"Why Ahmadinejad Won the Iranian Elections But there is more to it than just rich against poor. It seems that the “reformers”, when they had their chance of governing, had their hands far too deep in the public pockets. And the majority of the Iranian people are just sick and tired of a culture of corruption something that is still a leftover of the Shah Reza Pahlavi regime, which was as corrupt as it was brutal.
"US Media Campaign to Discredit Iranian Election Was the Iranian election a fraud? That’s what our great western media sources want us to believe. While scanning through the coverage, I could not find one mainstream news article which covered the election results in an objective, unbiased manner. Either prominently displayed in the title or first paragraph, each of the articles suggest the election was a fraud.
"Is it happening all over again? Is Iran in the grip of another CIA-backed coup to topple a democratically elected leader and replace him with a US puppet?" -- Wake the Flock Up
"Yeah, this is looking more and more like a repeat of 1953." -- Wake the Flock Up
"The Overthrow of Salvador Allende Henry Kissinger admitted that in September 1970, President Richard Nixon ordered him to organize a coup against Allende's government. A CIA document written just after Allende was elected said: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup" and "it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG (United States government) and American hand be well hidden." On 11th September, 1973, a military coup removed Allende's government from power. Salvador Allende died in the fighting in the presidential palace in Santiago. General Augusto Pinochet replaced Allende as president.
"Is it happening all over again? Is Iran in the grip of another CIA-backed coup to topple a democratically elected leader and replace him with a US puppet?" -- Wake the Flock Up
"The US had better not protest too terribly loudly here, considering the history of vote-rigging in this country, particularly in the 2000 and 2004 elections." -- Wake the Flock Up
"Anybody who doesn't think all the "news" coming from Iran isn't a propaganda cover for the repeat of the 1953 US-backed overthrow of Mossadegh, note that the sign in front of the camera is written in English ... in a country where the primary language is Farsi!" -- Wake the Flock Up
"Note the ability to manage "multiple" Twitter accounts. Is this tool or one like it how Mousavi's supporters are flooding the net with their side of the issue?" -- Wake the Flock Up"Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter Right-wing Israeli interests are engaged in an all out Twitter attack with hopes of delegitimizing the Iranian election and causing political instability within Iran. Anyone using Twitter over the past few days knows that the topic of the Iranian election has been the most popular. Thousands of tweets and retweets alleging that the election was a fraud, calling for protests in Iran, and even urging followers hack various Iranian news websites (which they did successfully). The Twitter popularity caught the eye of various blogs such as Mashable and TechCrunch and even made its way to mainstream news media sites.
I KNEW I HATED TWITTER for GOOD REASON!
When the MSM PROMOTES IT -- in fact, if it appears in the MSM at all -- then I AM OPPOSED!!!!
It is THERE for a REASON, folks, and it is NOT because it is the truth or in OUR BEST INTERESTS!!!
"What If Ahmadinejad Really Won? It’s fast congealing into conventional wisdom that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole re-election through fraud and that the so-called “green revolution” of Mir-Hossein Mousavi – which was based in the country’s intelligentsia and middle class – got robbed.
But a strong case can be made that the large turnout, which was estimated at about 85 percent, was the key to a genuine landslide for Ahmadinejad, who is viewed as a friend of more traditional Iranians from the working classes and among the rural peasants.
"I still want to know where all these crusaders for honest voting were when US elections were being rigged in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 etc. etc. etc. etc. etc." -- Wake the Flock Up
"IRAN’S POST ELECTION PROTESTS: WESTERN MEDIA BEAT-UP OR PRELUDE TO REVOLUTION?
As yet, however, there has been no actual hard evidence of any vote tampering or irregularities though the Mullahs have authorised an investigation into the claims. The big question is; how does one ‘rig’ such a massive election? With over 39 million people casting votes, there are so many people involved in the tallying process that any fraud as massive as that being claimed by the opposition would have been spotted instantly by the election authorities and, more importantly, the thousands of volunteer and temporary staff that were working for them around the country on the day. There would have been no way that frauds that massive could have been kept quiet so, one wonders, why bother attempting it?
