The people wanted a president to take their case. They had very high hopes for Khatami to push for reforms but the theocratic dictators kept him from achieving much. With disillusionment many reformers didn't turn out for voting the election which saw Ahmadinejad come to power, mostly because all reform candidates were barred from running. Corrupt system from the start.Alex B. said:Isn't the presidential seat in Iran pretty much meaningless? I've just always heard the president is little more than a figurehead. Seems like they're getting all worked up over very little.
Some peoples are sheep, whilst others are lions.Alex B. said:That makes sense. They're making a statement and it looks like that statement has been overridden.
An interview with a spokesman for Mousavi, Mohsen Makhbalbaf, says that "in the early hours after voting had ended, the Interior Ministry had called Mr. Mousavi’s campaign headquarters to inform them that Mr. Mousavi would be the winner and, therefore, Mr. Mousavi must prepare a victory statement. Mr. Mousavi was, however, asked by the Ministry not to boast too much, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. Many of the president’s supporters are among the ranks of the Basij militia, and thus armed.
"According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also informed of the developments. He also recommended a 'good management' of the victory statement, meaning not boasting greatly about the victory, because that would be in Iran’s national interests and stability.
"At the same time, the reformist newspapers were also informed that they can prepare their Saturday edition to declare Mr. Mousavi the winner, but were not allowed to use the word pirouzi (victory) in their articles, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. One reformist newspaper prepared its front page with the title, “People took back the flag of their country [from Mr. Ahmadinejad].”
"But, just a few hours later, a center that had been set up by Mr. Mousavi in Gheytarieh (in northern Tehran) for monitoring the election and vote counting, was attacked by armed security agents. They ransacked the center, destroyed computers, and attacked the staff. Supporters of Mr. Mousavi intervened and arrested 8 security agents. The police was called to take them to prison, but the police released the attackers."
Meh, you've seen one dictatorship pretending to be a democracy you've seen them all...ZenMonkey said:Because Moldova and Iran are totally comparable.
:eyeroll:@Li3n said:
Feels better at the end when i can say "Told you so!"ZenMonkey said::eyeroll:@Li3n said:
It's so nice to sit back, relax, and condescend while this shit goes on, isn't it?
http://twitter.com/change_for_iran
@RandyInman Mr.Potato lover is a lunatic selfish man think of himself as a God. so yes it does!
@Change_for_Iran Sounds like Obama to me.
@Li3n said:ZenMonkey said:Feels better at the end when i can say "Told you so!"http://twitter.com/change_for_iran[/url]
[/quoteb52ifpl]
Maybe you could stick to what you're good at- impotently raging against reality TV when your favorite unprofitable and whimsical genre show gets canceled.
I join Charlie in being impressed by your insistence that people who didn't watch a TV show should die painfully, but what's going down in Iran only merits a "meh." Those are some...interesting priorities.@Li3n said:Feels better at the end when i can say "Told you so!"
GREAT post, Kissinger! Those pictures are amazing and nothing like what we get from the Western media.Kissinger said:"Meh." - @Li3n, You Don't Mess With The Privileged Westerner
This is seriously a totally fucked up situation, and reading the tweets, seeing the pictures, and watching the videos has been extremely rough.
It also isn't helped by the shit that CNN has pulled or by the fact that YouTube, for a while at least, was taking down any videos of the protests, riots, and police backlash. The primary media has really done a shitty job of covering this, while certain twitter feeds have been right on top of everything that's happening.
Some amazing and chilling pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 4479/show/
EDIT:
oh my god. these pictures are from University of Esfahan. This is horrifying. http://entesabat88.persianblog.ir/post/2/#
Sorry about that, SV. I didn't click on all your links because I was busy. I didn't get to really sit down and look at stuff until this morning.Scarlet Varlet said:Yes, amazing pictures ... just like the same pictures in the long post with media stuff I posted Sunday, except blown up and fuzzier.
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi138 ... 592664479/)
Have you watched this, yet?
http://iranelection.posterous.com/in-es ... way-iranel
Another collection of pictures
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/bahramks/RiotsInTehran#
(edit: This didn't take the first go, because Picasa's javascript doesn't seem to like me even copying from the URL window, what gits.)
I particularly appreciate the Wait-And-See of the US. Even though they could tip the tables with a handfull of jets and a cruise missile or two, they'd eventually be in another Iraq. Better for these people to overthrow their demons themselves.
edit: some pictures from today's march
http://i.friendfeed.com/48d860fd22ba06f ... a1a6ea44ee
The chance to have their rightful say is all that matters to them at the moment.Mousavi we support you. We will die, but retrieve our votes
Wow. I was not expecting that. But that adds a hundred more layers of legitimacy to the riots.Singularity.EXE said:This video was on Reddit and I am honestly proud of what happens towards the end.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ:3hawvzao][/youtube:3hawvzao]
I'm not one to lose faith in humanity, but this video would help to restore it.
twitter is also gossip. Makes it more reliable than CNN, less reliable than The National Midnight Star (it's true!)Allen said:twitter is faster and isn't reliant on keeping people unoffended
This is getting uglier and uglier.@StopAhmadi: The Basiji police that killed 4 ppl in Tehran got killed by the ppl! eye for an eye! #iranelection
It's not gonna stop anytime soon.Edrondol said:This is getting uglier and uglier.@StopAhmadi: The Basiji police that killed 4 ppl in Tehran got killed by the ppl! eye for an eye! #iranelection
RT @persiankiwi streets very dangerous now. groups of militia on motorbikes searching for protesters. #Iranelection
there are twitters of news organizations which help back up what some unofficial twitters are sayingGruebeard said:twitter is also gossip. Makes it more reliable than CNN, less reliable than The National Midnight Star (it's true!)
When the guys on motorbikes have machine guns and aren't shy about spraying the crowds, then it takes some major guts to zerg the motorbikes.DarkAudit said:Guys on motorbikes are useless when they're suddenly surrounded by several hundred or several thousand protesters. Use the numbers to stand up to the thugs. There's more of you than there are of them.
Yea. I understand the tweets are probably one sided, but remember that Iran is not really a "democracy" per se. They will use force if necessary and probably have no qualm spraying bullets into the crowd. That is what you get from military type rule.bhamv2 said:When the guys on motorbikes have machine guns and aren't shy about spraying the crowds, then it takes some major guts to zerg the motorbikes.DarkAudit said:Guys on motorbikes are useless when they're suddenly surrounded by several hundred or several thousand protesters. Use the numbers to stand up to the thugs. There's more of you than there are of them.
Now guys, please don't jump down my throat for suggesting this, but is it possible you guys are jumping to conclusions too easily and accepting what you're reading too easily? Getting your news from Twitter feeds is akin to accumulating all your knowledge from Wikipedia. You don't know if what you're reading's actually true or not.
Now, I have no doubt the situation in Iran is very ugly, and my heartfelt best wishes go out to everyone there. Let me repeat that, in bold, in case anyone doubts it: I have no doubt the situation in Iran is very ugly, and my heartfelt best wishes go out to everyone there. But the Tweets and photos we're seeing are presenting a fairly one-sided view, and they're from supporters of the losing candidate, who have every reason to be biased.
