Imperialism And Resistance

Former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, speaking from on board the SPIRIT, stated, “I am extremely angry. We demand that the Israeli government call off their attack dogs. We are unarmed civilians aboard an unarmed boat delivering medical and reconstruction aid to other human beings in Gaza. Why in God’s name would Israel want to attack us and threaten our safety and welfare. I call on President Obama and the international community to intervene now to prevent this situation from escalating with potentially drastic results to the civilians on board.”

click here for more information

Via Eva Golinger’s blog

Opposition forces in Honduras, led by a US-funded NGO Grupo Paz y Democracia, have stated via CNN that a coup has not ocurred, but rather a “transition” to democracy. Martha Diaz, coordinator of the NGO, which receives USAID funding, has just declared minutes ago on CNN that “civil society” does not support President Zelaya nor his “illegal quest” to hold a non-binding referendum on a potential future constitutional reform. She justified his kidnapping, beating and removal from power as a “democratic transition”. Again, this is eerily reminiscent of the coup d’etat in Venezuela in April 2002, when so-called “civil society” along with dissident military forces kidnapped President Chávez and installed a “transition government”. The goups involved also received funding from the U.S. government, primarily via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and later from USAID as well.

Via Venezuelanalysis

The president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez Frias, manifested his rejection, this Sunday, of the kidnapping of the president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, by that nation’s military, and said that North American imperialism and the extreme right are behind this act.

“It’s a brutal coup d’etat, one of many that happened over 10 years in Latin America. Behind these soldiers are the Honduran bourgeois, the rich who converted Honduras into a Banana Republic, into a political and military base for North American imperialism,” said the Venezuelan head of state.

In telephone contact with the television channel Telesur, President Chavez urged the North American president [Barack Obama] to declare his opinion on the subject and said he considers the abuse against Honduras as being against all the peoples of Latin America.

Chavez said that from different mechanisms of regional integration, the Latin American people have started to mobilize, and he indicated that this coup will be defeated in order to return dignity to [Honduras].

“We say to the coup plotters, we are standing up. Honduras is not alone,” Chavez said.

He also urged the Honduran soldiers who “acted in a cowardly way” to retake the constitutional thread and return the legally and democratically elected President [Zelaya] to his duties.

“Soldier, empty out your riffle against the oligarchy and not against the people,” he said, adding, “These solders are going to know what the people are when the people start to go out into the streets.”

see also Iran Post-Election Debate from PressTV, Ali Ansari vs. Kaveh Afrasiabi vs. Mohammad Marandi

by Zainabia of Shia Chat:

iran_election_tajziya (pdf Urdu version)

Different elements raised DOUBTS about the recent Elections of Iran (2009). Let us analyze them one by one.

Objection 1: How it is possible that some Areas got more than 100% Votes?

This is “The Biggest” proof which is presented in order to blame these elections to be rigged.

Iranian Government confirmed it and then made it clear the reasons why some areas could have more votes than 100%. Unfortunately Western Media all together neglected this clarification and put false words in Iranian Government’s mouth that it accepts the rigging of 3 million votes. This is absolutely a lie and disinformation by Western Media. Iranian Government never said that it is Rigging, but it gave the valid Facts and Reasons for this phenomenon.

Let us leave these Satanic Propaganda tactics of West, and let us concentrate on the reality. Following are the Valid Facts why some areas could have more turnout than 100% Voters:

1. Even according to Western Media, the total turnout in these elections was 85% countrywide.

2. Iranian Presidential Elections are not held on “Area” bases.
Any voter could vote any where in the country, and it is not obligatory for him to go back to his “Registered Town” in order to cast the vote.

3. There were two reasons of presence of over 100% Voters in few Areas. Firstly due to Summer, and secondly due to week-end many people (/Tourists) went to resorts which are mainly situated near Caspian See (and these were mostly the areas where turnout was more than 100%)

4. Please also note that in some of these Areas (with more than 100% turnout), Mr. Mussavi got the majority votes.

5. Please also note that parts of Population from “Undeveloped Areas” migrate to “Developed Areas” for jobs and earnings. So, although they stay in Areas where they do their jobs but they are not registered there but in their home towns.
Therefore, let us use two terms (1st) Local Population, which is registered in that respective town (2nd) Non-Local Population, which is not registered in that respective town.

