists.
Theoretically yes, but realistically that's not certain. Annuling the vote discredits its legitimacy, completely. Now you can say someone who supports ahmadinejad will go and vote for him but you simply can't deny that someone who supports ahmadinejad is not likely to go and vote for him a second time if it appears that the first one was fraudulent or the system which he supported cheated the people, whether or whether not the election was actually fraudulent he will lose trust in it, ahmadinejad and the system. In other words their support for ahmadinejad would cease.
But if the societal opposition openly runs in the millions (and we're only referring to the active ones who have defied the security forces)
Societal opposition that takes to the streets is not evidence of a rigged election. If it were, then the presence of ahmadinejad supporters who showed in his mashhad speech, for example, could be argued as evidence of a clean election.
it is essential that the government takes their objections seriously.
It would appear the government takes the oppositions objections more serious than the opposition themselves. It is they the opposition who did not even send monitors to a partial recount.
Secondly, the elections did NOT feature representatives from all four canditates, since many of the representatives were barred from being present at the polling stations.
Can you substatiate this claim?
Finally, demonstrating is a constitutional right that can't be infringed merely because the Supreme Leader wishes so.
Demonstrators were clearly becoming violent, crossing religious principles based on an accusation lacking any proof. Please show me where the constitution allows for this.
Again, whose religion and interpretation, yours?
The majorities actually
If I'd say that god told me yesterday that you should be hanged by your neck until you were dead, would you believe me?
If it's within reason and backed by religious and state law, yes.
What if the people want a secular state, would you agree to that?
Yes.
And since you haven't answered my question, I will repeat it until you do: what is the Iranian identity? Keep what I wrote earlier in mind: "First of all, culture is dynamic. It is constantly changing. Both internally and externally and there is nothing you can do to change it. Secondly, you still have to explain to me what the Iranian identity is, especially since you're living in Australia. Thirdly, it is not up to you to decide what the Iranian identity is or is going to be, but it is up to Iranians themselfs, in particular the ones living inside of Iran. [...]"
The answer was always there, you just did not read carefully enough, mr im studying to be a bigshot lawyer:
"Zoroastrianism is an old iranian religion recognised by the state. Some Zoroastrian traditions and beliefs are still practiced by iranians and many of those traditions have permeated their place into our culture and customs. Iranians accepted islam as a faith with a similar and congruent belief system to that of zoroastrianism, that didn't go against zoroastrianism or the iranian culture yet was more complete than zoroastrianism and strengthened its culture. Most Iranians didn't convert until arab rule was persianised, infact only 10% of Iranians converted to islam while iran was under ummayad rule. Iranians also contributed to developing the islam present in the country and other countries today. Shiite islam was adapted by the countries rulers to replace sunni islam and free itself from caliphate rule. In the 15th century I believe, after which shi'ite islam gradually bonded, synthesised and blended with persian culture and interpretation and eventually formed an integral part of the Iranian identity that we have today.
I don't have a problem with any system so long as it does not conflict with the iranian identity, specifically its culture and religion, that is to say the iranian and persian culture and shi'ite islam (ja'fari). Some people want state seperate from religion, such as yourself, imo state can't be seperate from religion because religion isn't just something you practice on sundays it is a big part of who you are and ideally part of the system which governs you."
Because it is not up to me to prove a negative. You made the claim, so it is up to you to prove it. "Why don't you prove you're not a transsexual?"
I don't need to prove that the majority of the 13.5 million supporters of a secularist aren't anti secularists. That is your ridiculous claim, and it defeats any reason or logic, so it lies with you to prove it right.
Well I'm not a lawyer yet, but why don't you quote me one of the points you've been critical of, that the regime hasn't been critical of already?
You really don't believe me do you? You truly think I'm an apologist for the IRI, even when I say I am not? If what I say now is not enough for here is a post from a while back that you cant deny shows that I am telling the truth and how wrong you are:
"Im not against the IRI to want it to be removed, but I don't support some of its policies. Im not for revolution like I would have been for the Shah. I believe reform will fix all our problems without putting the country in turmoil once again and still retain the countries independence, growth and prestige.
Lol, QUOTE! Where is this so called answer of yours?
So you really are semi-illiterate. Here, I will even underline it for you:
"Maybe an elective monarchy, not based on british ideals, but iranian and shi'ite islamic ones where the people elect the house who elects the leader. This is not to be confused with a caliphate. This of course is second to my first preference of islamic republic."
You can assume I'm the anti-Christ as far as I'm concerned.
That assumption would be baseless. My assumption that you are an apologist is by your own logic and reasoning actually quite valid, considering you asked me to quote myself on my criticism of the regime but you yourself refuse to quote let alone state any of your criticism of mousavi. You are by your own frame of reason, a Mousavi apologist.
Ahhh poor basiji, they attack the people with truncheons, knives, axes, guns, motor cycles, and when the people hit back they're suddenly the victims. Poor babies! How dare THE PEOPLE, spread rumours about the massive arrests and the disappearances of their OWN! NAUGHTY NAUGHTY NAUGHTY!
