Iran Developing 'Halal' Domestic Intranet

An anonymous reader writes "The WSJ reports that Iran is beginning a crackdown on Internet use by its citizens, creating new blocks against foreign content and stepping up surveillance of browsing habits. Internet cafes in Iran have 15 days to set up security cameras and start collecting information on customers, and people are finding it increasingly difficult to use social networking sites. The new restrictions are likely being implemented now to head off dissent and protests about the upcoming parliamentary elections. According to the article, 'The network slowdown likely heralds the arrival of an initiative Iran has been readying—a "halal" domestic intranet that it has said will insulate its citizens from Western ideology and un-Islamic culture, and eventually replace the Internet. This week's slowdown came amid tests of the Iranian intranet, according to domestic media reports that cited a spokesman for a union of computer-systems firms. He said the intranet is set to go live within a few weeks.'"

Comments

Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[elrous0]

creating new blocks against foreign content and stepping up surveillance of browsing habits

Sounds familiar for some reason.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[buchner.johannes]

Check out this great and inspiring talk by the Tor project: 28c3: How governments have tried to block Tor

There are more Tor users in Iran (second-largest IIRC) now than in Germany!

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[erroneus]

Yeah, there's a lot of pot calling the kettle black going on here isn't there? "It's only evil if they do it" seems to be the ridiculous message we are expected to accept.

But all this talk about Iran makes me ask "why is Iran an enemy of the US?" Iran is an enemy of Israel to be sure. But I would really like to see it spelled out for me one day what it is that makes them an enemy. When we are talking about China, the former Soviet Union, Cuba or the like, we can paint pictures of authoritarian governments oppressing its people and everything is black and white and/or in drab colors... human misery. This is something we can understand as "don't want." But what makes them "an enemy"? I'm actually kinda lost on that.

There's a lot of "politics" going on. Oil business, religious idealism, support of Israel, holocaust denial... you know, to me, that doesn't make someone an enemy. Iran doesn't seem to be involved in terrorism or any of the dirty ugly things we want to use when paining "enemy" on a nation. So what's really going on?

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[betterunixthanunix]

why is Iran an enemy of the US?

Might have something to do with this:

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

Also, this:

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

This too:

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

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Hadlock]

As a US citizen you can still travel to Iran freely for business and tourism (for now). Technically they aren't an enemy (unless you buy the whole "Axis of Evil" rhetoric). The problem is that "we" don't want the Nuclear club getting any bigger, and when people say "would destabilize the region" they mean "Israel is likely to nuke Iran back to the stone age in a preemptive attack". This would cause several arab and muslim states to strongly consider nuking Israel, of note Iran and Pakistan. Syria doesn't have nukes but they wouldn't need a lot of convincing to start lobbing bombs across the border. It's a small region (think New Jersey) and they don't need to go very far.
 
If you look at the activity that's been going on lately, we sent an expensive spy drone over in to Iran, a missile research lab just outside of Tehran mysteriously exploded, and both the Chinese and the US both launched some high tech gadgetry in to space that orbits over Iran every few hours. Whatever they see down there must be pretty fucking juicy if we've talked the entire European continent to stop buying Iran's oil (1/5th of total current production) in the middle of a global recession.
 
So yeah, as always in this region there are a lot of things going on here -- Iran is a huge country (population 75 million, geographic size, wealth) with Nuclear ambitions, doesn't like Israel, and we don't want them getting the bomb. We are trying to protect Israel* via economic sanctions against Iran and stabilize the region, Iran is fighting for their ability to defend themselves and is holding the world's economy hostage.
 
*Why? This is the real question. Zionism sounds like a dirty word (it's not), but that's my guess

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[LordLimecat]

Im missing something here, the US is blocking foreign content? The government has monitoring at ISPs?

Can you please enlighten me? Not heard of these.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention ever since that judge came out and said "Iran did 9/11" (look it up, I'm not shitting you. That's THREE different groups so far they've blamed for their little false flag in 01, hell maybe they can blame WikiLeaks next!) you've been seeing an endless stream of "We've always been at war with Eastasia" propaganda. I mean how long has it been since we've NOT see an "Iran is the bogeyman and burns babies ZOMFG!" story? Personally after NDAA (and PATRIOT and TSA AND Constitution free zones) I don't think we have any right to talk.

This is why even though I lean socialist I support Ron Paul as he is the ONLY one that doesn't advocate endless wars and spending billions propping up dictators! Let AIPAC and the American Jews pay for Israel and let them go to war with Iran if they want to but its NOT our job to be their pitbull and waste trillions of dollars and our kid's lives just because some neocons believe that "If there ain't no Jews in Zion Jebus won't come back! Come back Jebus come back!" . So how about we tell them where they can stick their obvious propaganda designed to get the people ready for yet another debt busting war and instead mind our own fucking business and worry about the millions of out of work Americans and the endless attacks on our civil liberties, how about that?

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Anonymous Coward]

1953 coup never happened.

1- Mossadegh was not democratically elected.
2- He was never a president. Iran never had a president before 1979. You mean prime minster.
3- The Shah appointed Mossadegh himself according to the the Iranian consitution (note: there was no election) Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers.
4- The only source about the 1953 coup is CIA. CIA is not trustable at all. CIA is an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies lie, disinform, manipulate etc.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. HendersonÃf(TM)s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.

