Slashdot Mirror
From Slaying Dragons To Dictators
tcd004 writes "In a weekend, programmer Austin Heap transformed from an apathetic MMO player to a world class regime-slayer. When word for Iran's rigged election broke over Twitter, Heap decided to dedicate himself to building a better proxy system for people behind Iran's firewall. Heap's creation, Haystack, conceals someone's real online destinations inside a stream of innocuous traffic. You may be browsing an opposition Web site, but to the censors it will appear you are visiting, say, weather.com. Heap tends to hide users in content that is popular in Tehran, sometimes the regime's own government mouthpieces."
Sometimes, good things should not be discussed.
Why is this article being put out now? The Iranian elections were awhile ago
But "looking at porn" wasn't one of the viable alternatives?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I don't know if I'd consider setting up a good Proxy server as "Slaying a Dictator".
I think that's actually part of a big chain quest so that you can get keyed along with a large group of people to then slay the dictator.
Wouldn't they just ban anyone connecting to known proxies or any proxy in general that wasn't set up by the authorities?
~S
It is not a dictatorship.
Misguided, dangerous, theocratic, abusive, yes. But not a dictatorship.
I look forward to a 'thinkofthechildren' argument from some congressman in the future about why it should be illegal here.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
As opposed to the laughably juvenile attempts by Iranian intelligence agencies to spam twitter with pro-Iranian-government messages?
Also, please include citations when you make accusations like that. I pulled up a bunch of articles on the Iranian twitspam with no problem but found it harder to dig up reports of US Agencies doing the same (though I wouldn't be shocked if they had, this seems to go both ways).
Hey pal, I've got bad news for you but you are the one who doesn't know what the term means. You should be laughing at yourself for not understanding a term and then looking down upon others who do understand it. I hope you especially laugh at how incompetent Bruce Schneier is to use the term, because you are no doubt more competent than him (ROTFLMAO).
The term has never implied that you can know the keys and still not get in. It specifically refers to a principle in security engineering, which attempts to use secrecy (of design, implementation, etc.) to provide security - [emphasis added]. In other words if you cannot publish the algorithm without rendering the system vulnerable, then that is security through obscurity.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I thought this was a new game coming out where you did both: Grand Theft Horse 2 - The Dark Ages.
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Iran's government sure loves blaming the US doesn't it.
I read the internet for the articles.
Iranian law is pretty tough on smut
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=pornography+laws+in+iran&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Here's one snip from one result
"The AP reports that Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies. "
"Adnkrnonsinternational reports that under the new law, anyone distributing pornographic material can be sentenced to a fine of up to 16,000 euros while owners of a porn video or film risk up to 76 lashings. "
"Executing Iranians involved in the porn industry isn't a brand new story, unfortunately. "
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
It must be tricky to hide sensitive data in innocuous data streams. Of course, I'm sure it's possible...
Iran has elections, but doesn't pick the right person, so it's a dictatorship. Same is true for Venezuela and Gaza, and any country over the past sixty years that made the mistake of voting for left-leaning leaders in the Western Hemisphere.
And what about China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc? Well, they make us a shitload of money, or they at least follow our orders, so, you know. It's different.
That is baloney. Security through obscurity means that the entire system itself is obscured, as the only protection. Traditional (lock) security means that one (or more) aspect[s] of the system is/are protected by requiring significant effort to circumvent.
Security through obscurity is leaving your door unlocked, but living in a remote area.
Security without obscurity is locking your door, and living in the city.
In case 1, the barrier between criminals and your house is knowing that your house exists at that spot. In case 2, it is not only knowing the ridges on your key, but spending the effort of creating a key that matches that qualification*. There is effort involved in the second case. If, instead of simply living in a remote area, you lived on the top of a difficult cliff, you would have normal security as well.
*Also, there is effort involved in examining your lock to obtain those ridges, mugging you and stealing the key, etc.
This guy should not be sitting for laudatory news coverage. These are the same people that brought you death sentence fatwas in absentia, and the religious nutjobs to carry them out.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Who doesn't?