Many of the demonstrators said actions were unprovoked. Infact many of their said actions that were provoked were provoked by false rumours. And in fact you just confirmed to me that their wrongdoings were not exclusively in self defence, which you earlier alluded to. Some cracks are starting to appear in between your own words there mr big shot lawyer.
Papa, are you on some kind of medication I should be aware of?
Nah bro, im all clean. You?
I await whatever half assed reply you have for me.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 15, 2009 6:11 PM
Theoretically yes, but realistically that's not certain. Annuling the vote discredits its legitimacy, completely. Now you can say someone who supports ahmadinejad will go and vote for him but you simply can't deny that someone who supports ahmadinejad is not likely to go and vote for him a second time if it appears that the first one was fraudulent or the system which he supported cheated the people, whether or whether not the election was actually fraudulent he will lose trust in it, ahmadinejad and the system. In other words their support for ahmadinejad would cease.
==
No that is a fact: a free majority can ALWAYS go out and vote again. If the citizens in question take their responsibility too lightly, or refuse to accept that a societal upheaval made a revote necessary, it will be their own shortcoming. In fact, under these conditions a new round of voting will only increase legitimacy because it is independently monitored and more secure.
Societal opposition that takes to the streets is not evidence of a rigged election. If it were, then the presence of ahmadinejad supporters who showed in his mashhad speech, for example, could be argued as evidence of a clean election.
==
First of all, the Ahmadinejad supporters are fully facilitated to be present at his rallies. They are provided with the necessary information, public transport and gathering space among other things. Even so their numbers are much, much lower than that of the opposition, who are violently opposed in every possible way. Secondly, societal opposition is one of the most important methods to gauge resistance against the government. In this case, it runs in the millions across the whole of Iran. Finally, what do you consider to be evidence of a rigged election? What would you realistically require to come to that conclusion? Keep in mind that the government has full control over the election outcome and the disclosure of any information regarding the elections.
It would appear the government takes the oppositions objections more serious than the opposition themselves. It is they the opposition who did not even send monitors to a partial recount.
==
A partial recount means nothing considering the extent of possible fraud. The position of the opposition was clear from the beginning: new free and fair elections. This could only be achieved by independently monitored elections. The partial recount is nothing more than a token movement by the government in an attempt to subdue the real objections of the opposition.
Can you substatiate this claim?
==
Yes, I can:
"[...] Lack of confidence in the ballot boxes being empty before they were sealed [before voting], disappearance of the voting forms and ballot boxes after voting, due to the fact that [our] monitors had been barred from being present at the voting places, as well as based on reports that have been received. [...]"
Demonstrators were clearly becoming violent, crossing religious principles based on an accusation lacking any proof. Please show me where the constitution allows for this.
==
The demonstrations were completely peaceful, especially considering the size and extent of the demonstrations. The true reason the demonstrations were banned was due to their increase in size and momentum. But if you have sources that can substantiate that the demonstrations were banned for the reason that they were becoming violent, by all means present them.
With regard to your answer about a secular state. Would you also aree that it is time to hold a new referendum regarding Iran's system of governance?
The answer was always there, you just did not read carefully enough, mr im studying to be a bigshot lawyer:
==
No, that is not an answer. That is a (flawed) story about how Iranians effected Islam, it doesn't say what the Iranian identity is. Neither does it take into consideration that the Iranian identity has changed over the years, is changing today, and will continue to change in the future. What if you preserve something the Iranians themselfs are trying to get rid of? It is up to Iranians to decide their identity and destiny, not a bunch of hairy mullah's.
I don't need to prove that the majority of the 13.5 million supporters of a secularist aren't anti secularists. That is your ridiculous claim, and it defeats any reason or logic, so it lies with you to prove it right.
==
Maybe you should read your own statements more carefully in the future, since I've never made that claim anywhere.
You really don't believe me do you? You truly think I'm an apologist for the IRI, even when I say I am not? If what I say now is not enough for here is a post from a while back that you cant deny shows that I am telling the truth and how wrong you are:
==
You ARE an apologist for the IRI. I can say that I'm an angel, would you believe me? I would also like to thank you for that quote, but what exactly are you critical of? No revolution? Fine. But what would you like to see reformed?
So you really are semi-illiterate. Here, I will even underline it for you:
==
Oh, well you've used the word "house"! That explains everything, thank you! Not to be a jerk, but could you possibily explain why the people would first have to elect "a house" and then have this "house" elect the monarch? Are the people for example free to elect any person they like as a member of this "house" or are there other undemocratic elements? In fact, WHY would we need an elective monarch, if the "house" itself is elected?
That assumption would be baseless. My assumption that you are an apologist is by your own logic and reasoning actually quite valid, considering you asked me to quote myself on my criticism of the regime but you yourself refuse to quote let alone state any of your criticism of mousavi. You are by your own frame of reason, a Mousavi apologist.
==
So far most of your assumptions have been baseless, biassed and/or incomplete, so there is nothing new there. Also you can assume anything you like, I have absolutely no problems with that, but know this:
1. I'm not a Moussavi supporter because I believe that he is a weak leader who looks out for his own interests first, but at least he's open to reform and he has become the leader of oppertunity for the Iranian people.
