BS: Election in Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:25 PM

ake and Little Hawk, hold your applause for a bit. Lauding Iran's election as a successful exercise is seriously premature. It appears that this day could lead to a bad, bad interim before this is resolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM

"You are the one claiming it is not against Jews, but Zionists."


No, YOU have made that claim, although the Iranians use the term interchangably.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:18 PM

Ah, so is the above post an admission that it's not about Jews, but about Zionists?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:55 PM

You are the one claiming it is not against Jews, but Zionists. Since the Jews in Iran are not Zionists ( although Iran claims all the Jews in the US are) why would Iran kill them?

Or is it really Jews and not Zionism that is the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:48 PM

That's deplorable, but it's got nothing to do with this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM

No, the are still busy with the Bah'ai.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:45 PM

Whether or not Israel could be destroyed with a single nuclear weapon is irrelevant. This is because Iran would be utterly destroyed by the US if it waged a nuclear attack on Israel. Israel is the human with the big foot in my scenario, with the US nuclear arsenal being the big foot.

Iran does not advocate, and has never advocated killing the Palestinians. They have never advocated killing the Jews in Israel either. Iran has no interest in killing Jews. If they did, they would have started with the Jewish population of their own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:33 PM

last was mine

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:31 PM

"a tiny little ant gun "

A single nuclear weapon could destroy 70+% of the population and 85% of the industry of Israel. How many would it take to do the same to Iran?


You have no idea of what you are talking about in regards nuclear weapons.

If there are ants in the region, it is Israel, given the territorial bounaries.


If Israel is attacked with a nuclear device, there will be NO Palestinian problem- they will ALL be killed by the fallout.

I guess that is one solution, but NOT one I advocate. Unfortunately, Iran does advocate it- after all, THEY are not Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

It's not really possible to use nuclear blackmail against someone who has the ability to utterly destroy the person doing the blackmailing. The only way a country can use nuclear blackmail is to either be the only one with nuclear weapons, or to have nuclear superiority. Both of which Israel has at this time. If Iran had nuclear weapons, Israel would still have nuclear superiority because it's got the entire nuclear arsenal of the US pledged to defend it if necessary. Iran will never, ever have nuclear superiority over Israel.

The gun analogy is not appropriate to the argument I'm making. Here's a better one: if I was a human with a great big foot, an ant with a tiny little ant gun would not be able to blackmail me, because I could just squash it with my great big foot.

There is one way a country can use nuclear blackmail against a country that has nuclear superiority, and that's the way Israel uses it against both Iran and the US. Israel threatens to use nukes against a country like Iran in an effort to get the US to attack Iran first. This is because the government of Israel gambles on the idea that if Israel used nuclear weapons first, the US would be drawn into the nuclear conflict anyway, because the US is pledged to come to Israel's defense no matter what, and because they figure there are enough people in high levels of the US government who are joined at the hip with Israel that they would ensure that the US would come to Israel's defense no matter what. So far this ploy hasn't worked, but it's not for lack of trying on the part of the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:56 PM

Blackmail

"The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person's money or property.

The term blackmail originally denoted a payment made by English persons residing along the border of Scotland to influential Scottish chieftains in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.

In blackmail the threat might consist of physical injury to the threatened person or to someone loved by that person, or injury to a person's reputation. In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:54 PM

"Iran will not be able to use nuclear blackmail on Israel because Israel already has nuclear weapons. Duh!"

If Iran is willing to threaten first use of nuclear weapons, and Israel is not, that is blackmail.


If you had a gun, are you claiming that noone else with a gun could blackmail you by force? They have it at your head, and you, being armed, 'can't be blackmailed'????

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM

Iran will not be able to use nuclear blackmail on Israel because Israel already has nuclear weapons. Duh!

