Twitter and Protest (IN IRAN)

[Artsysiridean]

I'll just leave this right here.

Twitter is the only thing letting people organise, and the major source of on-the-ground news; unfortunately the gov't has caught on to this and is trying to track down the dissidents. Apparently they're just looking for Iran location/time stamps, so the more shit they have to sift through, the better.

~Nunix. Gamespite.net

 

[CupOfWater]

Re: Twitter and Protest

What is this about...?

 

[Aught3]

Re: Twitter and Protest

Damn, someone took Aught3.

It's about the Iranian elections.

 

[Moky]

Re: Twitter and Protest

And how Iran is cracking down on Media and not allowing any news to get to foreign countries. Only thing they missed was Twitter XD

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_wl396

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Twitter and Protest

The progressive media sources I read are all promoting Twitter-based reporting out of Iran. I guess it is true: you can't stop the signal.

 

[nbarrett100]

Re: Twitter and Protest

About lunch time I got an email telling me follow some Iranian users on twitter. I did and then spent the day following them, they knew people outside where reading so they documented the actions of the riot police and religious police. They also used it to communicate to each other, one said "Everybody try to film as much as poss today on mobiles "¦ these are eyes of world.".

By 2 the users had made BBC news. Now out of the four I had followed and lunch only one still exists, so I guess the others have been shut down. The Iranian police started setting up twitter accounts to counter it and have entered a game of internet cat and mouse with Protesters.

whatevers going on, this is an unprecedented use of the internet in the face of government oppression.

its all here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/16/twitter-social-networking-iran-opposition

 

[Artsysiridean]

Re: Twitter and Protest

About lunch time I got an email telling me follow some Iranian users on twitter. I did and then spent the day following them, they knew people outside where reading so they documented the actions of the riot police and religious police. They also used it to communicate to each other, one said "Everybody try to film as much as poss today on mobiles "¦ these are eyes of world.".

By 2 the users had made BBC news. Now out of the four I had followed and lunch only one still exists, so I guess the others have been shut down. The Iranian police started setting up twitter accounts to counter it and have entered a game of internet cat and mouse with Protesters.

whatevers going on, this is an unprecedented use of the internet in the face of government oppression.

its all here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/16/twitter-social-networking-iran-opposition

Bingobango.

 

[Mapp]

Re: Twitter and Protest

This is the power of the internet. Twitter, cell phone cameras, Youtube, etc, has exposed this theocracy for what it is, an unjust and totalitarian system. It has forced the Iranian government to begin drastically reconsidering its standard tactics. I can't think of another time where the government would actually admit there were voting irregularities, or where the Supreme Mullah would deign to address a crowd as he did. Pre-internet, what we're seeing would have worked for Iran: shut the reporters up in hotel rooms, keep their camera men under guard, only allowed to come out to view the official rallies full of conscripted citizens. Then they arrest and execute the opposition leaders, and gun down the protesters. The only source out of the country would have been Iranian state t.v. Now, however, we have video of militia killing peaceful protesters, we have video of them lying dead in the street, and we have direct evidence that, rather than terrorists as the Supreme Mullah called them, these people are peacefully assembling and demanding more transparency and honesty from their government. It essentially exposes the sham claims that Iran is a democracy.

Unfortunately, I don't know how this could end well. Unlike the Orange Revolution, which was exercised against a morally, intellectually and literally bankrupt Communist regime, these protests are taking place against violent religious fanatics, who consider their right to rule granted by God. It doesn't seem likely that those in power will lay down their guns and join the people. The protests have already gotten more violent in response to the government's murdering and intimidating protesters, and its really only a matter of time before Iranian Guard forces come in. I'm hoping that change in Iran does not come at the cost of a massacre, but I don't see how it won't.

 

[Sando]

Re: Twitter and Protest

The progressive media sources I read are all promoting Twitter-based reporting out of Iran. I guess it is true: you can't stop the signal.

Go browncoats!

 

[Josan]

Re: Twitter and Protest

Go browncoats!

Guess we should call them Greencoats eh?

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: Twitter and Protest

The Iranians need to stand up for themselves, although I guess it's pretty hard when all means of organization are trounced by the government. Still the US or UN should leave them to sort their own shit out and lift any sanctions on them, they're no threat to the world, they got their own problems to sort out.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Twitter and Protest

I don't agree the people should be supported not the government. If they ask for help or mass killings start to take place then intervention is required.

In the mean time everyone should do what they can, where ever they are, and keep talking about the problems.

 

[Artsysiridean]

Bumped and renamed topic to help a bit.

 

[Aught3]

If you want to read what Hitchens has to say: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1729132

If you rolled your eyes at the other link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124605747799763537.html

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Twitter and Protest

I don't agree the people should be supported not the government.

It depends on what you mean. My understanding is that there's a better-than-even chance that the election was won by Amadinnerplatter "fair and square"(as much as that has meaning in Iran) and that the election wasn't necessarily "stolen." And that's coming out of the progressive American media; the opposition's popularity was blown out of proportion by Western media... yet another way we have possibly interfered in Iran's politics to negative effect.

If they ask for help or mass killings start to take place then intervention is required.

In the mean time everyone should do what they can, where ever they are, and keep talking about the problems.

That intervention should be automatic no matter what. It is a shame that we have to pretend that we know Iran's election was stolen in order to generate interest in human rights.

ETA:

I'm not attacking anyone here, or claiming that you aren't fundamentally decent folks who care about stuff. I'm just saying that it seems to take an accusation of election fraud to generate interest in the general public.

 

[Aught3]

That intervention should be automatic no matter what. It is a shame that we have to pretend that we know Iran's election was stolen in order to generate interest in human rights.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying - the intervention should be automatic when certain conditions are met. As to the second part - once something becomes normal it is easier to ignore. It's not really about whether the government stole the election or not, and there were some strange results, it's now about the goverment sponsored militia cracking dwn on the protestors. These guys have impunity from the law and they are getting away with murder on the streets.

 

[ladiesman391]

Intervention won't change anything, it may halt the turmoil (or increase it) for the short period that the intervention is present but essentially if a country (any country) has problems, they have to be solved by the people in that country. A countries own problems are not going to be solved by some outside influence, history shows that. Even the US had a civil war that was a contributing factor to great, respected people such as Abraham Lincoln leading the country into a more peaceful, equal modern era, if Iran is to find the same thing it will take conflict and some great leaders to stand up and lead the people out of it and those leaders will have to have lived in , grown up and understand Iran and have support of the people of it's own country. It's ludicrous to assume that an intervention can forcefully put a government in place that is considered "good" by other countries, but is not fully supported or respected by the people of said country, and if a government that is not supported gains power then it is up to the people to remove the government themselves through their own process or change their own process for what they believe is the better.

Unless there's some seriously outrageous genocide or it wages some completely unjust wars against it's neighbors, the country should be left to find it's own way in reaching peace and harmony, it will have a far greater chance of success this way. Interventions are seen by people within the country as an attempt by those intervening to protect their own interests (whatever they may be) in that country. Imagine if conflict arose in your own country and some other countries with completely different cultural values came along and forced who they thought should be in power, into power, imagine the amount conflict that in itself would generate. Then imagine if a strong, respected leader stood up and gained support of your country and made great headway in solving the conflict.

If you have friends or family in Iran, by all means you should keep contact and keep supporting them, but if you have no connection what-so-ever with Iran then we should stop meddling in their affairs as we just keep stoking the fire.