Ahmadinejad 'wins' again

[Thac0man]

The philibustering is all yours Thacoman - you ask for evidence, you wont read it and ask again five minutes later.

You are providing information (alot of which is opinion and conjecture) about events unrelated to the parties involved in or protesting the Iranian election in Iran. In doing so you are trying to warp peoples perspective of the events currently unfolding in Iran. The reason for this is your die-hard support for police state theocracy - because there simply cannot be another logical reason for your behaviour and refusal to examine and discuss the facts about what is going on in Iran now.

[Thac0man]

I think that the danger in Iran now is a spiral of violence into a police state.

I have to disagree. The recent shame election puts a serious question mark over previous elections and the entire electoral process in Iran is looking like a charade. It also highlights the forces and powers available to the government that can act without consequance against the civilian population on the behest of the Supreme Leader. These powers are nothing new, they have been around since the founding of the Islamic Republic and are integral to its existance. What we are seeing is the stripping away of the rather flimsey facade of democracy in Iran to reveal the police state that has always existed under the current regime.

The quesion is, is this current Iranian regime any differant than the Shahs regime that proceeded it?

[Fortesbrand]

I have to disagree. The recent shame election puts a serious question mark over previous elections and the entire electoral process in Iran is looking like a charade. It also highlights the forces and powers available to the government that can act without consequence against the civilian population on the behest of the Supreme Leader. These powers are nothing new, they have been around since the founding of the Islamic Republic and are integral to its existence. What we are seeing is the stripping away of the rather flimsy facade of democracy in Iran to reveal the police state that has always existed under the current regime.

The quesion is, is this current Iranian regime any different than the Shahs regime that proceeded it?

From what I understand your position is that Iran is a state much like that of N. Korea or Myanmar and, as such, is a tyranny of such a magnitude that it cannot be reconciled within a decent international order.

Iranian culture is schooled to despise the West (and America in particular) and this makes them dangerous fanatics. Furthermore, there is anti Israeli rhetoric that can be interpreted as antisemitism and this is the hallmark of evil.

Also, they are Muslims and Muslims are inherently violent, vicious and duplicitous as a result of their religion and since religion is important in their society this makes them all irrational and cruel.

Since they are occupying the territory where substantial energy reserves are located there is a valid Western interest in intervening in the region to keep the peace and curb the rise of movements that could generate dangerous, aggressive and badly aligned regimes.

The influence of such cultures is pernicious to the values of the West as they are oppressive, brutal and intolerant. Iran itself is sympathetic and provides material support to organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah which are listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S.A. and its allies.

In any case we should know which side we are on and promote the collapse of the Iranian system of government to further our own interests which include the promotion of human rights and democracy. The West are the good guys, anyway, and whatever has to be done to fight our enemies is justified.

I hope I didn't do an injustice to your position, please correct me if you find any of this objectionable.

Do you differentiate the current regime (in terms of those occupying its leadership positions) from the system of government or should Iran have a new constitutional arrangement?

I do not think that Iran is a dictatorship but I do not think that it is a wholesome polity either. There are reliable reports that members of the opposition are harassed, arrested and subject to inhuman treatment at the hands of the secret police. This can only be condemned but my point was that those elements that currently are engaged in such activities will find their remit widened and will entrench themselves further into the system which will, in the end, be detrimental to everybody. A civil war would be a tragedy that is difficult to understand for many and it would destabilize the region further.

I believe that the Ayatollah was unwise in the way he managed this election and outrageously foolish if he subverted the electoral process. As for the charade of elections, candidates for high offices are always approved by the power brokers in all the large states before they are considered viable contenders.

Is this regime different to the Shah's regime that preceded it? Yes, it offered an entente at the time of the invasion of Iraq and was on a vector of reform until then. From what I understand, the past eight years have been corrosive to this movement for a relaxing of the regime. It has allowed these secret police elements to grow ever more powerful and there is a danger of it tipping into an outright and generalized state terror.

As for the treatment of Neda's family, I think that if this report is true then it is appalling. Her death has clearly made an emotional connection with observers of the events in Iran and has come to symbolize resistance to oppression. Remember, though, that a concerted propaganda campaign is being mounted at present and news reports are not completely reliable.

