Ahmadinejad wins re-election

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps. But here's my dilemma:
On the one hand, I have Ahmadinejad, who is backed by the military and the Supreme Leader, who will hold power by virtue of force, and which exposes Iran for the brutal dictatorship it has always been. Or I have Mousavi, who is backed by the mullahs and the new aristocracy, who can lay claim to democratic mandate, but who in fact is simply perpetuating the carefully orchestrated rigged elections whose facade only briefly peeled away in the last weeks because the folks on top couldn't agree on whose victory to rig.

So you're asking me to choose between a despot we all know is a despot, or the figurehead of a behind-the-scenes despot, whose veneer of democracy is entirely fabricated.

I'm not so certain which choice is better. It's like saying, half the voters preferred actual crap to manufactured crap. That means we all get to eat crap!

We all have to eat crap, the question is how much. In this case the question is of greatest relevance to Iranians present and future. Great efforts are made to present Iran as a threatening bogey-man but it's not there in the evidence. Revolutionary rhetoric counts for nothing and if a nuclear Pakistan doesn't frighten people why should a nuclear Iran?

The Iranian protestors aren't calling for a new revolution, but they do want a change of direction and Mousavi offers that. There may well have been election-rigging but it was hardly carefully orchestrated, lets face it. Elections haven't been fixed before which explains a lot of the outrage this time, even with the perception of rigging. And there were certainly many things done differently and suspiciously.

One great resentment of the urban post-Revolution/post-war generations is the Basij (uneducated peasant bullies in the main) and under Mousavi they might well be reined-in and put under the rule of law. That would be a great step. The Revolutionary Guard's role might also be reduced. There would certainly be a different rhetoric towards the West; nuclear power would still be pursued but that's a matter of national pride, not religious.

It's thirty years since the Revolution and the old men are dropping off the perch. This is the sort of period in a revolution when the future is gradually formed, not in a revolution but in a re-moulding.

 

[mr rosewater]

We all have to eat crap, the question is how much. In this case the question is of greatest relevance to Iranians present and future. Great efforts are made to present Iran as a threatening bogey-man but it's not there in the evidence. Revolutionary rhetoric counts for nothing and if a nuclear Pakistan doesn't frighten people why should a nuclear Iran?

The Iranian protestors aren't calling for a new revolution, but they do want a change of direction and Mousavi offers that. There may well have been election-rigging but it was hardly carefully orchestrated, lets face it. Elections haven't been fixed before which explains a lot of the outrage this time, even with the perception of rigging. And there were certainly many things done differently and suspiciously.

One great resentment of the urban post-Revolution/post-war generations is the Basij (uneducated peasant bullies in the main) and under Mousavi they might well be reined-in and put under the rule of law. That would be a great step. The Revolutionary Guard's role might also be reduced. There would certainly be a different rhetoric towards the West; nuclear power would still be pursued but that's a matter of national pride, not religious.

It's thirty years since the Revolution and the old men are dropping off the perch. This is the sort of period in a revolution when the future is gradually formed, not in a revolution but in a re-moulding.

Lets see here, Pakistan snuck the bomb in to counter India. Pakistan has tried very hard to build a bridge with the west, especially during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and since. Pakistan is not a gulf state. Iran is a gulf state, a bomb for Iran will make other states in the gulf want one, see where I'm going, you should stick to anti US crud.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Um... that's not what he's saying at all. He doesn't term thsi as a "revolution" against the cleric-led system.

He accurately points out that the Supreme Leader has been demythified. He accurately points out that the faction holding the power is a triumvirate of the Basiji militia, the Iranian Armed Forces and the Supreme Leader (through his son).

I think people are watching this -- inaccurately -- as some sort of poetic overthrow of the Iranian Revolution with its own mirror counter-revolution. That's not what's happening.

Bingo. Those who report such are engaging in wishful thinking.

What we're seeing is a power play that could result in one side purging the other, or it devolving into a wider civil war between Khameini and Rafasnjani's factions. What we are not seeing is the beginning of a democratic or Western-style revolution. Perhaps, if the two factions beat each other into a bloody pulp, a democracy could emerge, but that is a remote possibility at best. More likely, we'd just witness a long period of anarchy, lawlessness and crime (and be very thankful it all went down before Iran got nukes).

