Iranian Government Cuts Off Internet Access Again 374
AlbionTourgee writes "It is reported that Gmail and Yahoo mail at least have been blocked in Iran, along with many English-language sites. While news of demonstrations seems to be getting out of the country, the government appears to be trying to prevent people within Iran from communicating and from learning what's happening. It remains to be seen whether TOR and Freenets can be effective to combat this sort of effort to block communications, and whether the general circulation of information about the protests around the world will help."
That's news to me... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Christ.
You need to get out of the house more often, don't you! :-)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Christ.
You need to get out of the house more often, don't you! :-)
If I was Christ I wouldn't leave the house either. Sweet Beelzebub just look at what has gone down in the name of Christ in the past millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
NOTE: This joke was created by the late, great, Bill Hicks and paraphrased by yours truly.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to stop dehumanizing our fellow humans.
http://tehranlive.org/ [tehranlive.org]
Re:That's news to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran hasn't committed a war of aggression in more that 200 years.
One could argue that their sponsorship of Hezbollah represents acts of wars against Israel and Lebanon.
Re:That's news to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we could argue that the Arab countries and associated terrorist organizations declaring wars of extermination against Israel are acts of war against Israel, which has a right to be there whether or not the Arabs want it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
California is in a financial crisis with 20% + unemployment
What does that have to do with Israel? California's problems are largely self-inflicted.
Welfare for the nation's own people? Well they made their own bed, didn't they?
Why are you confusing people with the State Government of California?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, videos that talk to random people on the streets. That's convincing. Why don't you link to a KKK rally next and use that to support the argument that the United States is like South Africa in 1979?
Re: (Score:2)
They have internet in Iran?!
Until recently. It was iRan, see?
Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:4, Interesting)
All they have to do is block the known Tor entry points or set up their own hacked TOR routers.
There really isn't any technical reason why Iran couldn't stop covert communications over the Internet they could even go to a white list system if they really needed to.
The only thing preventing is their own population. I just don't think they would tolerate becoming prisoners in the their own nation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't think they would tolerate becoming prisoners in the their own nation.
People who preach unquestioning submission would *never* tolerate becoming prisoners. Riiight...
Re:Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.
You might have seen the protests on the streets a while back. I think you may be under estimating the actually people. Now the current government is lower than what I scrape off my shoe but I think the people are better than you believe.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
But you neglect that most of the Iranian population is rural and poor. These people voted for Ahmadinejad because he actually supports them with his politics. Another thing most Westerners neglect is the fact that the opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran after the Iranian Revolution and that he supported terrorist attacks on the US like the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.
I'm not a supporter of the current Iranian regime but I find it terrible how much misinformation is spread aroun
Re:Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially the bombing of a military barracks in a war. One side of which we were, in fact, supporting. (Granted, we weren't actually fighting yet, but that just means their actions were, duh, a declaration of war against us for supporting their enemies.)
Remember kids: Bombs dropped from airplanes on civilian targets to kill military personal that might be inside, and certainly kill a bunch of civilians: Normal war.
Bombs driven up in trucks to military barracks to kill only military personal: Terrorism.
Re:Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.
At least the people or Tehran, and the other larger cities of Iran, have a fairly high educational level. Though the large rural areas of Iran still have a much lower average level of education and standard of living. Consequently the people of Tehran tend to be more more liberal and westernised, while the inhabitants of the districts tend to be more dogmatic in their believes. At least this is the way things have been presented to me; though personally I have not visited Iran to verify.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.
Iran is not an Arab nation. They are persians.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes I think the current government was elected not by the people but by voter fraud.
Re:Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't think they would tolerate becoming prisoners in the their own nation.
People who preach unquestioning submission would *never* tolerate becoming prisoners. Riiight...
Quite possibly "riiight". Its not necessarily the people teaching unquestioning submission that would tolerate becoming a prisoner to the state, its that those same people coming to power may use the state to force that unquestioning submission on others. I fear that America has far more in common with Iran than a lot of us would like to admit.
Re: (Score:2)
I fear that America has far more in common with Iran than a lot of us would like to admit.
In one of those countries, common people are unable to determine exactly what they law says because the law is obfuscated by those who create the law. As such, the people are required to depend on a smaller subset of the population to "interpret" the law because it has been so obfuscated, telling the people what the law means. Those interpreters of the law change slowly over time, but ultimately they determine even what laws the other parts of the government can enact. Of course, those interpreters are d
Re:Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:5, Interesting)
People who preach unquestioning submission would *never* tolerate becoming prisoners. Riiight...