Now that you had time to read CIA sources, read these two articles too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm [aryamehr.org]

On a side note: Wikipedia is not source. If you go start studying at university you will learn that.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[operagost]

You mean like Belarus?

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[operagost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Satan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
Also, in case it's not obvious, Israel is an ally and Iran repeatedly threatens to wipe them off the map... literally. Allies are allies with the assumption that they will assist each other. Achmadinejad backs up his threats against Israel with citations from the Qur'an about killing Jews. If he were a Christian citing the Bibe, then maybe Slashdot would have a problem with that.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Shadow99_1]

'Protecting' Israel comes down to many things, most relating back to it's creation at the end of WW2. At that point in time Allied (US/UK) forces held most of the middle east and their was considerable jewish migration due to the holocaust. No one nation really wanted alot of Jewish refugees to take care of and since we controlled the majority of what is now called the 'middle east' we decided to give them a 'homeland' there rather than support refugees internally. We also slowly returned most of our held territories there back into independent countries.

This worked for a time, but when we first wanted to pull out of Israel and let them go their own way their neighbors all decided to attack the created jewish nation in their midst. To add to that their was the Palestinian migration into Israel from what I want to say was Saudi Arabia and escalating smaller acts of war by Israel and their neighbors over the years. These things have forced us to keep our 'hands in the pot' or risk a much larger scale of combat. Israel is quite likely to have the must modern and strongest military in the region, but we'd rather not have them take over the middle east and such a thing would be an extremely bloody war. It's also likely to be a war involving 'WMD's' on the order of mustard gas missiles from the islamic nations (Iran certainly has some and have been trying to build nuclear weapons for ages).

So instead we continue to support Israel and so keep some control over a highly volatile region. If nations like Pakistan and Iran didn't seem to be run by nuts easily the match for any american wackos it would be far easier to just let them do what they want.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Hadlock]

Did you read a wikipedia article three months ago while half asleep, or is this some sort of elaborate troll? You're going to need to cite your theories. The Palestinians never migrated anywhere, they're the de-facto indiginous people of the region. If I said that the Aborigines migrated to Melbourne from Singapore after the British colonized Australia, my statement would be about as factual as yours. The Palestinians were part of the Ottoman empire and had inhabited the region for the last 1000+ years.
 
What on earth is this about "we'd rather not have [Israel] take over the middle east" -- the reason Israel is armed to the teeth is because the whole region rejects british imperialism and they would have pushed the jews back out long ago if they didn't have western backing (foreign aid + arms deals) to stay in the area. The jews were attacked as soon as they set foot in the region, this isn't a new thing, and they were aware they weren't wanted there. Go check out "The British Empire in Colour", there's some great original footage of jewish immigrants building forts on their newly settled land to protect themselves from the locals. It looks like something out of a British Colonists vs American Indians documentary. The Palestinians didn't want them there to begin with, and still don't want them there. The British were the ones with the bright idea to agree to displacing the locals and letting westerners colonize the area. Somehow the US got dragged in to it.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[hitmark]

I will never get over the sense of irony i felt, the first time i learned that Iran was fielding F-14s.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[ReluctantRefactorer]

The Jews are "Palestinians" too you know. There has have been a continuous Jewish presence there since, er, Biblical times. It's where they originated. But of course you know that, and are being disingenuous when you talk of them as only recent arrivals. They are the "de-facto indigenous people of the region".

The Jews that migrated to Palestine before world war two did so mostly legally. They didn't invade or misappropriate or trick the land from the incumbents (unlike say, the European settlers in the Americas). Sometimes they paid over the odds for marginal land that the current owners had no use for.

You state that "The Palestinians never migrated anywhere" but there has been Arab migration to the area now called Israel since the seventh century.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Hadlock]

The Jews that migrated to Palestine before world war two did so mostly legally.

Mostly legally, minus the whole "exceeding immigration quotas to the point that the british army had to turn away quite literally boatloads of immigrants at gunpoint from the dock :)

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Imbrondir]

How did this get modded up?

First of all: Many palestinians are indeed indigenous of the region. But so are many of the jews. In fact only a hundred years ago the word was generally used to refer to the jews in the region.

Second, Israel didn't get western backing before after the '67 war (perhaps initially much due to Arabs starting to side with the Soviets). Israel was not given away by the British either. The UN resolution and the promise from the British to get Israel dates back to WW1, but never actually happened. In '48 they simply pulled out, while the jews declared Israel as an independent country, accepting the UN resolution borders.

I'd say the situation is much closer to a conflict between Comanches vs Shoshones then a Indians vs British.

Re:Okay, that's the U.S. But what about Iran?

[Reservoir Penguin]

I'm not a huge fan of Zionism but Jews are also native people of Palestine.

Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

Why is Iran doing this to itself? It's so needlessly self destructive. Just stop it. Behave yourself, the sanctions will come off, and we can all get along. Aggressive posturing, locking your people off from the world, and developing variants of nuclear technology best able to produce weapons grade material... what is the point of all this? Best case you'll get a bomb and then what? Hundreds of years of MAD as the rest of the world contains you? That sounds like loads of fun. If you just stopped all this we could normalize relations to everyone's benefit.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Attila Dimedici]

You really haven't been listening have you? The Iranians have been telling anyone who wants to listen why they are doing this. They have said that their goal is the subjugation of the entire world to Islamic rule, as understood by them.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Iran doing this to itself?

Because the theocrats are in control. The Mullahs, if you will.