6. What does 85% turnout means? It is an “Average” of total votes casted countrywide.
It means that in some Areas “Local Population” casted 60-70% Votes (less than 85%), while in other Areas “local Population” casted 90-95% votes (more than 85%)
Now let us consider those Areas where “Local Population” casted 90-95% votes. Now add in it the numbers of “Tourists” and “Non-Local Population” which stay there for jobs and earnings. This simply shows there is nothing to wonder if turnout was more than 100% in some Areas.

7. You remember that at the end of election time, there was a lack of Ballot Papers at some places. It means numbers of voters came to cast their votes on that day was almost equal or more than the registered voters in that area. Voting times had to be extended 4 times in some areas.

8. In Elections of 2005, the turn out was only 59.6%. Even then in Areas of “Zorgan” and “Morv” turn out was more than 100% in last elections.

9. Iranian Government offered the other Candidates for recount of 10% Ballot boxes. It means there could be recounting in all these 50 alleged areas where claims are being made of rigging due to the fact of more than 100% voting.

10. Even much more to this that first time in last 30 years Iranian Government issued the complete list of number of vote per box after which opponents are left with no lame excuse for going for Road Politics. [Link].

Objection 2: It is impossible for Ahmadi Nejad to get 24.5 Million Votes

This propaganda is done by some of “Western Professors”. They claim themselves to be experts of examining election results on bases of scientific methods. One such professor is Dr.Walter R. Mebane who prepared the following data on bases of his Scientific Voting Techniques and claimed that it is impossible for Ahmadi Nejad to get 24.5 Million Votes.

With respect to Dr. Walter and other Western Professors, let us bring down the things from “Mathematical Equations” to “Real Ground Realities”. And this ground Reality says there is absolutely no problem in Ahmadi Nejad’s getting 24.5 million votes.

The best way of getting answer to this question is to look at the results of Elections of 2005. Following Table is taken from wikipedia.

The present Elections of Iran resembles very much to the 2nd Round Eelctions of 2005 while right from first day it was clear that real competition was only between Ahmadi Nejad and Mussovi. From 2nd round elections of 2005, it becomes clear that:

1. Ahmadi Nejad got 17.3 million Votes in last elections [While Mussave has got only 13.3 million votes in present elections]. Here you could see for yourself who could be the possible winner.

Note: Last elections of 2005 were conducted under the reformist government of Khatami and Ahmadi Nejad got no power to do any type of rigging, but still he got 17.3 million votes.

2. The turn out in last elections was only 59.6%. But despit this low turn out Ahmadi Nejad got 17.3 million votes. In present Elections, the turn out is huge 85%. This means that it is 25.4% more turn out in present elections.

Therefore, if we add 25.4% to 17.3 million votes of Ahmadi Nejad, then it gives us the figure of 24.6 million votes (and this is the same number approx. which Ahmadi Nejad got on the field in present elections)

3. People of Iran knew Ahmadi Nejad & his Policies much better in these elections as compared to last elections. Now question is how does it effect the votes? In order to get answer to this, let us once again look at the last elections of 2005.

In first round elections of 2005, people knew very less of Ahmadi Nejad and his Politices. So in first round he got only 19.4% Votes (i.e. 5.7 million votes only). But till 2nd round things changed and People knew Ahmadi Nejad and his Policies better and therefore we saw a huge jump in his support and it raised to 61.7% votes in comparison to 19.4% (i.e. 17.3 million votes as compared to 5.7 million votes).

4. So, situation is this that after 4 years of government of Ahmadi Nejad, people saw how much Ahmadi Nejad did for the poor people of Iran and how his policies directly benefited them. We are not going in details of his work in this area, but simply due to policies of Ahmadi Nejad and his simple way of living, he got not only votes from religious people, but also from the poor classes of Iranian people.

So, there is nothing to doubt if Ahmadi Nejad got 24.5 million votes in present elections.

Objection 3: Pre-Election Surveys showed that Ahmadi Nejad was not leading the race

This objection is not true. Even the foreign neutral pre-election surveys showed that Ahmadi Nejad was leading the race with 2 to 1. Let us quote briefly from Washington Post, which writes:

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.

You could read whole article where they are presenting their DATA based on scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces (i.e. not only Tehran). It should be an eye-opener to those who still blame these elections to be rigged and for fraud.

