Capt Ayhab

Hi.,Ayhab

I.replied.to.you.offsite,.first.of.all.because.my
space.bar.key.is.not.working.and.it's.hard.to.fit.long.repllies.into.the.
space.given.for.postings.here.with.all.these.periods.
making.the.text.read.as.one.word,.but.also.because.
it's.probably.best.for.me.right.now.all.things.considered.
Well.you.wanted.to.pick.my.brain.so.please.check.offsite.I.
know.it's.late.but.still.there.are.a.couple.of.things.you.
might.find.applicable.in.terms.of.the.current.
discussions.

Take.care.

Dear "capt_ayhab",

You are welcome. I wished we could have other - better - opportunities. What a shame.

Captain, where...

have I been?? I thought I made it clear that I was sequestered by aliens and that I am answering your call at considerable risk to hide and hair while the aliens are having lunch. Be that as it may. I had a gut instinct response to your blog and I went ahead and read over three hundred plus posts on two separate articles to reality check it and I think I have. But let's get to that in a bit. First things first.

Generally speaking I have seen more commonalities rather than differences in discussions here than many others do; obviously I constituted a minority of one so my perspecives have been unique. Reading those two articles and threads this remains the case.

Often what engenders the most diviseness I have felt are fairly simple issues of language. So before I even go into my opinion as an outsider on the voting, I am going to take a look at some of the terminology/ categories in your blog, some taken from the blogs you read themselves and others your own, the difference isn't really that clear and it doesn't really matter because these terms are "in the air.'That's just my PLAN. For now here is a Pepsi challenge;

If you read Jamshid's comments on Laleh's thread you will see that he places himself squarely in the Laleh "camp'. You will also see that he is very vocal about coalitions including moderate Muslims, most prominent example he cites being Ayatollah Boujerdi. But this was not always the case. Jamshid evolved from an extreme rejection of the possibility of ever reconciling with Muslms, over time, and I was there in those dialogs. Now he appears to implicitly challenge in some way Ms. Laleh's distinction between secular and inclusive democracy.

He also explained the '100 men and women' he'd mentioned some time back which someone brought up to him on Laleh's thread were one hundred dedicated intellectuals who could spearhead a movment. So okay, let's just say.. whether you want to spearhead a movement or not, just for argument's sake...suppose Jamshid had his hundred and you had say..73 men...in a perfect world, how many of them could you both ever conceivably hope to have in common?

Anyway, here's 73 men. LOL I'll be back. Take care.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBnBNZO3VSc

MiNeum71

Dear MiNeum71,

First and foremost allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your civil, logical and informative comments in this thread.

You noted[ Civil disobedience is an active action, actually a subtle offence, with
which you want to demontrate displeasure, for example when you go on
strike. But sitting at home demonstrates only personified laziness and cowardice.]

I could not have said it any better myself. As I have mentioned in the article an abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's
ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might be politically incorrect to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when
they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion.

My own humble opinion is that abstention, at this juncture and under this sociopolitical condition in Iran, where the hardliners are rather well trenched, with their avid and ARMED followers[Sepahi, Basiji and rest of the jeereh khors]  is an INEFFECTIVE tool to say the least.

Lets look at at this way:

Who would boycott the election? More than likely the ones who would the boycott would be the progressive thinkers, urban residents, city dwellers, students and such. A boycott in massive scale in these areas will result the hardliners[Ahmadinejad's camp] to tap into their devoted base, i.e. group that i mentioned earlier, and mostly illiterate rural areas of the country. The same fashion they did last time.

As a result Ahmadinejads camp, with hooks and crooks will rack up the needed participation and the vote for 4 more years. Similar to the scenario which occurred in 2005.

Respectfully

-YT

rosie

Baba jan where have you been? Missed you ha bekhoda!

To answer your question, no I do not have that number. My methodology in this little article been to summarize the articles and opinions that have been published in IC.

At expense of downgrading any of them, many have provided some estimates. However since I have thought their numbers may have been rather biased I have refrained from enumerating them.

I do share the view that majority of people  in Iran are planning to vote, however what is that majority, I do not have a clue since numbers that may have been  published by regime is highly questionable. How do I know majority are going to go to the polls? Through family members in Iran, ex classmates, friends and such.

Regards

-YT

To All the Members

I am full of respect for your opinions, and I know that most of us want quite the same. But please let me ask one question: What does non-voting has in common with civil disobedience (as required by many of the contributers)?