2. I have no problems with being called an apologist, because I will defend my position if I believe it's right.
Many of the demonstrators said actions were unprovoked. Infact many of their said actions that were provoked were provoked by false rumours. And in fact you just confirmed to me that their wrongdoings were not exclusively in self defence, which you earlier alluded to. Some cracks are starting to appear in between your own words there mr big shot lawyer.
==
You are right, the actions against the demonstrators were completely unprovoked. Peaceful demonstrations were violently broken up by government thugs. Since we are in agreement I don't see how "cracks" are starting to appear between my own words. Not only doesn't that make any sense, but you're actually in agreement with me!
Nah bro, im all clean. You? wink.gif
I await whatever half assed reply you have for me.
==
It's still better than your full assed replies.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 15, 2009 9:18 PM This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 15, 2009 9:15 PM
No that is a fact: a free majority can ALWAYS go out and vote again. If the citizens in question take their responsibility too lightly, or refuse to accept that a societal upheaval made a revote necessary, it will be their own shortcoming. In fact, under these conditions a new round of voting will only increase legitimacy because it is independently monitored and more secure.
So you atleast agree that a second vote will take away legitimacy from the first and also from the system.
First of all, the Ahmadinejad supporters are fully facilitated to be present at his rallies. They are provided with the necessary information, public transport and gathering space among other things. Even so their numbers are much, much lower than that of the opposition, who are violently opposed in every possible way. Secondly, societal opposition is one of the most important methods to gauge resistance against the government. In this case, it runs in the millions across the whole of Iran. Finally, what do you consider to be evidence of a rigged election? What would you realistically require to come to that conclusion? Keep in mind that the government has full control over the election outcome and the disclosure of any information regarding the elections.
A partial recount means nothing considering the extent of possible fraud. The position of the opposition was clear from the beginning: new free and fair elections. This could only be achieved by independently monitored elections. The partial recount is nothing more than a token movement by the government in an attempt to subdue the real objections of the opposition.
Can you elaborate on this further?
Yes, I can:
"[...] Lack of confidence in the ballot boxes being empty before they were sealed [before voting], disappearance of the voting forms and ballot boxes after voting, due to the fact that [our] monitors had been barred from being present at the voting places, as well as based on reports that have been received. [...]"
Hahaha that is not substanstial proof, that is just your initial claim just repeated in mousavis words.
The demonstrations were completely peaceful, especially considering the size and extent of the demonstrations. The true reason the demonstrations were banned was due to their increase in size and momentum. But if you have sources that can substantiate that the demonstrations were banned for the reason that they were becoming violent, by all means present them.
With regard to your answer about a secular state. Would you also aree that it is time to hold a new referendum regarding Iran's system of governance?
No, the 40 million vote suggests support is strong.
No, that is not an answer. That is a (flawed) story about how Iranians effected Islam, it doesn't say what the Iranian identity is. Neither does it take into consideration that the Iranian identity has changed over the years, is changing today, and will continue to change in the future. What if you preserve something the Iranians themselfs are trying to get rid of? It is up to Iranians to decide their identity and destiny, not a bunch of hairy mullah's.
That's your opinion and last I checked 'hairy mullahs' were also iranians
Maybe you should read your own statements more carefully in the future, since I've never made that claim anywhere.
If you don't believe they aren't secularists then you can only believe they are.
You ARE an apologist for the IRI. I can say that I'm an angel, would you believe me? I would also like to thank you for that quote, but what exactly are you critical of? No revolution? Fine. But what would you like to see reformed?
Nothing now, the reform movement has long lost my trust and support since that post.
Oh, well you've used the word "house"! That explains everything, thank you! Not to be a jerk, but could you possibily explain why the people would first have to elect "a house" and then have this "house" elect the monarch? Are the people for example free to elect any person they like as a member of this "house" or are there other undemocratic elements? In fact, WHY would we need an elective monarch, if the "house" itself is elected?
I don't really feel I need to go into detail on this since it was never part of your initial question. I answered what you asked, kindly enough as it is. You are just trying to stall and go off on a tangent.
So far most of your assumptions have been baseless, biassed and/or incomplete, so there is nothing new there. Also you can assume anything you like, I have absolutely no problems with that, but know this:
1. I'm not a Moussavi supporter because I believe that he is a weak leader who looks out for his own interests first, but at least he's open to reform and he has become the leader of oppertunity for the Iranian people.
2. I have no problems with being called an apologist, because I will defend my position if I believe it's right.
Atleast we can agree on something finally.
You are right, the actions against the demonstrators were completely unprovoked. Peaceful demonstrations were violently broken up by government thugs. Since we are in agreement I don't see how "cracks" are starting to appear between my own words. Not only doesn't that make any sense, but you're actually in agreement with me!
No i'm not first you said their actions were in self defence then when I listed some of their actions which were not defensive you agreed they 'hit back' because of what the basij did. That is not self defence. You also agreed that there was rumour spreading which is essentially one of the keypoints of my argument that the opposition are very much guilty of wrong doing.
It's still better than your full assed replies.
No, it's terrible.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
So you atleast agree that a second vote will take away legitimacy from the first and also from the system.
