Sharp Rise In Jailing of Online Journalists; Iran May Just Kill Them

bckspc writes "The Committee to Protect Journalists has published their annual census of journalists in prison. Of the 136 reporters in prison around the world on December 1, 'At least 68 bloggers, Web-based reporters, and online editors are imprisoned, constituting half of all journalists now in jail.' Print was next with 51 cases. Also, 'Freelancers now make up nearly 45 percent of all journalists jailed worldwide, a dramatic recent increase that reflects the evolution of the global news business.' China, Iran, Cuba, Eritrea, and Burma were the top 5 jailers of journalists." rmdstudio writes, too, with word that after the last few days' protest there, largely organized online, the government of Iran is considering the death penalty for bloggers and webmasters whose reports offend it.

Comments

Here's a thought

[elrous0]

One good step towards making imprisonment and mistreatment of journalists a big international no-no would be for all the major countries to openly ban their intelligence agencies (the CIA, MI6, etc.) from using operatives posing as journalists, or hiring journalists for intelligence gathering purposes. One of the arguments a lot of these oppressive governments use when they imprison journalists is that these journalists are actually spies. And in at least some cases, they probably actually ARE spies (particularly with freelancers and bloggers with no connection to reputable news organizations). It would be nice if we could at least have the CIA come out openly and bluntly and say to the world community "We don't do this, under any circumstances" the next time some petty tyrant claims that the journalists he's caught are working for the CIA. As it is, anyone wandering into a foreign country and asking questions, journalist or not, is going to be wearing a big target on their chest that says "Possible intelligence operative." The tyrant wouldn't care if we denied it, but it would do a lot to encourage the world community to go to bat for more journalists if they had some sort of assurance that the sanctions they were imposing were on behalf of actual legitimate journalists, not James Bond wannabes with fake press credentials.

Re:Here's a thought

[Kugala]

But what better cover for a spy than a profession that cannot be used as cover for spies?

Re:Here's a thought

[VShael]

"We don't do this, under any circumstances"

And we would believe them

Because they said the same thing about spying on Americans.
Or torture.
Shall we go on?

Re:Here's a thought

[MRe_nl]

and ditto for (doctors and nurses working for) the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières perhaps?

Re:Here's a thought

[dnwq]

You can ban it, but who would believe you? There's no way for the CIA to show that it isn't spying even if it really wasn't.

Re:Here's a thought

[elrous0]

With the CYA attitude of the government, they usually avoid out-and-out lying. The way they generally lie is to put in qualifiers in their statements and play with definitions (i.e. "We don't torture" can be true if you don't define waterboarding and other such practices as torture, and have some helpful Justice Dept. memos to back you up). The CIA, when asked about journalists, usually just says something vague like "Our operatives don't pose as journalists." What is needed is a much more thorough and unequivocal statement that doesn't allow as much wiggle room, i.e. "Our operatives don't pose as journalists. Nor do they pose as anyone claiming to be journalists or reporters. Nor do we hire journalists or reporters--either directly or through third parties. Nor do we encourage or condone allies to engage in any such practices."

Re:Here's a thought

[clone53421]

We’ll do that just as soon as Muslim terrorists stop hiding in hospitals and mosques.

Re:Here's a thought

[jgtg32a]

I don't know about spies, but isn't it a war crime for troops to pose and Red Cross?

Re:Here's a thought

[confused one]

Not only would they not believe it; but, by some definitions (taking a dictatorial point of view) anyone who makes public information (read as publishes stories) or provides information to foreign governments (read as publishes stories in foreign country), contrary to the official line, or which makes available information which has been suppressed for "security" reasons, is committing espionage.

Re:Here's a thought

[russotto]

And even if the CIA said all that, and actually meant it... Iran's government wouldn't believe it, or they'd believe the journalists were spies for someone else (e.g. Israel), or they wouldn't care whether it was true or not because it was just an excuse to kill annoying journalists anyway.

Re:Here's a thought

[kalirion]

And in at least some cases, they probably actually ARE spies (particularly with freelancers and bloggers with no connection to reputable news organizations).

Spies are supposed to be inconspicuous and do their best not to draw attention to themselves. If your job is to rile up the public against the government, you might risk being a blogger. If your job is to, well, spy, you'd stay as far away from publicity as you can.

Re:Here's a thought

[oldhack]

Haha, see, you can't "reason" when deception is your business.

Re:Here's a thought

[Nidi62]

The CIA cannot legally use as a cover that of an American journalist. Oh, and you think an operative is just gonna walk into a country and start asking questions? Most CIA operatives work in Official Cover positions, primarily embassy staff. That assistant press attache that couldnt even hold down a job in a 1-horse town newspaper? Yeah, he works for the CIA. Now, there are of course Non-official cover operatives, and at this point, most of them either work with the military, or doing other missions such as black arms purchases for study and evaluation. Most espionage activities are undertaken by OC operatives and their recruited agents within their country of station. Not to mention the fact that most "CIA operatives/agents" that these tyrants always claim to have, they're just doing that for propaganda.

Re:Here's a thought

[Avtuunaaja]

Yes, but it doesn't really matter to spies because just being a spy is a war crime. Spies that get caught get executed anyway, so what's a little more?

Re:Here's a thought

[Avtuunaaja]

Actually, there's a time-honored tradition of spies posing as journalists. Because it gives them an excuse to be snoopy, and at least in Western Europe and the USA it's considered bad form to execute journalists even when they stumble upon something they shouldn't have.

Re:Here's a thought

[wtbname]

If the international community wanted to get tough on Iran and China for jailing "journalists", they would. They wouldn't need some flimsy 3 hoop excuse relating or not relating these journalists to intelligence agencies. The connection, real or not, is of no meaning to international politics.

The international community is not as tough as some people may want about jailing these journalists because they don't care.

Re:Here's a thought

[jandrese]

If the CIA came out and made such a strong statement like that, every intelligence agency in the world would hear "Our operatives are working for CNN and are in your country." It would be a bloodbath.

Re:Here's a thought

[Grygus]

The CIA has shown pretty conclusively over the last ten years or so that their intelligence presence on the ground in the Middle East is virtually nil. The facts that we didn't know conclusively about the WMDs in Iraq, don't know anything conclusive about a WMD program in Iran, haven't killed Osama bin Ladin, and most of the time have only a vague idea where he is all comes together to paint a pretty bleak picture from the CIA's point of view. Not only do they apparently not have journalists posing as spies, they don't appear to have spies at all. This hasn't stopped Iran worrying about it, though.

Re:Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Iran is a country that

Doesn't have any gays. How exactly these executions of non-existing homosexuals work is a mystery to all ...

Doesn't have any protests against islam* (just look through the link, you'll find no mention of protests, and certainly none of what exactly was protested against). However despite there not being any protests, they must stop, or the Iranian state will start killing people

* strictly speaking it's protests against "islamic government". However, if you take the laws out of islam there's nothing left, like with judaism. All parts of the islamic "religion" and practice are centered around the islamic state (there's no real equivalent in Judaism anymore), the "caliphate". Due to the last caliph ditching the muslims after (well, actually shortly before) being ousted by a gay Ottoman colonel, however, generally one refers to the "ummah" instead of the long dead headless carcass that is the islamic state. In theory muslim laws state that any muslim who does not live in the (now non-existent) muslim state should either emigrate (but one can't emigrate to a non-existent country of course) or kill themselves, to avoid helping infidels. Not many followers of that specific law, though. Ayatollah khomeini (a child-rapist, like the muslim prophet), found of the islamic republic, famously said that there is no spirituality of note in islam, there are only laws. Factions attempting to introduce various forms of spirituality, foremost the Sufi muslims, are persecuted and even massacred for it.

How any muslim can (legally) be a muslim, given that the state islam doesn't actually exist, is not very clear, a fact that is frequently explosively illustrated by the more nutty terrorists among them. This may seem like an idiotically absurd issue, not legally (according to sharia obviously) being a muslim, but for a hell of a lot of people in the middle east this is a huge issue. Jews have a similar issue, due to Israel, while claiming to be a Jewish state, actually follows western law with a few tiny exceptions (ie. marriage). It does not, for example, follow the "a tooth for a tooth" principle of Jewish law. If you injure a Jew in a car accident in Israel, the police will not chop of your leg (muslims have inherited this law from judaism, but even in the worst muslim states, the practice is dying). Nor will you lose limbs for stealing. For many Jews, Israel is a state where Jews are safe, not so much a Jewish state. And for people who live by the most idiotic of laws, which may (or may not) have been reasonable at one time, but have long since lost all meaning, this is a huge problem.

One thing people don't understand is the fundamental differences between ideologies. Jesus Christ (the figure, real or not, described in the new testament) abolished this practice of blindly following laws. Faith in Jesus Christ, according to the gospel, is supposed to follow not from rigid adherence to rules, but from love and trust in the Lord, Jesus Christ. The standard of behavior for Christians is not a rigid set of laws, but a following of a good example. A Christian in trouble would sit down and pray, and honestly believe, that God will rescue him/her, a strange, but very Christian, behavior you will not find amongst muslims. Even in medieval books describing good behavior you will find this reflected : Christian books lead by example, while Jewish and islamic behavioral laws are strict laws.example 1 example 2 The tinyest of behaviors is exactly regulated, and a muslim is supposed to follow these rules,

Re:Here's a thought

[gtall]

and male terrorists veiled like Musliim women...a favorite tactic.

