Iran May Shut Down Internet During Election 234
daveschroeder writes "'The Iranian government might block private access to the Internet for the general legislative election on March 14, two Iranian news outlets reported Monday. In 2006, the authorities banned download speeds on private computers faster than 128 kilobytes per second. The government also uses sophisticated filtering equipment to block hundreds of Web sites and blogs that it considers religiously or politically inappropriate. Many bloggers have been jailed in the past years, and dozens of Web sites have been shut down.' It would appear that Iran's own government is more a threat to the nation's internet connectivity than the fragility of the undersea cable network."
A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot readers may recall the assertions [slashdot.org], roundly dismissed [iht.com] by undersea cable experts, that the cables were deliberately cut to sever Iran's internet connectivity, which, contrary to popular belief, never occurred [slashdot.org].
Many fervently believed the cable "cuts" were a prelude to war; still others insisted they were part of a plot to prevent the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse [wikipedia.org]. Interestingly, no one could explain how cutting only one of several mechanisms of Internet connectivity to Iran would stop the bourse from opening...
Well, there was no secret invasion of Iran, and the Iranian Oil Bourse, after many self-incurred delays, still opened [www2.irna.ir], to little fanfare. The opening of the bourse -- which doesn't deal in US dollars -- was supposed to be the turning point that sent the dollar into a freefall; however, myriad other factors seem to be hurting the dollar just fine on their own.
Why am I mentioning this? Because I think it is incredibly important to take a step back, get some perspective on things, and realize that actual totalitarian regimes are far more dangerous and damaging to individual freedoms and the free flow of information, in a very real and tangible sense, than even the wildest imagined conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have other means [wikipedia.org] of undersea cable traffic interception and surveillance. And even if the cuts were cover for the insertion of a tap at another location by a vessel like the Carter, there isn't any way to prove that one way or another.
I think the most interesting thing is that people seem to be looking for explanations that somehow involve nefarious US activity -- anything other than a string of coincidental cable failures in one geographic region. That aspect is especially interesting: given the sophistication that would be needed to carry out such an operation undetected from a technical standpoint, we somehow don't have the foresight to make it unnoticeable in other ways?
The "nefarious activity" in relation to Iran's internet connectivity is right under our nose, and it's the draconian restrictions the government imposes on its own people, not that a splice might possibly have been installed somewhere as part of an operation that requires incredible technological sophistication and wherewithal, but can't manage to make cable cuts not appear too "obvious".
The cable operators have numerous mechanisms to detect splices installed in their lines. So unless the cable operators themselves are in on it -- as some have alleged -- I don't think this hypothesis is plausible, either. And if the cable operators are in on it, then we wouldn't have needed to cut undersea cables and install splices, would we?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they wanted a splice, they could have done it a hundred miles away and no one would have noticed before the breach was fixed at the other end. Especially, if they used a submarine team.
Though, there are more efficient ways of doing things so I doubt it, but they could do
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:4, Funny)
It's the only logical conclusion.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing; my point, though, is that we don't need to deliberately destroy internet infrastructure to do so, as has been alleged. There are much more unobtrusive ways to collect foreign intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the fact that about 50 cables a year are 'cut', there is th fact that there are cheaper, better, and less risky ways to do it?
So a splice is put in, and then thousands of miles of cable is secretly laid to get the information land side, and NOBODY notice that it bow needs a lot more power pushed through it?
A cable that has 10,000 volts running through it will have a noticeable jump in resistance when another cable is spliced on.
I did explain why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it supposed to be a signal that if anyone invests in Iran's bourse, the US is going to incompetently attempt to disrupt their internet connectivity, and utterly fail at doing so? Better yet, since no major entity interested in inv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Cable cuts happen on average once every three days," Beckert said. There are 25 large ships [iscpc.org] that do nothing but fix cable cuts and bends, [Stephan] Beckert [of TeleGeography Research] adds. [...] "Only the first two cuts had any serious impact on the internet." [...] Once those failures sensitized a conspiracy-happy net, it was natural that other cable failures would be found to feed the frenzy, because they occur all the time. [...] "Its difficult to tell what the motive would be: is it just to ann
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'll be honest, I'm not claiming this is a known fact or anything.
You sir, are a nut. What do you think about 911 tru
Re: (Score:2)
It sends a clear message to anyone thinking of using the Bourse. "We have tapped ALL lines, not just the ones that were 'incompetently' cut and obviously tapped" and "We WILL take any action necessary to ensure oil is traded in dollars only...This was a clear and public message. Any oil trader can read it loud and clear, and you are being disingenuous when you profess ignorance.
