DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 13, 2010, 11:41:10 PM
-
<<The ongoing tension over Iran’s nuclear program is less derived from any real threat such a program poses (it is, in reality, one of the least significant issues facing the United States today in terms of national security concern), but rather the utility that such an artificial crisis serves in facilitating the larger objective: regime change.>>
Scott Ritter, Obama’s Alternate Universe
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obamas_alternative_universe_20100108/ (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obamas_alternative_universe_20100108/)
-
A clock that always says it is two O'clock will be right twice a day.
-
A clock that always says it is two O'clock will be right twice a day.
Does that include people arrested in police stings in which officers pose as under-aged girls?
-
Sex sting in Poconos nets former chief U.N. weapons inspector
By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record Writer
January 14, 2010 12:00 AM
A former chief United Nations weapons inspector is accused of contacting what he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room, engaging in a sexual conversation and showing himself masturbating on a Web camera.
Scott Ritter of Delmar, N.Y., who served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-98 and who was an outspoken critic of the second Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq, is accused of contacting what turned out to be a Barrett Township police officer posing undercover as a teen girl.
Read the Affidavit of Probable Cause
WARNING: Extremely Graphic Content
The police affidavit gives the following account:
Officer Ryan Venneman was posing as 15-year-old "Emily" in an online chat room when he was contacted by someone using the name "Delmarm4fun." This person, later identified as Ritter, told "Emily" he was a 44-year-old male from Albany, N.Y.
"Emily" told Ritter she was a 15-year-old girl from the Poconos, at which point Ritter asked for a picture other than the one "Emily" had posted on her account. Ritter then sent her a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate on camera.
"Emily" asked Ritter for his cell phone number, which he provided.
Ritter again asked "Emily" how old she was. Told she was 15, Ritter said he didn't realize she was 15 and turned off his webcam, saying he didn't want to get in trouble.
Ritter told "Emily" he had been fantasizing about having sex with her, to which she replied: "Guess you turned it off ..."
Ritter then said: "You want to see it finish," reactivated his
webcam and continued masturbating and ejaculated on camera.
The online conversation occurred in February 2009, but the investigation lasted until November, when Ritter was charged, because police had to undergo the lengthy process of obtaining court orders to get Ritter's cell phone and computer information.
Ritter is awaiting his next appearance in Monroe County Common Pleas Court. He waived his right last month to a preliminary hearing and is free on $25,000 unsecured bail.
The Pocono Record's attempts to reach Ritter at his New York home and his attorney, Todd Henry, were unsuccessful.
This is not the first time Ritter has been in such trouble.
According to reports, Ritter was charged in a June 2001 Internet sex sting in New York, but that case was dismissed.
He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging in an online chatroom to meet what he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a Burger King restaurant. The girl turned out to be an undercover policewoman.
Ritter said the criminal charge was a smear campaign in response to his criticizing U.S. policy in the Middle East.
The New York Post reported Ritter had been caught in a similar case involving a 14-year-old girl in April 2001, but that he was not charged.
In 1998, Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission weapons inspection team and has been the most outspoken critic of U.S. policy toward Baghdad.
Ritter first made headlines in 1997 when, as a senior UNSCOM member, he was accused by Iraq of being an American spy himself. Now a consultant, he is the author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America" and "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem Once and For All."
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS/1140319 (http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS/1140319)
-
"former chief United Nations weapons inspector is accused of contacting what he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room, engaging in a sexual conversation and showing himself masturbating on a Web camera"
Again?
Good Lord...Michael Tee's source is one sick puppy that belongs in jail!
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/ScottRitter_CaughtInTrap.JPG)
-
I guess one of you guys will have to explain to me how the guy's attraction to underage teenage girls invalidates any experience the guy had gained as a chief UN weapons inspector, soldier, etc.
