Mass Arrests of Journalists Follow Iran Elections 333
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by the fact that no less than 23 journalists have been arrested in Iran in the week following the elections, making Iran one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist. Online activists are trying to counter this trend by giving advice for helping Iranian protesters. One problem is that Iranian leaders are trying to delegitimize the reform movement by pretending that the reformers are puppets of foreign powers, so special discretion is required for anyone wanting to help the Iranian people."
Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They can still do that. If you read the history of these Iranian assholes, specifically the 1972 revolution, and the killings afterward. Or if you want to get totally horrified you can check out the history of the Iran-Iraq war (there's a reason Teheran and Baghdad have the largest cemetaries in the world, despite the fact muslims don't normally have graveyards at all. Those graveyards even have pictures and stories, which goes explicitly against islam, and yet these ayatollahs and even the Iraqi Sunni's su
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I pray (to a God whose idea of an afterlife does NOT include slavery, not for me and not for anyone else)
so you talk to imaginary people (or even voices in your head) and at the same time feel you are better than other crazy people?
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
"specifically the 1972 revolution"
I think the Iranian revolution you must be referring to was in 1978/1979.
"then send them almost naked and unarmed into a minefield to clear a path for soldiers."
Many of these "children" were members of the Basij [wikipedia.org]. Its a little simplistic to portray the people who join the Basij as not know what they were doing. They new about as well as anyone who joins a fanatical, fundamentalist organization, whether it be the Basij or the Taliban. Ahmandinejad came out of the Basij too. Its a little misleading to lay the misuse of martyrdom on just the current Iranian regime. Martrydom is an integral part of Islam and a number of other religions and social movements. It was integral to Japanese culture as well. The same thing happens many other places including the 9/11 hijackers and human wave attacks by the Japanese in World War II. I think I would blame the ability of organized religions to manipulate people in to doing really stupid things, and that problem is not specific to Iran, Iran's current regime, nor is it specific to Islam. America has used religion throughout its history to encourage people to get killed in wars too.
I'm not entirely sure of the dates but I think Moussavi, the current champion of democracy and freedom in Iran today was, was in the 1980's, the Prime Minister of the Iran during part of the Iran Iraq war. I'm not positive but there is a pretty fair chance he was complicit in the human wave attacks as much as the rest of the Iranian regime you are railing against.
The Iranian human wave attacks really aren't much different than Pickett's charge at Gettysberg and pretty much every offensive waged in World War I by the French, Germans, British, Russians and Americans. The death toll in World War I far surpassed 500 thousand. They killed that many young men in a few days. In World War I the solders might have been slightly older, and packing rifles, but they were slaughtered in exactly the same way by machine guns, artillery and mustard gas and the fact the were carrying rifles was usually pretty irrelevant. Most of them had been told by their ministers and rabbi's that heaven awaited if they didn't make it, which most of them didn't. Its a shameless ploy of most nation states and organized religions to use the promise of an after life to get soldiers to throw away the life they have in wars.
The Iranian human wave attacks certainly were brutal but you are also somewhat over the top in how you are using it for propaganda purposes against the current regime. Iran was fighting a war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq was getting a LOT of military aid from the U.S. and Britain in particular while Iran was mostly being embargoed. Iraq had vastly superior weaponry as a result and the west was also encouraging Saddam to use chemical weapons against the Iranians. One of Iran's few assets is it had more people, so use of human wave attacks may be the only thing that kept them from losing the war against Iraq. Pretty much all they did was sacrifice poorly trained, poorly equipped soldiers to clear the way for their experienced soldiers, it was brutal, but they were desperate, it did work, it isn't the first time it was done nor was it the last. All war is brutal, nit picking the details like you are doing for propaganda purposes is pretty transparent and shameless. The Allies intentionally killed millions of civilians, including women and children, in Germany and Japan through strategic bombing and no one seems to bat an eye about that, and in a lot of ways that was much worse.
Probably just as bad as the Iranian human waves was for the U.S. and Britain to arm Saddam, encourage him to attack his neighbors(Iran) and encourage him to use weapons of mass destruction against them one decade and then wage two wars against him in each of the next two decades for attacking his neighbors(this time Kuwait) and using WMD's this time against the Kurds. It was the height of hypocrisy. The U.S. and Britain were just goading Arabs in to killing each other to gain their strategic goals, mostly control of Middle Eastern oil.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what these guys did to get, and remain in power.
That's remarkably shortsighted seeing as those dead kids represent the future voter base.
More likely they represent future troublemakers. Might as well kill them before they're old enough to wield pitchforks.
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
That's remarkably shortsighted of YOU to think that they want, need, or care about a "voter base". They are warlords, and will stay in power as long as they can using lies, violence, corruption, or rigged elections. Besides any old-school Chicago politician knows that just because someone is dead doesn't mean they can't vote!
Re:I'm sure Hitler killed more (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure Hitler killed more (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, to be fair, wrong is wrong. Guantanamo might not be "as wrong" as Auschwitz, but it's still wrong, and pointing out worse crimes doesn't lessen the culpability.
