Iran Cracks Down on Internet Sites 866
Dan Brickley writes "It appears that Iranian ISPs have been ordered to block a large number of popular Web sites, including weblogging, community, chat and email services. Web (particularly weblog) use has been increasing rapidly in Iran, with 64000+ weblogs published by Iranians via various sites. As of today, if the news is correct, the majority of these may be inaccessible to their authors, as will the email (eg. Yahoo) services they use to communicate with friends, colleagues and family worldwide. See stop.censoring.us and hoder.com for more details. The newly expanded blocks include PersianBlog, Blogger and the Google-hosted Orkut 'social networking' site, where Iranians come third after Brazil and USA, representing 7% of all users. How can we get our Iranian friends back in the Web?"
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Take a look at our current troop deployment. If this was a game of Risk it would be inevitable. Of course we should hurry up before Iran gets another card.
Not a great idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a country needs to "liberate" itself. The US had numerous bloody wars to get to the point to where its at. If enough people are against a topic in a country, they need to overthrow the powers that be themselves, that's all there is to it. Same thing goes to the whole "woman being
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole worship of cultural relativism makes me sick. How can it be anything but unacceptable that people are beaten and horribly discriminated against just because they happen to be a female? My god people. The intellectual dishonesty is just amazing.
Oh, and woman aren't just "battered".
Iranians and international community expressed outrage at reported execution of the 16-year-old Ateqeh Rajabi on vague charges of un-Islamic behaviour. [iran-press-service.com]
However, informed sources revealed that Ms. Ateqeh was sentenced to death by the judge, a cleric, because during the "trial", she expressed outrage at the misogyny and injustice in the Islamic Republic and its Islam-based judicial system.
"The lower court judge was so incensed by her protestations that he personally put the noose around her neck after his decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court", the sources reported.
Plenty of pictures. They string her up using a standard construction crane and leave her their hanging for everyone to see.
Friday 27 August 2004 in the Germany-based internet newspaper Iran Emrooz, Dr. Hoseyn Baqer Zadeh, an Iranian human rights activist observed that the laws of the Islamic Republic are the "most inhuman, segregationist, insulting and discriminatory" against women.
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can it be anything but unacceptable that people are denied equal rights just because they happen to be homosexual?
How can it be anything but unacceptable that people are sent to jail drugs where they are raped (and a lot of people's response is "eh, whattaya gunna do about it?") just for using drugs?
If you agree with my examples then great, but many many many people who do agree with your statement but wouldn't agree with mine.
For those that believe that Iran (or any other country) should be invaded because of how women are treated, just think about America being invaded because of how you treat homosexuals and druggies.
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:3, Informative)
All of these things are unacceptable, most particularly the first case since drug-taking is after all relatively speaking a choice, whereas outside fundamentalist theorising neither homosexuality nor being born female are 'a choice'. And yes if a country started stringing peopl
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
All I can say is: wow.
Little bit of advice (if you don't want advice, then read no further):
It wouldn't hurt you to rethink your reasoning. I do it for most every issue every couple of years. Start fresh, look at a variety of sources, try to ignore the sources you're used to. If, when you're done, you come to all the same conclusions, then great. Usually I don't change my mind much, but I have, on occasion, changed my outlook quite drastically. What do you have to lose?
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
murder of a child,
Go find out which countries in the world allows deathpenalty on minors. Its a fairly interesting list.
, no seperation of church and state,
You heard your president make any references to 'GOD' or 'Christians morals' lately? His whole bloody campaign was based on religion. You may have seperation in theory, but sure as hell not in practice.
it's endless, picture yourselves in her position where your family and entire society want you dead to satisfy their fear and dogma
Well..shit happens everywhere. As far as I've understood from my Iranian friends, there are far worse countries when it comes to womens rights, generaly unrest and general safety. Iran has a an active opposition, and an active student body with a growing intellectualism. The more we alienate them with our "holier than thou" attitude and meddling in their internal affairs, the less influence we have on them.
I mean, bitching about one dead girl might be slighlty hypocretical considering we killed about 1 million people through sanctioning iraq [globalissues.org], and a few more [iraqbodycount.net] after the actual invasion (but they aren't important enough to actually try counting atleast. Link is only verified deaths, and is probably dwarfed by the real numbers)
We're bloody great at seeing the needle in someone elses eye, but can't see the log in our own. Everything is all about stories, and the big numbers which actually mean something are forgotten. Sometimes, I honestly think Muslim Fundamentalists have a bloody good point in wanting us exterminated(for the record I'm atheist).