Bullshit.
Less than a month and many all-nighters later, Heap and a friend had created Haystack. The anti-censorship software is built on a sophisticated mathematical formula that conceals someone's real online destinations inside a stream of innocuous traffic. You may be browsing an opposition Web site, but to the censors it will appear you are visiting, say, weather.com.
This doesn't make sense. It still has to connect to and load the BAD website, too...
Other anti-censorship programs--such as Tor, Psiphon, or Freegate--can successfully hide someone's identity, but censors are able to detect that these programs are being run and then work to disable the communication. With Haystack, the censors aren't even aware the software is in use. "Haystack captures all outgoing connections, encrypts them, and then masquerades the data as something else," explains Heap. "If you want to block Haystack, you are gonna block yourself."
OK, this makes so little sense I can't even figure out how to respond to it.
Heap intends to gradually develop Haystack's presence in the country. He has started to share it with select activists and trusted individuals on an invitation-only basis. They will then be asked to share it with their friends. It is the same model that was originally followed by Google's Gmail. The targeted approach is smarter from a security standpoint. Also, he doesn't want the software to collapse from low-value demand.
SAY WHAT?
Yeah, there's one word for this whole article. BULLSHIT. It stinks.
Given that the regime in question is still very much in control, and that the only slaying that was done was by the regime, I find the term "regime slayer" to be laughable at best and really offensive at worst for those that hoped for better for the Iranian people.
That was an extreme case showing that sometimes, mere communication is not enough to evoke change.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Astroturfing on the internet? Well I never!
I read the internet for the articles.
Well, we do have an extensive history of meddling. Okay, it's actually freaking huge. Whether or not we actually did anything or not, I wouldn't blame Iran for believing that the US played some role in the recent turmoil.
As this article in Foreign Policy explains, the Internet, especially Twitter, didn't contribute nearly as much to the protests in Iran as has been reported: Misreading Tehran: The Twitter Devolution. "Word of mouth was by far the most influential medium used to shape the postelection opposition activity." Other major media included text messages and email, which this software wouldn't help much with.
Efforts to counter censorship and intrusive government monitoring should be applauded, but it's a bit premature to call this "world class regime-slaying."
http://www.haystacknetwork.com/faq/
Sez it's got encryption too.
We don't need yet another new programming language. Let's just pick an existing language and fix its flaws.
All I see is a bunch of "Donate Now!" buttons/links, no actual software. http://www.haystacknetwork.com/
grep needle haystack
Where "needle" is a dissident site and "haystack" is a log file.
Couldn't the Iranian censors do something to that effect? Or am I just being naive?
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
"Regime change isn't very effective when you have the Keystone Kops trying to carry it out for you."
Regime change isn't going to happen due to a few protesting students, and the mullocracy can choose to kill them off if they threaten Islamic control of government.
The people who want to change Iran will have to display a greater will to power than the Islamocracy. That's a very tough act to follow. It would require a Maoist level of ruthlessness, not the trifling discontent of a few young people.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Word of mouth was by far the most influential medium used to shape the postelection opposition activity."
Hilarious! Yep, it was 'word of mouth' and not US funding and agents working inside of Iran.
God bless 'teh Iranian People'! We're gonna bring them Wallmart and Baby Jesus!
Go away Grond, your stupid isn't funny or extreme. You're just an unremarkable dumb guy.
Iran has elections, but they matter not a jot as the public don't get to elect the Revolutionary Guard, the only ones with real power.
I dislike the US's hypocrisy, and their meddling in world affairs, but you have to admit that the people in charge of Iran are scumbags. Not scumbags that give the US the moral authority to invade the country and steal the oil, but scumbags nonetheless.
Does my bum look big in this?
Sounds good.
How many regimes has he slayed, exactly?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Correct in principle, if not in detail (It's the supreme leader, not the guardians of the revolution, who has the power.)
So why does the US get all twisted about what the "president", Ahmadinejad, who has no control over foreign policy says and does?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So instead you mix up your stream with all the other streams so that there is a bit of your stream everywhere. This causes their minds to be boggled and you win.