That said, yeah, if we wait for someone without sin to cast stones, we'll be waiting a long time. Just because we've made mistakes doesn't mean we have to ignore injustice when we see it. On the contrary, we should condemn the actions of Iran just as we condemn detentions in Guantanamo, the use of atomic weapons, slavery, or anything else we've fucked up.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that there are deep divisions among the various factions that control Iran. Khamenei is, at least on paper, the most powerful person in Iran, but he ultimately does have to answer to the Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is lead by Khamenei's chief rival; Rafsanjani. It appears that, whatever the goals of the protesters, it really is about Rafsanjani and the other commercial elites, who stand to benefit from opening up to the West, taking on Khamenei and his faction, who are decidedly anti-Western and totally anti-American.
You can see this secret dance in odd ways; Khamenei's fawning words about Rafsanjani's, the unwillingness of Khamenei to go completely Tienanmen on the protesters (which may suggest deep divisions in the Guardian Council). Khamenei clearly thinks he is vulnerable and has to walk a fine line. Still, by arresting Rafsanjani's kids and making only slightly veiled threats against Moussavi he's trying to send the message that he still holds a lot of cards, which of course he does.
I think the news, such as we're getting, suggests the protests are petering out. But the cat is out of the bag now. Khamenei's authority has been undermined.
Re:The Grotesquely Ugly Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
That really is a load of crap. In the 1950s, Iran was well on its way to becoming probably the most secular society in the Middle East. It had a burgeoning middle class, and seemed to be moving away from authoritarianism. And then the Americans and the Brits, not liking the nationalization of oil by Mohammad Mosaddeq, helped the Shah to overthrow that government. That created the deep divide between Iran and the US and Great Britain, and it didn't help that the Shah became a ruthless, Western-backed dictator.
I doubt a lot of the Iranians who supported Ayatollah Khomeini did it because they wanted to replace the Shah's oppressive regime with a fundamentalist Islamic regime just as oppressive. They wanted the Shah out and flocked to those who seemed capable of a leadership position. Was it a mistake? Probably, but if there's still lingering distrust of the United States, it's hardly because Iranians are somehow culturally more likely to live willingly under dictators (which I don't buy, it doesn't really reflect where Iranian culture was going for the first part of the 20th century). It's because the US, shortsightedly, opted for a man they viewed as a friend as opposed to a man they viewed as an opponent who threatened both key oil reserves and who (in they're view) might be more prone to siding with the Soviets.
Re:Warsaw Pact vs. Iranian Despot (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the truth of cultural differences, the reality is that the claims that Mosaddeq was going to cut a deal with the Russians was a smokescreen, a complete pile of B.S. concocted by the Brits and the Americans to give some justification to turfing a guy who was clearly trying to break Iran free from both Western subservience and trying to give more weight to the democratic institutions than to the Shah.
None of this history is very much disputed any more. The CIA, with Eisenhower's approval, helped the Shah overthrow Mosaddeq's government in return for allowing foreign oil companies to gain valuable contracts to extract Iranian oil.
You need to read up on Anglo-Iranian Oil Company here. The coup d'etat that ousted Mosaddeq had nothing to do with differing cultures or with the fear of the growth of the Soviet sphere, and everything to do with the Brits being really pissed off that Mosaddeq had nationalized their oil company, and the Americans lending a helping hand and trying to firm up their control over the Shah, who they viewed as a chief ally in the Middle East and Central Asia. It was a shortsighted policy that ended in absolute disaster.
GP's post is copypasta. (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls, Anon.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
This does not confirm that the elections were a farce. It simply confirms that Iran is not a liberal democracy. If the elections were fair and a protest erupted, there would have been a similar clampdown.
Frankly, I don't know who to believe. The past 30 years of American history has taught me not to take my government's word at face value, and journalism isn't much better. I don't think anyone outside of Iran knows the truth.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I doubt many people inside Iran know the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is asymptotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
"I don't think anyone outside of Iran knows the truth.
Hell, I doubt many people inside Iran know the truth. "
What he said. Twitter is ablaze with the revolution and attempts to sort fact from fiction. One of the accepted "facts" is that embassies are taking in the wounded.
A buddy of mine is the guy that conncted Iran to the net in the 90s. He's over there still and says this is a complete myth.
There is *so* much misinformation now it almost lends credence to the notion the CIA is doing it again.
See also:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-in-tehran-fantasy-and-reality-make-uneasy-bedfellows-1710762.html [independent.co.uk]
you have it backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
no one in iran knows the truth, because there is no free press
everyone outside iran knows the truth, because there is free access to a free press
and what in your mind makes you think that the us govt can control the world media?
well, let's go with your paranoia, and make believe for the moment the us govt really can control the media. not even just american outlets, but even the likes of news.com.au and news.bbc.co.uk: any western media outlet. this is some extreme paranoia to believe that, but let's go wit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Its not so much that the news is controlled, as that they end up reporting about what they think make most people buy their printed materials, or keep their channel of transmission tuned in...