Not a good comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
It USED TO BE in the US that the woman had to press charges against the man in order for the police to make an arrest. I know this not only from a law enforcement background, but from personal experience.
One of my next-door neighbors growing up was a terrible alcoholic and wife-beater (he was also a physician. What a disgrace to the profession... but I digress). I can't remember how many times we called the police, because we could hear him beating her (things breaking, screaming, thuds, etc). The guy used to beat the living tar out of his wife... bruises, black eyes, cuts... I've seen better-looking barfight victims. She, however, would never press charges, and the guy got off every. single. time. We could have "minded our own business," but we felt an obligation to do something. I was but a lad, so I couldn't understand the dynamics involved... Needless to say, all their kids, save one, are now in prison.
It took decades, but a sea change eventually took place. These days, Domestic Violence is a crime not only against the individual, but against the state. This allows the police to make an arrest whether the victim wants it or not.
Sometimes the situation is bad enough, or the people co-dependent enough, that they literally need help to get out of their situation. I'm well aware of how that sounds... so spare me the vituperation for being patronizing. That said, I don't think the Iranian people would resent being free... and any way we could assist them in that effort is arguably the right thing to do.
Of course, it goes without saying that we'd probably be ahead to first exhaust less-violent means of assistance.
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be great. Tell me. You're a poor peasant in a country that 80% poor and 20% rich. You and your 15 friends get together and build some rudimentary weapons (swords, etc). Now those four rich guys come by and they have two HUGE FRIGGIN TANKS.
Explain to me exactly what you'd do.
This ain't the 18th century. It is no longer difficult to retain power in a country with little popular support. The thought that every country should fix itself or it doesn't really want/deserve change is naive and heartless. Wow, and I'm the republican.
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Guess who sold Saddam the helicopters and chemicals he used to gas the Kurds? Guess who visited Saddam after this incident and shook his hand? (Rumsfeld; google for it and you'll find a picture).
I'm sorry, but if any other country made the case they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, that would have been fine with me. But we were propping Saddam up while he was committing these atrocities, and treating him like gold. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait that we turned on him. If anything, we should be paying Iraq reparations for having to put up with Saddam's rule.
As for Iran, it's our own fault that the current government is in place. They used to have a democratic government, but because they didn't bow to our wishes, we overthrew them and installed the Shah. He wasn't too popular, so they had a revolution, and of course the radical Muslims came into power.
Re:Not a great idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of them, along with supporting sports teams, are modern tribalism. By far the biggest predictor in each case is which "tribe" your parents belonged to.
For closed societies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For closed societies (Score:5, Informative)
Islam doesn't NEED instructions on how to act civilized.
Colombia is 95% Catholic, yet they have a massive, massive drug problem. And they have terrorism too. Should I blame Christianity? How come Cocaine comes from the Catholic countries anyway? You won't see Iran manufacturing it anytime soon.
The believers of Islam don't rape 72 virgins in heaven either. The virgins are only a minor perk [everything2.com] of Paradise anyway.
Fatwas aren't issued to anyone who questions Islam, but the Ayatollah of Iran said Salman Rushdie should be killed for purposely insulting the religion. That was his view, and other countries didn't second him.
Female genital mutilation is not an Islamic thing. It's an African thing. African Pagans still do it, and so do some African and Egyptian Christians.
You remember people dancing in the street? Iran and many other Muslim countries held candlelight vigils [colgate.edu] for the 9/11 victims. There was TONS of condemnations of terrorism from all over the globe [muhajabah.com] and Islamic groups issue condemnations very often.
Re:For closed societies (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because cocaine doesn't grow very well in the Middle East. They grow opium poppies instead and supply the raw materials for the heroin trade in Europe and the United States. If the Iranian people truley wish to condemn terrorism then they need to start putting their money where their mouth is and not into the pockets of the terrorists. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorist organizations and if they continue funding radical madrassas [wikipedia.org], granting safe haven to terrorists, and sponsoring terrorist groups, then it is only a matter of time before they force another major confrontation with the west. They have sowed the wind with their support of terrorism and if they continue with their present policies then they will reap the whirlwind of our swift and sure response.
