A week removed from the elections in Iran and there are protests in the streets. At last count 7 have been confirmed killed so far. So many are protesting the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president who has consistently made statements against Zionist Israel and the support that’s been given to them by various countries throughout the world. Due to his position and verbal expression he’s been looked down on and stigmatized by many world powers, most of them hailing from the west.
Many especially the younger adults in Iran have seen the way President Ahmedinejad has spoken and conducted himself as shameful to Iran and Iranians. They feel that he’s making conditions worse for Iran by bringing sanctions upon them and drawing the ire of the world (well, the western world) onto them. Of course there are other issues at hand too, which include what is viewed as a huge mismanagement of money and not taking care of business at home. Due to these and other reasons Mir-Hossein Mousavi has been championed as the candidate of change. He’s been put out there as the one who will make Iran acceptable in the eyes of the west (the world) and for the younger adults he’s what Obama was to the young people in the U.S.; a symbol of hope. So these have and continue to don their green ribbons and wristbands symbolic of their support for Mousavi. They wanted change and they voted for it with their heart and might however something happened; they lost.
The days leading up to and during the election world (west) media said there would be a neck and neck race and the election would be a very close and tight one. And it was with the Ahmedinejad and Mousavi coming in first and second place respectively however, the current president received over 60% of the votes while Mousavi got around 30%. How could this happen, how could this guy win the election? There were so many people in support of Mousavi and he received less than half of what Ahmedinejad did? It was a fraud, election fraud, recount, recount, have to recount the votes because the election is not legitimate! This is what was being said by the world (west) media and by many greenies who felt disenfranchised. However, we must ask, where does this idea of voter fraud come from, is there any evidence of it? Were some being intimidated and others turned away from the vote? Of course there are stories of it, but has proof been produced and also were the people (if there were) who abused power part of the incumbent’s crew or were they simply individuals too keen on getting the person they supported in office? In short, were these zealous persons acting as individuals or were they a part of a group and/or part of the incumbents circle? Of course these stories are heard but have stories been heard post election about any kind of similar incidents to restrict voting for President Ahmedinejad? Maybe they haven’t been heard because no such thing’s happened. Then again according to MSN news three individuals were not yelled at, run off or beaten to prevent them to vote but, they were shot. Three persons including a child were shot at the president’s voting headquarters (http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3036132). Perhaps there are more stories such as these that are currently being neglected by the world (west) media. Who knows.
So the greenies felt disenfranchised because their voting didn’t get their man into office. They decided to take their dissatisfaction out to the streets and demand the world (maybe west? Hmmm…) hear them and know how they feel. In fact, not only did they take this tactic, Mousavi himself said he’d be out in the street and wouldn’t be satisfied until he received a voting recount. Since the election the world (..you know what goes here) media has been talking about Iran consistently. Images have shown up of people who have been shot (perhaps one of the individuals who have died) in a news media that’s known for its clean, bleached broadcasts in which violent image are more or less banned. One has to wonder why exactly the western media has taken such a strong interest in the elections in Iran and more than that, why they’re so interested in seeing a recount and having Mousavi elected. This seems similar to the Darfur issue in the sense that the entire continent of Africa is typically a neglected entity by the west yet when the Darfur issue came up everyone wanted to all of a sudden care about the Sudan. Of course we ought to assume that this is a genuine interest and that it’s not related to the oil beneath the sands of the Sudan. Iran too was more or less a neglected entity in as far as its internal politics were concerned (at least to the extent that it wouldn’t garner attention in the daily news) but now, the spotlight is shining on high over the election and Iranian politics. Why is this?
Through nearly the entire existence of mass media or even simply media, the main means of communication have been utilized by one group of people or another to spread a message whether true or false. During times of war, psychological wars have been waged through the dissemination of propaganda into the minds of the citizens of a nation waging war as well as into the minds of citizens of a nation on whom war has been declared. From the last few years the world (…) media has gone to the lengths of promoting Ahmedinejad as an anti-semite (whoever sees this term ought to define it and determine what constitutes a person being Semitic), a racist, a warmonger, a person against human rights and everything else under the sun. This has been put into the heads of people in the west as well as people in Iran. Often, in the days leading up to the election, during the election and after the same terminology used by the media has found its way into the mouths of protestors almost verbatim. Of course this could be because the description of Ahmedinejad is true but then again, it could be because greenies are parroting what they’ve heard said. Regardless, the media has played a large role in influencing the minds and hearts of the public both in the west and elsewhere. Adding to the fuel is internet usage including that of Myspace, Facebook and the younger Twitter. According to islamonline.net The US administration has delved into Iran’s election dispute by asking the micro-blogging website Twitter to delay maintenance shutdown to avoid disrupting communications among tech-savvy Iranian activists.
"This was just a call to say: 'It appears Twitter is playing an important role at a crucial time in Iran. Could you keep it going?'" P.J. Crowley, assistant secretary of state for public affairs, told the New York Times on Wednesday, June 17.
State Department official Jared Cohen e-mailed the social-networking site with the unusual request to delay its scheduled maintenance shutdown because of its use as a communications tool by Iranian activists who stage nonstop protests. There appears to be a vested interest in regards to the U.S. government seeing and having this protest against the current president. Sadly, those who are protesting and trying to remove the president from office are not questioning why Western nations are so interested in seeing the success of the protest movement. Perhaps for some it’s great to have western backing and they’ve been so thoroughly infiltrated mentally by an imperialist mindset that the closer they are to being westernized the better. Perhaps the imperialist-capitalistic value system is something many want to have after being exposed to so many broadcasts coming from the west to their own backyards. If that’s the case then of course one can’t blame the protestors for doing what they’re doing. However, if they’re seeking the freedom they say they want, then why are they fighting for a person or at the very least a situation that from all appearances is supported by a group of nations not too interested in the self-determination of Iran? This reverses an independent Iran does it not?
When a nation decides it wants to fight for freedom or their human rights they ought to do so on their own terms and according to the standards of the society within which they live. In more cases than not, they shouldn’t be attempting to live up to the standard or rules that are set up for them by system that has no true regard for their well being and freedom of mind and life. Too often in the history of people from the “third world” our leaders who’ve been supported and/or endorsed by the west as our saviors have been the one’s who’ve done the most damage to us and have exploited our being and our lands for the benefit of themselves, their families, their friends and rich racist nations. From Africa to Asia to South America this has historically been the case. Can the situation be any different now? Those who are protesting in Iran right now (not Ali’s who become Al or the Babaks who become Bob but the ones who say they really want something better for their nation) should really analyze why they are protesting, what they are protesting for and what they’re protesting against. Is the individual they protest in favor of really any good for them, will he have the best interest at heart for those who voted him into office or will he sell out his own people?