Just look at the events in Iran this entire year! So many young students have died protesting. People as young as 12 and 13 have been killed by the government-backed militia. It's sickening that anyone that young has to die for their rights, but much like any country that wants a democracy, there needs to be dissent, revolution, and bloodshed. You can't have freedom handed to you on a silver platter.
No matter how you get there, there will be lives lost. This theocracy has been going on in Iran for only 30 years, and it has quickly reached a boiling point with the people. Yes, this theocracy is a relatively new thing in Iran. Here was Iran in the 1970s, before the Islamic takeover [funnytogo.com]. The last picture shows you what Iran looks like today in contrast to the previous pictures, which were all taken before the 1979 Islamic revolution.
In any other nation where people simply preach submission, they would have rolled over and played dead the minute Ahmadinejad was announced as the winner. The people of Iran have stood up for their rights and have been protesting non-stop since the elections. We need to give them at least that much credit.
Keep in mind, all forms of weapons are banned in Iran, thus the people have no way of fighting back. They are simply too scared. The Government-backed militia has weapons and numbers on their side and they're pretty ruthless when it comes to killing people. This isn't some stereotypical Hollywood-made Middle Eastern nation where every house comes equipped with an AK-47 to shoot at infidels. Simply owning a weapon can get you into hot water over there, let alone actually using it against the Government.
Re:Tor can be blocked as well. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, as long as there is any way at all to get data out of the country, you can get everything trough that hole. It does not even have to be slow.
If I have to, give me a day, and I set up a TOR router trough a (deliberately misused) obscure low-level protocol like ICMP or BGP.
And if they actually block all communication, my last message will contain a encrypted info, where on the outside of the border to set up a can-amplified wlan router (of course still strongly encrypted), so I can do the same on the inside, and become the master tor gateway to the outside. The first I'll do, is agree on where to put more such gateways.
Sure, this may be very dangerous. But I expect life in such a country to become worse than dead anyway. Why else would they block communication?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I think that it isn't all that hard to travel outside of Iran for Iranians or own satellite TV systems. I think the current government has pushed to the limits of it's control and that the people are pushing back.
Will Iran be free? Well that depends on how free is free. In the US we have a very high standard for freedom of political speech. We have less protection on things like nudity and language.
In some EU countries they have more protection on things like nudity but less on political speech. F
test (Score:4, Interesting)
well.. It seems tor is showing is usefullness for us, these that love freedom.
maybe could be a good idea to start building a system better than tor, for.. you know, if theres something like a race arms, and tor is blocked / detected. :-I
This is their right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is their right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the founding principles of the USA are fantastic.
I also think that anyone who believes that the USA actually still functions on those principles is a deluded moron.
Re: (Score:2)
The Iranian people have a natural right to communicate with one another even if their current turd of a leader does not respect it at this time.
Of course, that is a natural right. Nobody should question it. I think the other person was referring to USA's big brother role.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator.
That doesn't mean everyone has to believe what you do, nor does it give you right to force your opinion on anyone else. The US was also founded on the premise that a nation should choose how to govern itself, and not let a foreign government across the ocean do it. So let Iran do the same thing and govern themselves.
Re:This is their right. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true, but there's also a thing called "personal responsibility". The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.
I wish the people of Iran the best in this situation, but it's really THEIR fight to fight. If there's a small way people in other countries can assist with technology (hosting Tor servers or proxies or what-not), that's great! But individual rights and freedoms are only as "valid" as one's willingness to fight for and demand them. (Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.
If by "people who aren't even our own citizens" you mean corporations that the legal system has declared to be people, then I agree with you. If, however, you are referring to foreign aid you need to crunch your numbers again.
(Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)
Perhaps you should take an intro to U.S. law class. Signing a contract that negates an individual's inalienable rights is always ruled as an unenforceable contract provision unless specifically limited in scope and directly compensated. The most common example of a person waiving their
Re:This is their right. (Score:4, Insightful)
"The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator."
Unless you were one of the million or so Africans who were shipped over to live and die as a slave.
Some perspective, please...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given perspective, most Europeans/Americans at the time didn't consider slaves to be human. Of course they were later shown to be wrong. but that is besides the point.
