[eDebate] smoking iran editorial -- financial times

michael hester uwgdebate
Mon Jun 22 12:21:11 CDT 2009


actually, the laundry list by cole does answer most (if not) all the claims
you say go unanswered. that Ahmadinejad did well in certain provinces is not
a warrant for a)him winning the overall election or b)the irregularities in
other provinces.

Petras' article is shallow once one gets beyond the anti-imperialism crutch.
i stand by that. it doesn't mean the rants about the west are wrong (or
right), they just don't meet the burden of proving Ahmadinejad actually
received a majority of the votes.

here's a more comprehensive study that deals with the issue in more depth
and, btw, supports the claim that the official results are fraudulent.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

and for the record, i'm explictly "dropping" all the moussavi silliness. one
can believe that ahmadindejad didn't really get 63% of the vote without
making any defense of any other candidate. the assumption that one must
defend moussavi in order to challenge the official results is dumb. dumb
claims don't require direct refutation.

hester



On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Old Strega <oldstrega at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  *1) hester has caught a grave error.**
> *
> *i misread the citation of the introduction as a citation for the
> "smoking" article.   i do thank you for the correction.  the intention was
> not to misrepresent the source which is not my modus operandi or my record
> posting on edebate.*
> *
> *
> *2) rense is one of the cites who ran the article but i believe it was
> first posted on the global research site which is not as loosy goosy as you
> portray rense.   chossudovsky and other non-republican critics of the obama
> administration reside @ global research which is an excellent cite mined by
> rense.   the original citation of the article:*
> *
> *
> *http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14018*
> *
> *
> *your mockery of rense is irrelevant.    they will post anything like the
> evidence on the niger forgery that broke on edebate the first night of its
> electronic disclosure well before it was accepted by the mainstream media.
> that is the niger forgery evidence that eventually spawned into the kucinich
> debate petition put forward on the floor of the congress against rove (i
> can't remember if hester signed that petition full of complaints which rense
> had the courage to broadcast ahead of hester's preferred sources who are
> cautious and rational defining the mainstream herd but never blind).*
> *
> *
> *the rense source indict is a stupid cheapshot but, hey, if you are not a
> CNN soap opera obamafest love queen, then, perhaps alternative sources of
> information are risky posts.   oh my god, rense is so bad.  they posted
> articles on hillary's injury and her rejection of the settlements and many
> hard to find mainstream media critiques of obama which stroube fwds onto
> edebate.    they'll post anything.*
> *
> *
> *you have tried to couple my mistake as indicative of the quality of rense
> to further undermine petras but come on.   i made a mistake.   you didn't
> properly trace the article either.    you made a mistake.  stroube is crazy
> unintentionally misrepresenting articles.  rense is crazy posting anything
> including non-republican critiques of obama.   petras is crazy because he's
> not a corporate ho like obama.   genius.   *
> *
> *
> *what about iran?   curiously, here, you have little to say of relevance.*
> *
> *
> *3) concerning iran, you sound like kissinger.*
> *
> *
> *given the '53 coup, i take all american groupthink conclusions about what
> really happened with a grain of salt.   the mainstream media lens deserves
> question.   a question pops up in a sea of agreement and hester is on the
> spot to police the situation.    the growing concordance of government
> propaganda with corporate media outlets post-vietnam seems to be a novelty
> to michael kissinger of uwga debate.   so, here again, muckraker relies on a
> source indict.   petras is a red commie.   so what?   you only attack his
> analysis of the polls but do not defend the western media capitalist whores
> against his critiques.   often a source indict heavy approach comes with a
> lot of dropped arguments and a deflection to a weaker angle, i.e. poll
> analysis.   you're missing the US motivations for reinventing moussavi and
> scanty coverage of the election.   obama can now merge wills with netanyahu
> and refuse to negotiate not flip flopping on his election promise.*
> *
> *
> *a) you have no answer to the predictable perspective of the western media
> sources based on their lack of exposure to much of iran beyond tehran:*
> *
> *
> *http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14018*
>
> Moreover, most Western opinion leaders and reporters based in Tehran
> extrapolated their projections from their observations in the capital ? few
> venture into the provinces, small and medium size cities and villages where
> Ahmadinejad has his mass base of support. Moreover the opposition?s
> supporters were an activist minority of students easily mobilized for street
> activities, while Ahmadinejad?s support drew on the majority of working
> youth and household women workers who would express their views at the
> ballot box and had little time or inclination to engage in street politics.
>
> *b) no answer to the demographic explanation of ahmadinejad's support:*
> *
> *
> *http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14018
> *
> *
> *
> *In general, Ahmadinejad did very well in the oil and chemical producing
> provinces. This may have be a reflection of the oil workers? opposition to
> the ?reformist? program, which included proposals to ?privatize? public
> enterprises. Likewise, the incumbent did very well along the border
> provinces because of his emphasis on strengthening national security from US
> and Israeli threats in light of an escalation of US-sponsored cross-border
> terrorist attacks from Pakistan and Israeli-backed incursions from Iraqi
> Kurdistan, which have killed scores of Iranian citizens. Sponsorship and
> massive funding of the groups behind these attacks is an official policy of
> the US from the Bush Administration, which has not been repudiated by
> President Obama; in fact it has escalated in the lead-up to the elections.
> **
> *
> *
> *
> *c) kissinger-esque, of course, you dropped this imperialism argument and
> by omission are underplaying president phosphorus's role in aiding **ahmadinejad
> outside tehran where the western media sources won't go**:*
> *
> *
> *http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14018
> *
> *
> *
>
> *What Western commentators and their Iranian prot?g?s have ignored is the
> powerful impact which the devastating US wars and occupation of Iraq and
> Afghanistan had on Iranian public opinion: Ahmadinejad?s strong position on
> defense matters contrasted with the pro-Western and weak defense posture of
> many of the campaign propagandists of the opposition.*
>
> *The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that
> national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social
> welfare system, with all of its faults and excesses, could be better
> defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrats
> supported by Western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life
> styles over community values and solidarity.*
>
> *
> *
>
> *4) now, the moussavi turns.   you remind me most of kissinger when you
> historically forget moussavi's reign as prime minister.   you lack the
> critical ability to anticipate the potential danger of the western media
> promotion of moussavi.   i must conclude that hester is smoking crack in
> obamaland with kissinger and the CFR.    there is continuity with the '53
> coup, bro.   i expect another source indict on this card since hester
> believes moussavi is a liberator of the people not receiving a soft hand
> from the US imperial arm.   mazal tov:*
>
> *
> *
>
> *In Iran, the heist is of the country and of minds. Chris Floyd of Empire
> Burlesque **writes*<http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1780-hypocrisy-and-hope-western-coverage-iranian-courage.html?tmpl=component&print=1>
> *:*
>
> *Similarly, the Iranian opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi is
> universally depicted as a ?moderate.? Yet,**as Professor As?ad AbuKhalil
> points out,*<http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-developments.html>
> * when Moussavi was Iran?s prime minister under Ayatollah Khomeini, he
> ?presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad?s.? AbuKhalil?s
> take on the hypocrisy of the Western media coverage on Iran is worth quoting
> more fully:*
>
> *
> *
>
> *there is so much hypocrisy in the Western coverage and official reactions
> to the developments. Most glaring for me was the statement by the
> secretary-general of the UN who insisted on the respect of the will of the
> Iranian people. Would that US designate utter such words, say, about Egypt,
> Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other dictatorships that are
> approved by the US? ?I am in no way sympathetic to Moussavi. He is a man who
> suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy. When he was prime minister
> back in the 1980s, he presided over a regime far more oppressive than
> Ahmadinajad?s. And why has no Western media really commented on his rhetoric
> during his own campaign: the man kept saying that he wants a ?return? to the
> teachings of Khomeini. I in no way support a man who wants a ?return? to the
> teachings of Khomeini.**"** endquote*
>
> *
> *
>
> *thank you, sir, for rectifying the error but thank you more for your
> naive defense of the mainstream media and the new strategies of soft power
> manipulation by president phosphorus.   i understand hester is now a US
> imperialist who supports obama's war in afghanistan and official US
> propaganda that moussavi, the liberator, was screwed.   i gather you also
> support obama's silence during the recent gaza raid.    in line with
> moveon.org and other liberal hack groups is a good place to be when you've
> lost the critical edge.    your post smells of a larger co-option.  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing? now<http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try+bing_1x1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090622/cdd4a548/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list