June 14, 2009
The protests in Iran following last Friday's seemingly rigged Presidental election haven't been dying down, despite the loss of most of the country's internet, cell phone and news services. Some accounts are showing a turn for the violent.
Can you imagine seeing this and having no way to call friends or find out what exactly is happening around you? From the photos tagged "iran" on Flickr (this link will filter out the annoying naked bike race photos) there are shots like this:
One service that has been available to the Iranians is Twitter. If you enter #iranelection into the search, you can check out some of the latest postings - when I last checked it about an hour ago, there were about 45 new posts every minute.
Last night word spread around twitter about the media shutdown, and out went the call for people to go to their rooftops and shout "Allah O Akbar" in protest. Check it out - it's pretty amazing:
Sullivan has been invaluable in covering this heavily over the weekend, as has been the New York Times. The story doesn't seem to be getting too much play anywhere else. Sullivan just posted this video of what is going on in Teheran tonight - people and cars are clogging the streets, and Sullivan is reporting that what they are chanting is "Death to the Dictator":
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
JSeraphim (anonymous) says...
This is amazing.
June 15, 2009 at 1:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
Here's the wrap-up of Sullivan's posts over the weekend:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...
Stay tuned today - looks to be no slowing down.
June 15, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
I'd imagined something like this happening in the U.S. had McCain somehow won...I mean, not /really/ like this, but widespread protests and some rage. Of course, in that case the media wouldn't have been shut down. Doing so just seems to verify there was in fact a coup. Ahmadjinedad was evidently caught off guard by agreeing to the debates and then allowing them to be televised... he's obviously not making that mistake twice, unseemly appearances be damned. Maybe truth, with a big assist from the internets and cell phones, will eventually win out anyway...
June 15, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
Six signs the election was stolen: http://juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-...
June 15, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
"I'd imagined something like this happening in the U.S. had McCain somehow won" Ashton Kutcher tried to compare it to the Bush/Gore election today. I think you're both wrong. First of all, Barack Obama's supporters aren't the crazy kool-aid drinkers they are often made out to be and I don't think they (or most Americans) have the mob mentality it takes to start a good riot, but primarily, riots in this country are generally unnecessary.
Honestly, I feel like this contrast to the American way is giving definition to our freedom. Our country is so great *because* we don't need to riot, because there is no need for immediate Marshall Law with our change of power and because, like you pointed out, the media is free. People wouldn't be blown up or shot at. Nor would they need to climb to the rooftops to have their voices heard. Those are some very big differences.
One more thing I think is different. Our country was, in fact, very nearly divided 50/50 during our closest elections. I'm not convinced that is the case in Iran, but I could be wrong. When Al Gore was defeated and when John McCain was defeated, 50% of the population wasn't even really bitter over that for too long. We have in the past, and are currently, quickly moving along to the business of assessing and accurately reporting on the job of the current President.
June 15, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
I do think that there would have been unrest of some kind if Obama hadn't won, though obviously it wouldn't look anything like what's going on in Iran... we tend not to put opposition leaders under house arrest, etc and the mechanics of voting are relatively more accessible to the media. And facebook still works...
I'm totally fascinated by how the internet is shaping this, though - what if it weren't for twitter and youtube? How much would anyone know? Would we know that students had been injured at the University, especially as it was happening? I've watched that video of people yelling from the rooftops probably five times and I still think it's haunting.
June 15, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
Protests =/= riots. And there's nothing kool-aid crazy about protesting injustice—whether perceived or blatantly obvious.
Granted, filling the streets with protesters a la #2, 36, 37, 38 here... http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009...
...is going to lead to idiots thinking they have a license to be idiots. I've seen protests of crowds in the 1000s, with accompanying idiocy—in this country, including insanity like #27 in that photo series—and over much lesser things than election fraud.
Photos like #18 make me sad...that one seems to epitomize this struggle... Photos like #29 are reassuring though—I refer to the /rescue/ of the cop out of a irrational, hostile crowd.
BTW Why is the blog about an ass-wiping tool getting more discussion than this...?
June 15, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gavon (Gavon Laessig) says...
