Iranian election

[ecoli]

 

Is it? I'm not saying it isn't, but what do you base that opinion on?

 

The tone of the article, general skeptical attitude and the fact that they don't site any sources.

[D H]

Do you think that the Bush/Gore election was rigged in the US?

Typical. This is of course a non sequitur. You are once again using logical fallacies.

 

To answer your question: No. Think of it this way: If they (whoever "they" are) wanted to rig an election, would they have made it a clear victory or a would they have made it the absolute mess that it was? The simplest explanation for the 2000 election is that our election system (in fact, any election system) is flawed. The different between Bush and Gore in Florida was considerably smaller than the error in the system. As any scientist or engineer knows, there is no way to infer anything from a measurement that is much smaller than the noise. The winner-take-all approach that dominates the US Presidential election process demands that we do just that in the case of very close elections.

 

Many articles on Information Clearing House are from other sources - most being perfectly reputable.

If the article fits the wacko bias of the sole proprietor of that site, that is. America is plagued by wackos of all sorts: Some from the left, some from the right, and some, from beyond Pluto. ICH is one of those beyond-Pluto sites.

 

Paul Craig Roberts is also very well respected

 

In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States

And then he went off the deep end. He is a 911 conspiracy nut, for example. Only a person who knows absolutely nothing about strength of materials could write complete drivel like this: "I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false." (Also at ICH; no link, as I prefer not to link to crackpot sources.)

 

He might have been very good 15 years ago. He lost it since then.

 

 

Taking Roberts' article apart:

 

A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of [sic] Terhan.

Every source I have read, watched, or listened to makes a point to say that Mousavi was a key player in the Iranian revolution and was the Iranian Prime Minister during most of the 1980s. The article gets off on a very biased and false footing with the opening sentence.

 

Bombus: Please name legitimate commentators who have "expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi".

 

 

The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed.

Iran itself said it would take a long time to count the votes. See, for example, http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/06/12/rivals-in-iran-both-claim-victory-in-election/: "Iran's state news agency is reporting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won re-election, but a reformist rival is also claiming victory. The rival claims came even before the close of polls on Friday. Official results are not expected until Saturday."

 

Also note that Ahmadinejad also claimed victory before the polls closed. Did Roberts report this? Of course not, because that delegitimizes his silly claims.

 

 

However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.

First off, invoking the CIA is the bread and butter of conspiracy nuts. Paul Roberts has turned into a conspiracy nut. Secondly, even if this is true it has nothing to do with whether the election was rigged. They are separate issues.

 

 

For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan?

Or Timmerman might have said that because long, long in advance of the election the Mousavi campaign had adopted green as their official color. This was widely reported. It was not just privy information to the Illuminati.

[Pangloss]

Regardless of source bias and conspiracy theory, the general points about Mousavi being questionably better than the current regime and the accusations of vote fraud (and corresponding questions over whether those claims are accurate) are generally sound and well-reported on in the media. Let's move the conversation back to those starting points, please.

[bombus]

The tone of the article, general skeptical attitude and the fact that they don't site any sources.

 

OK. You can check out the facts yourself though.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Regardless of source bias and conspiracy theory, the general points about Mousavi being questionably better than the current regime and the accusations of vote fraud (and corresponding questions over whether those claims are accurate) are generally sound and well-reported on in the media. Let's move the conversation back to those starting points, please.

 

Thanks Pangloss. I'm not even saying I agree with the articles but some have gone mad about whatever I suggest they consider - yet again. I appreciate your open mindedness and sense of fairness.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Mokele
Removed low-level flaming

[Sisyphus]

 

To DH:

Once again you spout opinion as if they are facts and let your immature emotions get in the way of reality. You come across to me as a wild eyed right wing foaming at the mouth extremist! Ha ha ha! I just like to experience you and your conservative nonsense. Stick to your Fox News hyper reality, it won't challenge your simplistic reactionary capitalist neocon black and white view of the world. Ha ha ha!

 

Really DH, I'll respond properly to most people on this forum, but not you. It's not worth the bother.

 

That doesn't seem like a remotely accurate characterization of D H to me, and I don't know how you could possibly get that from that post in particular. And since I happen to think his assessment of ICH is dead on, you're pretty much calling me all those names as well, though I'll decline to duel. I will say that that description ironically pretty well describes how you come across to me, though, just with a few words switched around. ICH certainly seems like a prime example of a highly filtered, highly simplistic black and white alternate reality, where "the West" is to blame for literally everything bad. "Ha ha ha!"

[bombus]

That doesn't seem like a remotely accurate characterization of D H to me, and I don't know how you could possibly get that from that post in particular. And since I happen to think his assessment of ICH is dead on, you're pretty much calling me all those names as well, though I'll decline to duel. I will say that that description ironically pretty well describes how you come across to me, though, just with a few words switched around. ICH certainly seems like a prime example of a highly filtered, highly simplistic black and white alternate reality, where "the West" is to blame for literally everything bad. "Ha ha ha!"

