Iranian Crackdown Goes Global 313
An anonymous reader writes "Tehran's leadership faces its biggest crisis since it first came to power in 1979, as Iranians at home and abroad attack its legitimacy in the wake of June's allegedly rigged presidential vote. An opposition effort, the 'Green Movement,' is gaining a global following of regular Iranians who say they never previously considered themselves activists. The regime has been cracking down hard at home. And now, a Wall Street Journal investigation shows, it is extending that crackdown to Iranians abroad as well. Part of the effort involves tracking the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube activity of Iranians around the world, and identifying them at opposition protests abroad. People who criticize Iran's regime online or in public demonstrations are facing threats intended to silence them."
Re:You heard it first on the WSJ. (Score:1, Informative)
Obama's war? You mean the one started by Bush and Cheney?
Poe's law in action...
Re:Facebook spam? (Score:5, Informative)
Having had a friend who lost most of her family in a great purge after the last Iranian revolution, this doesn't at all seem paranoid to me. She and her entire family here are still afraid to speak up, for sake of the lives of the family members she still had back in Iran.
Watch your salads (Score:4, Informative)
If you are posting things supporting the Iranian protestors, better watch what you order out - portable leafy greens might be the death of you [yahoo.com].
No reason they couldn't take the tactic abroad, and it's a lot less traceable (thus deniable) than Russian exotic uranium killings.
Haystack project (Score:3, Informative)
Re:revolt (Score:5, Informative)
What I appreciate about this situation is that the Iranian people are standing up for them selves. Makes me want to help them. Something along the lines of supporting a justified patriot.
Standing up for themselves like they did in 1953 [wikipedia.org] or in 1979 [wikipedia.org]?
It's meaningless to be glad that "the Iranian people are standing up for them selves" without looking at why they're doing it and how Iran got there. The Iranian people had a secular, democratically elected government and the CIA overthrew it because the Brits were unhappy that their oil fields got nationalized. Iran is arguably a virulently anti-western throwback because of 30 years of sanctions slowly strangling the country.
It matters, in fact a lot (Score:2, Informative)
The two comments above are correct. Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Islamic revolution had both power and legitimacy, from both people and army/guards' loyalty. He was also a real Ayatollah in terms of religious knowledge and acceptance. Khamenei, the current leader had none of these. He became an Ayatollah and the Supreme Leader almost overnight, through mostly his fanatic followers in guards calling him so and mildly threatening the Experts Council into making him the Supreme Leader. The rightful replacement for Khomeini was Montazeri [wikipedia.org]; the guy who came up with (made up) the whole theory of a theocratic republic with a cleric at the very top of the system. You can read more on his fate after opposing Khamenei on Wikipedia.
Short version: Khamenei is not really that powerful as he relies on Revolutionary Guards and their civilian thugs Basij to keep him in power as they put him there originally.
Back to the matter of presidency, the idea is not that much who is president -- though I would say it does make a lot of difference, as it did when Ahmadinejad replaced Khatami but that's a different story, too long to fit in a comment -- however that who people want to be president. Us Iranians wanted to vote Ahmadinejad out to tell the world that we do not approve of him and his policies, whether foreign or economic which were all disastrous. That's why he stole the election and that's exactly why people poured into street when they found out it doesn't really matter who they vote for anymore. The protests are the only reason the world now differs between people of Iran and the thugs running the country.
Long time user, posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Re:Naked Dictatorship (Score:1, Informative)
Actually Canada did have a couple of rebellions, one in 1837 1838 that lead to responsible government being granted, and one in 1869 1870 the red river rebellion. The first lead to a british investigator coming over and the granting of responsible government, the second did not have such a happy outcome
Re:Iran isn't doing this alone! (Score:1, Informative)
Nokia provided Iran with telecommunications equipment that has the same surveillance capabilities as your precious freedom-hugging USA requires in their own gear.
Now get off my lawn.
Re:revolt (Score:3, Informative)
true enough.
France helped liberate American to promote french interests. Just because there were multiple reasons doesnt lessen the result or intent.
Re:Facebook spam? (Score:1, Informative)
yes, imagine the kinds of problems that poor russian civilian faced afterwards.
Go USA!