Mondoweiss reader Deanna Kashani writes:
Like a lot of other folks with ancestral ties to Iran, these days I’m glued to my computer screen at all hours, compulsively refreshing news sites, blogs, and my Facebook page. Due to spotty and limited media coverage of events (I do like Andrew Sullivan and the Huffington Post’s live-blogging), I've mostly had to connect the dots in my understanding of the situation based on first-hand accounts from relatives in Iran. The revolution has been twittered, for sure, but also gchatted and yahoo messagered. And I have the Google chat archives to prove it.
Somehow, even from my safe vantage point here in Brooklyn, New York, I feel I've been swept up in the events happening in Tehran. Still at it this morning at 5AM, I told an Iranian cousin of mine, now living in West Virginia, that I'd read on a Facebook friend's page that violence had just erupted in the Jamaron neighborhood. She promptly called her mother in Jamaron to tell her to stay in. Moments later the same cousin read somewhere else that a tank rolled into the Sharif University area. She called her brother, a grad student, begging him to leave his research project to return home to safety. How anyone could study in such a climate is beyond me, and I suppose either a serious testament to either studiousness or denial.
The degree to which Facebook has been utilized by young Iranians for organizing activities is staggering. In the past few days, the majority of my Iranian friends have taken up the now iconic "Where is My Vote?" image for their profile pictures. My Facebook newsfeed has been choked with updates in Persian on protest sites, reports of injury or death, places to avoid, etc. A friend in the diaspora community used Facebook to organize a massive protest in Toronto. Surely, more events will follow in the days to come.
As those of us far away from our loved ones in Iran scramble for information, we know there’s a long way to go before any of this gets resolved. Naturally, it's all very unnerving to watch. People will be risking their lives daily from here on out and no one really knows what will happen in the end.
But, as worried as I am about their welfare, I am so proud of my cousins. They have truly taken ownership over this movement. It is clear that in their organizing they have regained some of the hope that they lost after the election results were announced. Like our parents did 30 years before, they are bravely and peacefully standing side by side in the streets because they love Iran, and they haven’t given up hope.
Hey, good for you. Here's what you are up against: the secret mission statement of the US Congress: "The mission of the US Congress is to help assure a thriving future for the Jewish people and Judaism with Israel as their core state, by engaging in professional strategic thinking and planning on short and long-term issues of primary concern to the Jewish people, with special attention to critical choices that have a significant impact on the future. AIPAC provides estimates of situations and dynamics, "alerts" to the US Congress to new opportunities and threats, assessment of important current events, strategic choice maps, innovative action alternatives and policy-option analyzes to decision makers, opinion leaders and others who are engaged with, and whose actions affect, the Jewish people. Also, AIPAC, and fellow travelers, known by many innocuous organ names organizes policy retreats for decision makers, facilitates informed Jewish people discourse on crucial issues, develops Jewish policy professionals and encourages research in critical understudied issues. The USA and Israel are one."
Mir-Hossein Mousavi's Iran/Contra Connection? EXCERPT: "…Now, I'm no investigative journalist, so I'll leave it to the professionals to dig deeper into this. But, I do have to wonder aloud: Seeing how we cannot ignore his 'neo-con' credentials and that Michael Ledeen maintained his very good relations with Ghorbanifar, (who at least used to be) a good friend of Mir-Hossein Mousavi (the 'candidate of change' in the Iranian presidential elections); and given the support that Mousavi's candidacy has been receiving from the American 'moderates', maybe this kind of 'change' is the 'regime change' the Americans have had in mind for Iran? " http://revolutionaryflowerpot.blogspot.com/2009/0...
Conversation with Grandma after Iran’s elections June 14, 2009 http://southissouth.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/conv...
*The Iranian People Speak* By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty Monday, June 15, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
An article worth reading regarding Facebook. No surprise the opposition is using it to coordinate. Then Accel Partners gave Facebook $12,8-million in venture capital in May 2005. Accel’s manager and Facebook board member James Breyer previously served on the board of NVCA with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel. To get an idea of what In-Q-Tel is about, check the copy on its “Our aim” page, which states the following: “Launched by the CIA in 1999 as a private, independent, not-for-profit organisation, IQT was created to bridge the gap between the technology needs of the Intelligence Community and new advances in commercial technology.” Guess what. It’s the CIA. For those not in the know, the CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States; the American equivalent of the Secret Service. In addition, James Breyer has other connections to “spooks” and American secret services. http://www.techleader.co.za/anjamerret/2007/12/05...