Its all about ad sales, and some celebrity pulling a faux pas is seen as selling more then some government pulling a fast one...
australia is real (Score:3, Funny)
its where arnold schwarzenegger and freud and hitler and the sound music are from... its just below germany ;-)
(awaiting the incendiary and mocking comments from people who don't have a sense of humor)
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone inside Iran knows the truth either. You may not "trust journalism" whatever that means, but our journalism, with all of its flaws is far better at disseminating accurate information than anything they have inside Iran at the best of times, and these aren't the best of times.
The people in Iran are hearing little besides rumor, propaganda, and sermons.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think anyone outside of Iran knows the truth.
Iranians living in the US know the truth. Seek out what they have to say on Google.
By the way, you may think the US government is FOS, but take note of the language used on many of the protester's signs. They're in English, and I don't think they are necessarily looking for attention from the Brits.
Having worked with a former Iranian several years ago, I can tell you only what he told me - there can be terrible consequences if someone speaks out against the ruling mullahs. I, for one, would like to see this upheaval undermine the bastards that are ruling that otherwise magnificent country, populated by smart hard working people.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
This does not confirm that the elections were a farce. It simply confirms that Iran is not a liberal democracy. If the elections were fair and a protest erupted, there would have been a similar clampdown.
At least they had protests. We had two extremely suspect elections in a row, and US citizens did nothing. It's pretty pathetic to think that Iranians expect more democratic results from their elections than we do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, we would have been much, much better off having a(nother) civil war rather than using the rule of law to decide who got to be president next.
Re:Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iranian government was hoping to quietly sweep the issue under the rug. The Guardian Council's statement that they would look into possible election fraud was nothing more than a delay tactic. The Council had hoped that the public would wait for the result quietly. Then when the Council made their determination, the people would have cooled off and the whole matter would be swept under the rug.
Of course, it didn't work that way. The Iranian public has been getting progressively angrier. These stalling tactics only made them madder. The Ayatollah's proclamation of "divine insight" into the election made them angrier still. Even the blood shed on the street has not discouraged them, but thrown them into a shear rage.
Now Iran is staring down a full-blown revolution. The police have been told they can use firearms (as if they haven't been using them) and the protesters have been denounced as terrorists.
A lot of blood is going to be shed in the next few days. And the press just happens to be considered a fair target by the Iranian government. :-(
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of blood is going to be shed in the next few days. And the press just happens to be considered a fair target by the Iranian government. :-(
Making the press a target is actually going to backfire on the Iranian government. Instead of the usual 15 minutes devoted to practically any international event before the next bit of sensationalist bullshit comes on the air, this attack on their own may embitter the press enough to cause them to give Iran a bit of hell for its trouble. Imprisoning or killing a few dozen reporters could mean the difference between a revolution that nobody ever hears or cares about and one that has most of the world supporting it and therefore succeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it didn't work that way. The Iranian public has been getting progressively angrier. These stalling tactics only made them madder. The Ayatollah's proclamation of "divine insight" into the election made them angrier still. Even the blood shed on the street has not discouraged them, but thrown them into a shear rage.
Now Iran is staring down a full-blown revolution. The police have been told they can use firearms (as if they haven't been using them) and the protesters have been denounced as terrorists.
My guess is that the regime understands what fueled the revolution that they, themselves, were a part of 30 years ago. Bloodshed only served to strengthen the revolution (that and disinformation - which we're seeing plenty of already). However, at what point does one decide that there is nothing left to lose and that blood is a gamble that must be made to preserve the current regime?
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
What a curious way to look at it. Here I was thinking that what the West feared was the result, not the method of arriving at it.
If the moderate liberals succeed in seizing power (nobody laugh), will the West fear them as well just because "the elections were a farce"?
Re: (Score:2)
The elections were a farce because of the current result (Amawhateverhisnameis). If the results were moderate liberals, then why would we say anything? It's got to be better than what's there now.
But should we believe that.... ? (Score:4, Interesting)
> "One problem is that Iranian leaders are trying to delegitimize the reform movement by pretending that they're puppets of foreign powers, so special discretion is required for anyone wanting to help the Iranian people."
I agree with this idea but should we think that foreign intelligence agents in Iran are currently seriously told to stay put and do nothing ? ;-))
Or even believe that there is no foreign intelligence agents in Iran ?
There definitely seems to be a momentum from the people of Iran taking place although, pendulum effect at work again ?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273015&cid=28384711&art_pos=8 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: The US doubtless has intelligence agents inside Iran, both US citizens and Iranians that report to our CIA. Their orders are what most agents get most of the time - to gather information, and to try to make it as accurate as possible and not to get played by one side or another. The first is a safe assumption. The second could be the case if the current administration thinks there is a fair chance things will work out well that way.
Why would the ad
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would the US need to interfere, when it's already reap what you sow time? I doubt 'CIA assassins' could raise the body count if they tried.