I'm not saying we should ignore the violence and injustice going on in Iran right now. But it would be folly to assume we're getting the whole story at the moment.
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." - Oscar WildeGasBandit said:"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
bhamv2 said:"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious." - Oscar WildeGasBandit said:"The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
(I'm sorry, I just wanted to do that quoting thing from The Rock, I'll be quiet now, please don't hit me over the head)
what the fuck are you doingGruebeard said:"Gimme Puberty or gimme Breasts"
(I don't even think that makes sense, but there you have it.)
Charlie Dont Surf said:what the fuck are you doingGruebeard said:"Gimme Puberty or gimme Breasts"
(I don't even think that makes sense, but there you have it.)
Doubtful, but we can hope.WolfOfOdin said:Hopefully the nation that emerges will be stronger, fairer and more humane than the old regimes of Iran's past.
Look, I know you have your business to look after, but you have a fucking REVOLUTION being broad casted over your service. You should be *encouraging* this, you should be helping them!We will have 90 mins of maintenance starting at 9:45p Pacific today, June 15.
You know, you should just assume that and go for it. See how it works out for you.Rob King said:If it comes out in the next 20 years that all of this is CIA false flag action, a la 1953, I might have to join Al Queida.
The difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Americans rolled in and kicked over the government in Iraq. We can argue about whether that was a good call or a bad call until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that in Iraq it was foreigners who lead to the downfall. In Iran it looks like it's the citizens who are responsible, so terrorists have already lost the 'We're fighting the foreign oppressors' card.sixpackshaker said:I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.
Which is why (presumably) the West is hesitant to lend their voices here. If they speak up on behalf of the rioters than they're trying to impose their will in Iran like Iraq. If they don't speak up they are called out for ignoring the tumultuous situation.Rob King said:The difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Americans rolled in and kicked over the government in Iraq. We can argue about whether that was a good call or a bad call until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that in Iraq it was foreigners who lead to the downfall. In Iran it looks like it's the citizens who are responsible, so terrorists have already lost the 'We're fighting the foreign oppressors' card.sixpackshaker said:I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.
Which is why (presumably) the West is hesitant to lend their voices here. If they speak up on behalf of the rioters than they're trying to impose their will in Iran like Iraq. If they don't speak up they are called out for ignoring the tumultuous situation.Singularity.EXE said:[quote="Rob King":1hddi2h8]The difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Americans rolled in and kicked over the government in Iraq. We can argue about whether that was a good call or a bad call until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that in Iraq it was foreigners who lead to the downfall. In Iran it looks like it's the citizens who are responsible, so terrorists have already lost the 'We're fighting the foreign oppressors' card.sixpackshaker said:I doubt the nation responsible for much of the destabilization of the Mid-East is going down with out a fight. All those camps of Hezbollah and Al Queida will likely get emptied to help stamp out any sense of freedom in that nation. At least they will wreak havoc in Iran as they have in Iraq for the last six years.
Yep. They're the ones who (allegedly) went into a university dorm last night and shot up the place.Iaculus said:Remind me - the Baseej are the 'veterans'/pro-government thugs, right?
Courtesy of Tastuma from Fark:Iaculus said:Remind me - the Baseej are the 'veterans'/pro-government thugs, right?
Also, as for Obama, I think the most prudent position to take would be neutrality with voiced support for human rights. The whole "US interference in public policy" seems to be a sensitive issue over in Iran, and I've got the impression that US support of one group--in addition to not being expressly welcome/providing fuel for the other side--could also lead to more difficult talks down the line in case the "wrong" party wins.Tatsuma said:Currently, there are three groups who are suppressing the students on the ground:
1. The Basij
2. Ansar Hizbullah (which I will refer to as Ansar)
3. Lebanese Hizbullah (which I will refer to as Hizbullah)
- The Basij are your regular paramilitary organization. They are the armed hand of the clerics. The Basij are a legal group, officially a student union, and are legally under direct orders of the Revolutionary Guard. Their main raison d'être is to quell dissent. They are the ones who go and crack skulls, force people to participate in pro-regime demonstrations, and generally try to stop any demonstrations from even starting. They are basically located throughout the country, in every mosque, every university, every social club you can think of. They function in a way very similar to the brown shirts.
They were the ones who first started the crackdown after the election but it wasn't enough. While they are violent and repressive, they are still Persian and attacking fellow citizens. A beating is one thing, mass killings another.
- Another group was working with them, who are even more extreme, is Ansar. There is a lot of cross-membership between the Basij and Ansar, though not all members are members of the other group and vice-versa. The vast majority of Ansar are Persians (either Basij or ex-military), though a lot of Arab recruits come from Lebanon and train with them under supervision of the Revolutionary Guard. They are not a legal group, they are considered pretty much a vigilante group, but they pledge loyalty directly to the Supreme Leader and most people believe that they are under his control. They are currently helping the Basij to control the riots, but due to the fact that they are Persians and in lower numbers than the Basij, they are not that active.
- Hizbullah flew in a lot of their members in Iran, most likely a good deal even before the elections in case there were trouble. They are the ones who speak Arabs and are unleashing the biggest level of violence on the Persians so far. Another wave arrived recently and there is chatter that yet another wave of Hizbullah reinforcements are coming in from Lebanon as we speak. The Lebanese Hizbullah is a direct offshoot (and under direct control) of the Iranian Hizbullah (itself under direct control of the Supreme Leader) and cooperates closely with Ansar though Ansar occupies itself only with Iran's domestic policies, while Hizbullah occupies itself only with Iran's foreign policy unless there is a crisis like right now. They are the ones riding motorcycles, beating men women and children indiscriminately and firing live ammunitions at students.
Unless the army decides to intervene in the favor of the Council and to stop the (what now looks like) early beginnings of the new Revolution, Hizbullah members will be the ones doing the brunt of the killing and repression with Ansar as a support, while the Basij hit people with sticks, protect government sites and try to do crowd control (as the police seems to have for the most part disbanded in centers like Tehran, according to most twitter feeds. If the police has no disbanded, they will focus less on protection and crowd control, and more on cracking skulls).
Hope that helps
I agree... does anyone have any proof it's real? I mean, not to be cynical but... it looks real, it's very dramatic, doe we know it's not some kid somewhere playing a prank?Alex B. said:That twitter feed is absolutely terrifying.
I'd say "skeptical" rather than "cynical"; especially on Twitter, there's nothing wrong with asking for some proof. I didn't automatically believe it at first, myself, and honestly I'm not 100% sure I do, but something about the details has managed to convince me most of the way.Espy said:I agree... does anyone have any proof it's real? I mean, not to be cynical but... it looks real, it's very dramatic, doe we know it's not some kid somewhere playing a prank?Alex B. said:That twitter feed is absolutely terrifying.
