AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/followup-on-earlier-posts.html



(Link to source in the original article, but it appears to be in Arabic....)

Why would it be in Arabic? Shouldn't it be in Farsi?

Why don't you take a look, and tell us.

Well, in fact, i did, and it looks like Farsi to me. But i'm no expert. In the late 1960s, my father studied Persian (as it was still then known), or Farsi, if you prefer. But more than 40 years is a long time ago, and pretty flimsy on which to base any claim. My aunt, his sister, was a linguist for the government, and although not officially expert as far as the government was concerned, she spoke and read Farsi and Urdu, and spent several years in Kabul in the early 1960s when the U.S. Government was giving the King of Afghanistan his own national airline to play with. So i have been exposed to it.

But i wasn't going to come back here to post that, until you asked. Because there are any number of wise asses around here who seem to have nothing better to do than to argue with people who have not addressed their remarks to them. Since i count you among that group, but given that i had addressed my remark to you, i was avoiding a basis for controversy, and i thought i'd ask you, rather than to appear to pick a fight, and so as not to give anyone an opportunity to say i'm a "know it all."

Actually, I meant that Arabic script is used; the Arabic alphabet is used for Persian (Farsi) as well as for Arabic and a number of other languages, just as our Latin-based alphabet is used for more than just English.

Oh, the irony.

That's not strictly true. The Persian language uses a variant of the Arabic script, but it's close enough. The long, vertical diacritical marks are a feature of "arabicized" Farsi.

I was sure you'd enjoy that. The fact remains, though, that i have had many experiences of you showing up in a thread in which you had not previously been involved for what appeared to be the express purpose of arguing with me. Don't be surprised if it happens to you from time to time.

I do like to discuss things, and I suppose we both spend a lot of time at this site, but trust me when I say that I treat you no differently from anyone else on this site.

PS: Do you need a bigger hat?

No, but i'm sure no one here would be more readily prepared to provide a very, very large hat. In fact, i don't wear hats, and haven't since i was discharged from the army.

And there have been too many incidents in which your only appearance in a thread was to argue with me for your claim to convince me.

Remind me to discuss "selection bias" with you sometime.

I am familiar with that, and the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances--and that is why i have couched my remark in terms of appearance, rather than actually stating it as a undeniable case.



Allow me to add that i have been further convinced by the fact that on a few recent occasions, not only had you not previously participated in the thread, but you did not subsequently participate in the thread either.

It will probably come as a shock to you, but most people are forced to make judgments all the time without having a reliable statistical base. In the circumstances, that has lead to my judgment that you often appear in these fora in the role of a turd-stirrer, and not necessarily solely in an attempt to embarrass me personally.

There you go, thinking you're special again.

As enjoyable as this has been, I'm finding this conversation tedious. I'll jump in again if anything interests me.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass. In fact, i was making the point that i'm not necessarily your victim of choice, that i see you doing it to a lot of other people, too. Hence, my low opinion of you.

'I Erred'
An Iran apologist's shocking confession.
By JAMES TARANTO

We have some good news, some wonderful news and some bad news.
The good news is that Roger Cohen of the New York Times now admits he was wrong about Iran:



The wonderful news is that this epiphany did not require a nuclear holocaust to bring about, only an apparently stolen presidential election. On Friday the Iranian regime quickly declared incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the 2-to-1 winner in an election that many observers had expected--or hoped--would go the other way, or at least be close.

Juan Cole, who like Cohen is seldom accused of being insufficiently sympathetic to rogue anti-American regimes, argues that the numbers aren't credible. Official election results show Ahmadinejad crushing the opposition by similar margins throughout the country, even in the opposition candidates' hometowns. It's as if George W. Bush had defeated Al Gore in Washington, D.C.

The bad news that Iran is still ruled by a vicious, lunatic regime that not only abuses its own people but threatens Israel with annihilation and the entire region with a nuclear arms race. This is very bad, though it's news only to regime apologists like Cohen--and, as we noted Friday, it would have been true even had challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi prevailed in the vote. A Mousavi victory, however, would have made the nature of the regime easier to deny. Clarity is the one unquestionable benefit of the outcome.