This phony indignation at a supposedly "sick puppy" who "belongs in jail" is ludicrous - - a little bit of honesty would reveal that some (not all) young women can be very attractive at that age - - especially considering the European ages of consent:
<<The ages of consent for sexual activity vary by jurisdiction across Europe. Spain sets its age of consent at 13, and the rest of the countries have an age of consent between 14 and 17, except Turkey and Malta, which have the highest age limit, set at 18.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe)
Instead of faking "shock" and "horror" at the "sickness" of Scott Ritter, who can probably thank the CIA or some other nefarious branch of the U.S. state security apparatus for setting him up, it would be refreshingly honest to hear some specific issue-addressed comments.
-
Regimes that sponsor terror should be targeted for regime change.
Usually that involves either covert or overt actions.
So yes the idea that a regime seeking nuclear weaponry whilst still supporting terror should be changed.
Tip of the hat to Scott Ritter for figuring that one out.
-
<<Regimes that sponsor terror should be targeted for regime change.>>
LMFAO. If that's the case, then the U.S.A. is way overdue for some really serious regime change.
<<Usually that involves either covert or overt actions.>>
So you approve of the WTC attacks then?
<<So yes the idea that a regime seeking nuclear weaponry whilst still supporting terror should be changed.>>
Yeah right. Do the words "double standard" mean anything at all to you?
<<Tip of the hat to Scott Ritter for figuring that one out. >>
And a big Bronx cheer to BT for not figuring it all out even now.
-
LMFAO. If that's the case, then the U.S.A. is way overdue for some really serious regime change.
We have the chance every 4 years and in the meantime we have folks ramming the institutions on a daily basis.
So we aren't overdue. We have prevailed.
So you approve of the WTC attacks then?
They didn't ask for my approval, but i understand them.
And a big Bronx cheer to BT for not figuring it all out even now.
If we must get personal, go fuck yourself.
Yeah right. Do the words "double standard" mean anything at all to you?
You mean like signing a Non Proliferation Agreement then proliferating?
-
<<[Double standard] . . .You mean like signing a Non Proliferation Agreement then proliferating?>>
No, I meant more like getting billions in U.S. foreign aid for not even signing a non--Proliferation agreement and proliferating, and getting death threats for signing a non-Proliferation agreement and allegedly proliferating.
<<We have the chance [for regime change] every 4 years and in the meantime we have folks ramming the institutions on a daily basis. >>
Well the Iranians have a similar chance with their elections too, and they chose to continue with Ahmadinejad.
-
Well the Iranians have a similar chance with their elections too, and they chose to continue with Ahmadinejad.
That explains the millions in the streets protesting that election.
-
<<That explains the millions in the streets protesting that election. >>
Uh, no, they aren't "millions" and that doesn't begin to explain it. If you're really interested in those "millions" in the streets, I suggest you do a little reading up on the late Salvador Allende of Chile, and you'll begin to understand a little better why those folks are in the streets "protesting" and who they represent, knowingly or not.
Or just read the Washington Post.
from the Washington Post
<<The Iranian People Speak
<<By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
<<Monday, June 15, 2009
<<The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. >>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html)
-
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html)
-
The photos were moving, as would be any pictures of unarmed people confronting the organized violence of the state, any state. They could have been taken anywhere - - at Berkeley, at People's Park, at Kent State, or at Birmingham (only the Iranian riot police are too civilized to use attack dogs and fire-hoses on their own people) - - They could have been taken in the streets of Santiago, where "popular demonstrations" organized by the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Allende government and brought in the disappearances, torture and murder of the Pinochet regime, for the greater glory of imperialist Amerikkka.
But they were interesting nevertheless. Thank you.
-
from the Washington Post
<<The Iranian People Speak
<<By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
<<Monday, June 15, 2009
<<The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. >>
The Iranian People Speak (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html)
(Ugly link fixed.)
From a Princeton University study of the polling data from Iran pre-election:
The Iranian election presents a harder case. Polling is sparse, professional standards of reporting polls are absent, and respondents are potentially unwilling to answer questions or hard to reach. Still, let's look at the publicly available polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls).