Good luck with all that. I admire their tenacity but thats a pretty big list.Kissinger said:@tehranbureau just tweeted the following:
7 point statement distributed among the protesters in
Tehran today:
1. Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader
2. Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts
3. Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader
4. Recognition of Mousavi as the President
5. Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution
6. unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners
7. Dissolution of all organs of repression, public or secret.
As I read before, they were going to throw in with the protesters.Kissinger said:holy smurfing poop
Revolutionary guards arrested
That's actually a good thing for the protesters...Scarlet Varlet said:As I read before, they were going to throw in with the protesters.
Things are fracturing.
There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.DarkAudit said:There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.
Send them to Tehran, there are no shortages of bats or beatings there.Scarlet Varlet said:There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.DarkAudit said:There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.
Apparently, the Lebanese Hezbollah was brought in because the Iranian arm of Hezbollah was too hesitant to shoot at other Iranians. But, I'm only getting this stuff from Twitter. I haven't been able to read much from official media.sixpackshaker said:I am a little shocked that the council is bringing in Arabs to quell the violence. If you think Iran is anti-American, you should see how they feel about Arabs. If it turns out that the Hezbollah is killing Persians, this will end up being a major powder keg.
Are you guys new to Twitter? That's what always happens with trending topics.Scarlet Varlet said:There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.DarkAudit said:There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.
Hadn't really followed the big tending topics until now.ZenMonkey said:Are you guys new to Twitter? That's what always happens with trending topics.Scarlet Varlet said:There was someone else trying to get people to go to pr0n and betting sites. Just goes to show, some people are born pricks and the only thing you can do is track them down and beat some sense into them with a bat.DarkAudit said:There's one sick smurf using the trending topics to post phony spam messages like "I can't believe Steve Jobs has died," followed by spam links.
Oh. Well for your sanity, do as little as possible. Most of Twitter uses them to advertise their shit, be attention whores, spam, etc. etc.DarkAudit said:Hadn't really followed the big tending topics until now.
Fixed.ZenMonkey said:Are you guys new to [strike:3vsap7ug]Twitter[/strike:3vsap7ug] The Internet? That's what always happens [strike:3vsap7ug]with trending topics[/strike:3vsap7ug].
6:03 PM ET -- "What I have witnessed." A powerful note from a female medical student in Iran, translated from Farsi by a trusty reader.
Hello,
It's painful to watch what's happening.
I don't want anything to do with what has been said this far, as I neither have the strength nor the resilience to face all these unfathomable events.
I only want to speak about what I have witnessed. I am a medical student. There was chaos last night at the trauma section in one of our main hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28 had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were even able to get their names or other information. What can you even say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff. The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help--I'm sure it will even be worst tonight.
What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year old boy who died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?
This issue is not about cheating(election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people. They've put a baton in the hand of every 13-14 year old to smash the faces of "the bunches who are less than dirt" (government is calling the people who are uprising dried-up torn and weeds) .
This is what sickens me from dealing with these issues. And from those who shut their eyes and close their ears and claim the riots are in opposition of the government and presidency!! No! The people's complaint is against the egregious injustices committed against the people.
Posted by Nicotone at 7:53 PM
Scarlet Varlet said:Photoshop Fail
Regime edits picture to make Amadi support rally look bigger.
Thanks, that was soooo fucking useful.@Li3n said:Fixed.ZenMonkey said:Are you guys new to [strike:2pwuwjas]Twitter[/strike:2pwuwjas] The Internet? That's what always happens [strike:2pwuwjas]with trending topics[/strike:2pwuwjas].
Oh, sorry for taking away from this world changing thread... i hope the revolution doesn't fail because of me... :eyeroll:ZenMonkey said:Thanks, that was soooo fucking useful.@Li3n said:Fixed.ZenMonkey said:Are you guys new to [strike:271q88re]Twitter[/strike:271q88re] The Internet? That's what always happens [strike:271q88re]with trending topics[/strike:271q88re].
Damn... then Shego will be after me for taking credit for her work...Gruebeard said:When it fails, I'm blaming @Li3n.
This. I'm worried the hundreds of frothing-at-the-mouth Americans on Twitter don't realize this. I think Obama pointed this out as well: no matter which candidate got the presidency, there would be virtually no change in foreign policy, the nuclear program, etc. It's not like Bush -> Obama.@Li3n said:
BTW, just because they want Ahme-dinner-jad out doesn't mean they'll stop hating you...
This is fucking stupid.Scarlet Varlet said:Guardian Council have looked into a recount. This is their result.
I laffed.Scarlet Varlet said:Guardian Council have looked into a recount. This is their result.
/snip chart
Seriously??General Fuzzy McBitty said:The only really interesting thing...
Oh, no doubt. If they had made Amadi win by a modest margin and done a better job rigging together the turnout for areas they would have only faced a brief protest as they did in 2005. Clearly whomever said, "Make up a spreadsheet", didn't plan carefully or take the necessary time. Probably like a load of burglars they threw it together desperately and stupidly. Very telling in the intellect of those who plotted the rigging.Edrondol said:Had they given some areas to Mousavi and had Amadinejad only winning by a few percentage points none of this would have happened.
As i understood it: $40 million votes, mostly paper ballots, and the results where announced 24 hours later, and the oppositions representatives where kept out of the voting areas...Rob King said:Seriously, after reading a few articles on politics in Iran, a few defending the official results of the election, I'm not entirely sure about the claims about a rigged election.
I don't know where you're from (and thus how you vote) but paper ballots don't take long to count. That's all that's used in Canada and we get our results announced within a couple hours of polls closing . . . in Ontario. Hell, people are still voting in British Columbia when the networks announce the winner. Those are statistical projections and not final counts, obviously, but within 24 hours they're all counted. Iran's greater number of voters won't matter because you just have more people counting. So that doesn't make this look at all fishy.@Li3n said:As i understood it: $40 million votes, mostly paper ballots, and the results where announced 24 hours later, and the oppositions representatives where kept out of the voting areas...
This, however, is a very Western point of view, and far from entirely correct. A lot - according to observers, most - protestors still want an Islamic democracy, adn don't want to give up the Shari'ah as the law or try and begin a seperation of church and state. They're not as conservative, but they're still very pro-Iran and pro-Islam. You haven't seen anyone burning Iranian flags or bras or scarves, have you? No, you haven't, except for some very, very small minorities shunned by the protestors themselves just as much as by the rest.Scarlet Varlet said:Various theories I've heard kicked around are the Revolutionary Guard are behind this and are playing to control all the strings or the MoI, Amadinejad, the Guardian Council, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and various other 'hardliners' have staged the coup to keep Iran a Revolutionary State (with all that entails), where Mousavi favours Post-Revolutionary. Whichever, there are clearly strong splits and polarisation within the 30-year old Regime and the majority of the population was born after the 1979 revolution and would prefer to ditch the headscarves, listen to western pop music openly and not have their skulls cracked for voicing dissatisfaction with the way things are.
