Iran Elections

[breadandcheese]

El Empty, I'm missing something from your viewpoint. The Ayatollah and the ruling regime are effectively faced with two options to solve this Iranian crisis (which it must be remembered is an internal issue and not an international issue).

The first is to have a re-election to calm the situation down and stop the unrest. If the previous election was fair and Ahmadinejad was a clear undisputed winner, then he would surely win again. The election could be monitored by the UN, to ensure fairness and ensure that the winner had the full support of the country. This would stop the unrest at a stroke and give legitimacy to a new president and the ruling regime.

The second option is to have a crackdown, resulting in more unrest and more deaths. Any unrest for the ruling regime is obviously potentially unstable as it is a threat to their power and legitimacy. There is long-term damage to the credibility of the Ayatollahs in the eyes of a large section of the Iranian people, with a stoking of any Iranian splinter groups.

In light of this, why would the Ayatollahs choose option 2, when option 1 is the obvious best outcome to the stability of their regime and Iran as a whole?

[Guest Bilo]

El Empty, I'm missing something from your viewpoint. The Ayatollah and the ruling regime are effectively faced with two options to solve this Iranian crisis (which it must be remembered is an internal issue and not an international issue).

The first is to have a re-election to calm the situation down and stop the unrest. If the previous election was fair and Ahmadinejad was a clear undisputed winner, then he would surely win again. The election could be monitored by the UN, to ensure fairness and ensure that the winner had the full support of the country. This would stop the unrest at a stroke and give legitimacy to a new president and the ruling regime.

The second option is to have a crackdown, resulting in more unrest and more deaths. Any unrest for the ruling regime is obviously potentially unstable as it is a threat to their power and legitimacy. There is long-term damage to the credibility of the Ayatollahs in the eyes of a large section of the Iranian people, with a stoking of any Iranian splinter groups.

In light of this, why would the Ayatollahs choose option 2, when option 1 is the obvious best outcome to the stability of their regime and Iran as a whole?

This.

They chose Option 2 because Ahmadinejad is their puppet, a hardliner prepared to spout the antisemitic and anti Western rhetoric. They are desperate to portray Ahmadinejad's views as representative of Iran as a whole to justify their rule over the country. If Ahmadinejad is democratically elected, his and the Ayatollah's views can be seen by the world to be endorsed by the people.

[MC Prussian]

1. Yes i have seen the pictures. We see pictures like this every day from somewhere around the world. Unfortunately the killing of the young, women and defensless is usually done by western government bombs, artillery and guns. Or by regimes put into power or backed by 'our' leaders.

A tad bit harsh, really. And also not true. We don't see pictures like that every single day. Regular papers carry regular pictures of regular people doing regular things, usually. That's why most newspapers are daft. That's why Media is mostly daft. It's a filter in itself. Everywhere. There used to be a famous picture from a (Rwandan?) soldier shooting another guy next to the curb a few years back. But that happens every once in a while, if we're lucky. I, for example, had never before been exposed to a young woman in her twenties doing her last few conscious breaths, dying right in front of a video camera, within 30 seconds. The media deliberately avoid showing pictures like it in order to maintain a certain level of sensitivity or trying to prevent unsettling the masses to a certain extent, even here (see the other point further down). The young, women, elderly and otherwise defenseless are always killed whenever a regime can't control itself any longer. They are to suffer from male brutality. Before that, it's usually men vs. men in a proper "war" (whatever a "proper war" is). But don't tell me shooting at innocent bystanders is not plain coward.

2. Well if Mousavi gets into power (which he won't) it will be a government controlled by foreign powers. If you know anything about him you would know that.

I'm not backing Moussavi. I just wish for peace and a pro-Persian government in Iran. Also, do you think Moussavi and his government would hit out at their own people as violently as the current regime is doing? As of right now, the US and Israel will do their utmost to prevent another Afghanistan/Iraq situation. They're about to learn that you can't control the world by war. Whether they want to control the world as of right now (with the US facing their biggest economic crisis ever and Israel having enough to deal with its immediate Arabic neighbors) is more or less speculative and conspiracy-territory (which I'm not going to touch upon). Those two powers have enough other things on the agenda at the moment. As for Russia and China, however, who knows...?