Postelection unrest in Iran has led many to hope for a popular revolution against the Iranian regime. (For updates on the unrest, we recommend the persiankiwi Twitter feed http://twitter.com/persiankiwiand Michael Totten's blog http://www.michaeltotten.com/ .) We share this hope, but hope is not a strategy. It is possible that the regime will succeed in crushing the opposition, and the world will still have to deal with a regime that holds all civilized norms in contempt.

When Hezbollah and its allies lost the Lebanese election a week earlier, reporters and other supporters of President Obama rushed to declare it a vindication of the president's get-soft approach to the "Muslim world." The Iranian result would seem to be as good a counterexample as Lebanon was an example, a point the New York Times implicitly makes by borrowing Obama campaign catchwords for its Sunday Iran headline: "Reverberations as Door Slams on Hope of Change."

A Times story today quotes Ahmadinejad to the effect that in his second term, it'll be no more Mr. Nice Guy:



Writing in Salon Saturday, Cole gamely tried to find a silver lining for the Obama policy:



This seems at least plausible. What if it's true? In an odd way, Obama's approach could turn out to be a diplomatic victory if, by prompting the regime to show its true colors, it makes it easier for other countries to take action (or harder to justify inaction) against Tehran's nuclear proliferation and support for terrorism.

Still, Obama's policy must be judged a failure on its own terms. The notion that Iran's rulers could be coaxed into behaving reasonably has been disproved by the events of the past few days. The question is whether the administration will stubbornly cling to its assumptions or have the flexibility to change its strategy in the face of new information.

As for Cohen, his epiphany, like Iran's "democracy," is incomplete. In the same column, he writes:



To put it more bluntly, let's stab the Iranian people in the back, but let's wait a while so that we don't look totally craven in doing so. For our part, we nervously hope the Obama administration will show itself to be more hardheaded.

Under the heading of "considering the source," Finn seems to have forgotten to attribute that article. It comes from the online version of the Wall Street Journal. You can visit the original by clicking here. I'm sure it was just an oversight on Finn's part not to have linked his source.

It had to happen...

Gunmen Fire on Tehran Crowds
By ROSHANAK TAGHAVI


TEHRAN -- Gunfire rang out Monday evening as hundreds of thousands of protesters ended a mostly peaceful demonstration in a central Tehran square, called to protest the weekend re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The rally and violence came after Iran's supreme leader ordered a probe into allegations of voter irregularities, a dramatic reversal from his previous, strong backing of the results.

Demonstrators, many wearing the green of defeated challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign, defied a ban on the gathering and streamed into Azadi Square. After two days and nights of violent confrontation between the security services and protesters, Iranian riot police stood by placidly during Monday's demonstration. They held their shields at their side, and watched the protests without interfering.

But distant gunfire broke out at one point near the demonstration, and smoke rose from a building outside the square. As nightfall descended, state media reported unidentified gunmen -- who weren't wearing uniforms -- fired into a crowd, but it wasn't clear if the gunfire occurred inside the square.

The Associated Press reported that one of its photographers saw one person shot and killed and several others who appeared to be seriously wounded. The gunfire came from a compound of volunteer militia linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, the AP reported.

A group of demonstrators with fuel canisters attempted to set fire to the compound as the crowd in the square dispersed.

As some attempted to storm the building, people inside could be seen firing directly at the demonstrators at the northern edge of the square, away from the heart of the demonstration, the AP reported.

The violence ended a day of mostly peaceful protests. During the hours-long demonstration, the crowd at times chanted slogans, raising their voices as helicopters swooped overhead. But protesters also appeared eager to avoid confrontation, and hushed down inflammatory slogans, urging the crowd to instead raise their hands in a V-sign for peace.

One 73-year-old shopkeeper from Tehran's bazaar said he walked more than six miles to the demonstration.

"I have only ever voted twice, once at the beginning of the revolution … and once for Mousavi," he said. "Today was wonderful. Tomorrow will be even better," he said.

Mr. Mousavi finished a distant second in Friday's race but has alleged massive vote rigging. Mr. Ahmadinejad has said the vote was free and fair.

