Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Social Networks Politics Your Rights Online

Iranian Crackdown Goes Global 313

Posted by timothy
from the innocuous-backup-account dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iranian Crackdown Goes Global

Comments Filter:
  • Facebook spam? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:33PM (#30338464) Journal

    I know this sounds odd, but it makes we want to get a million people who are not Iranians and put enough information on our Facebook pages to at least slow the Iranian govt. down, by making them wade through it.

    • by itzdandy (183397)

      amen

    • good idea... But what should we publish? Shouldn't it be in Persian?

    • Re:Facebook spam? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rysiek (1328591) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:53PM (#30338612) Homepage
      It might even work, you know. In 70's and 80's, while fighting our own communist regime in Poland, to help people that carried flyers and other (illegal) prints, lots of people wore backpacks, even when they didn't need them. This way the SB ("Security Service", secret police) had a hard time finding the 1 in 100 that actually had illegal flyers inside.
      • Re:Facebook spam? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Z00L00K (682162) on Sunday December 06, 2009 @04:08AM (#30341822) Homepage

        Out of curiosity - did they have other items in the backpacks or were they empty?

        I'm thinking of papers that would take a while to read through but be completely legit, which would slow down things even more.

        That reminds me of an old espionage story - an US intelligence officer was frequently in Moscow (or was employed by the embassy) and now and then he went out and purchased a set of various newspapers/magazines. Sat down on a park bench and then took up a pen and marked or wrote something down. Then he started walking again and handed out a newspaper or magazine to a random person. Imagine the amount of wasted work that the KGB had to do.

    • Re:Facebook spam? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:03PM (#30338682)

      I have a large number of Iranian and Iranian-American friends. Many have participated in Green movement protests in the DC area. Most of them have changed their names on Facebook since the elections, and many have obfuscated their photos or replaced them with pro-Green banners.

      I thought this was probably paranoid, but given recent these developments it seems very prudent.

      What I worry is that, even with their names changed on Facebook, their old names could possibly be found via the Wayback Machine or some other web archive. Any issues here?

      (Reluctantly posting anon in case the Iranian regime starts poking through Slashdot looking for people-with-Iranian friends. Now *that* seems paranoid but...)

      • Re:Facebook spam? (Score:5, Informative)

        by cgenman (325138) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:28PM (#30338864) Homepage

        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.

      • Now *that* seems paranoid but

        If they're actually out to get you, it's not paranoia.

      • In the late 1970's there were many Iranian college students in the Boston/Cambridge area (I was at MIT) and they would participate in protests against the Shah. In order to protect their families back home they had to wear masks to protests as they believed Iranian agents were in the US taking photographs and tracking their movements. So the concept is not new even though the regime and the tracking technology has changed dramatically. Talk about "deja vu".

  • That's what Fareed Zakaria said Iran has now become. They can no longer claim to represent the people of Iran, and eventually will decay and fail. In the meantime, it is gut wrenchingly scary what average Iranians face in trying to reform their own government. It's a horrible reminder of the cost of liberty.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by itzdandy (183397)

      To have pride in your liberty it must cost something, you must have earned it. its a cruel truth. Iraqis wont have pride in their liberty because they did not choose it, they are only accepting it. If the Iranian people can win, with or without international assistance, they will have pride in their freedom because they earned it.

      • by lapsed (1610061) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:25PM (#30338834)
        By 'earn it' do you mean 'achieve it through struggle'? If yes, does that mean that every country that achieved democracy peacefully has no pride in their liberty? Also, does 'pride in liberty' affect some property of a democracy, like its stability? I'm asking because there are lots of examples of countries which did not have to struggle for liberty (Canada, for example), or whose people suffered during history but not because of a struggle for liberty (like Japan) and now enjoy stable, inclusive democracies. These countries have pride in their liberty (depending on how you define it). I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy.
        • A Little Off (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Das Auge (597142) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @07:27PM (#30339358)
          The GP was a little of in the value of liberty, but he's on the right track.