Behave yourself, the sanctions will come off, and we can all get along. Aggressive posturing, locking your people off from the world, and developing variants of nuclear technology best able to produce weapons grade material... what is the point of all this?

The point is, as with all despotic regimes, control of "their people." There's a major flaw here in failing to take into the lengths to which a despotic regime (theocrat or not) will go to in holding on to power and eliminating dissent. Iran is following in the long line of despots before them - Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Lenin, and of course the one they revere most, Mohammed.

This isn't to say that there aren't good people who happen to be Muslim in the world, or even to say that most Muslims are violent. But Mohammed created a religion that divides the world into "us" and "not-us" (dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb) with a primary mode of interaction consisting of antagonism and violence, and that's the perspective by which the Iranian theocrats view anyone who isn't of their particular sect of Islam.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Nocturnal Deviant]

Riveting tale old chap.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Coeurderoy]

First what is good for the majority of iranian is not necessarely good for the current leadership..
Second foreign influence in Iran do not have a very good track record, so it is not "that tempting".

You can look at the situation in North Korea where it's even crazier, but obviously there are enough people benefiting to control the rest.

And maybe closer to your home: why are the US doing this to itself ? It's so needlessly self destructive. Just stop it. Behave yourelf, you do not need to put 1% of your adult population in prison, and rob the rest of all their saved, current and future cash with shemanigans like subprime financing, inflated student loans, etc.. what is the point of all this ? Best case a couple of manager get more money that they could possible spend in their lifetime, and then what ? Hundreds of years of eroding of civil liberties while the rest of the work shakes it's head ? That sounds like loads of fun. If you stopped all this you could have a nice life and everyone benefit..
And you know what ... not gonna happen real soon now ...

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

It's kind of an "in one ear, out the other" thing. Like when you get down into Muslim theology, the concepts of dar al-harb vs dar al-islam, the fact that Mohammed - a rapist, a pedo, not to mention a liar who repeatedly broke treaties - is the idea of the "perfect man" whose example Muslim leaders are expected to follow.

Nobody wants to believe it when they hear what comes out of the mouths of Iranian leaders, or Palestinian leaders, or Muslim Brotherhood leadership in countries like Syria or Lebanon or Egypt, because it means some pretty awful things. Kind of like how the world didn't want to think that the Nazis were REALLY that bad when Chamberlain was negotiating with them (how'd that turn out again?).

Personally, I'm not one to believe that all Muslims are bloodthirsty, nor hate-filled. But there are enough of a minority that are to do some really nasty things in the world, and it's a religion in desperate need of something akin to the Protestant Reformation that Christianity went through to inject some much-needed sense and throw out a lot of the nastier stuff.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

I hate anyone and everyone who claim to have knowledge of "God's will". All that means is that they couldn't come up with a logical and reasonable explanation for their actions, so they say that "God wants it".

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Apparently you have not been listening. The majority of Iranians are just as pissed off about this as you, and wish their government would stop it. However, their government has more guns and the standard of living hasn't descended to levels in Egypt or Syria yet. It'll get there soon, and then they'll the latest to join the Arab Spring. The Iranian people aren't the problem.

What I'm scared of is we have Cold War 2.0 in the Middle East. With troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran posturing in the Straights of Hormuz, it wouldn't take much to push the US to shift the carrier fleet over there and up the proposed trade embargo to a compete military blockade. I would personally not like that to happen; We've spent enough on pointless wars. However, we're dealing with political leaders who believe in religious fundamentalism. All bets on a measured and diplomatic response to any situation are off when you come up against that level of outright lunacy.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[buchner.johannes]

It's not the Iranians, it's their government.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

"It is God's Will."

Aww crap. So the old codger finally kicked the bucket? Did he really leave the world to the meek?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

clearly you're kidding... but the thing is that it forces our hand. We've been in a position to kill them all from the very start.That we don't is a matter of politics and morality.

But from a strictly military perspective we could wipe them out to the last screaming child.

Why poke that in the eye with a stick?

What Iran is doing slowly but surely is eroding their political and moral defenses that guard their nation from annihilation. Their military is irrelevant. It is no defense. It would be like clubbing baby seals either way. In fact, the death blow would look identical either way.

What defends Iran is the international outrage over doing such a thing unprovoked and the moral goodness of the American people to find such actions abhorrent.

What Iran is doing progressively is building justification for some sort of military action against them. And morally... they're slowly justifying some sort of strike as well. In effect, they're slowly raising the guillotine blade that when it falls... will at best strike off the head of their nation. At worst, there will be collateral damage.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US problems are nothing like the problems in Iran. US problems stem from greedy people just being greedy. Iran problems stem from morons believing in horrible ideas that are illogical and tend to violate human rights. Really, like the fucking heavens opened up and a voice boomed out that said "LOCK DOWN YOUR INTERNETS BECAUSE I SAID SO" Religion is poison. If you spend time obsessing about it, you are tainted.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

But Mohammed created a religion that divides the world into "us" and "not-us" (dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb) with a primary mode of interaction consisting of antagonism and violence

That sounds like Christianity for most of it's history... until separation of church and state prevented Christianity from starting more wars.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[mwvdlee]

this confuses those who do not understand.

Please inform us so way may understand your point of view.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[shentino]

It's interesting.

In both cases, the citizens are being ass-raped by the government.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[shentino]

As far as I'm concerned, no deity would stand for its blessed creations being stifled.