As for your points on Islam, how can you reform a Religion? You either believe or you don't. If you believe something is from your Creator how can you change it? Islam will never change. It is the only religion that has never changed. Yes, there have been some reformers and there may be more, but the original will always remain. It won't just remain, it will grow. It is growing at an enormous rate right now. Even redneck Texans are converting to Islam. Hundreds of thousands of white and black Americans every year convert. Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans also convert. Chinese, Jamaicans and the list goes on and on.

As much as people don't understand that religion (because they believe liars and images on tv of supposed Muslims) and want it to change or disappear, it never will.

Well, Islam has been established by Mohammed at one point (obeying Allah's orders), so although it might be "divine" in its essence, it is executed by humans and we're not the most perfect bunch on this Earth, are we? As for the Qur'an and the way it can be read, again I'm not going any deeper than saying it is a book written by man interpreted by man (just like the Bible and the Tanakh or any other "holy" book in that regard). This ultimately leaves a LOT of room for subjective interpretation (reaching from one extreme to the other). And don't tell me, the Qur'an or parts thereof have not been "changed" or at least "altered" in some ways or the other over the past 1'500 years... It has and it will in the future, thus being "reformed". Hence the link to our own "Reformation", initiated by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

The convert thing is - again - a reproduction of what Christians did some hundred years ago (and still do in parts of Africa and Asia). Again, Islam is, historically speaking, "behind" Christianism, as it is right now copying almost the exact same moves like its more Western counterpart did. Remember, the violence aspect used to be closely connected to the Crusades or the Holy Inquisition for instance, and it has to be seen how strong Islam will be in the decades to follow. People might like this "new" religion at first (as it appears to be "trendy" and "different"), but at one point resent it for what it is. Customers' attention span is decreasing at an alarming rate, too. Also, the "Islam boom" only speaks to a certain clientele to my knowledge (without going further into generalizations).

I don't have a clue what this means "And the Arabic world is having troubles dealing with this. A lot. Iran is just the starting point." Which arabs are having trouble dealing with it? No protests in the Arab world are against Islam so this point has nothing to do with the situation in Iran.

I meant to say that Islam has reached a point where its interpretation and following is going in different directions. Now, this is almost a taboo in the Arab world, something you don't publicly debate (Iran, for instance, has for decades banned any progressive discussion since the Revolution and is after anything that resembles intellectual discourse on that matter). Just like it can be seen in Iran. These protests could also take over other Islamic countries and give other people the chance to create a new, progressive government. This upheaval, the resistance in Iran is directed against the current regime, which is Islamic (fundamentalist to some extent).

Also, to suggest that no protests in the Arab world are directed against Islam... Debatable. In one way or the other, they are.

I think that you are more likely to only see what you want to hear than me. I don't think you spend as much time as me reading and listening to all points of view on these situations. How many hours have you spent listening to the poor in Iran who don't have mobile phones or internet? None I think.

That's true. No doubt about it. I certainly don't have the same amount of knowledge about the situation. I work during the day and find other things more worthwile in my spare time than following news or debates on Christianism . It's only the fact that you're giving us one link to an Ahmedinejad-friendly blogger that makes it look like you support the current regime (indirectly). And this doesn't speak for a differentiated opinion like the one you proclaim to have, that's all.

Less than 1 in 3 people in Iran have internet and most of them are the elite and the young westernised folk (who are by far in the minority). The protestors in North Tehran by no means share the views of most of the country (or even the capital). Fact.

Well, following your logic, do you see a connection between education/knowledge and intelligence and critical thinking respectively? Correct, the majority of the Iranian people have no access whatsoever to the information spread on the internet, radio or television. So, whom do you think will the more rural population believe when they hear the news from Teheran (if any)? Exactly. The government. I could also say that a majority of Arab people are deliberately kept dumb (or un- or misinformed).