Mr. Mousavi made brief remarks at the edge of the gathering on Monday, saying he would welcome a new vote. After he spoke, crowds chanted, "Mousavi, Karroubi, Unity," referring to Mr. Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, a reformist cleric who also lost in the election.

Earlier Monday, state media quoted Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as appealing to opposition leaders for calm, and ordering a probe into allegation of voting irregularities during the weekend election.

Statements blanketing state media Monday reported Mr. Khamenei met with Mr. Mousavi late Sunday and urged him to pursue alleged voting irregularities through legal means.

"Definitely, in this election, complaints should be followed through legal channels," Mr. Khamenei was quoted as saying after his meeting with Mr. Mousavi.

State media also said Mr. Khamenei asked the Guardian Council, the country's top supervisory board of senior clerics, to review Mr. Mousavi's allegations.

The 12-member council of clerics and scholars is required to approve the election, and technically has the power to nullify them, though it has never done that before. It's unclear how deeply the council would investigate the election, or what action it could take if it found irregularities.

But it appeared to represent a significant softening by Mr. Khamenei, who has final say on all matters of state. The supreme leader endorsed Mr. Ahmadinejad's landslide victory over the weekend, saying it was a "divine assessment."

Since late Friday, when preliminary results first showed Mr. Ahmadinejad far ahead of his challengers, the regime appeared to back Mr. Ahmadinejad's victory with the full force of Iran's state media and security apparatus. State media trumpeted the apparent victory, hours before official results were announced.

Police and Iran's Basij militia have deployed in force, beating back crowds with baton and chains.

Amid growing protests in Tehran and across Iran since, Mr. Mousavi appears to have gained scope to pursue his grievances. Though he had said Sunday he was under house arrest, authorities allowed him to travel to visit Mr. Khamenei and to the demonstration Monday.

Meanwhile, Washington appeared to harden its stance on the election. On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said the U.S. needed more time to evaluate the results. On Monday, a State Department spokesman said the U.S. was "deeply troubled" by the violence.

"Along with the rest of the international community, the U.S. is cautiously watching the events unfolding in Iran," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters. "We are deeply troubled by the reports of violent arrests and possible voting irregularities."

Most of Monday afternoon, the demonstration -- roughly a four-hour march from one Tehran square to another -- was largely peaceful.

Demonstrators along the route held up placards saying "Where is my vote?" and "I wrote Mousavi, they read Ahmadinejad."

"I came because I want to make sure Iran is not viewed as a terrorist state and is run by a respected politician," said Sassan Behzadi, a 47-year-old computer engineer from northern Tehran. "I knew that if I came I could make a difference."

A 23-year-old Ahmadinejad supporter near the gathering said she was sympathetic to the young Mousavi supporters but said they should stop protesting to prevent more violence.

"The government has chosen Ahmadinejad," she said. "There is no use fighting it and getting young people killed."

A 42-year-old bus driver from southern Tehran said he came to watch, even though he voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

"When someone gets 24 million votes, you can't change it," he said, referring to official results from the race. "You must respect it. It's not possible that he cheated."

My understanding is that the battle now is between the protesters and the Baseej, and that the building they set on fire was a Baseej headquarters.

The revolution is not being televised... but it is green.

I'm sure you are right about the Baseej.

Classic tactic of the modern dictator:

Use organized paramilitary thugs to mount attacks on protesters.

Since they don't wear uniforms, they can't be directly linked to the regime, and, in fact, the regime can assert they are simply outraged patriotic citizens who refuse to allow US supported subversives to roll back the Revolution.

What's really interesting though is your understanding that Baseej headquarters has been put to the torch. Still very limited facts, but this could mean that the protesters are taking the fight to the Baseej which might suggest organization more extensive than would be expected from a spontaneous expression of anger over a rigged election.

That's probably more that we can hope for, but it's possible the new Revolution is underway. If so, it's still hard to believe that Mousavi is Iran's Thomas Jefferson or Che Guevera (take your pick), but who knows how much he may have changed in the last 20 years.

More likely (more's the pity) the protesters are a very loosely organized group of students, women's right activists, and moderate intellectuals who will be crushed under the regime's boot whether the Baseej can handle the job on their own or the Revolutionary Guard eventually needs to step in.

Someone call?