National polls are all over the place, even if we only take data after the Ahmadinejad-Moussavi debate on June 3rd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Televised_debates%20main%20debate,%20june%203), potentially a major decision point for Iranians. One post-June 3rd poll shows Ahmadinejad +16% (47% to 31%). The other (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roozonline.com%2Fpersian%2Fopinion%2Fopinion-article%2Farticle%2F2009%2Fjune%2F08%2F%2F-a2239d36f0.html&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=)shows Moussavi +32% (23% to 54-57%). Earlier polls range from Ahmadinejad +33% to Moussavi +30%. These data are so variable that they are unusable.
Polls within Tehran may be a better source of data. This is plausible because urban areas are easier to sample. The last three Tehran surveys (before June 8th (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Falef.ir%2F1388%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F47404%2F&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=), before June 7th (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Falef.ir%2F1388%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F47404%2F&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=), and June 3rd) show Moussavi +4%, Ahmadinejad +8%, and Moussavi +17%. Before that, three surveys showed Moussavi +12%, +4%, and +2% (May 27, May 26, May 14). The averages are
Last 3 polls: Moussavi +4 +/- 7% (median +/- MAD-based SEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_absolute_deviation#Relation_to_standard_deviation)).
All 6 polls: Moussavi +4 +/- 4%.
The announced official result was Ahmadinejad +12% (51.6% to 39.4%), a discrepancy of 16 points. When all 6 polls are used, this discrepancy is highly significant (p=0.003).
For now, my interpretation is that the official returns in Tehran are unbelievable. However, I can think of two three alternate explanations.
(1) Ahmadinejad really mopped the floor with Moussavi in the debate. The experience in U.S. elections is that debates provide a side-by-side comparison that can shift opinion substantially (http://election.princeton.edu/2008/10/02/will-the-remaining-debates-matter/)(for a famous example see Carter-Reagan 1980). In the case of Iran 2009 there are only 2 or 3 post-debate polls. A comparison using just 3 polls does not quite reach statistical significance (p=0.07).
(2) Tehran polls have a systematic overall pro-Moussavi bias that prevents a direct comparison with vote counts. For example, as David Shor points out in comments, polls might have been restricted to the actual city of Tehran, which is not all of Tehran province.
(3) Last-minute minor party candidates broke in favor of Ahmadinejad. There is plenty of precedent for third-party (and in this case, fourth-party) candidates to revert to one of the major candidates. U.S. readers, think of Nader supporters in the last two elections, who underperformed the opinion polls. And then there are undecided voters, who usually break against the incumbent in the U.S. but it?s not clear what would happen here.
I should emphasize that Tehran is not representative of the entire nation. It is notably more pro-Moussavi, which can account in part for the public anger there. In fact, if the 16-point discrepancy were corrected nationwide it would still not be enough to alter the overall outcome.
Analyzing Iran 2009: Part 1, Pre-election polls (http://election.princeton.edu/2009/06/18/analyzing-iran-2009-part-1-pre-election-polls/)
-
"only the Iranian riot police are too civilized to use
attack dogs and fire-hoses on their own people"
Riot police in Iran beating to death in people house (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58uqU0Lguy8#)
-
"only the Iranian riot police are too civilized to use
attack dogs and fire-hoses on their own people"
Iran June 2009 Protest , Iranian Police Beating A Women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB4k-Swz3To#)
-
Also, this:
Iran's Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.
The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.
"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.
Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101)
-
Still waiting for the dogs and firehoses.
As for the police beating the woman, correct me if I'm wrong, did she not run up and kick one of the cops from behind before each of two cops took a swing at her with their batons? Far as I could seem they didn't even beat her to the ground. THAT was their best shot at "police beating women?" That is BULLSHIT, man. Ask Fannie Lou Hamer how police in AmeriKKKa beat women, that is real beating, she was almost killed and took months in hospital. Those cops in Tehran are strictly amateurs when it comes to beating women in the streets - - they need AmeriKKKan help and training if they ever hope to become REAL savages. Hell, just ask Rodney King.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer)
-
Mikey are you excusing the brutal suppression of free speech by this regime?