Re:For closed societies (Score:3, Insightful)
The Iranian people are also against terrorism as well, they had spontaneo
Re:For closed societies (Score:3, Interesting)
As if this is unique to Islam? Shit, the Jews have the Torah, and there's a fundamentalist movement in Israel which believes the nation should live by it, stonings and all. Not to mention all those that defend the death penalty in the US based on the famous "an eye for an eye" phrase in the Bible.
Seperation of Church and state is a really really good idea.
It's just a damn shame that eve
Re:For closed societies (Score:3, Interesting)
No, "Jack and Mary" aren't going to carry out suicide attacks. But neither is your average "Muhammad Akbar." Are you saying those names as if each was a terrorist? First of all, not all terrorists who claim to be Muslim do suicide a
Proxy (Score:3, Insightful)
just my
Distributed Annonymous WebProxy (Score:2)
Whatever happened to those distributed annonymous webproxy projects that were started several years ago? I seem to remember one done by the hacking group Cult of the Dead Cow (the makers of Back Oriface) but I never really saw anything materalize.
The problem with normal proxy services (anonymizer.com, etc) is that they can easily be blocked by government black lists on DNS and IP addresses.
Re:Distributed Annonymous WebProxy (Score:5, Interesting)
It's based off of PrivateSurfing (which you can try out for free at the Anonymizer [anonymizer.com] homepage, sorry you can't surf
The systems that run the Iran proxies are dedicated and used quite heavily. Much more than any of the servers that we have for everything else. The loadav is pretty high, and we're working on upgrading them in the next few months to increase capacity.
Most of our customers are under NDA so I don't mention where I work much, but the VOA [anonymizer.com] is one of our very few public contracts due to it's anti-censorship nature.
Re:Proxy (Score:2)
Re:Proxy (Score:2)
Re:Proxy (Score:2)
So blogs are offline... (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone has a voice, no one really has a voice. Any single voice will be drowned out by many thousands of "Gee, this is my blog, I thought it would be a good idea to start one because my cat is so cute. I'll post pictures of my cat and I love Jesus."
The main thing is that the Iranians have access to medical information, educational information, and worldwide news outlets. None of those are being squashed, even by the fundamental, right-wing Muslim leadership. They know that having good quality information is key to improving the quality of life in their country.
Dissent is the only thing prohibited, but I doubt there is any country in which real dissent is permitted.
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2)
But how many countries prohibit dissent so openly and forcefully. The free flow of political ideas, even many of the horrible ideas that flow much too commonly here in the US must be protected. Obviously something was being posted on these blogs that was uniting Iranians who shared dissent or the government wouldn't be blocking access to the blogs.
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like a clear case of someone being silenced because they had something unpopular to say.
Didn't a muslim student speaking at Harvard University receive threats of violence because he had titled his speech "My American Jihad", "jihad" being the islamic word for "struggle"?
Challenging the status quo, voicing an unpopu
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2)
This kind of censorship doesn't come only from the one side. Both Dr. Laura and Rush Limbaugh had to withdraw from TV because their supposedly oppressed political and moral opponents put enough pressure on advert
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2, Insightful)
And, by the way, those were just examples. You don't think the current US administration has been taking action against those most vocally opposed to its PNAC agenda?
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:4, Insightful)
I despise comparisons like this. It's nothing like a lynching. A mob torturing someone to death -- that's a lynching. It has really happened in this country, and fairly recently too. They're just now getting around to prosecuting some of the most notorious cases from time of the civil rights movement. Making this kind of comparison, especially when none of the people we're talking about have actually been silenced in a larger sense, cheapens the word.
Since real lynchings (as opposed to individual hate crimes) are practically non-existent these days, we arguably have more free speech than ever before. Of course there's still some amount of risk involved. That will never be completely eliminated outside some utopia that can never exist in a world populated by real people. But we're very close. The Internet, and the essential anonymity that comes with it, is a very much a boon in this case.
As for the rest, I'm afraid the tinfoil hat clashes with your jacket.
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2)
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2)
Now, unless you've actually got something sensible to contribute, quit following me around Slashdot with these sad little AC comments that do nothing but reinforce my initial opinion of you.
Re:So blogs are offline... (Score:2)
Can you just go back to constantly calling me "dumbass"? Your conversation was far more cerebral then.