No, they did not want the government that they have. They did not want it 30 years ago. They wanted Democracy/Self Determination. Instead they got hosed by the elite religious class. They just know it is too dangerous to call for the scrapping of this current system. Every election the people vote for the most reform minded of the cherry picked candidates that have to be on the same page as the ruling mullahs.Edrondol said:They want to keep the same government - just with a president they voted for, not the one that stole the election.
Fixed it for you.Bubble181 said:Sort of my point. Some people seem to think this'll be a Revolution. it won't be - it's not what these people want. Give it 200 mre years...
I've been following this pretty regularly. Those interviewed say that they don't want regime change. They point out that that's something the West gets right.sixpackshaker said:No, they did not want the government that they have. They did not want it 30 years ago. They wanted Democracy/Self Determination. Instead they got hosed by the elite religious class. They just know it is too dangerous to call for the scrapping of this current system. Every election the people vote for the most reform minded of the cherry picked candidates that have to be on the same page as the ruling mullahs.Edrondol said:They want to keep the same government - just with a president they voted for, not the one that stole the election.
AshburnerX said:Fixed it for you.Bubble181 said:Sort of my point. Some people seem to think this'll be a Revolution. it won't be - it's not what these people want. Give it 200 mre years...
It is kinda like why our system has such low turn out. The two parties are very similar except for a handful of social/cultural issues.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.GasBandit said:It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.Denbrought said:Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.GasBandit said:It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
Or even in the federal legislature. And I'm saying that as a card carrying Libertarian.Chibibar said:Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.Denbrought said:Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.GasBandit said:It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.Chibibar said:Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.Denbrought said:Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.GasBandit said:It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
I know that you can do write in vote for president. So you think it is possible even with electoral college that if 51% of the voters wrote Chibibar for president that I can be president?Shakey said:Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.
For the most part, yes, but it's a self-perpetuating system. It's also effectively quashed by the way committee memberships are done. All the procedures for such positions of power within the legislature are based upon the assumption of there being only 2 parties.Shakey said:Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.Chibibar said:Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.Denbrought said:Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.GasBandit said:It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.
The problem is not the people, it is the Two Party System.Shakey said:Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.
There's plenty of blame to spread around, and the people are not exempt from this.sixpackshaker said:The problem is not the people, it is the Two Party System.Shakey said:Except that the only thing preventing a third or more party from gaining popularity and taking over the presidency is the people, not the government.
It is hard to get a party off the ground. You need to present candidates for office, you need to get them on county, city, and state wide ballots, all the ballots are controlled by public servants that serve one of the two parties. The laws require a high number of signatories on a petition to get candidates on the ticket.It is easy to get signatures if you belong to an established party. Then the third party needs to get the word out about their platform and candidate. Oh, and the TV, radio stations and print media outlets each have loyalties to particular parties. If you can buy space, then you have to pay for it, without having a national party behind you throwing $2,000 a plate fundraisers it is almost impossible to compete against the Goliaths.
It is the system...
That's one of the things that makes me wonder if it was rigged at all. I'd have thought if they were going to rig an election, they would do a better job of it. And yes, I'm honestly wondering if "it looks too rigged to be rigged."Scarlet Varlet said:Probably like a load of burglars they threw it together desperately and stupidly. Very telling in the intellect of those who plotted the rigging.
This.Gruebeard said:I don't know where you're from (and thus how you vote) but paper ballots don't take long to count. That's all that's used in Canada and we get our results announced within a couple hours of polls closing
That doesn't scream 'rigged' at me. I just assume it means that their software, or calculators, or abacii, or whatever just spat out a projection based on the votes that had already been counted. I've never rigged/ran an election in Iran, so I couldn't tell you if that's what's going on or not. But like I said, numbers going up and/or down don't really concern me on the whole.DarkAudit said:I'll have to look for it, but there were timestamped screenshots from the count in Iran where one of the opposition candidates tally went *down* by a significant number as the count progressed.
Case in point: Even the official tally shows that Iranians who voted from outside the country preferred Mousavi. I'm surprised no 'election fraud' yellers have harped on this point.sixpackshaker said:A dozen or so ex-pats is not a wide sample.
Canada isn't a two party system, (well, kindasorta, but ... ) and you should have heard the cries of anguish when we tried to get a coalition all up in here. Not speaking out against party alliances. They have a place and purpose, and I was rooting for one here in the great white north. But when people aren't familiar with that concept, it just isn't going to fly.Denbrought said:If you had a system based on party alliances, by contrast, smaller parties would have a much bigger say in politics, because if you're the president thanks to your own party and the supporting votes of three minority parties...
90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.DarkAudit said:Not a chance, kind sir. The CIA != the American PEOPLE. Just because the folks in power rearranged things after they got there, it would be ignorant to blame the population for what happened before or since 1979. And I say, would you like a scone?GasBandit said:The american people are largely to blame for what their country has become, for sure. I think everyone agrees on this, if for different reasons.
I'd up that to 99%. Someone wasn't paying attention to where this conversation went.Rob King said:90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.DarkAudit said:Not a chance, kind sir. The CIA != the American PEOPLE. Just because the folks in power rearranged things after they got there, it would be ignorant to blame the population for what happened before or since 1979. And I say, would you like a scone?GasBandit said:The american people are largely to blame for what their country has become, for sure. I think everyone agrees on this, if for different reasons.
Fuck tactful. It's GasBandit.Rob King said:90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.
Fair enough. I just thought it would be fun to play with your post.DarkAudit said:Fuck tactful. It's GasBandit.Rob King said:90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.
Fair enough. I just thought it would be fun to play with your post.[/quote:1gr8shi0]Rob King said:Fuck tactful. It's GasBandit.DarkAudit said:[quote="Rob King":1gr8shi0]90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful.
If you let your two-party government fuck you in the arse, then wipe up and still demand you pay for it, and you dont-90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful
Well, to be fair, its still better to be an american and be the bitch of two parties, than be british and have a bloody queen or be brazilian and have your ass owned by the highest bidder.Chibibar said:Sadly I have to agree that the U.S. system is "kinda" similar in terms of two party system and electoral college. I mean we DO have the tech to do pure democracy but then the two party system might not be two party anymore. Sure you have other parties, but I don't see them in the President's chair anytime soon.Denbrought said:Yep, systems like Iran's or the US' are sad examples of that.GasBandit said:It makes the dumb masses feel like they have control of their own destiny a little bit. Kind of like the functionless steering wheel on the kiddy cars you push toddlers around in.Chibibar said:Here is my question.
Why even vote for a president when they have a Supreme Leader that you can't remove (unless a revolution) and High council (life term clerics) that cannot be remove and oversee EVERYTHING. Basically no checks and balance at all.
Why even bother to vote?
Yeah, but they get to put Royal in front of all sort of neat things... also, you do know she doesn't have much power, right? (she's also the Queen of Canada, Australian and all other Commonwealth countries... don't really mean nothing though).than be british and have a bloody queen
And yet she gets to live a life of luxury and do pretty much anything she wants. In fact, anyone related to her gets to do pretty much anything they want.Iaculus said:'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.
