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.
Hmm, tough choice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:5, Funny)
I'm trying to imagine the look on the mods faces who modded you insightful rather than funny.
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:5, Insightful)
And others just hate twitter that much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to use "interesting" for that.
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."
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:4, Insightful)
the best jokes contain a kernel of insight.
Re:Hmm, tough choice (Score:4, Informative)
I think there's something about it in the FAQ. Funny comments tend to be low-hanging fruit, so they've gotten rid of the karma you got from them in order to encourage more thoughtful posts. I don't know if it works or not, but I don't like the misuse of Insightful et. al. either.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know you could win an argument by appending a "Period." after your thesis.
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know you could win an argument by appending a "Period." after your thesis.
Actually the correct steps are:
* Present your thesis.
* Exclaim PERIOD!
* Clamp your hands to your ears and run away shouting "lalalalalalala cant hear you!", before any counter-argument can be made.
And there you go, argument won.
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: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: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: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:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:4, Informative)
By what objective metric can you say that the American culture is clearly more violent than Japanese culture?
Violent crime statistics? [nationmaster.com]
Take a look at the Assault, Rape, and Murder statistics.
But, no, let's go with what passes for entertainment in those countries. Because that is much more representative of culture than, you know, how people actually act.
Re:Vietnamese Agent Orange vs. Iranian Despot (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the right circumstances, ANY culture will do evil things.
Sure they will. Every culture has a history that includes some evil acts. That's universal. That does not imply, however, that the "right circumstances" for every culture are identical, or that the evil things a culture would do would be identical--or even similar--to the evil acts of a different culture.
If you take two different cultures, and expose them to identical interventionist actions, you'll get two different reactions. That's simply undeniable.
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: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: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, Interesting)
Re:The Ugly Side of Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Warsaw Pact Vs. Iranian Despot (Score:5, Informative)
When you kill all of the secularists, you're left with two types of people - the religious, and the religious zealots.
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: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:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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:4, Informative)
Stealing back their own natural resources, when the Anglo-Iranian company refused to split the profits with them. What did they expect would happen?
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: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)
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: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: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.
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: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.
Wrong, Naive, and Ethically Deficient (Score:4, Interesting)
>> n the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people.
Wrong. An internal interfering force is even more able to determine a nation's fate. That's the nature of totalitarianism. It is naive in the extreme, and ethically deficient, to blithely assume that unarmed civilians can bring down a regime willing to slaughter its citizens to retain power.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Especially regarding the "free market" issue.
Re: (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.
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:Destabilizing (Score:4, Interesting)
Careful there, Sparky, you are not as anonymous as you think you are, and as a private citizen, assisting and acting to bring down a government can be considered a criminal act. In most countries, US, Canada, UK, etc, a private citizen cannot be involved in acts of hostility towards another government, even if its an enemy government.
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.
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:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can never get a person who thinks he has god on his side to believe he is wrong.
By the way, while we're at it - the "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei has already called the official result of the election a "divine assessment".
Re: (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 deman
Re:Gandhi isn't always right (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gandhi wasn't absolutely against violence. He considered violence a tool of the weak. He said that if you
A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (Score:5, Informative)
Note to mods! Untrue, read up!
In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Recent_history_.281921.E2.80.93present.29 [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3, Informative)
As to the matter at hand: would it be possible to make a torrent-like point to point system
There are already a bunch of such systems; I2P, freenet and tor can be used for various facets of such infrastructure.
but is there enough "internet" left working that something like this might work?
Frankly, I'm not sure it's even government interference. Considering how susceptible the internet usually is to slashdotting at major events, the likelyhood that Iran's infrastructure would simply collapse from the load dur
HAM Radio (Score:5, Informative)
Re:HAM Radio (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HAM Radio (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF is "after the age of HAM"?
The ham UHF digital voice repeater that is sitting next to me connected to a Linux gateway begs to differ with you.
73, w7com
Re:HAM Radio (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF is "after the age of HAM"?
Was completely and totally outlawed after the 79 revolution.