Re:Here's a thought

[MightyMartian]

I don't think the international community could do much about China. It's too integrated into the world economy, to important a player for us to ever meaningfully punish it. The last opportunity for that came when the Japanese held on to big chunks of its territory, but those days have long passed and trying to beat on China would be like sawing off the branch one is sitting on.

The Iran dilemma is a complicated one. Partly, it's because some countries do a lot of business with Iran, and are unwilling to move forward with more comprehensive sanctions (though this may be changing, Russia and China are clearly losing patience with the regime). Another complication is that it is still a major player in the energy sector, so from a global economic perspective, it's seen as risky to interfere with that. Another argument is that full-blown economic sanctions could very well play directly into the regime's hands, much as it has done in North Korea and Burma/Myanmar; punishing the average citizen but doing nothing to moderate or dislodge the regime, but in fact strengthening and emboldening it.

To my mind, the only real option left short of outright bombing the shit of Iran (which I'm sure the Israelis are barely being held back from doing by the US), is to vastly increase the amount of money and resources available to reformers inside and outside Iran, to do everything possible to foment a revolution. Iran has been transformed since the election, it's pretty clear now that it's a thinly veiled military dictatorship, the phrase I'm seeing more and more often now is "Praetorian takeover". Essentially, the Ayatollahs, and in particular the Supreme Leader, have leaned heavily since the 1979 revolution on the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij to ensure loyalty and orthodoxy throughout Iranian society, but the signs seem pretty clear that the last election was little more than a coupe. We're dealing with a wholly different Iran than the one that existed just six or seven months ago, and I think, for many members of the International Community, the general feeling is that they don't know how to go forward.

Re:Here's a thought

[w0mprat]

This wouldn't be such an issue if they were torturing and imprisioning the right online journalists.

Dear Tehran,

Please find attached my list of bloggers I don't like, their IP addresses, home address and a sample of their inain trite drivel ...

Re:Here's a thought

[cthulu_mt]

Here's some suggested reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purloined_Letter

Re:Here's a thought

[h4rm0ny]

It's a matter of public record that G.W.Bush gave the CIA leave in 2007 to pursue operations in Iran. So far as we know, that permission hasn't been withdrawn. Further, it's a matter of public record that the US Congress has allocated millions to support opposition groups within Iran.

Re:Here's a thought

[iron spartan]

That isn't as effective as you would think. Body language is a huge give away. Women in a burqa with a full veil are very submissive, they look down at almost all times when in public. Men trying to pass as women in a burqa have a hard time copying this. Woman may look up, but if you make eye contact, the look down in a hurry and will not look up again. Men have a tendency to not only look up, but to glare if eye contact is made. Its a dead giveaway.

And we caught one insurgent who's beard started poking out from under the veil.

Re:Here's a thought

[clone53421]

Heh. Reminds me of when Huck Finn disguised himself as a girl and was detected by the old lady dropping a ball in his lap.

Re:Here's a thought

[MSesow]

Boy, that's a great idea. I mean, the last couple times we meddled in Iran (with the CIA) it went so well, why not do it some more?

Re:Here's a thought

[DriedClexler]

*blinks*

You're saying a man tried to pass as a woman while keeping a bushy beard?

Did he not know that that only works in carnivals?

Re:Here's a thought

[couchslug]

"Yes, but it doesn't really matter to spies because just being a spy is a war crime. Spies that get caught get executed anyway, so what's a little more?"

Espionage isn't a war crime, but any country may choose to punish it by death (logical enough, and a fine incentive for the spy to flip) according to their own laws. Espionage is simply not a protected category of wartime activity.

Re:Here's a thought

[CodeBuster]

One good step towards making imprisonment and mistreatment of journalists a big international no-no would be for all the major countries to openly ban their intelligence agencies (the CIA, MI6, etc.) from using operatives posing as journalists, or hiring journalists for intelligence gathering purposes.

If you want to neuter your intelligence agencies maybe, but not if you want them to actually be useful. The world outside of your comfortable first world community is a nasty place, get used to it.

It would be nice if we could at least have the CIA come out openly and bluntly and say to the world community "We don't do this, under any circumstances" the next time some petty tyrant claims that the journalists he's caught are working for the CIA

Please tell us that you aren't that naïve. What would that gain the CIA? Nobody would believe them anyway.

As it is, anyone wandering into a foreign country and asking questions, journalist or not, is going to be wearing a big target on their chest that says "Possible intelligence operative."

A good reason not to do that wouldn't you say? If you want to risk your neck that is your own business, but I don't need independent journalists to tell me that Iran, North Korea, Burma, and the like have unsavory regimes.

the world community to go to bat for more journalists if they had some sort of assurance that the sanctions they were imposing were on behalf of actual legitimate journalists, not James Bond wannabes with fake press credentials.

The pariah countries, like Iran, don't care about world opinion.

Re:Here's a thought

[mjwx]

Nice idea but it wont work.

Even if a mandate was passed to all NATO states that journalists were not to be contracted as spies this still wont stop non NATO nations from executing journalists for the crime of spying. They basically require no evidence and do not need anything more then the accusation that NATO nations are not abiding by the mandate regardless of whether it was true.

Re:Here's a thought

[h4rm0ny]

Yes, but it doesn't really matter to spies because just being a spy is a war crime. Spies that get caught get executed anyway, so what's a little more?

Very true. But sadly it does a lot of harm to the reputations of organisations like the Red Cross that would wish to help people regardless of nationality.

Re:Here's a thought

[m1xram]

And, how would it ever stop the accusations of despots around the world?

Re:Here's a thought

[m1xram]

You know, I was reading the post you replied to and was wondering what the point was. Then I read your response and I knew I was right, there is no point. lol That was great, thanks.

Re:Here's a thought

[phoenix321]

Yes it is. And it is also a war crime to
- not use recognizable uniforms for troops
- employ irregular troops
- specifically target civilians
- kill enemy regulars that have surrendered
- hide weapons in civilian buildings, cars, facilities
- use civilians as humans shields
- hide fighters within a civilian population
- employ weapons that produce a high collateral damage
- employ and bury landmines or other hidden explosive devices
- take hostages
- kill hostages
- employ medical personnel without a Red [Cross;Crescent;Magen David;Crystal;etc.]
- imprison marked medical personnel of either side
- specifically target medical personnel
- specifically target important religious, medical, civilian, cultural infrastructure
- and often overlooked: employ unnecessary violent or humiliating means of combat (nuclear, biological, chemical agents, laser lights, shooting parachutists, fragmenting bullets)

The West will probably have to admit some tick marks on this list on their way from Dresden to My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

But there is one faction that has fought in most conflicts, wars, skirmishes or singular firefights under different names but a similar goal and ideology over the last 30 years that has managed to breach pretty much every single article of the Geneva Convention and all similar treaties and continues to do so on a weekly basis. The same faction that always protests when its enemies didn't or couldn't follow the Geneva Convention, for example when weapons were delivered in "medical vehicles", stashed in "religious sanctuaries" or ordnance was launched from within an orphanage or equivalent rabble rouser.

Given that, I don't think our spies are the problem here. We could build ten instances of Abu Ghraib and operate them for a year until we come close to the record level of Geneva breaching racked up by our oh so reputable adversaries of Book and Sword.

Re:Here's a thought

[drsquare]

You're assuming that the CIA didn't know very well that Iraq had no WMDs, and that they don't know where Osama is. The CIA's presence in Iran includes inciting those riots last year.

Would be shame...

[oldhack]

Got that, slashdot "editors"? It would be shame for yous to get tangled up with the laws, capiche? Just saying.

Per Capita?

[ChrisMaple]

Who does the most journalist jailing in proportion to the total population? Or to the total number of journalists in the country?

Re:Per Capita?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Who does the most journalist jailing in proportion to the total population?

That would probably be Eritrea, 19 journalists in jail, and just over 4 million population.

Then Cuba, Iran, Burma, China, in descending order.

Re:Per Capita?

[Idiomatick]

Cuba has a bump because a lot of US reporters go there to annoy them. As well they are less likely to 'disappear' journalists than China/Iran/Burma. Not saying it is right at all. Just saying they have more opportunity to jail journalists. (You don't see so many people running off to Iran to report vs Cuba)...

Iran can't take much more of this

[Vyse of Arcadia]

There's going to be a large, violent revolution soon.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[Shakrai]

And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?

Nothing, this neutralize Iran leaders best weapon: Blame internal troubles on Western powers to squash any protest.

For once we are smarter then the bad guys and not playing their game.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[confused one]

There are two ways to affect change in this case: The stick and the carrot. The stick hasn't worked in 25 years. He's chosen to give the carrot a try.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[Conchobair]

I predict something large and violent, but I don't think it will be a revolution. Maybe an Iran style Tiananmen Square.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[CrimsonAvenger]

There are two ways to affect change in this case: The stick and the carrot. The stick hasn't worked in 25 years. He's chosen to give the carrot a try.