Because it sure sounds like you are.
-
No, BT, I think they're doing exactly what Salvador Allende SHOULD have done when faced with growing waves of CIA provocations and agitation. Not to act swiftly and decisively in defence of the Revolution would be to condemn his own supporters to torture and death at the hands of CIA-bought usurpers, as had happened in Chile and in Iran itself in the days of the Mossadegh government.
This is not a good thing for the USA, BT. Evidently the opponents of AmeriKKKan imperialism CAN and DO learn from history and are not prepared to keep repeating the mistakes of their predecessors over and over again, or play the sacrificial lamb indefinitely to the nefarious opportunism of the U.S. and the U.K. When the enemies of the people rear their ugly heads, you can rest assured that the Revolution will no longer idly stand by and watch.
-
Did you answer the question? What does Chile have to do with Iran?
-
<<Did you answer the question? >>
Yes, I did; my answer was that if the Iranian government, legitimately elected by the Iranian people in a free and fair election, does not take the steps they need to take to repress these subversive, anti-government and anti-democratic "spontaneous demonstrations," it will suffer the fate that was suffered by another democratically elected government, the Salvador Allende government of Chile, subverted by almost identical CIA-sponsored "spontaneous demonstrations" leading to the overthrow of the duly elected government and its replacement by a U.S. puppet government ruling by terror, torture and murder. (Which in Iran's case won't make a hell of a lot of difference because they are already ruled by terror, torture and murder. The difference is that the current government is all-Iranian and the U.S. puppets waiting in the wings are, well, U.S. puppets. One government will support the Palestinians in their fight for freedom and independence, the other will support the Israelis in their fight to oppress and control.
<<What does Chile have to do with Iran?>>
It's the example that illustrates perfectly what is really going on behind the scenes and how the masterminds of U.S. and British imperialism are plotting to bring down the Iranian government using the "spontaneous demonstrations" as their instrument.
-
legitimately elected by the Iranian people in a free and fair election
Statistical analysis seems to indicate that fraud occurred.
-
<<Did you answer the question? >>
Yes, I did; my answer was that if the Iranian government, legitimately elected by the Iranian people in a free and fair election, does not take the steps they need to take to repress these subversive, anti-government and anti-democratic "spontaneous demonstrations," it will suffer the fate that was suffered by another democratically elected government, the Salvador Allende government of Chile, subverted by almost identical CIA-sponsored "spontaneous demonstrations" leading to the overthrow of the duly elected government and its replacement by a U.S. puppet government ruling by terror, torture and murder. (Which in Iran's case won't make a hell of a lot of difference because they are already ruled by terror, torture and murder. The difference is that the current government is all-Iranian and the U.S. puppets waiting in the wings are, well, U.S. puppets. One government will support the Palestinians in their fight for freedom and independence, the other will support the Israelis in their fight to oppress and control.
<<What does Chile have to do with Iran?>>
It's the example that illustrates perfectly what is really going on behind the scenes and how the masterminds of U.S. and British imperialism are plotting to bring down the Iranian government using the "spontaneous demonstrations" as their instrument.
Well that is a theroy.
But ..
Whereas you agree that the Iranian government is not all that good , why do you consider it impossible that the people of Iran might rise up against it on their own ?
-
<<Statistical analysis seems to indicate that fraud occurred.>>
Yeah right. Whose statistics?
-
<<Well that is a theroy.>>
Yeah that's right. And if a man invites Jeffrey Dahmer to spend the night baby-sitting his eight-year-old son, and the next morning both Dahmer and the kid are gone, it's also a theory that Dahmer ate him.
