Reproduced with permission from Heretic (she's passed out in the bar drip tray). This needs an article post, not the comment wall. I am calling 50/50 on this - There is an awful lot of momentum and it may topple President Unpronouncible. The much (and unfairly) maligned Al Jazeera has been on the ball reporting on the situation. Arab Media Watch is good too. I wouldn't rely too much on western reporting here. The fact that the protests are very successfully defeating the blanket censorship in place indicates Iran as a whole now believes nothing from official channels. That is a very good indicator that this is something much bigger than anyone anticipated.

Some emails that have gotten out of Iran -

===

Church (Mosque) + State = Election Fraud

Iran's Interior Ministry leaked the following information today:

Mr. Mousavi (first reformist candidate) won 48% of the popular vote
Mr. Karroubi (second reformist candidate) won 28% of the votes
Incumbent President Ahmadinejad won 13% of the votes

These results are consistent with and support the large-scale public rioting and protesting that has erupted in Iran as a result of the Iranian government’s announcement of Ahmadinejad as winner of the 2009 election.

The mainstream media is not reporting this-this is only circulating on unofficial channels.

Source: A friend on A|N who lives in Iran now, info current as of this morning. He is an Iranian national.

This morning, he wrote,

Hi,
It's a fraud. Most of Iran did not take part in the last election (because elections here are not free and fair, you can only select within a few who are approved by the Guardian Council which is a establishment under the leader), the turnout was around 48% and Ahmadinejad managed to win with a small margin.

This time, the turnout was huge, more than 85% of people voted. The idea was: even though it is not a free election, but anybody is better than Ahmadinejad. People used to say: Having a donkey as president is better than having this monkey. But suddenly, they announce him as the winner with 85% of the votes. The election here is managed by the Ministry of Interior (meaning Ahmadinejad's government) and is supervised by the same Guardian Council whose members are appointed by the leader (who strongly supports Ahmadinejad).

This morning more than a 100 (yes, it is true: >100) journalists and people close to reformist candidates have been arrested. ALL reformist newspapers are closed. Both reformist candidates are under house arrest, all their websites are filtered, the government has shut down the SMS service and the mobile network was also down til just a couple of hours ago. This is a coup d'etat, This a***ole is not our president, we have not voted for him.

Just a couple of minutes ago some of the employees of the ministry managed to somehow leak the original results of the election out, and according to that Mr. Mousavi (the 1st reformist candidate) won 48% of the vote and Mr. Karroubi ( second reformist candidate) won 28% of the votes. Ahmadinejad had just won 13% of the total votes. Ahmadinejad is not our president, please pass this message to others you may find interested.

Take care,

[name redacted]

Truth needs to come out-this 'election' was a fraud.

Tags: election, fraud, iran, protest, revolt, the shooting has started

Views: 13

Replies to This Discussion

This has me riveted. As soon as Khameini agreed to a review, that seemed to hobble any momentum or agenda Ahmadinejad would have if he actually won another term. (Wasn't it Khameini?) I think Obama has a point, though, when he says that whether it's Ahmadinejad or Mousavi, policy is still being set from the Supreme Council.

I've been squatting on http://www.ahmadineblog.com/ for a few years now; I should have done something with that.
Heard tonight that there's a split between the Assembly -- Khamenei initially called if for Ahmadinejad, then agreed to an investigation. Now Khamenei has some opposition in the Assembly by a Mousavi supporter who is ordering people not to stop protesting and demanding recounts. (if there was ever a first count). I think its Montazeri, but I'm not sure.

I don't know much about their political system, but the Assembly of Experts holds the real reigns of power, not the president. The Supreme Leader heads up the Assembly, and that's Khamenei, Khomeini's successor. If the Assembly is splitting, we're seeing a 1979-type upheaval, if it doesn't go all Tienanmen -- and Im' not sure how it could if the Assembly is splitting.
Edit: I'm not clear on if the split came from the Assembly or the Grand Council, but there's some split going on. Like I said, my grasp on Iran's political system isn't up to snuff
Felch,

Thanks for posting this thread.

We have so little information, it might as well be behind a curtain of some kind (I tried a metaphor, all I could think of is "Iron Chador"). Very little accurate news, each person reporting on how it looks from their own persepctive. Which is better than nothing.

The current cabal must know that if events get to the tipping point, they will not only lose power, but based in Iranian history they could also wind up on the wrong end of a noose (plural, nooses?), in a public square, with cellphone cameras clicking and posting of youtube videos. They will do whatever they think it takes to remain in power, both to continue political power and to stay alive.