If one bit of your stream comes from the BAD website, they take you out to a soccer stadium and shoot you. Their minds might be boggled, but you still lose.
"Regime change isn't very effective when you have the Keystone Kops trying to carry it out for you."
Regime change isn't going to happen due to a few protesting students, and the mullocracy can choose to kill them off if they threaten Islamic control of government.
The people who want to change Iran will have to display a greater will to power than the Islamocracy. That's a very tough act to follow. It would require a Maoist level of ruthlessness, not the trifling discontent of a few young people.
Precisely. As much as I want to shoot myself in the face for saying this, those "young people" would have a better chance if they read Mao's Little Red Book and took it to heart than doing what they're doing.
how long before the first bittorrent clients show up that borrow from this?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Well, we do have an extensive [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org] of meddling. [wikipedia.org] Okay, it's actually freaking huge.
Who doesn't?
The people who want to change Iran will have to display a greater will to power than the Islamocracy. That's a very tough act to follow. It would require a Maoist level of ruthlessness, not the trifling discontent of a few young people.
Unfortunately, very true. Americans were spoiled by a revolution that was really quite easy when it comes down to it. Britain was ruled by a King who was borderline (if not completely) insane, and was distracted by their on-again-off-again war with the French. Not to mention the vast array of other colonial possessions they needed to keep in line.
I imagine a revolution in Iran would be much more along the lines of the first French revolution. It's not a colonial revolution. It's overthrow of a regime governed by their own people. The Supreme Leader is not going to just roll over and let disgruntled students overthrow their "perfect" theocracy, where nobody is gay, women are never raped, and everyone is a devout Muslim. To achieve true Democracy, heads will need to roll, blood will need to wash clean the atrocities and oppression of the current rulers. I just hope that the US government is smart enough to realize that this sort of revolution cannot be instigated from abroad; it must come directly and unequivocally from within.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
You're mixing concepts, my friend.
Iran is a dictatorship not because their elections "don't pick the right person", it is a dictatorship because the election process is rigged so that only certain people can be elected, and these need approval from a non-elected body anyways.
Leftness or rightness of leaders has no leaning on the degree of dictatorship.
You can have very left dictatorships, and you can have very right dictatorships (like the US-supported Iran before their revolution, like Pinochet's Chile, like the multiple banana republics supported by US in Latin and South America).
Well they learned that a government could justify any erosion of rights and even start wars for resourses in far off nations by giving the people some imagined threat from a nation no-one really understands.
I wonder who else has tried that lately.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Everyone else.
Seriously, Americans, your country is unique in the amount of evil it produces. Deal with it.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have a clue about Iran, Iranian demographics (more specifically age and racial demographics) or the current Iranian government.
Frankly I dont think you used enough made up scare words based around Islam, I'm surprised you didn't slip islamofacsist in there. To be frank, this kind of propaganda is weak, easy to see through and insult the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
But I'll hit you with the cluebat. Iran's population is primarily comprised of Persians, the government is primarily Arab. Due to the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's the 30-50 yr age bracket is severely depleted so the current theocracy has never had to deal with 20 somethings that don't remember the brutality of the Shah.
There are two armed forces in Iran, first the Iranian army which makes up the bulk of the forces and is almost exclusively ethnic Persian. Next is the Republican Guard, which is far smaller and almost exclusively Arab (Palestinian and Lebanese). The Republican Guard is used mainly as a police force. Arabs and Persians only have about 6000 years of recorded racial conflict so if a shooting war actually starts (which it wont) it will be over in a matter of days as the Persian army outnumbers the Republican Guard 10 to 1, has superior equipment and the support of the Persian people. Due to the fact that a large portion of the army will rebel if anyone gives the order to kill civilians en masse the Iranian government will not do this (they are theocratic, not stupid).