The original poster does not realize that they started licensing again, and mere decade ago went from a whopping 3 licensees to 15 licensees in the entire country. I have no more recent figures. Perhaps the slashdot understatement of the week to say they are not quite up to Japanese levels of licensing (licenses as a percentage of the general population)
http://www.qsl.net/oh2mcn/ep.htm [qsl.net]
73 de n9nfb
Iran (Score:3, Interesting)
We got rid of our idiot leadership, now Iran looks to be doing the same.
(Bush was terrible by just about any measure - I'm an independent voter and have voted for Dems and Repubs)
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:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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:Does Iranian President Matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
This election would have had little impact on foreign policy, but the Iranian president does have a lot of leeway on domestic matters. Under Ahmadinejad, inflation and unemployment have skyrocketted. Rather than try to take action to fix it, he just lies about the figures (easy to do, when you control the media). That was really a key issue in the "election".
Of course, not having a Holocaust denier as president would probably help foreign relations a bit as well.
(Yes I know he never comes out and denies it. He just "questions" it. A lot.)
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.
Use Ham/CB/FM Radio (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at the first search result on google for "fm transmitter", this [zen.co.uk] is what i found. seems easy enough to build with easily attainable components.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
All it will take to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US is a ship. Maybe even just a container on a ship, routed through some other port. They certainly have that delivery capability.
As for being the ruler of a glass parking lot, maybe not. But the rulers there care nothing for their civilian population, so whatever happens to them is a big "so?"
What I would say is a more likely scenario is for them to set off a nuclear weapon on Israeli soil. Israel loses a city. The big question is, would the US step
To momen abdullah (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimized_Link_State_Routing_Protocol [wikipedia.org]
http://www.olsr.org/ [olsr.org]
Ways to help (Score:5, Informative)
Some ways to subvert the censorship.
1) anonymous web proxies that only accept inbound connections from Iran IP space.
2) TOR servers [torproject.org].
3) Ad-Hoc WiFi networks could be used to create a Mesh networks.
4) Multicast information, documents, video over the Mesh.
Re:Ways to help (Score:4, Interesting)
I am Momen Abdullah
Please give me more info or links about Ad-Hoc WiFi Mesh.
Make a FreedomStick (Score:5, Informative)
The Chaos Computer Club made a "FreedomStick" for journalists traveling to China to cover the Olympics. It includes software that automatically uses firefox+tor etc.. More Info Here: http://chinesewall.ccc.de/index-en.html [chinesewall.ccc.de]
Technical discussion? (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually found this line very intriguing. Is it really possible to set up an autonomous network using any sort of commodity wireless routers? It might be a not bad idea at all in a densely populated metropolis. Probably none come with the firmware allowing to do that, but there might be open firmware alternatives. So, 3 questions:
1. Is it technically possible to connect two wireless routers together to form a network?
2. Is there readily-available software needed to set up a centralized/hierarchical network in this way?
3. P2P?
Re:Technical discussion? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Wikipedia article that describes the protocol [wikipedia.org].
2. B.A.T.M.A.N. [open-mesh.net] - implementation (incl. binaries for various routers)
3. Nightwing [lugro-mesh.org.ar] - another implementation of the same protocol.
4. ROBIN [blogin.it] - implements both OLSR and B.A.T.M.A.N.
Looks like all of them are built on top of OpenWRT (or can be plugged into it) and run on a variety of commodity wireless routers (probably also on PC).
Emergency networking (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, setting up large-scale adhoc networks with 802.11b/g hardware is kind of difficult. What you'll want to look at is what's called "wireless mesh networking". Mesh networking is basically the peer-to-peer of networks. The difficulty with using 802.11b/g for mesh networking is that 802.11 standard doesn't really include any concept of a mesh. There are two types of devices: access points and clients. Access points cannot communicate with other access points. It is however, possible for clients to communicate with other clients by switching to ad hoc networking mode. So your options are thus:
1) get a lot of people with 802.11g-capable computers to switch into ad hoc networking mode. This will allow them to connect to each other if the density is high enough (that is if there are enough people close enough). Unfortunately, the range is on the small side, so, unfortunately, this may not work that well. Part of the problem is that clients often have a lower broadcast strength than access points.
2) set up a specifically designed mesh network. To do mesh networking in infrastructure mode, there are going to be four different types of nodes which can be used. 1) AP nodes 2) Client-Client nodes 3) AP-Client nodes 4) Client nodes
AP nodes:
An ordinary wireless access point can act as a hub node.