Orkut (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Orkut (Score:4, Interesting)
On a different note, it had been several weeks since I checked my Orkut account. I logged in today (this story on Slashdot reminded me) and found I could not do anything without the server returning internal error messages. If this keeps up, it may soon die of its own accord, language and Netcraft be damned.
A distributed, random web proxy? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Internet [well.com] reacts to censorship [rikk.com] as damage and routes [linas.org] around it." - John Gilmore [brainyencyclopedia.com] (frequently misattributed to Howard Rheingold [uoregon.edu])
Re:A distributed, random web proxy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A distributed, random web proxy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds good, how about tor http://tor.freehaven.net/ [freehaven.net]
if a single (or even multiple) tor proxies get blocked, it will just go through a different one.
it works nicely for me
hrmmm... I wonder if it would get through the "great firewall of China" just as easily
Re:A distributed, random web proxy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A distributed, random web proxy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Political problems requre political solutions.
Don't use law to stop file sharing in america.
Don't use proxys to stop legal action in Iran.
THe problem is a political one and we need a political answer. The people of Iran need to make it heard that they want blogs and such. Only they can secure their own freedoms. The best thing that we as a free people can do is offer assistance in helping their government learn that free speach is good.
We could invade Iran (again) or we could train Iranians to hack but the reality of the issue is that beyond this, all we will do is put a band aid on a huge wound.
Re:A distributed, random web proxy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a bunch of braindead wankers you all are (mostly, there are a few thinking humans evident in the postings). Too many of you are just soooo willing to send me to fight in wars all over bejesus for yet another regime change.
I, as a soldier, ain't buying. It is neither our right nor our responsibility to force our version of Halliburton "democracy" down ANYONE'S throat. Newsflash: Iraq was and remains a frickin' fiasco. It is a bust. It has made us up to be a joke.
Initially, no doubt the powers that be in the ME were all a quiver over our illegal and unjustfiable invasion of Iraq. Shortly thereafter, when it became obvious that we were and are powerless to actually control the country and are now well and FULLY bogged down, they began laughing. There is jack squat we can do ANYWHERE else. Forget, absolutely, about invading Iran. Iran would be harder by a long shot than Iraq. It is twice as large, twice as mountainous, has a larger and complete working military, and its citizens would NOT in any way welcome us as "liberators for Halliburton".
If N. Korea decided to make a big go for S. Korea, we're screwed. We do NOT have the teeth to deal with any other military goo-gaw. China makes a move on Taiwan? Nothing we can do short of abandoning Iraq to the inevitable chaos and violence that WILL control that country for the foreseeable future (OUR fault) and trying to throw a bunch of tired, overburdened troops into yet a bigger and worse conflict.
Get off your frickin' war wagons. I'm sick of this shit from a bunch of snotnosed ignorant punks who don't serve, never served, and never intend to serve. Shut the fuck up. I SERVED and I STILL serve and I'm tired of you wackjob idiots talking tough by throwing MY life around for nothing. Bite my camouflaged military ass you damn cowards and candyasses. YOU take up arms and invade every country that offends your wackjob Christian belief system or offends your desire to make capitalistic money off other people's resources and countries. YOU do it but leave the legitimate and honorable soldiers to do what they're supposed to do: protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. That's our job, not overthrowing every dictator that annoys Exxon or Halliburton.
How can we get our Iranian friends back in the Web (Score:2)
How ? Now that's the not-so-easy part. I fear the Bush administration might speed that along, but.. *eyes Iraq*
Re:How can we get our Iranian friends back in the (Score:2)
Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Censorship (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, you contends that "we don't really even support" free speech. I can't think of any outstandingly unconstitutional abridgements of free speech besides The Sedition Act and the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform bill, one of which was repealed. Clue me in here, please.
Re:Censorship (Score:2)
Re:Censorship (Score:2)
p.s. Yeah, that was entirely ridiculous. And it was done for publicity reasons. And all those idiots who couldn't stop talking about it were just helping it along, therefore having the exact opposite of their intended effect.
Re:Censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom (Score:3, Funny)
The president tells me that we have freedom. That we love freedom. That others hate freedom. That we must force them to embrace freedom. That we must make those who choose to live their lives differently understand what freedom is all about.
That's good enough for me.