==
You really should learn to read: "[...] In fact, under these conditions a new round of voting will only increase legitimacy because it is independently monitored and more secure." In other words: a) the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems, otherwise there would be no need for a second round of voting and b) the second round of voting will INCREASE the legitimacy of the system, since the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems.
Like his speech in Mashhad?
==
Like with all his speeches. You might also be interested to know that the opposition was holding rallies while Ahmadinejad was holding his speech in Mashad.
Can you elaborate on this further?
==
I have already elaborated it sufficiently. Also, your weak attempts at hiding the fact that you have nothing substantial left to say is obvious. So might want to stop using meaningless replies and pointless questions.
Hahaha that is not substanstial proof, that is just your initial claim just repeated in mousavis words.
==
Oh I see, so you would like Ayatollah Khamenei to come out and admit it? Unless the government admits fraud BY the government it doesnt count! Of course, I forgot, how stupid of me!
Are things like this 'completely peaceful'
==
Thank you for proving my point exactly! As we've discussed earlier, the people have every right to defend themselfs against government thugs. Now would you like me to post videos of the treatment of demonstrators by these government thugs? What would you like to see first? The shooting and stabbing of women? The murder of a 12 year old child? The brutal beating of demonstrators? Let me know.
Nothing now, the reform movement has long lost my trust and support since that post.
==
Exactly, you are a government apologist. A government apologist who is living in Australia and who hasn't visited Iran since he was a little child.
I don't really feel I need to go into detail on this since it was never part of your initial question. I answered what you asked, kindly enough as it is. You are just trying to stall and go off on a tangent.
==
Let me translate: "I can't go into details, because I don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about. My whole system is based on a committee that is either democratically elected, which makes it basically useless unless there are some additional requirements, or undemocratically elected, which gives us the same problems as the ones the current system is facing. But since I've stated something I have absolutely no understand of, I can't back down, even though I wish I had kept my big mouth shut in the first place."
Atleast we can agree on something finally.
==
Actually, we also agree that government thugs have violently broken up peaceful demonstrations (and continue to do so).
No i'm not first you said their actions were in self defence then when I listed some of their actions which were not defensive you agreed they 'hit back' because of what the basij did. That is not self defence. You also agreed that there was rumour spreading which is essentially one of the keypoints of my argument that the opposition are very much guilty of wrong doing.
==
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot for a minute that your brain is incapable of handling more than one subject at the same time. But before you enter a futile game of semantics with me, you might want to keep this in mind: self defense is also protection of oneself from an unprovoked attack, which cannot be avoided. Like the ones constantly experienced since the outbreak of the demonstrations. In other words, you are STILL agreeing with me.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 16, 2009 9:48 AM
You really should learn to read: "[...] In fact, under these conditions a new round of voting will only increase legitimacy because it is independently monitored and more secure." In other words: a) the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems, otherwise there would be no need for a second round of voting and b) the second round of voting will INCREASE the legitimacy of the system, since the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems.
Gotcha, annulling the first vote and holding a second round will increase the legitimacy of the system. No worries, good luck with that logic of yours later in life.
Like with all his speeches. You might also be interested to know that the opposition was holding rallies while Ahmadinejad was holding his speech in Mashad.
I have already elaborated it sufficiently. Also, your weak attempts at hiding the fact that you have nothing substantial left to say is obvious. So might want to stop using meaningless replies and pointless questions.
Yehhhh, its not okay for me to ask for you to elaborate on something, thats supposedly pointless, but its okay for you to ask questions such as what is your 2nd preference of form of governance, and then ask specific questions on that. What a lawyer you are, trying to grab yourself some token points.
Oh I see, so you would like Ayatollah Khamenei to come out and admit it? Unless the government admits fraud BY the government it doesnt count! Of course, I forgot, how stupid of me!
Err no, I never said that. I said show proof, and all you did was just show the same claim you made written in mousavis words. If you make a claim back it up, I thought the importance of evidence is the first thing they teach you people. Guess not.
Thank you for proving my point exactly! As we've discussed earlier, the people have every right to defend themselfs against government thugs. Now would you like me to post videos of the treatment of demonstrators by these government thugs? What would you like to see first? The shooting and stabbing of women? The murder of a 12 year old child? The brutal beating of demonstrators? Let me know.
Throwing Molotov cocktails at buildings inorder to gain access to firearms, setting buses and buildings on fire, throwing 1kg rocks at by standing policemen, beating up the unarmed, attacking cars, lighting shops on fire and of course attacking people based on false rumours is not self defence.
I already know innocents were killed and I think youre having problems understanding an important point here. If you look back I never said they didnt happen, infact I stated that anyone guilty of killing an innocent should be killed.
You argue one side is completely free of wrong doing, I argue they are not and even presented video evidence to show you which you refuse to accept.
You are in fact the one who is coming up with meaningless replies.
Exactly, you are a government apologist. A government apologist who is living in Australia and who hasn't visited Iran since he was a little child.
So I am a government apologist because I dont agree with the reformist movement anymore am I. Haha, I love you man youre so irrational and upset that you didnt get your way you dont even make sense anymore. I last visited when I was 18, so just like your accusations of fraud you are again making unfounded claims that lack evidence.