Civil disobedience is an active action, actually a subtle offence, with which you want to demontrate displeasure, for example when you go on strike. But sitting at home demonstrates only personified laziness and cowardice.

I had wished something very different, something like a White Movement, all voting invalid whilst delivering a special message (for example We wanted another candidate/system/whatever). And still it's better to vote invalid than not to vote. But staying at home doing nothing? The halo is slipping.

-----

By the way, as long as we are living abroad, we are not part of the population of Iran (whole number of people or inhabitants living in Iran), therefore neither you nor I are entitled to choose the next president.

We can't sit here enjoying the different freedoms and giving advises to Iran-Iranians, because we don't suffer the pains they do. It simply is true, we are fair-weather Iranians. I believe, you suffer a lot seeing the circumstances in Iran as I do, but this is not enough, living in Iran is like living in hell.

I have no big head, I respect the opinion of my relatives living in Iran, after all they are the ones who are fighting that war, not you or me. Being affected of the elections is true, but not enough to act the voice of reason, we didn't deserve being such authorities. I vote for the person my relatives want me to vote for. They will vote for Mousavi, because they say, everything has become worse since 2005; they regret not voting 2005 and they don't want to do the same mistake again.

This sounds intelligent to me.

Dear "Kaveh Nouraee",

Three reasons: 1) I appreciate soft shit more than hard shit; 2) I know that there are many quarrels within this system, supporting the liberal forces can help them to get the upper hand; 3) the non-voters can only criticise (in typically Iranian manner), I still haven't read one single alternative to voting.

View from the bridge

Sorry I came late in the day, but since you asked I do have quite a bit to say and I am working on the draft. Before I finish it though, there is something I need to have clarified. You wrote

One of the earlier articles that surfaced was from group that relentlessly advocating the boycott[abstention] of the election..This group who reside mostly in diaspora, had boycotted 2005 Presidential

--It is my understanding that the majority of Iranians within Iran are planning on voting. Yourro statement would appear to corroborate that. Do you have any idea, ballpark figure, what that majority would be like-slight, sizable, vast majority??

اگر آن « ترک شیرازی» بدست آرد دل ما را

سروَری کاپیتان.

مجید آقو

حال کردم از نوشتت سالار.
کلی مخلصیم

-YT

داستان کفش خریدن من

شاید این داستان تخیلی کمکی بکنه !

من وقتی صغیر بودم و هنوز اختیاری از  خودم نداشتم از پدرم ( بزرگترم و ولی ام) خواستم بخاطر یک تمرین ورزشی در مدرسه یا درمحله برام یک جفت کفش بسکتبال بخره چون بر خلاف بقیه بچه ها کفش مناسب برای شرکت در اون فعالیت رو نداشتم .

 تو فروشگاه پدرم برای من چهار جفت کفش انتخاب کرد و گفت یک جفت از این  کفش ها رو انتخاب کن و بعد از اینکه تو انتخابتو کردی من باید تایید کنم  که درست انتخاب کردی یا نه !

١ ) یکجفت پوتین کوهنوردی
٢ ) یکجفت کفش ورنی مخصوص مهمونی شب
٣ ) یک جفت کفش صندل
٤ ) یک جفت کفش قورباغه ای مخصوص شنا
 

_ ولی اینا هیچکدوم مناسب  برای شرکت در اون فعالیت نیست و نیاز من رو برآورده نمیکنه!

_ تو صغیر هستی و احتیاج  به این داری که من که ولی تو هستم مواظب انتخاب کردن تو باشم!  پایان

شما جای من باشین کدوم کفش رو برای نیازتون انتخاب میکنین؟

Kaveh

You bring up a very interesting question which I can not resist but share my thought with you.

You said[ Now, if en masse the people didn't vote (a near-impossibility, I know, but work with me here), that fear would be overcome.]

Yourself have presented couple of possible scenarios. What I am inclined to agree with is that rather than regime becoming more transparent and allowing true democracy to flourish, they will become more dictatorial at least.

My logic behind it would be that in this case, their own very existence will come under scrutiny. assuming this possible scenario, they would harshly clamp down on everything just like 1979 and even worse, more blood thirsty than of 80's and 90's mass murders.

This time around there would be a real threat to their very existence, and knowing their past performance, blood would be running amass on the streets. UNLESS, there is a well organized and leaded opposition who can step in and basically revolt and bring about the complete change.

Regards

YT

Dears ramintork, & Kaveh N

As I have stated , I have tried to be as impartial in my analysis as I can, for I am not seeking  to convince any one to vote or otherwise.

