Iran’s former president has joined ranks with the country’s embattled reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, and accused the Iranian government of failing its people in the recent election and condemning the subsequent crackdown on protesters.
In a bold, lengthy statement Wednesday on his Web site, Mousavi said he considered Iran’s cleric-led government illegitimate and demanded political prisoners be released, while saying Iran’s government needs to institute electoral reforms and ensure press freedoms.
Former President Mohammad Khatami, meanwhile, lashed out at what he termed “a poisonous security situation” in the wake of violent street protests.
Khatami accused Iran’s leadership of a “velvet coup against the people and democracy,” and Mousavi said the government’s crackdown on demonstrators was “tantamount to a coup.”
THOUGHT:
HUMANS DON'T LIKE ISLAMO-FASCISM.
IF THEY DID, THEN THEY'D HAVE NEVER STRAYED AWAY SINCE THE TIME OF MOHAMED.
EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE SOME CRACKPOTS USE TERROR TO FORCE POPULATIONS TO ADHERE TO STRICT ISLAM, AND THEN AFTER A GENERATION OR TWO THEY'VE HAD ENOUGH.
THIS IMPULSE - THE IMPULSE FOR LIBERTY IS DEEP IS THE HEARTS AND MINDS - NAY THE SOULS OF EVERY MAN.
EXCEPT THOSE BRAINWASHED.
EXPOSING PEOPLE TO THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND TO A FREE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS IS HOW THIS PART OF OUR SOUL IS REAWAKENED AND HOW ISLAMO-NUTSIE POPULATIONS GET DEPROGRAMMED.
THE IRANIAN YOUTH - LIKE THE EAST GERMAN OF THE 1980'S - KNOW OUR WAY OF LIFEI S BETTER AND THEY WANT IT AS MUCH AS WE DO.
11 comments:
And if god enjoyed seeing humans with their asses elevated above their heads, he wouldn't keep bitching in my ear to put a stop to it.
note to self: comment AFTER first coffee
Heh.
By the way, your comment reminds me of the verse from Ecclesiastes:
"God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."
Jeppo,
I didn't know that.
Here's the poll you cite:
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
That seems pretty irrefutable.
I still say this isn't about Mousavi, or Khatami, or anyone else. It's about the people, and it's about an opportunity to destabilize the Mullahs.
Do you agree that that is a worthy goal?
Yes I agree that we should try to destabilize the Mullahs. But I would worry that if Mousavi won a recount of the disputed election, we in the West would lulled into thinking that he and his followers supported OUR values rather than a different version of THEIR values. We might be tricked into making concessions to a new regime that supports most of the same policies (including acquiring nukes) as the old regime. Never underestimate Western gullibility!
At least we know where A-jad stands: Firmly against us and our allies. Sometimes it's better to deal with the devil you know rather than a wolf in sheep's clothing, to horribly mix metaphors ;)
BTW did you hear about the two right-wing European political groups just formed? I think you'll be happier with their makeup (no VB or BNP) than me :(
I agree with Pasto. This is definitely not about Mousavi or the elections anymore. The election situation simply just provided them a foundation to vent about the continual injustices perpetrated by their oppressive and evil government.
Jeppo,
I agree, it would be a tragedy if Mousavi was installed, and we/Obama were stupid enough to believe he is better for us.
Mousavi is a bad man, and his wife is the Jesse Jackson of the women's movement, meaning she pimp's women to gain power for herself individually, just like Jackson pimps black people to gain power for himself.
I detest Mousavi and his wife.
I have not heard anything about those two parties. Do you have any links?
The two new Euro parliamentary groups are the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) led by the British Conservatives, and the Europe for Freedom and Democracy (EFD) led by the UK Independence Party. Here's a breakdown of all the groups from Wikipedia.
Both groups are fiscally and socially conservative, at least by European standards, and are opposed to further centralization of the EU, specifically the Lisbon Treaty. The EFD is more opposed to immigration and Islamization than the ECR, but they're both much better on those issues than the other political groups.
A couple of solid conservative nationalist parties joined the EFD (The Danish Peoples Party and Italy's Lega Nord), but the real story is the parties that were excluded: The VB, BNP, Wilders' PVV, Front National, Austrian Freedom Party, Northern Ireland's DUP and a few Eastern European nationalists. Though these parties could conceivably form their own group (they have at least 25 MEPs from at least 7 member states, the minimum allowed), it's very unlikely that they'll do so. There's too much infighting between the Eastern Europeans to form a cohesive group.
I can understand why the UKIP excluded some of the nationalists like their rivals the BNP from their group, but I think they should have included the VB, PVV, DUP and the Austrian and Lithuanian nationalists. If they included these parties, then the Rightist groups (EPP, ECR, EFD) would outnumber the Leftist groups (Liberals, Socialists, Greens, Marxists) in parliament. As it is, the Leftists slightly outnumber the Right. So by excluding these parties the EFD is letting political correctness trump political power, a foolish choice IMO.
Jeppo
It seems to me they should not have excluded Wilders. It would seem that that was a bad move.
I believe Wilders caused himself a lot of bad blood by discussing the idea of rolling Belgium into the Netherlands.
But, what do I know? I haven't heard any discussion of that, other than what was here at IBA. However, it would seem to me that that would be perceived as a policy of imperialism.
I do understand that nation states are not the same in Europe as they are in here in our part of the world. Maybe no one over there cares much about such talk, or perhaps Wilders is regarded as such an outsider by the mainstream that they do not even address the things he says.
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think that Wilders calling for incorporating Flanders into the Netherlands even made a ripple over there. It's actually a fairly popular proposal on both sides of the border, and it's definitely not new. Wilders is an outsider because of his opposition to Islam, immigration and the EU, not because of his speculating about a Greater Netherlands. Though I guess his numerous enemies wouldn't like that either.
Post a Comment