Your "freedom" of speech might cause people to doubt that. It would actually hurt freedom. You don't want to do that, do you?
Are you a freedom hater?
Ever hear of... (Score:2)
Also, a lot of people access the internet from work - where of course they pay nothing.
And if you have a laptop there a myriad of free WiFi hotspots.
I don't blame them for banning Orkut. (Score:2)
Orkut is a great way to find networks of people who are unfriendly to the Iranian regime. Skilled data miners can sift through the social networks and identify people to become CIA agents/informers/whatever.
Do What's Being Done Now (Score:2)
At some point, everybody in their country will understand what's between them and what they want.
Re:Do What's Being Done Now (Score:2)
Iranians our friends now? (Score:3, Funny)
Billy's mom cracks down on Internet Sites... (Score:2, Funny)
Billy was unavailable for comment but his press secretary released this statement: "Thats fine, when I'm 18 I'm so gonna look at all the porn I want. Until then I'll just use anonymous proxies. lol!!!!!111
Thank god /. preempted the stupid Iranians (Score:2)
You can't, short of Liberation or Decapitation (Score:4, Informative)
Hey Dan, Michael, let me give you a little hint: You can't. Or, as Stalin once said of the Pope, "How many divisions does Slashdot have?"
The Islamofascist Mmullahs ruling Iran have made it quite clear they're immune to such chimeras as "international pressure." What are you going to do, impose sanction? Yeah, that worked so well with Saddam.
Given a regime where critics of the regime have to flee for their lives [nysun.com], and where they executed retarded rape victims for the "crime" of having sex [freerepublic.com], what makes you think any actions short of armed revolution will get their Internet access back? Who are they going to listen to? Kofi Annan? Get real.
There are only two things which might actually allow Iranians to get back their Internet freedoms:
1. A full-scale liberation invasion by U.S./coalition troops, a very difficult and probably quite bloody task, or
2. A "decapitation" strike that takes out the Islamist religious leadership, possibly some high level military assets, and probably as much of their illegal nuclear weapons infrastructure as we can locate.
The chances of either being undertaken right now are slim, and the chances of the majority of Slashdot digirati support such a move are close to zero.
Are a Few Blogs Worth an Invasion? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for executing a retarded rape victims, that's not much worse than the US executing people found incompetent to stand trial, people suffering from severe mental illness and people professionally adjudged to have the mental age of an 11-year-old child [ncadp.org]. I could probably find more, but I remember that press release distinctly and had it bookmarked. Admittedly those people had committed crimes rather than been the victim, but it's really not that big a step. Lastly, don't get me started on the 'illegal nuclear weapons infrastructure' comment - you've got the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world, who are you (as a country) to call any other nation's nuclear infrastructure illegal? Does DRM come on tactical warheads now? Seriously, this is no reason to be blowing up anyone - it's just not worth it... and doesn't China have the 'Great Firewall of China' and executions for frivolous crimes? Oh, I forgot, they're too big for good ol' George Dubya to go after.
George W. Bush: Always picking on the little guy.
Just so you know: (Score:2)
Adding a religious element to American politics seems to be working for him.
USSR vs. Iran (Score:3, Interesting)
Iran is a different case. Their revolution has been much more recent. I'm not sure how popular the government is in Iran-but I suspect their ruling group is larger than in the old Soviet Union. Also, I expect the Iranian government is willing to maintain itself in ways the old Soviet Union was not.
However, the technologies have changed too. For example, wireless internet technology has advanced quite a bit. If there is popular resistance to the Iranian governments internet regulations, technologies like Mesh [defactowireless.com] networks might be rather difficult for the Iranian government to be effectively control.
If folks want to really do something, creating technologies that governments have trouble regulating may be the route to help here-however, it isn't just Iran that has issues in this respect. A net the Iranian government can't control, is one no government can control.
How? (Score:2)
How can we get our Iranian friends back in the Web?
Let them earn that right for themselves.
This is a good topical lesson for Slashdot readers (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in places like Iraq where some consider us a "dictator in residence" please note that anyone can run a blog any way they like, without censorship. Even if they are critical of the US in the region!
Please, before you post again about what a facist government the US the the terrible repressions US citizens suffer take a look at places like Iran with real repression. The US has some annoying laws that have been passed but we are a LONG ways from being a truly repressive place.
