So why is it that in Iran that all these protesters have signs in English and not Farsi! I am sure it isnt right over there but what gives, I thought eveyone would make signes in Farsi and not English...
DJ Damerchi
I think thats pretty much self-explanatory mate.
Lemonad
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Damerchi
Did you guys hear that the footballers that played against south korea with green bands were "retired" from the national team:wtf:
Yeah that's a massive blow, however I think that's the biggest mistake the regime could have done to a soccer fanatic nation.
Even pro-Ahmadinejad supports will find this offensive and actually turn on him because of this move.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Chryz707
So why is it that in Iran that all these protesters have signs in English and not Farsi! I am sure it isnt right over there but what gives, I thought eveyone would make signes in Farsi and not English...
The same reason this forum is in english: the message has farther reach! The iranians realize the world is watching.
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
What are they actually chanting there HT?
Pure awesomeness! :D
It's videos like this that give me great hope for the people of Iran to overturn 30 years of repression!
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Anyway, this discussion has gotten stupid.
What's interesting to me in the last few days is how the conflict has transformed from being one of political unrest in Iran into something bigger. I don't know what the outcome will be of the political struggle - I have a good deal of skepticism about Mousavi's chances for gaining any sort of power. But it strikes me that there are some social developments coming out of this situation that are more far-reaching.
For instance, much has been made of the innovations used by dissenters in Iran in the field of social networking and communication. Twitter and facebook have been the predominant tools of this "revolution" - before now did any of us fully realize the impact of globalized media? The bulk of this revolution is being waged online, and the government's attempts to shut down avenues of dissent remind one of a feeble man grasping at straws. The regime doesn't seem to fully recognize the diversity of tools used to oppose it. In some sense, the reversion to political violence seems to be a signal by the regime that it wants to flex its muscle where it knows not only that it can win, but in an arena where it can recognize "the enemy". Would this revolution have as much steam without the anonymity of the internet? I have my doubts about that too.
It's clear, however, that this revolution has ushered in a new age of engagement in politics. It used to be that you had to march on Washington, attend regular meetings, or step into a voting booth to be politically active. Now, you simply need to interact with others on your Twitter feed. It's become easier to be politically aware.
Furthermore, we've seen what might be the first death throe of media as we know it. CNN has been lambasted for being two steps behind and cross-eyed in its coverage of Iran. Is anyone getting any of their news about the situation in Tehran from network media? Blogs and eyewitness accounts are the definitive narrative of what is going on - we don't need a media to package stories any longer; we can now access them ourselves, see the pictures, read the messages firsthand. The middleman of the media has largely been cut out. And where people long for analysis, CNN has more or less failed to deliver. Aside from Fareed Zakaria's program these past two Sundays, the talking heads of cable news jabber on about nothing, and try to deliver half-understood lessons in the manner of grade-school teachers.
The real analysts are on the op-ed pages of newspapers and blogs. Their content is fresh, and doesn't consist of rehashes of something written two days before an invitation to appear on TV was issued.
Much has been made of the death of newspapers; after Iran plays out, I wonder what the relevance of corporate news media will be. We're seeing just how incapable CNN is of reporting on events around the world from a nice clean studio in Atlanta. In an age where news bureaus refuse to send journalists around the world to report on stories, audiences are learning that they can access those corners of the world themselves much and learn firsthand from them much more quickly than our modern-day "international" correspondents can do the same and repackage it.
To expand on this, we're seeing this crisis have serious corollorary effects on media in other ways as well:
quote:
The media-manufactured (and, as always, right-wing-fueled) pseudo-controversy over Obama's "pre-coordinated" selection of Huffington Post's Pitney to ask a question is revealingly inane for many obvious reasons: Pitney's question was one of the most adversarial Obama was asked, and the establishment media reaction clearly stems from resentment over their perceived status being undermined by allowing The Huffington Post and, more to the point, an actual Iranian (rather than a self-anointed reporter-spokesperson for Iranians) to ask the President a question.
But equally revealing is their self-glorifying and delusional belief that only establishment media reporters are sufficiently Serious to be entitled to ask the President questions -- even as they fill Press Conferences with petty, vapid questions and otherwise endlessly reveal themselves to be substance-free and frivolous. Along those lines, The Washington Post claimed that "budgetary constraints" played a role in the firing of actually serious journalist Dan Froomkin, yet The Post spends money to produce and promote things like the below-posted video from "reporters" Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza that has to be seen to be believed. Be forewarned: many will consider the video too petty to bother posting and virtually everyone will find it painfully irritating to watch. I agree with those assessments, but there is still something about it -- the oozing smugness, the view of politics as a juvenile game, the desperation to be above it all and too sophisticated to care, the total lack of self-awareness in failing to realize how embarrassingly unfunny it is -- that makes it a tour de force in illustrating what and who so much of the Washington media really are:
lol... what's wrong with being against inviting people to share in the holiday celebration that represents the very things they deny their own people (free speech, peaceful demonstration, freedom of religion, etc), and violently so at the moment?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
lol... what's wrong with being against inviting people to share in the holiday celebration that represents the very things they deny their own people (free speech, peaceful demonstration, freedom of religion, etc), and violently so at the moment?
To quote the NIAC response (a group that is more vehemently anti-Iranian government than even the NRO), "Rubin is simply making mountains out of molehills."