Unless they happen to be in government. The Royals are very carefully-managed - the important ones, at least.AshburnerX said:And yet she gets to live a life of luxury and do pretty much anything she wants. In fact, anyone related to her gets to do pretty much anything they want.Iaculus said:'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.
She may not have a lot of official power but if the Queen of England asks for something to be done, it'll usually be done.
damn...Enresshou said:
NSFW, a video of an Iranian protestor who was shot by the Basiji.
And I can't stop crying.
Yeah, she's technically queen of Canada but it would be funny if the governor general actually tried to veto a bill of law here I'd imagine that would be the end of that arrangement.Iaculus said:'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.
That is what he was saying, and I don't disagree either. Someone misunderstood, and thought he was blaming Joe the Plumber for the mess Iran was in. I was just straightening it out.JCM said:If you let your two-party government fuck you in the arse, then wipe up and still demand you pay for it, and you dont-90% sure he was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what America has become. But bonus points for being tactful
a) move to another country,
b) vote against the same two-party system
or
c) fight against it,
You are pretty much to blame for allowing them to rape you over and over and say nothing about it, so that does make most americans guilty for the state their country is in, and if this is what Gasbandit is saying, I must say I agree 100%.
Well she can order people "accidented", so there's that... :aaahhh:'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.
Man... i really am an awful human being...NSFW, a video of an Iranian protestor who was shot by the Basiji.
And I can't stop crying.
Welp, looks like we've found the board's resident reader of the Daily Express.@Li3n said:Well she can order people "accidented", so there's that... :aaahhh:'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.
Does she weigh as much as a duck?Iaculus said:Welp, looks like we've found the board's resident reader of the Daily Express.@Li3n said:Well she can order people "accidented", so there's that... :aaahhh:'Doesn't have much power'? Try 'has practically zero'. She's a figurehead and legal lynchpin, nothing more.
BURN THE WITCH!
But Canada has a similar voting system (for the legislative branch of government), and we're only down to 4 major parties, after having 5 major parties for awhile. One of the parties (Bloc Quebecois) is a strongly regional party, to which the proof probably doesn't apply, but I don't think it explains why we have 3 other major political parties.@Li3n said:Now where did i put that link to that guy mathematically proving that the US's voting system (winning with under 50%) always leads to a 2 party system...
Actually, this supports my point: according to the theory referenced above, any plurality voting system should tend to a two party system. In Canada, the opposite has happened. We started with a two party system, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The NDP were formed in the 60's, and then the Bloc has formed more recently. The theory that pluralities tend to two party systems doesn't explain the continued "success" of the NDP.Gruebeard said:You're kinda forgetting that Reform and the Bloc were very recent. Most of Canada's federal history involved only 3 parties, and the same 2 have formed every government to this day. We're damn close to being a 2-party nation; but our system supports more far better than the US system.
The only other times since where a third party candidate actually won a couple of states, it was Strom Thurmond and George Wallace running racist campaigns that took blocks of southern states.Covar said:I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.
The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.
This.GasBandit said:Yes, I was saying that the American people are largely to blame for what AMERICA has become. Not Iran. Since at the most recent, we had been discussing the american de facto 2-party system, and the relative inability to break out of it.
Instant runoff elections would solve this.Covar said:I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.
The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.
Some regional elections in Minnesota are likely to use this method in the future. http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/47774887.htmlGasBandit said:Instant runoff elections would solve this.Covar said:I don't get where people get that we "devolved" into a two party system. It was pretty much that way since the inception of the country and became apart of the presidential elections when George Washington left office.
The closest this country came to having a viable third party, Theodore Roosevelt caused the vote to split, resulting in the least popular ideas and policies to win.
That way, last election, a hypothetical person could have turned in a ballot that said
In order of preference:
1)Kinky Friedman
2)Ron Paul
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton
... it would have allowed him to try to vote for a non uberparty candidate, but if his first (and second) choices were eliminated in the runoff, he still would have voted Obama in the runoff round.
Instant runoffs aren't the greatest system either. It doesn't eliminate strategic voting.GasBandit said:Instant runoff elections would solve this.
That way, last election, a hypothetical person could have turned in a ballot that said
In order of preference:
1)Kinky Friedman
2)Ron Paul
3)Barack Obama
4)Hillary Clinton
... it would have allowed him to try to vote for a non uberparty candidate, but if his first (and second) choices were eliminated in the runoff, he still would have voted Obama in the runoff round.
Perot.GasBandit said:at best a futile laughingstock
Nader.GasBandit said:at worst a direct act of sabotage against whatever major party candidate has the closest platform.
Actually, I considered Perot to be the latter as well. The laughingstock I was thinking of was Harry Browne, who I voted for in 2000.DarkAudit said:Perot.GasBandit said:at best a futile laughingstock
Nader.GasBandit said:at worst a direct act of sabotage against whatever major party candidate has the closest platform.
A bit of column a and a bit of column bChibibar said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election
You know the last sentence got me thinking. Iran is REALLY cracking down on reports and such during the riots and what not. Does Iran is trying to hide something or just following policy?
The linked page explains more about how to contribute.Iran's government is putting pictures of targeted protestors on the web for the Basij to identify and harass, arrest, or worse. These individuals could be jailed, or worse, dead by tomorrow. This website needs to die.
Note that if gerdab.ir goes down, all other sites (shahabnews and others) which link to their images won't function properly either.
Do not try to bandwidth-DoS the gerdab.ir site, as it is physically in Iran and you might overload the country. Slowloris or a syn-flood on port 25 is an option.
Maybe they aren't the most tech-savvy of regimes?@Li3n said:Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.
I thought one of the phone company does give the country to monitor traffic within the country (Iran has it, I read an article in BBC. I'll try to find it when I'm at work. I'm at home right now)Iaculus said:Maybe they aren't the most tech-savvy of regimes?@Li3n said:Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.
As far as I know, they don't have anything akin to the 'Great Firewall of China'. Might not be registering the 'net as a serious threat yet.
Cultures in Conflict: The Iranian Election and its Aftermath
________________________________________
Panel Discussion
Wednesday, June 24th
Noon to 1:00 pm
Humanities Building Room 202
________________________________________
The College of Arts and Sciences and its Cultures in Conflict class invite you to a panel discussion about the recent elections in Iran and the days of demonstrations which have followed. What is happening? How are things changing? What does it mean for the United States? How might this affect you?
Panelists include Dr. Majid Nabavi of Bellevue University's College of Business, Adjunct Professor Matthew Eggleton of our College of Arts and Sciences, and Professor Pat Artz, also of our College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Nabavi is a native of Iran and has many close personal contacts in Iran today. Professor Eggleton is Chief of Partner Nation Intelligence Education in Stuttgart, Germany with a specialty in counterterrorism and peacekeeping operations. Professor Artz teaches an interdisciplinary course on the Middle East for the College of Arts and Sciences.