I know I'll just get flamed eight ways from Sunday for posting this, but it simply had to be said. In order to protect my own sanity (and free time) and encourage other posts I'll encourage other more silent people to come out of the shell and respond to any flamers I might get.
i honestly don't understand how some people think (Score:5, Insightful)
and yet i scan the comments here and what do i see? anti-american sentiment
how does that work?
is the usa a friend of iran? does the censorship by the us government not look like a molehill in your mind compared to the mountain of that going on in iran?
i honestly cannot fathom how some people think: iran does something evil... therefore, let me criticize the usa
i'm not saying the usa doesn't deserve criticism, not at all: the usa does plenty wrong that needs to be examined and castigated
but what i am saying is that criticizing the usa in the context of what iran does is simple, pure lunacy. it's alternately hilarious and horrifying to me how some people can have so little understanding of concepts like: perspective, scale, context
people really have to stop obsessing about the usa. no, really, you look like a fool. a fair criticism of blindly pro-american people is that they are obsessed with the usa. but some of the posts here only prove to me that the same obsession lives in the heart of anti-american sentiment too, to the same level of monomaniacal stupidity
guess what pro-american and anti-american people: there is more to the world than the just usa. really. the world does not revolve around the usa. for real. there are other cultures and peoples and governments out there. no, really. the world does not orbit the united states. for true.
you'd think this simple painfully straightforward observation would be dumbfoundingly patently obvious and stating it would a cause for laughter and going "duh!" but then you read some of the comments in this thread. it's absolutely mystifying the obsessive one-dimensional idiocy of those talking about the usa in this thread. when the story is about the abuses of the iranian government?
utterly dumbfounding, this one-track obsession. please, some of you need to wake up. some of you need to ditch the fashionable propaganda of the times and try thinking for once
Re:i honestly don't understand how some people thi (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we criticize censorship without bringing an invasion into the equation? And heck a few years ago, I remember a time where many around here made comments favorably or unfavorably towards one US policy or another and yet the anti-american label was rarely used to reply to such comments.
people really have to stop obsessing about muslim countries. the world doesn't revolve around them. there are other cultures and peoples and governments ou there.
It really stinks. You criticize something in a foreign country, all of a sudden they wanna invade it. You say something bad about a US policy and you're labeled as anti-american. wth happened?
This is only a drill there is no need to invade (Score:5, Interesting)
* I can't get to hoders website right now but I don't belive that anyone has verified the web blocking.
* While blogging is popular in Iran it's not the next great revolution. It's a way for people to talk, browse for porn and do all the other things most college students do in the US.
* The Iranian people are capable of figuring out a government for themselves. When theycouldn't take the Shah anymore they dealt with him.
* As the student demonstrations showed a few years ago the regime still has a lot of backers, eventually Iranians will figure out what they really want and how much they care about fighting for it.
In the meantime you can get a list of some english blogs written by iranians over at http://blogsbyiranians.com/ [blogsbyiranians.com]
it appears to be down at the moment since I suspect it's hosted at hoders server but there is always the google cache if you want to look at it right now.
Re:Beat me to it: (Score:3, Insightful)
If such an asinine action were ever undertaken by the US government, I can only hope that the corporations wouldn't be needed to do something about it. Of course, this sentiment presumes that at least part of our government is still "of the people."
Re:Beat me to it: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Liberation is the only recourse the US has, really, because we have *zero* contacts with them, diplomatically. All US official communication with Iran goes through a third country (normally Sweden).
Re:How many of you laughed at the "Axis of Evil"? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:4, Informative)
Invasion is one solution. I do not favor it as being "the" solution, but you know, when I look back on Bush's last four years, I am firmly convinced he invaded the wrong country. Hussein was a wussy. Easy pickings. I would have voted for Bush if he had invaded any other member of the Axis of Evil. Iraq? Bah.
Of course, the cards have been laid down, and we have a far more dangerous regime to worry about because it was felt more expedient to settle old scores than deal with the issues that are relavent today, like Iran and N. Korea's ACTIVE development of WMD's, rather than Iraq's now proven theoretical development of such weapons.
Sorry for the rant. I had a bad week.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Can't... (Score:2)
Sure we could try to do some recruiting, but I bet it's awfully hard to recruit anyone when they realize that s
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
I Agree
Re:Revolution in Iran (Score:5, Informative)
July 1999. The mullahs slapped them down [daneshjoo.org]. Hard. [mehr.org]
Interestingly, Iran was the only middle eastern country to have spontaneous pro US demonstrations [216.26.163.62] after 9/11/2001.