[davieG]

No matter how neutral you reckon your stance is on all this religious and political turmoil El Empty you always, as far as I can tell take on an a pro muslim / anti western pose.

You may read a lot but you certainly don't appear to open your eyes or your mind to alternative views.

I know you'll deny this but that's what I'm receiving from you loudly and clearly.

I've now given up read your post as I cannot take you seriously as an unbiased observer.

[BoneDog]

We don't indiscriminately shoot protesters though do we?There are several clips on youtube if you want to look for them, which are far worse than anything you'll see in this country.

I agree we haven't shot any protestors but our police have shot quite alot of innocent people. The Brazilian guy is one case.

I do think that if our protestors started setting fire to petrol stations and churches, burning loads of cars and destroying shops and business' (as they have been doing in Iran) then we would see some very ugly scenes from the authorities (and maybe that would be justified, I'm not sure).

Our protests are very peaceful in comparison but we still have people getting battered and electricuted by the police. They would step up the aggression even further if they had to.

[BoneDog]

El Empty, I'm missing something from your viewpoint. The Ayatollah and the ruling regime are effectively faced with two options to solve this Iranian crisis (which it must be remembered is an internal issue and not an international issue).

The first is to have a re-election to calm the situation down and stop the unrest. If the previous election was fair and Ahmadinejad was a clear undisputed winner, then he would surely win again. The election could be monitored by the UN, to ensure fairness and ensure that the winner had the full support of the country. This would stop the unrest at a stroke and give legitimacy to a new president and the ruling regime.

The second option is to have a crackdown, resulting in more unrest and more deaths. Any unrest for the ruling regime is obviously potentially unstable as it is a threat to their power and legitimacy. There is long-term damage to the credibility of the Ayatollahs in the eyes of a large section of the Iranian people, with a stoking of any Iranian splinter groups.

In light of this, why would the Ayatollahs choose option 2, when option 1 is the obvious best outcome to the stability of their regime and Iran as a whole?

I don't think that would ensure fairness. The 2000 US election was very obviously fraudulent (if people look into it enough they can see) and the UN have some very corrupt people in high positions. They do have alot of good people working for them too I agree. Most of the UN's words are just that, words. Alot of their actions show that their words are not exactly true. It's like the UK and US government, they say one thing and do another. They get proven to be liars all year round but still people stick up for them. Talk is cheap.

[BoneDog]

No matter how neutral you reckon your stance is on all this religious and political turmoil El Empty you always, as far as I can tell take on an a pro muslim / anti western pose.

You may read a lot but you certainly don't appear to open your eyes or your mind to alternative views.

I know you'll deny this but that's what I'm receiving from you loudly and clearly.

I've now given up read your post as I cannot take you seriously as an unbiased observer.

How am I anti-western?!!! I'm a white Englishman! I play poker and gamble for a living and I drink whisky. I love my country and all other countries equal. The only thing I'm anti is governments who constantly lie to us and shit on us and make life hard for most of my fellow countrymen. I think I'm more patriotic than people who blindly support our leaders who do nothing but bring trouble for us.

So, whatever you are receiving might be loud but it is not clear. It is misjudged.

[davieG]

How am I anti-western?!!! I'm a white Englishman! I play poker and gamble for a living and I drink whisky. I love my country and all other countries equal. The only thing I'm anti is governments who constantly lie to us and shit on us and make life hard for most of my fellow countrymen. I think I'm more patriotic than people who blindly support our leaders who do nothing but bring trouble for us.

So, whatever you are receiving might be loud but it is not clear. It is misjudged.

It's like the UK and US government, they say one thing and do another.

That's why, why pick on those two governments as if they are unique and the only ones that lie. Do you not think that applies to the very people you are defending.

Personally my cynicism of all authorities is so ingrained I don't trust any of them. You just seem to find it so easy to plump for this ongoing, often subtle denigration of Western governments.

[breadandcheese]

I don't think that would ensure fairness. The 2000 US election was very obviously fraudulent (if people look into it enough they can see) and the UN have some very corrupt people in high positions. They do have alot of good people working for them too I agree. Most of the UN's words are just that, words. Alot of their actions show that their words are not exactly true. It's like the UK and US government, they say one thing and do another. They get proven to be liars all year round but still people stick up for them. Talk is cheap.