If Allah blessed them with brains, why would he then command they be restrained?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

What Iran is doing progressively is building justification for some sort of military action against them. And morally... they're slowly justifying some sort of strike as well. In effect, they're slowly raising the guillotine blade that when it falls... will at best strike off the head of their nation. At worst, there will be collateral damage.

You fail to think of it from the perspective of the Mullahs.

What they are trying to do is get the US to react. To attack Iran, so that they can rally "the Muslim world" into a WW3-type "Islam vs The World" war that they believe to be inevitable and that they believe they will win.

These are the same assholes who have said, quite publicly and numerous times on record, that if they had access to a nuke they would have absolutely NO problem nuking Tel Aviv, and wouldn't give a crap how many Arabs they killed in Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, and Egypt because their immediate goal of wiping out "the Jews" would be achieved, and there would still be over a billion Muslims in the world.

The "fine line" being straddled right now in international diplomacy is, how the fuck do you separate Iran from the rest of the Muslims such that when war happens, it doesn't devolve into a religious WW3?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

While I do agree that Iran is heading down a dangerous route, I don't believe that creating a domestic intranet constitutes something which "is building justification for some sort of military action against them". What a government does inside its own borders is almost always nobody else's business.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jbmartin6]

You could ask this about all the stupid things any government does. Replace Iran with Soviet Union and you get pretty much the same questions. Or North Korea. My opinion is that governments are not run for the benefit of the people, so it is easy to understand.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

You may be right, but that doesn't make the analysis of how the leadership of Iran operates any less valid, does it?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

With troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan

Not to be pedantic, but there are no longer US troops in Iraq.

it wouldn't take much to push the US to shift the carrier fleet over there and up the proposed trade embargo to a compete military blockade

I disagree. The USA has no desire to cut off 5% of the world's oil production, not to mention seriously pissing off the Chinese (who get 20% of their oil from Iran). The only thing that would incite a complete military blockade of Iran is a nuclear test.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

Apparently you have not been listening. The majority of Iranians are just as pissed off about this as you, and wish their government would stop it.

And yet, every time there's a chance to show it and tell their government "knock it the fuck off", they... go to rallies calling the US the Great Satan, Israel the "little Satan", and calling for Islamic theocracy.

However, their government has more guns and the standard of living hasn't descended to levels in Egypt or Syria yet. It'll get there soon, and then they'll the latest to join the Arab Spring. The Iranian people aren't the problem.

It's actually quite funny. Of the Iranians that I've known, the two gay guys (who left to escape persecution) wish the rest of their country would grow the fuck up. The other two, a husband and wife, want to turn the US into Iran and actually want Koranic law to be an "option" alongside US law, such that the dad could force his daughter to abide by Muslim religious law and face punishments - as in, legal punishments - for disobeying his orders when she told him not to date a non-Muslim guy.

Turns out there's a funny thing in Muslim shari'a: a Muslim man can marry as many non-Muslim women as he wants, because the kids are "his property" and required to be Muslim. But a Muslim women marrying a Christian, or an Atheist, a Buddhist, or (omg noez) a Jew?

Something to think about. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but there may be quite a bit of "overstating" involved in claiming whether or not the majority of Iranian citizens support the theocracy they live in, or if they don't, how STRONG their dislike is (e.g. is it "fuck this we want it overthrown" or more of a "get a grip guys I can hold my wife's hand in public and she can have makeup/girlie night with her friends without offending Das Pedoprophet").

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ElectricTurtle]

The Protestant Reformation injected sense and threw out 'nasty' stuff? Like what exactly? They went from burning heretics to burning witches? Oh, and the Thirty Years' War was a barrel of laughs too.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[arielCo]

It's rather the theocrats doing it to Iran, for their own benefit. They know that it's better to be kings amid misery than having the country prosper and kick them out of power.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Coeurderoy]

It is exactly the same thing, agreed life in Iran is worse than in the US, but there are much less differences than you think between the ideas of the majority of the US citizens and Iranian citizens.

"The voices said" : Homosexuality is really very very bad, nonono => no to gay mariage in the US, being gay is " choice" (yea after all they could just all because priest and not have sex...), etc ... in Iran the government offers "free" operations to "solve the problem.
"The voices said": Drugs are bad, ok in Iran they added Alcohol to the list, but there is no difference between an Teheran middle class guy calling his dealer for a bottle of booze and the New York citizen calling his dealer to bring come weed (in both case the quality is probably dismal).
Etc....

And the voices didn't say : "make your internet halal", ..
The voices said: "think of the children" ... and created DCMA and SOPA or DAVSI & LCN & HADOPI etc...

At the end it is all the same, and only a difference in levels...

And we should stop "fighting for democracy", but focus on freedom..., not that freedom is really possible in a sustainable way without democracy, but democracy is not a recipe for individual freedom and human rights...

The majority of the people in the world believe that an atheist or any person that is not following a very short list of "approved" religions is "bad", they also believe that your sexuality should follow their norms, they believe that being of "their country" is something "special" that you need to be proud of it (independently of having done anything to be part of the country or for the country).
So only we need to hammer into their brain that if they want to have some level of happiness and comfort: other people have to be free to be really weird, disgusting, etc... it's none of their business ...

Democracy will follow probably, ...

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

for disobeying his orders when she told him not to date a non-Muslim guy.

Curse my editing. Should have read "when she told him she wanted to date a non-Muslim guy."

