> tavius wrote:

> Death to the religious fascists.>

aye!

Don't troll calling me a troll, Morbo the Annihilator. It's just not classy.

You make it sound as if the Iranian government is some awful power-hungry people-killing
menace that only wants to further its own monopoly on Iran. You also make it seem like
EVERYONE in the country hates the government and wants to remove it.

Either that or you are making it seem that the MAJORITY of Iranians want to remove the
government.

The evidence you have given supports none of these arguments. True as they may be, you
are biased and evidence-less.

  They're not violently rioting. Most of the violence is coming from the Besij who are beating people near death in the middle of the streets. Look at all the videos on youtube, the countless pics posted on flickr and elsewhere around the net. You want a centralized section to look at all that stuff? iran.whyweprotest.net  has entire sections devoted to videos and pics. From the eye witness reports trickling through the internet block in Iran, it seems more and more like this is not just a protest about some shady voting irregularities. This may be a full on revolution. They're already calling for national strikes. There are now reports coming out that the Guardian Council acknowledges that there were 3 million votes more than there are eligible voters. I don't think anyone can really deny that something big is happening in Iran right now.

"You make it sound as if the Iranian government is some awful power-hungry people-killing
menace that only wants to further its own monopoly on Iran."
How else would you describe it? Even the worst gov does something good for its people sometimes but it still a harsh dictatorship holding back its own country.

"you also make it seem like EVERYONE in the country hates the government and wants to remove it."
No.

"Either that or you are making it seem that the MAJORITY of Iranians want to remove the
government."
Idd. And if not, the majority of people who really have a strong opinion about it and it won't be far off.

"The evidence you have given supports none of these arguments. True as they may be, you
are biased and evidence-less."
So, first you do not answer to my points, I explain them, you still don't answer and then you say biased?

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.

> the cheating btw has been proven by now.

No it hasn't...

> 1.) They are not that mobile.

They aren't mobile enough to walk out onto a street?

> 2.) Some of them are/will be shot

Yes. That is a deterrent to riot. I wish that same deterrent was here in
Australia.

But like i said in a previous post a minority protesting under the threat of torture does NOT automatically
make that minority a majority.

> No, they don't shoot people here. They use water cannons and things like that.

They should shoot people. The officers attempting to break up the Cronulla riots should
have been ordered to remove their firearms and to shoot anyone who disobeys the law
and/or upsets the order of peace.

They forfeited the rights of innocent Australians in order to allow a bunch of useless hooligans
the right to DESTROY Australian lives and values.

> 3.) Some of them are/will be tortured

Like i said in a previous post a minority protesting under the threat of torture does NOT automatically
make that minority a majority.

> 4.) They have little perspective on a favorable outcome

Read the above point.

> 5.) A lot of leaders amongst the protesters have been captured

Read the above two points.

> No, I'm using the label dictatorship ever since I first posted about Iran on this forum.

Biased.

> assumptions then.

Yes, assumptions. But its a valid assumption the IRANIAN GOVERNMENT is making . Not me.

> Unless those so called necessary precautions are the crime themselves.

How are they?

> by oppressing there people. That is the solid base for any dictatorship.

So by wanting a peaceful neighbourhood and attempting to assure the freedom and safety of
ALL people, the government is oppressive? OF course it is. But any government would be trying to
do the same.

> Seems like you are biased as well then.

How am i biased?

"when someone does everything they can to hide something, they usually have something to hide."

duly noted

> You can't be serious. But if you are, we should start a new thread over this

Yes. Start a new thread, but beforehand make sure you understand the difference
between a /peaceful protest/ and a /riot/.

> I must confess I am biased. I have a personal belief that when someone does
> everything they can to hide something, they usually have something to hide.

I am biased too, something Little Paul doesn't seem to understand. I think the Iranian
government is a horrid excuse for an oppressive rulership.

Thats not going to stop me looking at this situation in a non-biased (or at least to the
degree most possible) way.

Look, this is simple:

Little Paul you are biased. You have no proof, and make allegations that could be made
against any country in the same position. Its not helping at all.

The arguments used against the Iranian government are either non-factual (E.g. counting
errors without proof), or are blatantly one-sided (E.g. removing people from other countries,
refusing people to riot).

I just hope the Iranian government is toppled with the minimum number of casualties possible.

>> (E.g. counting errors without proof)<<

You just ignore the facts that squash your claims. Why would we bother?

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.

That's what she said!