Based on the reaction of Iran's government to the "carrot", it's not going to work either. "What? You're going to be nice to us? Great, thanks, we'll start enriching more uranium now"

Note, by the way, that saying bad things about Iran isn't quite the same thing as using "the stick" on them. The "stick" is usually delivered from a Buff...

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[Shakrai]

Nothing, this neutralize Iran leaders best weapon: Blame internal troubles on Western powers to squash any protest.

Except they are still doing that. Don't you know that all of the current troubles are the fault of the British and Americans?

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[ojustgiveitup]

Nothing. What do *you* think is wrong with communicating with one's enemies?

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[confused one]

I'm not saying that I agree with it. The (attempt at) the stick used was economic and trade sanctions. That didn't work. It's clear the Iranian government will do what ever it wants to do in either case.

There are many delivery methods for "the stick". A Buff is just one of them.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[Shakrai]

Communicating != extending a hand to.

Obama is naive enough to think that a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations is one that can be negotiated with in good faith. He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago. The worst part of it all is that he has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts. Iran continues to march towards nuclear capability. They've taken his measure and found him lacking.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[spiralpath]

The point he was making is that our current outreach to the government weakens that line of propaganda. The Iranian people are becoming aware of this and see their own government's constant anti-Western rhetoric as more and more ridiculous. If they keep doing it they will continue to alienate their population.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[ojustgiveitup]

Ha! That's for the last part where you implied that Iran has shown a hottinanny of interest *who* is in the White House. Actually I guess that goes for the whole thing. The idea that Iran's current political direction has anything to do with the less-than-a-year-old presidency is disingenuously revisionist at best.

Can we both admit that "communicating" and "extending a hand to" are both woefully simplistic reductions of a complicated diplomatic process, and neither of them really mean anything? Yes, I would have liked Obama to publicly denounce the post-election crack-down, but I also think the administration's assessment that it would be detrimental to the movement was correct. The main propaganda tool used by Iran during that time was that they were putting down violent protests instigated by western powers intent on putting them out of business. That propaganda is more obviously a lie if we stay out of the fray - that may not have mattered to the protesters back then, but it does matter for every protest afterward (like the ones right now). How would speaking up have helped the protesters at that point anyhow? Unless we were willing to back up the words militarily, they would have only been detrimental to the movement. We were not then and are not now prepared to face off with the government Iran in a fight that is, at the end of the day, basically the people of Iran's problem.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[Jaysyn]

Maybe, but now Iran's problem is the rest of the world knows better.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[amicusNYCL]

He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago.

I'm thinking you're just out to bash Obama, but at the time I recall most people agreeing that the correct course of action was inaction. I still believe it was. Have you already forgotten what happens when the US throws its support behind any group in Iran? The Iranians are obviously a deeply divided people and that's something that they need to work out without outside interference on any side. Once a solution looks imminent, then that's the time to give support. Giving support to the students now will invalidate their claims in the eyes of many Iranians.

The US offering support will not help the students in Iran. What will help the students is if all of the companies selling technology to the Iranian government stop, and that has nothing to do with the US president.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[MaWeiTao]

Obama could spoon Ahmadinejad every night and it would be completely irrelevant. The Iranian media wouldn't report any of it anyway thus negating the whole purpose of these goodwill gestures. And whenever a nation's economy goes to crap the leadership is always quick to blame foreign powers.

What bothers me is that Obama is unwilling to at least harshly criticize Iran. Instead of standing behind the demonstrators he seems to be more intent on trying to not offend Iran's oppressive leaders. It's really no wonder that Iran openly flaunts these stupid, ineffective sanctions. Well, they're ineffective against those they're aimed at, but end up screwing regular citizens.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[gtall]

The best thing Obama could do to whack the Iranian regime is to *leak* Khamenei is secretly working with Washington. Add in a few complimentary intimations that Khamenei has a secret great respect for Israel and Jews in general. It would drive Ahmadinejad nuts. As soon as the shit hit the fan, the State Department should deny any knowledge and loudly claim the CIA has not been in contact with the Basji no matter what SOME in Iran might think; the secret investigation of CIA activities in Iran by DoD has no bearing on this problem. They could also mention there is also no truth to the rumor that Israel sold the Basji their blackjack batons and that no Basji have secretly converted to Christianity...to the CIA's knowledge. Also, that to the U.S.'s knowledge, the plots by the Revolutionary Guard to take out the ruling theocracy because they are not Muslim enough should be discounted as not being far enough along to justify serious comment. The black market the Revolutionary Guard runs isn't generating enough money yet for these sorts of plots to succeed since not enough of the Army has been bought off yet.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[MightyMartian]

The problem is that the end game was the same. We're now dealing with the Basij and Revolutionary Guard having occupied every important aspect of Iranian government. Even the Ayatollahs don't appear to matter very much. How could have giving direct assistance actually have hurt the situation? They accused the US and the UK of interfering whether they were or weren't, so why not make it a fact as opposed to a lie?

I mean, if one good thing were to come out of Iraq, it would be a launching ground for an anti-clerical anti-military revolution in Iran. Certainly that's what the Iranian regime has expected for the last six years, if not an outright military invasion (which I don't think was ever very high a likelihood even with the Neo-cons at the wheel).

The rest of the world has spent the last quarter century playing a waiting game with Iran, believing that the Ayatollahs would overstep and would be toppled. Well, that did happen this summer, but it wasn't a revolution by the people, it was a military coupe.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[interploy]

For the most part, it's irrelevant who the supposed agitator is. Sure, foreign powers can affect some things, but usually not enough to matter. Do you really think if the Americans or British weren't there, it'd be a utopia? No. If the evil western powers were gone, they'd be replaced by the evil religious heretics, or the evil communists, or the evil corrupt officials, or even the evil death bunnies from Mars for all it matters.

It boils down to one thing: power. The people in power want to stay in power, and the only way to do that is to make sure no one else can assume power of their own. They can censor/imprison/kill or otherwise silence people to do this. They can pretend to give the masses the power to choose who leads them, though inevitably it's always someone from the group in power. They can proclaim to "share" the wealth with all, though somehow the people in power always have more. They can cry fowl, that it's really xyz group that's screwing them over and the people should be mad at xyz, not the ones in power. And, when all else fails, they can invoke the "Power of God" to show the public the way, and of course "God" believes the people in power are the proper sort for leadership.

If the peoples in the middle east (and everyone for that matter) really wanted freedom and peace, they'd stop allowing themselves to be cowed by every load of bullshit in the book and have a revolution. Not one for replacing the current regime, but one for dismantling it. Think of this: the few in power control we the masses, yet it's we the masses who control everything those in power need to control us. So what happens when we wake up and stop playing the game?

In prison, if a riot breaks out the guards get to safety and wait it out. They don't try to quell the population because they're outnumbered 10:1, 20:1, 100:1... Whatever the ratio, there's simply not enough guards to control the masses once the masses decide they've had enough. And you can be damn sure the guards always know that's the case.

So who gives a shit who's agitating whom? Take your pick from any cause, foreign power, religion, space mutant, it doesn't matter. What matters is the people in power are desperately trying to make sure the masses are either too satisfied, too scared, or too ignorant of the truth to threaten their position. Hell, you can pretty much sum up every civilization that's ever existed by reading Animal Farm. And what few that weren't like that were all crushed by the ones that were.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[shugah]

It's easy to criticize - but most people recognize that that are no easy solutions to nations such as Iran and North Korea (adn China is another game all together).

The Sabre rattling of the Bush administration was ineffective and counter productive. The fact that we invaded Iraq, knowing they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and simply wagged our tongues at Iran and North Korea and allied with Pakistan speaks volumes.

The Obama approach - willingness to communicate, but no direct action other than somewhat toned down rhetoric (at least compared to "axis of evil"), is not likely to be any more effective in the short term, but the course is not run on Obama's strategy towards Iran and North Korea. In addition to a willingness to talk, one would hope that the US will continue to work through third parties on both the carrot (EU/France/Russia) and the stick (Israel??).

The US and other western nations need to speak up for human rights and against tyranny, however, empty sabre rattling doesn't really do it. We also need to at least verbally, and when possible, financially (education, humanitarian aid, etc.) support the nascent efforts of the people of Iran and North Korea towards throwing off the bonds of tyranny. This probably has to be done through third parties because of the way the US is vilified in both Iran and North Korea.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[StikyPad]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1469432&cid=30356888

Two times in as many days.. What is this, a hoedown?

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[ojustgiveitup]

Haha, maybe I prefer to think about hott nannies...

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[mjwx]

And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Whilst some of their attention is occupied in pointless negotiation and petty bickering it wont be directed towards the dissidents.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[couchslug]

"There's going to be a large, violent revolution soon."

Supporting evidence please?

Students whining and protesting /= cutting down Basij and Revolutionary Guards with IEDs or frying them with fougasse (petrol thickened with
styrofoam or other expedient) bombs. The Pahlevi government was a pushover, secular and weak.

When they realize the outside world can't help them, they'll have to either give up or fight with the toughness of the Jihadists who oppose them.

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[drsquare]

And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?

The US government has extended hands to far worse regimes in the past. What makes the Iranian regime any worse than those South American genocidal military dictators who were best buddies with Reagan, and were given endless funding by the CIA?

Oh wait, Iran is less favourable to American business interests...