          While your example, Canada, didn't struggle to have liberty, they did earn it. As a people, they got together and chose to live in a free, open nation. Put another way, no one gave it to them. Which is the problem with Iraq. The US (my home) is trying to give it to them. That doesn't take away from the value of any such liberty, but it does bring into question the staying power of it.
          • by lapsed (1610061)
            But liberty requires the freedom to choose (among other things) your government. If the form of government is determined, there is no opportunity to exercise free will.
            It's not a question of staying power -- it's a question of whether Iraq was liberated.
        • by couchslug (175151) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @08:21PM (#30339722)

          "I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy."

          It may not be the only path, but the required path is decided by the opposition.

          If they are friendly and weak, the Ghandi method works.

          If they eventually tire of their political charade, they shut it down (Gorbachev is heroic for doing this.)

          If they think they are anointed by their imaginary celestial friend, they require enthusiastic liquidation in the manner of the French Revolution.
          (A beautiful act, and worthy of emulation.)

          If they are inherently logical and nationalistic, they can be seduced by capitalism and the tasty wealth reform brings with it. (Beijing.)

          • by Anonymous Coward

            > If they think they are anointed by their imaginary celestial friend, they require enthusiastic liquidation in the manner of the French Revolution.
            (A beautiful act, and worthy of emulation.)

            If you think that chaotically seizing and killing anyone who appeared to be rich or who was denounced by someone loudly enough is "worthy of emulation," you're quite nuts. I mean, it's not like they call it the Reign of Terror [wikipedia.org]. Maybe you like it because among the revolutionaries were many atheists as well as those

        • "I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy."

          No, but it's a lot more exciting that way! Peaceful Democracy is boring... Nobody wants to see that.

  • revolt (Score:4, Insightful)

    by itzdandy (183397) <dandenson&gmail,com> on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:47PM (#30338568) Homepage

    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.

    I dont care for the Afghan or Iraq wars because the people didnt stand up for themselves so I dont think that the rest of the civilized world shoudl sacrifice our soldiers lives for them. I think you will find many people much more willing to help the Iranians because they will stand up for themselves.

    • Re:revolt (Score:5, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @07:08PM (#30339198) Journal

      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.

      • Re:revolt (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @11:43PM (#30340898)

        Iran is arguably a virulently anti-western throwback because of 30 years of sanctions slowly strangling the country.

        Argh! Fuck off already. This Ron Paulian junk pisses me off more than anything. People who didn't know shit about Iran just a couple of years ago by learning one fact about Iran's history think they know what Iranians think of west.

        The coup is FUCKING FORGOTTEN, amerite?! The real people of Iran have always blamed it almost exclusively on Britain and Ayatollah Kashani; US was and is considered a mere agent of the British perpetrators. Regardless, all of this is gone and past history. We don't hold never-ending grudges.

        The current regime and it's "President" Ahmadinejad are followers of the same ideologies as Ayatollah Kashani.

        By withholding his support, Kashani played a crucial role in the success of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that overthrew Mossedeq. [3] [7][8] [9] Following his break with Mossedeq, he gave support to his former adversary, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. [8]. and even declared that Mosaddeq deserved to be executed because he had committed the ultimate offense: rebelling against the shah, `betraying` the country, and repeatedly violating the sacred law... [wikipedia.org]"

        We are not virulently Anti-American. I remember when Iraq was attacked people on buses and cabs talked about how lucky Iraqis are that they are getting rid of Saddam and we're stuck with the shitty regime. They wished US attacked Iran instead, yes that might seem unbelievable to followers of his majesty Ron Paul. Of course that wish changed when bombs started going off on a daily bases, US decided to stay and everything went to hell. That is basically one of the reasons Iran helped with making Iraq unstable to avoid any such wishes by people to get real.