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

Did I say it was easy? No, but the reforms that happened - and not all of them happened all at once, nor cleanly - wound up massively cleaning up the Christian religious problems. Throwing out a ton of corruption, and leading up to the rise of secularization and separation of church/state that the US, Canada, and most of Europe now take more or less for granted (Ireland/England being two notable exceptions).

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ThePhilips]

Yes. Iran gov't found it to be very tricky business. On one side - improve education to match the standards of the developed nations. On the other side - keep people contained to Islamic dogmas.

That's just impossible: highly educated people tend to be libertarian.

But at least one thing Ayatollah got right is to not try to forcefully prevent the brain drain nor prosecute or condemn those willing to leave Iran.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Yeah, done that a couple of times myself. I understood the point, though.

To reply to your post; I never said that Iranians didn't hate Western democracy. They can hate their current political leaders and America at the same time; They're not mutually exclusive activities. I don't know what they want, but I do know they don't want what they have right now.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Moryath]

I think that becomes the problem, though.

The majority of Iranians may "dislike" their current theocratic regime, when it stops them from doing perfectly normal, human, inconsequential things like choosing a certain haircut, or women wanting to wear makeup, or a thousand other things. But they are willing to put up with it because these are "religious authorities" telling them so. And they are willing to go along when these same religious authorities tell them that anyone not of their sect of Islam, much less anyone not Muslim, is a "lesser being" than they are, less than human even. And they would be willing to go along, at moment's notice, if there were a "war against the infidels" declared for some reason.

And even after an "Arab Spring" revolution, what would pop up? So far, we're seeing mostly Muslim Brotherhood takeovers. Human rights in those countries post-Arab Spring are getting WORSE, not better, especially for those of the minority Islamic sects or of the underground non-Muslim groups (Copts in Egypt, orthodox / catholics in Syria, and so on).

Saying "most of Iran don't like their current government" doesn't mean much when what they would replace it with really isn't any better.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Iran has threatened blockading the Straights anyway; That can only mean military escorts for freight vehicles passing through, which will only raise tensions. Or s it all just impotent posturing, as I'm hoping?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ThePhilips]

But Mohammed created a religion that divides the world into "us" and "not-us" (dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb) with a primary mode of interaction consisting of antagonism and violence, and that's the perspective by which the Iranian theocrats view anyone who isn't of their particular sect of Islam.

Iranian fundamentalism is being fed with constant sanctions from the other side. One has to also consider that Iran as a whole not yet completely over the Iran-Iraq war. And we in West are not helping Iran to get over.

Otherwise, the dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb doesn't seem to be much different from jew and goy, a non-jew.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

That's just impossible: highly educated people tend to be libertarian.

Citation??? There are so many important philosophers, economists, scientists, etc... who were not Libertarian. Now if you had said that "highly educated people tend to be less religious" then sure... but Libertarian? Do you not realize how many highly educated socialists there are?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Hadlock]

[[citation needed]]
 
Everything they've been saying is that they have a right to defense (they do) and protect themselves. This is what India and Pakistan did, quietly, about 15 years ago. Now, they may have ulterior motives (they've stated before that they wouldn't mind turning Israel into a glass parking lot) but nuclear deterrence is something any nation* should strive for, and we're less than 20 years off from ICBMs being an off the shelf part/system that nearly every country will have. India and Pakistan have already demonstrated that the cat's out of the bag when it comes to nuclear proliferation. At this point we're only delaying the inevitable by 5-10 years, max.
 
*Nations, not radicals

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ThePhilips]

That's just impossible: highly educated people tend to be libertarian.

Citation??? There are so many important philosophers, economists, scientists, etc... who were not Libertarian. Now if you had said that "highly educated people tend to be less religious" then sure... but Libertarian? Do you not realize how many highly educated socialists there are?

Sorry, I haven't realized that thanks to US political propaganda the word is so loaded.

I meant of course "libertarian" in its original sense, not the loaded one.

To quote the dictionary:

libertarian
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
[...]

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

Blockading the straights is the dumbest possible thing Iran could do. That would result in the rest of the countries in the region begging the USA to punk Iran (more then they already do). In terms of realpolitik, the last thing Iran should do is give the USA an internationally recognized Casus belli.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[G-Man]

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar... I would argue the concept of separation of church and state *began* with Christianity. This explains it's viral nature and why it has been able to survive and even flourish under governments who are quite hostile to it. The fact it got coopted by the state says more about politicians than it does about religion.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

Ok, sorry then. Maybe this is just the American in me, but I think "highly educated people tend to be more liberal" or "highly educated people tend to embrace liberalism" is much clearer than libertarian. Then again, you didn't capitalize it, so I should have realized what you meant.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ElectricTurtle]

Church/state separation was not an immediate, nor even certain, result of the Reformation. Virtually every state in Europe retained an active state religion until after the Enlightenment centuries later (church/state separation in the US was a direct result of the impact of Enlightenment political theory). The Reformation was necessary but not sufficient to this process, and therefore I would argue it is not a direct catalyst.

Most of the mitigation of corruption by the Reformation was a temporary power vacuum that was filled by the secular aristocracy and bureaucracy for several more centuries. One nepotistic, graft-ridden autocracy was replaced with another, who cares? Real reform could not and did not come until greater suffrage/enfranchisement was granted to the whole citizenry, allowing them to hold their government accountable. In fact, as a demonstration of the irrelevance of sectarian differences, some of the most "progressive" states in Europe at the time of the Reformation were Catholic, the independent Italian city-state republics like San Marino, Venice, Lucca, Genoa, etc. This is not to say they didn't have their own problems with corruption, nepotism, and graft, but at least the people there were enfranchised to do something other than impotently petition some hereditary rulers (I realize states like Venice still had hereditary rulers, but they also had elected bodies who could veto the ruler).

