Iran Moves To End "Facebook Revolution" 838
We've had a few readers send in updates on the chaotic post-election situation in Iran. Twitter is providing better coverage than CNN at the moment. There are both tech and humanitarian angles to the story, as the two samples below illustrate. First, Hugh Pickens writes with a report from The Times (UK) that "the Iranian government is mounting a campaign to disrupt independent media organizations and Web sites that air doubts about the validity of the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the nation's president. Reports from Tehran say that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were taken down after Mr Ahmadinejad claimed victory. SMS text messaging, a preferred medium of communication for young Iranians, has also been disabled. 'The blocking of access to foreign news media has been stepped up, according to Reporters Without Borders. 'The Internet is now very slow, like the mobile phone network. YouTube and Facebook are hard to access and pro-reform sites... are completely inaccessible.'" And reader momen abdullah sends in one of the more disturbing Ask Slashdots you are likely to see. "People, we need your urgent help in Iran. We are under attack by the government. They stole the election. And now are arresting everybody. They also filtered every sensitive Web page. But our problem is that they also block the SMS network and are scrambling satellite TVs. Please, can you help us to set up some sort of network using our home wireless access points? Can anybody show us a link on how to install small TV/radio stations? Any suggestion for setting up a network? Please tell us what to do or we are going to die in the a nuclear war between Iran and US." Update: 06/14 18:32 GMT by KD : Jim Cowie contributes a blog post from Renesys taking a closer look at the state of Iranian Internet transit, as seen in the aggregated global routing tables, and concluding that the story may not be as clear-cut as has been reported.
What's really going on. (Score:0, Insightful)
I wonder what's really going on in Iran. Because this wreaks of propaganda.
Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes in some situations the only real answer is unyielding violence. Sure you can hedge on the bet that eventually enough old people will die off that Iran could become a free country but at the rate they can find new help... sometimes a peaceful revolution just isn't a realistic expectation.
A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (Score:3, Insightful)
what is going on ? (Score:5, Insightful)
you are not smart politics-wise are you ? hardliners stole the election - they got 55%+ vote even in places that never voted for anyone except their ethnic candidates. election fraud has been committed. and now the government of ahmedinajad is trying to suppress discussion. thats it.
Calling all techy lefties & righties! (Score:0, Insightful)
Regardless of your political leanings, this is an opportunity to help out some folks in a country that is crying for help!
Re:what is going on ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The polls showed a dead heat between Ahmedinajad and his primary opponent just one day before the election. This is fraud and oppression of the first degree.
Does Iranian President Matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does he really set policy?
Aren't all the presidential choices pre approved?
Will a different choice change any meaningful policies that might make a difference in Iran getting nuked?
Seems Iran needs another revolution, not just another figurehead.
Re:HAM Radio (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
We got rid of our idiot leadership, now Iran looks to be doing the same.
In all fairness, you didn't get rid of your "idiot leadership", Bush left office as his second term ended. You had an opportunity to get rid of him after the first four years and you blew it.
Re:Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind Bush; look at your nation's founding.
Your ancestors asked (quite nicely at first) for moderate tax relief from the British Government.
The British ignored them.
Your ancestors then started asking about representation in Parliament; if the current people won't change the taxes, maybe we can get some of us elected to help persuade them.
The British still ignored them. Result: full out warfare and for the want of a 10% drop in basic tax, a few MP's and a end to the tea and cotton taxes, they lost the entire American colonies...
The Irani people are an increasingly connected, modern and well-educated (by Middle east standards) lot. Eventually, too many lame excuses by the crackpots will push the majority into outward disobedience. Then a lot of people will get shot, and public anger will rise, eventually resulting in another revolution. Hopefully this time without the Council of Nutjobs and the Supreme unelected Loony they currently have at the top of the tree.
Unless they start moderating towards the public opinion, it will only make this happen faster.
Khamenei knows what he's doing (Score:5, Insightful)
The extent of the fraud perpetrated is clearly intended to send a message. If the powers that be in Iran just wanted Ahmadinejad reelected, they could have done so subtly. Give him 45% or so in round 1, to Mousavi's 39%, and then have him win round 2 with 52% or so. People wouldn't like it, but it'd at least be believable.
No, by giving Ahmadinejad ~67% of the vote, even in Mousavi's hometown, they are very clearly sending a message to the people that their votes do not count. After such a high turnout, after so much enthusiasm, this is a clear move to disenfranchise the Iranian people, so that they don't even try to vote against the entrenched powers in the future.
Tor (Score:3, Insightful)
In the other hand, tor sounds too much like Thor, and if Iranian government things you are of another religion you could be screwed.
Re:Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea (and several african states)
---
It is possible to keep a dictatorship your entire life despite the will of the people.
You just have to be willing to be brutal enough.
Re:what is going on ? (Score:5, Insightful)
First rule of cheating.. don't let people know you're cheating.
...unless you want them to know just how little their voices matter.
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can hedge on the bet that eventually enough old people will die off
There is always some young power hungry hateful bastard waiting to take the old asshole's spot, though.
Re:what is going on ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that's just what the liberal left-wing media wants you to think!
Ahmedninjad would hardly have won an election if he was a power-hungry lunatic, would he?
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what is going on ? (Score:5, Insightful)
noone can execute us. we are not in iran. thats why they are asking us to do something.
if you dont wanna do something, dont. but also dont fuckin try to water down the issue with irrelevant blabbering bullshit. people are being suppressed there, with its true meaning. i dont think you understand the weight of this matter.