        You should turn the TV off, get off the couch and take a trip to Iran to understand how Iranians not only not hate, but most of them like Americans.

        And lastly on sanctions, again nobody blames US. Khomeini has a famous quote that kinda translates to "US can't do shit to us". Well, the current state of Iran shows that he was very wrong, and we blame him for this mess. He created an enemy and the enemy acted like one.

        You said "arguably", so here's the argument.

    • by G-Man (79561)

      After the first Gulf War the Shiites in the south of Iraq revolted against Saddam. We foolishly allowed him to fly helicopter gunships and he crushed them. The Shiites took us up on our suggestion to overthrow Saddam and we left them high and dry. We did slightly better by the Kurds in the north, and under the cover of the no-fly zone they basically carved out an autonomous province before the war in 2003 ever started - our 'invasion' there consisted of parachuting in an airborne brigade to work with the lo

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:49PM (#30338576)

    the best thing to do is to wait it out. this is the first time that the new generation is old enough to get involved in politics, and they made a very strong statement. over 70% of the country is under 30 due to the iran-iraq war, which basically wiped out a whole generation. this government is a legacy outdated establishment that is totally incompatible with Iran. The country was run by a foreign minority of non-Persians who used religion to control a country of children. Well, the kids grew up and they will rebel. Iran has a strong history and culture, and is too mature to put up with this crap for much longer.

  • by NoYob (1630681) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:50PM (#30338582)
    My name is M. Ahmadinejad, Jr. [ahmadinejad.ir] I think Iran and it's Government are extremely corrupt, anti-Islamic, and a horrible place. The Iranian people deserve better than the lying cheating sack of shits that run the government - especially, the Mullahs - at least that's what my Dad told me.
    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      The Iranian people deserve better than the lying cheating sack of shits that run the government ... at least that's what my Dad told me.

      the thing is, his dad told him the exact same thing. Only his generation overthrew the corrupt regime and replaced it with a new one that would bring an era of peace and happiness... oh wait. Maybe 3rd time lucky?

  • Identifiable... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:54PM (#30338624)

    Rule 1 of opposing an oppressive government on the interwebs: DO NOT put personally identifiable information on the same page as your opposing views.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @05:58PM (#30338642)

    The bad thing is, the US can't do much about this. If they press the hardliners too much, the pushback against that will push moderate Iranians into the hardliner's arms and unite the country behind them.

    This happened in 2003-2004 when Iraq got invaded. People changed from considering the US as a superpower from afar to having military garrisons on two of Iran's borders and propaganda [1] going 24/7 about a pincer attack just hours away. Of course, this drove the moderate Iranians right into the arms of the extremists until recently.

    The big reason the hardliners are having *any* resistance by moderates is that the evil bad bear of the US isn't making any headway with Iranians these days. They know that the US doesn't have the manpower or the technology for a sustained invasion of Iran in a conventional manner, and a nuclear attack just is out of the question.

    [1]: The propaganda machines were even in the US. Infowars kept having articles that the Iran bombings were only hours away, and kept having those for years on end.

    • Actually (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:18PM (#30338782)

      The invasion of Iraq may have helped a little in that way. As you said, many Iranians were extremely worried that the US would use Iraq as a stopping point to invade their country. What's more, they saw a demonstration of the US's true power, that an army which could hold them at bay (remember the Iran-Iraq war) was swept aside in a matter of weeks. As you said, there was heavy propaganda related to this at home and abroad.

      Ok however, the threat didn't materialize. The US stayed in Iraq and did nothing towards Iran. Even when there were some fluff ups over things like a boat supposedly drifting in to Iranian waters, nothing happened.

      What something like that does is cause people to question the propaganda. They start to say "You know, maybe the US really isn't bad like they are saying, they haven't made a move towards Iran at all." The government keeps the propaganda going, and yet the propaganda shows an increasing disconnect with reality. The US elects a new leader that tries to engage them in discourse and still the propaganda continues.

