Radical Islamists Cheer Hardliner's Win

[maddezmom]

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Indonesian radical Islamists cheered the news that a hardliner had won Iran's presidential election, while Muslims in Pakistan said the victory was the response to a U.S. foreign policy that has bolstered Islamic extremism in the region.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the conservative mayor of Tehran, beat his relatively moderate rival Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani and was declared Iran's next president early Saturday. His triumph extends the conservatives' control in Iran and could lead to a return to social restrictions that were commonplace after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"I'm glad and happy to know Iran's result," said Irfan Awwas, a leader of Majelis Mujahiddin Indonesia, a hardline Islamic group. Its founder, Abu Bakar Bashir, is in jail for his role in the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people.

He said Iranians apparently think Rafsanjani is "more fit to manage international relations, especially with Western countries, but not to lead the country."

~snip~
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050625/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_world_view_3

[ClintonTyree]

1. What are the chances....

that the more palatable candidate would have won if not for bush's oil grab in Iraq? Very good, I believe. bush has inflamed the Muslim world far more than can be imagined. He did what Bin Laden could not do. He took a group of segmented people and made them whole all because he wanted to settle an old grudge.

Way to go, georgie!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. A true progressist would have made it to the runoff, and won.

Remember 1998? World Cup? Iran vs. USA match becomes a celebration of peace. At that time, Iran's redemocratization seemed inevitable. Of course, nobody could foresee the W factor back then.

By the way, Iran won 1-0, but nobody seemed to mind. The climate at the match was totally relaxed.

[1932]

2. For all I know, media is exaggerating this guys "harliner-ness"

However, if he really is a serious Islamist, I do find it curious that, as I understand it, a big reason the US is in Iraq is to prevent the rise of Islamists in the Middle East, and a big reason for 9/11 was that bin Laden wanted the US to react in a way that would encourage people to rally around Islamists in countries in the former Caliphate.

If that's the case, then bin Laden is getting what he wanted.

[SouthernDem2004]

3. You do realize these "elected" officals do not run the country.

They have no real power.

[1932]

6. Yeah, so why bother even running for office.

According to everything I've read, Iran has more of a democracy than most non-western countrie (however, it's my impression that there are plenty of checks and balances between the PM, president, legislature, and whatever other bodies they have there).

If an islamist winning a national election in a country which actually votes for a lot of their leaders isn't a reflection of possible mistakes by american "diplomacy" in the region, and the successes of "hardliner" islamist tendencies (the "suppression" of which is probably 80% of the reason for the US enganing in any kind of throwing around of weight in the middle east and the expression of which is possibly 80% of the reason for 9/11)...well then I guess I don't realize things.

If you're saying, don't worry, the moderate government will repress this ilamist sentiment because they don't have to reflect the wishes of the people in their government, well, that's cold comfort if it's true.

Sentiments that are held by a majority of the people which aren't "suppressed" by a full airing of the ideas and counter argument which a majority of the people then embrace democratically tend to create political problems and don't result in pretty endings.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. There's a council of clerics that has the power to veto a lot of things.

Some candidates couldn't run because they weren't "Islamic enough." Also, they shut down both celebration and protest demonstrations.

Imagine the US the way it is, only with Fred Phelps having veto power over things.

And yet they're WAY more democratic than Saudi Arabia. Women can vote, for instance. (And drive!)

Edit: typo

[SouthernDem2004]

9. The Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Supreme Leader means just what it sounds like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

[cal04]

4. US 'humiliated' after Iran election

IRAN's all-powerful supreme leader said today the United States had been "humiliated deep inside" by the Islamic republic's presidential election, won by hardliner Mahmood Ahmadinejad. "You illustrated the secret of your solidity and power against the expansionist policies of the arrogance of the world," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a message to the Iranian people read out on state television.

"Despite its babbling, your enemy is now humiliated deep inside because of your greatness and the transparency of your democracy," Khamenei said. The terms "arrogance of the world" and "enemy" are Iranian regime speak for the United States, also known here as the "Great Satan".

Khamenei told Iranians the election was "practical proof of your commitment to bravely guard the Islamic republic's interests (and) fulfil all the Islamic and revolutionary ideals."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15732708%255E1702,00.html

[Jack Rabbit]

5. BBC Link

From the BBC Online
Dated Saturday June 25

Iran hardliner sweeps to victory

The ultra-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory in Iran's presidential poll.

Mr Ahmadinejad won 62% of votes, defying predictions of a close race, to defeat the more moderate ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

After his win, Mr Ahmadinejad said he planned to create a "modern, advanced and Islamic" role model for the world.

His victory means all the organs of the Iranian state are now in the hands of conservative hardliners.

Read more.

[VegasWolf]

10. Is there even ONE thing that Bush can't fuck up? nt