There is much more subtle ways to influence the outcome, but if I tell you, I will have to kill myself ;-))
I am just having doubts that agents are told to do absolutely nothing that can influence the outcome ;-)) Heck ! why not have them help the ayatollahs while at it just to make sure it is really Iran people that decide autonomously ? ;-)))
Marg bar Diktator! (Score:5, Insightful)
The regime seems to be fighting the last media war. They've been very effective in deporting and isolating professionals, only to discover how irrelevant that is when thousands of phone-cams are in the streets. Their attempts at jamming and filtering have clearly been quite porous. There's no such thing as a media blackout once word of mouth goes world wide.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Their attempts at jamming and filtering have clearly been quite porous.
The porosity may be purposeful. You'll note an article posted earlier about Siemens and Nokia providing censoring technology to Iran's government.
FTA:
the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection
If they totally shut down the internet communications then there is nothing to run DPI on. By reducing their traffic but not eliminating it they have stuff to inspect.
For more information about the Iranian firewall check out the links in the summary from Researchers Find Gaps In Iranian Filtering [slashdot.org] posted here yesterday on Slashdot. There are a couple of char
Foreign Influence in Iran Protests is Real (Score:3, Interesting)
"One problem is that Iranian leaders are trying to delegitimize the reform movement by pretending that they're puppets of foreign powers, so special discretion is required for anyone wanting to help the Iranian people."
Regardless of what one thinks about the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad, it is well known that the CIA and other western powers are spending millions stirring up trouble in Iran: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html [telegraph.co.uk]
This article gives some historical overview of western meddling in Iran: http://www.voltairenet.org/article160670.html [voltairenet.org]
What many of you also fail to understand is that while Musavi is less fundamentalist than Ahmadinejad, his views are hardly one of support for "human rights" and free society. It is sorta like the difference between Republicans and Democrats - a few differences on paper but little substantial difference.
Re:Foreign Influence in Iran Protests is Real (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether there are only "a few differences on paper but little substantial difference" between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi, that is not the point. The point is that the election was rigged. The fact that the mullahs felt the need to rig an election where both front-runners only have "a few differences on paper, but little substantial difference," speaks volumes about how much "dissent" will be tolerated by the Ayatollacrats.
Best,
Re: (Score:2)
I think at this point it's almost irrelevant. I know there were some analysts prior to the vote that thought Ahmadinejad would win 2:1, and he got reasonably close to that number of votes. Of course analysts spend just as much time blowing hot air as revealing truth, so maybe they were talking out of their ass.
It's been the constant mantra since Khatami was president that the Iranian people want reform and if not an outright end to the Islamic Republic, then at least a loosening of its grip. Still, no on
Re: (Score:2)
There's some truth to that, but -- assuming the election was stolen -- it looks like even those small differences were enough for Khomeini to step in, which points up just how short he wants the leash to be.
Standing up (Score:5, Insightful)
My heart goes out to the Iranian people, but this is something they have to do for themselves.
their governement has to learn to respect the people they govern. as one post i read had stated, "we've traded one dictatorship for another".
if we in the west get involved there will always be accusations of puppets and strings.
the only way for the Iranian people to earn the respect of those that run the country and the other countries of the region is to do this on their own.
the worst is yet to come, but i wish them all the courage and strength they may need.
Re:Standing up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Standing up (Score:4, Insightful)
Where are you getting your historical and religious info, Chick Tracts?
You seem to be confusing the words "massacre" and "conquest". Mohammed's Arabs conquered their neighbors and converted them to Islam; they didn't exterminate them. Arabs have been raiding their neighbors since the dawn of history, and moving in and taking over when their civilized neighbors were weak--study the history of ancient Iraq/Mesopotamia some time. They tended to get assimilated by the vastly larger civilized populations they ruled, not massacred.
The Mongols and the Turks coming off the steppes were the ones that exterminated whole populations, and that was centuries after the original Arab conquest. The steppe nomads weren't having any of that assimilation stuff, so they wiped out everyone who wasn't an ignorant peasant. The Ottoman conquest of the Middle East set civilization in Mesopotamia back by centuries; it still hasn't recovered.
By the way, most places the moslems are natives; they converted to Islam via conquest or trade. Persians are not Arabs, and calling them Arabs is a good way to insult them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that helping them communicate (setting up proxies, opening more tor exit nodes, etc) is helpful, but not particularly open to cries of puppetry. Plenty of people are doing exactly that, and I think it's wonderful that there are simple things a quiet geek can do to help out a bit. Of course, detractors can always claim that open communication is a Western ideal, but it's become quite clear that a lot of Iranians want it as well.
Shameless plug time: Freenet [freenetproject.org] is designed to provide anonymous, c
What does it take to topple regime? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious about what the historical precedent is for regimes to be overthrown since it doesn't seem to happen.
My Russian friend used the colloquialism "every country is three meals away from a revolution" to describe the threshold for revolution, to make the case that nobody missed three meals during the Great Depression but did before the Russian Revolution.
I also read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in which Heinlein asserted that revolutions are never started or run by ordinary people, but by well organized political factions.
