Iran Shuts Down US Virtual Embassy

bonch writes "Less than 12 hours after the U.S. launched a virtual embassy for Iran, the Iranian government blocked access to the website, directing visitors to a government page proclaiming the site illegal. The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.'"

Comments

Re:Really now?

[Baloroth]

"If it could be worse, then the current situation is objectively good..."

Not what he said. What he said was it could be actually *bad*, but that it wasn't, at least not for the moment.

I would add that it could also be *better*.

An electronic curtain of surveillance & censor

[br00tus]

In a US prison rots Javed Iqbal. Who is Javed Iqbal? He is a satellite dish installer who let people see Al-Manar television. Al-Manar is associated with Hezbollah (which as Shia, are associated with Iran, and the US government constantly links Hezbollah and Iran in statements). So how is the US throwing people getting news from Iranian, and Iranian-allied sources good, yet Iran doing the same thing is "an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship"?

Re:Really now?

[betterunixthanunix]

It is hard for the US to call out other countries on their censorship when the US government itself is pushing for censorship. Here is what the conversation looks like:

US: Hey, Iran! Stop blocking foreign websites!
Iran: We are just blocking websites that break our laws. You did the same thing when it came to copyright infringement!
US: Well that was different. Copyright infringement is theft!
Iran: Yeah well those foreign websites amounted to an attempt to coerce our citizens to rebel against the government! That is even worse!
US: Well uhh you see...you are doing it for political reasons, so that is bad!
Iran: Well what is up with your copyright lobbyists and the influence they wield over your congress and executive branch?
US: herp derp.

Re:U.S.

[Baloroth]

Straighten up your own act before whining about the rest of the world.

People still complain about the last time the US tried that. World War II, I think it was. Didn't last very long (although, who knows what would have happened if the Japanese had left well enough alone.)

Re:U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted anonymously because, well mainly I don't care, but also unlike you I'm not looking for an ego boost.

The real question here is why the US thinks it can interfere in the running of any country it decides to.

If the Iranian government tried to set up a web site for US citizens to read propaganda from, how long do you think it would stay up?

This isn't about culture it's about hypocrisy.

Re:U.S.

[Nazlfrag]

Just the one with the most prisoners. And legal bribery of your politicians. And more military than basically the world combined. Yeah, just your average modern utopia.

Re:U.S.

[RandomAvatar]

I both agree and disagree with this. I do know a few U.S. citizens, and each of them are rather intelligent and understand what is happening with their country. But yes, the U.S. is an international bully as far as politics go. This has happened before with legalizing marijuana in Canada. The U.S. had no business sticking their hands in, yet they did anyways by effectively threatening to restrict trade with Canada if we did so. There is also the U.S. tradition of having a "war" around every 20 years. Please, stop dragging us into those "wars". I say "war" with quotes because it is not truly a war unless you conscript citizens, and turn your entire economy over to a war-time economy. A war is something with your entire country on the line, not a fight against terrorists from another country that your own government gave weapons in the first place.

Re:U.S.

[kdemetter]

Before judging blindly, have the decency to look at the website : http://iran.usembassy.gov/

There seems to be some strange reflex that everything the US does, must be for some evil agenda.
I'm European , so i recognize the tone. However, our own leaders are just as bad ( if not worse ).

Re:U.S.

[Maow]

Straighten up your own act before whining about the rest of the world.

People still complain about the last time the US tried that. World War II, I think it was. Didn't last very long (although, who knows what would have happened if the Japanese had left well enough alone.)

I think the complaint is that the US was involved in countless (well, about 175 by copy/pasting Wikipedia article starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1900.E2.80.931909, into text editor, counting lines, dividing by 2 due to double-spacing) military conflicts during the 20th century, but somehow managed to sit out of about half of each of the World Wars, as though they were either too insignificant, or perhaps not lopsided enough, or maybe sympathies with the other side were too strong (hi Prescott Bush).

Yeah, I think it's the hypocrisy that's the issue.

Re:U.S.

[Maow]

Sorry, this required a second reply.

Following quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Blitz.

US stayed out when Britain suffered this:

The Blitz (from German, "lightning") was the sustained strategic bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941,[1] during the Second World War. The city of London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 76 consecutive nights and many towns and cities across the country followed. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, half of them in London.[3]

Other important military and industrial centres such as Glasgow, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Southampton, Swansea, also suffered heavy air attacks and high numbers of casualties. Birmingham and Coventry were heavily targeted due to the Spitfire and tank factories in Birmingham and the many munitions factories in Coventry; the city centre of Coventry was almost completely destroyed.

76 consecutive nights of bombing.

Now, compare to 9/11, and America's reaction and expectation that the entire world would jump immediately to their side, and ... well sometimes the gag reflex is hard to suppress.

Further case in point, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Blitz_(American_football).

Yes, it appears that an American football team, based in London, named themselves after the 76 nights of consecutive bombing.

How'd America like a European-style football (soccer) team based in NY naming itself the New York Nine Elevens? Boggles the mind.

Re:U.S.

[xelah]

What are the different competing mainstream political views in, ummm...., Malaysia? In China? What are the relative strengths of different opinions of the US among far-eastern Russians'? You probably don't know, most people in most countries probably don't know, and it's hardly surprising. I happen to have heard of Michele Bachmann, and of Fox News, and the tea partiers, and Sarah Palin and quite a few others and know a little of US politics.....but I'm an Economist-reading English speaker in a democratic country with a substantially free press and historical links to the US. I know more about US politics than politics in my neighbouring countries. Of course most people in most countries will have a simplified lumped-together view of the US, based on local and US media, the actions of its government, how US-associated products are advertised and perceived, and so on. He might be right, and remain right if he put any other country in that sentence instead of 'US'. Average citizens tend to have simplified views because there are many countries and foreign politics is just not that interesting...they have better things to do.

Re:U.S.

[sydneyfong]

But as soon as we did we would have dozens of Countries asking or begging for our support.

Are you aiming for +5 Funny? Last time I saw this argument it was called the White Man's burden or something.

The fact that you're instead modded as +5 Insightful sickens me.