Allow me not to present my own personal wive at this juncture, for I am trying to creat a brain storming blog in which we might be able arrive at some sort of consensus regarding alternatives for our dilema.

Bare in mind gentleman that I do not claim to be political scholar, for I have merely presented you with what has been discussed in this dotcom during past few months.

I appreciate you gents input and comment

Regards

-YT

MiNeum71

How can a vote for any of these twits be a vote for change?

It's not as if they will have any real power. But if people were to vote (which they will in order to avoid conflict) these goons will merely interpret that as an acknowledgment of their legitimacy, which they will then manipulate as they see fit.

And of course that only means continued or even greater oppression.

The way I see it, the IR lives and thrives on fear. And in the case of these sham "elections", they instill fear in order to entice the people to vote, even though the "candidates" are pre-selected, and Khamenei always has the last word. 

Now, if en masse the people didn't vote (a near-impossibility, I know, but work with me here), that fear would be overcome.

What would the IR do at that point? What could they do? Change the Constitution? Well, how would they change it?

Either they would have to become even more dictatorial and oppressive (which brings the very real risk of a massive revolt a la 1979 as the people would not stand for it) or....

Become more open and transparent and allow the elections to be legitimate with the people deciding for themselves, which likely would lead to the mollahs losing their 30 year old stranglehold on the country and the people.

A game of snake and ladder without any ladders!

Dear Capt Ayhab,

Putting aside the fact that a President has no real power, the undemocratic chosen leader can and will veto any reform and that only a few within the inner circle of power are ever represented as candidates,

putting aside that even if by heavenly grace! (I don't believe in that by the way) there was a good candidate amongst these people and he wanted to make geniune changes he couldn't because of the level of corruption at all levels of power,

there would be the obstacle that even if from their selected few the wrong choice (not the leader's choice) is chosen by the people the regime takes action to rig the election and pull the leader's choice from the ballot.

Ahmadinejad did not win because of the voting boycott, he won because the election was rigged.

There is this assumption that a moderate candidate would provide some breathing space for the people that newspapers would reopen, etc. etc. This is a wrong asumption, there maybe a facade of a progressive society, in reality the regime would never risk its strangle hold position. The regime may even play that for a short while just to keep the game going but would roll back the cage door on people's face once again.

The reality which is kept quiet is that when modern, Western economies almost collapsed with this recession you can only imagine what kind of real devastation of an economy would be in a country that is very badly managed, and corrupt to the core. The regime knows that because of this economy things are going to crack and wants to prepare people first with a gentle face, people don't risk their lives as long as they have something to eat when that stops then they start pouring out in thousands on the street.

Iranian banks are collapsing, but we haven't seen the worst yet.

If history shows us something it is that freedom is gained it is not given, and certainly not by the hands of the opresser.

You want solution, here is a solution, when you know you can't win a game, don't play it. The real opposition is with the people not these four clowns trying to hijack the progressive moto.

Social resistence, social enlightenment of those who are not enlightened, bringing oil and Gas export and other key services to a stand still, and as a final result if they roll in the tanks and start killing your family take arms.

Irandokht has it half right, your vote does not count but I'm sorry neither will the vote of those millions in Iran, the voting in Iran is not legitimate and even if people's candidate was to come out of the ballot box they would be powerless to act for the interest of people.

My Final Point of View

To all the girls and guys who think that voting doesn't change anything, and from 1997 to 2005 the social circumstances were as bad a after 2005:

1) Read //online.wsj.com/article/SB124355320443064445... and //iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-javid/d....

2) You all deserve and I wish you the hell called IRI and Ahmadinejad.

Dear "capt_ayhab",

All the non-voters like eroonman just only criticise, but they have never suggested one single solution. And this is pretty lousy.

insignificant number?

“…..insignificant number that it won't matter a bit ….”? I am sure you heard about the 2008 Minnesota senate race Irandokh  - No?

Dear Capt'n

Whether we vote or not, it doesn't matter at all. Compared to the millions of Iranians who will be voting in Iran, we are in such insignificant number that it won't matter a bit no matter how we show solidarity amongst our little groups outside Iran.

A high percentage of Iranians will vote to make their day to day lives easier, to help get their friends and family and co-workers out of jail, to stop the rise of the prices and put an end to the sanctions, and there are some will follow their more hardliner/traditional ideals and cast a vote for the current president due to their own beliefs. It's a battle of progressives vs traditionals. 

All we can do is try to figure out how to help them in the journey towards a better future or just stay out of their way.