It has nothing whatever to do with killing Jews and everything to do with not wanting to be killed by an imperialist country with hegemonic ambitions. If all Iran cared about was killing Jews, they would have killed all of the Jews in their own country first.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:45 PM

(Above was me)


"In nuclear strategy, a first strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent's launch facilities and storage depots first. The strategy is called counterforce.



Read this carefully:

"to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war."

EVEN if Israel WERE to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capability, you cannot show that

1. Israel would be able to survive the retaliation
2. Iran would be unable to continue the war


Thus Israel does not have a first-strike capability,

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM

Israel's armed forces were formed for the purpose of taking more land than it was given in the partition plan, not because the Arab League was threatening its very existence. The Arab league did not fight the Israelis on land that had been given to the Jews in the partition plan. Almost all of the fighting happened on land that was given to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Since the Arabs were fighting on Arab land, by definition, the Arab fighting was defensive, and Israel's fighting was offensive.

If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, it will definitely be defensive in nature because it will be for the purpose of deterrence against an already nuclear armed state. Israel's bombs are the only ones in the region, so they have first strike capability, and the ability to use them for nuclear blackmail, and are therefore offensive in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:22 PM

"The outcome will not sharply alter Iran's main policies or sway high-level decisions, such as possible talks with Washington. Those crucial policies are all directly controlled by the ruling clerics headed by the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:19 PM

Rivals in Iran both claim victory in election
         

Anna Johnson And Brian Murphy, Associated Press Writers – 18 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's state news agency reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election Friday, but his main reformist challenger also confidently claimed victory at a news conference moments earlier. The rival claims came even before the close of polls, which authorities permitted to stay open an extra six hours, until midnight (1930 GMT, 3:30 p.m. EDT), to allow long lines of voters to cast ballots. Official results were not expected until Saturday.

Neither the report in the IRNA news agency nor the competing announcement by Former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi gave details on what their claims were based on.

Mousavi said only that he was "definitely the winner of the election" based on "all indications from all over Iran."

Iranians packed polling stations Friday from boutique-lined streets in north Tehran to conservative bastions in the countryside with a choice that's left the nation divided and on edge: keeping hard-line President Ahmadinejad in power or electing Mousavi, a reformist who favors greater freedoms and improved ties with the United States.

Turnout was massive and could break records. Crowds formed quickly at many voting sites in areas considered both strongholds for Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, who served as prime minister in the 1980s and has become the surprise hero of a powerful youth-driven movement. At several polling stations in Tehran, mothers held their young children in their arms as they waited in long lines.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM

Israel has never threatened the EXISTANCE of another country.

Israel developed its armed forces in response to threats by the Arab League against its very existance, Your failure to understand this demonstrates that you have little interest in looking at the facts.

If Israel is so powerful, and so dedicated to the destruction of all those Arab nations, why are there any Arabs left alive in the world today, after 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 ( the later two years after Israel had those "Offensive" weapons that they have never used.

Any any nuclear weapon, unless one uses it to blow one's own country up, is "offensive". So calling an Iranian bomb "defensive" is mere propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM

Offensive in this context means having the ability to make a first strike against another country (which I am sure the above poster is perfectly aware of). And my statement about Israel threatening the destruction of Iran and Syria is not at all false.

But the above mischaracterization is also incorrect on its own merits, since it's not at all about Jews wanting to live and Arabs wanting to kill Jews (a racist assertion if ever there was one), since Israel already has more defensive and offensive capabilities than any other country in the region, and also a history of invading, occupying, attacking, and carrying out covert and false flag operations in several countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

(and with good reason, since Israel has been calling for the destruction of both of those countries for many years).


False statement





So Israel wants to have an offensive capability, and Iran and Syria are trying to establish a defensive capability.


Oh, Jews wanting to live is offensive, and Arabs wanting to kill Jews is defensive???????