It's also a theory that Dahmer just took the kid to see Walt Disney World and will bring him home before dinner time. It's also a theory that the kid ate Jeffrey Dahmer. And it's also a theory that the majority of Iranians voted against Ahmadinejad and are spontaneously rioting out of outrage that their guys officially lost when they got more votes and the CIA and British intelligence just scrupulously avoided interfering in the slightest degree with the elections held in a sovereign country out of a pure and reverent respect for the sovereignty of that country.
There are lots of theories. What is your point?
<<Whereas you agree that the Iranian government is not all that good , why do you consider it impossible that the people of Iran might rise up against it on their own ?>>
Because, as I have already stated, the Washington Post's own poll three weeks in advance of the election showed Ahmadinejad winning by an even bigger majority than was officially counted for him. Because rioting broke out even before the polls closed and because for at least three days following the elections, there were no statments from any of the losing parties just how this massive vote - - in a country of 73 million people - - was actually stolen. It seemed kind of unusual that rioting would break out over a stolen election when nobody seemed to have any idea how a vote that huge could be stolen AND when reputable polls had predicted the result weeks ahead. Because in the two or three days before the election almost a million new cell-phone subscribers were registered in Tehran alone, indicating preparations by the opposition parties to massively protest the "fixing" of elections that had not even at that point been held, let alone "fixed." Because the U.S. and Israel have threatened Iran on countless occasions with regime change, in attempts to get them to back off their nuclear programs, and the appearance of "spontaneous" crowds in the streets, "protesting" something or other that they never gave a shit about previously, is the classic hallmark of CIA regime-change modus operandi.
There are probably a few other good reasons I left out that show why these "protests" are probably not a popular uprising, but these reasons alone are way more than sufficient.
-
Yeah right. Whose statistics?
Credibility Mikey.
This is what is important. A large vocal percentage of the population of Iran believes the election was fraudulent and they are being beaten to death by those who have the most to lose by a change in the status quo. We know how this will end. The repression forces will get more brutal as their grip on power lessens, or the oppressed will give up, trading their illusions of democracy for the soft safety of anonymity.
-
Yeah right. Whose statistics?
Princeton, among others. I posted a couple that put the lie to "fair and honest" IN THIS THREAD already:
Here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8821.msg92770#msg92770) and here. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8821.msg92774#msg92774)
I especially like the second one. Your "fair and honest" elections had greater than 100% turnout in 50 cities in Iran.
-
I especially like the second one. Your "fair and honest" elections had greater than 100% turnout in 50 cities in Iran.
D'oh
-
This phony indignation at a supposedly "sick puppy" who "belongs in jail" is ludicrous - - a little bit of honesty would reveal that some (not all) young women can be very attractive at that age - - especially considering the European ages of consent:
So in order to support your rabid anti-Americanism, you have now come out in favor of the Iranian hardliners and men who solicit sex from children.
Just for the record, whether a 15 year old is attractive or not is completely irrelevant to whether a 44 year old should solicit sex from one. I met my wife when she was 15 and she was hot. I was 17. If I saw a 15 year old girl today that looked like my wife did then (and come to think of it four years ago I was a father to one) I would look at her as a child - not a potential sex partner. Yeah, he is a sick puppy who belongs in jail.
I'll let you know if I can find any serial-killers who hate America - well, other than Stalin or Mao.
-
<<Well that is a theroy.>>
Yeah that's right. And if a man invites Jeffrey Dahmer to spend the night baby-sitting his eight-year-old son, and the next morning both Dahmer and the kid are gone, it's also a theory that Dahmer ate him.
It's also a theory that Dahmer just took the kid to see Walt Disney World and will bring him home before dinner time. It's also a theory that the kid ate Jeffrey Dahmer. And it's also a theory that the majority of Iranians voted against Ahmadinejad and are spontaneously rioting out of outrage that their guys officially lost when they got more votes and the CIA and British intelligence just scrupulously avoided interfering in the slightest degree with the elections held in a sovereign country out of a pure and reverent respect for the sovereignty of that country.