Re: (Score:2)
The Middle East is not your playground. You are not the world's moral compass. We do not see you as something to aspire too, but simply another way of doing things. You're doing such a bang up job in Iraq and Afghanistan; Please, beseech your leader to enforce the indomitable will and unwavering ideology of Western Society on another Middle Eastern territory. They're completely ready to move away from
Re: (Score:2)
All I heard in my head while reading this comment was "Americuh! F*ck yeah! Freedom is the only way, yeah!"
I don't believe the parent's post was really meant in that way. The parent was speaking more of inalienable rights that belong to humanity as a whole, rights that each of us would have with or without governments as they are completely separate and independent of government. You may argue that it is not on anyone to decide others have these rights, but I really believe living, breathing, eating, enjoying something, communicating with your fellow human beings, love, hope, etc are all rights every living pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is their right. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if Iran was the USA, you'd have a point.
What part of "inalienable rights" is so hard to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is their right. (Score:5, Informative)
Rights, inalienable or otherwise, really don't mean a lot to the person holding all of the guns.
That's why the civilian population should be armed.
You can parrot on about your rights as much as you want, but they'll just shoot you in the head.
Yeah, they can shoot me. They can shoot my neighbor and his neighbor as well. Eventually though the population will start shooting back -- provided we are talking about a country where the population has already been disarmed in the name of "safety" or some other such nonsense.
Re:This is their right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Rights, inalienable or otherwise, really don't mean a lot to the person holding all of the guns. At a certain point you're only as entitled to your rights as the people who hold the power think you ought to be and your own willingness to fight them to the death for those rights. You can parrot on about your rights as much as you want, but they'll just shoot you in the head.
The thread is about how people who are not living in Iran can justifiably criticize its actions, and actively promote change inside, not just by words, but by actions (including directly supporting the opposition in political struggle and even armed uprising), regardless of the notion of state sovereignty. The inalienable rights theory gives a theoretical foundation for this - if all people have those rights, and they transcend state boundaries, then defending those rights is a right thing and a duty for all people who already have them, sovereignty be damned.
Re:SAVAK, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States government saying ANYTHING about Iran silencing dissent is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
What makes you think I have anything to do with the United States Government? Nice bit of redirection ya got there though.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And if Iran was the USA, you'd have a point.
cryfreedomlove's point was that the rights are inherent to humanity, not tied to a nation. That such a right is codified only provides a statement of intent by a government to respect and enforce that right. He speaks of an an underlying entitlement to those rights shared by human beings as a species. Oppressive governments and cultures seek to suppress that sense of entitlement, and succeed largely by doing so. The rights themselves transcend governments and circumstance, and their denial in any situation
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because all Iranians agree with their government, and no one accused the government of forging votes.
I'm completely opposed to using force to change the government of other countries, but we have he right not to make commercial and other agreements (and convince others to do the same) with countries that violate our view on Human Rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to defend your "right" to own slaves and lynch blacks, AC? Your bullshit version of ethnocentrism may be popular at Berkely but even Iranian citizens don't agree with you and appreciate the help and support of outsiders.
Re:This is their right. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are the Government of that country, whether or not we happen to agree with their policies. If they want to ban automobiles and have everyone ride around on horses, it is their perogative.
If we follow that logic, then it would have been wrong for Germany's neighbors to make a fuss about how it treated Jews during WWII.
Are you sure that your policy is a good one?
Re: (Score:2)
Very few countries cared in the slightest what Germany did to the Jews. That includes Great Britain and the United States.
I think most European countries were far more concerned about Germany's invasion or plans for invasion of their countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few countries cared in the slightest what Germany did to the Jews. That includes Great Britain and the United States.
I think most European countries were far more concerned about Germany's invasion or plans for invasion of their countries.
You may be right (I have no idea), but we were talking about what policies a country should adopt, not what they have adopted in the past or their reasons for having done so.
Here come moral relativists (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, no. Moral relativism is complete bullshit. Some things are morally wrong ABSOLUTELY. One of them is supressing your populace's ability to communicate. I'm sick and tired of people justifying morally corrupt behavior just because it's state-sanctioned. Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable. Denying them basic human rights is absolutely not acceptable. Persecution of homosexuality is absolutely not acceptable. EVEN IF ALL THESE THINGS ARE STATE SANCTIONED. I'll take that one step further and say that it is even absolutely morally unacceptable for a radical state to possess nuclear weaponry, even more absolutely morally unacceptable for such a regime to have such unabashed hatred based on another people's religion.