Please feel free to bring your lunch to the Humanities Building Room 202 on Wednesday, June 24 at noon. Bring a friend. Bring a relative. Don't forget to bring a lunch. We will see you then. Questions? Please direct them to Pat Artz at pat.artz@bellevue.edu
FYI: The event also will be available on the web at http://stream.bellevue.edu/mediasite/Vi ... 1731267b36
They did block many sites and there where some reports that the net slowed down to 5kb/s... i was wondering why no total shutdown, like they did in Moldova. Also, mobile phones...Iaculus said:Maybe they aren't the most tech-savvy of regimes?@Li3n said:Hmm... i wonder why they aren't just cutting off the internet.
As far as I know, they don't have anything akin to the 'Great Firewall of China'. Might not be registering the 'net as a serious threat yet.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, with one witness saying security forces beat people like “animals.”
At least two trusted sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.
“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.”
“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.
Around “500 thugs” with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said.
The security forces were “”beating women madly” and “killing people like hell,” the source said.
“They beat up a woman so bad she was all bloody,” the source said in a description that underscores the growing and central role of women in the uprising.
you know, I understand that Iran thinks the west has influence over their people's protest, but I think Iran has to look a little deeper into their own politic and see when people has more access to information and knowledge (back to education defense) your common people will be smarter and probably do not want a "despotic" leader.Edrondol said:Things are heating up again:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, with one witness saying security forces beat people like “animals.”
At least two trusted sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.
“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.”
“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.
Around “500 thugs” with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said.
The security forces were “”beating women madly” and “killing people like hell,” the source said.
“They beat up a woman so bad she was all bloody,” the source said in a description that underscores the growing and central role of women in the uprising.
Well, it is because this is an internal conflict. Anyone outside of Iran can't really interfere with this matter. It is a civil matter that needs to be handle by their government.Denbrought said:Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.
The hell does that mean? What choices do the world leaders have? Anything they do will make it worse! If they back the current regime they are hanging several million people out to dry. If they back the protesters and they fail to get anything done they have irrevocably ruined any ability to deal diplomatically with Iran.Denbrought said:Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.
Whoaaaaah, calm down. Didn't you read what I said? I *don't* care what they decide, I'm just amused at their declarations and current predicament. Me saying "Hahah, that's a funny trainwreck to watch" doesn't imply "Bah, I would surely prevent this accident if given power."Edrondol said:The hell does that mean? What choices do the world leaders have? Anything they do will make it worse! If they back the current regime they are hanging several million people out to dry. If they back the protesters and they fail to get anything done they have irrevocably ruined any ability to deal diplomatically with Iran.Denbrought said:Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.
People can talk shit all they want about what's going on over there, but if we act in any way it'll only get worse.
What would you have them do? Seriously.
I guess I misread your words (like many have done to mine hehe...) You think it is hilarious, but I think it is serious. It is important that NONE of the country directly or indirectly interfere with Iran's INTERNAL issues. I do like President Obama's stance that to let Iran handle their own situation. Why back Mousavi? It is totally pointless IMO since the Supreme leader is well... Supreme. The president of Iran is just a puppet consider the Cleric Grand Council (12 of them) and Supreme leader can "veto" any decision the president can make (hence Supreme Leader title)Denbrought said:Whoaaaaah, calm down. Didn't you read what I said? I *don't* care what they decide, I'm just amused at their declarations and current predicament. Me saying "Hahah, that's a funny trainwreck to watch" doesn't imply "Bah, I would surely prevent this accident if given power."Edrondol said:The hell does that mean? What choices do the world leaders have? Anything they do will make it worse! If they back the current regime they are hanging several million people out to dry. If they back the protesters and they fail to get anything done they have irrevocably ruined any ability to deal diplomatically with Iran.Denbrought said:Watching the world's head countries' reactions to this is hiiiilarious. Like a dog that can't decide if to go left or right and keeps swinging it's body, oh man.
People can talk shit all they want about what's going on over there, but if we act in any way it'll only get worse.
What would you have them do? Seriously.
They've already expelled Britain's ambassadors, which prompted Britain ousting the Iranian ones.Denbrought said:I heard they've thrown out of the country a few british ambassadors, guessing they will do the same with other countries--and they will reciprocate?
Eye for an Eye.WolfOfOdin said:They've already expelled Britain's ambassadors, which prompted Britain ousting the Iranian ones.Denbrought said:I heard they've thrown out of the country a few british ambassadors, guessing they will do the same with other countries--and they will reciprocate?
SeriousJay said:Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.
She was shot down by the government, if they didn't label her terrorist it would be as good as accepting they weren't entitled to kill her, and that's not wise.SeriousJay said:Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.
Denbrought said:She was shot down by the government, if they didn't label her terrorist it would be as good as accepting they weren't entitled to kill her, and that's not wise.SeriousJay said:Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.
Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).WolfOfOdin said:Denbrought said:She was shot down by the government, if they didn't label her terrorist it would be as good as accepting they weren't entitled to kill her, and that's not wise.SeriousJay said:Was Neda gunned down because she didn't have her head garment on in public? She has been labeled a "terrorist" by Iran forces... what... a 16 year old musician who wants a revote stands for terrorism in that country? Man, that video was brutal.
The worst is that they're denying her any type of memorial service.....and the government is burying all the people killed in graves set aside, the bodies taken by the government.
Gasbandit?MindDetective said:GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.
... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
Do you mean people who have been deemed terrorists in Spain aren't even allowed a funeral? If so, I agree that's a bit much. But if it's just that the terrorist acts etc of the person aren't allowed to be publicly lauded, then there isn't really anything wrong with that.Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
It's more of a legal witch hunt syndrome. Unless you cry out loud that you are enraged at their mere existence and spend a copious amount of time and effort in demonstrating so, you'll be labelled antidemocratic or somesuch (and that leads to whole political parties being outlawed, people being harassed, etc). I'll look it up later but iirc we do have laws against honouring the memory of such people.bhamv2 said:Do you mean people who have been deemed terrorists in Spain aren't even allowed a funeral? If so, I agree that's a bit much. But if it's just that the terrorist acts etc of the person aren't allowed to be publicly lauded, then there isn't really anything wrong with that.Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
Hmm, now that I've typed it out, it seems there's a rather large gap between those two options.
So remembering a person (basically is what memorial is about, remember the deed of the person more or less) a drunk driver = terrorist?Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
Not to mention that every other year, some terrorist group suddenly becomes a freedom fighter in the eyes of the West (IRA for example), and some freedom fighters the West supports are cast as terrorist (the Taliban, post-Sept 11)Denbrought said:It's more of a legal witch hunt syndrome. Unless you cry out loud that you are enraged at their mere existence and spend a copious amount of time and effort in demonstrating so, you'll be labelled antidemocratic or somesuch (and that leads to whole political parties being outlawed, people being harassed, etc). I'll look it up later but iirc we do have laws against honouring the memory of such people.bhamv2 said:Do you mean people who have been deemed terrorists in Spain aren't even allowed a funeral? If so, I agree that's a bit much. But if it's just that the terrorist acts etc of the person aren't allowed to be publicly lauded, then there isn't really anything wrong with that.Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...
Hmm, now that I've typed it out, it seems there's a rather large gap between those two options.
But hey, it's also illegal to burn a picture of the king, so what do I know.