Objection 4: Mr. Mussavi submitted a List of Pre-Election complaints

This is a funny objection.

A counter question to Mr. Mussavi: “Why didn’t he object upon these pre-election irregularities before Elections? Instead of objecting and presenting these complaints before elections, he actually claimed victory only after one hour of closure of voting. And afterwards within few hours (even before ending of official counting and results) he directly called his followers to “Stage Resistance”.

Upon complaint of Mr. Mussavi, the Iranian Guardian Council Authorities launched the investigations and after complete investigations they say:

“After 10 days of examination, we did not see any major irregularities,” Guardians Council spokesman Abbasali Kadkhodai told the state IRNA news agency, rejecting opposition allegations that have brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets. “We have had no fraud in any presidential election and this one was the cleanest election we have had. I can say with certainty that there was no fraud in this election.”

Fact is depites so much crying from Mr. Mussavi & Western Media, they are still unable to bring even a single reliable proof of any type of Rigging.

Actually, they themselves know it very well that Ahmadi Nejad has won with such huge difference that there is absolutely no DOUBTS in his victory. Please also note that:

* Mr. Mousavi got almost minimum of 2 representative at more than 95 percent of all the centers.
* At each center, 14 observers including the candidate’s observers oversaw the entire process, including inspection of empty boxes at the outset and their sealing at the end, with four locks, and then all signed a certificate of proper election, i.e., Mousavi’s own men have certified the clean process.

Objection 5: Elections were fraud while Results were started to be announced after only few hours

Please note that the official final results were announced at 4 pm the next day, 16 hours after the closure of voting. Nevertheless, it was true that results started coming just few hours after the closing of voting. But does it really constitute a proof of Rigging?

There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box. Why would it take more than an two to three hours to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.

Objection 6: Ballots ran out at some places and not every one got the chance to vote

This is again misleading objection.

There was huge turn out and it’s “Average” was 85%. This means in some areas there were 70-80% votes (less than 85%) and in some areas 90-95% Votes from Local Population. And while Non-Local Population was also allowed to vote anywhere in any polling center, therefore at some centers turn out was over 100%. This is the main reason of running out of ballots. So, the educated West could now please tell us how it constitute Rigging? It may be termed as not sufficient measures for preparation of elections, but certainly not as Rigging.

Secondly, even if all the people who did not vote, had actually voted for Mousavi (a virtual impossibility), that would be 6.93 million additional votes, much less than the 11 million vote difference between the top two candidates.

Objection 7: How Ahmadi Nejad did well in Sunni Areas?

It is a misconception that there are any kind of Shia/Sunni problems in Iran. It is only Saudi backed Wahabi Media which normally propagate such disinformation. There is only minor problems along border of Pakistan, while in remaining whole Iran Ahle-Sunnah have very brotherly ties with their Shia brethern.

Let me quote once again from the poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. (This is same report of Survey which has been mentioned above by Wahsington Post and which predicted 89% voters turnout in recent elections and 2:1 lead for Ahamadi Nejad). On Issue of Shia/Sunni in Iran, it’s survey says [LINK]:

Iranian Shiite Muslims Think Favorably of Sunni Muslims,
Christians, Americans and others

… For Iranian citizens of the Islamic Republic, 87 percent of who in our survey
identified themselves as Shiite, views of both Sunni Muslims and Christians were
overwhelmingly favorable—with only 8 percent voicing an unfavorable view of
Sunnis and 11 percent of Christians. (Opinions on Jews were divided, though
more are favorable than unfavorable.)

Indeed, Iranian views of Sunnis and Christians, as well as non-Iranians generally,
are quite accepting—more so than the corresponding views of their neighbors,
such as in Saudi Arabia, according to our TFT survey there.

Iranians clearly distinguish between countries and policies they do not like (US
and Israel), and people they do like (Christians, Americans, Arabs, Sunni
Muslims and Jews). Iranians are favorable to Christians by a 6:1 margin, Sunni
Muslims by a 9:1 margin, Americans by a 2:1 margin and Jews by a 5:4 margin.
In fact, Iranians are as favorable to Americans as they are to their Arab
neighbors. The high favorability of Sunni Muslims among Iranians (higher than
for Arabs generally) demonstrates that Shiite/Sunni issues are not the primary
force driving a wedge between Iranians and their Arab neighbors.