Finally we have multiple examples of how non-violent revolutions can be effective and lead to more stable states. India, Philippines (EDSA rebellion), Much of Eastern Europe in 1989 (czech, poland, east germany). New forms of communications have been able to organise non-violent revolutions more effectively then violent ones, SMS's were used during the EDSA II rebellion. Violent revolution often has the effect of not working (Ireland tried for how many hundreds of years) or placing a dictator in power (Palestine, Cambodia, Cuba). Since the end of WWII, more stable democracies have been formed by non-violent means then violent ones. So you're desire to incite violence in the Iranian people is misguided at best but I'd describe it as retarded.
Iran's (the government of Iran) problem is that it's never had to deal with a large population of 20 yr olds, now it does and the 20 yr olds are disaffected. They dont know how bad the Shah was and only know that the current government is oppressive. Violent revolutions often have the opposite effect of what the instigator intends, so if the Iranian youth start fire-bombing government buildings then it has just as much chance of backfiring and forcing people to rally around the government. Take the recent unrest in Thailand. Initially the red shirts were garnering support from much of Thailand and around the world as they were painting themselves as the oppressed, well until they started bombing BTS stations. In the end, people said the Thai government was right to take military actions and that the Thai military was very restrained as only 40 people killed, on the other hand the red shirts torched one of Bangkok's largest shopping centres further eroding support and strengthening the Thai government.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I'm obviously responding to a troll here, but I'm not a person who hates this country. There are some things I don't like about this country, but I can't say that there's any other country where I'd prefer to live. Well, maybe Switzerland.
If some entity has a long history of doing X, it's pretty damn stupid not to expect them to do X. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's right or wrong, the US has a history of involving itself in foreign politics. There's no need to pass moral judgement on it, but it's a fact that the US has attempted to influence foreign politics with great frequency in the past.
Kudos to Heap. Anyone applying technology to oppose oppressive regimes gets an A+ from me. Notwithstanding that such news is uplifting for us, Heap has probably put his life in jeopardy to do this. I hope we are not adding to that jeopardy by exposing it here.
NONE of the revolutionary examples you cite were revolts against _religious_fanatic_ masters.
BTW I'm not inciting revolution. I'm observing what is required to displace ruthless people who are inspired by an imaginary celestial friend.
The Iranians aren't going anywhere, because Iran is far too comfortable for revolt. Revolutions don't usually happen when there is no freedom, they happen when there isn't enough food. Nothing to see here.
I don't care if Iran revolts or not. Democracy would just make them a more efficient enemy of non-Islamic nations. They don't "want to become Europe", they just want a piece of the current pie.
I don't confuse these people with secular humans. They were chanting "God is Great" during their protests. Invoking superstition isn't progress.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Iran has elections, but doesn't pick the right person, so it's a dictatorship. Same is true for Venezuela and Gaza, and any country over the past sixty years that made the mistake of voting for left-leaning leaders in the Western Hemisphere.
Any country? Didn't know France, Sweden, Spain and basically all of Western Europe, and also half of South America became dictatorships for having voted for left-leaning leaders at some point in the past sixty years.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
NONE of the revolutionary examples you cite were revolts against _religious_fanatic_ masters.
Pretty much all European monarchies were theocracies, in the sense that the monarch claimed to be chosen by God, and received strong legitimization from the Church (when not actively leading it). Many other regimes have had close ties with their local faiths and fallen. Ok, no big upheavals in Islamic countries -- but they do not have such a long span of post-colonialism and post-cold war history.
The Iranians aren't going anywhere, because Iran is far too comfortable for revolt. Revolutions don't usually happen when there is no freedom, they happen when there isn't enough food. Nothing to see here.
I question your knowledge of Irani life. I happen to know a few Iranians, and the feelings after the last rigged elections were pretty high. Even if sudden revolt is very unlikely (unless the regime really goofs up), erosion is steadily under way. Without an "outer enemy" to blame everything on and with higher levels of education, a huge mass of 20-somethings is feeling cheated by their current leaders.
I don't care if Iran revolts or not. Democracy would just make them a more efficient enemy of non-Islamic nations. They don't "want to become Europe", they just want a piece of the current pie.
I don't confuse these people with secular humans. They were chanting "God is Great" during their protests. Invoking superstition isn't progress.