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right; sometimes some clear violence (or better; threat of violence) does work; but you have to pick your moment. Doing things badly is normally much worse than not doing them at all. Right now Iran is split 50/50 so it may not be the best moment. Any civil war could be really bloody and nasty. Unless the opposition is properly prepared, they are likely to lose. Normally there should be a long period of peaceful protest and visible repression to get people against the government. Then a demand. Then only any threat of violence when most of the active people and a large part of the army will stand with you. On the other hand, any later moment could be worse than now. Who knows. I just know I'm glad not to be Iranian tonight and I hope for a peaceful and fair solution.
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
Networking won't solve this (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid if you want change, it has to come from within. The Iranian people will have to rise up and displace their government, by force if necessary. Chatting about it on the net won't help, and the US is not going to at all be interested in forcing change at this point. As with pretty much any real change in life, at has to come from within. If this really matters to the people of Iran, then they have the power to change it. You CAN overthrow a government, history has plenty of examples.
As for nuclear war, I wouldn't worry too much about that. The US isn't going to strike first, and Iran lacks the technology to deliver nuclear payloads to the US. Also, as a practical matter while Iranian leadership seems to be oppressive and such, they aren't insane. I'm sure they full and well understand what the US response to a nuclear attack would be, and nobody wants to be the ruler of a glass parking lot.
So I wouldn't worry about nuclear war, but I would worry about Iran becoming a whole lot more oppressive. If you are Iranian, the only real solution to that is to displace your government. Sorry, but that just seems to be the fact. They've made it quite clear they aren't interested in democratic change, and the president of the US isn't interested in starting another war that the military can't sustain, nor would the US population go along with it.
So if change matters, you'll have to do it yourselves, and yes it may be bloody. That or get out of the country, which is probably what I'd opt for. I'd like to think I could stand up and fight but realistically I'd just run away, I don't have the guts to be a revolutionary I think.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
--Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States.
Fox News only true source of news these days (Score:1, Insightful)
From the Topic "We've had a few readers send in updates on the chaotic post-election situation in Iran. Twitter is providing better coverage than CNN at the moment"
Fox News this morning and last night was talking about the same thing. They commented on how most other US news sources had little or nothing on the Iran election.
CNN, and MSNBC has the lowest ratings of any Cable/Network News channel in the US. They provide almost no news which is truthful or accurate. The print media, like the New York Times hide real news stories from the public.
Where I work, MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times are blocked.
When will the good citizens of the US follow Texas and just pull the plug on CNN, MSNBC, and the New York times.
Or if you are afraid that a closer win might push (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one option, it is however that of a completly mad dictator. A more human answer is that the goverment is afraid. Afraid that a closer more realistic faked result would spark revolution. Its soldiers might be willing to shoot on citizens if they think they represent a minority. If the are a majority, then things could be different. Think China vs Russia. The russian soldiers sided with the people recently, the chinese soldiers with their leaders. The reason? Simple, the russian soldiers knew the truth of who was winning the popularity contest.
Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (Score:5, Insightful)
Before Iran had an Islamic theocracy, Iran had a brutal (but pro-US) right-wing dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran had 2,500 years of monarchy before the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran has never had anything like a democracy.
Commonly established history has it that Iran was a democracy from 1951 to 1953, when the first democratically elected leader in ***9000 years*** was overthrown by the americans because he nationalized the oil industry. source [wikipedia.org]. In case you guys are wondering where the current tension between Iran and the US comes from, this is at least part of the answer...
As to the matter at hand: would it be possible to make a torrent-like point to point system for exchanging small messages? It would have to feature some sort of encryption, and be able to hide as something else (illegal downloads of movies would be a good candidate). Making it is not really a big problem, but is there enough "internet" left working that something like this might work?
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:5, Insightful)
If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves.
Dude, pay attention, that's what they're doing. There's a huge difference between us invading Iraq to unseat Saddam and the Iranians standing up to overturn a massively corrupt election. The Iranian people are pissed, and this is their first step toward something less like a dictatorship.
Nobody is calling for substantial outside help (that I've heard of), like asking us to invade Iran to help a revolution. The "left" has nothing to do with this, and the western media seems not to care all that much about the situation. Even the guy who sent the Ask Slashdot only wanted advice on communicating with others!
Regardless of what happens, this whole shebang was started and led entirely by Iranians who are upset with their government, and they're not looking for some foreign power to send in the cavalry, which I have to respect.
Read the article titled "The Ugly Side of Truth". (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the article titled "The Ugly Side of Truth [slashdot.org]".
Yeah, an other crypto nerd (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard time filtering a constantly on connection to the big satan when any mechanic can just plugin a headset and hear nothing but the noises modems make and no voices.
Iran is a dictatorship, it doesn't have to obey laws or niceties. Anyone who follows your advice is risking death if the iran goverment is really doing what people here are claiming it is doing.
The first victim of dictatorship is plausible deniability.
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:3, Insightful)
Specific: Saddam Hussein was supported by Gerry Healy's [wikipedia.org] Worker's Revolutionary Party [wikipedia.org]. He helped to fund them, and in turn, they published favourable articles about him.
General: The Left advocates international socialism [wikipedia.org], a political ideology based on totalitarian oppression of dissent, whether practised by hardline tyrants such as Stalin or by supposed "moderates" like Leon Trotsky [wikipedia.org]. When did the Left advocate tyranny? Constantly.
