seems like we got some radio silence here

"oficial numbers... even mousavi uses them..."
official? That makes them valid.

"and you say that less people are living in iran as expected?"
No.

"because 46,5 mil voters out of 70 mil doesn't sound unrealistic"
Its not because its possible that it is true. But it does sounds unrealistic for that country.

"that they already lied the last electione?"
Its very well possible. Do you have any reliable source whatsoever?

"btw they even had 1 mil more voters last time.."
Crazy isn't it? All in all it sounds very realistic.

"so those 46,5 mil might even be to low"
proof?

"same over here...you know in every coutry you need to meet some criterias to be allowed to be on the voting list.
like having a amount of supporters etc.  probatly in your country too.."
Idd. But the criteria are not based on your parties idees.

"your point probatly is that some candidates are not allowed to take part in the electione and canidates have to be approved by the ayatolla, not very democratic if you ask me, though thats not why the people are protesting."
But it is undemocratic and it IS cheating.

"and also that doesn't mean that the manipulated the votes."
but it means they cheated.

"agree to most, disagree to some.. but that has nothing to do with the claimed "proven" manipulatione of votes during the electiones."
Just to make clear that there are other things to call the ellections unfair and the country undemocratic. They do belong in this thread as well.

Equally important as the fact if they did cheat or not is that there is no decent control over it or a way to check if they cheated or not. I'm not saying any election if fool proof, but this one is the opposite.

Lets be honest and say no poll can be trusted whatsoever. Especially since a lot of them are over telephone lines which could be tapped by special agents or paramilitary organizations. For all they know they could have called themselves to check ones opinion. I was merely reacting to Theo on this one.

"they needed like 12 hours to count this votes."
Which is twice as fast as last time. But he was referring to some bureaus not to the time the last vote was counted obviously.

"and if 39,165,191 out of 46,5 milion voters vote that less as 100%..."
That is the problem when you take Wikipedia for a sole source. 46,5 million is by no way an accurate estimation of how many people are in fact able to vote. Can you tell me where the number comes from? (let me guess, Iranian official -and very unbiased- sources?).

"interesting is by reading our main media over here a lot of newspaper state that the electione was manipulated without giving any proof at all.."
My newspaper, and the national television which is a lot of the time biased never said clearly there is evidence of cheating. They only quoted people who did but also the ones who denied. So it seems like a large generalization for me.

"So...let's wait for his "proof". big_smile I'd be interested in seeing what he considers "proof"."
The fact that ayasmelly said it himself. He said that it was not enough to be influential but he admit there was a big amount of cheating. But if even he sais it before you guys, it shows a great level of biasedness on your sides.

In any case the leaders have to agree with your candidacy and denied over 1000 parties the right to compete. That is a fact they do not deny but it IS cheating.

"Educate yourself."
Then he is not the only one. But let us stick to the debate and not get personal now will we?

"In Iran, there's no such thing as a "registered voter" that is required to vote in a specific area. In Iran, you can vote wherever the hell you want. I could theoretically go from one end of the country to the other and vote there. Having over 100% voter turnout in discticts is very common."
But having more then 100% outcome in total is ridiculous.

"The Ayatollah put it best:"
Idd. the one time he admit there were to many votes himself.

"Even if there were cheating, you have to wonder, who had the motivation to cheat?"
You say that in the next sentence

"Ahmadinejad was projected to win in the polls by a large margin."
It was, in fact, the other way around... but either way your numbers come from the one and only television station in this world we can trust.

"He had no reason to cheat."
Except for the reason people do anything for: power.

"His opponents and the Americans however, did have reason to make it seem as if he were cheating in their efforts to gain power and destabilize the country respectfully."
The americans? I bet thats why BW and flint are not around now. They are busy starting riots in Iran. Yes its in the intrest of every american but this lies far beyond the power of the CIA or whatever organization. Please. It has been said for years now that the youth, and especially the students are turning more and more away from the current course Iran is taking.

You proof in any way this election was honest and fair. Appart from the media being biased and political oppresion and disappearing opponents. You proof their is any chance at all to check one way or another the results of this election.

and deny the fact that great ayasmelly admit it himself...