Look, I'll be honest, I'm not claiming this is a known fact or anything.
You sir, are a nut. What do you think about 911 truthers?
I wouldn't put anything past the current administration, but I don't think they planned this. I think it's likely they knew about it ahead of time and did nothing, but not certain.
How am I a nut, exactly? We surely have the means and the opportunity, and I presented a plausible motive. I never claimed it was a certainty. Why are you against this sort of speculation?
Re:For the same reason I'm against Intelligent Des (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Just like an ID'er, assume you know something is true when it isn't."
"Dave is many things, but he doesn't post AC to support himself."
How would anyone but Dave know that? Damn, you aren't very smart, are you Dave? How did you ever get into spook school?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the explanation, again...?
And there has been an explanation [cnn.com] for the FALCON cable failure.
Please provide references for your claims about Russian military exercises to "protect" undersea cables, and Egypt's "claims" that the cables were cut.
I don't expect there will be a response, given that it is the cable operators, not the Egyptian government (since it is not their cable), who would be "examining the damage",
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that was suspicious was that the cables that were cut were nearly the sole providers of access to the region. It's almost incredible that there's nearly 0 r
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not looking for stories that say that Egypt said there were no ships in the area in question. Even my linked article makes reference to that.
I'm asking for a reference that supports your claim that the Egyptian government examined the cables and said they had clearly been deliberately cut. But there is no such reference, since the Egyptian government has done nothing of the sort, given that they're not the ones examining
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there you are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official. You seem to think that Iran is a reasonable place full of professionals that vote their conscience. If that's true, then the expression of their will is their current leader, and their current program of funding all sorts of extremist militants, terrorists,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about the last administration, and its current attempt to become the next one? How about congress and the senate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official.
You are either completely ignorant of how elections work or you're flamebaiting. Its "top elected official" was one of the only candidates not to be ruled "too liberal" by the Council of Guardians in the 2005 election runoff. This was, in part, a reaction to America's foreign policy. (When your greatest enemy invades the neighboring country, and then completely reneges on its agreements with you, it tends to bolster the reactionary political bloc.) Most Iranians didn't have a choice. And believe it or not
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, etc. But the point is that those people all have constituencies for whom they speak, and they can do it all day long without fear of being jailed for what they say. That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.
There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel
Um, how about ceasing to fund terrorism-using militant religious extremists? How about stopping shipments of cash and arms over the northern Iraqi border and through Syria to people who use them against civilians, blow up police stations, etc? How about simply recognizing that Israel exists, in the way that, say, Egypt, or Jordan have?
Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable
So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs? Stalin's bureaucracy was sophisticated, too. China is very sophisticated, and far more subtle and clever (than Iran) in how they present their repression to the rest of the world. Sophistication has nothing to do with whether or not a citizen can stand up and say what they want to say, or form a political movement that might challenge the militant theocracy that, in practice, runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.
Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel
No. They like to talk that way, to stir up at least some common nationalistic sentiment among their people, the better to gloss over the repressive things they do in running the country. When you have a hugely unemployed population of young males (who are also told what sort of haircuts they're allowed to have, and whether then can use the word "pizza" or not, lest they become corrupted by evil foreign sensibilities and habits like... having what you want for dinner and calling it what the rest of the world calls it), continuing with the ongoing theatrical exercise in describing a state of war that doesn't actually exist is a timeless classic. Actual war would look very different. And you wouldn't have all of Europe just as worried (and voting the same way in the UN) if this was just the US and Israel that finds Iranian behavior to be alarming. Israel isn't lobbing missiles into Iran. But Iranian missles were hitting towns in Israel just yesterday.
Oh God, not this again.
How many times, and how many variations on "they will soon be gone," and "they will disappear from the map," etc., do you need to hear?
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.
And the people who make that call aren't up for election. Ahmadinejad is not "the regime"--Khamenei is. Along with the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts. And the way in which they are chosen is by direct election.