There are lots of theories. What is your point?
That it is not harder to get a positivive outcome on a phone poll than it is to get more votes out of a town than its population, both of which happened.
<<Whereas you agree that the Iranian government is not all that good , why do you consider it impossible that the people of Iran might rise up against it on their own ?>>
Because, as I have already stated, the Washington Post's own poll three weeks in advance of the election showed Ahmadinejad winning by an even bigger majority than was officially counted for him. Because rioting broke out even before the polls closed and because for at least three days following the elections, there were no statments from any of the losing parties just how this massive vote - - in a country of 73 million people - - was actually stolen. It seemed kind of unusual that rioting would break out over a stolen election when nobody seemed to have any idea how a vote that huge could be stolen AND when reputable polls had predicted the result weeks ahead. Because in the two or three days before the election almost a million new cell-phone subscribers were registered in Tehran alone, indicating preparations by the opposition parties to massively protest the "fixing" of elections that had not even at that point been held, let alone "fixed." Because the U.S. and Israel have threatened Iran on countless occasions with regime change, in attempts to get them to back off their nuclear programs, and the appearance of "spontaneous" crowds in the streets, "protesting" something or other that they never gave a shit about previously, is the classic hallmark of CIA regime-change modus operandi.
There are probably a few other good reasons I left out that show why these "protests" are probably not a popular uprising, but these reasons alone are way more than sufficient.
A million cell phones?
If this was an organisation this would be easily traceable anf an investigator could follow the money.
If the people at large realised by leaks and signs that the elections was about to be stolen they might prepare like this.
So ....Whereas you agree that the Iranian government is not all that good , why do you consider it impossible that the people of Iran might rise up against it on their own ?
-
<<So ....Whereas you agree that the Iranian government is not all that good , why do you consider it impossible that the people of Iran might rise up against it on their own ?>>
I don't consider it impossible. In fact the Iranians DID rise up on their own against the US puppet government of the Shah.
I consider it highly unlikely that this particular series of demonstrations and protests is a spontaneous uprising for reasons that I've already articulated in this thread - - suspicious resemblance to similar CIA provocations in Chile in 1972 and 73 and in Iran itself in the 1950s against the Mossadegh government; lack of any explanation of how the Iranian government could "fix" national elections in a national vote of a nation of 73 million citizens; immediate outcry of "stolen" elections without any indication how they had been stolen, breaking out while the polls were still open; rough correspondence, actually with a slimmer-than-predicted government margin, between official count and public-opinion poll of the Washington Post, with no intervening events between poll and vote to make the results different than as polled.
Lots of reasons to suspect that the story is NOT AT ALL like the BS purveyed in the Western MSM. Nothing to indicate that it is what the Western MSM say it is.
-
lack of any explanation of how the Iranian government could "fix" national elections in a national vote of a nation of 73 million citizens; immediate outcry of "stolen" elections without any indication how they had been stolen, breaking out while the polls were still open; rough correspondence, actually with a slimmer-than-predicted government margin, between official count and public-opinion poll of the Washington Post, with no intervening events between poll and vote to make the results different than as polled.
And the claims continue in the face of evidence of widespread fraud in the Iranian elections.
Or do you think that voter turnouts of greater than 100% in 50 cities is just "normal democratic process"? Statistical analysis that shows that voting patterns did NOT match with polling prior to the election?
And before you respond AGAIN that you have no knowledge of these, I will remind you that I have pointed them out TWICE previously in this thread alone, plus elsewhere. Scroll up before you make another one shot reponse.
-
<<So ....Whereas you agree that the Iranian government is not all that good , why do you consider it impossible that the people of Iran might rise up against it on their own ?>>
I don't consider it impossible. In fact the Iranians DID rise up on their own against the US puppet government of the Shah.
Are you certain that there was no outside involvement in the rebellion against the shah?
After all there was French involvement in the American revolution and German involvement in the Russian revolution.
I would think that revolutaionarys seek help as a general principal.