Client-Client nodes:
There have to be two radios for each client-client node. Both will act as clients to other networks. You'll either need one computer with two wireless cards or two computers which are connected together using some other means (or, if you happen to have an access point which can be switched to client mode (which very few can) then you could use that as a client). You can connect the two computers using an ethernet hub, ethernet cross-over cable, null modem cable, or possibly firewire (although I've never done that). The computers should each by set to bridging mode. Basically, each client will connect to a different access point and they'll then serve to connect the two access points to each-other, bridging the networks. Generally these should be on different frequencies. Although there may be some circumstances where the same frequency can be used.
AP-Client nodes:
There have to be two radios for each AP-client node. One will work as a client to another access point and one will act as an access point for other nodes. Generally, this will mean one computer and one access point connected together by ethernet, but there are a few other ways to do it. The computer should be set into some form of bridging mode which differs some based on operating system. The two radios will always use different frequencies unless there's a long cable-run between them (opposite sides of a building or some such).
Now, you need to figure out how to put this together. You need at least an initial group of people to help build the network. And then you'll lay out a basic topology. You'll plot out the nodes you have available on a graph and then try to connect them together. Client-Client nodes can connect to two nodes, either AP nodes or AP-Client nodes using infrastructure mode or to other Client-Client nodes in ad hoc mode. AP nodes can have multiple Client-Client or AP-Client nodes connected to them. AP nodes cannot connect to other AP nodes unless both AP nodes have wireless bridging modes (very rare) and you can get them to work (even rarer). AP-Client nodes can connect to one AP node (infrastructure) or one Client-Client node (ad hoc) and can have multiple AP-Client or Client-Client nodes connected to them The Client nodes can be used only as stepping stones in an ad hoc connection. I.e. if two client-client nodes want to connect, but are two far from each other, you can put a Client node in between in ad hoc mode and it'll help them connect. This can be done with a string of client nodes.
You'll want to draw all this out on a map, and possibly rearrange equipment as needed to fill in the gaps. You'll also need to decide frequencies so
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.
Who's really in charge (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to point that Ali Khamenei [wikipedia.org] has been the supreme leader (dictator) of Iran for 20 years. During an EconTalk podcast [econtalk.org] on August 11 2008, expert Bruce Bueno de Mesquita comments that after interviewing over a dozen Iranian political specialists, his research concludes that Ahmandinejad is the 18th most powerful person in Iran.
The Iranian president is an important and powerful person in absolute terms. In relative terms it's a public relations office. So yes, election fraud was committed. Yes, their disinterest in concealing the fraud conveys the extent to which they believe it makes a difference.
However, everyone just take a deep breath, and understand that the electoral system and eligibility of candidates is up to the complete discretion of Ali Khamenei.
Text of Mousavi Letter (Score:4, Interesting)
----------
Editor's Note: The text that follows is a translation of a letter by Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi on June 13, reported by TehranBureau.com. STRATFOR cannot confirm the authenticity of the letter.
"The reported results of the 10th Iranian presidential election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B. (state-run TV and radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot. Dishonesty and corruption of officials as we have seen will only result in weakening the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran and empowers lies and dictatorships.
"I am obliged, due to my religious and national duties, to expose this dangerous plot and to explain its devastating effects on the future of Iran. I am concerned that the continuation of the current situation will transform all key members of this regime into fabulists in confrontation with the nation and seriously jeopardize them in this world and the next.
"I advise all officials to halt this agenda at once before it is too late, return to the rule of law and protect the nation's vote and know that deviation from law renders them illegitimate. They are aware better than anyone else that this country has been through a grand Islamic revolution and the least message of this revolution is that our nation is alert and will oppose anyone who aims to seize the power against the law.
"I use this chance to honor the emotions of the nation of Iran and remind them that Iran, this sacred being, belongs to them and not to the fraudulent. It is you who should stay alert. The traitors to the nation's vote have no fear if this house of Persians burns in flames. We will continue with our green wave of rationality that is inspired by our religious learnings and our love for prophet Mohammad and will confront the rampage of lies that has appeared and marked the image of our nation. However we will not allow our movement to become blind one.
