Iran Cuts Internet Access and Threatens Telegram Following Mass Protests (bbc.com) 156
Long-time Slashdot reader cold fjord writes: As seething discontent has boiled over in Iran leading to mass protests, protesters have taken to the streets and social media to register their discontent... The government has been closing schools and shutting down transportation.
Now, as mass protests in Iran go into their third day there are reports that internet access is being cut in cities with protests occurring. Social media has been a tool for documenting the protests and brutal crackdowns against them. Iran previously cut off internet access during the Green Movement protests following the 2009 elections. At the same time the Iranian government is cutting internet access they have called on Telegram, reportedly used by more than 40 million Iranians, to close the channels used by protesters. Telegram is now closing channels used by the protesters while Telegram itself may be shut down in Iran.
Now, as mass protests in Iran go into their third day there are reports that internet access is being cut in cities with protests occurring. Social media has been a tool for documenting the protests and brutal crackdowns against them. Iran previously cut off internet access during the Green Movement protests following the 2009 elections. At the same time the Iranian government is cutting internet access they have called on Telegram, reportedly used by more than 40 million Iranians, to close the channels used by protesters. Telegram is now closing channels used by the protesters while Telegram itself may be shut down in Iran.
FCC repeal of Net nututalty, is to blame (Score:2, Funny)
Thank FCC, you caused this!!
Watch Iran and ... (Score:5, Funny)
... Brexit and learn, America!
Iran Cuts Internet Access and Threatens Telegram (Score:5, Funny)
Threatens telegram? Something like this:
Stop rioting stop if you don't there'll be bother stop
END OF MESSAGE 53 LETTERS 17 CENTS
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care who you are* that's funny.
*I really don't care who you are.
Re: (Score:1)
For those that want the sound effect. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with the internet shut off, they had to send the angry missive SOMEHOW! ;P
Leave them alone (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as the rank and file soldiers and police don't feel that the internal turmoil in Iran won't be exploited by outside forces they likely will tolerate peaceful protests. There is a good chance the Iranian leadership won't order any kind of crack down for fear the police won't obey them. If the rest of the worlds leaders can resist opening their mouths there is a good chance Iran can be another success story like Tunisia.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Iran and " telegraph .co.uk" doesn't work.
Read TFS, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is really irrelevant because the IRGC will enforce with force any subversion that made lead away from the current Islamic Republic. Basically, imagine if the KKK had been institutionalized in the US during the 50s and 60s. That's not something that would be magically fixed with peaceful protests (or at least, not without a lot
See also: agent provocateurs (Score:2, Troll)
...and terrorists, as used in Ukraine, [zerohedge.com] Libya, [nytimes.com] and Syria. [independent.co.uk] Prominent politicians including Howard Dean [salon.com] have lobbied for MEK, which was on the State Department's list of terror groups until people started asking why people like Dean weren't being prosecuted, when the government sent someone to prison for carrying a Hezbollah TV channel. Iran has been on the "regime change" list since they kicked out the Shah. Obama spent years [salon.com] threatening to attack Iran for a nuclear weapons program he knew they didn't have
"that they didn't have" (Score:1, Redundant)
Obama spent years threatening to attack Iran for a nuclear weapons program he knew they didn't have
But instead dropped off a plane-load of gold and cash. To find a nuclear weapons program very much alive and well, thank you very much - or did you really imagine North Korea has developed all this nuclear weapon tech on it's own, currently targeted to sit inside the Iranian built missiles they have been flying? How blind do you have to be to miss that link?
Obama spent years threatening to attack Iran for a
Re: (Score:2)
Their own gold and cash we had stolen from them after they dared rebel against the CIA-installed dictator.
Never happened. When even Mossad [timesofisrael.com] will tell you Iran had no nuclear weapons program, why do you American Exceptionalists even bother pretending otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Their own gold and cash.
You can take it out of the hundreds of billions you owe them for overthrowing their democracy, backing Iraq when it invaded Iran, shooting down one of their passenger jets murdering all crew and passengers, and the decades you spent supporting a torture-loving dictator.
Dipshit.
Wha
Re: (Score:1)
See, if you disagree with me you are just like this guy! Who wants to be that guy? Not even that guy, which is why he posted AC.