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:19 PM

The question that was asked was what their motivations would be for trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. First of all, it is not proven that Syria or Iran is or was actually doing that, and secondly, whether or not doing so is legal under the NPT is irrelevant to the question of why they would do it. If they are trying to have nuclear weapons, it is because they perceive the only country in the region who does have them to be a direct threat to their sovereignty and national security (and with good reason, since Israel has been calling for the destruction of both of those countries for many years). Which, I guess makes their motivation somewhat different than Israel's since no countries in the region had any nuclear weapons back when Israel got theirs. So Israel wants to have an offensive capability, and Iran and Syria are trying to establish a defensive capability.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM

"The reason Syria, Iran, and Lybia might attempt to build nuclear weapons in secret would be the same as Israel's reason for building nuclear weapons in secret. "

Except that Syria, Iran , and Lybia were signatories to the NPT, which prhibited such programns in return for aid in peaceful nuclear development.

Israel developed it's nuclear weapons BEFORE the NPT, and IF a signoatory woiuld have to be at the level of the US, Russia, France, China, and Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:45 AM

Israel has many times made verbal threats to attack Iran. The presence of nuclear weapons, combined with the verbal threats and Israel's track record of attacking other countries (and twisting the arm of the US to attack countries on its behalf) does constitute a direct threat to Iran.

The reason Syria, Iran, and Lybia might attempt to build nuclear weapons in secret would be the same as Israel's reason for building nuclear weapons in secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:17 AM

Looks like the wonderfully named After Dinner Jazz (that is his name isn't it?) is on the way out. May be a more amenable govt., especially once the Ayatollah goes to wherever devout hardline Moslems go.


RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 01:00 AM

Syria, Iran and Libya - why build, or attempt to build a nuclear weapon in secret?

By the bye, you only found out about those three programmes because GWB went into Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:39 PM

Even if Israel has nuclear bombs, that does not constitute a direct threat to Iran- Though you keep saying so.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM

Even if Syria had nuclear material, that does not constitute a direct threat to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:36 PM

I disagree.

Care to tell me where the Syrians got the fuel for that reactor the Israelis blew up?

Care to tell me how many nuclear bombs it would take to destroy 85% of the industry and about 75% of the population of Israel?

One.



so you miss a few candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM

But the USA and Israel keep on tacitly and quite obviously threatening the existence of Iran and they HAVE the means to destroy the Iranians. That is plainly clear. Yes, the people who want a war with Iran will be quite miffed if Ahmadinejad loses this election, because their favorite boogeyman and propaganda figure will be gone. They won't have Ahmadinejad to scare people with anymore.

Even worse than losing Osama!

Whatever will they do if Ahmadinejad loses? I really hope he does.

No sovereign nation directly threatens the existence of Israel at the present time. The only sovereign nations who genuinely have the capability to threaten Israel's existence are the USA and Russia, seems to me. They could certainly destroy Israel if they wanted to by using nuclear attack. The USA doesn't want to, obviously. The Russians don't have any stake serious enough about Israel that they would want to either...and anyway, it would start a Third World War if they did, which would ruin them.

Israel and the USA are the nations bent on directly threatening someone's existence and that someone is Iran. Last time it was Saddam and Iraq. Remember? WMDs!!! Bush was supposedly saving the world from Iraq's WMDs...but there weren't any WMDs. It was a lie. The same strategy is being used now to try to attack Iran. The very same game as last time. BB, you supported both of those phony games. You been tricked TWICE by a government which relies on people who can be tricked that way. Your own government is the criminal state with the WMDs and it's using you.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM

Iran doesn't directly threaten the existence of Israel either.

I expect that all of this hand wringing about Iran is a part of the attempt of certain people to try to ensure that Ahmadinejad wins the election this time. Heaven forbid that they wouldn't have him as their excuse to attack Iran any more. Even if he loses, they will still try to make the case that Iran should be attacked because of the Iranian regime's human rights violations. The people who make that argument are doing so in spite of the fact that the People of Iran do not want such interference in their country, regardless of the behavior of the Iranian government. They want to be left alone to fix their problems themselves.