Re:Iran can't take much more of this

[drsquare]

Obama is naive enough to think that a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations is one that can be negotiated with in good faith.

By terrorist organisations, you mean like the Contras, the IRA and the Taleban?

Why is supporting terrorism only a problem when someone else is doing it?

Eritrea?

[DarthVain]

OK I get the others, but who the hell are "Eritrea"? They must do a REALLY good job of arresting reporters as I have never heard of this country before!

Re:Eritrea?

[bk2204]

It's a country on the northeastern edge of Africa, bordering the Red Sea. It gained independence from Ethiopia in the 1990s.

Re:Eritrea?

[Xest]

That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur, a place where mass genocide has been going on- in fact, where as many as half a million civilians may have been slaughtered so far. Eritrea is one of the nations that has been accused of supporting the Darfur rebels fighting against the Sudanese government, but has since moved into a mediating position over the crisis.

To be fair though, part the reason you probably hadn't heard about it is because the world's media was mostly too busy covering middle east stuff like Israel's war with Lebanon. Apparently Israel killing 1000 odd Lebanese, many of which were Hezbollah militans and Hezbollah killing 130 Israelis, many of which were soldiers is somehow so much bigger a tragedy than the 10s of thousands of African civilians that were brutally raped, mutilated and murdered around the same time. For some reason, the tragedy in Darfur and the hundreds of thousands of dead, the hundreds of thousands raped and mutilated and the millions displaced just don't get the attention of the media like a good old fashioned suicide bombing in downtown Baghdad or a verbal spat between the US and Iran.

So yeah, Eritrea is an African nation with some quite close ties to the Darfur conflict. In it's short existence as a sovereign nation (since 1993 iirc) it's also managed to get itself in fights with Ethiopia, Yemen and possibly even Somalia I believe. It's relatively pro-Western, but not blindly so as there was some fuss about them allowing some militant in that the US claimed had Al Qaeda ties. It borders the red sea towards the North Eastern end of Africa.

Re:Eritrea?

[Conchobair]

Eritrea

Re:Eritrea?

[Spazztastic]

As long as there isn't a mainstream movie about it, people won't know/care.

Re:Eritrea?

[Spazztastic]

Eritrea

Anybody who responds with a LMGTFY link comes across as a smug douche. How about you just provide some relevant links on the nation instead?

Re:Eritrea?

[retchdog]

In the land of irritated vaginas, the one nozzled-douche is king?

Re:Eritrea?

[Conchobair]

From what I've seen, people talk about Darfur quite a bit anymore. It's one of those sad cases where our humanitarian interests do not align with national interests. It reminds me of Rwanda. You might be right, in 10 years someone will make a movie and we can all cry and say if I had only known. In reality if we went in to fight a war like Afghanistan, there would be even less public support( if you can imagine that) in the long run once the bodies started coming home.

Re:Eritrea?

[amicusNYCL]

There's nothing smug about it, if you want relevant links then type Eritrea into Google and you'll find the Wikipedia and CIA Factbook pages (which, by the way, are the first two results).

You don't need to wait for others to do this for you, this is something you can do yourself. That's the point of LMGTFY.

Re:Eritrea?

[Grygus]

Eritrea

Anybody who responds with a LMGTFY link comes across as a smug douche. How about you just provide some relevant links on the nation instead?

Didn't he just provide you with an entire page of relevant links? If you're not willing to Google it yourself before asking, and you're not willing to click on a lmgtf link, what motivation could he possibly have to provide you more links to not click on?

Re:Eritrea?

[DarthVain]

Canadian actually. I suppose *everyone* has heard all about Eritrea wherever the hell it is your from?

I did wiki them after posting. Tiny insignificant African country is being kind, particularly when used in the same breath as China, Iran, Cuba, Burma (which is really the Union of Myanmar).

Former colony of Italy. Got 5 million people and border conflict with Ethiopia and has only been a country since the 1990's. About the size of Newfoundland, one of 10 provinces and two territories of Canada.

Its economy is based on 80% subsistence farming, and apparently exports nothing of value. They are world wide known as the most expensive place to buy fuel however!

Sounds like a real peach of a country. I will have to remember this one and highlight it on a map so that I can go visit someday. That would be just swell.

Ah I see your from England's highly famed pompous region. Pip pip and tally ho good sir!

Re:Eritrea?

[dkf]

[Eritrea is] relatively pro-Western

Maybe so, but it does depend on what your baseline is. They've got a bunch of fascists in charge who hate their (much larger) neighbors more than they hate us. They have no oil to speak of though, nor a navy worth the name to cause trouble in the Red Sea, so we ignore them.

Re:Eritrea?

[DarthVain]

I have heard all about Darfur and how it is being ignored, and continues to be. That this one of many tiny African countries involved I was not aware.

Also I know it is getting gray and murky, but weren't the rebels the "good" guys, and the government was the one accused of sponsoring militias that have been going around slaughtering everyone?

Yes I think you are right, because I don't know this obscure tiny African country that may or may not be involved in supporting rebels, in a conflict that is half way around the world, which by your very admission isn't getting great media coverage, I clearly don't pay any attention to the world at all. I think that is obvious to anyone who can think critically. Furthermore I would go on to say that since I don't pay any attention to the world, I also don't care about anyone but myself, which makes a horrible horrible person, that should be reviled and shunned by others. Probably spit on also. SO if you see me, feel free to spit on me, as I clearly deserve it.

Re:Eritrea?

[DarthVain]

Yes. Because I didn't ACTUALLY do that, as that was clearly not a joke, but I seriously think they are doing such a good job arresting reporters that it is difficult to know anything about said country because there is no one to report anything about it.

idiot.

Re:Eritrea?

[shugah]

A country really hasn't hit the public consciousness until Jack Bauer has tortured someone from that country.

Re:Eritrea?

[Conchobair]

You are not the judge of notoriety. Just because you have not heard of something does not mean it has never been reported on. I myself recognized what Eritrea was because I have heard of it before, it has been in the news, and it has been around for for over 15 years. I was also joking around by posting lmgtfy, because it is after all a humorous site.

Poorly informed idiot.

Re:Eritrea?

[bensch128]

To be fair though, part the reason you probably hadn't heard about it is because the world's media was mostly too busy covering middle east stuff like Israel's war with Lebanon.

I think the reason for this is that its a lot less fun to be a reporter in Darfur then it is to be a reporter in Tel Aviv. If you are a reporter in Israel, it's only a 3 hour trip from Tel Aviv to the Gaza strip or to the north, you get your news story about the horrors of conflict between the Israelis or Palestinians or Lebanese, and then you drive back to Tel Aviv, send off your report, and then go partying in Tel Aviv all night. Rinse and repeat.

What the heck type of fun is there in Darfur?

Cheers
Ben

Re:Eritrea?

[couchslug]

The only way to help the victims of Darfur is to arm and train them to kill their enemies because no visiting force can defend every one of them in detail. The answer to Janjaweed is more Kalashnikovs.

That's not PC, so it won't happen.

Re:Eritrea?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Darfur is an Islamic jihad against Christians. Such has been going on for centuries in that part of the world. No wonder it doesn't get much press, it's an inconvenient truth.

Re:Pile it on

[Shakrai]

If McCain / Palin had won the election, I might agree with you.

I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran. You'll note that Bush didn't. Iran can't win a war against the United States but they can make it sufficiently expensive to deter us from undertaking such a venture unless our back is truly against the wall. They can creditably threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. Could they keep it closed indefinitely against the US Navy? Not likely. But closing it for even a few days would send the global price of oil through the roof and bring enormous diplomatic pressure down on the United States.

I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.

Good thing that the US would never ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq (in U.S. custody): 1
Ibrahim Jassam, freelance

Imprisoned: September 2, 2008

Jassam, a freelance photographer working for Reuters, was detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces during a raid on his home in Mahmoodiya, south of Baghdad, Reuters reported. At the time of the arrest, a U.S. military spokesman told CPJ that the journalist was deemed “a threat to the security of Iraq and coalition forces.”

In November 2008, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruled that there was no evidence to hold Jassam and ordered the U.S. military to release him, Reuters reported. U.S. military authorities rejected the court order, saying that he “continued to pose a serious threat to the security and stability of Iraq.”

The military has disclosed no evidence against Jassam, and he has never been charged with a crime.

U.S. troops have detained dozens of journalists—mostly Iraqis—since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, CPJ research found. In at least 12 cases, journalists were held for prolonged periods without charge or due process. In all other cases, the journalists were freed without charges ever being substantiated.

Re:Good thing that the US would never ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all that combat you obviously got brain damage because you failed to read the part where it says they were held for prolonged periods without charge or due process, i.e they were no longer in combat zone. But sure throw away your ideas as soon as stuff gets a bit messy, I mean the Chinese have just been holding those Tibetan monks for years because they needed to stop the rioting and there is nothing wrong with that, I mean hell the Iranian police force were shot at in more than one place so obviously all these detentions are justified because some of their officers saw combat and due process doesn't apply indefinitely afterwards right...?

tl;dr I don't give a shit if you got paid to fight an illegal war, that's no excuse to suspend the rule of law.

Re:Pile it on

[DigitalPasture]

Nice quote from Babylon 5 there.