Let me ask you a question. I mean this in sincerity. Do you believe Hezbollah to be more evil than Israel? If so, why? Look at the total number of civilian casualties caused by each side. Look at Israel's involvement in the region, specifically what it has done to Lebanon for the past thirty years. Hezbollah was primarily responsible for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s. I actually happen to think Hezbollah is more evil than Israel, for ideological reasons, but I don't separate them that far from one another. Israel's certainly been the cause of much more death. Iran is playing a politically savvy game, in the same way America has for decades. Iran has quite clearly enumerated what it will take to get it to recognize Israel: elections that involve Palestinians. (He actually says so in the speech where he supposedly called for Israel to be destroyed. Funny, that.) Much of what we allege Iran does (for example, the Syrian examples you quoted) is part of a war of rhetoric. Iran can cite as many examples of the same--for years America supported Mujahideen E-Khal, which carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. America has shot down Iranian planes full of civilians. Why should Iran be the one to cave to American demands? Iran held Americans hostage for a year--a dickish thing to do, but it pales in comparison to the overthrow of their democratically elected government and ensuing exploitation. We had our reasons, but do you think that justifies it, in their eyes? Especially given how much Iran helped us during both World Wars?
So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs?
I wasn't saying that it was a good thing. I said it was sophisticated because it is, and as a result you can't look at it like the President is an accurate reflection of the will of the people. It's just not that simple. The political system is surprisingly complex, and in many ways mirrors the American one, in that our higher officials are not necessarily selected by those they govern. In Iran's case, it's essentially two governments in one, with one subservient to the other, and the subservient one includes the electable offices--but who qualifies to be elected is completely determined by the superior government. I agree with you: Iran doesn't do a good job of representing itself on the world stage. But that has a lot to do with who its enemies are. America wages a much better PR campaign, and so does Israel.
runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.
Now you're just being naive. Iran is not the source of the problems in Iraq, nor is it trying to prevent Iraq from becoming stable. A stable Iraq is in Iran's best interests. What it wants, however, is an Iraq free of American influence, much like America wants an Iraq free of Iranian influence. Neither scenario is achievable, and neither player is happy, so each is making the other bleed for it--America through the UN sanctions, Iran through its covert operations in Iraq. But even in light of those operations, the vast m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html [historyguy.com]
WMDs were found in Iraq, "although not of a militarily significant capability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction [wikipedia.org]
Why invade Iran? There are other options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb [wikipedia.org]
Someone needs to be in the mideast to oppose the Iran theocracy. Replacing a secular dictator with a pro-US secular democracy would be
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:4, Informative)
Need we go over why the United Nations is an unreliable source here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Abuse [wikipedia.org]
How long was it going on? We don't know, but it makes anything the UN says regarding Iraq highly suspect.
Re:The US is propping up far worse governments (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't begin to imagine what it is the US has invested in Colombia that would have necessitated Colombia's sudden change of heart.
Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would suggest watching the documentary "The Corporation." It's a bit extremist, but interesting none the less.
Re: Capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
*License* the rope. Patent the knot design.
Get subscribers to sign up for the feature presentation. Then copyright the video.
Sell advertising slots. Tie in action figures complete with movable rope.
Air a documentary on E!. Stir up the talk show networks with a recorded last message.
Write a computerized algorithm for robots to tie knots. Patent that.
Then no one can die this way again without your estate's permission. Sue them posthumously with previously prepared legal documents.
Absolutely atrocious. (Score:2, Funny)
-1: horseshit (Score:5, Informative)
This is bullshit. Hillary has been prowar, except when campaigning. The Clinton administration had a couple war efforts. Obama's foreign policy guy is Brzezinski, who isn't specifically anti-war. Only when it's a terrible, terrible idea.
Can we not mod up baseless political bullshit from either side? Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that largely rules out war against Iran barring an overt act of hostility against us or an ally of ours. Which is more than enough for me.
The scariest moments for me in the last 8 years were when it seemed like Bush was almost serious about trying to push for a preemptive war against Iran. Such a thing would have made Iraq look like Venice Beach. Fortunately even the morons who thought
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re:Absolutely atrocious. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html [nytimes.com]
As well as a speech he made last week that I cannot find online at the moment. He said 'greatly reduce' at first, then alluded that the US should eliminate them to 'lead the way'.
Then again, posting truth gets you modded as Flamebait around here.
Good for him. (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the US will never do that, I think we should get rid of ours. Seems our real threats are goat-herders with 50-year-old tech and more stomach for the fight than the nation that took it to their homeland.
Don't need nukes for that, we need high tech weapons to pick out the
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea. I can think of a few places we could do that. Heck, we can even demonstrate that the Nuke and Delivery System were 'capable" and use the Later to deliver the Former.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, we should give every nation their own nukes and delivery system. MAD you know.
The problem is that the whole MAD thing falls apart when you're dealing with religious fanatics that view martyrdom as a path to glory. It's like threatening to shoot a guy wearing a suicide vest.