-
<<And the claims continue in the face of evidence of widespread fraud in the Iranian elections.>>
I did not say that there was no widespread fraud in the Iranian elections.
There was widespread fraud in the Afghan elections and nobody gives a shit. There was widespread fraud in the American elections, esp. the two which Bush Jr. "won." And supporters of the late LBJ, if religiously inclined, still thank the good Lord in every prayer for the Miracle of Precinct Box 13.
<<Or do you think that voter turnouts of greater than 100% in 50 cities is just "normal democratic process"? >>
It shows a desperate need for good old American know-how. The crypto-fascist wing of the Republocrat Party has fixed elections from Saigon to Florida and then some and never in such a clumsy and amateurish manner. It's downright embarrassing, for the "Iranian opposition" AND for their American bosses as well as for the regime itself. Nobody comes out of this fiasco smelling like roses.
<<Statistical analysis that shows that voting patterns did NOT match with polling prior to the election?>>
So what? Unless the Washington Post poll totally missed the boat, it reported on the likely overall results of the election and the overall results matched the prediction (albeit with a narrower gov't margin.) If patterns were mistaken, the likely answer is that one misread pattern favouring the gov't was matched by another misread pattern favouring the "opposition," canceling each other out, and the overall result was more or less as the Washington Post predicted.
Iran is a nation of 73 million and had a substantial turnout at the polls. Nobody has yet explained HOW a vote spread over a population that vast can be "fixed" without obvious signs of fixing visible to any polling station observer of any participant. I regard it as extremely suspicious not only that the protests of a "fix" began even before the polling stations had closed, but that for at least three days I never saw anyone screaming "fix" answer the key question "How?"
"Statistical analysis shows . . . ."
Bullshit. Statistical analysis shows over a million civilian deaths consequent upon the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Guess we all believe the statistics we want to believe, eh Ami? Polling sounds more like a secular religion than a scientific endeavour. But I'll stick with the poll that the Washington Post took. They're reasonably reputable, even though a part of the MSM. They can't be whoring ALL the time for the War Party, or they'd lose all credibility and be of no use at all to their masters.
-
Bullshit. Statistical analysis shows over a million civilian deaths consequent upon the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Guess we all believe the statistics we want to believe, eh Ami? Polling sounds more like a secular religion than a scientific endeavour. But I'll stick with the poll that the Washington Post took. They're reasonably reputable, even though a part of the MSM. They can't be whoring ALL the time for the War Party, or they'd lose all credibility and be of no use at all to their masters.
Yeah, we ALL know that the Dept of Statistics at Princeton University are just whores for the GOP. That's a given.
::)
-
An Ivy League university of course as we all know is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, in the case of Princeton, a Shi'ite fundamentalist hotbed.
It was therefore all the more shocking to find that Princeton's Dept. of Statistics would come out with an analysis of polling data seemingly at odds with the Shi'ite fundamentalist government of Iran. Who would think that a polling arm of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY would ever interpret data in favour of the infidel U.S. Government and against their brother Islamic fanatics? Surely this treasonous behaviour from the heart of the Ivy League will bring down thunderous condemnation, fatwas even, from Muslim clerics worldwide.
<<Yeah, we ALL know that the Dept of Statistics at Princeton University are just whores for the GOP. >>
For them too? Geeze, if you say so, Ami. They're even bigger whores than I thought. Who knew?
-
::)
An idea whose time has come.
http://www.slate.com/id/2111172 (http://www.slate.com/id/2111172)
http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2009/09/03/a-punctuation-mark-for-sarcasm-sadly-underused/ (http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2009/09/03/a-punctuation-mark-for-sarcasm-sadly-underused/)
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/01/12/Company-creates-sarcasm-punctuation/UPI-55751263324278 (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/01/12/Company-creates-sarcasm-punctuation/UPI-55751263324278)
(http://www.upi.com/r/m/story/12633880726690/)
-
lol