Iran's 'Stolen' Election: a Hardline Demagouge's Victory Over a 'Reformer'? Not So Fast http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/14063...
"I am for truth, no matter who tells it"– Malcolm X
That WaPo article has been debunked so many times on so many sites in the last 24 hours that it's not even funny anymore. See Juan Cole's analysis for just one example.
Juan Cole's analysis' of Iran has been biased…. I am just glad that I have been woken up to the left's biases as I have previously been to the right's biases…
Phil, I am just waiting for you to post some opposing accounts on the ground in Iran to the Western media's version of the facts, like you have been doing such a good job with on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict…
Who has been giving all of my comments concerning Iran a thumbs down?
Now maybe you should wake up to your own biases. The argument about the election is clear enough that you don't need biases to see it; in fact, you need biases not to see it. The statistical evenness of Ahmedinajad's "victory" across all regions, all by itself, is unbelievable. Given the ethnic divisions in Iran, it's even more ridiculous than if an American presidential candidate won every state by roughly the same amount. Such a thing simply cannot happen in the real world. To face this fact is not a matter of bias but simply of awareness.
How are messages from within Iran "the Western media's version of the facts"? You're so determined to believe that Ahmedinajad won the election that you simply ignore all evidence to the contrary. You don't want the truth at all; you just want to believe what you want to believe, and to hell with reality.
By the way, check out Grand Ayatollah Montazeri's statement today, where he criticitizes the government of Iran for "declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe." Is he another part of the Western media? If he thinks "no one in their right mind can believe" Ahmedinajad's landslide victory, what does that tell us about you?
So does this mean you think that all of the facts are in regards to the Iranian elections Craig?
My guess is Craig11. Nice one dude, smooth real smooth.
What evidence to the contrary Craig? Have you considered all of the evidence that is contrary to your "evidence" to the contrary?
Craig, I unlike you did not jump to the conclusion right after the elections that the Iranian government rigged the elections, so how can you claim you want the truth when you jumped to conclusions so quickly even though all of the facts are still not in?
That's not only a dumb question, but an inappropriate one. There are lots of people reading Mondoweiss, and it isn't necessarily only one person doing all the thumbs-downs. Furthermore, the thumbs-up/down mechanism is intended to be anonymous, presumably to prevent reprisals, so to even ask that question suggests that you don't really understand what the mechanism is for. If you care to set yourself up with an Intense Debate account, then you can give thumbs-ups and downs too, on whatever basis you like. I'm sure lots of people just thumbs-up comments they agree with and thumbs-down the ones they don't, but my view is that people who have something intelligent to say should get thumbs-up even if I don't agree with them, as I am interested in intelligent conversation and I don't like group-think environments where everyone is pressured to conform.
I admitted on another thread that I gave some of Marion's comments thumbs-down. There are others that I haven't, which apparently other people have given thumbs-down. I'm not sure what point, if any, you think you are making. The thumbs-up/down mechanism exists for a reason. I think I use it at least as fairly as anyone else. Marion's comments have been pretty empty — not much there but unsupported accusations of bias. The idea that the facts aren't available to judge the fairness of the election results is just ridiculous. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri says no one in their right mind can believe the results. Is he jumping to conclusions too? Does he know less about the situation than Marion does?
By the way, regarding the thumbs-up/down, I evaluate just about every comment I read on Mondoweiss as either worthwhile, lame, or nothing special, and give them thumbs-up, down, or nothing accordingly. I use this feature a lot. That's what it's there for. Anyone with an Intense Debate account can do the same. I don't know where you get this weird idea you seem to have that there's something wrong with this.
Several times already today I've pointed out to you that Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has issued a statement saying that no one in their right mind can believe the election results. You have not answered this. Do you think you know more about the situation than one of Iran's highest authorities? What facts are you waiting for that could convince you that the election results were fabricated? I think the facts are quite clear already, and so, apparently, does Montazeri. I've also pointed you to Juan Cole's analysis of the results. Your only reply is to claim that he is "biased", which is not a refutation of anything. In logic, your response is called an "ad hominem fallacy" — you are attacking the man rather than answering his argument. If you think the results are statistically credible, please give an argument defending them rather than just making empty attacks on individuals who say otherwise. You keep saying "the facts are not in", but the facts are in, and they are clear to anyone who is willing to look at them honestly. You are just evading the issue by saying over and over that the facts are not in.
The thumbs up thumbs down suggest to me a popularity contest. A way of using herd pressure to keep the comments politically correct. No bad words or hurt feelings this way. God forbid anyone's feelings be hurt.
"Grand Ayatollah Montazeri says no one in their right mind can believe the results."–Criag Do you consider Ayatollah's statement to be "a fact" that the elections were rigged?
I am not interested in making thumbs down and thumbs up judgments of what people are saying here, I just noticed the connection between your comments in regards to my posts and the thumbs down and thought to ask you if there was a connection… I am also not interested in making definite conclusions about an election when all of the facts are still not in, which is why I have been posting counter facts and arguments here and responding to people like you who made up their minds right away based on their preconceived biases and the reports of those with preconceived biases……
You keep asking that and I keep giving you the same answer. Are you having trouble understanding simple English, or is wasting time with repetition just the closest you can come to making a cogent argument? Saying "all the facts" seems to me like an evasion. Do we ever know all the facts about anything? Shall I have no opinion about anything until I have attained to perfect knowledge and understanding of the entire universe? This seems to be what you want. Beyond being merely wrong, it is stupid, if not actually dishonest, to suggest that we must know "all the facts" to come to a judgment. Even in a criminal trial, we do not demand that the jury have absolute certainty of the defendant's guilt; we merely ask that they conclude that he is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," which isn't the same thing at all. Civil trials are judged by the even weaker standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." In the case of the recent Iranian election there is no shortage of evidence that the results announced by the government are fraudulent. This has been discussed pretty exhaustively on various sites, including Juan Cole's, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. It's all out there if you actually want to know, which I don't think you do. Like the pro-Israel hasbara commenters who throw sand into every discussion about the Nakba, you don't seem to want to learn the truth, you just want to push your agenda. Your continual repetition of the same questions even after they've been repeatedly answered is evidence of this, as is your unwillingness or inability to deal with logic.
On the History channel not long ago, it was said that the thumbs down meant the gladiator should live, equivalent to sticking the sword in the ground in peace, and the thumbs up meant kill him. This seems exactly the contrary of public opinion. What say you?
Sunday, June 14, 2009 Decontructing Juan Cole's "evidence" http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/ Monday, June 15, 2009 Insider report about the events in Iran http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/ In fact, why don't you read all of the posts at this blog to get evidence to the contrary to your evidence to the contrary Craig… http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/
Sure, the whole thumbs-up/down idea always has the danger of becoming a tool to drive away contrary viewpoints and reward conformity. I try not to use it that way. I evaluate comments on whether they try to present a civil and intelligent argument, whether or not I agree with them. However, I dislike and will give thumbs-down to comments (like some of Marion's today) that lack any meaningful content and just try to distract people from serious issues. If you want to call it a "popularity contest," yeah, that's essentially what it is. But that leads us to the question of what criteria people apply. What makes for "popularity" in this context? If comments are rewarded for toeing some party line and punished for deviating from it, that's a problem; it will degrade the discussion and tend the community toward a state of mindless group-think. On the other hand, if we reward intelligent statements that attempt to offer cogent discussion of issues, and give thumbs-down to people who just repeat slogans or empty talking points, or who attempt to distract the discussion by raising irrelevant or nonsensical questions, then is that such a bad thing?
I think your own "preconceived biases" are quite clear to everyone who is paying attention, and you have not posted any facts or arguments at all. You simply ask the same questions over and over no matter how many times they are answered. I don't think you want to know the truth or that you are sincerely waiting for more facts. You just want to derail the discussion.
I respect your honesty Craig11. You didn't have to admit to tagging Marion, so kudos.
The Iranian elections just took place last Friday Craig, the Nakba took place more than sixty years ago..There is a lot of documented evidence on the Nakba, how much documented evidence is there on the Iranian elections that you know of? And when did the trial or official investigation of the Iranian elections take place for you to make a judgment that the Iranian government is in fact guilty as charged? Or are you basically speculating that they are based on some selectively chosen biased reports and analysis?
What discussion? According to you it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iranian government rigged the elections, therefore you think it should be the end of the discussion, but obviously I do not agree with you Craig,,,