 

It is highly filtered as it's primary purpose is to offer an alternative to mainstram corporate media (even though many of the articles are taken from the more highbrow mainstream media) and emphasise reports that hardly see the light of day otherwise. As I am sure I have said in the past, I take in news and information from many places, CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, and this is just one other place. Anyway, Fox News is way more whacko - does anyone with brains watch it seriously!?

 

I am not in any way an extremist. Questioning total trust in the free market, the role of western secret services in foreign lands, the legal legitimacy of wars, or the fairness of global free trade (etc) does not make me an extremist. It just means I want a better more peaceful world.

 

If you want a story from a site even you can trust, try here:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html

 

Just coincidence?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Typical. This is of course a non sequitur. You are once again using logical fallacies.

 

Incorrect. Not a logical fallacy at all. I disagree with your opinion there.

 

To answer your question: No. Think of it this way: If they (whoever "they" are) wanted to rig an election, would they have made it a clear victory or a would they have made it the absolute mess that it was? The simplest explanation for the 2000 election is that our election system (in fact, any election system) is flawed.

 

In your opinion, not mine however. Read Greg Palast's book 'the best democracy money can buy'

 

Do you think he's a whacko?

 

The different between Bush and Gore in Florida was considerably smaller than the error in the system. As any scientist or engineer knows, there is no way to infer anything from a measurement that is much smaller than the noise.

 

Yeah, especially when so many black people were denied the vote in Jed Bush's state!

 

The winner-take-all approach that dominates the US Presidential election process demands that we do just that in the case of very close elections.

 

If that's what you choose to believe, so be it.

 

 

If the article fits the wacko bias of the sole proprietor of that site, that is. America is plagued by wackos of all sorts: Some from the left, some from the right, and some, from beyond Pluto. ICH is one of those beyond-Pluto sites.

 

Please provide proof that he is a 'whacko' - or does 'whacko' mean someone who holds different political and moral opinions to you?

 

And then he went off the deep end. He is a 911 conspiracy nut, for example. Only a person who knows absolutely nothing about strength of materials could write complete drivel like this: "I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false." (Also at ICH; no link, as I prefer not to link to crackpot sources.)

 

Your incredulity appears to be based on opinion, not facts. Your choice to believe 911 is all above board is your's to make. There are many - not all cranks or whacko's - who disagree. But let's not digress.

He might have been very good 15 years ago. He lost it since then.

In your OPINION. Some may think he's seen the light.

 

 

 

A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of [sic] Terhan.

Every source I have read, watched, or listened to makes a point to say that Mousavi was a key player in the Iranian revolution and was the Iranian Prime Minister during most of the 1980s. The article gets off on a very biased and false footing with the opening sentence.

 

A false footing? I think not sir. Proof please.

 

Bombus: Please name legitimate commentators who have "expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi".

 

I didn't write the article for a start, and the author is clearly being a little sarcastic. Is that lost on you? He is inferring media bias. Can you not even detect the media bias?

 

I suggest you read this (uh oh another Whacko site!)

 

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/090508_the_left_wing.php

 

 

The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed.

Iran itself said it would take a long time to count the votes. See, for example, http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/06/12/rivals-in-iran-both-claim-victory-in-election/: "Iran's state news agency is reporting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won re-election, but a reformist rival is also claiming victory. The rival claims came even before the close of polls on Friday. Official results are not expected until Saturday."

 

All this is explained in the article. Read itagain.

 

Also note that Ahmadinejad also claimed victory before the polls closed. Did Roberts report this? Of course not, because that delegitimizes his silly claims.

 

Again, I suggest you re-read the article. Once the opposition declare victory its a race agasinst time for the other side to do likewise as the longer the delay the more it looks like they are fixing the result.

 

 

However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.

First off, invoking the CIA is the bread and butter of conspiracy nuts.

 

Yes, and conspiracy theorists who are quite sane invoke the CIA as well, because its what the CIA do. You do know that the CIA armed and trained Osama Bin Laden?

 

Paul Roberts has turned into a conspiracy nut. Secondly, even if this is true it has nothing to do with whether the election was rigged. They are separate issues.

 

Note the word NUT always comes after the word Conspiracy with you:-) Some conspiracies just happen to be true. History proves this.

 

How can you say even if this is true it has nothing to do with whether the election was rigged. They are separate issues.

They are quite obviously linked????

 

For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan?

Or Timmerman might have said that because long, long in advance of the election the Mousavi campaign had adopted green as their official color. This was widely reported. It was not just privy information to the Illuminati.

 

So the opposition chose green - since when does choosing a colour = revolution?

Edited June 29, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.