Here's an idea

[WormholeFiend]

How about detaining all Iranian diplomats until all jounalists are freed.

I know that technically this is not allowed, but then again, jailing innocent people is not a generally accepted practice either.

Re:Here's an idea

[Nathrael]

They don't do it because both the US and the UK (the only states who'd have the balls to consider something like that) have (largely) cut bilateral diplomatic relationships with Iran, and neither operate an embassy in said dictatorship, and Iran does not operate embassies in the US or the UK.

Re:Here's an idea

[confused one]

That is essentially an act of war. So, if your aim is to start one, this might do it.

Re:Here's an idea

[L4t3r4lu5]

The difference is that the journalists are breaking local laws.

Re:Here's an idea

[Ma8thew]

Jailing diplomats is especially not allowed. It would be a profoundly stupid thing to do, and would basically stop any kind of diplomatic contact between the two countries for decades,

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How about detaining all Iranian diplomats until all jounalists are freed.

The politician's syllogism! "Something must be done! This is something! Therefore, this must be done!"

Re:Here's an idea

[Dr. Evil]

Yeah, jail the diplomats.

Then we need to get in contact with Tehran. Hmmm... How to do that?

You know, what we should do is ask Tehran to send people over who speak our language and understand our culture. It'd be such a nice gesture that we should probably give them a place to stay. Maybe they can be put up in the former Iranian embassy. They have lots of tea and a mosque there. Heaps of Persian literature and discount phones to Tehran too.

We can negotiate with the people in this embassy for the release of the dipolmats. They can call Tehran and set up meetings and stuff.

Perfect solution.

Re:Here's an idea

[amicusNYCL]

How about detaining all Iranian diplomats until all jounalists are freed.

All Iranian diplomats huh? Since there aren't any in the US (except occasionally at the UN, and I don't think the UN would approve), should we fly over to Switzerland and kidnap the diplomats working there? Where else should we kidnap people from? Surely this will get our point across.

Re:Here's an idea

[shentino]

Which were likely set up for the express purpose of giving "the man" the excuse they needed to jail them in the first place.

And don't get me started on the laws broken by the guys now in power.

By all rights they should be in jail for rigging the election.

But as has been proven throughout history, when push comes to shove all that ever matters is who is stronger and be damned with morals.

The journalists are not imprisoned BECAUSE they broke the law, they are imprisoned because the regime wants them gone, and any laws that happen to support that position are there purely for convenience.

Re:Here's an idea

[shentino]

Seeing as how espionage and subterfuge in general are an integral part of war, I think the laws of war need to be amended to recognize spies as soldiers that just happen to be unarmed.

Re:Here's an idea

[austin987]

They don't do it because both the US and the UK (the only states who'd have the balls to consider something like that) have (largely) cut bilateral diplomatic relationships with Iran, and neither operate an embassy in said dictatorship, and Iran does not operate embassies in the US or the UK.

UK DOES have an embassy in Iran:
British Embassy
198, Ferdowsi Avenue
Tehran 11316-91144

http://ukiniran.fco.gov.uk/en/

As does Iran in the UK:
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran
16 Princes Gate
London SW7 1PT

http://www.iran-embassy.org.uk/page/?m=vp&i=162

Re:Here's an idea

[h4rm0ny]

By all rights they should be in jail for rigging the election.

Hate to break this to you, but Ahmadinejad really did win the election. Even US agencies' research backs that up. Mousavi is mainly supported by an affluent and urban section of society. Ahmadinejad has a broad base of support across most of the country. He actually has helped a lot of rural poor in Iran. All the media reporting that there "may" have been fraud was just wishful thinking on the part of the West. So long as the country is threatened by the US and Israel, pro-Western candidates are unlikely to find the majority they need to be elected.

Re:Here's an idea

[Nathrael]

Ah, thank you for correcting me then. I could swear they had none a while ago though...

Re:Here's an idea

[yorktown]

>

World War 2 - because ties were cut between Japan and the Allies, Japan had a difficult time negotiating.

July 26, 1945 - Allied heads of state issue Potsdam Declaration
July 28, 1945 - Premier Suzuki rejects Potsdam declaration.
Looks like communication between the two wasn't a problem.

Re:Pile it on

[fotbr]

Except the character's name wasn't Landon -- it was Londo Mollari.

Sorry, but they have been successful for many

[Shivetya]

years at this. I doubt all the angst here in the states or Europe amount to a hill of beans. I see that our current Administrations new stance was accepted with glee by the leaders of Iran who more than likely feel they can now act with impunity since we have a real wimp in the White House.

Note to the current Administration, Bush didn't create the bad guys by labeling them, they were bad, he just gave us a sign.

Any successful revolution in that country is not going to come off without outside assistance. Considering that no one wants to do anything to stop them from creating a bomb who in the hell do you think is going to help their people? What? A bunch of geeks insuring their message gets out? WOW, ask me how well that helped the Chinese concerning that little incident with tanks in a certain square, ask me how well that works now when we have a new Administration that told the Chinese that human rights were not their pressing concern. We have an Administration in the US which indirectly encourages these dictatorships.

Re:Sorry, but they have been successful for many

[BlackSnake112]

If Bush went their for oil, where is my 25 cents a gallon oil then? Why is all the oil in Iraq not piped directly to the United States?

There are many stupid reasons for going to Iraq. Try, Bush W wanted to finish the job that his father started there. Bush wanted to 'win' something in history's eye. Maybe W never liked Saddam and wanted him gone. Maybe Bush wanted to punish Saddam for failing to following the UN resolutions all those years. Getting Iraq's oil is not one of them.

Re:Sorry, but they have been successful for many

[tarp]

Why would YOU get 25 cent per gallon oil? Bush's corporate friends at Exxon, Chevron, etc. would much rather pocket the profits, and continue charging you $2.50 a gallon.

Re:Sorry, but they have been successful for many

[CrimsonAvenger]

Bush gave us a sign about what? Where our oil comes from.

The USA doesn't import oil from Iraq. Or Iran. Never has.

We get our oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

Re:Sorry, but they have been successful for many

[nomadic]

Bush didn't create the bad guys by labeling them, they were bad, he just gave us a sign.

In the late 90s/early 2000s, the opposition in Iran grew stronger. After 9/11, there was a demonstration in Tehran AGAINST terrorism.

After labeling Iran an axis of evil, the theocrats and revolutionary guard were able to more easily crush dissent and foment anti-Americanism.

Sounds like a Fox noise story

[Anonymous Coward]

No facts, just opinion.

in a previous iran discussion

[circletimessquare]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1468788&cid=30347904

i doubted the suggestion, modded insightful, that media control in iran is just like in the usa. a further insightful reply to my trollmodded comment started discussing the idea of "manufacturing consent." which i actually don't have a problem with as a description of a real negative issue with the media in the usa. however: as if such a concept is remotely like anything what they do with the media in iran

why do people not understand that no matter how much you dislike the usa or big media in the west, or how many real and genuine problems you can find with the media and civil rights enforcement in the west, that what iran is doing is far, far more vile, according to the widest range of subjective and objective measurements, and not even remotely comparable?

what iran does to its citizens and how it handles rights internally can't possibly compare to the status quo in the west if you claim the slightest amount of intellectual honesty. iran is off the charts. there is no equivalency, period

no matter how much you hate the usa or how large your grievance is with the FOREIGN policies of western governments, when you try to equate what happens in the west DOMESTICALLY with what iran does with its citizens, you only cheapen and disqualify the moral and logical basis for your opposition to the west. you make a fool of yourself, because you do not appear to be someone who is truly speaking from moral principles, you only appear to be geopolitically posturing. you're not concerned with making the world a better place. you're concerned with vendettas. you do not demonstrate a mental ability to appreciate concepts like scale, perspective, and context when formulate an equivalence between domestic rights and media manipulation in the west and iran. do you really understand what iran freely engages in in the suppression of its citizens? do you honestly want to compare that to anything the west does to its citizens?

you need to demonstrate an actual well-defined set of moral principles. if you do that, you will find a need on your own part to criticize iran for what it does to its citizens. or at the very least, if criticism of the west is your only concern, you need to stop trying to steer a discussion of the horrid crimes iran commits internally into a discussion of the far smaller set of domestic crimes committed in the west. the west is NOT innocent. however, the crimes the west commits domestically isn't even remotely as vile as what iran commits domestically. really

in regard to the subject matter of abuse of citizens and media manipulation, if in your mind you cannot help but to confuse iran and the usa's domestic policies, you only demonstrate an irrational bias on your part, not any real moral principles or logical backbone

please, by all means, be my guest, continue to criticize the west. as someone who truly and genuinely holds free expression of opinion as a bedrock principle, i support your right to speak your mind, even if i disagree with it. but one wonders how you handle the cognitive dissonance of pointing out anthills while the mountain looms in the discussion

Re:in a previous iran discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

... what iran is doing is far, far more vile, according to the widest range of subjective and objective measurements ...

Are there any objective measurements? All I see is rhetorical blogs implicitly claiming fake things, a regular dosage of "Iran is evil" stories. Where exactly are objective reports?

Re:Pile it on

[VShael]

"I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran."

Did you not see him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" on Sunday morning TV?
He seemed positively eager at the thought.