Ah, another devout follower of The Clash of Civilizations. Either with us or against us, attaboy. Two things I find amusing about your post. First, the idea that no understanding is possible with others of a different religion. 100-year wars were fought between Catholics and Protestants, but we got over it, and now we can speak of Europe, and are more prosperous than ever. Why can't Islamic-majority societies function alongside other nations? In fact, many of them already do - today's Indonesia is mostly Islamic, but does not seem to threaten your sensibilities. Second, the idea that Western society is completely secular. Just look at the ties between conservative parties (say, Republicans in the US) and local religious zealots.
Finally, according to Kapuciski's book on the Iranian Revolution, the cry of "Allahu Akbar" was traditionally chanted during those protests, as defiance of the Shah's authority and against the (US backed) Shah's brutal regime of oppression and terror, which seemed to exceed the worse Latin-American standards . In this sense, it may reflect less religions fanaticism and more of an official protest slogan against much of the same phenomenon. Something like "give us back our Revolution".
I don't think America is unique in the amount of evil it produces, just the amount it exports. There are plenty of tin-pot dictators, warlords and autocrats out there producing much more evil than the US, they just keep it all local.
And the amount of evil it has combated. (ie, Nazis, Soviets, etc)
And in the Aid in which is gives
And the amount of technological achievements (Modern Assembly Line, Computers, Synthetic Life?)
I mean really.... Give it a rest.
Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
"100-year wars were fought between Catholics and Protestants, but we got over it, and now we can speak of Europe, and are more prosperous than ever. "
You make my point for me. Europe took centuries of warfare to WEAKEN religion into to social club it is today. We may revile it in the streets and put crucifixes in jars of urine if we like.
Why is it not reasonable to expect the that reformation of Islam will require massive violence, prepare for that, and be comfortable with the idea that violence is the price for weakening superstition? The nice thing about religionist war is the casualties don't matter.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It would be simply fucking glorious!
You're an idiot
Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
Iran's elections are a sham. Candidates are vetted and that way opposition politticians of repute, specially if they are reformists, can't compete fairly.
And that differs from the US political elections how?
And to call Iran's regime leftist frankly beggers belief.
I didn't say the current government was leftist. I was referring to the dozen or so governments we overthrew in the Western Hemisphere who had elected left leaning governments.
Saddam Hussein had a socialist state -- read the 1970 Iraqi Constitution -- but was supported because of the political situation involving Iran and Russia. Iran in 1953 had a left leaning democratic government that was trying to get a fairer shake for the oil resources under their feet. So that government was thrown out in a coup backed by the US and Britain, and the police state installed to protect American and British interests was overthrown in 1979. The new Iranian state does have some socialist elements -- national resources belonging to the people -- and many rightist revolutionary elements, like hardline Islamic hawks who do control vast parts of the political machine. In any case, it's far more legitimate than Egypt or Saudi Arabia and many other states we have backed in the past.
Everyone else.
Everyone else doesn't have an extensive history of meddling? So Russia, England, Germany, France, and on and on, don't have such histories? Name a big country, there's a good chance they have a history of meddling.
While we have undoubtedly exported some nasty results with our foreign policy, the US is also unique in the amount of good it has produced - you know, little things that better the world like computers, the internet, and a large amount of modern medical technology. Whether that has, overall, outweighed the evil we have produced, I'm just not sure and I doubt anybody can easily answer that question.
And I'm not really sure that the stuff done in the name of fighting communism was truly evil though some of the results were very nasty. Communism and the threat of nuclear war were scary and were perceived as existential threats by many at the time. It sounds completely ludicrous now that we know that the Soviet economy was overextended and straining to keep up during the Cold War era, but it's unfair to judge the past with full knowledge of the outcomes.
And the amount of evil it has combated. (ie, Nazis, Soviets, etc)
We're glad you rocked up to WWII and all, but don't forget we were already fighting the Nazis when you didn't want any part of it. We were a tiny island nation with no chance whatsoever of winning but we still fought with everything we had.
