In Censorship Move, Iran Plans Its Own Internet 206
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the they-threw-a-party-and-nobody-came dept.
from the they-threw-a-party-and-nobody-came dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Iran is taking steps toward an aggressive new form of censorship: a so-called national Internet that could, in effect, disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world (summary of paywalled WSJ report). The leadership in Iran sees the project as a way to end the fight for control of the Internet, according to observers of Iranian policy inside and outside the country. Iran, already among the most sophisticated nations in online censoring, also promotes its national Internet as a cost-saving measure for consumers and as a way to uphold Islamic moral codes."
The article also mentions unconfirmed local press reports suggesting that Iran is building its own national operating system.
Re:Last Post! (Score:1, Informative)
FYI
In British countries "The Last Post" is a bugle/trumpet salute to a fallen soldier (Similar to "Taps" in the US military services.)
At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them.
Re:Last Post! (Score:4, Informative)
Iran certainly needs the outside world to buy its oil and sell some of it back as refined and distilled petroleum products, seeing as the military and the Ayatollahs, who now amount to little more than a theocratic face on the military dictatorship, have basically let Iran's infrastructure rot.
Their plan is moronic and would only further marginalize their crippled economy. At least China is run by sane despots. Iran is being increasingly run by idiots.
HUGE difference (Score:2, Informative)
There's a HUGE difference between a theocracy (and an islamic theocracy *stones* people, mainly women) and a few (or even a lot) religious politicians.
You know the stoning story from the Bible ? Where Jesus saves the woman. Well here's the islamic version :
Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to allah's messenger who were accused of committing adultery. Allah's messenger came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's messenger pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah ibn 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body.
Now imagine this being law. And that's just the beginning.
Never let a muslim tell you differently : following the paedophile prophet means following that story. It is the duty of every muslim (if he's male) to impose those punishments, everywhere, which obviously includes western countries, and there is -zero- disagreement under muslims about this. There is disagreement, however, on whether a muslim can lie about this to protect himself, 3/4th of islam thinks it is, the taliban "school" thinks it isn't.
Btw why don't we call the religion by it's English name ? "islam" translates simply to "submit" in the sense of "conquer" (as in, the actual word generally used is "submit", but not self-submission, which is another word, "islam" is a command you could give to someone that means he is to force someone to submit. If a general were to order some refugees out of a country, and he would order his soldiers to do whatever it takes to force them to comply. That order could be given in arabic by the word "islam")
Re:Last Post! (Score:4, Informative)
They are being held down the old fashioned way, by fear. A man (or woman) will, no matter how much they want to see a regime brought down, think about their immediate family first and foremost, and as long as the regime can make the cost of a revolution in the blood of oneself and one's kin high enough, they can maintain the tyranny.
In reality, everything hinges on the army, and it's been that way in every state that has had a standing army, whether it be Rome, France, Russia, and so on. What wiped out the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt wasn't the uprisings. It was the armies of those two countries abandoning the leadership. You can ask a soldier to do a lot of things, but to ask him to open fire and his own people can be a risky thing for any regime.
Khomeini was a religious fanatic and monster, but he was also a very goddamned clever man. He reconstructed the Iranian army into two different groups, the regular armed forces on one hand and the Revolutionary Guard and Basij on the other. In other words he created a parallel military structure, with the Revolutionary Guard and Basij essentially the clerics' personal armed forces. So even if you had the kind of revolution that we've seen in Egypt or Tunisia, and the regular army decided to stay out of it, the clerics have a potent fist despite that, not to mention that the army is likely riddled with the Iranian Muslim version of "political officers" whose purpose to assure orthodoxy in the regular army units.
For a revolution to work in a modern state it requires the armed forces to either back it, or at least stay out of the way. Iran is a terrible situation where such a revolution would quickly evolve into a civil war. At least that's my opinion, any ways.
All Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
Iran "bans" satellite television, too. But everyone there has a dish, and they all saw Iron Man II before you did.