Finally, do the protests have a prospect of success? No, I don't think so given what I have gleaned from the news reports and the historical context. The current regime is popular with a broad section of the population and has a security network in place that can be applied to its civilians. It is under external threat and this consolidates support for it. This also means that the general public will tolerant extreme repressive measures in the interests of national security. This is why I raised the comparison with the Paris Commune where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered when the French government moved in to quash the revolt.

There has to be a second round in the elections and talks should be underway between the parties to arrange this. If this is not going on then Iran may well return to its condition under the Shah.

[Thac0man]

Iranian culture is schooled to despise the West (and America in particular) and this makes them dangerous fanatics. Furthermore, there is anti Israeli rhetoric that can be interpreted as antisemitism and this is the hallmark of evil.

Also, they are Muslims and Muslims are inherently violent, vicious and duplicitous as a result of their religion and since religion is important in their society this makes them all irrational and cruel.

That I would disagree with. Iranians, by and large do not hate the West or even the US. That stance, portrayed by the Iranian state controlled media is the stance of the broadly unrepresentitive regime that controls Iran. This is illustrated by the fact that the forces under their control are often bolstered by non-Iranian volunteers, especially the religous police.

There has to be a second round in the elections and talks should be underway between the parties to arrange this. If this is not going on then Iran may well return to its condition under the Shah.

Now at this point you seem to be contradicting yourself (or are not taking into account unfolding events in iran). There will be no second round and indeed no compromise. If anything the resolve of the Supreme leader and his followers in power has hardened. Now without citizens having a democratic process and without redress to the law, what is the differance between NK and Iran? Once the government holds itself to be above the law and indeed above officials (who are now seen to be selected rather than elected) Iran is left with a regime that is isolated from the general population and immune to their opinions. Indeed the expression of opinions in itself is deemed treasonous (more so than it was already). The regime in Iran it seems is getting ready to crush what opposition it has allowed to be involved in what limited democratic government there is. Once that is done it is a fete do compli, Iran becomes a dictatorship. The cosmetic process labelled democracy is done away with. Why split hairs then?

[Fortesbrand]

That I would disagree with. Iranians, by and large do not hate the West or even the US. That stance, portrayed by the Iranian state controlled media is the stance of the broadly unrepresentative regime that controls Iran. This is illustrated by the fact that the forces under their control are often bolstered by non-Iranian volunteers, especially the religious police.



Now at this point you seem to be contradicting yourself (or are not taking into account unfolding events in Iran). There will be no second round and indeed no compromise. If anything the resolve of the Supreme leader and his followers in power has hardened. Now without citizens having a democratic process and without redress to the law, what is the difference between NK and Iran? Once the government holds itself to be above the law and indeed above officials (who are now seen to be selected rather than elected) Iran is left with a regime that is isolated from the general population and immune to their opinions. Indeed the expression of opinions in itself is deemed treasonous (more so than it was already). The regime in Iran it seems is getting ready to crush what opposition it has allowed to be involved in what limited democratic government there is. Once that is done it is a fete accompli, Iran becomes a dictatorship. The cosmetic process labeled democracy is done away with. Why split hairs then?

"This is illustrated by the fact that the forces under their control are often bolstered by non-Iranian volunteers, especially the religious police."

Are you suggesting that these religious police are similar in nature to Al Q? I have no idea about religious police since we never had anything like them here but I'm not sure I like the idea of it. What do they do?

Do you agree that the other points correctly reflect your position?

As for the second point, this looks like what is happening. Its a terrible development. I reckon the Palestinians have just lost a major sponsor as Iran will now move from a position where it was seen as a victim of Western aggression to being seen as a violently oppressive regime. Perhaps China and Russia will shrug it off as an American destabilization exercise but public opinion in the West has been turned against Iran. This is especially significant in Europe. Pity, I was hoping that things were going to get better.

As for splitting hairs, I think it was important to recall the situation prior to the invasion of Iraq. There was hope then.

My concern with this is that the bad people in the regime will remove the good people and the bad people in the opposition will displace the good people in it. Both will use the outrages of the other to make the situation there brutal and silence moderating voices who call for reason instead of hate. Tactics that are considered evil will become the standard operating procedure for both. This happens time and time again across all the peoples of the world and it looks like it will be happening in earnest there too. The precepts of justice will be considered an encumbrance and guilt will be determined not on any criminal act but on membership of a different group. Neutrals will be hated the most. These are evil times indeed.