How would that go...Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.Espy said:How would that go...Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...Denbrought said:Terrorists in Spain aren't allowed a memorial or any kind of remembrance either, for good or for bad (I find it despicable, but hey, that makes me antidemocratic).
"Bob was a good guy, let's remember him for his 9-5 job at the convenience store back in 88, the macaroni art he made for his mom in 79 and the 32 schoolchildren he killed when he blew himself up, the families who have been torn apart, the bus driver who was literally torn in half by the bomb blast."
Yeah... I agree. They should be memorialized as long as we can be honest.
Strapping dynamite to your chest is not an error. It is an act of volition. The group that the terrorist belongs to will use the occasion to walk down the streets, wave propaganda, and tell everyone what a good boy he was in killing a bunch of school children.Denbrought said:People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.
So you believe people are not capable of errors of judgement? Oh man, how wonderful the world you live in must be. Sorry but I'll keep on believing that most people, to not say all, go on their lives misled and are tantamount to little children. So I'm not judgemental after they're dead.sixpackshaker said:Strapping dynamite to your chest is not an error. It is an act of volition. The group that the terrorist belongs to will use the occasion to walk down the streets, wave propaganda, and tell everyone what a good boy he was in killing a bunch of school children.Denbrought said:People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.
People ARE capable of error in judgment, but there is a fine line where you cross it. Lets say you want to blow up your school and you decide to threat first, that is error in judgment, but if you plan it for months even YEARS and eventually go with it, that is no longer an error in judgment.Denbrought said:So you believe people are not capable of errors of judgement? Oh man, how wonderful the world you live in must be. Sorry but I'll keep on believing that most people, to not say all, go on their lives misled and are tantamount to little children. So I'm not judgemental after they're dead.sixpackshaker said:Strapping dynamite to your chest is not an error. It is an act of volition. The group that the terrorist belongs to will use the occasion to walk down the streets, wave propaganda, and tell everyone what a good boy he was in killing a bunch of school children.Denbrought said:People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.
Then it is no longer error in judgment.Denbrought said:Given enough misguidance and delusion, a man is capable of going to great lengths to be wrong.
that is how it is in almost all society.Denbrought said:I'm not getting you. Are you saying that just because it's a person's decision it automatically is their path to trace, and it marks their worth? I believe that a person's only quality is their existence and, once dead, their having existed. Deeds and crimes are of little importance once you're gone, might as well accept that and don't judge those that can't defend their footsteps.
Well I am trying to understand that, in your view, everyone should have a memorial? or everyone should have the right be buried? (I think what spark this debate is Spain will not allow memorial of terrorist, I wasn't sure about the bury part)Denbrought said:And that's why it's my opinion and not yours. I'm explaining myself, not trying to convert you :tongue:
...I'm speechless.Denbrought said:People make errors, they still existed. Also, omitting the truth is not lying, and in a memorial you're supposed to showcase the good in one person's life.Espy said:How would that go...Denbrought said:Yeah, they're still human beings that died due to some stupid decisions. I see them the same as drunk drivers that get killed in an accident along with another car's whole family.Espy said:... you find it despicable that terrorists aren't given a memorial or remembrance? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right...
"Bob was a good guy, let's remember him for his 9-5 job at the convenience store back in 88, the macaroni art he made for his mom in 79 and the 32 schoolchildren he killed when he blew himself up, the families who have been torn apart, the bus driver who was literally torn in half by the bomb blast."
Yeah... I agree. They should be memorialized as long as we can be honest.
I think that is why Spain denies the memorials for terrorists, to cut down on making heroes/villains out of these guys. Just see how out of control the funerals for terrorists get in Gaza and other places.Denbrought said:It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.
Yet they make heroes, martyrs and the epitomes of hispanic valour of each and every one of the victims. I don't like one sided crap.sixpackshaker said:I think that is why Spain denies the memorials for terrorists, to cut down on making heroes/villains out of these guys. Just see how out of control the funerals for terrorists get in Gaza and other places.Denbrought said:It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.
Why should society provide the same benefits for one that chooses not to participate in that society? Why should they recognize someone that hates that society? What benefit does society get from allowing others to laud and honor such a person?Denbrought said:Yet they make heroes, martyrs and the epitomes of hispanic valour of each and every one of the victims. I don't like one sided crap.
Oh is THAT who those guys were? All I know is I rolled up my sleeves and grabbed these two trouble makers, threw em off the curb and said "Listen here, pally! I..."JCM said:Gasbandit?MindDetective said:GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.
Or any of these: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/GBGasBandit said:Oh is THAT who those guys were? All I know is I rolled up my sleeves and grabbed these two trouble makers, threw em off the curb and said "Listen here, pally! I..."JCM said:Gasbandit?MindDetective said:GB did evict two Iranian ambassadors, I think.
Oh wait, I think he meant Great Britain.
Like the right to be Spanish even if you don't want to?!stienman said:This is no different than putting someone in prison - if they choose not to participate in society by breaking the laws and rules, they are locked up and the rights they enjoyed are denied.
And that's where you proven that you haven't even tried to think why ppl would blow themselves up...Further, they knew when they decided to be terrorists that if they died they would not be honored, so they must have accepted that outcome.
I don't understand what you mean by this. My best guess is that you believe that the right to be spanish is denied to dead terrorists? Sorry if I misunderstand...@Li3n said:Like the right to be Spanish even if you don't want to?!stienman said:This is no different than putting someone in prison - if they choose not to participate in society by breaking the laws and rules, they are locked up and the rights they enjoyed are denied.
Yes, some people believe that burials and memorial services should be basic rights fundamental to human beings.@Li3n said:And unless the government is providing the funeral this is denying them a right some might consider basic. (that's why they don;t torture people in jails anymore).
They blow themselves up to KILL other innocent human beings to get attention.@Li3n said:And that's where you proven that you haven't even tried to think why ppl would blow themselves up...Further, they knew when they decided to be terrorists that if they died they would not be honored, so they must have accepted that outcome.
Ah. I understand now. I think.Denbrought said:Yet they make heroes, martyrs and the epitomes of hispanic valour of each and every one of the victims. I don't like one sided crap.sixpackshaker said:I think that is why Spain denies the memorials for terrorists, to cut down on making heroes/villains out of these guys. Just see how out of control the funerals for terrorists get in Gaza and other places.Denbrought said:It's more that I hate when people will judge, iconify, martirize, damn, blah blah blah the dead. Too many heroes and villains have been created once dead.
I think it is more than that.Denbrought said:Yes, and it irks me. But eh, that's like you not liking a type of food, personal preferences 'n all.
ETA? Basque nationalists?! Any of this ring a bell?stienman said:I don't understand what you mean by this. My best guess is that you believe that the right to be spanish is denied to dead terrorists? Sorry if I misunderstand...
Most change in human history has hardly won by political process... or even political process alone...stienman said:Yes, some people believe that burials and memorial services should be basic rights fundamental to human beings.
Some don't.
Participate in your political process if you believe this should be changed, and see if you can get society as a whole to agree with you.