Thanks for shoring up my position so well! I'd add you to my Christmas Card list but, you know, AC. Happy new year friend!
Re: (Score:2)
Moonofalabama says yes, aggressive foreign instigation. There still is a degree of deniability, and as usual there are also valid reasons for the protests.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2... [moonofalabama.org]
Re:Leave them alone (Score:4, Informative)
Leave them alone . . . . Iran was once a democracy until they elected the "wrong" leader and America and Britain fixed it by putting in the Shah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Unfortunately your history is a bit off. The Shah was in power before the Prime Minister's coup, and was in power after the British & American counter-coup. You may note this section of the Wikipedia article:
Execution of Operation Ajax [wikipedia.org]
The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mossadegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[10][11][12] It resulted in him being accused of giving himself "total and dictatorial powers."
The "pretext" has the "unfortunate" quality of being true and understated in Wikipedia. The Prime Minister overthrew the Iranian democratic government, and effectively the Shah who then fled the country. The Prime Minister took the power of ruling by decree, in other words a dictator. After a quick look it appears that the Wikipedia article fails to mention that there was a fraudulent election staged to justify all of this. The Time magazine article that I saw on it mentioned that Iran's Prime Minister received a higher percentage vote than either Hitler or Stalin received in their elections. I wonder what the Farsi word for chutzpah is? Anyway, the counter-coup restore the Shah to power, it wasn't what put him in power to begin with.
As long as the rank and file soldiers and police don't feel that the internal turmoil in Iran won't be exploited by outside forces they likely will tolerate peaceful protests. There is a good chance the Iranian leadership won't order any kind of crack down for fear the police won't obey them. If the rest of the worlds leaders can resist opening their mouths there is a good chance Iran can be another success story like Tunisia.
We can expect the Iranian government to be at least as violent as they were in 2009 when they unleashed the Revolutionary Guards, Basij paramilitary units, and Lebas Shakhsi paramilitaries on the Green Movement protesters. Those forces are loyal to the Iranian revolutionary Islamist regime as are willing to attack civilians in the streets to maintain the regime.
It appears to be starting now.
Two reportedly killed after Iranian forces 'open fire on protestors' as demonstrations continue for third day [telegraph.co.uk]
Two people are understood to have been killed after Iranian security forces reportedly opened fire on anti-government demonstrators on Saturday as the largest protests seen in the country since 2009 continued for a third day. ...
There is no knowing how this will turn out, but it may turn quite bloody. The Iranian revolutionary Islamist government won't go down peacefully.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm genuinely curious about this analysis. Iran had an election in 2013 where the moderate candidate won with just over 50% of the votes with the US and UK reacting relatively positively [bbc.com] and neither denouncing the election as unfair.
This makes Iran one of the most democratic countries in the Middle East (admittedly, it's not up against stiff competition for that title). Certainly, when you compare it to our "ally" Saudi Arabia who promote terrorism in Europe [bbc.com], fight alongside al Qaeda in their brutal war in [wsj.com]
Re:Leave them alone (Score:5, Interesting)
Leave them alone . . . . Iran was once a democracy until they elected the "wrong" leader and America and Britain fixed it by putting in the Shah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Unfortunately your history is a bit off. The Shah was in power before the Prime Minister's coup, and was in power after the British & American counter-coup. You may note this section of the Wikipedia article:
Execution of Operation Ajax [wikipedia.org] The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mossadegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[10][11][12] It resulted in him being accused of giving himself "total and dictatorial powers."
The "pretext" has the "unfortunate" quality of being true and understated in Wikipedia. The Prime Minister overthrew the Iranian democratic government, and effectively the Shah who then fled the country. The Prime Minister took the power of ruling by decree, in other words a dictator. After a quick look it appears that the Wikipedia article fails to mention that there was a fraudulent election staged to justify all of this. The Time magazine article that I saw on it mentioned that Iran's Prime Minister received a higher percentage vote than either Hitler or Stalin received in their elections. I wonder what the Farsi word for chutzpah is? Anyway, the counter-coup restore the Shah to power, it wasn't what put him in power to begin with.