Re:zerg (Score:2, Interesting)
The conventional wisdom is that the Iranian people overthrew the Shah back in the late 1970s, when his regime became too secular and too iron-handed. They then established an Islamic republic, under the ayatollahs.
A few years later, when there were still Iranian students in US colleges and universities, the students whose predecessors had been frantically demonstrating against the Shah were themselves frantically demonstrating against Ayatollah Khomeini and his cronies. Some thin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:zerg (Score:4, Insightful)
No wonder any Islamic movement could have gained any popularity. Anything strong and opposed to the Shah was and is still better. However, you imposed that decision on us in the first place. Moreover, your government supported the Iraqis in invading Iran, which strengthened Khomeini's hand while our brothers and sisters perished.
And after all that, you have the nerve to say that it's just our problem, and not yours?
Re:zerg (Score:5, Informative)
These are essential facts for understanding why aggressive nationalism plays such an important role in Iranian affairs.
RE: nationalized oil industry? (Score:2)
Not saying this is a complete excuse for everything that happened.... but it's a point conveniently overlooked in most of these arguments. If the U.S. really had business interests (EG. investments) in oil production, and then that was completely taken over by Iran's govt. and the U.S. basically kicked out of the equation - wouldn't it make sense the U.S. would make
Re:War? (Score:2)
Or we can wait until *after* they have The Bomb.
Re:War? (Score:2, Redundant)
I'd take a couple of years out to fight (i.e. kill, and risk dying, in your terminology) for a free Iran, one in which they may blog hateful or joyful things about me, to their hearts content. I'd fight to stop the Iranian-state-sponsored murder of girl-children who were victims of rape (aka 'unfaithful wives'),
Re:War? (Score:2)
You're missing the slashbot groupthink
When America plays a part in anything, it's wrong.
but it's my intention to join the National Guard anyway
as one ex-military to one future military, thank you. Keep your head down, and be careful.
Re:War? (Score:2)
Too bad the people you want to "liberate" don't seem to agree that it's such a great thing you're doing, especially after you've been there for a while and the total, murderous chaos you are creating becomes apparent (cf. Iraq as the latest example out of many).
The world would be a much more peaceful place if people and countries stayed out of each other's god damn business.
Re:War? (Score:2)
Is the OP brainwashed because he doesn't agree with you? I think of all the things not worth defending or fighting for, you're a prime example.
The world would be a much more peaceful place if people and countries stayed out of each other's god damn business.
Think you can count on Iran or N. Korea to stay out of ours once they've developed the weapons to make a big impact? I sure don't.
Re:War? (Score:3, Insightful)
The opinion stated is that he's been brainwashed. Believe me, you're not speaking in fact when you say that. I could say that you sound exactly like every other
Re:War? (Score:2)
That would be markedly better evidence than they bothered to develop for the WMD's for the Iraq invasion.
Really, just an artist's conceptualization is all that's required.
Re:War? (Score:2)
What we need is not a direct war. We need a US-sponsored proxy to get past the firewalls, or government-sponsored satellite, etc.-based Internet access over Iran. The government won't ever say they're doing it, but after rumors from the countrymen (imply it through a propaganda campaign on the airwaves; the smart ones will figure it out and it'll trickle down), let the government stop short of denying it.
If Iran complains, they'll be the one starting the aggression. If the
Re:Help them? (Score:4, Insightful)
The rest of the population would just like to live their lives. Go to work, have kids, homes, watch TV, go to church/mosque...like the rest of the world. But they can't, because of that small, vocal, armed minority of asshats.
Re:Help them? (Score:2)
Just like then though it's nobody's problem but theirs. Good luck with that guys.
Re:How can we get them back on the web? (Score:2)
might have been just fed up with the old.
doesn't mean that all of them love the new.
if there's third of them not liking the current system.. that's an awful lot of people - and the system 'needs' them to shut the fuck up or risk giving them power, the people who want a CHANGE are probably the one's affected by this block.
but still, that's the problem when you live with in a majority decides society, majority usually decides it's better than the rest.
Re:I am an Iranian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the government is forcing them to. I'm sure the ISPs don't want to do this, but when a government fears a loss of power due to the rampant flow of information, they need to do something to stiffle that flow of information.
