Is this another Iranian revolution beginning? Page 2

  • Page

    of 11 First / Last

  • NBZ 14 Jun 2009 22:28:46 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Maybe NBZ is repeating the lie about Iran so as not to ponder the developments with Israel and the Palestinians.

    Maybe you are posting that to derail the topic?

    As for the palestinian situation, Netanyahu has proposed a gaza and a gaza 2.

    Two places without any power, no border control and also no airspace control. That is not a country and will just be pummelled at will like Gaza was in January.

    He had to offer something, so he offered self imprisonment. Very gracious of him.
  • Khanivor 14 Jun 2009 22:36:10 40,772 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Not to derail no. So let's stick on the topic of accepting that Iran is as much a democracy as I am a fish.
  • NBZ 14 Jun 2009 22:38:36 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Never said it is as much of a democracy. However if it was not a democracy at all, there would be no need to rig any elections simply because there wouldn't be any.

    It has democratic elements and if there was vote rigging, it should come apparent. there are already analysis that suggest that, but so far its from the early birds that could be wrong/biased because they expected different.
  • Khanivor 14 Jun 2009 22:40:20 40,772 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I guess I misread you as I thought you were putting Iran's democracy on the same level as say Britain's.
  • NBZ 14 Jun 2009 22:42:59 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    No chance. Britains has flaws, but its almost ok. If there was only someone/party I believed represented me, then it would be perfect.

    Instead what we have is the morally bankrupt Labour party that is closest followed by elements of the Lib Dems.
  • cubbymoore 14 Jun 2009 22:43:20 36,496 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    People only give a shit cos of the nuke aspect.
  • NBZ 14 Jun 2009 22:45:39 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    cubbymoore wrote:
    People only give a shit cos of the nuke aspect.

    I only give a shit because a sham elections means those that may at some point want to attack iran due to the nuke aspect will have something to say which now will have a modicum of truth in it.

    I do not want there to be election fraud not because I like Ahmedinejad or the other guy - don't really care - but because it could make it easier to sell war against them. Liberate the downtrodden Persians. (then again, people are sore about this being used the last time so it may not work.)

    Otherwise, I am at peace with the fact that countries will develop nukes and I do not think trying to stop them through sanctions/military means is a good idea.

    ^^ Personal philosophy of chaos that I expect very few to agree with.
  • Fatiguez 14 Jun 2009 23:03:06 8,738 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Nah, just the nukes for me
  • cubbymoore 14 Jun 2009 23:11:23 36,496 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    But no-one would give a flying fuck at all about these elections, they could be the most blatently corrupt elections ever, with people being told at gun point who to vote for, and no-one in the west would either know or care about it were it not for our governments telling us they want nuclear bombs and that is bad. Just saying, we're always fed a menace who might be doing something, probably isn't but WHAT IF. And all the while North Korea are swinging their dicks around blowing shit up and going "ya hear that?" Our concerns are always stupidly misplaced.
  • NBZ 14 Jun 2009 23:18:26 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    agreed.
  • Khanivor 14 Jun 2009 23:23:00 40,772 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I think the issues with Iran are more than just their nuclear ambitions. Their support of terror groups, their oil reserves, their export of Islamism, their interference in nations like Lebanon, their strategic position on the globe along with the simple oppression of a people by a corrupt theocracy all make the Iranian elections rather important.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2009 23:42:34
    NBZ wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    Anyone who thinks Iran is democratic obviously doesn't understand how their system of government works. It's a sham democracy in the sense that whilst elections are held, the actually government has very little power when the religious rulers disagree. There's nothing democratic about it even if part of the system of rule has a parallel.

    Compared to a sham democracy where you get to choose to vote for different parties that do the same shit but have different looking leaders?

    Welcome to the real world. This place is not a utopia.

    You really do come off as a low-grade loony sometimes.

    I don't think I ever did any comparing with the UK, why are you so defensive when it comes to anything Islamic? Look, if you want you can form a Muslim party and try to win over an electorate here. You can! And you probably will get some grassroots support.

    Go try forming any other religious party in Iran and see what happens.