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:5, Insightful)
And others just hate twitter that much.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
... The Iranians created this horrible society. It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities ..... Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different. The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
You seem to be missing out the part when the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a brutal despot. Nope, nothing to do with how that changed Iranian society at all.
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why here in America we have the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers realized that at some point, a second revolution would be needed...
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the overwhelming majority clearly oppose the creation of a liberal Western democracy. The Iranians love a brutal Islamic theocracy.
While it's (probably) true that a lot of Iranians support the current government, I don't think you can say the "overwhelming majority" support it. The current situation proves this -- the people are pissed. They tried to do it the right way and they still got screwed by, what seems to be, a rigged election.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
The topic was posted by kdawson. 'nough said.
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
Re:But seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoever has the biggest stick, or the most buddies/lackeys with big sticks.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to work out whether that's better, worse, or no different than the system we have now.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense.
The white minority in South Africa was able to hold power for decades. Why? They had the guns.
I don't know what percentage of the population supports the Iranian dictatorship. But so long as its supporters are armed and its opponents are not, it doesn't matter how many of them there are.
Building a nuke has nothing to do with "revenge". Since the U.S. has demonstrated its willingness to engage in wars of aggression, any state not closely allied with a nuclear power can only secure itself by obtaining a nuclear deterrent.
Ah, ignorance of history is bliss, ain't it?
Iran was a becoming a modern, secular state. But it's elected prime minister has the temerity to nationalize its oil reserves [wikipedia.org], which didn't sit well with the U.S. and U.K., so we backed the Shah.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realize how offensive it is to lump all the Iranian people under one label when ascribing motivations or actions to them? If you want to make the state sovereignty argument, fine, but leave it at that. Don't be all, like, "Those damned brown people."
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
This is extremely uninformed and offensive. You obviously know very little of Iranian culture.
To rule, you need a majority of power. People aren't equally powerful, so you do not necessarily need a majority of people to rule.
Minorities can and do keep majorities hostage. When some classes, like veterans, priests, businessmen or people of inherited wealth command more raw power than regular people, and differ significantly from regular people in their political preferences, this is the rule rather than the exception.
This is true even in democracies, because although voting power may be equal, it's far from the only power there is, or even the most important. If the Iranians rise up against this disenfranchisement, there will be bloodshed, because while the clerics and the revolutionary guard are in a minority, they have more than enough power to match the majority.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
He also refers to "the Iranians" as if they think in unison, like some giant borg-like collective. It is this exact mindset that aids government in their endless quest for not only more revenue, but more power over the people. This is exactly how every government around the world wants you to think.
Come on, this is 2009. If you still can't wrap your head around the truth that people are unique, thinking individuals, each with a unique perspective on life, liberty, and happiness, than you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Re:Fox News only true source of news these days (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I don't pay attention to MSNBC, as they're nearly as bad as Fox, just in the opposite direction.
CNN and the NY Times have been covering this story non-stop since the voting started a couple days ago. In fact, it's the front page story on the Times.
If Fox says that its competitors aren't covering the story, that's just because Fox wants you to stay tuned to their station.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:5, Insightful)
Reporter, I strongly suggest you learn A LOT more about history. If you want to talk about the difference of cultures, you need to actually learn about them. For starters, you need to learn that Americans have the most violent culture of any first world country. Start there, life is not black and white, wake the fuck up, and grow up. Oh, and I'm American.
Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (Score:2, Insightful)
So it's Venezuela with a coup? Could this be why he always brings up the CIA?
One reason never to touch another country on that level...
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ignoring the history of Iran since the 1950s. Iran had a democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mossadegh in 1951. He nationalised the oil field. As a result, he was overthrown during a West-supported coup. The western-friendly Shah came to power, installed an autocratic dictatorship, which was overthrown by the theocrats in 1979, who were the most vocal opponents of the Shah. Ayatollah Khomeny came to power, installed an even more brutal and repressive, West-unfriendly theocracy. The West tried to overthrow it by staging a war by cutting a deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq (remember him?), who lusted after Iran's oil fields. After many years of war and nearly a million deaths, a stalemate was reached in 1988. Since then there is an election system in Iran but it is closely controlled by the theocrats. Even though reforms were made, the most progressist of elected leader, Mohamed Katami, did not succeed in freeing the press and installing a real democracy.
Given all the above I would not say the problems of the Iranians are purely their own fault. The West including the US have been meddling in Iranian policies for a long time.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
In ideal world maybe - but let's not forget that it was Eisenhower administration and the brits that conspired and overthrew democratically elected government of Iran in the fifties, after the said government was determined to nationalize oil industry of Iran, which sounds too familiar to what's going on in the Middle East today.
Then Iran had endured twenty or so year of brutal dictatorship imposed by the west, until every extremist and not so extremist group was up in arms against it, finally, when the revolution was over religious fundies managed to marginalize everyone else and thus we have Iran of today.
So you're saying that West has nothing to do with it is kind of self-serving, dumb and naive.
Oh don't tell me about genuine democracy in eastern Europe after the fall of Soviet Union, what they had for about a decade was a truly free market, and please don't confuse any kind of democracy especially genuine democracy with free market. For your reference: democracy - Switzerland, free market - Somalia.
Also, please google "1953 Iranian coup d'état" and "Iranian revolution of 1979" so the people around here would stop getting impression as if you're talking out of your ass.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
What difference do you perceive between the government of Iran now and that following the Islamic revolution in 1979? The same people are in power, with a few public-facing figureheads being changed out. It is the mullash, Imams and clerics that are running things there and have been since 1979.