Let me translate: "I can't go into details, because I don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about. My whole system is based on a committee that is either democratically elected, which makes it basically useless unless there are some additional requirements, or undemocratically elected, which gives us the same problems as the ones the current system is facing. But since I've stated something I have absolutely no understand of, I can't back down, even though I wish I had kept my big mouth shut in the first place."
I have already elaborated it sufficiently. Also, your weak attempts at hiding the fact that you have nothing substantial left to say is obvious. So might want to stop using meaningless replies and pointless questions. Kozak
Btw dont get angry man, were just having a civilized discussion here okay? I am just enjoying talking to another Iranian and sharing my views. It is not about backing down or who wins, its about discussing our disagreements with one another.
Actually, we also agree that government thugs have violently broken up peaceful demonstrations (and continue to do so).
Some paramilitary have, yes, this I have never denied.
Its good that we have also agreed that mousavi is a weak leader who looks out for his own interests first, who you support and are an apologetic of.
self defense is also protection of oneself from an unprovoked attack, which cannot be avoided. Like the ones constantly experienced since the outbreak of the demonstrations.
Sure... your point being that the opposition are completely free of any and all wrong doing. Gotcha
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot for a minute that your brain is incapable of handling more than one subject at the same time.
Wow and Im still here and so are you.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 16, 2009 2:41 PM
Gotcha, annulling the first vote and holding a second round will increase the legitimacy of the system. No worries, good luck with that logic of yours later in life.
==
Let's see if I can break it down so that even you can comprehend:
"[...] In fact, under these conditions a new round of voting will only increase legitimacy because it is independently monitored and more secure."
In other words:
a) the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems, otherwise there would be no need for a second round of voting and
b) the second round of voting will INCREASE the legitimacy of the system, since the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems.
There is a second vote, because the first round of voting most likely lacks legitimacy in the first place. The second vote ensures that no fraud can be committed, contributing to the legitimacy of the system. Unlike the first vote.
Do you understand?
Funny, the video of his mashad speech tells a different story. Here are a few more pro ahmadinejad gatherings if you want to watch
==
Iran state television only broadcasts the speech but not the rallies. I guess we can only conclude that there were no rallies! Jee wiz mister! You're really smart! You are aware that Iran state television doesn't broadcast any rallies? You are also aware that Iran has kicked out all foreign journalists, banned reformist media and the only images videos of the rallies coming out of Iran are from citizens?
Yehhhh, its not okay for me to ask for you to elaborate on something, thats supposedly pointless, but its okay for you to ask questions such as what is your 2nd preference of form of governance, and then ask specific questions on that. What a lawyer you are, trying to grab yourself some token points.
==
You are free to ask whatever questions you like, but you can't expect me to answer them if you're attempting to draw away attention from what we are discussing. My answer was more than sufficient. If you have any other questions related to this subject I'll be more than happy to answer them for you. Without saying, I expect the same from you.
Err no, I never said that. I said show proof, and all you did was just show the same claim you made written in mousavis words. If you make a claim back it up, I thought the importance of evidence is the first thing they teach you people. Guess not.
==
So what would you like? Would you like a movie of of all the polling stations during the elections? Maybe an eye witness account from every citizen that was present at the time of the voting? Here's something you might want to keep in mind:
1. the reports that opposition observers were barred from entering some voting stations has not been denied by the government,
1. no independent observers were present during the elections,
3. most reformist candidates were barred from taking part in the elections in the first place,
4. the election was run by the Interior Ministry.
But of course, "opposition observers" can only mean Moussavi and the rest of the points don't even count.
Throwing Molotov cocktails at buildings inorder to gain access to firearms, setting buses and buildings on fire, throwing 1kg rocks at by standing policemen, beating up the unarmed, attacking cars, lighting shops on fire and of course attacking people based on false rumours is not self defence.
==
First prove that they were throwing Molotov cocktails at BASIJ buildings to gain access to firearms as opposed to preventing the BASIJ from using those fire arms against the people. Second, prove that they set any busses on fire out of acts of vandalism rather than self defence against the charging government thugs. Third, prove that deliberately false rumours have been spread and that any misinformation is not the result of the government crackdown on reformist media. Fourth, prove that shops have been set on fire by the demonstrators. Finally prove that the demonstrators have attacked any unarmed. Needles to say, I'm not referring to the Basij militia who got captured after they had attacked the demonstrators.
NOTE: make sure that in each instance you can prove that any wrongdoing was "in name of the people".
Ive already seen all which you listed and I think youre having problems understanding an important point here. If you look back I never said they didnt happen, infact I stated that anyone guilty of killing an innocent should be killed.
==
So what is the government doing to capture the persons responsible for the brutal attacks on the demonstrators?
You argue one side is completely free of wrong doing, I argue they are not and even presented video evidence to show you which you refuse to accept.
==
Wrong, but I am arguing that any possible wrongdoing by the demonstrators is not only understandable, but proportionally much smaller than the wrong doings of the government and its henchmen. Also, the videos in question do not prove anything. As I've stated above, I want proof, not your opinion on what you're seeing, since I'm seeing something completely different.
You are in fact the one who is coming up with meaningless replies.
==
It doesn't mean amy replies are meaningless, just because you're unable to understand them.