      Then of course there's the blatantly rigged election and what does the US do? Nothing militarily, and the citizens speak up in support for Iran.

      That kind of stuff can lead to people really questioning the government line. The US quite clearly has the ability to crush their military and destroy their cities if they wish, yet there has been no move to do so. That tells them that what they've been hearing is not the truth.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bjourne (1034822)

        You know, that is pure speculation. There is absolutely no evidence that the election was rigged. Ahaminejad is very popular and has previously won election with big margins. There is no evidence that the Iranians are "realizing how bad they have been" and are changing their minds en masse. There is no evidence of a great uprising taking place inside Iran. Yes, thousands of students protested in Teheran a few months ago, which is great, but millions of people on the country-side didn't.

        But obviously, spread

        • by WiiVault (1039946)
          Lol. To quote an earlier post by you. What does it feel like to be retarded? Everybody knows the election was rigged. Every major election authority agrees. But hey apparently you need more.
        • by microbox (704317) on Sunday December 06, 2009 @12:12AM (#30341004)
          There is absolutely no evidence that the election was rigged. Ahaminejad is very popular and has previously won election with big margins.

          There is circumstantial evidence [pbs.org], and then there's the way the Ahaminejad and his supporters have acted. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This regime seems to be like the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe. Violent, mad, megalomaniacs.
      • by linhares (1241614)
        "The US quite clearly has the ability ..." Tha ability, yes. Sure. Piece of cake. But the US doesn't have the will. You seem to think that a war with Iran would be easy as the one in Iraq. That's a very bad assumption. Iraq was under a decade's of international sanctions, and the scarcity of WMDs just showed that those sanctions were indeed working.

        Iran is a whole new ball game; and a war there would not be easy, unless the atoms are split or the atoms are banded up together--which is basically suicid

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jmac_the_man (1612215)
          You missed his point. The Iranian government was spreading propaganda about how the US will use Iraq as a base to invade Iran because the US hates Iran and Islam so much. And we could. Like you and the OP agree, we clearly have the ability. Of course we didn't actually invade Iran, because we don't particularly hate Iran or Islam. We have an issue with the current regime's drive towards nuclear weapons and it's suppression of the rights of its citizens, but we're not going to invade it because we hate Islam
    • The bad thing is, the US can't do much about this. ... They know that the US doesn't have the manpower or the technology for a sustained invasion of Iran in a conventional manner

      Imagine 30,000 fresh troops soon to arrive on Iran's eastern boarder [Afghanistan], along with, say, 50,000 seasoned troops on Iran's western boarder [from Iraq]. That would be one US soldier for every 10 Iranians, supported by the combined might of the US and Israeli air forces and US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. You think that

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:00PM (#30338652)

    called iRan

  • And conversations such as this counter-expose them for what they really are. Cementing here the evils they represent from my values.
  • by SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:01PM (#30338662) Journal

    When Iran cracked down on their citizens last time, during this summer's protests, Western companies such as Siemens and Nokia provided them the technology to do this.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html [wsj.com]

    I also highly doubt they're building massive databases with worldwide surveillance on Iranian citizens -- for the purposes of going after their relatives within Iran -- with their own home-brew technologies.

    This takes some scary stuff some Iranian University students could not simply hash together -- things like deep-packet inspection of all internet traffic and massive data-mining algorithms in the scope of millions upon millions of megabytes.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:21PM (#30338810)

      When Iran cracked down on their citizens last time, during this summer's protests, Western companies such as Siemens and Nokia provided them the technology to do this.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html [wsj.com]

      I also highly doubt they're building massive databases with worldwide surveillance on Iranian citizens -- for the purposes of going after their relatives within Iran -- with their own home-brew technologies.

      This takes some scary stuff some Iranian University students could not simply hash together -- things like deep-packet inspection of all internet traffic and massive data-mining algorithms in the scope of millions upon millions of megabytes.