Re:Pile it on

[Shakrai]

Well if you want to take things out of context and hold them up as something meaningful, I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about "spreading the wealth around" and how an entire class of people "cling" to their guns and religion.

I didn't like McCain 2.0 very much but if you think he's "eager" for any sort of war then I don't think you understand him very well.

Bad Idea: Don't do it, even if the others do

[DrYak]

(Lybia has playing such a game against Switzerland, BTW)

Ok, if you start the "let's do it too in retaliation" game, then what differences will be between you and the "eeevil bad guys" your are fighting against ? I mean appart some basic schoolyard excuse as "They started first ?".
If you lower your standards, you aren't distinguishable any more from the guys you're fighting against. If one day you win, it'll be simply a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Re:Pile it on

[VShael]

How is it out of context?
He said on multiple occasions that he hoped the US acted against Iran.

e.g. (06/15/09 on Fox News, obviously) "I hope that we will act" http://www.youtube.com/v/aDeJKl4h3Sg

Re:Pile it on

[Duradin]

Third front? We'd need a first front first. We aren't at war and haven't been since WWII. We've had lots of police actions since then, but no wars.

A parallel sharp rise

[BhaKi]

I see a sharp rise in "country X is evil" stories.

maybe because eritrea is a new country

[circletimessquare]

like east timor

both countries are recent breakway provinces. eritrea used to be in ethiopia until 1993. east timor used to be in indonesia until 2000. eritrea was a largely muslim area in a largely christian ethiopia. east timor was a largely catholic region in a largely muslim indonesia

its a shame that religious strife holds the basis for so much grief and fragmentation in this world

Re:maybe because eritrea is a new country

[MightyMartian]

East Timor, like other chunks of Indonesia, was forceably annexed by Indonesia. Eritrea was annexed by Ethiopia after the collapse of Italy's empire at the end of WWII.

There is a WELL RESEARCHED Allegation!

[Philip K Dickhead]

Gee. I love the sourcing on the link about planned executions.

Maybe the US should just bomb and invade? It has worked so well, elsewhere.

Edited out of the report at the last minute...

[R2.0]

"But regardless of the results, the US is still the world's worst place to be for freedom of the press. Or for anything, really."

did you ever notice the irony

[circletimessquare]

that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea, that one of the three (iraq) was invaded ostensibly because of nuclear research... and none was found. meanwhile, har har, the two that were not invaded have since accelerated their pursuit of nuclear weapons thousandfolds? hey, genius: if bush was more subtle in his approach, maybe the nuclear status of those two vile regimes wouldn't be so far along, did you consider that?

but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support. wow, you're such a credit to the country, thanks

mindlessly declaring your animosity to clearly vile regimes might make your chest thumping feel good, but it actually doesn't help. it in fact makes things far worse. because this atavistic animosity actually HELPS the regimes in north korea and iran: it gives them reason to crack down further yet on their long suffering populations in the name of fear of american intentions, and it actually increases their support in feelings of nationalism in the people living there. all they have to do is point at the actual words bush spoke, rather making up their own fearmongering, and everyone circles the wagons

so our current president, meanwhile, takes the INTELLIGENT and SUBTLE approach to defeating these vile regimes

but not good enough for you. he has to be criticized by idiots like yourself, who don't understand that obama's approach SERVES YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR COUNTRY BETTER

Re:did you ever notice the irony

[Shakrai]

that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea

I love how I say absolutely nothing about Bush yet you immediately resort to bringing him up as though it represents sort of meaningful counterpoint. Let me clue you into something: Disagreeing with Barack H. Obama != supporting George W. Bush. I happen to think that Bush did our country a great deal of damage but that's rather irrelevant to the point of whether or not Obama is making wise decisions.

but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support.

Actually no, the international attitude that I would support would be a return to non-interventionism and a withdrawal from most alliances and international agreements. For better or worse though that isn't in the cards.

he has to be criticized by idiots like yourself, who don't understand that obama's approach SERVES YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR COUNTRY BETTER

Imagine that, I have the audacity to criticize the leader of my country. Something tells me you wouldn't be whining about that if I had done it two years ago. I guess dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in charge, huh?

Dont start a post by being a dick.

[Petersko]

"That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur..."

I've been glued to world news for most of the last five years and I had to look up Eritrea. I've also never heard of it before.

You might have made an excellent point after this phrase, or provided some details, but when I read the first line I thought to myself, "Condescending dick." So I never read the rest of your post.

Re:Dont start a post by being a dick.

[bendodge]

"That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur..."
I've been glued to world news...

I don't mean to be rude, but that there is your problem. The "news" that arrives on your television or radio is highly manipulated and filtered to tailor your thinking. I highly recommend reading the blogs of ordinary citizens or "citizen journalists" in the target area along with your mainstream media. It's quite revealing.

Re:Dont start a post by being a dick.

[saforrest]

You make a good point about not being a jerk. Honestly, I have found that once one displays a marginal degree of deep knowledge about some subject but makes a mistake, there are no shortage of "experts" willing to jump in and humiliate the poor bastard. It's as though they're delighted to find an opponent worthy enough to fight but weak enough to defeat.

All that said, Eritrea was in the news a lot in the 80s and 90s owing to its independence war against Ethiopia. That war has a lot to do with the state of politics in the Horn of Africa ever since, and is sort of the model for the attempted secession of Somaliland from neighboring Somalia. I think the fact that the name of Eritrea is not well known is a travesty on the part of the media, and I think that anyone who regards themselves as well-informed on current events should feel embarrassment at not knowing the name of every current nation-state. There are a lot of them, sure, but knowing them is the price you pay for the title "well-informed".

you can criticize obama all you want

[circletimessquare]

but if your criticism is fucking stupid, i will criticize you for being fucking stupid

which is just as much my right of criticism as yours, right?

furthermore, bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing. it doesn't mean you support bush. it means: "what you are asking for is what bush did already, and it easily to demonstrate how fucking stupid it was"

and furthermore, if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?

bush's approach was stupid, correct? do you agree or disagree?

based on that, how can you criticize the alternative approach by obama?

and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism. if you think this is the way the usa should proceed in this world, oh man, just go study your history. it is beneath me the remedial historical lessons you should already know about why this approach is so flawed and frankly impossible for ANY country in this world to take

Re:you can criticize obama all you want

[Shakrai]

bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing.

I wasn't aware that foreign policy was a binary choice. "Bushism" vs. "Obamaism". Who knew those were the only two choices?

if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?

Because I reject your flawed notion that the only two choices available to us are those presented by Bush and Obama. I reject the notion that because Bush sucked I should embrace what Obama is doing. Can I say it any plainer?

and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism.

Non-interventionism != isolationism.

BTW, the "shift" key is your friend.

Re:Pile it on

[Duradin]

Go tell that to Congress.

They've let the Executive branch send that many troops to foreign soil without a declaration of war. Obviously they don't believe that the current number of troops means it is a war.

Vietnam saw almost a half million troops deployed at one point and that wasn't enough to be a war.

Re:Big deal

[Culture20]

======= They actually have a lot in common with certain conservative religious groups here in the US. Bob forbid those retards ever get their hands on the levers of power. We'd have bloggers on death row within the year. =======

Please cite?
Errr..didnt think so...

Nice try.
Can you say PROJECTION?

Come to think of it... Seems the liberal side is all about that

Democrats trying to criminalize citizen journalism
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
12/03/09 5:10 PM EST

An amendment to a bill currently being considered by the Senate would deny ordinary citizens doing vital investigations in the public interest the same legal protections as professional journalists. If it were to become law, the change could significantly stifle important citizen journalism efforts similar to the recent ACORN expose.

The Senate is currently considering a new press shield law sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The bill would "maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media." Except that Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Cal., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., want to ensure that any new journalistic protections would only apply to professional journalists and not regular citizens. An amendment filed by Durbin and Feinstein would modify the legislation to define journalists thusly:

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN)

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity--

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that--

(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

(cc) operates a programming service; or

(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In section 10(2)(B), strike ''and'' at the end.

In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ''; and''.

In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

While the ACORN story has stung congressional Democrats and pointed out the deficiencies of the mainstream media, there's no basis for Durbin and Feinstein's amendment that seems anything other than vindictive or an attempt to protect the powerful. It's telling that bloggers on both the left and the right are in total agreement this is very bad law.

Reality is a bitch huh?
And we can't have THAT when sadly attempting to bash conservatives now can we?

Yay, free press!

MOD ME DOWN!!!!

They did. I don't see how you're that off-topic though. They must have accidentally clicked "-1 offtopic" when trying to select "-1 inconvenient truth"

they are

[SmallFurryCreature]

The current problems are a direct result of the messing the British and Americans have done in decades past. Iran really is right when it blames the rest of the world for the current situation. Mind you, doesn't mean they have to kill journalists, India has been screwed with a lot too, it doesn't.

Then how do you buy there oil?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Quick question: what is the mileage on your car? Or on your mom's car as she drives you the 1 mile to school?

Journos in Iran face execution...?

[Zooperman]

And people thought the Republicans were bad...