On a more serious note, scientists have researched the results of the Iranian election and discovered that, quote "tough we cannot exclude the fact that the elections have been fair and honest, the great amount of statistical anomalies are to huge not to be -at least-suspicious towards these elections" A whole lot of strange results have been found when calculating the results of this elections. Some of them are unseen in any election in a western nation up to the second world war. Predictions do fail a lot of times but the strange thing with these results is the great difference between the predictions and the -supposed to be real- outcome as well as the amount of times it occurred. The Benford law is one of the many were these elections do not fit.

I have a link but its in dutch. Anyway It makes the fact that the elections would have been honest again less likely, next to the fact the very own leaders admitted it.

Yes. Start a new thread, but beforehand make sure you understand the difference
between a /peaceful protest/ and a /riot/."
Generally I Don't simplify things like this when it is the very subject of the debate.

"I am biased too, something Little Paul doesn't seem to understand."
I said it in so many words. But it doesn't matter neither do I care.

"I think the Iranian government is a horrid excuse for an oppressive rulership."
and you are right. Maybe because you are biased but thats a personal argument that doesn't interest me at all. you are right and there is proof enough, facts.

"Thats not going to stop me looking at this situation in a non-biased (or at least to the
degree most possible) way."
The funny thing is, you are in the majority of the threads making arguments based on the fact that I would be biased instead of talking about the case itself. That proofs you are biased but you have no way of telling the same about me. Its an asumption based on the sole fact I despise the regime wich does not make me biased.

"I just hope the Iranian government is toppled with the minimum number of casualties possible."
We all hope this with you. And I hope they do stop shooting and picking people up but I'm afraid the opposite will happen. We will see.

All in all it seems like the majority of your posts are about me, not about the case, so, with no offense, I think I wait a while before opening a new one.

@spartac:
I'm pool.

the cheating btw has been proven by now. Its a matter of how big they were cheated. But about the support;

can you reply to the arguments now before you state its clueless again? (and answer to the arguments of twisted and BG as well)

1.) They are not that mobile.
2.) Some of them are/will be shot
You said: "How is that relevant? I know if my fellow Australians would riot here i would assume (and expect) them to be punished too. Iran isn't the most well-equipped country, and the force trying to police the streets wouldn't
exactly be a bunch of 'nice guys'."
No, they don't shoot people here. They use water cannons and things like that.

3.) Some of them are/will be tortured
4.) They have little perspective on a favorable outcome
5.) A lot of leaders amongst the protesters have been captured

you said: "Tough anti-rioting laws and procedures doesn't indicate any wrong doing."
The laws themselves are wrong to start with. But I wasn't talking about cheating as you know by now.

you said: "In fact, if the elections WERE fair and correct, then the country would be democratic. You are using the label 'dictatorship' based on the assumption that the elections were rigged."
No, I'm using the label dictatorship ever since I first posted about Iran on this forum.

you said: "I never said that foreign influences WERE fueling the riots. I'm saying they could."
assumptions then.

you said: "I'm NOT assuming thats what is happening. I doubt it is. But Iran has the right to defend itself against such attacks and its obviously something they don't want to occur. Necessary precautions do NOT indicate any
wrong doing by the Iranian government."
Unless those so called necessary precautions are the crime themselves. In which case the precautions themselves are reason for riots as well. Even under the false premise that evil foreign troops are hijacking the poor and fooled Iranians who can't help it how stupid they are.

"They could well be trying to keep the peace..."
by oppressing there people. That is the solid base for any dictatorship.

you said: "Ah, so you are admitting your completely obvious bias opinion is constructed due to you WANTING the Iranian population to riot and overrun the government. Makes sense."
No, I'm only admitting I want it to continue tough they played it smarter then I originally thought. I gave it a chance to be the final revolt but I did not predict it. I only said there was a chance. I quote myself: Today might be the day but if not its only a matter of time. The "might's" and "maybe's" in the sentences are very important.

"Again, this has nothing to do with cheating."
I never said that was proof of cheating. In fact I only handled cheating in the first 2 sentences and you did not read/commend to the others arguments as I said would be useful as you seem to respond to nothing:
"Winning does _NOT_ automatically mean that someone cheating. Thats foolish logic." Wich I find in neither of their explanations.

So I could re post half of my previous thread but that would be silly if you could simply answer to the points as well.

lol@zarf