And in the Aid in which is gives
Last time I looked the US wasn't even in the top 10 as a percentage of GDP.
And the amount of technological achievements (Modern Assembly Line, Computers, Synthetic Life?)
Alan Turing was British, I'll give you the other two though.
I mean really.... Give it a rest.
I'd suggest you do so yourself, the two times I've visited your country I loved every minute of it but at least keep the flag waving to things you actually did or do well at.
....First of all, we do not rely on "obscurity" for protecting our users' privacy. Everything that one of ours users sends and receives is enciphered. It would take centuries for all the world's computers to decipher one of our users' browsing sessions even with full access to the Haystack source code....
Typical naive geek answer.
Here's the typical totalitarian state's answer: Drag you in for interrogation and beat on you until you tell them what all that encrypted traffic was.
Welcome to the World, kiddies. . . .
Regards;
You make my point for me. Europe took centuries of warfare to WEAKEN religion into to social club it is today.
So you think that all countries are doomed to repeat the same mistakes for themselves, and that no-one can learn from their neighbors? Interesting point.
As for a "reformation of Islam requiring massive violence" and "casualties don't matter in religionist war", I object to both statements. Many muslims lead productive and integrated lives in western societies. Hell, some mostly muslim countries are not all that bad. Human nature is pretty much the same the world over, regardless of culture. Ignorance and desperation drive people to do stupid things, and religion is not an overarching cause for all the evils in the world. Even if it does share some of the blame.
One thing is believing in God, which most Iranians admittedly do, and another one is Iranians believing their current leaders try to put a spin on the latest rigged elections. Pacific transitions from highly devout authoritarian governments to democracies can happen -- witness the case in Spain after the fall of Franco.
"Extensive history" of other governments only looks impressive if summed over millennia of their existence, and, more importantly, everyone else wisened up and stopped this shit decades or centuries ago.
US causes death, destruction and misery all over the world right now, at a scale and rate never seen before from any of the "evil empires" of the past.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"Extensive history" of other governments only looks impressive if summed over millennia of their existence
Millennia? Try looking at the last 100 years. You might have missed two World Wars, followed by a cold war with the USSR over communism that spanned the globe. The United States emerged as the sole superpower, and as such in the last couple of decades had the biggest footprint in foreign meddling, but Russia is on the rise again and re-asserting its influence.
Smaller countries tend to confine their meddling to bordering countries.
US causes death, destruction and misery all over the world right now, at a scale and rate never seen before from any of the "evil empires" of the past.
You have no fucking clue. Go read some history books.
The fact that this got "+5 Insightful" instead of "-5 Gibbering Twit" is really, really sad. Slashdot has always had a certain bias, politically, but it used to be filled with fairly intelligent and rational individuals. I guess that time has passed.
Neither is Iran, they are no more religious then the Filipino government (except they are the "right" religion for you) but the Filipino's did it, twice. Yes the PNP (Philipino National Police) will lock you up if you upset the religious leaders, having been there, you dont state you're anti-Christian as almost every native Filipino is very devout, especially the ones in power. It's the only time in my life I've ever said, God is Great (note, the Filipino's are great people, just avoid the topic of religion).
I never said that you were inciting, I said you were retarded for thinking that violent revolution was the best way to get rid of a theocracy, let alone the only way.
Comfortable lives often lead to greater revolutions when freedoms are being visibly curtailed. The American Colonies did this (things weren't that bad under the King, you just wanted more freedom), same with India and lets not get started on Ireland, using your logic The Troubles should never have happened. I'll remind my Irish friend (who grew up in Belfast during the 70's and 80's) of that next time the subject comes up.
Here's where you show your true face in this argument. You dont give two hoots about the Iranian people, you just want to slag off Islam. Well I live near the two largest Islamic democracies, Malaysia and Indonesia and we aren't threatened at all. I can go to Kuala Lumpur, drink a beer, have extra-marital relations with a woman (who doesn't wear a hijab). Hell, Surabaya in Indonesia is a sex tourism destination. Sounds like Islamic democracies are nothing but badness.