My point remains that Christianity is just as 'nasty' after the Reformation as before it, and no 'sense' was directly injected aside from the doctrinal primacy of the Bible, which is only 'sensible' within the context of Christianity itself, since it was ridiculous to have a religion whose dogma wasn't even based on its own central text. None of this erased, nor could erase, the fundamental moral failings and contradictions of Biblical teaching informing Christianity, Protestant or otherwise.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

It won't work.

First, most of the muslim world doesn't see Iran as a natural ally. Islam is very factional. Think of it like the old division between catholic and protestant only worse because their fanatics are more wild eyed then a 15th century cardinal.

Second, the Arab princes are allies even if occasionally duplicitous ones. They are afraid of Iran and will help us bring it down so long as we're gentle about it.

Third, even if they did unite the whole muslim world against us that's not actually a very credible military force. When was the last time you bought something that said "made in "? Probably never because they have almost no industrial capacity. That means they have no ability to wage a modern war.

Oh sure, they can plant IEDs if you let them get close. But if you waged a WW2 type war against them none of that would work. Do you think we let german civilian hang out around our entrenchments during our invasion of germany? Every man, woman, and child had to keep their distance.

I stress this only to point out that if Iran got what you say they want... it would be the worst thing that has ever happened to Iran.

I don't know what they're thinking. It's possible that like the Japanese, they've misunderstood our nature. The Japanese through years of diplomatic negotiations came to believe that the US was weak willed. That we would always take the easy out to avoid war. They gathered this because we didn't respond to small provocations. We let it go. And that implied to them that we would respond uniformly in that manner. Osama Bin Ladin also came to a similar belief. In both cases, they miscalculated in that US responses changed radically after their respective attacks.

Why the change? Because in both cases they burned out their moral and diplomatic protection. This is what guards Iran. It isn't her soldiers or missiles. It is the US's own opinion of itself and the impression of other relevant nations. If Iran does something that poisons it's moral standing and diplomatic standing enough that an attack is justified in the US's opinion... it will happen.

This is what Iran must prevent. It isn't hard to do... But Iran appears to be going out of their way to make attacking them easier. It will be the end of their government. And all resistance will do is increase the suffering of their people.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Why is Iran doing this to itself? It's so needlessly self destructive.

Super simplified answer is, "They're Shia." It is essentially doctrine that everyone's out to get them. They don't trust anyone. Also, the country is run by religious zealots who truly believe that's it been all downhill since the Fatimid Caliphate in the 900s. The educated class is seen by the leadership as both traitors and heretics who must be rubbed out.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Miamicanes]

> There's no "moderate" Muslims out there- those you think are that are practicing Taqiyaa or they're Apostate.

Maybe, but that happens to account for the overwhelming majority of them. The fact is, most Muslims are about as religious as most Christians and Jews -- it's cultural background noise they mostly buy into because they grew up surrounded by it, and maybe feel a tiny bit guilty if they don't at least pay lip service to.

The Bible commands Christians (and Jews) to do lots of silly, abhorrent things for seemingly stupid reasons, and the overwhelming majority of Christians have no problem ignoring the more embarrassing parts. Why is it so difficult to give Muslims the same benefit of doubt? Remember, to an average Turk or urban Egyptian, Americans are foaming-at-the-mouth Jesus-crazed lunatics. Muslim extremists are better at doing global public relations to make support for their cause look widespread, but we have plenty of (nominally) Christian loonies of our own roaming around America.

Most Americans don't seem to grasp that the Mullahs in Iran are in basically the same legal position as the RIAA/MPAA in America -- they own the courts & run the government, but normal people hate them... especially young Iranians. And attempts by Iranians to fight them are usually about as successful as attempts by Americans to fight the MPAA & RIAA -- lots of skirmishes, occasional random victories, but mostly a trail of personal devastation (cue up John Cougar Mellencamp's "Authority Song").

The point is, Iran is a very awkward situation. It has a government that's extremely belligerent to the rest of the world, and a populace that's largely powerless to do anything about it because the Mullahs effectively have veto power over everything. The best thing the US can do is to maintain the status quo... kick Iran down every time it gets uncomfortably close to having nuclear bombs, and basically just wait for the Revolution generation to die off and get kicked aside by younger Iranians who'd rather be a secular, nominally-Muslim-ish republic.

A full-blown nuclear war with Iran would be a horrific human tragedy that would likely wipe Israel (and Tehran, and a dozen or so other cities) completely off the map. Nobody sane wants that to happen. MAD worked against the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union's leaders were basically sane & shared most of the same goals as their counterparts in America. They didn't want to see their countries get destroyed, and didn't want their families to die in horrible ways.

The same can't necessarily be said about Iran. I personally think Ahmadinejad just wants to have a big nuclear penis to wave in front of Israel's face, and that he personally wouldn't go through with a suicidal attack that would likely result in the deaths of a quarter of Iran's population... but the big danger is that whomever *replaces* him after he tells the Mullahs, "Erm, no. I'm not going to go through with it" might not be quite as secretly-sane.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

So... the only thing we can do is topple their government and hold a knife to their throat there after so they'll behave? I really don't want to do that... but if we have no alternative... then we have no alternative.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[letherial]

well its clear that the like N korea's postion so why not do the same thing?