El Empty, that's not answering my question. Why would the ruling regime in Iran, decide to violently put down the demonstrations, killing protestors, threatening their own position of power and the possibility of civil war, when they could just announce a second election, which Ahmadinejad would win comfortably if the first election result was to be believed? They could stop all this violence at a stroke by calling a second election. They don't, so why not?

I suspect the reason they have chosen this option is because the first elections were not fair. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of the other 3 candidates who stood against Ahmadinejad and a large amount of Iranian people.

You picked out the issue of the UN in my post. This is a sub-issue and nothing more. I suggested that the UN cold monitor the election as I think them credible in the eyes of most people. In truth it could be any other organisation for all I care. The point still remains that the Ayatollahs have chosen the risky and most blood-fulled option of violently putting down this protest, rather than stopping all this unrest at a stroke with a re-election.

Make no mistake, I have no vested interest in wanting to see one candidate win over another. Truth is, I think Mousavi is not that different to Ahmadinejad. He was after all, involved in helping overthrow the Shah in 1979 to set-up the current Iranian regime. So I don't even think this is a West vs Islam issue. It is an internal Iranian issue, and all credit and respect to those Iranians protesting for their vote to count, in the face of violence and arrest.

[Guest Bilo]

I agree we haven't shot any protestors but our police have shot quite alot of innocent people. The Brazilian guy is one case.

I do think that if our protestors started setting fire to petrol stations and churches, burning loads of cars and destroying shops and business' (as they have been doing in Iran) then we would see some very ugly scenes from the authorities (and maybe that would be justified, I'm not sure).

Our protests are very peaceful in comparison but we still have people getting battered and electricuted by the police. They would step up the aggression even further if they had to.

The Poll Tax riots were pretty damned ugly, and the May Day demonstrations can get very violent when the anarchists are out in force and decide to smash up the nearest McDonalds. The race riots in Bradford and Oldham saw indiscriminate attacks on local businesses as well. All with violence not too far removed from what is currently happening yet our police did not shoot indiscriminately as the Iranian police have.

I have criticised our police when I feel they have deserved it, but to say that they would react with indiscriminate shooting as the Iranians have is simply false.

[MC Prussian]

How am I anti-western?!!! I'm a white Englishman! I play poker and gamble for a living and I drink whisky. I love my country and all other countries equal. The only thing I'm anti is governments who constantly lie to us and shit on us and make life hard for most of my fellow countrymen. I think I'm more patriotic than people who blindly support our leaders who do nothing but bring trouble for us.

So, whatever you are receiving might be loud but it is not clear. It is misjudged.

So, according to your logic and following your statement, one would think you'd question the Iranian authorities a tad bit more critically in that regard.

Or...?

[BoneDog]

A tad bit harsh, really. And also not true. We don't see pictures like that every single day. Regular papers carry regular pictures of regular people doing regular things, usually. That's why most newspapers are daft. That's why Media is mostly daft. It's a filter in itself. Everywhere. There used to be a famous picture from a soldier shooting another guy next to the curb a few years back (Rwanda?). But that happens every once in a while, if we're lucky. I, for example, have hardly ever been exposed to a young woman in her twenties doing her last few conscious breaths, dying right in front of a video camera within 30 seconds. The media deliberately avoid showing pictures like it to avoid unsettling the masses, even here (see the other point further down). The young, women and defenseless are always killed whenever a regime can't control itself any longer. They are to suffer from male brutality. Before that, it's usually men vs. men in a proper "war" (whatever a "proper war" is). But don't tell me shooting at innocent bystanders is not plain coward.

I'm gonna have to answer this one at a time! Way too much for me to remember.

We might not see pictures like that everyday in our newspapers but I rarely read newspapers (only for football). I do see pictures like that all the time cos they are in the books I read and they are in the videos and reports I watch.