    You know what I'm saying. No, the UK doesn't have a perfect system of government, but we've got free speech and a media that locks down on issues without anyone getting in the way. You only need to look at the expenses issue to see that even that, in the grand scheme of things, minor corruption (for the most part, compared to the shit you see in Iran) gets stepped on pretty damn fast when discovered.

    Before you rail on the UK, just think about how fucking lucky you are to be living in this country. You could do a hell of a lot worse.
  • faux_carnation 14 Jun 2009 23:44:24 9,339 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    NBZ, watch/read Persepolis, then report back to the thread
  • Red-Moose 14 Jun 2009 23:47:01 5,346 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    A light will shine down, from somewhere, upon you. You will experience an epiphany and you will say to yourself: I have to vote for Ahmadinejad.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2009 23:48:29
    In all honesty, I'm a defender of moderate Islam as I've shown before on this forum, but when religion gets in the way of a clear eye and quite obvious common sense I find my faith in humanity in general crumbling.

    Just because somewhere is "Islamic" doesn't mean they're getting it right. And frankly, NBZ, when you write I can see the whole "defending the brethren" aspect, which really gets up my nose. Apologies if that's wrong but it's hard to see you doing anything but, often, and if that's not how you want to come off then think seriously hard about how you approach these discussions.
  • Khanivor 15 Jun 2009 00:12:18 40,772 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    NBZ wrote:
    It has democratic elements and if there was vote rigging, it should come apparent. there are already analysis that suggest that, but so far its from the early birds that could be wrong/biased because they expected different.

    Read some of the links I posted. The boy winning the city where his opponent comes from is a bit of a flashing light, as are the incredibly low numbers of the other two players in the race. A lack of regional variation also makes one suspicious, as does the head of the Iranian election commission itself saying the whole thing was dodgy, (would still like to see that from a reputable source in English, mind).

    It would be nice if the rhetoric of the Iranian leader didn't paint those with opposing views as Western lackies. Shit, he still seems to think Bush is president of the US.
  • WoodenSpoon 15 Jun 2009 00:26:03 12,285 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I heard that Mousavi's election monitors were stopped from observing in loads of places, and that despite there being (one of?) the largest turnouts ever, the ballots were counted in the (one of?) shortest times
  • cubbymoore 15 Jun 2009 00:28:24 36,496 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    NBZ wrote:
    It has democratic elements and if there was vote rigging, it should come apparent. there are already analysis that suggest that, but so far its from the early birds that could be wrong/biased because they expected different.

    Read some of the links I posted. The boy winning the city where his opponent comes from is a bit of a flashing light, as are the incredibly low numbers of the other two players in the race. A lack of regional variation also makes one suspicious, as does the head of the Iranian election commission itself saying the whole thing was dodgy, (would still like to see that from a reputable source in English, mind).

    It would be nice if the rhetoric of the Iranian leader didn't paint those with opposing views as Western lackies. Shit, he still seems to think Bush is president of the US.
    Hardly any Iranian's have even seen or heard of the video that Obama made to reach out to Iran.
  • Genji 15 Jun 2009 00:32:58 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    If Civ 4 has taught me anything, it's that Persians are not to e trusted. They're almost as bad as Gandhi.
  • NBZ 15 Jun 2009 00:37:30 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    squarejawhero wrote:
    Just because somewhere is "Islamic" doesn't mean they're getting it right. And frankly, NBZ, when you write I can see the whole "defending the brethren" aspect, which really gets up my nose. Apologies if that's wrong but it's hard to see you doing anything but, often, and if that's not how you want to come off then think seriously hard about how you approach these discussions.

    In all honesty, I do not care for Iran or its regime. I am also pretty strongly defending "defending the brethren", but on here, I generally have to take a different line than in other places due to there being different takes on things.

    @khanivor all that is worrying and I have had a look. But once again, waiting for things to be clarified is not a bad thing - they did mention that a breakdown of the results had not been privided yet, just broad strokes.

    It is worrying what has been reported and I saw that graph thingy even before the results were "confirmed".