It's what I am hoping for, but I doubt will happen. The power elites, even though squabbling with one another, have it too good to let it go that far, as I see it. The army, mullah's, various financial interests, and such like have too much to lose to not clamp down on the general populace.

However, they might make some errors.

Civil war in Iran would be a very good thing. Bloody, and possibly long running.

PS: Your posts in this thread have been great reading. Thanks.

 

[a_unique_person]

Bingo. Those who report such are engaging in wishful thinking.

It's what I am hoping for, but I doubt will happen. The power elites, even though squabbling with one another, have it too good to let it go that far, as I see it. The army, mullah's, various financial interests, and such like have too much to lose to not clamp down on the general populace.

However, they might make some errors.

Civil war in Iran would be a very good thing. Bloody, and possibly long running.

PS: Your posts in this thread have been great reading. Thanks.

I see it as an assertion of the democratic vote over a dictatorship. They all love allah but they get to say they want it. That's still a big change over you will love allah, (and by implication, his representatives) like it or not.

 

[FireGarden]

An editor does not merely report each factoid that comes across its desk. They choose the facts they feel best reflect the facts on the ground as they are actually happening. That's exactly why we call it a "filter".

That the CIA was accused is a fact on the ground. I would be disappointed in any news source which didn't report it.

That Al Jazeera dutifully reports each and every allegation of CIA manipulation evidences the settings on their specific filter. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm not saying that it is accurate or inaccurate.

Maybe that's simply the way you see it.

Similarly, that the West does not report each and every allegation of CIA manipulation indicates that they have a different filter -- one less likely to find such allegations sufficiently credible to be reported.

Which western news source hasn't reported these allegations?

edited to add: I only gave one representative example of Al Jazeera reporting on CIA rumors. What do you think Al Jazeera's filter is? Or do you believe that have managed to maintain a filter-free reporting style with respect to what's happening in Iran?

Al Jazeera English employs journalists from all over the world. I recognise many ex-BBC faces among their reporters.

The main selling point of the al-Jazeera brand is that they will give a voice to everyone -- the phrase "Bush to bin Ladin" was actually used in one of their ad campaigns.

 

[marksman]

Maybe that's simply the way you see it.

I ackowledged that we all -- including me -- have our filters.

Which western news source hasn't reported these allegations?

None. But I acknowledged that as well. I'm not sure you understand what I wrote if you think your above-quoted statement is responsive.

Al Jazeera English employs journalists from all over the world. I recognise many ex-BBC faces among their reporters.

The main selling point of the al-Jazeera brand is that they will give a voice to everyone -- the phrase "Bush to bin Ladin" was actually used in one of their ad campaigns.

That's not responsive to my question. How would you describe Al Jazeera's filter with respect to its reporting on Iran? Or do you believe Al Jazeera is able to report on Iran without a filter?

Please note that I did not single out Al Jazeera for comment. My point is that every newservice has a filter. Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, Ha'aretz, Wall Street Journal, etc. Every news service. Al Jazeera is no different. Do you disagree? Is Al Jazeera different in that regard?

 

[FireGarden]

None. But I acknowledged that as well. I'm not sure you understand what I wrote if you think your above-quoted statement is responsive.

Perhaps you could clarify, then.

Similarly, that the West does not report each and every allegation of CIA manipulation indicates that they have a different filter -- one less likely to find such allegations sufficiently credible to be reported.

It seems to me that you think allegations should only be reported when they are sufficiently credible. I don't see that kind of filter going on in the Western press. Or at al-Jazeera. (See later example)

But if that is your contention, then do you think that the current allegation is sufficiently credible? If so, then why choose this allegation to make your point about al-Jazeera? If not, then surely the Western press would have refused to print it. In which case, I am justified in asking which Western news source has not.

That's not responsive to my question. How would you describe Al Jazeera's filter with respect to its reporting on Iran? Or do you believe Al Jazeera is able to report on Iran without a filter?

Al-Jazeera's strategy is to quote from a multitude of sources. If their is a filter, then it is towards favouring official announcements.

Please note that I did not single out Al Jazeera for comment. My point is that every newservice has a filter. Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, Ha'aretz, Wall Street Journal, etc. Every news service. Al Jazeera is no different. Do you disagree? Is Al Jazeera different in that regard?