The difference between a state and a mob is that one controls the military and one does not. Simply being a group does not magically grant anyone moral superiority or the ability to redefine basic human rights. Saying that its ok for ANYONE to do that is fucking retarded, and something that is continued by apologists. Your moral 'relativism' is the reason why atrocities like this are allowed to perpetrate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh and BTW, Muslims think it is absolutely unacceptable that American women go to school, and since your argument is that foreigners know better than the natives, they must be right.
Moral absolutism is complete bullshit, served up self-centered narrow-minded bigots who are unable to see things from anyone else's point of vi
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable.
By the same logic one could say forcing women or men to wear clothing at all is not acceptable. It's the same thing, except regarding different clothing taboos.
That's not to say I disagree about moral relativism, just that one must be careful if they're making declarative statements. Are you campaigning for nudist rights?
Protests (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, given the current socio-economic state that the US and it's allies are in, Iranian leaders -- very possibly not being the caricatures many americans would assume them to be -- may be making a large bluff in this and other moves it has made. The US can ill-afford a continued string of wars in smaller powers that do not offer a consumer incentive; i.e. any war that doesn't have us retooling our auto companies to make tanks, telling our people that if they ride alone they ride with the ayatollah. If we're to go to war, it needs to be a manufacturer's war, not a war of attrition fought by a people that have sufficient stores of it's most important tactical resource (people) to not care about when it "wins".
Iranian leaders, if they have any semblance of intelligence, knows that we cannot call their bluff unless a larger ally steps in and makes the war "interesting". For now, despite the horrible situation in Iran, the best thing that we can do is encourate the Iranian people, and let them know that their voices are being heard, that they have the power to revolt and change their own destinies. Most of all, that if they take the initiative, we will respect any free government they impliment in the aftermath.
But we cannot help them with guns. We cannot help them with bullets. We cannot help them with manpower. Any fight we make on their behalf, is fighting their cause. Every bullet we fire at an oppressive Iranian government, we fire at Democracy. If we have learned anything from Iraq-ganistan, it is that a policy of policing the world leads to later generations of peoples turned from ally to staunch enemy with the memory of american guns killing their people outweighing the memory of american guns killing their enemies.
May God and Allah see eye to eye in this conflict.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Allah is the name of God in Arabic [wikipedia.org], so you're saying that God will see himself eye to eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Allah is the name of God in Arabic [wikipedia.org], so you're saying that God will see himself eye to eye.
Provided that the conflict would take place close to a massive black hole, he just might.
Gmail will save the day! (Score:2, Funny)
What's that you say? Gmail is blocked?
Missed it by that much....
We don't care (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people who do care, are gullible, interventionist Americans.
I'm fed up with the Middle East. The region is this planet's equivalent of a high school oval. It's the traditional venue that pretty much everyone goes to when they want to have a fight. There is conflict of some sort happening there constantly, on a literally second by second basis.
These endless conflicts also are not ours. The rest of the world very rarely has any real stake in them, for the most part. Oil is about the only legitimate interest anyone else has there. Semitic monotheism, and who owns a particular mosque or church or whatever, is utterly meaningless as a legitimate incentive for war.
If the Iranian government wants to completely exterminate its' constituency, let it. If the Arabs and Jews want to mutually remove each other from human memory, let them.
At least if that were to happen, the rest of us might finally get some peace and quiet.
Re:We don't care (Score:4, Interesting)
If the Iranian government wants to completely exterminate its' constituency, let it. If the Arabs and Jews want to mutually remove each other from human memory, let them.
I suppose that is the Iranian government's *own* right but it's not what the majority consider a global right and thus the concern. Do you believe that it's acceptable for the head of a household in the next town to kill all but themselves and one other family member to cleanse their household?
While the majority of us would probably say that's not ok, I really want to know if that's ok to you.
Re:We don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
- War and Peace
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That generally refers to the population of said country. Not people living on the other side of the globe with no stake in it. That quote should be directed to the good people of Iran.
Re:We don't care (Score:5, Interesting)
- War and Peace
The irony inherent in this being quoted here is incredible.
1984 mentioned the very concept of endless war which America's government has always sought to implement; and which now, with the War on Terror, it has finally succeeded in implementing. That book, which you are quoting from here, also laid bare the consequences of such a doctrine of endless war, at least in political terms.
Yet none of you see it. All of you defend the belief in interventionism that you have simply been raised with, and do so with a kind of smug self-righteousness that blatantly ignores American history, and the grotesque acts of tyranny and mass murder which have been commited within that country's own history. (When the speaker is American, at least)
The replies that I have received here would be laughable, if the implications, for a scenario where people actually believe said replies, were not so distressing.