So I am a government apologist because I dont agree with the reformist movement anymore am I. Haha, I love you man youre so irrational and upset that you didnt get your way you dont even make sense anymore. I last visited when I was 18, so just like your accusations of fraud you are again making unfounded claims that lack evidence.
==
No you are a government apologist for reasons mentioned earlier: there is nothing you can claim that you are critical of that the regime hasn't already claimed to be critical of itself. That you don't agree with the "reform movement" (you don't even know what that implies) is merely an additional point. By the way, how old are you now?
Btw dont get angry man, were just having a civilized discussion here okay? I am just enjoying talking to another Iranian and sharing my views. It is not about backing down or who wins, its about discussing our disagreements with one another.
==
Please do not flatter yourself. Besides, I'm not upset or angry in any way, to the contrary. I'm having a pretty good time shooting down everything you can come up with.
Some paramilitary have, yes, this I have never denied.
==
Excuse me "some"? Aren't ALL the forces, including all plain clothed and uniformed police, military and para military under the direct command of the government? And haven't ALL of them taken part in breaking up the peaceful demonstrations? And aren't they STILL taking part in breaking up demonstrations?
Its good that we have also agreed that mousavi is a weak leader who looks out for his own interests first, who you support and are an apologetic of.
==
You're not a very smart person. How can I be an apologist of Mousavi if I state that he is a weak leader who looks out for himself? Do you see a contradiction here? Anyway, fine call me an apologist, I don't mind. But at least show me where I've been such a staunch supporter of him. You can quote me.
Sure... your point being that the opposition are completely free of any and all wrong doing. wink.gif
==
Yes, self-defense and being "completely free of any and all wrong doing" is completely the same.
Wow and Im still here and so are you. wink.gif
==
Yup, you're like an ant!
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 16, 2009 2:45 PM
Let's see if I can break it down so that even you can comprehend:
"[...] In fact, under these conditions a new round of voting will only increase legitimacy because it is independently monitored and more secure."
In other words:
a) the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems, otherwise there would be no need for a second round of voting and
b) the second round of voting will INCREASE the legitimacy of the system, since the first round of voting already has legitimacy problems.
There is a second vote, because the first round of voting most likely lacks legitimacy in the first place. The second vote ensures that no fraud can be committed, contributing to the legitimacy of the system. Unlike the first vote.
Do you understand?
Firstly there is no evidence to suggest the vote lacks legitimacy. There are only false accusations and misleading beliefs.
Lets say though regardless of what you believe, for arguments sake, that the election outcome was legitimate. Youre assuming that in that case people who actually believed in its legitimacy are not going to change their mind between the time when the votes are annulled and a second vote goes underway. What Im arguing is this: you cant deny that if a second vote was held, it wouldnt give the illusion that first vote - regardless of whether its outcome was actually authentic and legitimate and whether the person believed so wasnt. In that case you would lose trust in the system, and it would likely lose your support ahmadinejad and mousavi supporters alike. To this end, the outcome of the second vote regardless of whether you believed it to be legitimate or not would not be the same as the first, assuming that the outcome of the first vote was legitimate. Im not saying that a second vote means the first was illegitimate, Im just saying a second vote would give people that illusion. Do you now understand what I am saying?
Iran state television only broadcasts the speech but not the rallies. I guess we can only conclude that there were no rallies! Jee wiz mister! You're really smart! You are aware that Iran state television doesn't broadcast any rallies? You are also aware that Iran has kicked out all foreign journalists, banned reformist media and the only images videos of the rallies coming out of Iran are from citizens?
When I quoted you I accidentally left out the part where you talked about numbers at his unity rallies, which was what I was addressing.
You are free to ask whatever questions you like, but you can't expect me to answer them if you're attempting to draw away attention from what we are discussing. My answer was more than sufficient. If you have any other questions related to this subject I'll be more than happy to answer them for you. Without saying, I expect the same from you.
I should have been more clear on this. I was wondering about your first sentence when I asked you to elaborate.
A partial recount means nothing considering the extent of possible fraud.
Elaborate on this sentence. What do you mean by considering the extent of possible fraud. Specifically, what do you mean when you say possible. Is it that you lack evidence that 10 million votes were rigged, or that the irregularities make such fraud possible. If so what are these irregularities that entitle you to another election? And how do they affect legitimacy?
So what would you like? Would you like a movie of of all the polling stations during the elections? Maybe an eye witness account from every citizen that was present at the time of the voting? Here's something you might want to keep in mind:
1. the reports that opposition observers were barred from entering some voting stations has not been denied by the government,
That is true, but what youre doing here is playing with words, or maybe you just dont know well enough about this issue. The government did not deny that the 3, the 14 and the 73 reported cases of representatives of rezaei, karroubi and mousavi who were not allowed to attend polling stations among the rest of the 5421, 13506 and 40676 representatives of those candidates. It didnt deny this. What it did though is state that the reason they were not allowed to attend was because they did not have on them the required id cards that they needed to represent their candidate at a polling station as such they were not representatives.