I'm not sure you have it right

[Xaedalus]

From what I've read of the Koran, being a Muslim is an intensely self-centered act of surrender to God, in which no government or authority on earth can interfere with. You surrender your perceived control of your self and submit to God's will directly without an intercessor (Jesus or Mohammed or the Pope) because Islam is supposed to be based on the faith of Abraham, which is the progenitor to Judaism and Christianity. Historically, Mohammed never intended for a priesthood to arise (I'm basing this off Karen Armstrong's work, don't have a direct citation for you). He was emphatic that he was not to be worshipped, and the immediate founders of the ummah were not to be worshipped as well.

It appears to me that what you're referring to (regarding Islam and the state and how a Muslim can't be a muslim unless they are part of a nation state or something - you're very vague on that) is how Arab culture subsumed Islam and turned it into a political empire. Islam as politics and Islam as religion are two completely different animals, and the same can definitely be said for Christianity and Judaism. The muslim laws (shariah) you're referring to, are the collections of decisions made by later priests based on their interpretations of the Koran and given the weight of law. But they are not actually in the Koran, and they are subject to cultural interpretation and political whims. You would do better to study the Moors of Spain to see what a proper Islamic society was. As for the child-rapist thing, I would remind you that back then, it was customary for girls that young to wed men in Arab, Jewish, and even Christian culture. Hell, up until the beginning of the last century we had American Christian men marrying 12 and 13 year olds. So you're trying to pull a straw man argument there.

Your points, when you're attacking the political culture of Islam as defined by a state, are mostly valid. But you are making an error in combining Islam as political culture and Islam as religion. Unfortunately, I will concede to you that most people, many Muslims (and Christians, and Jews) make the same mistake. We are only human after all, and definitely not perfect

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[Dragonslicer]

I would add that, unlike Christianity and (as far as I know, and it's quite possible that I'm wrong) Islam, Jews as a political and cultural unit existed before the religious aspects. With Christianity, it started as a religious movement and didn't become associated with a political unit until its adoption by the Romans. The Torah actually has long, boring sections of very mundane civil law. Most people complain about the supernatural aspects of the text without realizing that there's more about how to handle an ox mauling the neighbor than there is about burning bushes.

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[Machtyn]

Modern Judaism maybe, but not at its roots. The Jews were first Israelites, or sons and daughters of father Judah, who was the son of Jacob (Israel), who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abram (Abraham). Their family was "God the Father"-centric with an eye towards a Savior. From the family grew the religion and the laws (Moses). The Jews were given the right to enact laws. Joseph's "tribe" was given the right to the priesthood. And, later, the sons of Levi were given the rights to sacred performances. (Please forgive if I've messed that up somehow.) However, as the other tribes lost their way and were scattered, the Jews remained behind and kept the "kingdom" (which was both religious and political).

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[tuxgeek]

Some very good points

The muslim laws (shariah) you're referring to, are the collections of decisions made by later priests based on their interpretations of the Koran and given the weight of law. But they are not actually in the Koran, and they are subject to cultural interpretation and political whims

Christianity is also guilty of this. The catholic church, and most all other christian sects, have woven interpretation into their laws/rules/beliefs that don't exist in the old or new testaments

One of my favorites: Which part of "Thou shalt not kill" was difficult for George W Bush to understand?

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[Dragonslicer]

That would be mostly correct if you follow a literal reading of the Torah (except for the Joseph/priesthood part; the priests were the descendants of Aaron, who was a Levite several generations removed from Levi. Joseph's tribe actually ends up getting split between his sons Ephraim and Menasseh). While there was most likely some religious aspects to the society, as there was in pretty much every society of the time, the civil laws would have existed long before anything recognizable as an organized religion.

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[couchslug]

Religion(s) may not in theory be political cultures, but in practice they are, which makes theory useless except for propaganda.

The "theory excuse" (also used for Communism) for beliefs which happen to be flawlessly crafted for exalting believers that they may do their will on non-believer victims should be ridiculed, so I will.

Conveniently, the so-called "proper religionists" are always marketable and safe, while the aggressive, violent, and effective sort that run the show and are responsible for the expansion of the belief in the first place are disavowed.

Islam is what its leaders and followers do and support, tacitly or actively.

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[initialE]

Of course people confuse political Islam with religious Islam. Whereas religious Islam calls them 2 separate entities, political Islam calls them one and the same.
- This and other stuff, pulled out of my ass.

Re:I'm not sure you have it right

[m1xram]

While there was most likely some religious aspects to the society, as there was in pretty much every society of the time, the civil laws would have existed long before anything recognizable as an organized religion.

Your belief that civil laws existed before religion is similar to Christians and Jews believing God was with Adam and Eve. Neither can be proved and both require faith.

Re:Pile it on

[alan_dershowitz]

There is a reason that Bush didn't go into Iran, and it was that people in the military were actively thwarting him.

I believe the quote was: "[An attack on Iran] will not happen on my watch...There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box." --Admiral William Fallon

We just need 300 well-trained Spartans

[AmericanGladiator]

to kick their Persian behinds one more time...

Re:We just need 300 well-trained Spartans

[raddan]

Hey, hate to break it to you, but the Greeks lost the battle at Thermopylae. They lost the next few battles, too. Fortunately Xerxes got cold feet about being stuck in Europe and ended up withdrawing most of his forces, which allowed the Greeks to repel the remaining forces at Plataea.

Re:We just need 300 well-trained Spartans

[AmericanGladiator]

Of course you are correct. And they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did or inflicted as much damage if they didn't have only a narrow pass to defend.

Re:We just need 300 well-trained Spartans

[couchslug]

No, we don't. They'd just expand their cult of victimhood.

Iranians need to rise in violent revolt. They are too cozy, so most of them won't.

Twitter isn't shit. Fighting like the Jihadists who oppose them shows the will to power.

Re:Pile it on

[ChrisMaple]

The only reason that Iran can make a war with the US difficult is because the US goes at it in a half-assed manner. If the US bombed everything, especially mosques , and never sent in a single foot-soldier, we'd remove Iran as an effective problem for decades. It would be a clear message that we're not taking any crap from troublemakers, that we're not going to help villains get back on their feet, and that we understand that Islam is the biggest source of nastiness in the world.

Re:So?

[fnj]

Parent post is not a troll; poster makes a sensible point; the moderator is a flaming asshole.

Re:Pile it on

[pwfffff]

"I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about 'spreading the wealth around'"

What a horrible quote. It's almost as if you're suggesting that Obama wants to do something about the poor other than round them up and exterminate them. Surely that's not the truth.

Re:Pile it on

[MightyMartian]

Logistically it would be a nightmare. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a mountainous country. It has a larger population, a much more disciplined military. I can't imagine many even senior ranking military officers wanting to invade Iran. It would be a nightmare.

ok so let's look at the choices so far:

[circletimessquare]

1. obama's nuanced approach. intelligent
2. bush's blunt approach. stupid
3. non-interventionism. DIFFERENT FUCKING SUBJECT MATTER

i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?

i did not know obama extending his hand was comparable to military intervention. oh, you didn't say MILITARY intervention? so you meant isolationism. no not that? well then what the hell is nonmilitary nonintervention? what the fuck are you saying?

here's an amazing wacky concept for you: how about obama extend his hand, and we don't intervene militarily? that sound possible to you? i think you mentioned something about constructing false binary choices? i did not know extending a hand to the vile iranian regime to undercut their self-reenforcing hostility was incompatible with military nonintervention. pfffffffft

Re:ok so let's look at the choices so far:

[Shakrai]

i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?

Yes, and you responded to my criticism of that choice by presenting a false dichotomy between Obama and Bush.

what the fuck are you saying?

That Obama's foreign policy is misguided, naive and destined to end in failure. I believe I've been quite clear on this point.

here's an amazing wacky concept for you

How about we don't extend our hand to brutal regimes that murder their own citizens and support terrorist organizations? How's that for a wacky concept to you? Let them rot on the fucking vine until a responsible Government comes to power.

and the sounds coming from the White House

[Shivetya]

are deafening

No wait, they are not.

Sorry, but you over estimate the the result.

First, it does not matter what our leaders do, as long as one American is breathing Arabian air we are in the wrong.

So whats our new White House going to do? Nothing. Just like they did the last street marches in Iran where many were killed. Oh I know our wonderful President probably stamped his feet but Iran's leadership couldn't give a rats ass about Obama. They have already dismissed him as a credible threat. Obama completely glazed over the first street marches and backs down FROM EVERYONE. Hell the only people he talks stern with are our allies. I guess he figures they are stuck with us.

Iran's leadership will kill who it wants and Obama and Company will act all knowing and loving because this is a photo op Presidency and not an action oriented Presidency. People looking to do away with oppressive dictatorships around the world one option with Obama as President, wait four years.

Look at Obama's policy on Darfur if you want to know the plight of those being oppressed and murdered world wide, more negotiation and words.

Any nation that executes journalists

[raddan]

should have their U.N. member status revoked. Of course, U.N. membership is already somewhat of a farce, the U.N. essentially now being a forum for cronyism, but it would at least take away another venue for people like Ahmadinejad to get up on a podium and spout hatred. Too bad we didn't keep Mossadegh around, huh?