There's also 1984, in which Orwell points out that revolutions always involve the middle class, and the proletariat never drives revolutions.
There's also the wild card of alleged CIA involvement, which was behind the Orange (Ukraine) and Rose (Georgia) revolutions.
All of these tidbits of information aren't helping me to predict the outcome of the latest situation in Iran. What's driving the protests other than the election results? Will the revolutionaries succeed?
Re:What does it take to topple regime? (Score:5, Interesting)
My Russian friend used the colloquialism "every country is three meals away from a revolution" to describe the threshold for revolution, to make the case that nobody missed three meals during the Great Depression but did before the Russian Revolution.
I also read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in which Heinlein asserted that revolutions are never started or run by ordinary people, but by well organized political factions.
There's also 1984, in which Orwell points out that revolutions always involve the middle class, and the proletariat never drives revolutions.
There's also the wild card of alleged CIA involvement, which was behind the Orange (Ukraine) and Rose (Georgia) revolutions.
The thing to remember is that these are the observations of writers. They may be true or they may not, being printed is no more proof of one than the other.
If you look at the American Revolution, it was organized and financed by a faction within the elite and most privileged class of society. The colonies had not been around long enough to have as firm a tradition of aristocracy as in England so most of the American aristocrats were new to their wealth, having earned it themselves rather than inheriting rank and position from father and he from his father before him. So there was a great belief in America that the intelligent and hard-working could win their place in society, that a common man could prove his merit. Of course, there was also scorn of the common man who did not prove his virtue and remained common.
With the French Revolution, by all accounts it did start as a spontaneous uprising and leadership positions were hewn out violently in the same fashion one would expect if a few thousand people were thrown together and dumped into an isolated wilderness.
The other thing we've seen historically is that a conspiracy might form to kick down the door to the halls of power but they lose control of the beast they created and different people gain control of it.
History seems to be a record not so much of grand conspiracies cunningly executed but people of greed and avarice settings events in motion that can sometimes turn out quite contrary to their expectations. WWII in Europe never would have happened if Hitler had not worked so diligently to bring it about but the results ran somewhat contrary to his expectations.
exactly (Score:2)
history is often viewed as rote tired predictable trends playing out in rote tired predictable ways
this is an artifact of human mentality, of hindsight, of how we try to process our world. its not the truth
in truth, history is made by a few people groping their way in the dark, unsure of their efforts, but full of a strange conviction (for their time), and every once in a while, they hit a giant fucking motherlode of popular appeal or societal structural imbalance, and send the entire world careening on som
Re: (Score:2)
That's sort of the popular view of the French Revolution, but it's not reality. There were many French aristocrats who despised the monarchy, and the growing middle classes were, in large part, the chief victims of the taxes and inflation that had been grip
Re:What does it take to topple regime? (Score:4, Insightful)
...nobody missed three meals during the Great Depression...
Bullshit. People on the Western Plains starved to death.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're wrong about this. The aristocracy in the colonies was not nearly as rigidly defined as in England, but nearly all of the Founding Fathers were born into the wealthy elite. The only ones I can think of who weren't were Thom
Duh (Score:2)
The CIA.
We'll find out in five years than the hundreds of millions of dollars approved last year [france24.com] were for the purpose of overthrowing the Iranian government. That'll be the second time we've ousted their government. Should be good for relations in the future, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
You are personally well enough acquainted with Seymour Hersh to assess his mental health?
Re: (Score:2)
In most situations, I think the tipping point is generally the support -- or at minimum, the lack of opposition -- of the military and/or security service(s). Of course, that just pushes the question back one level: What does it take to get the military and/or security service(s) to walk away from the current regime?
That depends on a mix of factors concerning the priorities of the leadership of services: stability, honor, and personal benefit in terms of power and/or money. The ratio of the mix depends in
You got to hand it to them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You got to hand it to them (Score:4, Informative)
Bush won the mandatory Florida recount as well. The Supreme Court disallowed the hand recount because Florida wouldn't have it completed by the deadline.
Re:You got to hand it to them (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Supreme Court had not intervened there are several possible outcomes:
1. Florida Legislature appoints an Electoral College delegation (Constitutionally permissible). Result: Florida's electoral votes go to George W. Bush. George W. Bush is President
2. Florida does not send any delegates to the Electoral College. Result: Neither Candidate has the necessary electoral votes, the outcome is decided by the U.S House of Representatives. George W. Bush is President (the House of Representatives was majority Republican at the time).
There may be one or two other possible outcomes, but they all result in George W. Bush being inaugurated on Jan 20, 2001.
Re:You got to hand it to them (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so you preferred the method that Gore's lawyers wanted, and which the left-leaning courts in Florida initially backed: partial recounts, only in those voting districts hand-picked by Gore's team to increase the odds of improving his count. The Supreme Court weighed in on the fact that the standards being used to handle those recounts weren't consistent, and weren't in keeping with the constitutional concept of equal protection. You'll note that Gore's team vigrousoy opposed a state-wide recount (becuase they didn't want that - it would have been to their disadvantage, and they knew it).