Almost true, that is completely false. From the same wikipedia article:
the Shah began to take an increasingly active role in politics. He quickly organized the Iran Constituent Assembly to amend the constitution to increase his powers. He established the Senate of Iran which had been a part of the Constitution of 1906 but had never been convened. The Shah had the right to appoint half the senators and he chose men sympathetic to his aims. Mossadegh thought this increase in the Shah's political power was not democratic; he believed that the Shah should "reign, but not rule" in a manner similar to Europe's constitutional monarchies. Led by Mossadegh, political parties and opponents of the Shah's policies banded together to form a coalition known as the National Front. Oil nationalization was a major policy goal for the party.
By 1951, the National Front had won majority seats for the popularly elected Majlis (Parliament of Iran).
Basically the Shah created an upper house of the Parliament that was completely loyal to him, then a lot of people in Iran got upset for this fact and finally they elected Mossadegh who opposed that novelty. That's also why he was thinking of dissolving the Parliament: the unelected Shah controlled the upper house through unlected members. That was not very democratic to the eyes of Mossadegh and many Iranians alike.
The real problem, though, was the oil nationalization part. That got the US and UK to act: you can butcher your people all you want (like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain do), but don't touch our precious! End of story.
Then again, the majority of the people in Iran, like in every Middle East country, is made up of islamist blockheads, so, even if the ayatollah gets deposed, the end result would not be better (and probably much worse). But that's not what matters to the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, the average government of the Italian Republic [wikipedia.org] lasted less than a year too (and
Re: (Score:1)
Yes Mossadegh looks like the one bright spot,...
Are you joking? Mossadegh is the one that actually overthrew the Iranian democratic government! He dissolved parliament! (almost certainly illegally to boot) He faked an election and took dictatorial powers to rule by decree. How on earth is that a bright spot?
. . . . by no means is it clear that democracy would've lasted had the U.S. and Britain not backed the Shah.
Democracy was over by that time. Mossadegh had previously destroyed it.
Re: (Score:1)
Almost true, that is completely false. From the same wikipedia article:
So, what is it that is actually "almost true, that is completely false"? We are dealing with history here. So lets recount.
Did Prime Minister Mossadegh fake an election? - Yes
Did Prime Minister Mossadegh dissolve the Iranian parliament? - Yes
Did Prime Minister Mossadegh assume the power to rule by decree? - Yes
Did Prime Minister Mossadegh cause the Shah to flee the country? - Yes
In summary, did Prime Minister Mossadegh overthrow the government? - yes
So, what are you claiming to be false? You don't reall
Iran was well on it's way to secularizing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's that political rubber band. You stretch it really hard to hold power and then the snap back ends up worse and then things finally settle down. The mess was created by the greed of the UK and then carried on by the greed of the US, this generated bad outcome. Now possibly, finally a good one but if born of violence pretty much guaranteed to be worse, one way or another.
It only takes one generation for freedom to die (Score:1)
I just saw this video on what's going on in Iran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbXWFKttVs8
One thing I took away was this, it takes just one generation for freedom to die. If a totalitarian government can stay in power long enough for everyone that remembers what freedom looks and feels like then freedom can die. At that point people people don't know any better and expect nothing else. That's what North Korea has become. In North Korea they've had the Kim family in charge long enough that anyone that
Re:It only takes one generation for freedom to die (Score:5, Interesting)
North Korea won't fall until China lets it.
Re: (Score:3)
China is scared about a US-friendly north (either unified with the south or as a separate country with a government friendly to the US) but they are even more scared about a massive influx of North Korean citizens crossing the border into China.
That's why they are continuing to defy UN sanctions and supply oil under the table (if they didn't, there wouldn't be enough oil for the trucks that deliver food and other essentials to people and there wouldn't be enough oil for stoves and generators and heaters and
Re:It only takes one generation for freedom to die (Score:4, Interesting)
North Korea won't fall until China lets it.
China won't let North Korea fall unless Kim Jong-un goes off the deep end and launches a first strike. Everything short of that only serves China, I mean when Trump and Kim roll in the mud China wins. When Trump goes on the world stage as a warmonger China wins. When he huffs and puffs but can't actually do anything China wins. And if by some extreme escalation US actually launches a first strike? Bye goes Seoul and the whole peninsula will be a disaster area that the US would have to fix. Probably enough resentment to turn the whole of Korea away from the US and towards China. Even when they're publicly trying to de-escalate I'm pretty sure the unofficial message to NK is to keep tauting the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The "bye goes Seoul" meme really needs to die.