A good part of the people of Iran put these folks into power back in 1979. We had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen back then and, gosh, it has happened. The people that didn't agree with the direction then didn't do much to stop it. The people still aren't doing anything. Our ability from the outside to distinguish between the majority wanting this type of Islamic government and the majority being intimidated into accepting it is approximately zero.
So we have a choice. You apparently would like to believe the majority are intimidated into accepting things. I'd say the majority is pretty happy about their government. Maybe they would like some different mullah in charge but would still like some mullah. About the same difference as wanting Obama vs. McCain when people outside would prefer someone more like Buddha or Hitler. Sorry, I do not agree that the Iranian people would even be interested in anything other than a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. And our ability to understand their desires in this area are extremely limited.
What does it take to understand that not all people yearn for freedom?
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK, the Iranians already had their chance to end tyranny and establish a democracy... but instead, they chose tyranny by different hands.
Tomorrow is another day.
If we truly believe that democracy is desirable, then we ought to help them, or just STFU. The shape that help takes is another issue, but this is not a cry for military aid, only for some information.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:3, Insightful)
The Iranian people are pissed, and this is their first step toward something less like a dictatorship.
That's our assumption, because we want the present head of Iran to be the bad guy. But, for all we really know about Iran, it could be that these dissidents are actually worse in some way, that they are making a lot of noise to get world sympathy, and pretty much any support we show them might actually put Iran in a worse state because we don't know if they would be worse than the present regime.
For that matter, we don't even know if the opposition's arguments are political or merely economic. Iran has taken a beating in its domestic economy and it might well be that the present government is popular except for economic issues.
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:2, Insightful)
"Even the guy who sent the Ask Slashdot only wanted advice on communicating with others."
Which is critically important if you are trying to organize a resistance movement.
Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (Score:3, Insightful)
You can also say the similar things about Christians
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
This is ignoring the history of Iran since the 1950s. Iran had a democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mossadegh in 1951. He nationalised the oil field. As a result, he was overthrown during a West-supported coup. The western-friendly Shah came to power, installed an autocratic dictatorship, which was overthrown by the theocrats in 1979, who were the most vocal opponents of the Shah. Ayatollah Khomeny came to power, installed an even more brutal and repressive, West-unfriendly theocracy. The West tried to overthrow it by staging a war by cutting a deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq (remember him?), who lusted after Iran's oil fields. After many years of war and nearly a million deaths, a stalemate was reached in 1988. Since then there is an election system in Iran but it is closely controlled by the theocrats. Even though reforms were made, the most progressist of elected leader, Mohamed Katami, did not succeed in freeing the press and installing a real democracy.
Given all the above I would not say the problems of the Iranians are purely their own fault. The West including the US have been meddling in Iranian policies for a long time.
Does that mean we can go in and fix it then? Please say yes, we could stop by on our way back from Iraq. I'm tired of tolerance. "Lawful good" alignment is suicide for the rest of the world. We need to be actively involved in the affairs of the world. WW1 and WW2 just called and want us to promote democracy across the world. Look at how nice Germany and Japan are now, they are 1st world nations. This is where Iraq will be in 70 years, too.
Lets go ahead and seal the deal on the rest of the radical Islamic middle east.
The truth is we had to meddle to prevent WW3 with the Soviets. Using the middle east to wear down Russia was necessary. Yes, it created problems. But we do what we must and which we deem best, and are forced to worry about the consequences later. Given this country brought an end to both World Wars and prevented the 3rd, don't you think it's a little time we were cut some slack? We're not malicious about it. If we were we would taken all the oil fields for ourselves. Which we could have done. You forget history, my friend; among all the "dictators" of history, the USA is a teddy bear. Stop fussing, you have no idea how horrible life can be under a REAL superpower that isn't afraid to rampantly abuse their authority.
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, pay attention, that's what they're doing. There's a huge difference between us invading Iraq to unseat Saddam and the Iranians standing up to overturn a massively corrupt election. The Iranian people are pissed, and this is their first step toward something less like a dictatorship.
They won't be successful on their own, unless they have outside support or there is some tremendous economic calamity that motivates people. At best we'll have a Tianeman square event and in a few years after that everyone will keep buying from the dictators..
For the most part, the historical record is pretty clear, once you have a dictatorship, you aren't going to "undictatorship". Just the natural order of things. From a stability of government perspective, democracy is better because it imposes rules about how regime change within the country should take place, but, there's never been a democracy that's been historically stable. The Atheniens cratered themselves. The Romans cratered themselves, and probably we'll crater ourselves. Meanwhile some asian style despot monarchy could have governments that last for a thousand years.
Re:Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny doesn't give karma, Some use insightful as a way to say, " Your funny and you deserve karma for that comment."
Some mods also use insightful, or any other moderation, as a way to say "I'm clearly drunk."
The reward of inaction (Score:4, Insightful)
The outcome of this current situation is not yet certain, at least in the short term (in the long term, revolutions are inevitable - remember what happened in Iran the last time).
But one thing is clear: If the USA or Israel had attacked Iran, as we have basically been anticipating for the past three to four years, then this would mever have happened. An external, immediate threat would have magnetized the country and unified it behind its nationalist leader. Remember Bush's approval rating the week after 9/11?
Contrast this with Iraq, whose oppressive regime has been eliminated by military force, and whose citizens are still engaged in a guerilla war with their "liberators".
Sometimes, things work out only if left alone.