It doesn't matter how many of your own people are killed, Americans. It doesn't matter how much your own economy is gutted, or how much your own civil liberties are progressively destroyed. Every single time your government and/or military/industrial complex produces the usual lies about why interventionism is necessary, you take the bait as enthusiastically as possible. In the case of Iran, you're apparently doing it even without the Ministry of Propaganda's (sorry, Fox News') encouragement that you do so.
I am tired of your support for interventionism advancing the cause of fascism, Americans. The problem, you see, is the fact that when you continue to support interventionism, the fascist consequences which occur in your own country, do not occur only in your own country. They occur in mine as well.
I also haven't even bothered trying to address the insoluble nature of the Middle East's problems, either. There are two related ethnic groups there, (the Jews and the Arabs) who are determined to exterminate each other, and with whom said determination goes back close to six thousand years. If you really think that animosity which is that deeply entrenched, is going to be resolved in any of our lifetimes, then there is no appeal to logic that I can make.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"These endless conflicts also are not ours. The rest of the world very rarely has any real stake in them, for the most part. Oil is about the only legitimate interest anyone else has there."
I disagree. Because there is this thing called "history" in which both the U.S., Britain, France, the USSR, and several other countries had many decades (and in some cases a good century or more) of meddling invested. It's hard to say whether the countries in that part of the world would have been better off with or wi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's very nice to suggest "hands off" or "let the idiots turn each others' countries into parking lots", but A) your hands were already in there decades ago and there is a certain amount of responsibility (hello: the Shah of Iran?), and B) your economy would go into an even more serious tailspin than it is now if full-blown war broke out again between major oil producers in the region.
You are assuming, here, that I am an American.
That assumption is incorrect.
Re:We don't care (Score:5, Informative)
These endless conflicts also are not ours.
You might want to read up a little before making such blanket statements. These Wikipedia articles should get you started:
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, it must be humor since no one could be that ignorant..
The sad thing is, people can be that ignorant.
Don't panic (Score:3, Funny)
Don't Nukem! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Don't Nukem! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This guy has an excellent point. The documentary film "Disney's Aladdin" demonstrated that Arab or Persian society is full of hot unwed princesses, playful scamp monkeys and personable genies and their madcap hijinks. Their society is so free that even a lowly homeless thief can become a prince of an entire country if he just trys hard enough. "Disneys Aladdin" did an excellent job of showing just how open and progressive Arab society is. Based on what I learned from "Aladdin" I would move there in a mi
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Um, we nuked Japan and it turned out okay. What's not to like?
Actually, a very good point. We here in the US know, for instance, that terrorists will never, *ever* nuke Washington D.C. The terrorists know that, at this point, the American people would probably end up being forever grateful and that getting rid of those 535 corrupt, self-serving, power-&-wealth-lusting people would only serve to make the US a better, saner, and stronger nation than it has been for at least the past 50-100 years.
I'd say t
Re: (Score:2)
yes, that's tragic, but (Score:2, Insightful)
how is it related to Michael Jackson?
Re:yes, that's tragic, but (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I thought your post was awesome.
To the cracked-out moderators: According to CNN, Iran disappeared the moment Whacko died. The media was covering all the slaughter in Iran up until Whacko died. Then it was Whaco Jacko 24/7, and now it's back to the Emmys or the whatever it is.
Or, for those with the attention span of a gnat:
Hey moderators, I respect your decision and I'll let you finish, but Punto's post is one of the best posts of all time.
united states (Score:4, Insightful)
tell me again, how is this different than the bill to allow the president of the united states to "shut down the Internet" in case of emergency? or is this simply a case of different intentions?
I got another block story (Score:5, Informative)
Iran? The fundamentalist run Islamic republic has banned Yahoo and Google?
Try this, a NATO member, EU member designate, secular (still!) neighbor of Europe and having actual part in Europe country, Turkey has banned Myspace in addition to Youtube today. Yes, Myspace, that "personal blog" or more like "music demo" site.
Keep watching Iran and China though...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good for them.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
All that remains..? (Score:2)
How about some good oldfashined HAM radio? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I can not tell if you just have the world's worst sense of humor are are just a complete nut job.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the idea that one would make an effort to get attention on slashdot makes my head hurt.
But you may be right so I will add that to the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the idea that one would make an effort to get attention on slashdot makes my head hurt.