As you said before, some do, some don't... the idea was that it's unlikely that they believed they where choosing not to be honoured... martyrdom and all that... what your own morals tell you about what they did won't influence them much.stienman said:They blow themselves up to KILL other innocent human beings to get attention.
They may think their cause is greater than the life of an uninvolved child, and therefore they feel it's ok to blow up a bus full of children.
There are perishingly few causes that are worth that cost.
Please tell me the causes that you believe are worth far more than a few uninvolved human beings - who had rights that the terrorist chose to remove from them. Then explain to me how killing these people will, with certainty, move the cause forward significantly.
Now give me some examples where "revolutionaries" targeted innocent civilians, and succeeded primarily due to the murders they caused.
-Adam
Then now I totally understand where you are coming from. By your view, I agree that it is silly to praise or shun the dead since it serves no purpose afterwards (by your view and I'm not making fun of you. I'm understanding a little more on how other think)Denbrought said:I have not one person to look up to, alive or dead, at least not one that I have found out about. It kind of comes included in my whole egocentric and ethnocentric package.
heh, you sound like my history teacher. It is a form of terrorism back then, but does the act go further than that? what cause the terrorism?AshburnerX said:The only instance of Terrorism that I'd say has ever worked in a world changing way... is the American Revolution.
Surprised? Think about it from a British point of view: A bunch of unruly hicks are making a mess of British owned businesses by destroying their goods and harassing their owners. They are amassing rag tag armies to fight against the legitimate rulers in the area. They are murdering British soldiers and citizens in an attempt to upset the power balance in the region.
Sure sounds like Terrorism to me. You could probably use similar examples like the charging of the Bastille in France too.
possible, but is that type of world better for the people? do the countries of Al Quada have the same freedom we (as in U.S. and Europe) possess right now? Do women have equal rights? do they believe that the nation should be equal across the board?AshburnerX said:Isn't the self proclaimed goal of Al Quada (I know I spelled it wrong) to establish a world wide Islamic State? Terrorists rarely do things for no reason... it's usually in response to a local problem.
and the French Revolution, the Revolt of the Maccabees, the French Resistance in WWII, ...AshburnerX said:The only instance of Terrorism that I'd say has ever worked in a world changing way... is the American Revolution.
This is true. The victor writes the history. If Hitler won the war, many country would be speaking German.Chummer said:One mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary.
Traitor or Liberator?
Crusader or Invader?
Etc
It's all a matter of who wins and gets to write the history books.
If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.
I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.Chummer said:If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.
To be fair, I did mention the charging of the Bastille, which was the defining moment of the French Revolution. And French Resistance in WWII wouldn't technically be considered Terrorism because they were fighting against a hostile invasion force, not the legitimate governing body. They would be considered Insurgents, like the various militia groups the US is fighting in Iraq.Papillon said:and the French Revolution, the Revolt of the Maccabees, the French Resistance in WWII, ...
Firstly, I'm talking about a dignified passing, and right now convicted terrorists aren't even respected in life (ex post facto laws have been passed against them, just to put one of a myriad of examples), but then again I'm not only disgusted by the way the law is set up but how the spaniard society plays the accomplice in all of this. Yes they're killing people, yes that's not nice, but once dead they're as dead as you or me will be. So what if someone wants to call them freedom fighters? It's just matter of then expressing your own opinion and doing so in bigger numbers.tegid said:Wait a minute...
Are you (Den) COMPLETELY sure they aren't allowed to have a funeral? I thought they were...
Public acts of remembrance that laud them as 'freedom fighters' or whatever are forbidden, and it is not such a bad thing, because they're done to make heroes out of these people. Dammit, heroes because they killed people! I don't care why, or for who's freedom they thought they were fighting (and I say 'thought' because usually they were just making some sonovabitch richer than he already is).
Of course, I'm with you that the anti-terrorist, anti-nationalistic attitude is pretty much terrible in that it's tooo exagerated. And hypocritical, since it's only anti-nationalistic when it isn't Spanish nationalism we're talking about. But the situation in Spain is already skewed: you don't see politicians of Baskish parties [strike:2sadkavu]die[/strike:2sadkavu] get killed every other day, and it's not the same situation when a politician who has never killed someone dies than when a fucking terrorist who has does.
(this paragraph may be pretty much unreadable. I hope Den, having the context and everything, will be able to understand it)
Of course, I think it is very, very, VERY exaggerated, antidemocratical and hypocritical to outlaw politic parties only because they don't actively condemn terrorism (specially given that one of the major spanish political parties didn't condemn Franco's dictatorship until about 5 years ago).
(Oh god... A gazillion posts since I clicked 'reply'... I'm so NOT gonna read all of them)
Well, I'd say legal instead of democratic. But yeah, nitpicking aside, this is something I hate with passion. One thing or the other. Everybody or nobody. But hell, not this hypocritical stance. :SDenbrought said:On this, quick note, it's perfectly democratic to parade around lauding the great deeds that Franco performed in life, but don't you dare laud the work of ETA lest you incur the wrath of ze law.
I don't think that's right.AshburnerX said:I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.Chummer said:If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.
Certainly not. The term is "Loyalist"Twitch said:I don't think that's right.AshburnerX said:I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.Chummer said:If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.
One could argue that the Vichy government was the legitimate French government at the time, even though they were collaborating with the Germans, so in a sense the French Resistance was resisting the legitimate government and a hostile invasion at the same time.AshburnerX said:I believe he IS considered a great patriot in England.Chummer said:If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.
To be fair, I did mention the charging of the Bastille, which was the defining moment of the French Revolution. And French Resistance in WWII wouldn't technically be considered Terrorism because they were fighting against a hostile invasion force, not the legitimate governing body. They would be considered Insurgents, like the various militia groups the US is fighting in Iraq.Papillon said:and the French Revolution, the Revolt of the Maccabees, the French Resistance in WWII, ...
The Revolt of the Maccabees was a revolt in present day Israel around 160 BC, where a group of revolutionaries lead by the Maccabee brothers were able to gain independence from the Greeks for about a hundred years before they were conquered by the Romans. I don't know much more than that.AshburnerX said:I'm not familiar with the Revolt of the Maccabees... enlighten me?
Pretty much this.Chummer said:One mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary.
Traitor or Liberator?
Crusader or Invader?
Etc
It's all a matter of who wins and gets to write the history books.
If the Brits had won the Rev War, Benedict Arnold would be considered a hero.
Something not quite right in all this. It's such an obviously rigged election and the government is acting like the anger and frustration of the people is the fault of outsiders.@Li3n said:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8134904.stm
Which is standard operating procedure... i mean it's not like they can admit it's their fault.Scarlet Varlet said:Something not quite right in all this. It's such an obviously rigged election and the government is acting like the anger and frustration of the people is the fault of outsiders.
:blue: I've watched the news several times this weekend, and no mention of China... 2 weeks on and Micheal Jackson's death still leads news coverage.@Li3n said:Hey look, China is joining the party: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8135203.stm