Pour le piètre romancier gau-gauchiste de Cyberparese, Richard Têtu, et l'espèce de rack-pack qui constitue son p'tit fe-fan-club gau-gauchiste qui détruit de jour en jour la crédibilité de son blogue, le verdict est on ne peut plus clair : les élections présidentielles iraniennes se sont déroulées dans les règles de l’art et la seule preuve crédible qui pourrait infirmer ce fait serait la publication d’une grosse photo montrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad en train de brûler des bulletins de vote favorisant son rival modéré, Mir Hossein Mousavi, avec un briquet et la publication d’une autre grosse photo le montrant en train de photocopier des bulletins de vote lui étant favorables.
Ces idiots utiles ne s’imaginent même pas tout le mal qu’ils sont en train de faire en défendant ce qu’ils sont en train de défendre. Ils ne défendent pas une fraude électorale, parce que c'est bien pire que ça. Ils défendent ni plus ni moins qu’un coup d’État, coup d’État dont la dictature des mollahs qui sévit en Iran est responsable. Pour ceux et celles qui ne le sauraient pas, le vrai chef d’État de l’Iran est l’ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Un coup d'État qui est, bien sûr, défendu par le rack-pack d'extrémistes gau-gauchistes en culottes courtes qui monopolise le blogue de Richard Têtu depuis déjà trop longtemps et que Têtu défend bec et ongles, ce qui lui fait perdre énormément de crédibilité, non seulement au blogue, mais également à Têtu lui-même.
Mon billet sur ce phénomène, si ça vous intéresse!
Voici maintenant la preuve du coup d’État en Iran qui a été fomenté par les mollahs au nez et à la barbe de la Communauté internationale, preuve que Richard Têtu ne publiera jamais, car il n’en a tout simplement pas l’éthique professionnelle nécessaire!
Stealing the Iranian Election
Top Pieces of Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen
1. It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.
2. Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment. That he should have won Tehran is so unlikely as to raise real questions about these numbers. Ahmadinejad is widely thought only to have won Tehran in 2005 because the pro-reform groups were discouraged and stayed home rather than voting.
3. It is claimed that cleric Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate, received 320,000 votes, and that he did poorly in Iran's western provinces, even losing in Luristan. He is a Lur and is popular in the west, including in Kurdistan. Karoubi received 17 percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections in 2005. While it is possible that his support has substantially declined since then, it is hard to believe that he would get less than one percent of the vote. Moreover, he should have at least done well in the west, which he did not.
4. Mohsen Rezaee, who polled very badly and seems not to have been at all popular, is alleged to have received 670,000 votes, twice as much as Karoubi.
5. Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations.
6. The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election, at which point they are to inform Khamenei of the results, and he signs off on the process. The three-day delay is intended to allow charges of irregularities to be adjudicated. In this case, Khamenei immediately approved the alleged results.
I am aware of the difficulties of catching history on the run. Some explanation may emerge for Ahmadinejad's upset that does not involve fraud. For instance, it is possible that he has gotten the credit for spreading around a lot of oil money in the form of favors to his constituencies, but somehow managed to escape the blame for the resultant high inflation.
But just as a first reaction, this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime.
As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi's spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi's camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory.
The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has had a feud with Mousavi for over 30 years, who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose.
They therefore sent blanket instructions to the Electoral Commission to falsify the vote counts.
This clumsy cover-up then produced the incredible result of an Ahmadinejad landlside in Tabriz and Isfahan and Tehran.
The reason for which Rezaee and Karoubi had to be assigned such implausibly low totals was to make sure Ahmadinejad got over 51% of the vote and thus avoid a run-off between him and Mousavi next Friday, which would have given the Mousavi camp a chance to attempt to rally the public and forestall further tampering with the election.
This scenario accounts for all known anomalies and is consistent with what we know of the major players.
More in my column, just out, in Salon.com : «Ahmadinejad reelected under cloud of fraud,» where I argue that the outcome of the presidential elections does not and should not affect Barack Obama's policies toward that country. They are the right policies and should be followed through on regardless.
The public demonstrations against the result don't appear to be that big. In the past decade, reformers have always backed down in Iran when challenged by hardliners, in part because no one wants to relive the horrible Great Terror of the 1980s after the revolution, when faction-fighting produced blood in the streets. Mousavi is still from that generation.
My own guess is that you have to get a leadership born after the revolution, who does not remember it and its sanguinary aftermath, before you get people willing to push back hard against the rightwingers.
So, there are protests against an allegedly stolen election. The Basij paramilitary thugs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will break some heads. Unless there has been a sea change in Iran, the theocrats may well get away with this soft coup for the moment. But the regime's legitimacy will take a critical hit, and its ultimate demise may have been hastened, over the next decade or two.
What I've said is full of speculation and informed guesses. I'd be glad to be proved wrong on several of these points. Maybe I will be.
P.S. : Here's the data :
So here is what Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said Saturday about the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections :
«Of 39,165,191 votes counted (85 percent), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election with 24,527,516 (62.63 percent).»
He announced that Mir-Hossein Mousavi came in second with 13,216,411 votes (33.75 percent).
Mohsen Rezaee got 678,240 votes (1.73 percent).
Mehdi Karroubi with 333,635 votes (0.85 percent).
He put the void ballots at 409,389 (1.04 percent).
Paix aux hommes de bonne volonté!
A remarkable essay on ‘near-tabloid science’
Il y a 1 heure