First prove that they were throwing Molotov cocktails at BASIJ buildings to gain access to firearms as opposed to preventing the BASIJ from using those fire arms against the people. Second, prove that they set any busses on fire out of acts of vandalism rather than self defence against the charging government thugs. Third, prove that deliberately false rumours have been spread and that any misinformation is not the result of the government crackdown on reformist media. Fourth, prove that shops have been set on fire by the demonstrators. Finally prove that the demonstrators have attacked any unarmed. Needles to say, I'm not referring to the Basij militia who got captured after they had attacked the demonstrators.
Do you even know what a molotov cocktail is? It isnt a rock that you just pick up from the ground and throw at someone. It has to be prepared, with petrol, a soaked rag, and bottles. There are also no shots fired till after a number of cocktails have been thrown and in another video of the same incidence we see once the shots are fired, the Molotov attacks cease.
How is setting a bus on fire going to stop government thugs? Youre not dealing with fvcking count Dracula here they will just go around it. It is an act of vandalism by nature.
Taraneh mousavi is just one example of a false rumour that set a lot of emotions high. Another is a posting of student deaths at a uni campus.
They did attack a basiji from the video we saw, but nevertheless he was unarmed and one of the persons videod kicking him did state that his attack was because of his anger started from a false rumour. Its not that I feel sorry for him, but attacking him was not in self defence and you can see the women even covered him from the attackers.
So what is the government doing to capture the persons responsible for the brutal attacks on the demonstrators?
I dont think its doing absolutely nothing, to say that, is not so precise, as far as I know an investigation was ordered into the university dorm attacks as well as the kahrizak prison deaths. I find it hard to believe that anyone found guilty will be just free to walk.
Please do not flatter yourself. Besides, I'm not upset or angry in any way
Good to hear
Excuse me "some"? Aren't ALL the forces, including all plain clothed and uniformed police, military and para military under the direct command of the government? And haven't ALL of them taken part in breaking up the peaceful demonstrations? And aren't they STILL taking part in breaking up demonstrations?
Breaking up demonstrations does not necessarily mean using violence but a certain amount of force, if it did then all governments around the world are guilty of this.
You're not a very smart person. How can I be an apologist of Mousavi if I state that he is a weak leader who looks out for himself? Do you see a contradiction here? Anyway, fine call me an apologist, I don't mind. But at least show me where I've been such a staunch supporter of him. You can quote me.
By your own logic there is no contradiction you still consider me a government apologist regardless of the fact that I showed you I was in support of reforms at a time and even stated my criticisms.
----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too
This message has been edited by PappaRage on Aug 17, 2009 7:46 AM
Firstly there is no evidence to suggest the vote lacks legitimacy. There are only false accusations and misleading beliefs.
==
There is overwhelming indication that the elections have been fraudulent and therefore miss legitimacy. The reasons have been discussed in some detail before. They range from the lack of independent observers, to the millions of missing ballots, to the way the counting of the votes was conducted. Waiting for acknowledgement from the regime, is unrealistic.
Lets say though regardless of what you believe, for arguments sake, that the election outcome was legitimate. Youre assuming that in that case people who actually believed in its legitimacy are not going to change their mind between the time when the votes are annulled and a second vote goes underway. What Im arguing is this: you cant deny that if a second vote was held, it wouldnt give the illusion that first vote - regardless of whether its outcome was actually authentic and legitimate and whether the person believed so wasnt. In that case you would lose trust in the system, and it would likely lose your support ahmadinejad and mousavi supporters alike. To this end, the outcome of the second vote regardless of whether you believed it to be legitimate or not would not be the same as the first, assuming that the outcome of the first vote was legitimate. Im not saying that a second vote means the first was illegitimate, Im just saying a second vote would give people that illusion. Do you now understand what I am saying?
==
You seem to be missing the point: the reason there should be a second round of voting is because the first round of voting (most likey) already misses legitimacy. The second round of voting is to fill the possible deficit in legitimacy created by shortcomings in the first round of voting. As such, the second round of voting serves to ensure the legitimacy of the system. Merely because a few people lack the democratic responsibility to vote again in the second round, can by itself not be used as an argument against holding a new round of voting.
When I quoted you I accidentally left out the part where you talked about numbers at his unity rallies, which was what I was addressing.
==
"[...] Ahmadinejad supporters are fully facilitated to be present at his rallies. As I've stated before, Ahmadinejad's supporters are provided with the necessary information, public transport and gathering space among other things. Even so their numbers are much, much lower than that of the opposition, who are violently opposed in every possible way.[...]"
Organized gatherings by the government and spontaneous gatherings by the people incomparable. Also supporters of Ahmadinejad have nothing to fear from the security forces. In fact, they opposite is true, they are encouraged to gather.
I should have been more clear on this. I was wondering about your first sentence when I asked you to elaborate.
A partial recount means nothing considering the extent of possible fraud.
Elaborate on this sentence. What do you mean by considering the extent of possible fraud. Specifically, what do you mean when you say possible. Is it that you lack evidence that 10 million votes were rigged, or that the irregularities make such fraud possible. If so what are these irregularities that entitle you to another election? And how do they affect legitimacy?