Objection 8: About Azeri Province and Tehran

Rigging is also claimed while Ahmadi Nejad got more Azeri Votes than Mussavi. This is not strange while Irani-Azeries is a very religious soceity and religion plays more role here than race. Secondly Ahmadi Nejad lived in this province for several years, worked hard, got good relations with Top people there and could also speak the Turkish-Azeri language without any problem. And he ran a very good election compaign here. Contrar to Ahmadi Nejad, his rival Mr. Mussavi has not been to these areas for a long long time and ran his election compaign poorly.

Another fantasy theory is how Ahmadi Nejad got more votes than Mr. Mussavi in Tehran. It is not complete truth. Mr. Mussave actually won the elections in main Tehran City. But there are poor neighbourhoods around Tehran and here Ahmadi Nejad got huge majority of votes.

Conclusion

There is not a single “Hard Proof” of any rigging in elections. All the proofs that have been presented, they are based only and only upon “Conjecture Theories”. Opponents & Western Media trying it’s best to encourage the unrests and Civil War in Iran by doing a lot of biased coverage and neglecting the realities. They want Iranian poeple to solve their differences on the roads instead of sitting down on the Table and look at things rationally on bases of ground realities.

An interesting article by Kam Zarrabi titled Iran; Whose Country Is It, Anyway – worth a read.

Our well paid, tenured academics, the pretend-Trotskyites and liberated women’s rights advocates who are speaking out from the sanctuaries of the halls of academe choose to downplay or disregard out of hand the desires and demands of the masses that are unfamiliar with Trotsky, Mandela, Gandhi or Martin Luther King, or even know anything about Nabokov and his Lolita. Here I am talking about the masses who always form the front lines of defense in case the nation is threatened by invasion. I am talking about the ones whose young sons would run over mine fields to pave the way for their brothers to confront the enemy.

A few photographs from the Friday, June 19th, 2009 Friday prayers led by Ayatullah Khamenei — why has the “western” neo-con-liberal-left anti-Iran alliance refused to even consider, or show the “other side” — i.e. the vast majority of Iran’s people? In their zeal to prove that the election was a fraud, and sometime not so covert Islamophobia, they have conjured up a fantasy image of Iran. See also video of an aerial view of the massive crowd at the prayers.

While the neo-con-liberal-left alliance engages in all kinds of fantastical tweeter based speculation about Iran; many Muslims, especially Shi’a Muslims, around the world have strong links with the Islamic Republic, and are very much engaged with all the different groups within the country. People such as Allama Ali Murtaza Zaidi not only travel regularly to Iran, but have lived, and studied in the country for years and years. Unfortunately, we see most of the “western” liberal-left succumbing to the most ludicrous nonsense that the anti-Islamic Revolution (so-called) “leftists” are feeding them — and they dismiss other views with hostility. The talk below is in Urdu, but I expect similar lectures to begin appearing in English over the next couple of weeks.

by Sayyed Ali Murtaza Zaidi

The Venezuelan news report (video below – espanol) points out not only the victory of President Ahmadinejad, but also correctly discusses the class character of the vote, and the subsequent riots. The report also talks about the the psyop “color revolution” that is being promoted by the US regime affiliated “think tanks” under the guise of “democracy promotion” etc. See also Eva Golinger’s artice La “Revolución” Verde: El Guión se ha activado de nuevo: está vez en Irán.

“We call on the world to respect Iran because there are attempts to undermine the strength of the Iranian revolution,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in his weekly radio and television address on Sunday.

“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s triumph was a triumph all the way. They are trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they will not succeed,” Chavez said.

It should also be noted that President Ahmadinejad was strongly criticized by his opponents for building strong ties with the Latin – American pinkish red governments because, according to them, these countries were “far away.” This kind of thinking, of-course, was music to the ears of the imperialists, who have been irritated with Iran’s strong relationship over the past four years with Venezuela, and expanding relations with other countries in the region. Over the next few years, it would be important for the Ahmadinejad administration to not only continue building stronger ties, but to also begin student exchange programs, where younger Iranian Islamic revolutionaries can meet Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela, and vice versa. This would be a far more productive form of people-people social/cultural exchange, than one involving US/Europe, and would aid in strengthening south-south solidarity.