      Here are a few factoids for you:

      1- When it comes to computer science Iran is a world leader that is only rivaled by USA and England.
      2- Iran has the most comprehensive and sophisticated surveillance and monitoring infrastructure in the world
      3- Your assumptions about Iranian students are absolutely incorrect. Not only can they keep up with what is going on around the world, but they are leaders and innovators. For example the most successful immigrant minority in the USA is Iranians according to the CIA factbook, and Sharif University has beat MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and Carnegie Mellon in programming and robotics competitions.

      • 1- When it comes to computer science Iran is a world leader that is only rivaled by USA and England.

        Given the existence of China, India, Japan, Israel, and Germany, I have an extremely hard time believing you.

        For example the most successful immigrant minority in the USA is Iranians according to the CIA factbook

        Link or it's a lie, given the Indian-American success stories.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by linumax (910946)

          1- When it comes to computer science Iran is a world leader that is only rivaled by USA and England.

          Given the existence of China, India, Japan, Israel, and Germany, I have an extremely hard time believing you.

          For example the most successful immigrant minority in the USA is Iranians according to the CIA factbook

          Link or it's a lie, given the Indian-American success stories.

          About the most successful minority I'm not sure, but I saw a program on BBC about Iranians in America which said Iranian immigrants are the second highest educated group after Germans. They obtained that from census data.

          In terms of financial success, they are doing rather well. Anecdotal evidence of which:

          From Wikipedia on Beverly Hills [wikipedia.org]:
          Like the rest of Los Angeles County, Beverly Hills is home to a large Persian/ Iranian community. There has been a recent estimate that Iranians represent as much as 40% of the city's population and 50% of the students in public schools.[14] This estimate is not immediately evident in Census Bureau data as the Census Bureau defines the "White" race category as "people having origins in any of the original peoples of .. the Middle East .."[15]

          The former mayor, Jimmy Delshad is Iranian born too.

  • president of what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vxice (1690200) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:07PM (#30338710)
    What all this obsession about who actually won the Iranian presidential vote masks is IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT OF IRAN. Sorry for the all caps but that really needs emphasis. The Supreme Leader holds all control over foreign policy decisions, security and so forth even nuclear power/weapons. I mean come on you can't even run for President of Iran with out approval of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad only has control over domestic policy and even then as long as the Supreme Leader approves. He is there as a bargaining chip, if he attracts too much heat internationally or domestically he will be thrown under the Revolutionary bus so that the Ayatolla can find someone else to implement his policies.
    • Did you hear about what happened to Maziar Bahari [www.cbc.ca]? The Basij and the Revolutionary Guard are holding the real power in Iran right now, and they've gone completely insane. They thought a Daily Show spoof was real espionage and jailed and tortured a man because of it.

    • by timothyf (615594)

      Maybe it doesn't, but unrest such as this has a way of forcing a regime change. If people question the legitimacy of the election of puppet figurehead, the next logical thing to question the legitimacy of is the governance of those who actually hold the power. If you hold any sort of power in this situation, you don't want anyone questioning anything, not your puppet government, not the real government.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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 repla

    • no, you're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Saturday December 05, 2009 @10:51PM (#30340658) Homepage Journal

      there were two schools of thought in iran since the 1979 revolution:

      1. its a democracy. the whole supreme leader bs is just for window dressing
      2. its a theocracy. the whole elections bs is just to appease the crowds

      this central crisis in the iranian government seems to have been resolved in june 2009, with iran going the theocratic route, which is the substance of your comment

      but its actually going a third route: military dictatorship, with the supreme leadership bs as window dressing AND the elections bs as crowd appeasement

      the supreme leader is actually now hostage of the elite revolutionary guard, he has no real power. ahmadinejad is an old hand of the revolutionary guard. watch the next leader of iran to be handpicked from the revolutionary guard and "elected" by the people and "approved" by the ayatollah. now, the whole of the complex iranian government apparatus is under their sway and influence. the central unanswered schism between theocracy and democracy in the previous complex government arrangement has meant someone had to fill the power vacuum, and it has been filled: by the military