And once again, Iran has not directly threatened the existence of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:01 PM

Maybe it's an elaborate con by Ahmadenejad?
Maybe it's all set up for the cameras to to piss off the "liberals"
Crafty bastards these Iranians...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:59 PM

No. it could be because the Saudis do not directly threaten the existance of Israel.

Or it could be that this thread is about Iran, NOT Saudi Arabia. Start one on it, and you might find out my opinion on the absolute monarchy of the Saudis.




Remember,

REACHING THE BALLOT: All hopefuls for high elected office must be cleared by the Guardian Council, a 12-member body of clerics and scholars loyal to the ruling theocracy. The council often rejects potential candidates considered too liberal or critical of the Islamic system. For Friday's election, just four of more than 470 possible candidates were allowed.

PRESIDENT'S ROLE: The president has control of some domestic policies and serves as the international face of the country. But the non-elected theocracy, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls all major decisions and directly oversees key government posts such as the foreign, intelligence and defense ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:49 PM

Oh, it definitely has a few flaws, no doubt about that, BB. Most systems do. We are much more socially progressive than Iran, and that's not surprising, given our past history and the fact that our society was built on the English example of parliamentary democracy.

Iran, however, would be a lot more socially progressive today if the USA had not overthrown their democratically elected government in the 1950's through a CIA coup, and the religious fanatics who arose against the Shah as a result of that would not now be in power there. Extreme situations result in extreme reactions.

You appear disturbed by the fact that Iran is less progressive a society than the USA or Canada. Are you equally disturbed about the Saudis? I don't hear you complaining much about Saudi Arabia for some reason...could it be because they are political and military allies with America?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

MEDIA BRIEFING


MDE 13/053/2009
9 June 2009


Iran: Election amid repression of dissent and unrest


The Iranian presidential elections are to be held this month on 12 June. The candidates are: the incumbent President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; Former Prime Minister, Mir Hossein Mousavi (backed by former president, MohammadKhatami); and Mehdi Karroubi, a former parliamentary speaker.

While Amnesty International welcomes pledges from some of the candidates to address the prevailing discrimination against women in the country -- an issue which has been forced to the forefront of the debate by the efforts of women's rights activists - and ethnic minorities and to tackle economic issues to improve the welfare of the population, there are other serious human rights concerns which also need addressing. These include severe curtailments of freedom of expression, arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, unfair trials and a high recourse to the death penalty (including against juvenile offenders) as well as incidents of people being stoned to death.

At least 194 people have been executed so far this year in Iran, including five women and three juveniles convicted of crimes allegedly committed before they were 18, a practice strictly prohibited under international law.

At least 140 juveniles are known to be on death row in Iran.

At least one person has been stoned to death this year in Iran, despite a 2002 directive from the Head of the Judiciary ordering a moratorium on stonings. Amnesty International is aware of seven women and three men currently under sentence of death by stoning.

The election period has also seen increased repression, both of people expressing their opinions directly about the elections, or of those seen to be opposed to the system in some way, including students, women's rights activists, lawyers and unrecognized religious minorities, such as the Baha'is and the Ahl-e Haq.

Amnesty International is also concerned that all but four of the candidates have been excluded from standing, including all women, on the grounds of discriminatory criteria. The Council of Guardians is the body which screens all candidates for election to "ensure their suitability for the Presidency". Article 115 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran stipulates that candidates must be from "religious and political personalities" [Persian: rejal] and possess: "Iranian origin; Iranian nationality; administrative capacity and resourcefulness; a good past record; trustworthiness and piety; convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country." In previous elections, the majority of candidates registered were disqualified under these criteria, including all women. The exclusion of women appears to have been as a result of an interpretation of the word rejalas meaning "men".

Amnesty International is concerned about the increasing number of arrests in recent weeks leading up to the presidential elections, which indicates worsening repression of people who want to express their opinions:

In the pre-election period, Amnesty International has received reports suggesting increased waves of arbitrary arrests and harassment targeting in particular members of Iran's religious and ethnic minority communities, including Baha'is and converts from Islam, students, trade unionists and women's rights activists.

By imprisoning people for merely expressing dissenting views, the Iranian authorities are stifling the free debate which is a pre-requisite of elections. Citizens should be able to freely express their grievances and their demands so that candidates can address them.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE130532009&lang=e

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM

From Amnesty International's site:

'"All 42 women who registered as candidates for the elections have, along with a large number of male candidates, been barred by Iran's Council of Guardians from standing in the elections on grounds of 'suitability'.

Jelveh Javaheri, a prominent member of the women's rights Campaign For Equality was arrested at her home on 1 May by security officials acting without an arrest warrant. She has been charged with "acting against national security through membership in the One Million Signatures Campaign and with the aim of disrupting public order and security." The CFE is collecting signatures on behalf of its campaign for women's rights. Last year dozens of women's rights campaigners were detained, interrogated and some tried for their peaceful activities, including up to 10 who were sentenced by lower courts to prison terms and, in at least two cases, flogging. Meanwhile, the influential women's magazine 'Zanan' was forcibly closed down during 2008, while women's rights websites are regularly blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:31 PM

I think this system has a few flaws...



Iran's election system
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A look at election rules in Iran:

WHO CAN RUN: Under the Iranian Constitution, candidates for president must be Muslim and between the ages of 25 to 75. There are differing interpretations about whether women are eligible for the presidency, but the ruling clerics have blocked all potential women candidates. Parliament permits women and members of religious minorities to run. People with criminal records or high-ranking officials of the toppled monarchy are banned from running for elected office.

REACHING THE BALLOT: All hopefuls for high elected office must be cleared by the Guardian Council, a 12-member body of clerics and scholars loyal to the ruling theocracy. The council often rejects potential candidates considered too liberal or critical of the Islamic system. For Friday's election, just four of more than 470 possible candidates were allowed.

WHO WINS: A simple majority - 50 percent plus one vote - is needed to win the presidency. If no candidate attains that Friday, a second round is held between the two top vote-getters on June 19.

WHO VOTES: Anyone at least 18 years old. There are more than 46.2 million eligible voters for Friday's election - with about a third of the voters under 30. The figure includes millions of Iranians living abroad. Iran's overall population is more than 70 million.

PRESIDENT'S ROLE: The president has control of some domestic policies and serves as the international face of the country. But the non-elected theocracy, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls all major decisions and directly oversees key government posts such as the foreign, intelligence and defense ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:52 PM

It certainly pisses off certain people in the West when the countries they most would like to attack demonstrate that they have a working democracy, doesn't it, Akenaton?

This has been true in the case of Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, and Venezuela, to name just four examples. USA-planned coups have been arranged from time to time to nip troublesome foreign democracies in the bud and replace them with corporate-friendly dictators. That was done in Iran in the 1950s through a CIA-backed coup. It was done in Chile in the 1970s. It was attempted in Venezuela a few years back, but it failed. In Nicaraugua the USA funded a lengthy and brutal guerilla war to bring down an elected government. The man they wanted out of office at that time (Daniel Ortega) has since lost a democractic election (to Violetta Chammoro?) and later been re-elected by the Nicaraguan people. Nicaraguan democracy has survived in spite of America, not because of America.

I hope Mousavi wins. When and if he does, I hope he can exercise much peaceful change.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:40 PM

Watching the huge crowds supporting both sides in this election, and the lack of serious trouble, or bullying, or violence, linked to the obvious enthusiasm of the electorate, it occurred to me that Iran has a more democratic political system than we do!

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:30 PM

"In the final hours of the fierce contest, Mousavi got a sharp warning from the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard that authorities would crush any attempt at a popular "revolution" inspired by the huge rallies and street parties calling for more freedoms.

