You write: > While counting > votes, during the first hours of counting there were two different but > parallel processes: the first one was usual process in which responsible > persons were counting the votes from which Mousavi had received his initial > information, another was a parallel center in the Interior Ministry who only > announced rushly the results without noticing the counting process!
If the central count did not match the local count, that should be easy for the opposition to prove. Why hasn't it done so? Why hasn't the opposition shown how the national numbers don't match the local numbers? Recall that by way of example, I reported that Mousavi's campaign manager for Abadan did not dispute the count for Abadan based on his 127 observers. And: > What was initially and bit by bit announced was not an aggregation of some > numbers. The so-called aggregation was firstly announces, and then during > the days after election the ballot boxes were so prepared that they can > produced the aggregation. Either the national numbers match the local numbers or they don't. If they aggregrate the local numbers, they are not cooked. If they are cooked, they don't match the local numbers. There is no way around this logic. If you know what ten numbers are, you know what their sum is. There is no way to change what the sum of ten numbers is without changing one of the numbers. This is why it is necessary for the Mousavi people to say which ballot boxes they were prevented from observing, because it is only ballot boxes that Mousavi's people were not allowed to observe that could be "prepared" to be different from what they were before without the Mousavi people being able to say: "that ballot box has been doctored." You write: > No, the letter only include some titles of the report. The report is about > 60 pages in Persian, focusing on different phases of the election precess, > and showing many different methods of fraud in this great lie. Is this 60 page report publicly available? Do you know if it says which ballot boxes Mousavi disputes? Which ballot boxes weren't clean at the start of the voting? Which ballot boxes were Mousavi's observers barred from observing? For which ballot boxes were Mousavi's observers not allowed to observe the counting of the votes? > As you may know, Mousvi rejected to send a person > for recounting ten percent of the ballots. Yes, I do know that. And I regard that fact as quite damaging to Mousavi's case among fair-minded people. Mousavi complains that his observers were blocked without saying where, and then when the government proposes to recount ten percent of the ballots, Mousavi refuses to send anyone to participate. Then, he can dismiss the recount as being carried out by people that he doesn't trust. This is not the behavior of someone trying to get at the truth, in my opinion. Someone trying to get at the truth would welcome the opportunity for more information. 2009/7/1 Mohammad Maljoo <[email protected]>: > > > What was initially and bit by bit announced was not an aggregation of some > numbers. The so-called aggregation was firstly announces, and then during > the days after election the ballot boxes were so prepared that they can > produced the aggregation. As you may know, Mousvi rejected to send a person > for recounting ten percent of the ballots. > >>>> You write: "Anyway, there are enough evidences for the hypothesis > on a great fraud in the election! . The le ngthy report delivered by > Mousavi to the Guardian Council has left no doubt.! " > > By "lengthy report" do you mean his letter to the Guardian Council > that has been published on the web and translated to English by > Teharan Bureau?<< > > No, the letter only include some titles of the report. The report is about > 60 pages in Persian, focusing on different phases of the election precess, > and showing many different methods of fraud in this great lie. > > I am well aware that how much all these are strange. In the last 30 years > ( not least after 1996 landslide victory of Khatami) , the election as a > political institution was a place in which many political struggles can > be solved . In th 30 anniversary of the revolution , however, the > election became the very subject of the political struggle. What has > happened is against the election institution itself. > > M.M. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes > way beyond your inbox. More than messages > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