And of course, you're surely aware that in the weeks following the ruling, every vote was recounted by several teams of people, using every standard advocated by either candidate, and several others, as well. In each recount, regardless of the technique used, Gore lost in Florida. Not to bother you with the facts or anything.
The Supreme Court didn't stop "the recount," they stopped a capricious, moving-target, standards-less partial recount of one candidate's hand-picked districts that was handling one voter's hanging chad different than another voter's from a different zip code. It took the follow-up state-wide recounts done by journalists and researchers months to finish, but the results were as expected and as first (and repeatedly) certificed by the Florida board of elections: Gore lost no matter how you looked at the numbers. To say nothing of the large number of military votes (from Floridians, those are usually not left-leaning) that never even made it into the mix.
Of course, you already knew all of this. Nice troll, though!
Fark has it right (Score:5, Informative)
Fark seems to be doing a really good job of cutting through the FUD and getting solid, reliable information out there. One of their users, Tatsuma, has a quite detailed and extensive analysis of the crisis, the players, and what is happening now. Their Iran threads would be a good place to start.
Fark is an echo chamber. (Score:2)
Yes, there are well meaning people there providing useful information, but in general it is an echo chamber of people caught up in the excitement who are VASTLY overestimating their positive contributions as much as they visciously disregard their potential to do extraordinary harm with mind numbing platitudes about freedom and revolution while accepting little, if any, risk or responsibility themselves. The egos are so jealously guarded to protect that sense of involvement that the constant astroturfing es
Re: (Score:2)
They'll claim it's interference by Western Powers regardless, because some people will believe it, and it's a nice bogeyman to justify their harsh repression.
I think Obama is doing the right thing by staying out of it...Given our reputation over there any overt involvement could only make things worse...And, frankly, whoever wins, it's not going to change a lot for us.
Re: (Score:2)
They are taking other measures as well; there are several reports that a speech by President Obama (who has yet to speak in support of the protesters) ...
Well, yes and no. He has spoken in support of the protestors speaking out, while being careful not to publically agree with what they're saying.
... was translated as a speech calling for revolution and the overthrow of the regime. This lets Iran claim that the protests are the result of meddling by the Western powers.
This is why Obama has tried to be very careful about what he says. Given that there is a history of meddling by the US (and others), anything he says is going to be seen through that filter. People calling for stronger statements by Obama seem to be unaware of that history ... or are pretending to be.
hey (Score:2)
Where have I heard that before...? (Score:2)
You're either for me or you're for the terrorists!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's good to see that you finally understand how to debate on Slashdot.
Now, here's a pop quiz. If the RIAA and MPAA sued Microsoft and Oracle over breaching the copyright of their DRM, Richard Stallman testified on behalf of the RIAA and Theo de Raadt spoke in favour of Microsoft... Who would you cheer for?
Re:hey (Score:4, Informative)
Now, here's a pop quiz. If the RIAA and MPAA sued Microsoft and Oracle over breaching the copyright of their DRM, Richard Stallman testified on behalf of the RIAA and Theo de Raadt spoke in favour of Microsoft... Who would you cheer for?
42
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way you can disagree with me is if you are under the influence of the Great Satan. So either you agree with me, or you are obviously evil. What better argument could you want?
Huh. Why does that argument sound vaguely familiar?
Middle East Peace (Score:3, Interesting)
I see this happening in Iran and even though I think the human suffering during this build up to civil war (and I have no doubt civil war will erupt from this) is immense, I look at the middle east overall and I wonder if Iran having this happen to it wouldn't be the best thing for everyone. With Iran fighting within itself, it doesn't have the focus on Isreal, Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq which has large issues with iran-funded militant groups. The money dries up, leaving the groups to fend for themselves, which they would find extremely difficult.
I personally hope that at the end of this there is a more 'west friendly' regime. It seems from all accounts that most of Iran's youth are wholeheartedly embracing technology and being part of the world stage. The middle east needs an country with an people-elected islamic leader which is willing to embrace the future.
that's nothing- try the political conventions here (Score:3, Interesting)
Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by the fact that no less than twenty-three journalists have been arrested in Iran in the week following the elections, making Iran one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist
23? That's it? At the RNC's and DNC's for the last decade, the cops have been putting people in holding cells by the bushels, charging them with all sorts of things like "disturbing the peace", or just simply letting them go after 24 hours.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not all people are journalists.