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[currently_awake]

The reason that people keep comparing the USA to Iran is because "Lust for Power" and "Lust for Money" look the same from the outside.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[LordLimecat]

Witch-hunts werent a protestant thing; they had been going on for thousands of years at that point, including in the early Roman empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

Regardless, the reformation DID address some of the worse problems that the church was experiencing, such as simony, indulgences, etc. Without an unelected, life-long office with such power as the pope had, there was far less risk of corruption.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem with looking for "Protestant Reformation" of Islam is that the reforms of the Protestant Reformation were based on the Christian scripture and primarily involved doing away with problems that had involved traditions that had come to override scriptural instruction (often times traditions that had originally been originated to deal with earlier problems of corruption that had themselves become corrupted). The problem with Islam is that much of the nasty stuff is written into their scripture (with very little, if any, basis in that scripture for overriding the nasty stuff).

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[jpapon]

That's an interesting point, and if you think about it, most empires before the advent of Christ were heavily intertwined with religion... eg Rome, Egypt...

On the other hand, I'm not sure that really implies separation of Church and State began with Christianity. I'm not totally confident, but I believe the Greek democracies separated Church and State, as did the ancient Chinese empires.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Attila Dimedici]

First of all, when I said "the Iranians" I was referring to the government. I don't know if you have noticed, but the Iranian government is composed of Iranians.
Considering that the Iranian government provided significant support to the Egyptians, who exactly is going to provide the support to the Iranians who want to overthrow their current government (and considering that the Egyptians are in the process of replacing their former government with one that looks a lot like the Iranian one)?
You, also, seem to have overlooked the fact that the Iranian government is threatening to create a complete military embargo of the Straits of Hormuz. Considering the nature of the people running that government, that should not be dismissed as pure bluff.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Attila Dimedici]

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Iranian government was composed of Iranians.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that is what Western powers want you to believe. They want to make you think Iran has an option in this and that they are bringing it upon themselves. The reality is that no matter what Iran does, it will not appease the empires that exist in the world. These sanctions are not meant to get Iran to comply with its policies, they are designed to weaken Iran. The point is to weaken them so that through inciting rebellion and maybe even war, a new pro-Western business regime will emerge. I'm not saying Iran is the angelic player in this, far from it, but you have to call it like it is. Iran's main offense to the West, well mostly the U.S., has been their work with oil. You see not only has Iran been attempting to bypass Western markets through their oil bourse, but they are attempting to limit their own internal use for it. By limiting their own need for oil internally, such as through nuclear technology, etc., they are able to sell more of it and have a greater influence on the markets. This would strengthen the new market they created greatly and thus cut out dollar dominated markets like NYMEX. Cutting out trade in dollars, limits the extra cash these markets rip from traders on exchanges.

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

I recall that one of Saddam's main offenses to the Western empires was deciding to trade in Euro's instead of dollars bypassing the London and NY markets and directly trading with European nations. Which I know might sound conspiracy theory like, but it makes sense considering two of the biggest war hawks were the U.S. and Britain. Although, I believe shortly after their return to the oil market they switched back to dollar trade, I can't imagine that this was the only reason for the war, but it definitely was a bonus.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[MonsterTrimble]

+1 Interesting. I don't necessarily agree with all you said, but it is thought provoking. Two points I disagree with:

even if they did unite the whole muslim world against us that's not actually a very credible military force.

1) The problem isn't with the actual military - it's the insurgents that cause the issues. The U.S. invaded Iraq pretty easily, but they dealt with a 10+ year war of attrition which I wouldn't say they won. *NOBODY* would have a hope in hell of occupying all the Arab nations simultaneously.

When was the last time you bought something that said "made in "? Probably never because they have almost no industrial capacity. That means they have no ability to wage a modern war...Oh sure, they can plant IEDs if you let them get close. But if you waged a WW2 type war against them none of that would work.

I think the wars in Afgahnistan & Iraq ARE the modern war. It's not military vs military, it's military vs insurgents. I doubt a WW2 style war could happen again strictly because of the nuclear option being so prevalent and the networked media giving us so much information that large scale mass destruction would turn the tide of opinion pretty quickly.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[DanielRavenNest]

Not to be pedantic, but there are no longer US troops in Iraq.

No, there is just a division's worth of "private security" attached to the US Embassy there. In terms of total staff, it's the largest US Embassy anywhere.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ElectricTurtle]

My statement was more sarcasm than a rigorous and formal argument. Of course witch persecuting is far older than Protestantism, 'suffer not a witch to live' is in the Old Testament after all. It still happens today, by both Christians and Muslims, primarily in Africa and the Middle East.

Also your argument about unelected, life-long offices falls fairly flat considering that in the centuries that followed the reformation the state-sanctioned churches frequently had their heads appointed by hereditary secular rulers, and those appointed church heads would frequently serve for life. (Extensibly, this also means your claims about the Protestantism removing simony also fall flat, as it meant that church offices could still be bought by lobbying the secular government instead of the church directly. It was just driven back under the table.)

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[LordLimecat]

Those offices generally didnt have the power the Pope had, and Protestantism wasnt united in the way catholocism was, so they COULDNT have the power the Pope did.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[rgbatduke]

What they are trying to do is get the US to react. To attack Iran, so that they can rally "the Muslim world" into a WW3-type "Islam vs The World" war that they believe to be inevitable and that they believe they will win.