But you may be right so I will add that to the list.
validation from peers is more than just CRCs at the MAEs.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess but I don't think of people on Slashdot as my peers. Maybe I need to take a look at the effort I spend posting on Slashdot. Maybe I am just as silly thinking that my posts are worth the effort.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess but I don't think of people on Slashdot as my peers. Maybe I need to take a look at the effort I spend posting on Slashdot. Maybe I am just as silly thinking that my posts are worth the effort.
The point is, it's not what you think they are, it's what trolls... oh. Clever.
Re: (Score:2)
Then blaming Iran. Part of the ramp up to get the US to do their dirty work.
Expect Americans to die by the gross, in Afghanistan, thereafter.
Citation, please, showing where Israel is directly upstream of them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jews control everything, didn't you know?
I thought it was the Scientologists?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Israel is Blocking Them (Score:5, Funny)
Sadly, no. I was raised Jewish, but I was never let in on this supposed conspiracy.
You just need to write to Chief Bloomenbergansteinenthal of the Jewish Justice League in NYC. That or make aliyah to Israel. Everyone here just gets welfare checks from the proceeds of the Zionist media conspiracy (remember, it's "Zionist" now instead of "Jewish") to make a living! After all, what else can be done with nothing powering the economy but agriculture, tourism, and hi-tech?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
to be excluded from the very definition of judaism.
Well, nor were my parents, grandparents, nor anyone at the synagogue I went to...
At some point, you'll have to accept that your paranoid delusions are just that -- delusions. That is, unless you have some evidence for me to consider...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their religion tells them to oppress and be oppressed...
Uh, I don't think that's true. At least not from what I've read in the Qur'an, there wasn't anything detailing what's going on in Iran right now and saying that that is how you must run your nation state. In fact, if you look at a lot of laws like the extreme forms of Sharia [wikipedia.org] they are more founded on what leaders after Muhammad's death decided he meant. In my mind I liken it to the perversion that several Popes have put in place ... in the name of The Bible. Despite the Popes calling themselves Christian
Re: (Score:2)
And this differs from any other religion how?
It's almost fun to watch Cristian sects get on their high horses about human rights violations ever since secular authority stopped them from torturing and burning people for disagreeing with them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ver since secular authority stopped them from torturing and burning people for disagreeing with them.
Yes, only the secular authorities are allowed to do that nowadays.
Re:Silly Mudslums (Score:4, Informative)
My handful of quarters as an atheist who studied these two religions:
You're wrong. I've studied both the bible (several versions of it) as well as the Qur'an. Islam differs from christianity in a very important and fundamental way; it literally and bluntly, with no room for reasoning, divides humanity into two camps: the good (the muslims) and the bad (the 'kafir'; the non-muslims); and literally, page after page, calls for the shedding of the blood of the kafir in the form of "conversion, 'by free will' or 'by sword'". Christianity differs here in the fact that nowhere in its holy scriptures does it divide humanity into camps, and nowhere in its holy scripture does it call for bloodshed of non-christians. What it does, however, is call for the bloodshed of those who DISGRACE and VIOLATE christianity - which is a very important difference to make note of - whereas the Qur'an calls for bloodshed of ANYONE simply not being muslim, regardless the person. (and, no, the christian crusades were not called upon by the bible or the religion itself; the crusades were ages of abuse of the religion, in its own name.)
End rant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there is a third category detailed in the Quar'an, the People of the Book (Christians and Jews, primarily). These people are not enemies of the Muslims and should not be persecuted nor should conversion be sought (though it is welcomed). According to that writing the safest place in the world for a Israeli Jew to be would be the streets of downtown Tehran. I think Iran's secular authority might disagree, though.
Ultimately the followers of a religion dictate the perception of a religion. Sharia laws an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus killed Mohammed:
The crusade for a Christian military
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488 [harpers.org]
He found his lieutenant, John D. DeGiulio, with a couple of sergeants. They were snickering like schoolboys. They had commissioned the Special Forces interpreter, an Iraqi from Texas, to paint a legend across their Bradley's armor, in giant red Arabic script.
"What's it mean?" asked Humphrey.
"Jesus killed Mohammed," one of the men told him. The soldiers guffawed. JESUS KILLED MOHAMMED was about to cruise into the Iraqi night. ...
The Iraqi interpreter took to the roof, bullhorn in hand. ...
"Jesus kill Mohammed!" chanted the interpreter. "Jesus kill Mohammed!"
Here are some more probable causes (Score:2)