I don't think al-Jazeera are fundamentally different.
It's impossible to be objective. The closest we can get is to be subjective from as many different angles as possible. That's a common strategy within a news-service. And, since that's not enough, it's a good thing there are so many news sources out there. All competing with each other for credibility (or other qualities, to be sure).

I appreciate you didn't single out one news source. I just didn't find your evaluation of al-Jazeera accurate -- especially on the example you picked.


As another example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/neda-soltan-iran-family-forced-out

The government is also accusing protesters of killing Soltan, describing her as a martyr of the Basij militia. Javan, a pro-government newspaper, has gone so far as to blame the recently expelled BBC correspondent, Jon Leyne, of hiring "thugs" to shoot her so he could make a documentary film.

Do you think the Guardian makes that report because the allegation is sufficiently credible? I don't.

If it's true that a pro-government newspaper has made such an allegation, then I want to know they did so. Do you understand why? Because I'm not sure I can explain it well.

(The main thrust of the Guardian story belongs in a different thread. I won't spam by posting it here.)

 

[marksman]

Perhaps you could clarify, then.

I don't know what you think my position is, so I don't know what it is you need clarified.

It seems to me that you think allegations should only be reported when they are sufficiently credible. I don't see that kind of filter going on in the Western press. Or at al-Jazeera. (See later example)

I didn't say that. I said what some news outlets tend to concentrate upon, in comparison to other news outlets can shed light on what filter that particular news organization may possess. It has nothign to do with whether the concentration is on credible or non-credible allegations.

Al-Jazeera's strategy is to quote from a multitude of sources. If their is a filter, then it is towards favouring official announcements.

I feel like we must be speaking different languages, because what you describe is not a "filter", unless your contention is that Al Jazeera does not have editors, and in fact, is merely a wire service that publishes every press release or official statement.

I appreciate you didn't single out one news source. I just didn't find your evaluation of al-Jazeera accurate -- especially on the example you picked.

Fine. Determining what a new service's filter may be is going to be a judgment call. There's no objective standard by which one can measure the nature of a filter. And that judgment is also going to be colored by the evaluator's own filter (which I acknowledged in my original post).

Debating the nature of a filter is like debating whether a cake has too much sugar or too much flour.

So I perceive in Al Jazeera a tendency to report allegations against the West in a manner other news agencies do not. I attribute this to their editorial filter in comparison to other news organizations. You do not perceive that tendency. I don't think it productive to argue whether your or my perceptions are more or less accurate, since I acknowledge that it's subjective and, moreover, my point was only to use Al Jazeera as an example of one of many outlets with a filter. If it helps keep the discussion on track, I withdraw my statement that Al Jazeera tends to report speculative allegations against the West.

 

[FireGarden]

I don't know what you think my position is, so I don't know what it is you need clarified.

I'm not trying to tell you what your position is. I'm trying to get that infomation from you.

I didn't say that. I said what some news outlets tend to concentrate upon, in comparison to other news outlets can shed light on what filter that particular news organization may possess. It has nothign to do with whether the concentration is on credible or non-credible allegations.

Then I'm still stuck as to what this means:

Similarly, that the West does not report each and every allegation of CIA manipulation indicates that they have a different filter -- one less likely to find such allegations sufficiently credible to be reported.

And why you picked the example you picked.

I feel like we must be speaking different languages, because what you describe is not a "filter", unless your contention is that Al Jazeera does not have editors, and in fact, is merely a wire service that publishes every press release or official statement.

Maybe it would be better to compare what al-Jazeera publishes to what their sources publish -- like I did in an above post. That might give us a better idea of what makes it past any filter -- though I'm sure that would vary from day to day depending on who sees what.

If it helps keep the discussion on track, I withdraw my statement that Al Jazeera tends to report speculative allegations against the West.

It most certainly would not help.
My disagreement with your post is not that the allegations reported are credible. I would describe them as speculative -- since evidence has not been published to support them. To make it clear: My position is that al-Jazeera (and many, if not most, news services) report that speculative allegations have been made.

My disagreement is with the motives you ascribe to reporting such allegations. You seem to think that reporting an allegation is some kind of support of it. Why else would al-Jazeera leap at the opportunity while western papers would not "find such allegations sufficiently credible to be reported"?