The threat Wednesday reflected the increasingly tense atmosphere surrounding the up-for-grabs election. It also marked a sharp escalation by the ruling clerics against Mousavi's youth-driven campaign and its hopes of an underdog victory.

The Revolutionary Guard is one of the pillars of the Islamic establishment and controls large military forces as well as a nationwide network of militia volunteers.

The message from the Guards' political chief, Yadollah Javani, appeared aimed at rattling Mousavi's backers just before the polls open Friday and to warn that it would not tolerate the formation of a post-election political force under the banner of Mousavi's "green movement" — the signature color of his campaign.

In a statement on the Guards' Web site, Javani drew parallels between Mousavi's campaign and the "velvet revolution" that led to the 1989 ouster of the communist government in then-Czechoslovakia, saying "some extremist (reformist) groups, have designed a colorful revolution ... using a specific color for the first time in an election."

Javani called it a "sign of kicking off a velvet revolution project in the presidential elections," and vowed any "attempt for velvet revolution will be nipped in the bud." It also accused the reformists of planning to claim vote rigging and provoke street violence if Mousavi loses.

On Thursday, Mousavi's official campaign Web site said the candidate asked Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to intervene to save the health of the election. In the letter, which the site said Mousavi sent on Wednesday, the candidate accused Ahmadinejad of using government facilities during his campaign and the country's Revolutionary Guards of intervening.

"There are some indications about intervention of some commanders and officials of the Revolutionary Guards and Basij in the election," the Web site quoted the letter as saying. It did not elaborate

There were no reports of reaction from Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran.

The all-night street rallies and the joyful campaign of Mousavi's supporters have rekindled the passions and hopes of reformists after Ahmadinejad's victory four years ago. Their calls are similar to the days of reformist President Mohammad Khatami — more social freedoms, media openness and outreach to the West. "

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..."

Does that count for torture as well? No more criticsm by Brits???

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:20 PM

Legal killings by the state. Illegal killings by the state. Torture by the state. Detention without trial by the state. Things that could never been done by a civilised country with any pretensions to be a democratic state...

"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

Somalia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran...just off the top of my head, a list of countries which are NOT on my tourism list.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:05 PM

I bet you'd find North Korea even worse, not to mention Somalia and a few other places in Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:52 PM

it gives whole new meaning to the wearing of the green..

it's the most distressful country I ever yet have seen
they're hanging men and women there for the wearing of the green..

hope to high heavens it does not come to that...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:37 PM

I think it would be great if Mousavi won. It would immediately deprive the West of their favorite demonic poster-boy-monster-under-the-bed and anti-Iran PR dream, Ahmadinejad, and that would be a good thing for everyone. It would open the door to a more reasonable political dialogue between the West and Iran and help to reduce the risk of an Israeli/American attack on Iran.

Go, Mousavi!

I would love to see Ahmadinejad retire, write his memoirs, and cease providing the political cartoonists in America with exactly what they desire.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:25 PM

It would appear on the face of it that Mousavi should win, given the thousands of student activists calling for it.

However the current president is strongly backed by Khamenei, the real power of government, the Supreme Leader. What does that do to Ahmadinejad's chances?

And what about the army? Who do they support?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:45 AM

I will watch this election with interest. But it's my understanding that no "liberals" are seriously challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election.

Former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi would best be described as a political moderate, and his recent polling results show growing strength. His election may provide some breathing space for reform, and international rapprochement on the nuclear issues.

I do wish Mousavi well.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:32 AM

Iranian elections: human rights briefing
Posted: 09 June 2009

Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock said:

From Amnesty International's site.


'The elections in Iran are taking place against a disturbing backdrop that includes massive use of the death penalty, the detention of political activists and widespread discrimination against women and minority groups. Whoever wins the elections needs to set in a train a major programme of human rights reform.'