Remember how China blocked google? Now google censors itself so that the Chinese government will allow it to c
Re:I don't understand... (Score:2)
Re:Right, of course. (Score:2)
It ought to be axiomatic, or nearly so, that you can't impose a democracy on a people. If it's going to work, it must be a genuine dissent from the people and not a regime imposed from without. That's why Iraq is probably a doomed experiment. We didn't come to the aid of an existing revolutionary movement that was in difficulty, we just swooped in, took over, and said, "Hey, you're a democracy now! Is that cool or what?" To which many Iraqis now say, "Yeah, well this sucks too."
However, that do
Re:Islam is the "religion of peace" (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like 10 Commandments or something? Why do Christians need this?
Why is the religion of peace directly responsible for 28 out of the 30 violent conflicts raging in the world today?
Hmm, really? Please enumerate them. Christianity seems to have its hand in a lot of them too.
Why is the religion of peace responsible for the vast majority of chattel slavery in the world today?
Really? Care to cite a source? BTW, the Southern Baptist Conference was pro-slavery throughout the civil war. There is NOTHING in the Bible condemning slavery - in many places slavery is condoned. Are you sure slavery is something inherent to a religion, or is it more likely poverty and economics?
Why is the religion of peace responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in the 20th and 21st Centuries?
The same reason Christianity was responsible for it in the preceeding 18 centuries. Because. Now, if you would care to substantiate this allegation, I'm all ears. The IRA, FARC and ETA have killed a lot more people in those centuries than Islamic terrorists but they just haven't been getting the press coverage since 9\11...
Why are the practitioners of the religion of peace routinely slaughtering unarmed practitioners of every other religion wherever they can get away with it?
I think what you meant to say was "SOME practitioners". Again, this can equally and justifiably be said of Christianity as well. When the Army of God or Eric Rudolph kills abortion doctors or some blond-haired, blue-eyed boy next door blows up 168 people in a federal building, you don't seem to blame all Christians or all Americans do you?
Why does the religion of peace call for the murder of anyone who converts from the religion of peace to another religion?
Oh you mean like these guys [godhatesfags.com]? Yeah, your right...what kind of sick religion is THAT?
Why do so many of the believers of the religion of peace look forward to the opportunity to rape 72 virgins in heaven if they die while killing innocent women and children of other religions? Is it a god they worship, or just sex? If a god, then shouldnt heaven have more to do with him than their libidos?
Would you care to show where it says ALL muslims share this belief? Or have you been watching too much Fox News...The Church of the Creator thinks that the White Race was Gods true choosen people and can even quote the Bible to back it up...doesn't make it so and doesn't mean All Christians think that way. Don't mistake the beleifs a a sick minority with the whole religion.
Why do the leaders of the religion of peace routinely issue fatwas (death warrants) for anybody who questions their holy book of peace and their holy prophet of peace?
You mean like Christianity did for hundreds of years upto the begining of the 19th century...Catholic AND protestant? Think of about 5 centuries of Jews and witches being burned at the stake. Better yet, read up about the murder of Hypatia in Alexadria. You know its is bad, but again, if Jerry Falwell claims that 9\11 happened because America pissed of your God doesn't mean ALL Christians think like that...
Why is the religion of peace responsible for the sexual mutilation of millions of little girls and the savage oppression of women?
But sexual mutilation of infant boys is ok then? Christianity has not exactly been a beacon of equality for women either, save the last 40 years of so...
Why did millions of the practitioners of the religion of peace laugh, cheer and dance in the street because 3,000 innocent men, women and children were murdered by seventeen men who supposedly hijacked the religion of peace? And why dont the real practitioners of the religion of peace condemn the supposed hijackers of their religion? Why th
Re:Islam is the "religion of peace" (Score:5, Informative)
>> cheer and dance in the street because 3,000 innocent men, women and
>> children were murdered by seventeen men who supposedly hijacked the
>> religion of peace?
> Why do anti-Muslim bigots keep clinging to this Urban myth? The
> "video" of which you allude was of about 30 people in the Occupied
> West Bank. Some of the videos shown on Fox later turned out to be
> library footage of Palestinians celebrating the 1993 peace accord,
> NOT a celebration of 9\11.
Wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm [snopes.com]