Re:Calling all techy lefties & righties! (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Most "nerds" on this site don't know shit, and
2. anyone who honestly thinks people in Iran could possibly, in the most wild far-fetched fantasies, set up an ad-hoc network and successfully use it to communicate to some useful end, within the next few days, is a complete god damned idiot.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:4, Insightful)
You are either unbelievably ignorant or a troll.
Now now, why can't he be both?
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Except with the fact that the Iranians did actually overthrow the brutal despot that the US helped establish, and replaced him with what we see today?
AFAIK, the Iranians already had their chance to end tyranny and establish a democracy... but instead, they chose tyranny by different hands.
Of course that is a VAST over simplification.
If we include a little more detail it becomes far less clear-cut. For example, what happened was that the democratic reformers joined forces with the religious radicals because as separate groups they did not have enough power to overthrow the brutal despot. By now, through our own experiences, we (the US) ought to know that the philosophy of "Mine enemy's enemy is my friend" rarely works out in the long run. The democratic reformers in Iran, those of whom are still left alive, have learned that lesson too.
So after the revolution, the literally cut-throat religious radicals get the better of the democratic reformers and the country ends up trading one brutal regime for another. That's far from the country choosing tyranny in any sort of representation of the people's will.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:3, Insightful)
To then claim that the Iranians are responsible for their predicament today is plain out disingenuous.
The US is responsible for what intervention we have engaged in, in Iran. But, the Iranians are responsible for how they have responded to it.
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:4, Insightful)
the best jokes contain a kernel of insight.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:2, Insightful)
This is ignoring the history of Iran since the 1950s. Iran had a democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mossadegh in 1951. He nationalised the oil field. As a result, he was overthrown during a West-supported coup. The western-friendly Shah came to power, installed an autocratic dictatorship, which was overthrown by the theocrats in 1979, who were the most vocal opponents of the Shah. Ayatollah Khomeny came to power, installed an even more brutal and repressive, West-unfriendly theocracy. The West tried to overthrow it by staging a war by cutting a deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq (remember him?), who lusted after Iran's oil fields. After many years of war and nearly a million deaths, a stalemate was reached in 1988. Since then there is an election system in Iran but it is closely controlled by the theocrats. Even though reforms were made, the most progressist of elected leader, Mohamed Katami, did not succeed in freeing the press and installing a real democracy.
Given all the above I would not say the problems of the Iranians are purely their own fault. The West including the US have been meddling in Iranian policies for a long time.
Does that mean we can go in and fix it then? Please say yes, we could stop by on our way back from Iraq. I'm tired of tolerance. "Lawful good" alignment is suicide for the rest of the world. We need to be actively involved in the affairs of the world. WW1 and WW2 just called and want us to promote democracy across the world. Look at how nice Germany and Japan are now, they are 1st world nations. This is where Iraq will be in 70 years, too.
Lets go ahead and seal the deal on the rest of the radical Islamic middle east.
The truth is we had to meddle to prevent WW3 with the Soviets. Using the middle east to wear down Russia was necessary. Yes, it created problems. But we do what we must and which we deem best, and are forced to worry about the consequences later. Given this country brought an end to both World Wars and prevented the 3rd, don't you think it's a little time we were cut some slack? We're not malicious about it. If we were we would taken all the oil fields for ourselves. Which we could have done. You forget history, my friend; among all the "dictators" of history, the USA is a teddy bear. Stop fussing, you have no idea how horrible life can be under a REAL superpower that isn't afraid to rampantly abuse their authority.
I know this is thrown around a lot, and Godwin's Law, etc. but Adolf Hitler was elected democratically. Democracy guarantees nothing.
Germany is only nice now because they were beat into submission TWICE, with catastrophic damage done to them and the entire western world. Are we willing to go through the same thing with the Middle East?
The current administration in Iran is a democracy. A fixed democracy (or so it's reported), but a democracy nonetheless. Are we going to keep on poking in whenever someone's elected that we don't like? Is http://ask.slashdot.org/story/09/06/14/183200/Iran-Moves-To-End-Facebook-Revolution?art_pos=2#Iran not a sovereign nation?
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem so, wouldn't it? Perhaps you should at least try to see how this tragic situation could arise?
It began of course with decades of tyranny that fueled fundamentalist and Soviet-friendly views. But the revolution itself did not rest upon the different socialist fractions or the different religious fractions, neither was it the work of any ethnic group in particular. The revolution happened out of a desire to stop the tyranny, but a lot of people had not really contemplated what should be in its place.
That is why after the revolution the strongest established movement, the fundamentalist shia muslim fractions, could claim power. They had national networks in place to organize on a national scale. They got rid of the most important competition, the communists (thousands are believed to have been executed in front of their co-workers). They organized an election which looked democratic enough that gave them complete power.
What should the common Iranian do at this point? You have already risked your life to get rid of the pest of an oppressive regime with the support of the strongest army in the world. What is the point of trying to overthrow another oppressive regime without any form of organization of how the Iranian society should develop after another revolution?
You know, there may very well be a damn good point to continue the resistance, and Iranians do so in their own subtle ways every day. But you can't blame them for being cynical. I, however, can blame you for being cynical. These are people that need your moral support, not your ignorant judgments. Keep that in mind.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
While I kinda sorta can go along with your general thoughts, you have plenty of details wrong:
WW1 was not about democracy. It was about getting-even and my-fleet-is-bigger-than-yours among European rulers.
A great motivations for the Germans leading up to WW2 was again getting-even. That aside, Germany had been a democracy since 1871, albeit with flaws and limitations.