Unfair trials and detention

In the pre-election period Amnesty has received reports indicating arbitrary arrests and harassment targeting Iran's religious and ethnic minority communities, including Baha'is and converts from Islam, members of the Azerbaijani minority, lawyers, students, trade unionists and women's rights activists.

Death penalty

So far this year there have been at least 194 executions (including five women) in Iran, one of the highest rates anywhere in the world. In 2008 there were at least 346 executions (almost one per day on average), making it the second most prolific user of capital punishment in the world (behind only China). People are hanged, often in public, for crimes ranging from murder, rape, drug smuggling and corruption. Last year the Iranian parliament began discussing death penalty legislation for producing pornographic videos and for 'apostasy'. Numerous people in Iran are under sentence of death for the 'crime' of adultery, including seven women and three men known to Amnesty. Since 2002 at least five men and one woman have been stoned to death, most recently in March.

Iran also has the world's worst record in terms of executing those alleged to have committed crimes while aged below 18; such executions are expressly forbidden under international law. Since 1990 Iran has executed at least 44 people in these circumstances (including three this year) and at least 140 young people are on death row facing execution for such alleged crimes. Iran sparked international outrage last month when it abruptly hanged Delara Darabi, a 22-year-old painter who was alleged to have committed murder (which she always denied) while aged 17.

Women's rights

All 42 women who registered as candidates for the elections have, along with a large number of male candidates, been barred by Iran's Council of Guardians from standing in the elections on grounds of 'suitability'.

Jelveh Javaheri, a prominent member of the women's rights Campaign For Equality was arrested at her home on 1 May by security officials acting without an arrest warrant. She has been charged with "acting against national security through membership in the One Million Signatures Campaign and with the aim of disrupting public order and security." The CFE is collecting signatures on behalf of its campaign for women's rights. Last year dozens of women's rights campaigners were detained, interrogated and some tried for their peaceful activities, including up to 10 who were sentenced by lower courts to prison terms and, in at least two cases, flogging. Meanwhile, the influential women's magazine 'Zanan' was forcibly closed down during 2008, while women's rights websites are regularly blocked.

Harassment of human rights defenders

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirtin Ebadi's Centre for Human Rights Defenders was forced to close down at the end of last year.

Torture and cruel punishments

Torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Iran is common, with people in prolonged pre-charge detention particularly at risk. Detainees are often denied access to lawyers and family. Last year at least four deaths in custody were reported, while no independent investigations are known to have been held into these deaths.

Clampdown on free expression

Iranians have faced internet censorship during the election campaign. The authorities have, at various times in the run up to 12 June, blocked access to Facebook and Twitter.

Discrimination against minorities

Iran's Baluch minority, mainly Sunni Muslims in a predominantly Shi'a country and constituting some 2-3% of Iran's population, suffer entrenched discrimination at the hands of the authorities. Recent violent unrest in the Sistan-Baluchistan province in south-eastern Iran have led to dozens of people being killed in violent incidents including a major bomb attack. Three men were publicly hanged after allegedly 'confessing' to one lethal bomb attack; the executions took place very soon after the bombing and it is not clear whether the men had any kind of trial.

ENDS

Subject: BS: Election in Iran
From: mg
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:27 AM

I haven't really kept up with the news, but it sure seems to me that something powerful is happening there..it could obviously go bad..or it could lead to all sorts of improvements for Iran/Persia and the world. It reminds me of what happens in Romania when they overthrew C... I happened to be in Austria right when it was happening..wasn't sure what was happening because I couldn't speak German..it was Christmas and when people say stuff shuts down at Christmas they sure mean it. I was sort of stuck in the Vienna train station, and thought..boy for Austrians these people do not look very prosperous or even well-fed, which is what my stereotype of Austrians would be...I am sure they were Romanians sort of camped out in the train station...but you could tell that something powerful was happening and I have that same feeling now...Good luck to them all...mg