Or you're full of shit.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Millennia? Try looking at the last 100 years. You might have missed two World Wars,
What was the total duration of both, and number of people killed? Compare that to people dying of hunger and poverty thanks to US policies after WWII ended.
followed by a cold war with the USSR over communism that spanned the globe.
Not only I remember it, I was on the opposite side of it. Contrary to what your friendly propaganda workers told you, the only country that messed with things all over the globe, was US. American politicians seen ghosts of USSR every time any even remotely leftist group of politicians came to power anywhere, and attacked them as if nukes were raining on Washington, DC. USSR, at most, occasionally jumped across its border reacting to what it perceived as a direct threat to its territory -- granted, often in a mildly assholish (Hungary, Czechoslovakia) or unsuccessful (Afghanistan) way. Not that US did not outdo USSR meddling in both Eastern Europe and Middle East by multiple orders of magnitude (Balkan wars/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) after that.
The United States emerged as the sole superpower, and as such in the last couple of decades had the biggest footprint in foreign meddling, but Russia is on the rise again and re-asserting its influence.
Then your tenure as self-proclaimed "sole superpower" can be described by one letter, and that letter is F.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
What was the total duration of both, and number of people killed?
There's a wide range of estimates, so I'll use one reference that is simple and looks well researched:
First World War (1914-18): 15 000 000
Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000
Compare that to people dying of hunger and poverty thanks to US policies after WWII ended.
I'll wait for your numbers and citations to back them up.
Not only I remember it, I was on the opposite side of it.
You lived in the USSR?
Contrary to what your friendly propaganda workers told you
Just remember that propaganda is used by all parties. Why is it that the communists countries were the ones with state controlled media? Was there a single paper in the Soviet Union criticizing Stalin?
USSR, at most, occasionally jumped across its border reacting to what it perceived as a direct threat to its territory -- granted, often in a mildly assholish (Hungary, Czechoslovakia) or unsuccessful (Afghanistan) way.
I wouldn't call Cuba "across the border" from USSR. The USSR had direct influence in a large number of countries after World War II. They were also involved in conflicts like Vietnam and Korea. You seem to give the USSR a free pass for their interference "perceived as a direct threat to its territory". Anti-communist revolutions in bordering communists countries is not a direct threat. Indirect, yes, but that's the same reason why the US was fighting communism.
Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 00
More like 70 millions, actually.
How many people died prematurely thanks to living in unhealthy condition under US-backed governments in Africa alone?
You lived in the USSR?
Yes, I did.
I wouldn't call Cuba "across the border" from USSR.
Cuban revolution was not in any way provoked by USSR, it was provoked by massively shitheaded Cuban government and overall popularity of leftist movements in Latin America. After revolution Cuba was friendly to USSR, however there was no actual meddling involved, and USSR didn't benefit from Cuba being Communist, other than in propaganda value. Even Cuban missile crisis was not in any way worse than US placing its missiles across the border from USSR in friendly Turkey -- and it was resolved by both countries backing off (and not by what you were told).
Afghanistan, on the other hand, was across the border from USSR, and was a direct threat to USSR territory -- as opposed to being any kind of threat to US territory now. What US is doing there is somewhere on the scale between "pointless" and "colonialism".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
More like 70 millions, actually.
As I said, estimates vary widely.
How many people died prematurely thanks to living in unhealthy condition under US-backed governments in Africa alone?
I'm still waiting for your numbers and citations.
Even Cuban missile crisis was not in any way worse than US placing its missiles across the border from USSR in friendly Turkey
I never said US wasn't meddling in a similar fashion. However, the USSR did meddle in Cuba by trying to place those missiles there.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, was across the border from USSR, and was a direct threat to USSR territory
Ridiculous. Direct threat implies they were going to invade the USSR. No such thing was going to happen. It's like the United States invading Mexico while it is having a revolution, claiming there is a "direct threat". See how easy it is to make excuses for your own government's behavior?
What US is doing there is somewhere on the scale between "pointless" and "colonialism".
The US was attacked by a terrorist network enjoying the full sanction of the Taliban.