Most of the time, power holds on to power. Most of the time, the people who challenge power, lose. I hope that this is one of the great exceptions, and that the people win.

But what then? Somehow I doubt that it will be a secular Mecca of the Mid East. If it's just an eruption of violence, then more of the same, then why bother?
Daniel: We have so little information

But what little we have speaks volumes. Iran players don protest colours. That, my friend, will probably cause more unease to Mr. Unpronouncible than everything else to date combined.

Somehow I doubt that it will be a secular Mecca of the Mid East.

Absolutely not. As I and many commentators like to point out, they are roughly at the same stage as xtianity was during the crusades, so it will take many centuries to completely shed all of the god freak baggage. Mousavi should not be considered a sane alternative, merely a lesser evil.

ObscureAtheist is reporting from the front.
Al Jezeera is actually as reliable as parts of the main stream media. The only problem is that their audience is primarily Arab and Muslims. Note that I am using the two different words to point out that there is a large population that is one, but not the other. The only thing is that you do not have much useful information about Qatar, because it is based there, and the Qatar does pay for it.
If there's a choice between believing Al Jazeera and CNN, I know which one I'd choose. Not to even mention Fox. Al Jazeera have an extremely undeserved negative reputation.
Al Jazeera have an extremely undeserved negative reputation.

Absolutely!
If you're looking for live Al Jazeera and don't get it on your TV machine, check out Live Station. It's an application and a website; the application features all kinds of live media from around the world, including Al Jazeera and a cctv camera over a bridge in Wales.
Just ask Jon Stewart.

CNN has run itself into irrelevance by promoting style over substance, and confusing presentation for content. Both Fox News and MSNBC have clear political agendas that take priority, and neither are going to attract many viewers who aren't already on-board with certain political positions.

But MSNBC has generally positioned itself as an antidote to Fox News, taking on Fox News stories and commentators who claim to be offering fact-based news. They do a good job of debunking (and occasionally throw Fox News' Shep Smith a bone, who tends to stray from the Fox script.) For instance, they'll show when Fox picks part of an Obama statement criticize him for not saying something else, without ever showing the full statement in which Obama says exactly what they criticized him for not saying.

This happened recently with the Cairo speech; Fox and the right-wing U.S. press in general attacked Obama for not addressing democracy, which was the fourth point of his speech. They also attacked Obama for not calling out Palestinians for denying the Holocaust and only calling on Israel to recognize the Palestinian suffering; of course, right after Obama acknowledged Palestinian suffering, the very next sentence was about the need for Palestinians to recognize the legacy of the Holocaust. Fox just left those bits of the speech out because it wouldn't fit their script, and MSNBC then goes back and fills in that missing bit, then makes fun of Fox, Limbaugh, Colter, Malkin, Savage, etc. It's a way of getting a fuller picture, and it does counter the right-wing press, but by primarily responding to right-wing press, it implicitly acknowledges that the right-wing is still at the wheel driving the news agenda in the U.S.

That said, Rachel Maddow has a knack for getting conservative representatives to come on her show, she doesn't shout them down like O'Reilly, and she asks some challenging questions -- she's very good at following logic trees. Keith Olbermann hasn't really been able to get conservatives on; I've never seen him make a mis-statement that he didn't correct later correct, but he's widely perceived on the right as just a liberal version of an O'Reilly and not to be believed (which implies that the right intuitively understands that O'Reilly is full of shit, but they still listen to him). Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz get conservatives on, but they're more interested in creating a spectacle than providing analysis -- spectacle draws in more viewers and is cheap to produce.

As the news media spectrum has widened, it certainly hasn't gotten deeper, so finding out "the story" comes more from the efforts of the news-imbibing audience sampling from a number of sources and being able to critically judge those sources against each other. Too bad so many have neither the time nor the facility to do this. There's a long and interesting history to this (interesting to some); it begins with the Communications Act in 1934, which began to be dismantled under Reagan in the early 80's to make room for things like cable and the internet; except they also nixed certain safeguards that helped guarantee a broad news spectrum and protect against media monopolies, which helped lead to the media situation we have today.

(Yuck, my J-School underwear is showing...)
If you have the ability, tools, and inclination to help set up an anonymous proxy server for Iranians to use, there is a tutorial here. It's specifically for people using Linux, but since it's open source software, you can probably get this going on a Windows machine or a Mac.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service