* Only a handful of suburbs are in range of NK artillery.
* Seoul has bomb shelters.
* During the few drills we've seen recently, a sizable percentage of the NK munitions are duds.
* NK also doesn't get to do anywhere near as much drilling as SK and the US get to do, because they don't have the resources to do it.
* NK doesn't have satellites, drones, stealth aircraft, or any decent remote sensing capacity. They have a serious information gap both offensively and de
Re: (Score:1)
NK is China. But for Mao's invasion of NK at the end of the Korean War there would be no such thing as NK.
NK is their baby -- all of the harm and evil that has flowed from there is China's responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the US response to NK escalation needs to be something more like: "OK, China. You like letting your NK lap dog run crazy? Fine. Remember back in the 1970s when we stepped in and stopped Taiwan from obtaining nuclear weapons? Yeah, that prosperous island that you consider a rogue province, and want back under your control? Well, if NK doesn't change its ways and give up nuclear weapons, we're going the help Taiwan get to where Japan is on nuclear weapons - about a week away from having them once the decision is made.
Yeah well except the whole point of proxy wars is to pretend they're operating on their own and avoid pointing the finger directly at each other, even if both know who is pulling the strings. This would be a perfect setup and pretext for China to set up a reverse Cuban missile crisis. Either Trump would have to back down looking like a war mongering, nuclear-proliferating mad man who just brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation again or China will - probably after securing a nuclear alliance
Mesh networking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just impose strong enough penalties and they'd disappear fast.
Re: (Score:2)
The goddam things are almost impossible to implement.
rules are rules (Score:1)
Makes it rather easy for governments (or anyone) to shut down a group. Log in and start saying a lot of violent garbage. Channel banned. Problem solved.
CNN viewers know nothing about this. (Score:1, Insightful)
This news must come as a shock to CNN viewers because they've been running 24-7 coverage of that damn white truck that blocks CNN's view of Trump playing golf. Oh wait, this won't shock CNN viewers because CNN still isn't covering it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, this won't shock CNN viewers because CNN still isn't covering it at all.
Oh [cnn.com], really [cnn.com]? Did you actually look, or are you just parroting what you heard Fox News - the way Dear Leader apparently does?
Re:CNN viewers know nothing about this. (Score:5, Informative)
You know it's been going on since the 27/28th right? CNN reported nothing on it until yesterday. It was covered heavily in SEA media(JP, S.Korea, and Singapore) in both local and english dailies though. They have a point, these are major protests and it took CNN 2 days or call it 3 days before they reported on it, but they were talking damn near non-stop on all of their channels about that white truck. Hell it was the top thing on CNN while I was waiting for the train to pick me up on the 28th in Tokyo.
Re: (Score:2)
"They have a point, these are major protests and it took CNN 2 days or call it 3 days before they reported on it..."
The fact that CNN is reporting it after only two or three days speaks to the severity of the protests really. I've watched them remain blind to human plight for over a week when EVERYONE, even the UN, was reporting something they didn't seem to want to lend credence to. That is why I get my news anywhere and everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! So they hate the Last Jedi too! (Score:1)
An even stronger reaction than in the U.S.
Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So like when Obama ignored the protestors in Iran and finally came up with the "solution" of giving the Iranian government Billions in cash and ignoring their drug dealing? That kind of "not sticking our heads in" which did nothing but hurt the protestors last time around?
That didn't take long (Score:2)
Well. That didn't take long.
So much for Telegram being the hard-ass impossible to influence "we never take bribes or listen to threats" messenger.
Fork, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Only thing I've seen confirmed is that they shuttered a channel for promoting violence, advocating the use of molotov cocktails against police - T&C violation.
Targeting Telegram (Score:2)
People like the mullahs found the Telegram app to be an ideal tool for the terrorists they promote to exchange encrypted messages. Apparently now it has come back to bite them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oooohhhh that Trump! I can't eat, I can't sleep! All I think about is Trump and I get so angry I just go outside and scream and scream!!!
It actually happens [twitter.com]
Nothing like virtue signalling by screaming at a robot.