      either way, the crowd appeasement obviously isn't working. the people of iran are pissed, and as in any country where the will of the people is not addressed, the government's illegitimacy grows over time, as the agenda of the government and the agenda of the common man grow further apart. this will reach a breaking point. could take years or decades, with plenty of suffering during that time. throw in nuclear weapons for fun

      but until such time as iran falls yet again into revolution due to not being a democracy, iran is now a military dictatorship. not officially of course. much like north korea is officially the DEMOCRATIC people's republic of korea. yeah, north korea is a democracy (roll's eyes)

  • This is why you don't use your real name on the internet. That includes facebook. If these guys all had weird names like IranDuDe401 like they would if they were using IRC and not some social networking site then the government would never be able to find their families in order to harass them.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:24PM (#30338832) Homepage

    If Iranian expatriates or Americans of Iranian descent can prove that they are the victims of physical violence against themselves or their property while on American soil, that would be a legitimate reason for the United States to invade Iran. If a foreign state sends its agents to a country to kill that country's citizens, that has traditionally been recognized as an act of aggression and legitimate casus belli for the offended nation.

    The Mullahs better be careful, lest they become the first, straight up legitimate victim of "American regime change" in the last few decades...

  • Watch your salads (Score:4, Informative)

    by SuperKendall (25149) on Saturday December 05, 2009 @06:34PM (#30338896)

    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.

  • The govt. in Iran today makes the Shah at his worst seem like utopia! Those students back in 1979 were idiots-they brought in a regime ten times as brutal as the Shah's, and one which shows no desire to abide by the will of the citizens of Iran.
    • The chief difference between the Shah and the Ayatollahs is that the Ayatollahs are economic simpletons. I mean, you have one of the world's foremost oil producing countries, and its leadership is so appalling stupid and distracted by trying to assure everyone has nice happy thoughts about their underling claim that they're God's government in the country that they have literally let the economy sink into shit. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those dickless twits that call themselves religious men

  • Haystack project (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spazholio (314843) <slashdot@lexalIII.net minus threevowels> on Saturday December 05, 2009 @07:08PM (#30339192) Homepage
    If you're interested in helping, check out http://www.haystacknetwork.com/ [haystacknetwork.com].
  • I suspect the very moment Iran's government steps beyond some unstated boundary, the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will get shifted into Iran for a major and bloody regime change. When a government's #1 enemy is the people it governs, the government leaders endanger themselves.

    I think the government of Iran should take a lesson from the government of the U.S. You cannot go against the will of the people. You have to manipulate the will of the people and then go with it.

  • Sounds familiar (Score:2, Redundant)

    by vik (17857)

    Gosh, the Iranian government is snooping around the internet, collating data and trying to identify potential terrorists. Now where have I heard that before? Hmmm...

    Vik :v)

  • Through the 1992 presidential campaign, I had to sit through story after story after story about how Clinton protested the Vietnam War while he was in England. This was all 20 years after it happened, and was seen as a completely legitimate line of enquiry by the media and the establishment.

    As far as government monitoring, I know people in the US with FBI files thousands of pages thick due to their involvement in peace or civil rights movements. The Patriot Act has widened the range of permissible activit

  • Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Trailer Trash (60756) on Sunday December 06, 2009 @01:02AM (#30341202) Homepage

    Read about NITV:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/magazine/24NITV.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]

    One of the regulars on there was attacked in Los Angeles with a bat and lost an eye.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151)

      "One of the regulars on there was attacked in Los Angeles with a bat and lost an eye."

      This is why we should purge the US of pro-Mullocracy immigrants.

      It should be made easy to administratively revoke residence and citizenship of immigrants administratively, without appeal, on national security grounds.

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...