Re:Any nation that executes journalists

[manicb]

Of course, that would be a good motivation for everyone to claim they are journalists, thereby screwing up the legal system because you can't execute a journalist for murder as they'll claim it a political execution. Which makes it unfair to apply the death-penalty to non-journalists, obvious dual standards etc. etc. If we're being hypothetical/optimistic, could we not simplify things and just say you can't have the death penalty? I could go with that...

Yeah, let's bury it

[linumax]

I mean why bother reporting news. When we can have important stories like how "Country X is working on the next generation of product Y"

Re:Pile it on

[Shakrai]

I believe you rather missed the point of why I brought that quote up in the first place.

yes, that's called isolationism

[circletimessquare]

but you said you were for nonintervention... as opposed to isolationism

so all i've really learned from you is that you support isolationism, but you don't even know what isolationism is

truly a person if infinite wisdom well positioned to develop a logically coherent verdict on obama's foreign policy

in response, you'll probably attack me as an obama supporter just angry that someone would have a contrary opinion of the president

rather, i fully support your right to criticize obama's foreign policy all you want. JUST FUCKING MAKE SENSE. because right now, there is absolutely no logical coherence to anything you've said

Re:yes, that's called isolationism

[h4rm0ny]

And I've learned that one of you keeps ranting in capitals and not getting the others point, and the other has far more patience than I do.

Re:Pile it on

[TooMuchToDo]

I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.

You know that if the US (Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen) wanted to go war with Iran, we would just have Israel do it and provide weapons and logistics, correct? Not that there's something wrong with that.

Here's another thought

[tuxgeek]

I seriously doubt journalists can be considered as spies
The real cover that the CIA uses for spies is that of business men traveling overseas

Some examples:
1. George HW Bush was a covert CIA operative for many years. His cover was an oil developer.
2. Valerie Plame: Also a covert operative spying on terror networks until Cheney/Novac outed her for political reprisal against her husband

Re:Big deal

[pwfffff]

You know, with a couple minutes of reading you too might be able to figure out that "trying to criminalize citizen journalism" is not the same thing as preventing the courts from getting random citizens to disclose their sources when they've spewed it as fact all over the internet.

Overreact much?

Re:Big deal

[gknoy]

That seems somewhat easy to get around:

Set up a non-profit cooperative, which pays its employees $0.01/year in salary, and publishes Whatever. Power it by donations. Call it the I'm a Journalist Too Foundation, or something. They wouldn't even need to publish everything that's researched/posted (as you're gonna get some whackos). Include an agreement that "employees" can publish their findings elsewhere, as well -- and it sounds to me like one could ensure that anyone wanting to do any sort of investigative journalism could find a way to be technically employed as a journalist.

Re:Big deal

[pwfffff]

s/preventing the courts from getting/allowing the courts to get/g

Wait and See

[MarkvW]

No point in agitating Iran. The US might be able to trigger something, but it couldn't control it. There is no way that the US can CREATE a friendly client-state in IRAN. Only people who get paid to think of ways to create client states think that. The revolution, if it comes, will take its own course.

It is very important to remember that the theocratic Iranian government has a huge base of support. Students and the intelligentsia have to shift that before they can do anything.

Iran's got a big problem. It needs technology to oppress its people, but the locals who furnish the technology are the people that the government wants to oppress. Unfortunately, the government has oil money and oil money will finance the purchase of oppression-aiding technology from the "free" countries of the world.

When the oil runs out, the theocracy will die because it can't afford the oppression. The sadness is that all that oil money could be used to build infrastructure for the people for the future. But it won't. 'Tis a pity.

And the attitude continues.

[Petersko]

"I don't mean to be rude, but that there is your problem. The "news" that arrives on your television or radio is highly manipulated and filtered to tailor your thinking. I highly recommend reading the blogs of ordinary citizens or "citizen journalists" in the target area along with your mainstream media. It's quite revealing."

I do mean to be rude. This need you have to talk down to people, and to imply that we're a bunch of gullible Fox-news watchers, is more prickdom.

In my post neither "world" nor "news" is capitalized, so both are meant generically. You assume I'm sticking to mainstream media, a fact that can't be supported by anything I've written. In truth I get my news from a wide variety of sources, including blogs (although most of them are as heavily slanted and error-prone as anything "big media" offers - sometimes more so).

There is more news than I have time to read. Some of it is going to get missed.

Re:And the attitude continues.

[bendodge]

Actually, I think Fox News has more real news than the others. But they're still MSM.

I don't think you helped by your attitude

[fantomas]

I don't think you helped yourself in getting a measured response by setting yourself up for a fall.

"I have never heard of this country before!"

You're rather asking for people to send cheeky responses back to you. Posting that Country X is not significant in geopolitical terms because you as a single individual has never heard of it is a rather weak argument. You come over as ignorant and arrogant, I am sure you're not but this is how it looks. Google will help you, (15.9 million hits for "Eritrea").

Eritrea was in the news a lot because it broke away from Ethiopia in a bloody civil war and there have been border conflicts ever since. Being a poor country it also has food crises and there are calls for international help in the news sometimes.

Re:I don't think you helped by your attitude

[DarthVain]

OK maybe I am an idiot.

However I would bet 100 bucks that I could go outside right now and ask 100 people if they have ever heard about a country called "Eritrea" and I think I would be 100 bucks richer.

Basically your right, I guess it is a bit arrogant. But I stand by the "I have never heard of this place before so I doubt many people have" (OH MAI!). Perhaps that is false. Perhaps in some parts of the world it is very false. I bet if there is some people on Slashdot from Eritrea, then they probably hear about it all the time, because they live there. Or Perhaps I am a professor in African studies or Geopolitical Issues, etc... My guess is most normal people haven't heard of this place before. You can disagree if you like, and consequently I would think you are wrong.

All that aside, the whole point of the argument isn't just that I haven't heard of it before, but it is being used next to countries like China, Cuba, Iran. I bet if I ask 100 people RIGHT NOW outside every single one of them will know all of those places.

Anyway I don't think I was being overly arrogant nor is it a weak argument (nor was it really an argument, but a joke). The only way that it is arrogant, is in the context that every writer is arrogant to think their words are of interest to anyone else but themselves. The act of writing is sheer arrogance. The fact that I didn't take a small poll before hand to determine my opinion that I have never heard of this place (and therefor come to the conclusion that few have) is immaterial.

Re:wow all that capiatlism is really freeing China

[couchslug]

"oh wait... looks like they are just giant dictatorship that oppresses workers, a fact that we capitalists love to take advantage of."

Yes, that's horrid. Now compare China in 1948 to today. The masses of people have never lived better. Freedom is nice, but food/clothing/shelter and physical security have much more practical value.

Re:Cuba is good

[couchslug]

Boycotting only reinforces those in power, who pass the suffering on to the populace.

Note how the _US_ is blamed for how _Saddam_ kept resources from Iraqis while diverting wealth to his armed forces and government.

Anyone who believes boycotts work against people of will needs prompt LARTing.

Re:Pile it on

[mjwx]

I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb.

The Israeli's wont do anything.

I mean this in the least insulting way possible but you don't know anything about the Persian and Israeli people. Allow me to explain.

The Iranians are mostly Persian (do a google image search on Persian, there are some interesting results). The leaders of Iran are Arab, mostly from southern Iraq, there is also a large paramilitary police force called the Basij, the religious police which is mainly comprised of Arabs from Lebanon and Palestine. Now there is only about 6000 years of recorded racial tensions between Arabs and Persians. Hopefully you'll understand the background a bit better now.

Now contrary to popular American belief the Persians and Israeli people get on like a house on fire. This is why most of the exiled Iranians fled to Israel in 1980, the headquarters of the Baha'i religion is in Israel after it was moved from Iran.

Now if there is to be a Israeli-Iran war then the winner will be the side that is not the belligerent, you see if Iran attacks Israel then the Israeli's get to go about liberating the Persians (Every Israeli Jew I've met has said the Persians are the most oppressed people in the middle east) backed up by thousands of ethnic Persians (long exiled friends and family) which will incite other Persians riot against their aggressive government (fearing another generation lost al a Iran-Iraq). However is Israel attacks Iran then the Iranian government gets the PR victory in its rhetoric against Israel which will focus the Persian people under that banner and after the failures in Lebanon and Palestine the Israeli people will not support a war of aggression. Both sides know if they attack first they will lose so each side is goading the other but neither is willing to act.

What Fox News isn't reporting is that for the last six months there have been ongoing protests in Iran, the Iranian government hasn't just decided to round up and execute a few journo's for shits and giggles, they are getting anxious. Due to the Iran-Iraq war this is the first time the Islamic Republic of Iran has had to deal with a significant young adult population as there is almost no 25-40 yr olds. The Iranian people have mostly forgotten the abuses of the Shah which gave the Islamic extremists power in the first place however they do remember their Zoroastrian and Baha'i friends who were forced to leave 30 years ago and they remember the abuses of the current government.

Re:Pile it on

[b4upoo]

It is a sad thing but somewhere along the line our leadership will bet the idea that they need to do what it takes to make a profit in every war. This could be a disaster for entire populations. Think of it. Plowing the entire population into a pit and then depleting a nations assets and leaving nothing of worth in the wake of war. At least in ancient times captive populations had some value as slaves or induction into the conquering army. These days people have less value.