MAD also gets a little edgy when you're dealing with dictators [cia.gov] who are just bat-shit crazy and can't be trusted to act rationally.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the nervousness about Korea.
You know why IRAQ is so difficult for us? because we worl real hard to reduce casualties. Now, it's not perfect, but if this was 50 year ago we just would ahve level every major city in Iraq killing all of it's citizens instead of trying to ferret out the ones we want.
No we should never have gone in, but we are there. So don't be so damn myopic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite what the current administration wants us to believe, current terrorism is about as much of a threat to our security as drug gangs are - they cause a mess of trouble, make life suck for a minority of people, and in general cost us a lot in law enforcement. But they aren't threatening to change our economy, political system, or national borders.
ie, they are not a real national threat to the continuance of most of the US as a decent place to live.
We keep nukes around because a singl
To: Idiots who think Iran is run by nutjobs (Score:2)
There are a few religious radicals in Iran in the lower to mid levels of the government, but they are significantly outnumbered by the other group.
Wanna know who this other group is? Please read on, till the end...
I start with someone you are familiar with; do you consider Dick Cheney a radical Christian or a ruthless businessman which uses religion or any other tool as a means to make profit? like when he talks about supporting the troops does he really care about the troops or he has an agenda of his own? Well, Cheney is one of the members of the "Other Group", the businessmen, except he is American.
In Iran we have our own businessmen. Since the 'Islamic' revolution of 1979, these people have taken over the government in a country where 90%+ of the economy is owned and operated by the government.
A clear example, is the largest of these business entities: Islamic Republic Guards Corps (IRGC), most recent bogeyman on CNN/FOX. While the American media focuses on the 'military' part of IRGC's operation, they neglect to mention the much much bigger side of IRGC. Revolutionary Guards is the single biggest business entity in Iran, they build all the dams, bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad, they operate civilian airports all across the country, they do the largest mining operations, they own many of the largest and most profit generating financial institutions in Iran and this list goes on forever.
Almost half of the members of the current parliament are former IRGC members, Ahmadinejad himself made his way to being Tehran's Mayor and later, Iran's president through IRGC.
Another example is Mesbah Yazi, a mid-level clergy, known as the mentor of Ahmadinejad, the biggest fucking piece of shit I know in Iran. Plays the same role to Ahmadi Nejad as Dick plays to Bush. But there's another side to this guy, he is also known as "Sultan of Sugar" in Iran. He controls import, distribution and sale of all Sugar in Iran. Believe me, in a country of 70 million population a monopoly on sugar is better than a monopoly on gold mines. He also says that the 'Zionist regime' of Israel is doomed, however nuking them means end of the sweet sugar business for him.
Former president Rafsanjani, former parliament speaker Nategh Noori and many others are businessmen too. They don't give a fuck about religion unless in public when preaching people.
In conclusion, I just want you to think, what benefit does nuking Israel which guarantees a much much harsher reaction from Israel bring to these ruling businessmen? See, that's why Iran, even with nukes is no threat at all to any other country?
All that matters to these people is survival of their business, they are not religious zealots, they don't believe in the second coming or afterlife or crap like what they preach to people. If a day comes where wiping their asses with pages of Quran helps them keep control of their business, then that's what they WILL HAPPILY DO.
Thanks for reading my rant.
Adding up to that, one interesting and very recent example: One commander of Tehran's police force (also a high ranking IRGC General) who runs the division in charge of shutting down any voice of protest (can't translate name to English) was arrested last week in a brothel run by and for IRGC members with six girls. The girls confessed that he asked them to take off their cloth and do a prayers game! Girls could not believe such a person which is so famous for enforcing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world != unilateral disarmament. Unilateral disarmament is when you eliminate all your own nukes, without reference to anybody else's. Multilateral disarmament is when everybody eliminates their nukes, and has been the goal of pretty much every strategic arms treaty ever signed.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure Obama didn't say it like a politician, eg, "Work towards..."?
In any case, we have enough nuclear weapons to cover the entire surface of the world several times over. I think we could start eliminating some of the weapons and actually maintain a reasonable, small, well-maintained stockpile. That would be less likely t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this modded flamebait? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The New Psych Ops (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You would need really fat pipes (Score:2)
It's a CONSPIRACY! (Score:2, Funny)
Wait... is it still considered a conspiracy if it's out in the open and it's definitely 100% not the US or oil companies? I'm not sure which I prefer, prelude to war or the possibility that the Iranian leadership could become MORE crazy.
Being a naive westerner, it appears to me that the freedom-hugging ideas that float around on the internets don't seem to have an effect on political/religious thinking of countries like Iran.