Also, as far as WW2 is concerned. It was the Soviets, and primarily the Russians, who took down Nazi Germany. The US military did not play a significant role in Europe.
Meddling in the Middle East to keep the Soviets at bay is just too simple a view. Iraq (Kassem) and Iran (Mossadeq) had reasonably pro-western governments, before the US decided to topple them and put the Baath party and the Shah into power. This was mostly about oil, as is well documented now.
And, yes, as far as oil goes: does it not surprise you that of the 4 counties in the Middle East with the largest oil reserves, the US tightly controls 3 now (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and is hostile toward Iran?
Re:Iran (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there are several shades of redneck. Even different types of redneck. The true, deepsouth, backwoods, "nigger don't let the sun set with you in this town" type of redneck is what the above poster was referring to.
A community that is backwoodsy and exclusively white doesn't necessarily qualify as "redneck". Never in Wisconsin have I encountered the real redneck mentality and emotional baggage of the real ignorant redneck.
Demographics fail to convey the real meaning of the word - it is something that has to be experienced.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you mean its not sarcasm?
> Given this country brought an end to both World Wars and prevented the 3rd
You mean like in the 2nd world war where the Soviets crushed 3/4 of the Wermacht on the Eastern front before a single boat landed on Normandy's beaches?
> We're not malicious about it.
See modders? +5,Funny right there.
> If we were we would taken all the oil fields for ourselves. Which we could have done.
And in fact have done: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
> You forget history, my friend; among all the "dictators" of history, the USA is a teddy bear.
Among all the dictators of modern history, the US has installed or propped up at least half (with the Soviets accounting for most of the rest).
> Stop fussing, you have no idea how horrible life can be under a REAL superpower that isn't afraid to rampantly abuse their authority.
No my (clearly) American friend. It is YOU who have no idea what that life is like. The majority of the rest of the world is very well aware of what the US fist inside the IMF glove really feels like.
Destabilizing (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, turn Tienanmen, the U.S. government and world intel agencies realized that if you really wanted to destabilize a government, you made sure the unkempt, disaffected masses HAD communications. Remember all the faxes coming out of China back then? I'd be willing to bet that British, American, Israelis and other interested countries are busting their humps making sure comms stay open so they can get the information out and allow Iranians the ability to organize.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:3, Insightful)
When you vote for the losing candidate in a presidential election are you responsible for the actions of the winner?
Of course. Your vote is an implicit approval of the democratic process, and an acceptance of whatever results follow from the election. By voting, you are responsible for sanctioning the system which elected the winning candidate. That's the concept which separates functioning from non-functioning democracies.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
If a "western democracy" overthrew your nation's government and put in a despot, would your first thought be "hey kids, let's overthrow it and install a western democracy!!"
There are no "western" and "non-western" democracies. There are just democracies, and tyrannies.
If a western democracy overthrew my nation's government, I'd assume that it was a national democracy acting in its own interests. A reasonable response to that is to establish your own national democracy which will act in your interests.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:3, Insightful)
Response: Ok, we got rid of the dictator, what could we do to ensure our new government doesn't get into bed with the US?
I think what the guy, who originally started this thread, was trying to say that the answer to that question depends upon the culture of the people in that country. A theocratic regime is not the only answer. That's what the Iranians chose, but not the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Cubans, many former Soviet-bloc nations, or a host of others.
Why not? The cultural differences of the people who live in those countries.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
The English learned the hard way, the US were much wiser to learn from their mistake: Imperialism is cheaper when you let countries govern themselves. You still retain control over their resources, but you don't have to deal with unrest and people are generally happier if they think they rule themselves. Actually, you can benefit from a rebellion, since you can first supply the weapons for the new dictator (especially useful if the old one got cocky after a while), and you have a new buddy in control there after everything's settled. Plus, your industry does not suffer simply because you just "buy" (ok, given the price it's stealing, but hey, that's international trade!) the goods, how they mine and produce them ain't your problem.
Instead, keep an army large enough that none of your colonies step out of line, out of fear that they would get the axe. That Iranian Prez wants to control our oil (yes, our, too precious to leave it to those aborigines!), so out with him, we install a dictator and put enough firepower in his hands to give him the largest army (outside of the western world + the Soviets). Then something really stupid happened: Those soldiers refused to mow down a few thousand protesters. Ok, that could've been easier if we had our army there, but back then we had to keep face as the good guys, so ... no option. And since we can't simply bust in there (right next to Iran the Soviets.... uhoh, they'd come for sure and then those Reds have our oil, no good!), let's arm another friendly guy in the region. He didn't get far, but that wasn't the point, he managed to cripple the Iranian army (and we got a lot of oil for our old weapons that we'd have had to scuttle anyway).
Then that cocky little bastard thought he could sell his oil for Euros instead of Dollars! What cheek! And, well, since we had the "war on terror" spin up already anyway, we just tacked a note onto him saying "terrorist" (note: The Iraq was maybe the ONLY country in that whole region that was secular to the bone, the ONLY country where Al Quaida couldn't get a food on the ground!). That sure taught him to sell our oil for money that's not ours! Imagine what happened if we let that happen and others follow suit, the Dollar goes into free fall.
This is how the foreign policy of the US works. It's not about being the "nice guy". Do you think the US cares about whether some people are living "free"? If so, why no engagement in southeast asia, why no aid in central Africa?
Simple: No necessary resources, no influence, no power, nothing to gain. Simple as that.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:1, Insightful)
"Sorry, I do not agree that the Iranian people would even be interested in anything other than a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy."
