[eDebate] smoking iran editorial -- financial times

Old Strega oldstrega
Mon Jun 22 13:52:55 CDT 2009

1) chathamhouse is not conclusive but speculative evidence.   "problematic" is the operative word of the article.  foul play is suspected by not proven.     there is no smoking gun.    only circumstantial evidence.    why is the burden of proof against ahmadinejad with nothing but speculation possibly promoted by the CIA and the Mossad presented so far?     accepting that burden of proof is arguably imperialist especially if the speculation was state sponsored and filtered through the media with obviously INCOMPLETE coverage.
by the way, wink wink, chatham house is connected to the Rothschilds and the CFR.    an iranian front man as author of the analysis creates the illusion of objectivity.    you do remember, chalabhi.   i think your source is worse than mine.

2) ****what if the poll analysis is largely bolstered by poor and scanty media coverage from tehran which opened the door for all of this speculation? your speculative evidence has little weight without the CNN soap opera reinventing moussavi while covering only the capital.
EXPLAIN HOW THIS ARGUMENT IS SHALLOW?   cole never even considers the US media coverage in his great article.  DROPPED --  *** STAR *** --


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.
how is this claim from petras shallow?  you're running, bro.   what was your obamaland experience of the coverage?  you saw great coverage of the whole country?  you're running to chathamhouse interpretations of poll numbers from areas that were DELIBERATELY excluded by the US media and you don't even have the guts to recognize that exclusion.   the US media coverage of the iran election sucked.  the equivalent would be coverage of the US election from washington, d.c. video only.    terrible.    you're lining up with that the conclusions of that coverage and not answering the key arguments.

3) speculative claims of cheating don't answer since those claims convert into the impression automatic vote fraud only with the backdrop of INCOMPLETE coverage from tehran represented as a COMPLETE picture.  the incomplete coverage showed a swell of support for moussavi in a single city which is now being "vindicated" by speculative claims of cheating which kissinger is using to demand another coup.   

why can't you recognize this obvious media critique by petras of the hocus pocus that creates the impression that tehran is all of iran or recognize that moussavi's support may have been over-represented regardless of how many people have been reported to have voted by iran?
i know.  petras had a preconceived idea of the election unlike all the fools watching amercian television who have been made to believe by an unbiased media with NO PRECONCEPTIONS directed from the government that moussavi, the liberator, won .   i see. genius.  those who critique the preconceptions and the sea of agreement from the major media outlets get to that point through preconceptions.    thank you, tabula rasa.    your brain is not a vat even though i'm impressed by how well you scanned all the sources that are agreeing with each other and how little you have searched for a critique of that manufactured consent.   your proclaimed lack of preconceptions is un-becoming and i'm not sure which philosopher you want to mount in your defense.  sorry, but objectivity moves, are in my book declarations of weakness, signs of backpedalling.   and your definition of "preconceptionless" existence is?  drum roll/... at least, your objectivity opens you to the possibility of reversing your position later when chomsky and others outline further details of this CIA/Mossad intervention in iranian politics.   you're objective.  i have a hunch.   and if you remember, my hunch on bush and the iraq war was dead on and i went to great lengths with that hunch.   i'm sure you understand my frustration with the co-option of that hunch by the new war party.   it is difficult for counter-positions to emerge when the corporate media outlets most often toe the official line of the US gubment.   the cracks in the armor can't compete with the empire in terms of speed in painting pictures.     i'll take hunches or bogus rationality anyday.    i'll risk-taking over insurance.   
4) if your memory serves you well, your standards for analysis would have shown in the year 1953 that the CIA was not involved in the iran coup.  objective scanning of 1953 media sources would have sided with absolving vice president nixon and the CIA of responsibility as they absolve brzezinski, kissinger and the CFR of responsibility, today.    the people with hunches were right.   
given history and your professorial objectivity, i think you're jumping the gun on your blanket dismissal of petras' premise.
5) lastly, you grant the media reinvention of moussavi while pointing out that, in the abstract, this is not inconsistent with your argument that the election was stolen.   however, the media who reinvented moussavi for naive american audiences are the same media who all agree that the election was stolen.    
what was the motivation for reinventing moussavi if not to demonize ahmadinejad and sound the drums for regime change?   in the abstract, the two claims are necessarily tied but in practice many a critical mind can see how well moussavi the liberator jives with the promulgation of election result speculation.    they work together so well as a coordinated strategy that is difficult to divorce them simply to keep alive speculation.   you have separated what the US media has coupled.    over time, i don't think that backpedal will hold water.
i'll agree on one thing.    you have to filter rense because there are many things which are of no interest or possibly offensive.   at the end of the day, i side with free speech and the right of offensive voices to debate.  another thing.  daily kos is a hack site.   
i think we agree on more than this little spar tells.    
i'm very concerned with carving a space for critical views that are not mesmerized by obama and his administration's media tricks.    in the aftermath of the bush administration, all the fainting made me a little ill.   you know that i wouldn't have taken such liberties in responding if i didn't feel that your source jokes would have been interpreted with similar liberty.    you put me in a difficult spot but now we're discussing iran.

Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090622/0d2a3322/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list