Reporters without Borders doesn't care about non-journalists being arrested (well they might care, but it isn't what they are talking about).
why do you think that even compares? (Score:2)
scale
perspective
context
these are some wacky concepts. try using some of them next time when you compare:
1. cops putting rnc and dnc marginal characters with marginal concerns behind fences
vs
2. the sheer scale of the popular uprising in iran
3. what is at stake: the very heart of iranian society (as opposed to nothing more than the ability to disrupt a party convention by outsiders with grudge fringe issues that don't have popular support)
4. the modus operandi: sueable, accountable urban cops restraining peop
i understand the historical reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
why iran hates great britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game [wikipedia.org]
i understand why iran hates the usa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax [wikipedia.org]
but what the hell: it's not the colonial era and its not the cold war anymore
are the iranian people that deluded (or rather: the iranian government thinks so lowly of their own people) that anyone would actually believe this massive popular uprising is actually just manipulation by foreign powers?
propaganda only goes so far, then its just downright laughable paranoid schizophrenia
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CNN was great last night, some Iranian spokesperson having a press conference declaring that there is no freedom of speech or privacy in Western countries and declaring that hence it must be a conspiracy by western governments that iranian embassies have seen disrupted by protests and so on. And that such a thing is unacceptable.
Because Iran has never, say, assaulted a foreign embassy and taken those inside hostage or anything like that.
Certainly never restricted freedom of speech by locking up reporters, o
you either laugh or you cry (Score:2)
i am just amazed that people can say that what is going on in the streets of iran day after day by millions of people is all some plot of mi6 or mossad or the cia
i mean you have to either laugh or cry that you live in a world where the people spewing this ignorant propaganda are this delusional and that those believing it are that moronic
it reminds me of this guy:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/mss_history.html [welovethei...nister.com]
someone should start a fark or 4chan meme mocking the delusion of some iranian mu
Re: (Score:2)
every single observation you made (Score:2)
plus a million more other observations you could have also made, real or imagined, about foreign meddling in iraq:
1 ounce
millions of iranians organically assembling day after day:
1 million tons
that's about the weight difference in terms of compelling proof about whether or not what is going on iran is anything but a completely native and original domestic movement
how can you fucking believe that? (Score:2)
how in a billion years can anyone with the slightest bit of cognitive coherence believe that what is going on in the streets of iran is a foreign plot!?
really, those millions in the street are puppets of israel or the usa or great britain? really?! you honestly fucking think that is even remotely fucking possible?!
i find it absolutely mindblowing how anyone could even begin to think that what is going on in iran is anything but an organic, natural, native uprising
how the HELL do you think some meddling fore
nuance? (Score:3, Insightful)
do you even understand what that word means? the way you think about how your world works is about as "nuanced" as a sledgehammer
let me ask you something: is a simple organic popular uprising even possible in your braindead cynical world? it's all secret societies and backroom deals and pulled strings? the french revolution was started by german princes? the american civil war was the machinations of british imperialists? the 1979 iranian revolution was started by russian kgb? you realize this stupidity is
in a democracy (Score:2)
if enough people are filled with hate, that certainly becomes a political tool, just as you say
but in a nondemocracy, the cynical use of hate isn't tempered by anything except the governments craven wants and desires
meanwhile, in a truly open democracy, the use of hate is limited by the free expression of alternate and equally valid human thought processes, thought processes that often overrule hate as a prime motivator
for example, we just witnessed the election of a minority in the usa, while the republica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of balloney. I don't disagree with the fundamental statement "Bad guys use the US's previous conduct as a propaganda weapon, or to cement their position with their own populaces." Absolutely that's true. Of course someone like Chavez or Khamenei is going to invoke memories of the 1953 coup d'etat and the Iran-Iraq War to as much effect as possible, and to disguise their own inadequacies and hard line positions. Heck, how many times have w
this is the smell (Score:2)
How do we know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I think most observers have extremely little information about what is real and reliable half way around the world.
The most reliable things I've seen so far are the large events, and the events reported independently in a similar way by several different sources: there was an election, it has led to unrest. One group in power is now in rising conflict with another group that wants power. Several people have died. Really beyond that, assertions of any particular thing day-to-day are pretty unreliable for me, and I've been reading and following this pretty closely.
As to whether a foreign power is involved, I think that is an extremely difficult question to answer as a remote consumer of "news" and Internet reports. Any group or nation powerful enough to be involved inside Iran now would have as a prerequisite the ability to control tightly the access and dissemination of information internally and the stories released to the public, plus would probably have a desire for secrecy regarding their involvement.
Given recent history of multiple invasions in the region, the high value of resources in the region, plus historical precedent for outside regime support (specifically in Iran) - on what basis of reliable fact does one base the conclusion of foreign involvement or non involvement in the current demonstrations and issues in Iran? What do you consider to be the most reliable sources in the current fog of conflict and disinformation? Twitter? Some random Blogger? CNN? Your government? People you know personally?
My only point is this: Even if there were outside groups directly influencing events, how would people know about it? I don't think they would.
how!!?? (Score:2)
how the hell does mi6 or mossad or the cia incite millions of iranians to march in the street day after day?
mind control rays? hallucinogens in the water supply? chemtrails? ergot in the wheat in the food supply?
look: i don't have definitive proof that the moon isn't made of cheese. nasa is clearly a mouthpiece of the us govt and obviously it has every reason to lie about and stage fake moon landings in hollywood sound stages, and deny a hungry world such an abundant food source, or otherwise the american m
dictatorships, cartels, democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a large number of people (Americans especially) automatically think a dictatorship is
a bad thing. A dictatorship is generally bad for Americans but perhaps good for other people.
