Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Herra Tohtori on July 05, 2009, 04:19:02 pm
-
A group of clerics in Iran has called Iran's presidential vote invalid, contradicting official results.
The pro-reform group's statement pits it against the top legislative body, which last week formally endorsed the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
(...)
The pro-reform clerics group said in a statement that the top legislative body, the Guardian Council, no longer had the right "to judge in this case."
In a statement to the press, the Assembly of Qom Seminary Scholars and Researchers said some members of the Guardian Council had "lost their impartial image in the eyes of the public."
"How can one accept the legitimacy of the election just because the Guardian Council says so? Can one say that the government born out of the infringements is a legitimate one," it said.
The Guardian Council is an unelected 12-member council made up of six religious leaders, appointed by the supreme leader, and six jurists.
The statement is further proof of a split at the top of Iran's establishment, correspondents say.
They say that in particular, it was an act of defiance against the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
(...)
:eek2:
Holy Ferrite Testicles Batman. :nervous:
Discuss. Predict. Argue.
-
Predict: they all go missing mysteriously
-
Argue: It won't be mysterious, it will be visible and violent.
-
Concur. Right now, if the Guardian's Coucil sticks to the playbook for tyrannies, it will be interested in making examples.
-
Concur. Right now, if the Guardian's Coucil sticks to the playbook for tyrannies, it will be interested in making examples.
Which would be their biggest mistake. Iran's public is primed for change. Crushing rational dissent will lead to revolution.
-
Neither alternative is looking particularly good for the moment.
1) Re-vote, resulting in a possible loss of election (if they don't cheat)
2) Crush dissent, resulting in possible revolution.
Would this count as being caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place?
-
Do these guys have any actual power to sway the election?
-
Do these guys have any actual power to sway the election?
In the Islamic Republic, yes. Iran was and is a country with deep ties to its faith. The Revolution packaged itself as Islam for the new era; a faith of relevance and meaning, reaching out not to merely the faithful but also to the secular. The closest parallel in Christian experience would probably be Vatican II, but with a groundbreaking edge to it something more like Martin Luther nailing a notice to the church door in Wittenburg. The country was founded on the religion.
Many of the promises made then have been betrayed. Many of the clergy who signed on in the early days still remember them though.
-
But can they actually do anything? Can they order a new election? Can they stop the confirmation or whatever the hell process they use to put him in power?
-
Well with the current state of things and the top clerics calling for not only punishment but brutal torture of anyone involved whatever they do they better do fast.
Now they are going after anyone that even reported the events: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/05/iran.communication.crackdown/index.html
It's going to be a blood bath one way or another.
-
Iran has atomic weapons, right? :nervous:
-
iran is not quite there at the moment weapon wise but could i suppose make a dirty bomb quite easily , and as for testing atomic weapons on here soil im sure these ppl are willing to help....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm)
-
Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.
-
Iran has atomic weapons, right? :nervous:
Yeah, rather **** ones. Even North Korea has better nuclear capability.
-
Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.
And then when they get a government that will protect Iranian interests, we will destabilize it and attempt to profit from the chaos. Again.
-
Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.
And then when they get a government that will protect Iranian interests, we will destabilize it and attempt to profit from the chaos. Again.
[libertyPrime] Better destabilized then Red.[/libertyPrime]
-
[LibertyPrime] Death is preferable to destabilization. [/LibertyPrime]
-
Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.
And then when they get a government that will protect Iranian interests, we will destabilize it and attempt to profit from the chaos. Again.
Have you taken into account the possibiltiy that that is what's already being done? Any time election unrests or power struggles in some country starts, you have to ask yourselves just how many other countries have their hands in that mass.
-
Iran didn't need outside interference to go haywire. The conditions in that country are so ripe for violent upheaval, it might as well have been named "Revolutionistan."
-
Iran didn't need outside interference to go haywire. The conditions in that country are so ripe for violent upheaval, it might as well have been named "Revolutionistan."
....
....
That's a pretty good name, actually. :yes:
Iran has atomic weapons, right? :nervous:
Yeah, rather **** ones. Even North Korea has better nuclear capability.
Well if this leads civil war, any nuclear capability is far worse than no nuclear capability. :/
-
Well, I think the situation has been summed up quite clearly, and as such the only thing the outside world can do now is wait and watch.
Any state that must resort to making examples of people with brutal torture or execution in order to stay in power has definitely lost its legitimacy. Before the world decides on a course of action, we should wait until we know what really happened in the election. If it comes to a revolution, I would like to see the U.S. back the progressive elements in Iran. I do not think military intervention would be wise, but arms procurement and fiscal support would be in order.
It's scary how quickly things went haywire there.
And on the topic of nuclear weapons... AFAIK the Iranian government has not yet succeeded in building a true nuclear bomb. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Haven't seen anything about an Iranian nuclear test.
-
Well if this leads civil war, any nuclear capability is far worse than no nuclear capability. :/
Maybe we will see them nuke themselves, then we can make a agreement with China to half the oil.
-
It's scary how quickly things went haywire there.
It wasn't quick though, the things they are revolting against have been in place for a while. It was just at a simmer. and now it's about to boil over because of what the "leadership" attempted to do to keep they're grasp on power.
Sad to say it may come to blows in America soon rather than later. :sigh:
-
Yeah, no.
After eight years of that **** with no real insurrection the worst we can expect is more right-wing nutjobs blowing up buildings to protest taxes or something.
-
Remember eight years of "Protesters are nothing but unemployed college students mooching off mom and dad"?
Now it's "Protesters are the second coming the American Revolution"?
-
DISSENT IS PATRIOTISM!*
*note: dissent is only patriotism when protesting the policies of the Democratic Party. For protesting against Republican Party see: treason.
-
DISSENT IS PATRIOTISM!*
*note: dissent is only patriotism when protesting the policies of the Democratic Party. For protesting against Republican Party see: treason.
That's definitely quote-worthy. Well done.
-
Oh god, guys, look what you did-- you just made Bill O'Reilly cry. You happy now?
(http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/theremoteisland/2009/02/oreillyface-727911.jpg)