IRANdokht

To Attain a Secular Democracy

The birth of the Solidarity for Democracy and Human Rights in Iran is the first step. The wrath of mullahs will reach it soon…

For me, participating in this mockery called election is the betrayal of this Solidarity movement.

Dear eroonman

Thanks for your comment, dully noted. As I said to Mr, kurush I am trying to maintain impartiality, however I would like to present you with a question.

What solution, or even alternatives are you suggesting, and what is justification and logic for your idea.and what outcomes can be expected from your alternative.

I am trying, with this blog, to generate a brainstorm hoping that WE as alleged opposition to this regime unite behind. I personally do not have all the answers, I am hoping that WE  together might be able to come up with a workable alternative.

Respectfully

-YT

between voting and not voting

not voting is the option that is GUARANTEED to fail.

Your entire assumption is flawed

Assuming and even discussing the Iranian election as if it is a true or honest representation of the will of a free people is ENTIRELY RETARDED.

This election like any other Iranian election CANNOT be compared to a real election, as is held elsewhere in the world.

Playing up the guilt trip of not voting as a patriotic betrayal is a crime unto itself. It is precisely the patriotic duty of ALL IRANIANS to not just not vote, but to publicly object to this entire sham and call it what it really is.

A complete waste of time!

Since the real power is legally and permanently (see Constitution) in the hands of one man, who can only threaten us with imprisonment and death by thugs and squds of basijis, with his claim (not proof) that God is on his side.

Dear Kurush

I am, as the author of the article, going to try to maintain my impartiality. This is a note to thank you for your time and your informative comment.

Allow me to specifically address your points in an opportune time, for it deserves a proper and logical response from me.  This way I would not be taking sides this early at the blog.

Respectfully

-YT

You missed the crux!

I know you the author tried hard to remain impartial, even asserted indifference to any dogma, yet are not all these groups followers of a certain dogma/doctrine, some rabidly & fanatically so? I am not so sure first of all if Ahmadinejad is such a disaster as the author claims. Some circles, mostly in the West, think so, no doubt; but, internationally, his candor and gumption to speak out against the sacred cows of the West have earned him universal admirations
There are several significant issues that must be addressed: First, the gist & the thrust of the great Iranian Revolution, certainly missed by many, can be summed up as a path towards the removal of the West as the ultimate arbiter of all things. The Westerner is an extremely flawed individual who has arrogated some divine prerogatives ( so much for secularism), and is intent to play ‘god’ for the rest of the humanity. This phenomenon has been well exhibited in the Western colonial history. The great Iranian Revolution has been a radical rupture & departure from the colonial status quo. The message of the great Iranian Revolution is simple: we cease to allow the West to mediate. The West, in turn, of course will not tolerate and allow this thesis to be sustained permanently. That is why the great Iranian Revolution is truly great & 'revolutionary.' The struggle has continued for the past 30 years and will continue for the foreseeable future until one or the other side is victorious. Many Iranians , especially those in the West, have lost stomach to continue the struggle. The message of the Revolution is vague at times to be sure, but that should not detracts from its historical significance. The colonial occupations of two Moslem countries, Iraq & Afghanistan must be seen in the light of this struggle which the West has countered vis-à-vis the great Iranian revolution & must be fought to the bitter end.
Secondly, Ahamdinejad & the ‘Principalists’ must also be seen in the light of this struggle to terminate the suffocating Western mediation. We can recast the question: can Iran & the Iranians determine their destiny free from the western mediations, at times cultural (coca-cola acculturations, humbugs of democracy bestowed down to us less fortunate non-western types, etc)) , at times brutal & barbaric (the true essence of the West), as in what has been witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can we be the generation that would give Iran a truly independent destiny in which creative powers of the Iranians are not enslaved & yoked to the Western interests & prerogative. I know I am slightly tangential but it is germane. The ‘Principalists’ are the logical & natural evolution of the struggle unleashed by the Iranian Revolution. The words of Khomeini echo to this day: neither the West nor the East, neither the NATO, nor the Warsaw Pact. The West has countered : either you are with us (i.e. our servile servants), or you are against us.. The ‘Principalists’ are neither secular, nor theocratic in vision. They believe a truly autonomous Iran will best serve the interests, happiness & the creative powers of the Iranians for millennia. No other group serves this purpose, nor do they partake in this vision . Your Monarchists, Secularists, Democrats are all invariably enamored with the West in one shape or another. It has blinded them to the fact Iran is truly unique & potent by virtue of its long & amazing history. Thus the evolution of the great Iranian Revolution is at stake & continues apace.