The Western media have made the most of the post-election turmoil in Iran having backed a Mousavi win in the hope of triggering a ‘regime change’ that would see a government more friendly toward the West and Israel come into power and possibly even overthrowing the Mullahs from their peak power positions or, at least, putting a severe dent in their power. Some Western mainstream media are now even pushing the idea of another ‘revolution’ in Iran.
However, while the opposition rallies and protest demonstrations are extremely well organised and are clearly not at all spontaneous as some have reported with placards and flags being well-designed and professionally mass produced and obviously aimed at a Western audience with many of the placards written in English as well as Farsi, all may well be not what it seems."
"Pre-election Iranian poll showed Ahmadinejad support A poll of Iran's electorate three weeks before its election showed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leading by a 2-to-1 ratio, greater than the announced results of the contested vote, the pollsters said on Monday. The poll showed Ahmadinejad's disputed victory, which has sparked riots and demonstrations since it was announced, might reflect the will of the people and "is not the product of widespread fraud," pollsters Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty said in a column in The Washington Post.
"The "Bomb Iran" contingent's newfound concern for The Iranian People
I'm going to leave the debate about whether Iran's election was "stolen" and the domestic implications within Iran to people who actually know what they're talking about (which is a very small subset of the class purporting to possess such knowledge). But there is one point I want to make about the vocal and dramatic expressions of solidarity with Iranians issuing from some quarters in the U.S.
Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called "attack on Iran" or "bombing Iran" in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many -- obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it's some abstract decision in a video game.
After The Wall St. Journal published the Podhoretz war dance demanding that Iran be bombed, and after Podhoretz casually called for England to "bomb the Iranians into smithereens" if their sailors weren't immediately returned, I wrote:
In this week's Newsweek, Michael Hirsh has a worthwhile article reporting on his observations during his visit to Iran. While listing the internally repressive measures taken by the Iranian government, Hirsh describes Tehran as "bustling," as "traffic crowds the streets and boulevards," filled with the "chic" Iranian women and the "meterosexual" Iranian males who seek greater economic security and prosperity. That is what Norm Podhoretz and his friends hungrily want to annihilate.
Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades want to slaughter:
Our ability to render invisible the people we kill when cheering on our wars is one of the primary mechanisms which make it so easy to embrace that option.
Perhaps the scenes unfolding in Iran, our Enemy Du Jour, will make those dehumanization efforts -- the linchpin of our militarism and state of perpetual war -- more difficult in the future...."
"One Third of the Iranian People
Another myth the West is creating at the moment is the one that Mousavi and his “Reformers” actually represent the interests of this one third of the Iranian people who voted for them.
Indeed Mousavi represents the ultra-rich. Considering the connection to Ghorbanifar, the international weapons-trader and a leading participant in Iran-contra dealings, there might even be an American-Israeli interest in the mix... the ruling clerics fell out of favor with the Iranian financial elite.
"Ahmadinejad won. Get over it Without any evidence, many U.S. politicians and “Iran experts” have dismissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection Friday, with 62.6 percent of the vote, as fraud. They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The shock of the “Iran experts” over Friday’s results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking."
"This is interesting. Israel wanted Ahmadinejad to remain in power in order to continue the ramp up to having the US invade. Clearly, those in the US who wanted to avoid way saw a way out of the morass if Ahmadinejad's defeat. So, Israeli vote riggers at war with American vote-riggers? And will Israel strike at Iran's power station during the turmoil?"-- Wake the Flock Up
"A 'Coup' in Iran? We Don't Know. The official results claim Amadinejad has 65% of the votes while, immediately after the voting closed, Mousavi's side claimed 54% for itself. Obviously that does not add up and "western" sources suggest fraud by Ahmadinejad. I am not so sure. The numerical difference seems too high for simple fraud. In the last election Ahmadinejad also won with some 60+% against the very rich and corrupt Rafsanshani but the turnout then was low and Mousavi is perceived to not be corrupt. But two days ago Rafsanshani wrote an open letter against Ahmadinejad and that may well have been bad for Mousavi.