    I remember similar accusations at the last election from the loser when ahmedinejad won for the first time, so I do suspect it to be tradition for the loser to be sore and complaining.
  • NBZ 15 Jun 2009 00:43:09 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    squarejawhero wrote:
    You really do come off as a low-grade loony sometimes.

    Not loony but cavalier.

    I don't think I ever did any comparing with the UK, why are you so defensive when it comes to anything Islamic? Look, if you want you can form a Muslim party and try to win over an electorate here. You can! And you probably will get some grassroots support.

    Go try forming any other religious party in Iran and see what happens.

    Niceness has this thing for it where it takes less effort. Brutal regimes should learn that - repressing people takes effort and is ultimately futile.

    Be nice to people, give them a choice - even if it is false and people will generally be quiet(er).

    That is a very very good thing, but also not what democracy is sold as.

    You know what I'm saying. No, the UK doesn't have a perfect system of government, but we've got free speech and a media that locks down on issues without anyone getting in the way. You only need to look at the expenses issue to see that even that, in the grand scheme of things, minor corruption (for the most part, compared to the shit you see in Iran) gets stepped on pretty damn fast when discovered.

    The media generally focusses on things that do not matter. It sometimes focusses on things that do matter too, but that is rarer.

    The expenses stuff is really a non-issue. If a politician is doing a good job, would an extra pence per taxpayer per year really be a make or break thing?

    Its the other stuff stuff such as increased surveillance, curtailing of civil liberties that are the problem and not the expenses.

    Of course the media deliver what the people want and not the other way around (which is where the orwellian type novels got it wrong - people want to live their lives in comfort and security and if they can do that without chaos, they will. No need to meddle in politics and other stuff if you are provided for, cared for.).

    Before you rail on the UK, just think about how fucking lucky you are to be living in this country. You could do a hell of a lot worse.

    Stop it with getting all defensive and self righteous. Its not a pretty colour of mock affront.

    I could do a lot worse, but by being a part of the place I am contributing to it and that gives me a right to want it to be influenced in the way I want it to mature. Just like it gives you that very same right.
  • NBZ 15 Jun 2009 00:46:24 2,372 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    I think the issues with Iran are more than just their nuclear ambitions. Their support of terror groups, their oil reserves, their export of Islamism, their interference in nations like Lebanon, their strategic position on the globe along with the simple oppression of a people by a corrupt theocracy all make the Iranian elections rather important.

    Because they are Shia vs the majority of Muslims who are Sunni, the "export of islamism" is seriously limited.

    The elections are important - but mostly to the locals. If there is any regime change it should be from within and not - even indirectly - funded from the outside.

    Iran to me does seem to be a reactionary state. Problem is the events that they keep reacting to happened before I was born. Some times it is good to forget the past and move on for the good of the people.
  • Deleted user 15 June 2009 08:09:55
    NBZ wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    Just because somewhere is "Islamic" doesn't mean they're getting it right. And frankly, NBZ, when you write I can see the whole "defending the brethren" aspect, which really gets up my nose. Apologies if that's wrong but it's hard to see you doing anything but, often, and if that's not how you want to come off then think seriously hard about how you approach these discussions.

    In all honesty, I do not care for Iran or its regime. I am also pretty strongly defending "defending the brethren", but on here, I generally have to take a different line than in other places due to there being different takes on things.

    @khanivor all that is worrying and I have had a look. But once again, waiting for things to be clarified is not a bad thing - they did mention that a breakdown of the results had not been privided yet, just broad strokes.

    It is worrying what has been reported and I saw that graph thingy even before the results were "confirmed".

    I remember similar accusations at the last election from the loser when ahmedinejad won for the first time, so I do suspect it to be tradition for the loser to be sore and complaining.

    The fact that you appear to be completely ignoring the results of the elections and instead taking a line which makes no sense given the evidence, really isn't doing you any favours... seriously.

    And don't toe the "don't care" line, it just makes anything you post pointless.

    Landslide victories in opposition strongholds?

    A party that had less votes than its members?

    Come on...
  • Deleted user 15 June 2009 08:20:40
    NBZ wrote:
    Not loony but cavalier.

    No, definitely loony when you ignore a wealth of evidence in front of you.