And what do you base that conclusion on? The very vocal, extremist, current leadership? I worked with a sys admin who came from Iran, and according to him, the vast majority of the population is in favor of a western style republic.
The current problem is that those currently entrenched in power, are far more passionate, vocal, and willing to justify (possibly) rigging an election to stay in power.
This is very similar to, but of course a more extreme example of, what happened to American politics during the last 8 years. The ultra-conservative fundamentalist, right wing, bordering on facist, religious nuts, managed to convince America that they had somehow become 50% of the population.
This was very evident in most news shows, who gave nearly equal weight to these far right wing views, always portraying an issue as left side, or right side, and somehow the right side had been shifted far far to the right.
Without any actual data to back myself up:), based on knowing a few Iranians, I would hazard a guess that 2/3rds of the population, those under the age of 40, are much more liberal and want a true democracy (or republic). The problem is the 1/3rd of the older generation who are lead by conservative clerics, and are willing to justify any means to achieve their end goals.
If Bush and company hadn't been quite so extreme with their world and local actions (wiretapping, side-stepping the constitution, etc..) I bet this last election would have been a lot closer. We are seeing a similar outcry for change in Iran right now. The current established power has gone too far, and that bottom 2/3rds of the population is starting to react.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:5, Insightful)
The ex-Soviet countries have no reason to reject the US. Actually, the US are held in great esteem in a lot of former east bloc countries. It was pretty much the promised land. After all, the US were depicted as the land of the imperialist, capitalist thugs that oppress the working people, and if the average east bloc resident knew one thing, then that whatever the "official" channels tell him is a lie.
What many didn't know is that the opposite of a lie ain't necessarily the truth.
I wouldn't say that Iranians are hellbent on being islamist fanatics who want to live in a sharia state. Not every muslim is an islamist. Saying that is like claiming that every Christian believes in Young Earth Creationism or similar rubbish.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
What does it take to understand that not all people yearn for freedom?
False. So wrong.
The desire for freedom is a natural human instinct that cannot be rationalized away.
I join you in frustration that the more things change... the more they stay the same. Look at all the countries in East Europe after the "fall" of the USSR. /ALL/ the leaders are the same, they just traded the Communist party for another one with more money and power.
However, Iran has chosen to ignore one fundamental truth: that ALL people desire freedom, especially the freedom of speech, expression, and religion. Once Iran realizes that, then we can take steps toward peace.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say the majority is pretty happy about their government.
Happy enough to get the internet effectively shut down because of online revolts, sure.
Your weak ground is no better than the parent; you're both guessing in a fairly random fashion. You guys (and this entire Ask Slashdot discussion group) could use a great big [citation needed] over it. I wonder why you got Insightful, because I'm at an utter loss as to why such a claim that has no real basis in fact was considered better than yet another claim with at least the story to back its ideas up.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
If we truly believe that democracy is desirable, then we ought to help them, or just STFU.
No, we shouldn't. We should meddle if they cry for help, or if their non-democrat government decides it is time to poke us with a sharp stick; otherwise, we should let the people decide what is best for them and not what we think it may be.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Our military was the 5th strongest and our airforce was the 3rd strongest. Iran was an awesome nation!.
Sorry, kid, there was no time when the Iranian airforce was the "3rd strongest". The USA and USSR were always #1 and #2, with Britain, France, China, Canada, perhaps Israel vying for #3. There were also a whole mess of Eastern European countries. Iran was never in the running.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone understands what an "American" is though. Nobody thinks the word "American" applies to some specific ethnicity/religious grouping. The word "Iranian" is the same. This is just how the English language works.
Your point is of course very valid though. The OP is foolish to assume there is not some group subjugating another group through force.
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:3, Insightful)
then Founding fathers overvalued handguns/rifles (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah...Good luck on that "2nd NRA Patriot Revolution" armed with Glocks and a few AK-47 against Apache gunships and Predator drones.
That's gonna go real well. Where do you want your bloody smear buried after your remains have been squeegeed up?
Re:Emergency networking (Score:1, Insightful)
Yup, because our own elections are sooo much more reliable.
Re:But seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have a large experiment running under this criteria, it's called "quite a bit of Africa".. ask them how well it's working out.
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:3, Insightful)
That's fine you can think that; it doesn't change the nature of Gandhi's argument. I was just clarifying.
But since you brought it up, a moral belief about violence works both ways. Or I guess this is "two wrongs don't make a right" or maybe "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
The Truth shall set you free (Score:1, Insightful)
Uhm, not quite, not quite... This is oft-asserted by anti-Americans, but is not quite true. First of all, the man (Mohammad Mossadegh [wikipedia.org]) was "elected" by the Iranian parliament (Majlis) [wikipedia.org] — not "democratically" (by the people).
Yes, he was quite popular (yet another item in support of the GP's idea — about Iranians deserving of their government), but was a loon — giving media interviews in bed, for example. (Khm, was that why "300" pictured Persian ruler the way they did? Most unfair to the ancient king, BTW, but...)
And third, the CIA's action has, in all likelihood, prevented the appearance of the Soviet Army on the stage — which was exactly the point of the GP, who was now moderated down to oblivion by the same anti-Americans and victims of their propaganda. Even Iran's current and past misfortunes are better than the political repressions and economic degradation of becoming the 16th Soviet Socialist Republic would've entailed... Even without USSR appearing, Mossadegh's claiming "temporary" emergency powers foretold, what he had in mind for his country. One only needs to look at Syria and Egypt to realize, what fate did the British (and the CIA) helped Iran to avoid.