He's just like a monkey that's proud he jerked off in public and then threw a turd.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoah. WTF? I hate the trumptards as much as the next person, but you're just throwing fuel on the fire here. Login so we can ban you?
However, props for actually being honest and not just using socks to censor users. You guys need to be more honest about the censorship, and I guess this is a step toward that.
Re: This is Trump's fault somehow!!! (Score:2)
Re: This is Trump's fault somehow!!! (Score:1)
This wanker threatens to ban people for saying shit on the internet? awesome place we got here.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right!
Ban buildings right now!
Re:You just know---! (Score:4, Interesting)
If that were true... wouldn't the MSM be pushing it a bit more? Instead we have CNN on what? Day 2 or 3 of talking about a white truck.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The real question you should be asking is, why did it take the US media(and most of the western media) so long to do any stories on this in the first place. My guess? There's another journolist type [wikipedia.org] organization deciding what "type" of media to present again. This stuff was all over Japanese media well latish 3ish days ago now, it was in the A section of the Mainichi Times print publication, right next to the article on Japan looking at full revoking article 9, or partially rewriting article 9 of their co
Re: (Score:2)
The real question you should be asking is, why did it take the US media(and most of the western media) so long to do any stories on this in the first place.
I'd definitely suggest asking themselves why they're following those news-outlets, if they are not covering various stories.
(Also, I've been following "western media", it's in there)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction it's in there now. Two days later, in a country that lives and breathes news and money, and the stock market doesn't goto sleep between boxing day and the 31's unless it's a weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd make a distinction between "western media" and "US media".
I live in Brussels (Capitol of EU), and heard about the protests earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd make a distinction between "western media" and "US media".
I live in Brussels (Capitol of EU), and heard about the protests earlier.
I wouldn't. Nearly all of the big "byline" companies are based out of the US, even AFP has it's primary newsroom in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand the mainstream will catch on quick enough: They know a news bandwagon when they see it and since Trump has joined the Iran hawks and they're going all out again to stir up conflict, so expect a lot of news from evil Iran and demonic Hezbollah. But on the other hand there is a lot of powerful opposition who think war with Iran is a bad idea and that often means the media will be conflicted as well.
Re:OUR MSM (Score:3)
'specially after O "invested" $150 billion in the Mullah's regime, something a normal Iranian govt might give us for free.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The AIPAC in USA is behind this.
Oh shut the fuck up. The idea that everything revolves around the US is stupidfuckingbullshit.
Rouhani (the moderate president) published how many tax rials go to unaccountable religious programs (e.g. directly into the pockets of the mullahs). [radiofarda.com] This is the first time those budget carve-outs have been made public. Rouhani did it to provoke a reaction against the mullahs. It seems to be working. For now. He may have underestimated the strength of backlash and could be washed out on the same tide as t
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Maybe if America and its allies (mostly the UK) hadn't gotten involved in Iranian politics in the first place by ousting Mohammad Mosaddegh then we wouldn't have the current mess in the country.
Re: (Score:1)
Yah, so, whats your point?
Mosaddegh was removed in a coup. Not mass protests across cities and towns so small nobody outside of Iran has even heard of them.
These are the protests of the Iranian people, by the Iranian people, and for the Iranian people. Foreign intervention could probably help the regime crush them, but no foreign intervention could motivate this many people to risk their lives. Especially not intervention from a country that has officially declared that they will refuse anyone seeking as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The MSM in the West not reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
While the corrupted Iranian regime cutting access to the Net for fear that the protest will spread, the Western MSM is cooperating with the Iranian regime by doing everything they can to SUPPRESS THE NEWS !
Do we need 'mass media' when it is part of a censorship cartel?
Re: (Score:2)
Fun detail. Iranians are the main enemies of "ragheads", aka arabs. They're persians.
Not that you'd know.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think we'll have WWIII.
There's too much shareholder money at stake.
A runup to be sure because profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because it's happened so often and stuff.
Oh, wait. That was the doomsdayers. Day be trippin', yeah.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your coherence is pretty low. But I think you are making a smugly ignorant rebuttal. Not unlike the alcoholic who says driving drunk is perfectly safe because he's never crashed his car, yet.
To which I reply that there are more than a couple (public) stories of Armageddon avoided by the slimmest of margins. And that was when highly competent and informed people were running things, not idiot hot-heads like today.