Because people need a break from the grim reality of the day, smerdy. Nothing acts like a bidet for a troubled brain faster than the Comfort Wipe!
April, I agree that this may be the first revolution to be fueled by the internet. Since our traditional media outlets have either been kicked out of the country or are too damned lazy to actually report what's happening, Twitter and Facebook have filled the void.
A trending topic on Twitter yesterday was #CNNfail. Folks were furious that the cable networks, CNN in particular, gave this seismic story very little coverage. And what little coverage was being provided was so dismissive, it was like Ahmadinejad himself was writing Anderson Cooper's teleprompter script.
A majority of the major news outlets rushed out the "Ahmadinejad Wins" headline (some still are running with that frame), even though our own government is calling into question the official results.
When the traditional media falls flat, the online community is there to pick up the baton.
Now back to poop jokes...
June 15, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
"Protests =/= riots" and nobody said that they did. If you're saying that the protestors *aren't* rioting, then maybe we need to define our terms, 'cause by my understanding setting stuff on fire in the middle of the street is rioting. Now, if you want to go on and say that they are justified, that's one thing, but to say that's not what they are doing, well, I'd disagree.
But back to the comparisons, I'm just trying to understand how anyone can compare the civil unrest in Iran with a "what if" scenario in America. First and foremost, I've pointed out that history has shown otherwise. Al Gore WON the popular vote and the matter was handled (and outrage was expressed) through the media. NOW, if you want to say that Americans would have the same reaction under the same circumstances (a media shut down and the infringement of freedom of speech, in a police state) then, yes, I would say you're scenario would be right on. But as it stands, taking history into consideration, no, this would not have been the case had Obama lost. We would have accepted the defeat (as was the case with Bush v. Gore) and gone about our business. I'd love to hear the reasons you think otherwise. I'm simply basing my opinion on the history that has taken place.
June 15, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
alm—We may be talking past each other. To clarify, I was mainly trying to say:
{
I'd imagined something like this happening in the U.S. had McCain somehow won. I mean, not /really/ like this, but widespread protests and some rage...}
to which you responded:
{
...Barack Obama's supporters aren't the crazy kool-aid drinkers they are often made out to be and I don't think they (or most Americans) have the mob mentality it takes to start a good riot, but primarily, riots in this country are generally unnecessary.}
The first mention of "riots" here is yours — so I pointed that out. My original comment was about *protests,* an important distinction I think.
Anyway, I might have pointed out that I never really took my "imagining" seriously. But, given the recently unheard of Obama campaign rallies, I couldn't help but wonder what those same crowds would do if McCain ended up winning. I think all that was fallout from similar feelings I had about the Bush elections — where neither candidate had such undeniable support. But I didn't mention that, ASHTON did.
June 15, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
"My original comment was about *protests,*" but more specifically protests in Iran, thus my conclusions. Perhaps I shouldn't have so easily overlooked your "not /really/", but what fun would that be? ;)
You make the same point that my husband did last night - that the Obama support was undeniable - I take that to mean his win would also be undeniable, but I'm not sure that's the case. I remember obsessing over electoral maps with John King and playing out scenarios on CNN's interactive map right up to the last minute. If Obama would have lost, I think we would have all considered those results plausible, especially since we had we had no reason to believe otherwise. This is why I think the Bush/Gore and Obama/McCain comparisons (and hey, Ashton's good company, by the way) are applicable. Both were close races with no clear victor until election day (or beyond).
I think Obama's passionate supporters probably weren't any more likely to cause a fuss (in whatever form) than McCain's passionate supporters. Emotions were pretty high on both sides.
My main beef with the comparison is that it overlooks one of the most distinguishing features of American democracy. The beauty of our political system is the consistently peaceful transition of power. Should disagreements arise, we have a legal and peaceful means that we use (petitions, free dissemination of information and litigation) to resolve those disagreements. The faith we have in those methods are the difference between our circumstances and those of the Iranians. I also think that difference is the key to why we didn't have the same or similar reaction to our similar situation(s). As an aside to make my point more clearly, I know the Ayatollah encouraged Moussavi to pursue legal means of protest, but I think the riots give us a clue as to how little faith the Iranian people have in their legal system.
June 16, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )