Tehran on fire

[Jarvitä]

Looks like the situation in Iran is turning increasingly violent after the (rigged?) election. There have been widespread allegations of US/israeli interference from the Ahmedinejad supporters, and of election fraud from the opposition.

From an emailer Salim: "This is beginning to mirror what I witnessed in the first revolution. When people start taking over military centers. There is report that a basiji center in Northern Tehran around Tajrish has been captured by the protesters. This would potentially mean weapons in hands of protesters. I'll let you know if I heard more."​

Source.

The Basij are the armed student militias under direct control of the grand Ayatollah (who were earlier seen charging the protesters with motorcycles and metal chains), so this means the opposition now has considerable armaments. Also, a police station in Teheran has reportedly been overrun by the protestres.

There were also reports of arab men making up the majority of the riot police, as Persians refuse to take action against the peaceful protesters.

From twitter:

WTF! They're bringing tanks on the streets in Tehran #iranelection

caution TANKS infront of interior ministry CAREFUL #freedom#iranelection

This could turn really ugly...

Most relevant tweets updated here: http://iran.twazzup.com/

 

[Urwumpe]

It is sure as hell rigged. The ratio between the votes was constant for all districts.

http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/

 

[Hielor]

It is sure as hell rigged. The ratio between the votes was constant for all districts.

http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/

Very interesting.

I am glad to be living in the US where we do not have these problems.

 

[Urwumpe]

Very interesting.

I am glad to be living in the US where we do not have these problems.

Oh, the last US election is used as counter-example as it also has pretty linear results, but does not reach such a good fitness. :lol:

The question is: How likely is it that all districts vote the same with maybe only 0.5% variation? Cities the same as rural districts?

 

[Ark]

Very interesting.

I am glad to be living in the US where we do not have these problems.

Pfft, hahahaha.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a truly fair election in a LONG time. It's more a contest we hold every couple of years to see who's better at coercing/manufacturing votes.

If we were really interfering in the Iran elections, we should have done a better job, they obviously out-frauded us.

 

[Quick_Nick]

It is sure as hell rigged. The ratio between the votes was constant for all districts.

http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/

O_O That would be a fail if it actually stopped them...

 

[Linguofreak]

Pfft, hahahaha.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a truly fair election in a LONG time. It's more a contest we hold every couple of years to see who's better at coercing/manufacturing votes.

Oh, I trust that our most recent election in the US was reasonably fair as far as votes reflecting what people want. The problem here is the fact that the media is exceptionally good at making people want what it wants.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Oh, I trust that our most recent election in the US was reasonably fair as far as votes reflecting what people want. The problem here is the fact that the media is exceptionally good at making people want what it wants.

http://notalwaysright.com/our-great-dumbocracy-part-2/1936

 

[Andy44]

Very interesting.

I am glad to be living in the US where we do not have these problems.

:rofl:

 

[Hielor]

Oh, the last US election is used as counter-example as it also has pretty linear results, but does not reach such a good fitness. :lol:

The question is: How likely is it that all districts vote the same with maybe only 0.5% variation? Cities the same as rural districts?

Pfft, hahahaha.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a truly fair election in a LONG time. It's more a contest we hold every couple of years to see who's better at coercing/manufacturing votes.

If we were really interfering in the Iran elections, we should have done a better job, they obviously out-frauded us.

:rofl:

I think you all missed the point. Never has the US erupted into riots due to an election.

Sure, the elections may be little more than popularity contests, but elections are part of what makes our government work. They're not what causes our government to crumble, as seems to be the case in many other places.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, did you ever have the feeling that you had been betrayed and your vote stolen?

 

[Hielor]

Well, did you ever have the feeling that you had been betrayed and your vote stolen?

I am sure that there are some who feel that way; there always will be even if the feelings are misplaced.

However, such feelings do not exist on a wide enough scale for there to be large-scale rioting.

 

[Andy44]

Well, did you ever have the feeling that you had been betrayed and your vote stolen?

No, because I am certain that my vote was never numerically significant, anyway.

Besides, I tend to vote for third party candidates, and am therefore pretty used to losing.

 

[Ark]

I am sure that there are some who feel that way; there always will be even if the feelings are misplaced.

However, such feelings do not exist on a wide enough scale for there to be large-scale rioting.

Wanna go start a riot?

 

[Andy44]

In the US we don't riot for elections, we riot for racism. Different reason, same destructive behavior. But I gotta tell ya, when we do riot, we destroy more stuff. Whole neighborhoods.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-LB94Kwlws"]YouTube - Sublime - April 29, 1992 (Rodney King riots)[/ame]

 

[Hielor]

In the US we don't riot for elections, we riot for racism. Different reason, same destructive behavior. But I gotta tell ya, when we do riot, we destroy more stuff. Whole neighborhoods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-LB94Kwlws

And people wonder why anarchy doesn't work...

 

[Andy44]

"Anarchy" is not the absence of rules. It's the absence of rulers.

What you see in a riot is the deliberate disobiedience of both rulers and their rules by individuals who think that being lost in a crowd is a good cover for getting away with stuff. It's not anarchy; it's criminal behavior.

When I was in college in the late 1990s, there was a riot one summer by drunken students. They had no real reason; they were just drunk and stupid and each individual thought that as long as he was lost in the crowd, he could get away with things he would never dare on his own. So they tore down some lamp posts and set a couch on fire in the street which had been tossed out a window. The cops were ill-prepared for a riot so they just surrounded it and took pictures of the people doing the vandalism, who were later caught when the cops posted the pictures on the internet and waited for the phone to ring. This wasn't anarchy, it was just a bunch of crime that took some time to solve.

 

[Hielor]

"Anarchy" is not the absence of rules. It's the absence of rulers.

What you see in a riot is the deliberate disobiedience of both rulers and their rules by individuals who think that being lost in a crowd is a good cover for getting away with stuff. It's not anarchy; it's criminal behavior.

Yes, and this is why you need rules (and people to enforce them) in the first place, because this is how people act.

 

[Andy44]

But people make and enforce rules. Taking some of them and setting them apart from the other people doesn't make them any less dumb-acting.

If anything, it makes a sort of "supercriminal", with special immunities to laws they impose on the rest of us.

 

[tblaxland]

Yes, and this is why you need rules (and people to enforce them) in the first place, because this is how people act.

Rules - yes; police (to enforce the rules) - yes; rulers - no; leaders - perhaps.