For example:
Soviet officer who averted cold war nuclear disaster [theguardian.com]
Stanislav Petrov was on duty in a secret command centre outside Moscow on 26 September 1983 when a radar screen showed that five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched by the US towards the Soviet Union.
Red Army protocol would have been to order a retaliatory strike, but Petrov – then a 44-year-old lieutenant colonel – ignored the warning, relying on a “gut instinct” that told him it was a false alert.
World War Three, by Mistake [newyorker.com]
President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was asleep in Washington, D.C., when the phone rang. His military aide, General William Odom, was calling to inform him that two hundred and twenty missiles launched from Soviet submarines were heading toward the United States. Brzezinski told Odom to get confirmation of the attack. A retaliatory strike would have to be ordered quickly; Washington might be destroyed within minutes. Odom called back and offered a correction: twenty-two hundred Soviet missiles had been launched.
Brzezinski decided not to wake up his wife, preferring that she die in her sleep. As he prepared to call Carter and recommend an American counterattack, the phone rang for a third time. Odom apologized—it was a false alarm. An investigation later found that a defective computer chip in a communications device at NORAD headquarters had generated the erroneous warning. The chip cost forty-six cents.
A similar false alarm had occurred the previous year, when someone mistakenly inserted a training tape, featuring a highly realistic simulation of an all-out Soviet attack, into one of NORAD’s computers. During the Cold War, false alarms were also triggered by the moon rising over Norway, the launch of a weather rocket from Norway, a solar storm, sunlight reflecting off high-altitude clouds, and a faulty A.T. & T. telephone switch in Black Forest, Colorado.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR
Volume does not add value.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't winning any points.
Is /. a game, and I'm looking to level up?
Re: (Score:2)
Just how little control "shareholders" have when grand scale geopolitics are at stake was demonstrated very well in Germany in 2014, when it was dragged kicking and screaming into sanctions against Russia that hurt shareholders severely.
When things are about grand geopolitical designs, shareholders are told to suck it up and shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're optimistic about the actual length of WW III.
Shareholders aren't.
But dancing on the rim is very possible.
For Reference, see Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
For a better reference, see length of Japan staying in the war after nuclear bombs were dropped.
P.S. Yes, I can argue the case that bombs were just the official reason, and actual reason was USSR breaking neutrality and making successful landings from the West too. Does not adjust the analogy to analogy point.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan was not an economic powerhouse back then and "globalization" was not a thing.
Also, America is the only country to ever use thermonuclear weapons.
Because there was no comparable retaliation, analogies fail.
Today's border-less corporations will sell and transport weapons to any and all sides, but they will not allow annihilation of the customer base.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan was a massive economic and military powerhouse before the WW2. Globaliation started being a thing in 1800s. You should stop spewing opinionated falsehoods.
P.S. You really should read history, especially on your last claim. Weapons export to customers in other countries and wars not being controllable by said exporters was a thing for literally millenia. I could cite examples going all the way back to fall of Constantinople and beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late with that thought. German relationship with US is already in the gutter due to political machinations of the elite that thought Clinton was a sure bet in last presidential elections.
Current administration views Germany as an openly hostile state in terms of economic cooperation. To US, economic cooperation traditionally is purview of national security first, and economy second. Reason for this is obvious when you look at portion of the total GDP that comes from domestic vs foreign trade and then co
The really good news: war delayed (Score:1)
The bad news: WW III will suck hard for most of us
It sure would! That's why ahead of Hillary "Destroyer of Libya" Clinton possibly being president, I had refreshed my iodine tablet supply and was ready to watch the world literally end in fire. But now I feel like, that's not nearly as possible as it once was now that the U.S. has stopped supplying and funding the origin of that fire...
Re: (Score:2)
Nor in the US.
Americans have the right to bear arms, but not the right to use them. © 2017 CaptainDork
Look at the video footage of riots there. Protesters are using stone-age weapons. They aren't using #2A.
Re: (Score:1)
Come on now. Those Big IT corps that support and enable the Iranian internet black-out are probably all big supporters of net neutrality.
They would never help a dictatorship limit access to the internet? It would go against their sacred principles of open and unfettered access to the Internet.
Oh, Nevermind. It is just all about the money for those guys too.
Re: (Score:1)