Does this indicate that it is having an effect?
They are getting the hang of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Before everyone foams at the mouth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few Thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
2. What is this meant to do? I see no real security benefits to blocking the internet.
3. In speculating after what happened in Africa, is this an attempt to block outsiders from knowing what is going on in the country, or to keep outsiders from influencing the country, or to keep their own people unaware of what is going on in their own country? No matter which one, info will come out eventually, so the only thing I can see happening is that people can't tell others what is going on at the polling places before it is too late. But either way it would be too late, because there wouldn't be time for others to come and help out if there is forced voting.
I guess I'm just confused as to how this is supposed to help them out, as it only makes them seem overly secretive, with little to no long term benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for assuming " info will come out eventually", that's usually not the case. When the only information available comes from sources operated by the state or vetted by the state, there's little opportunity for information to simply "come out".
Gee, there's a surprise... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case I agree with him.
<sarcasm>wait, i don't understand (Score:2)
Re:wait, i don't understand (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax [wikipedia.org]
yes (Score:2)
when we look to the usa as the blame for everything, you implicitly say the usa is the solution to the problems. yet of course the goal of blaming the usa for everything is to get the usa uninvolved... huh? it doesn't logically follow
if you don't want the usa involved in other parts of the world, you don't blame the usa for things, you blame the iraqis for what happens in iraq, the brazilians for what hap
actually i'm not, i hate bush (Score:2)
sometimes affects more than Iran (Score:2)
US is to Iran, as Osama is to US (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
They make contradictory claims about why, but in the end, it is a one day inconvenience for internet users. The most sinister reason I can think of for them wanting to shut it down is to prevent riots caused by posts alleging election improprieties (real or imagined). Really sinister.
Am I missing something? What's the big deal?
Just shut it all down in Iran. (Score:3, Interesting)
Iran May Shut Down Internet During Election (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I call you an inbred idiot because you're being led by one of them? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't mention anything about the people, it was about the people controlling the countries.
Were you just sitting at home in your smelly underwear looking for any pathetic reason to spout of your rant? It sure seems that way.
Your comment is not insightful in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, when you accuse somebody of ranting, try a spellchecker first, it'll make you look like less of a loon yourself. Meanwhile, I'm off to find some smelly underwear. I usually don't keep any at the office, you know, the business that I own and run?
Man, for such a low UID, you really
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok d00d, torch that Starbucks! Vulva La Revolucion!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know why you think that. The US is OK by my book, just not as great as some fervent patriots make her out to be though.
Vulva La Revolucion
I didn't know you were a hyper-feminist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great, you'll notice I didn't ask about your po (Score:2)
You should, it's what started this whole sub-thread.
Do try to understand what you're replying to.
Funnnnneeeeeee.
Now, about those questions you're still afraid to answer...
I did answer them. You just don't like the answer because you're trying to make some obscure point that has no relevance to the discussion you butted into.
Weak troll attempt. FAIL.
Re: (Score:2)
Open your eyes just a little wider...
we can check your posting history
God, I really wish you would already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds sorta like the new lease on my apartment. We're not raising your rent, we're just no longer paying for your water/sewer/heating bill. So, the cost to live in this apartment is going up... sounds like a rent increase to me.
Well your probably getting screwed long term because all those things are going to go up significantly. However, you probably could have asked for a 5 year lease to lock in the rate, if that made sense for your situation. You can also control water and heating to an extent. Realize that the reason for a landlord not wanting to pay utilities is because he cannot control those costs. He can reward good tenants with appliances and repairs because he knows they take care of their apartments. However, a good t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If their attacks restricted themselves to Israeli soldiers, military installations & equipment, and political and military infrastructure, they'd have more sympathy in the West.
Firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas; bombing markets, discos, stores and buses loses them all credibility and plants them firmly in the realm of "terrorist organization". They use the threat and practice of violence against an unarmed civilian population as a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. Outside of current and former UK colonies (like the US), and Holland for some reason, no other country has Hezbollah listed as a terrorist organization.
The satellite dish in this case is not illegal like DirecTV, which wants people to pay to see their signal. It is illegal because the US does not wan
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to be more elaborate, but if you don't see the problem in your logic, you must have been a business major, or are a teenager. The Unabomber (a white man) sent bombs to a lot of faculty at universities...therefore suppressing education has always been a central part of the white man's way.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people in the US don't even have 1 Mbps download. Even more don't have 1 Mbps upload.
Re: (Score:2)