"I thank every citizen who took part in spreading this green message by becoming a campaigner and all official and self organized campaigns, I insist that their presence is essential until we achieve results deserving of our country."
WiFi Mesh Cheap: meraka.org.za (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Here's a great guide from an African organization:
http://wirelessafrica.meraka.org.za/wiki/index.php/DIY_Mesh_Guide [meraka.org.za]
Good luck!
And, JM2C: I don't think either Barack or Mahmoud will fire the first nuke. Scary as it is, MAD is pretty stable. Think about how it would play out:
America strikes first:
1. Iran destroyed. (sorry to be so blunt, but it is a fact)
2. Global backlash against America.
3. America rapidly destabilizes economically (ie: much worse than now).
4. North Korea senses weakness and takes out Seoul (probably conventional, not nuclear).
And that's not considering anything else that would happen in the Middle East. For example, there's a good chance Israel would be destroyed. Barack understands that whole chain of events - it's not rocket science.
As for Mahmoud? Love him or hate him, think he's good, evil, or has his back against the wall -- regardless of any of that, he's fairly smart. You don't get to his position without having a fair bit of desire for power, and the mental capacity to figure out how to get it. If he strikes first, he loses everything he has built. He knows that.
So, build your mesh network, let's get to know each other through global social networks, and work together to stop the hatred and fear on both sides.
But don't sweat the nukes. It won't happen.
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.
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.
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.
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: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
The polls showed a dead heat between Ahmedinajad and his primary opponent just one day before the election.
Really? All the news reports I read suggested that there are no reliable polls in Iran. The idea that it was a dead heat came from both sides suggesting that it would be a close election. Unless you know of a poll I was unaware of, I'm going to suggest you've been tricked by an overgeneralization of the media.
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.
no (Score:5, Interesting)
they are saying election is stolen, because in azerbaijani parts of iran, ahmedinajad got 55%+ vote. never in iran's history ANYone other than an ethnic azerbaijani got that kind of vote there.
let me put it in american context - ahmedinajad getting 55% vote in azerbaijani parts of iran means barack obama getting 55%+ vote in any part of redneck midwest with little black population.
NO (Score:4, Informative)
election votes do not 'often surprise and disappoint' in places there is ethnic nationalism. ethnically nationalist populations vote, ETHNICALLY. thats what they have been doing in azerbaijani iran in the last 29 years. they AGAIN did the same. yet, somehow, ahmedinajad got 55%+ vote there too, JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.
if you still cant realize what's going on, ask yourself how it is possible that a candidate can get consistently and UNIFORMLY 55% vote everywhere in a country. EVEN in hatemi backing tehran districts.
its also clear you have no idea of how middle east politics is. this is not america.
Re:What's really going on. (Score:5, Informative)
Some are looking for proof of fraud. But unless anyone is expecting Ahmadinejad to admit that he cheated, no solid official evidence is going to show up.
On the other hand, they:
Here's a clip from Corriere Della Sera on police attacking protesters. [corriere.it]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the idea of kicking out a dictatorship and allowing a democracy to flourish was a good idea.
Yeah... that rarely works. You can't forceably make a democracy from the outside. A country has a dictatorship for a reason: when fear is the only path to stability. This is understandable in places where there are major social problems such as ethnic or religious strife combined with low standards of living. A dictatorship achieves stability at the cost of freedom.
A better idea might be to work with the dictator to improve the standard of living. Bring in education and technology in exchange for diminishing the brainwashing. Once the society rises to a standard of living where they are enlightened enough to live in peace, under the rule of law instead of the rule of the fear, then democracy can begin.
Ironically, the idea of invading other countries for humanitarian reasons is a very leftist concept. And one that George Bush denied during his bid for the presidential election. He said something like "If we'd just leave people alone, they might not hate us so much. We should stay out of their business." But the warhawks flipped his opinion 180 degrees, and the "conservatives" followed them. To this day, I am amazed when I hear American Republicans support the war. It is the exact opposite of their platform, but they blindly follow it even against their own philosophy.
If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves.
If they want help, I could understand the UN deciding to assist them. That is similar to what happened in Afghanistan - the UN forces assisted the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. But that is different from ousting the dictator without having been asked to assist.
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.
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: (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.
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.