You didn't respond to my example from the Guardian. So that leaves me having to explain why I think it is useful for a news agency to report even an extraordinary allegation way, way before any extraordinary evidence is available to back them up.

Do you not learn anything from hearing that allegation against Jon Leyne? Totally absent of evidence to back it up, too. Would the Guardian have been more objective if it had not reported that the allegation had been made? (I'm assuming their report is factually correct: that a pro-government newspaper did indeed publish the allegation).

 

[MattusMaximus]

To be fair, I think everybody looks at this through a filter.

For the West, Americans in particular, our last in-depth look at Iran was the Iranian Revolution and ensuing hostage crisis. So, we naturally try to put what's happening now in that perspective. "Oh, Iranians are protesting; it must be similar to the last Iranian protest I remember."

But other news outlets have their own filters. Al Jazeera, which, for obvious reasons, is prone to see Western machinations in pretty much every upheaval in the region, tends to credit fairly silly reports of CIA influence (see section called "CIA blamed"). Al Jazeera's filter is clearly a presumption of "It something bad is happening, it is likely the result of the legacy of Western Imperialism or the result of present Western interventionism". But that's the prejudice of those who still feel the sting of colonialism. (Al Jazeera -- which is mainly Sunni-sympathetic -- also loves to highlight any perceived schism amongst the Shi'a; sometimes it almost sounds like a gossip rag.)

Another interesting news filter is Israel's. Israel has been under a perceived threat of nuclear annihilation, so from their perspective, they view Iran as a crazy theocratic regime; now they see it as a crazy, unstable theocratic regime.

I'm not saying anybody is wrong or right. It's absolutely natural to see things through one's own filter. I'm sure I'm doing it too. But one should be cognizant of the bias, and try to concentrate on the facts being reported, rather than the gloss placed on the facts.


I think the label "reform" is misleading. I'm not even sure the opposition is the "lesser evil". There's something to be said for having a known figurehead in power (who also has the knack for alienating everybody else in the world) rather than a figurehead who can lay some claim to popular legitimacy (and who has some political savvy).

Well said, marksman.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The opposition is not an anti-cleric movement.

Anti-Khameini is not the same thing as pro-secular. (Even before recent events, plenty of people never felt that Khameini really was the "Supreme Leader" the way Khomeini was.)

CNN headline from yesterday: Clerics join Iran's anti-government protest.

True enough, but for you to assert that there is no secular component to what's going on in Iran is wrong. I know there are secularists in Iran who are excited that this could be - however small - a move along the long & slow road to a more secular government.

They see this as an opening, and why wouldn't they when people are openly defying & questioning the supreme religious authorities in the nation? You may call it excess optimism, I call it opportunity.

I like Fareed Zakaria's assessment of the situation.

 

[marksman]

I'm not trying to tell you what your position is. I'm trying to get that infomation from you.

I told you my position: all news outlets report news through a filter.

And why you picked the example you picked.

I just looked for the first example of Al Jazeera reporting that fit the criteria. it was an example, not evidence. I was not and am not trying to prove to anybody that Al Jazeera has a specific filter. That is why I am withdrawing my statement that Al Jazeera had the specific filter I mentioned.

It most certainly would not help.

Well, then I don't think anything can help. If retracting the point your having contentions with is not going to end the problem you had with my post, I can't imagine that anything would.

My disagreement with your post is not that the allegations reported are credible.

I didn't say you thought the allegations were credible.

My disagreement is with the motives you ascribe to reporting such allegations. You seem to think that reporting an allegation is some kind of support of it.

I never said such a thing. I don't think that reporting an allegation is support of the allegation. That wasn't my point at all.

You didn't respond to my example from the Guardian.

Because you're trying to argue with me about a position I don't think I ever did (and if I did, I didn't mean to) take.

Would the Guardian have been more objective if it had not reported that the allegation had been made?

I don't know how to respond to these questions because they seem to be making a point that I have never had any problem with.

New agencies will report allegations. They don't report every allegation or government release that crosses their desks -- that would turn them into wire services, not reporters. If they do report a release or allegation, it's because they think it newsworthy, which does not correlate to them thinking it credible.