==
I cannot provide you with waterproof evidence that the first round of voting was fraudulent. Not only is that impossible, but if I could, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. So I always keep in mind that the outcome of the voting could be (almost) correct. With that being said, I must also conclude that there is more than enough evidence supporting (possible) widespread election fraud, to justify a new round of voting. Particularly when the popular response is taken into consideration. A small vote recount does almost nothing to address all of these shortcomings. Neither does it reassure the massive number of people who have either openly or passively questioned the outcome of the voting (those we haven't seen in the street).
The government could have very easily addressed these concerns by acknowledging that the circumstances were out of the ordinary and that only a new round of voting would allay the objections made by the opposition and its supporters. But the government choose a very different route. Rather it used force against the very people it claims to be protecting. With regard to your question about legitimacy and a second round of voting, I direct you to my first reply.
That is true, but what youre doing here is playing with words, or maybe you just dont know well enough about this issue. The government did not deny that the 3, the 14 and the 73 reported cases of representatives of rezaei, karroubi and mousavi who were not allowed to attend polling stations among the rest of the 5421, 13506 and 40676 representatives of those candidates. It didnt deny this. What it did though is state that the reason they were not allowed to attend was because they did not have on them the required id cards that they needed to represent their candidate at a polling station as such they were not representatives.
==
I haven't come across these numbers, but I can say that the opposition has stated that outcome of the inquiry is flawed because many points have either not been addressed or not fully reviewed.
Do you even know what a molotov cocktail is? It isnt a rock that you just pick up from the ground and throw at someone. It has to be prepared, with petrol, a soaked rag, and bottles. There are also no shots fired till after a number of cocktails have been thrown and in another video of the same incidence we see once the shots are fired, the Molotov attacks cease.
How is setting a bus on fire going to stop government thugs? Youre not dealing with fvcking count Dracula here they will just go around it. It is an act of vandalism by nature.
==
You haven't addressed most of the points, but I will address yours: self-defense can be quite elaborate and it is not limited to throwing rocks. The people will use whatever weapons they have at their disposal and a Molotov cocktail such a weapon. It is cheap, easily produced and can be relatively effective. Secondly, you do not know who set those busses on fire. I would like to remind you that there are videos availabe exposing security forces committing acts of vandalism. In at least one of these videos they put writings on walls. Also you do you know what those busses were used for, by whom they were used, or from what direction security forces were advancing. Finally, the people cannot be held responsible for the actions of every individual.
Taraneh mousavi is just one example of a false rumour that set a lot of emotions high. Another is a posting of student deaths at a uni campus.
==
It has yet to be seen whether Taraneh Mousavi is a false rumour! There is more than enough evidece to assume that she is in fact the victim of government thugs. I take the word of the regime (which is responsible for the security crackdowns) with a grain of salt. But more importantly, who's fault is this? If the government didn't kick out, arrest or ban all journalists and media, the people would be able to freely communicate and inquire claims. Therefore the need for rumours would be subdued. Censure is the issue here. Another important factor that must be taken into consideration is the use of government misinformation.
They did attack a basiji from the video we saw, but nevertheless he was unarmed and one of the persons videod kicking him did state that his attack was because of his anger started from a false rumour. Its not that I feel sorry for him, but attacking him was not in self defence and you can see the women even covered him from the attackers.
==
Do you take government forced confessions seriously? As for your links, they prove very little: we see a Basij militia who has been captured after attacking demonstrators, the destruction of government property, shops that could have very well been set on fire by government forces, the starting of fires to protect against tear gas. If anything, they prove the exact opposite of what you are claiming: desperate people making use of what they have at their disposal.
I dont think its doing absolutely nothing, to say that, is not so precise, as far as I know an investigation was ordered into the university dorm attacks as well as the kahrizak prison deaths. I find it hard to believe that anyone found guilty will be just free to walk.
==
I certainly hope you are right, but we still haven't seen any results. The inquiry into the dorm attacks has been underway for about two months now and Kahrizak prison was only closed after the son of an important conservative was killed there.
Breaking up demonstrations does not necessarily mean using violence but a certain amount of force, if it did then all governments around the world are guilty of this.
==
If the amount of force used was proportional it wouldn't have been called a brutal crackdown and it wouldn't have drawn so much worldwide attention. But what conclusions do you draw yourself when you watch videos and images of security forces attacking demonstrators?
By your own logic there is no contradiction you still consider me a government apologist regardless of the fact that I showed you I was in support of reforms at a time and even stated my criticisms.
==
An apologist is a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution, something you've been doing quite vehemently since the beginning of the unrest. Your lack of criticism attests to this. I merely look at Mousavi, or more specifically Karoubi and Khatami, as the lesser of two evils. I do not agree with the regime as a whole, but I prefer almost any reformist over a conservative.
------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts
------------------------------
This message has been edited by Koz4k on Aug 20, 2009 6:36 PM
Current Topic - Larijani: Prison rape claims 'sheer lies'
. However I did make a thread about the CONFIRMED deaths inside the prisons due to recent events. So, why don't you enlighten us and defend your beloved rahbar and regime in that thread 
![[linked image]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j198/rcelej/RedList20Fist_1.png)
![[linked image]](http://en.atropedia.net/code/upload/images/0710f76092050b98543d_500.jpg)