    Niceness has this thing for it where it takes less effort. Brutal regimes should learn that - repressing people takes effort and is ultimately futile.

    Be nice to people, give them a choice - even if it is false and people will generally be quiet(er).

    That is a very very good thing, but also not what democracy is sold as.

    LOL! You don't truly believe this do you? If you do that makes you worse than niteninja. Think about the results we just had for fringe parties like UKIP recently.

    We have choice, we've spoken up in the past. Labour are paying dearly for the mistakes they've made and broken trust the populace have with them. More are voting away from the main parties (even if, sadly, in some areas, that means falling into the right-wing). But the point is... the choice is there. It's not false.

    If you really, really think that, you've got some real growing up to do or need to escape this funny little bubble of thought you've wrapped yourself up in.

    The media generally focusses on things that do not matter. It sometimes focusses on things that do matter too, but that is rarer.

    The expenses stuff is really a non-issue. If a politician is doing a good job, would an extra pence per taxpayer per year really be a make or break thing?

    Its the other stuff stuff such as increased surveillance, curtailing of civil liberties that are the problem and not the expenses.

    Of course the media deliver what the people want and not the other way around (which is where the orwellian type novels got it wrong - people want to live their lives in comfort and security and if they can do that without chaos, they will. No need to meddle in politics and other stuff if you are provided for, cared for.).

    You do realise you're saying completely the opposite of what many critics say about the media? It's nearly always blamed for scaring the populace into a tizzy, not sullying us into a fuzzy utopian state of mind!

    The fact there are two vocal opposing fronts means that for the most part... the news media is getting the balance right in this country. No, I don't believe it's 100% perfect as any human organisation be it media or governance is prone to human errs, but it's closer than you think.

    BTW no, the expenses stuff really isn't a none issue when it's thousands and thousands of taxpayers money. Maybe when you're old enough to get pissed off that half your salary is being made to line some MP's pool rather than going into services like it's meant to, you'll understand.

    Stop it with getting all defensive and self righteous. Its not a pretty colour of mock affront.

    Don't use a strawman when you're guilty of far more heinous crimes, like... I don't know, defending anything labelled "Islamic" to the hilt without any hint as to the reality of the situation.

    I could do a lot worse, but by being a part of the place I am contributing to it and that gives me a right to want it to be influenced in the way I want it to mature. Just like it gives you that very same right.

    You made the point I was making all along, here, without realising it. And as I've said, you can do this and are doing this.

    Even if, I'm afraid, it makes you seem a bit of a loony.
  • Retroid Moderator 15 Jun 2009 08:43:42 44,781 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    cubbymoore wrote:
    But no-one would give a flying fuck at all about these elections, they could be the most blatently corrupt elections ever, with people being told at gun point who to vote for, and no-one in the west would either know or care about it were it not for our governments telling us they want nuclear bombs and that is bad.
    I would.

    But then I think 'we' (the west, the UN, whatever) should've taken down the regime in Burma years ago. The fact that they're allowed to shit allover their own people, even to the extent of blocking aid workers after not warning their own poor when a fuck-off storm is coming, pisses allover the international community. IMO.
  • Deleted user 15 June 2009 09:00:12
    After Afghanistan (twice), Iraq and Vietnam, I don't think the States really wants to pull that shit again right now... hence the new administration.
  • Retroid Moderator 15 Jun 2009 09:01:30 44,781 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Well, quite.
  • Deleted user 15 June 2009 10:16:14
    Latest is Mousavi has been cut off from the rest of Iran, is under surveillance and is calling for further "non violent" protest.
  • mcmonkeyplc 15 Jun 2009 10:18:52 39,457 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Can I have an N?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Deleted user 15 June 2009 13:18:50
    N-o.

    Now The BBC's satellite is being jammed electronically from Iran. This affects more than their country, too.

    I'm pretty sure any doubt can be cleared as of today, combined with the limitation of any kind of reportage inside Iran and continued violence against peaceful protestors, that the Ayatollah and his political puppet Adsie have been very naughty boys.
  • Page

    of 11 First / Last

Log in or register to reply