Does this help elucidate my opinion?

 

[marksman]

True enough, but for you to assert that there is no secular component to what's going on in Iran is wrong.

I like Fareed Zakaria's assessment of the situation.

1. Did JoeTheJuggler say there was no secular component? I didn't see that.

2. I almost always like Fareed Zakaria's assessments (but he and I have similar filters). This is no exception.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

True enough, but for you to assert that there is no secular component to what's going on in Iran is wrong. I know there are secularists in Iran who are excited that this could be - however small - a move along the long & slow road to a more secular government.

They see this as an opening, and why wouldn't they when people are openly defying & questioning the supreme religious authorities in the nation? You may call it excess optimism, I call it opportunity.

1. Did JoeTheJuggler say there was no secular component? I didn't see that.

I said that and retracted it in another thread.

However, the point I wanted to make was that Mousavi's opposition is not a secular, democratic movement.

I appreciate, MM, that there are idealists (those who see things as they could be and say, "Why not?") who see these protests as an opportunity, but I think the best we can hope for is a calming down of the strongest rhetoric of Khameini and Ahmadinejad and perhaps some very small reforms, but I see no secular system of government or judiciary there any time soon.

I also still don't see how Mousavi can be given the presidency unless some mighty strong evidence comes out that the election was stolen.

 

[Slayhamlet]

The opposition is not an anti-cleric movement.

Anti-Khameini is not the same thing as pro-secular. (Even before recent events, plenty of people never felt that Khameini really was the "Supreme Leader" the way Khomeini was.)

CNN headline from yesterday: Clerics join Iran's anti-government protest.

The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests weren't originally anti-CPC either. The initial demands of the student demonstrators were reformist in nature: reducing government corruption and loosening restrictions on freedom of the press. The demonstrations themselves began as expressions of public mourning for the recently deceased Hu Yaobang, a former CPC leader who had fallen out of party favor because of his reformist stances. There were also current members of the CPC who vocally supported the protesters in their demands, most of whom were later purged. The students themselves at one point arrested one among their number who had thrown an egg filled with red paint at Mao's famous portrait, handing him over to the Chinese authorities. It wasn't till the crackdown intensified that the protesters, now significantly increased in number, began to call for Western style democracy and an end to CPC rule.

 

[FireGarden]

Well, then I don't think anything can help. If retracting the point your having contentions with is not going to end the problem you had with my post, I can't imagine that anything would.

You didn't settle the point I had problems with until just now:

I never said such a thing. I don't think that reporting an allegation is support of the allegation.

[...] If they do report a release or allegation, it's because they think it newsworthy, which does not correlate to them thinking it credible.

Then I misunderstood you when you said:

Similarly, that the West does not report each and every allegation of CIA manipulation indicates that they have a different filter -- one less likely to find such allegations sufficiently credible to be reported.

 

[marksman]

Then I misunderstood you when you said:

I misspoke. I should have said "newsworthy" when I wrote "credible", and I actually meant to use the word "creditable", as in it could be credited to a newsworthy source.

My apology.

 

[CapelDodger]

Lets see here, Pakistan snuck the bomb in to counter India.

To counter India doing what, in your opinion? What's frightening about India?

Pakistan has tried very hard to build a bridge with the west, especially during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and since.

Pakistan created the Taliban.

Pakistan is not a gulf state.

Neither am I.

Iran is a gulf state, a bomb for Iran will make other states in the gulf want one,

Pakistan is a failed notion, and this is your problem? Which of these "gulf states" do you imagine has the industrial capacity to create a nuclear weapon? Or a working toaster?

... see where I'm going, you should stick to anti US crud.

I can certainly see where you're coming from.

Have you checked out Pakistan today? A bit of a mess, by all accounts. (That's the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to give it its full title.Not a title the Brits favoured, but once they have sovereign status waddygonnado?)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Have you checked out Pakistan today? A bit of a mess, by all accounts. (That's the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to give it its full title.Not a title the Brits favoured, but once they have sovereign status waddygonnado?)

I did, and I got a little uneasy. Report was just over ten days of foreign currency reserves, in the nation with the worst debtor (or second worst?) condition in re foreign loans.

Are the Pakistan government counting on a "too big to fail" theory?

What if people just let them fail?

Then what?