There are benefits to a dictatorship. When you have a good dictator, things are generally pretty
good. The trick is to avoid the bad dictator.
As an analogy, think of a software company where the CEO was voted in by all the developers.
This software company is almost certain to never be competitive with a company that
is run by a tight-fisted, smart, savvy CEO.
So which company would you want to work for?
It would depend on your goals. Do you want to make money with Stock options? Do you simply
want to program any cool thing you wanted?
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is to avoid the bad dictator.
You make an interesting point. The problem is that history indicates that the "trick" has rarely, if ever been, accomplished. Feel free to give examples of dictators who were not bad dictators. Based on the track record of dictators, I think it is safe to assume that a dictator is a bad dictator until evidence to the contrary is presented.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to take a look at a broader picture sometimes. Saddam Hussein was by all means a bad person, his regime was oppressive and has committed numerous crimes. Yet such power was needed to keep such country as Iraq together.
Look at the mess that happens now that he's been hanged in a kangaroo trial. The government is weak, corrupt (not that Saddam's government wasn't) but most importantly unable to control the situation and only massive US military involvement (who are, incidentally, behind the whole mes
Re:dictatorships, cartels, democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have a good dictator, things are generally pretty
good. The trick is to avoid the bad dictator.
That is indeed the trick. The fact is, the harm that bad dictators cause greatly outweighs any good that "good" dictators provide. And a dictator system, once in place, is very hard to get rid of.
Also, I feel suspicious of the idea that there are "good" dictators. Some may start out good, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Re:dictatorships, cartels, democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have worked for small companies with a tight-fisted CEO as you describe (as most dotcom's were) who didn't have to answer to nobody and the results were disastrous. You get somebody with a business degree filtering all decisions through him resulting in horrendous long meetings where you have to educate a CEO about your technical systems and issues and all-in-all the customer gets to be put on the back burner and the company fails. Look at Cuba under Fidel for a dictator that rules like that.
The more moderate CEO has to report to the board or to somebody else (shareholders), usually has CxO's that cooperate but do not report directly to him. It's more of a democracy by the oligarchy (like Iran). Ahmed is just a sock puppet of the religious oligarchy and is there for PR purposes. The other one however threatens the current ruling class since the other one wants to be more liberal and have less to do with the higher ups (kinda like a CEO wanting to buy out the company) - that's why he 'lost'.
Eventually Iran is going to get sick of it (either now or next election) and their religious class will have to step down (probably at the hands of a bloody revolution) - I would say all of the countries where currently religious entities (including leaders and followers) have most of the (elective) power will eventually get 'liberated' by the incoming younger generation and there are going to be some big changes. Similar to the US - the younger generation keeps getting disenfranchised by the religious 'old & faithful' voting for the same party (The Republicrat party) - eventually (I would say within the next 3-5 elections) there will be a shift to something else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is why dictatorships are doomed to failure. Without a system of checks and balances on power, the people at the top will inevitably become corrupt. History has proven this time and time again.
you're a dumbass (Score:4, Informative)
Your analogy is flawed. A CEO is responsible to his shareholders and can be replaced if he does a bad job. This is more analogous to a democracy, where, in theory a leader doing a bad job can be voted out and replaced. A CEO who was such by birthright, had absolute power and held no responsibility to anyone other than himself would very likely be worse than a CEO responsible to shareholders, like a leader responsible to the people would be better than one not responsible to anyone.
Benevolent dictators are not unheard of, but are definitely in the minority.
Dangerous? (Score:2, Insightful)
making Iran one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist
If the journalists are being arrested I do not see how that makes Iran a "dangerous" place for a journalist...
Compare that to Mexico where journalists get kidnapped, physically assaulted, killed, and whatnot...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not the way Iran is pronounced, for your information, it would sound more like "he ran".
Re: (Score:2)
Funny.
Creepy and disturbing, but funny.
Re: (Score:2)
right, and isn't that theocracy now an aging population ?
they came into power in the mid-fifties.
Re:American Hypocrasy (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it amazing that this much of a stink wasn't made during the Zimbabwean elections...where anti mugabe supporters were being raped and murdered by the thousands Then again, I guess there are no economic interests in that part of Africa, like there are in Iran (read: oil)
I praise the internet for being able to illuminate to us all, the double speak and forked tounge of the supposed 'freedom force (or farce rather)' known as America.
Hypocritical Liars.
My main source of news about the elections in both Iran and Zimbabwe was national public radio, which is about as American as you can get. NPR made a big point about exposing the massive corruption and manipulation of the election in Zimbabwe, and with Iran it is taking a very different path, pointing out that there are allegations of fraud but that the only verifiable story so far is the unrest in Iran itself. The difference in coverage is quite appropriate for the differences in context.
America is many things, but above all else it's diverse. It's not accurate to characterize all Americans of sharing a single interest or world view.