This was all obvious to most Americans at the time, BTW — when Socialism was still bad and Communism was still evil, and before the generations of victims of our education system worked their way through America-haters like that infamous "professor" from Chicago [wikipedia.org]...
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. It clearly has nothing to do with their repeated [president.ir] extremist [memri.org] rhetoric [president.ir] about nuking Israel. You know it's REALLY bad when they refer to their enemy as "the Zionist regime".
Darknets? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/the-new-version-of-p2p.ars
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf
They are cheap, easy to roll out and use existing infrastructure. Roll one out to pro-democracy reformers, get a collection of people's actual votes, if possible on a signed petition (e-sig should be fine) then get that to the UN. While you may not trust us, the UN is watching this situation and good luck.
Love, Australia
Re:A horrible thought just crossed my mind (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't.
If he'd had 45% against 39%, with a semi-realistic distribution of the votes, fine, I'd have considered it possible. But as it is, with 2/3rds of the votes uniformly, including in areas where he'd *certainly* be losing such as the hometown of his main opponent ?
Forget it. It's not real. It's fraud, plain and simple.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Voting is not the only sanction you give to your government. If you pay taxes, if some portion of your labor is consumed by the government, if you patronize or support those who do, or if you contribute, in any way, to the legitimacy of the government, you share in some measure, responsibility for the government's actions.
Right. So your choice is to either support the government or lose your liberty. And don't even try to say "move to a country where you do support the government" - that only works if you are permitted to immigrate and can afford to immigrate everytime you disagree with a government's actions.
And not to Godwin this or anything, but your logic is precisely the same logic Osama bin Laden has used in justifying the killing of American civilians.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:3, Insightful)
So your choice is to either support the government or lose your liberty. And don't even try to say "move to a country where you do support the government" - that only works if you are permitted to immigrate and can afford to immigrate everytime you disagree with a government's actions.
You are correct about one thing: there is nothing you can do to absolve yourself of partial responsibility for your government's actions, short of leaving the country.
But, that responsibility, which we all share, is what motivates those of us who disagree with the actions of our government to act politically to change those policies. It is what underlies the concept of a "loyal opposition". Without that, there can be no functioning democracy.
And not to Godwin this or anything, but your logic is precisely the same logic Osama bin Laden has used in justifying the killing of American civilians.
Yes, I suppose it is. It's also the logic we use to justify the fire-bombing of Dresden, the incineration of Japan's cities, the dropping of the atom bomb, and Sherman's march to the sea. It's been used as justification in every war in recorded history. Just because bin Laden uses this justification too, doesn't make it incorrect.
To take just one example, consider our destruction of Japanese cities in WWII. Through our ceaseless bombing campaign of the Japanese home islands, we destroyed (read: burnt to the ground) a huge percentage of their urban areas, killing hundreds of thousands, mostly civilians. But, those civilians were the ones making the bullets being fired at our troops; they were the ones baking the bread to feed those bullet-makers; they were the ones who, directly or indirectly, provided every bit of matériel that their government was using to kill our soldiers.
To some degree, those civilians were responsible for their actions. Yes, I understand that people living under a repressive tyranny face extreme punishment for disobedience to the government. But, the fact remains that Tojo would have been completely powerless to do anything, if those people would simply have stopped following orders.
It is universally true, even in the most repressive of tyrannies (when unsupported by external forces, unlike the US and the Shah), that the power of the government depends entirely upon the consent of the governed. Iran today is no exception.
Re:HAM Radio (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought HAM was prohibited by Islamic religion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham [wikipedia.org]
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason Gandhi chose anti-violence was an effect of the specific condition of British rule in India. The public sentiment in Britain was that the colonial rule was for the best. Britain was the parent "educating" the savage child. That was the justification in the public's eye. A justification that would be very hard to believe in if your military had just mowed down thousands of peacefully protesting Indians.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
"To rule, you need a majority of power. People aren't equally powerful, so you do not necessarily need a majority of people to rule.
Minorities can and do keep majorities hostage."
Indeed, people seem to think it's limited to Middle Eastern or South American dictatorships and such too yet here in Britain, thanks to the first past the post system we have a party that got only 35% of the popular voting holding effective 100% of the power due to this being enough to give them a majority in parliament.
Couple this with the party sytem and the whip system and you have one man, Gordon Brown and his inner circle effectively controlling policy of the whole nation against the will of 65% of the people, possibly even more (i.e. those that voted Labour but not Brown) at the time of the election and now possibly against over 80% of the population if some of the polls are to be believed.
A similar point could be made about George Bush's election vs. Al Gore and the dodgy result that got him in.
The point is that power worldwide is held often against the will of the majority even in the most advanced democracies as you say. It's only nations with proportional representation that are really balanced and they're not overly common.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because I talk about the US does not make me myopic. I am allowed to talk about my own fucking country. Like I said, it doesn't matter because no matter what we say or do, it's all the same to you. Why? Because Europe is filled with elitist assholes whose only way to feel superior is take act like you know everything and we know nothing. It's nothing new and rather cliche at this point.
As for driver's seats, you had your chance. You guys are so fucking brilliant and knowledgeable that you couldn't hang on to it? Poor baby. Cry more. When we are no longer in the driver's seat, it will be China next and not you sorry assholes and I can guarantee you that you will wish we were still in charge when that happens.
Maybe in a few hundred years, you'll get another chance to fuck up the world.