I don't think the media stop showing these pictures to avoid unsettling the masses, I think they don't show them because people would start saying 'enough is enough'. I agree with you, shooting anyone innocent is cowardly and disgusting. I feel bad alot of my life from reading about the things that go on.

I will just give you an example of what I mean about our leaders killing innocents :

Take the start of the Iraq war and the 'Shock and Awe' thing. First off we were firing cruise missiles and many other kinds of rockets and bombs into Iraqi cities from hundreds of miles away and from planes above. The Iraqi people had done nothing to us, it was 1 man and his gang we were after. I know we are told these weapons are precision but we all know they are not. Some of the cruise missiles landed in the Saudi desert and one even landed in Turkey.

Then after hammering these cities and towns all night and terrifying women and kids with shock and awe for nearly a week we sent in troops (and I am not against our troops, I have family and friends in the army just like everyone else does). These troops closed in on towns and cities. When they were about 30 miles outside they started pounding these places with artillery, which is far from precision. Many thousand artillery shells were fired into towns and I could go on. That was just the start.

From this war over a million innocent people have been killed. And the dust from the depleted uranium is killing many more every day.

So, yes I agree, the young, women and defenseless are always the victims. But what we see in Iran is miniscule in comparison to things our leaders get up to. It might escalate but at the moment, thankfully, it is not out of control.

[BoneDog]

So, according to your logic and following your statement, one would think you'd question the Iranian authorities a tad bit more critically in that regard.

Or...?

I do criticize the Iranian government. I might not of on here. What I'm trying to say is that the opposition is no better and from what I've seen most of Iran respect their current leader. The opposition might talk more civilized or more agreeable to the west in public but they are just as ruthless in reality.

[breadandcheese]

I do criticize the Iranian government. I might not of on here. What I'm trying to say is that the opposition is no better and from what I've seen most of Iran respect their current leader. The opposition might talk more civilized or more agreeable to the west in public but they are just as ruthless in reality.

Does that mean it is acceptable to rig an election to stop the opposition getting in?

[MC Prussian]

I'm gonna have to answer this one at a time! Way too much for me to remember.

We might not see pictures like that everyday in our newspapers but I rarely read newspapers (only for football). I do see pictures like that all the time cos they are in the books I read and they are in the videos and reports I watch.

I don't think the media stop showing these pictures to avoid unsettling the masses, I think they don't show them because people would start saying 'enough is enough'. I agree with you, shooting anyone innocent is cowardly and disgusting. I feel bad alot of my life from reading about the things that go on.

I will just give you an example of what I mean about our leaders killing innocents :

Take the start of the Iraq war and the 'Shock and Awe' thing. First off we were firing cruise missiles and many other kinds of rockets and bombs into Iraqi cities from hundreds of miles away and from planes above. The Iraqi people had done nothing to us, it was 1 man and his gang we were after. I know we are told these weapons are precision but we all know they are not. Some of the cruise missiles landed in the Saudi desert and one even landed in Turkey.

Then after hammering these cities and towns all night and terrifying women and kids with shock and awe for nearly a week we sent in troops (and I am not against our troops, I have family and friends in the army just like everyone else does). These troops closed in on towns and cities. When they were about 30 miles outside they started pounding these places with artillery, which is far from precision. Many thousand artillery shells were fired into towns and I could go on. That was just the start.

From this war over a million innocent people have been killed. And the dust from the depleted uranium is killing many more every day.

So, yes I agree, the young, women and defenseless are always the victims. But what we see in Iran is miniscule in comparison to things our leaders get up to. It might escalate but at the moment, thankfully, it is not out of control.

Although I share your criticism of leaders and the definition and/or misuse of power in general, your digression on the Iraq War (which one precisely? the first or the second?) doesn't shed a light on the Iran situation and could be discussed elsewhere. You're straying away from the topic like one of the Cruise Missiles you're talking about. And weren't it the US who used Cruise Missiles predominately? So why suddenly pick on an US government that no longer exists? The Bushes are gone, so is Clinton. Like I said, the Americans have other, more important internal issues to care about than war machinery.

And don't forget to mention that Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi people back in the 80ies.

But again, what the USA, Saudi-Arabia, Israel, Russia, China and all other big players are up to is a discourse in itself and would valid its own topic.

Holding back pictures of cruelty might have something to do with the fact that we don't want to see them. But then what's the point in reporting from Teheran and other parts of Iran, anyway? Hear nothin', see nothin', know nothin'? Make life easier without any additional external bad news or trouble? That's not an attitude I personally share and I'm sure you do, neither. We should know about it and we should discuss it. Thinking about and knowing how cruel we can be to each other, going as far as killing people we don't even know, is a way of some bigger power telling to mankind to learn from its mistakes. Or something like it. Hopefully. One day.

[BoneDog]

That's why, why pick on those two governments as if they are unique and the only ones that lie. Do you not think that applies to the very people you are defending.

Personally my cynicism of all authorities is so ingrained I don't trust any of them. You just seem to find it so easy to plump for this ongoing, often subtle denigration of Western governments.

I have the same mistrust of all governments as you. I was not meaning to stick up for the current regime in Iran. I was just trying to say that he is popular across the whole of the country. Mousavi is popular in the capital but not so much outside.

I criticize many governments or regimes in the Middle East.

[davieG]

I have the same mistrust of all governments as you. I was not meaning to stick up for the current regime in Iran. I was just trying to say that he is popular across the whole of the country. Mousavi is popular in the capital but not so much outside.

I criticize many governments or regimes in the Middle East.

But your way of approving of the current regime is to criticise the West by suggesting that they are worse than the 'current regime'. As Bread&cheese said this an internal situation it's got nothing to do with the behaviour, past or present of the USA & UK.

[BoneDog]

I'm not backing Moussavi. I just wish for peace and a pro-Persian government in Iran. Also, do you think Moussavi and his government would hit out at their own people as violently as the current regime is doing? As of right now, the US and Israel will do their utmost to prevent another Afghanistan/Iraq situation. They're about to learn that you can't control the world by war. Whether they want to control the world as of right now (with the US facing their biggest economic crisis ever and Israel having enough to deal with its immediate Arabic neighbors) is more or less speculative and conspiracy-territory (which I'm not going to touch upon). Those two powers have enough other things on the agenda at the moment. As for Russia and China, however, who knows...?

I think there will soon be more war in that area (Iran/Syria/Jordan maybe). Something big will happen (like another 911) to pave the way. I don't think the US government care about the economic crisis in reality. They are not going to be affected. Only the population are affected by that.

I also don't think Israel has anything to worry about with it's Arab neighbours. Israel is a superpower with the biggest arsenal in the area. It has nuclear weapons and even a couple of nuclear submarines. Egypt or Saudi would never attack Israel and everyone else just couldn't. Israel could crush any of them with their airforce.

The only thing Israel and the US have to deal with is creating more tension in the region.

As for China or Russia, I would of thought they would be more likely to side with Iran wouldn't they? I'm not sure.

[MC Prussian]

...from what I've seen most of Iran respect their current leader.

Maybe its because they have to or don't have the same amount of information about the state of affairs like the few "intellectuals" in Teheran or Iranians abroad do?

The opposition might talk more civilized or more agreeable to the west in public but they are just as ruthless in reality.

Aren't you assuming quite a lot with that part of your statement?

Again, I doubt Moussavi or any other opposition would attack its own kind as ferociously like the current regime.©

[BoneDog]

But your way of approving of the current regime is to criticise the West by suggesting that they are worse than the 'current regime'. As Bread&cheese said this an internal situation it's got nothing to do with the behaviour, past or present of the USA & UK.

It has alot to do with the US. Mousavi is heavily involved with a group of neo-cons. The same ones who wrote 'The Project for the New American Century'. That was the document they wrote in 2000 that has all their plans in for taking over countries in the middle east. One of the famous lines they wrote was this ....."in order to achieve these aims we (the US) would have to suffer another Pearl Harbour". A year later hey presto New York gets attacked.

[Shrenchel]

Does that mean it is acceptable to rig an election to stop the opposition getting in?

He didn't stop the opposition getting in. He would have won anyway, just not by such a ridiculous margin.

[davieG]

It has alot to do with the US. Mousavi is heavily involved with a group of neo-cons. The same ones who wrote 'The Project for the New American Century'. That was the document they wrote in 2000 that has all their plans in for taking over countries in the middle east. One of the famous lines they wrote was this ....."in order to achieve these aims we (the US) would have to suffer another Pearl Harbour". A year later hey presto New York gets attacked.

When confronted you deliberately miss the point and try to skew the debate into a different direction. When I was talking about nothing to do with the USA and UK I meant in how their police / authorities behave towards their own people.

Your defence of the current regime was that the Uk are/would be just as bad, my dad''s bigger than your dad is not a valid justification.

Any I've already explained why I shan't be debating with you so I'm off.

[BoneDog]

When confronted you deliberately miss the point and try to skew the debate into a different direction. When I was talking about nothing to do with the USA and UK I meant in how their police / authorities behave towards their own people.

Your defence of the current regime was that the Uk are/would be just as bad, my dad''s bigger than your dad is not a valid justification.

Any I've already explained why I shan't be debating with you so I'm off.

I didn't deliberately miss the point, I thought you meant the troubles in that region have nothing to do with the US.

It seems like you're the one who misses the point, but I understand.

[BoneDog]

Here's part of a report about a group involved in the protests. It's all easy to find and this group are well supported in the west.

...."The terrorist 'Mujahedin Khalq Organization' (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran.

Alot of it's members were extensively trained in Iraq's camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country.

There is also an MKO command post in Britain.

Street protests broke out after defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi rejected President Ahmadinejad's win in the June 12 election.

Iran's deputy police commander, on Saturday, warned against the mass gatherings, asserting that those who engage in any such actions would be severely reprimanded.

Earlier on Saturday, MKO leader Maryam Rajavi had supported the recent wave of street violence in Iran during a Saturday address to supporters in Paris.

Rajavi had reportedly described the MKO terrorists as the real winners of the Iranian election.

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization is a Marxist guerilla group, which was founded in the 1960s.In the past two decades, MKO leaders have been resettled in the northern outskirts of Paris.

The terrorists are especially notorious for taking sides with former dictator Saddam Hussein during the war Iraq imposed on Iran (1980-1988).

The group masterminded a slew of terrorist operations in Iran and Iraq -- one of which was the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 Iranian officials were killed.

A 2007 German intelligence report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has identified the MKO as a "repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of [MKO leaders] Maryam and Masoud Rajavi".

Anne Singleton, an expert on the MKO and author of 'Saddam's Private Army' explains that the West aims to keep the group afloat in order to use it in efforts to stage a regime change in Iran.

"With a new Administration in the White House a pre-emptive strike on Iran looks unlikely. Instead the MKO's backers have put together a coalition of small irritant groups, the known minority and separatist groups, along with the MKO. These groups will be garrisoned around the border with Iran and their task is to launch terrorist attacks into Iran over the next few years to keep the fire hot," she explains.

"The role of the MKO is to train and manage these groups using the expertise they acquired from Saddam's Republican Guard," Singleton added.

A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report also condemns the MKO for running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations. According to report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms. "

[breadandcheese]

El Empty, Mousavi helped to found the Islamic Republic Party and overthrow the Shah so that Ayatollah Khomeini could return from exile to lead the Islamic republic in 1979.

Now, suddenly, you are suggesting that he is a neo-con, best pals with America, probably Israel too, as well as orchestrating protests and unrest alongside a Marxist auhoritarian group called the MKO. I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong on this.

In my eyes, it all comes back to a choice of how to proceed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He could call a re-election to prove that Ahamdinejad won, and show the protesters they are wrong, ending the unrest at a stroke and uniting the country. Or he could risk the stability of his country and regime, causing violence on the streets and loss of life by cracking down on the protesters. He has chosen the second option, despite the risks and the obvious best outcome from option one. Why?

Could it have something to do with 3 out of the 4 candidates who stood for election accusing the ruling regime of foul play and vote rigging?