Do you really think so? Do you really think that there is a single Muslim country out there that is so deluded that they really think that they would win? Yes, sure, everybody wants to be the Madhi and bring about the Muslim Apocalypse, but they cannot win and they know it. Even if they get a nuclear bomb they cannot win. The only possible scenario wherein they might be able to win would be if they developed a weaponized superbug and triggered a pandemic that "miraculously" avoided only -- or mostly -- Muslims, while having a 95% fatality rate against everybody else, and even then what would they do about those equalizing nukes, nukes in sufficient abundance to bomb most of Islam back to a desert of molten glass where its cities once were. That's about as likely as the odds of the US developing a superbug that wipes out only Muslims.

A "religious WW3" isn't going to happen. If one started, we'd just win, and they know that. Think: Nearly all of their weapons and munitions came from where? Other countries. They don't have the manufacturing base or wealth to support a war engine on their own. In a big religious war, who would be their weapons-building allies? Not China -- China is trying to wipe out Islam within its borders already and (correctly) view them as a serious threat to the "freedom" of all the non-Muslims in China, a much larger threat than e.g. the mostly pacifist Buddhists. Not Russia, ditto. Not the Czech's. Not us. Not France. Not the UK. So who is going to build and replenish their armaments, when the best planes they have in their air force are F14s that we built and sold/gave to Iraq? Sure, they have a stock of Chinese and Russian planes and missiles, but they're all ancient and decrepit and irreplaceable and finite. Iran could wage full-scale war for maybe a whole week against just the forces we already have deployed in that region. Do you really think that F14s with outdated everything can take F15s, F16s, and F22s with the latest and greatest tech? Why do you think Iran has those F14s? Iraq flew them there rather than let the US shoot them down in gulf war 1, and that was 20 years ago -- the F14s haven't gotten any younger and I imagine Iran has a hard time getting parts and performing book maintenance. I'd bet no more than half of them are really combat worthy, for the brief time between when they take off and are shot down.

Look at the history. Afghanistan was "unwinnable" -- the Russians were bogged down there forever. The British were unable to hold it. We went in and defeated the Taliban in detail in almost no time at all. Sure, it took us years to get out and government building and all of that crap is probably a seed cast on rocky soil, but a "WW3 opponent"? Don't make me laugh. Iraq took us a matter of a few weeks -- twice (because Bush the First was an asshole who refused to finish what he started and left Saddam in power to placate the Saudis and Turkey, at the expense of countless Iraqi lives, much suffering, misery and genocide, and of course our credibility in the region). In both cases a supposedly powerful army was decimated and eliminated almost overnight -- remember, while Iraq didn't defeat Iran in their war, they fought to a standstill! Chances are good that Iran's army is pretty much exactly as strong as Iraq's was then, give or take a hair.

However, the biggest thing that argues against an attack on Iran = Muslim WW3 is this. Islam isn't one religion. It is two (well, more than two, but two big branches, sort of like Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism for Christianity). Iran is Shia, most of the rest of the region is Sunni. The Shia are indeed the apocalyptic branch and most inclined to believe in the Madhi and a Muslim World following a major war,

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[formfeed]

If politics makes no sense from the outside and actually harms the country on an international level the reason is probably interior.

There is an on-going power struggle between the government, the revolutionary council, and the judiciary. - And probably between the revolutionary guard and the regular army leadership.
Second, emphasizing an outside enemy or even a we-against-the-rest-of-the-world attitude helps to keep an unruly population at bay (United we stand).
And as for technology: most engineering and technology funding happens through the military or has to be justified in terms of how it helps the revolution. Any technology investment will make Iran more independent and protect it from the outside world - because that's what was in the grant proposal. Any new weapons system will outperform comparable systems - because that is the desired result. Think of the SDI missile tests, just more extreme - more like the German engineers in WWII. Half of the technology will be amazing. Amazing, because it is engineering ingenuity given the circumstances. The other half will be some junk in a repainted box.

Now: the Iranian intranet, where does it fit in? Certainly an attempt to cut of information while trying to keep technological and economical progress (China+). Maybe also an internal funding strategy. Most likely also a conflict of control between various government branches.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[rgbatduke]

Well, except that Buddha had the same idea 500 years earlier, and advocated the "separation" of church and state by means of the elimination of church altogether, given that Buddha was an atheist. All religions "flourish" under governments that are hostile -- see, for example Judaism, that has managed the trick a lot longer than Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism (under the Muslim Mughals), Buddhism (under predominantly Hindu governments, then later Taoist and Confusianist governments. In fact, opposition to a religion by a government and a surrounding population that believes something else simply strengthens one's cognitive dissonance muscles and provides the needed cultural isolation that permits a group to maintain the purity of its beliefs. It is the dominant religion that has the harder time remaining "pure" -- it tends to follow the will of the people and thought of the times a lot better, unless it has some strong minority competitors (e.g. Jews) to use to polarize its populace and keep them in line. Christianity got co-opted by the state because it reconfigured itself into the perfect religion for a slaveholding world empire -- it openly endorsed slavery and obedience to secular authority (the correct interpretation of that line) and provided divine support for that secular authority. It was the Holy Roman Empire, right? The Emperor was no longer a God as he was in Caesar's day, but he was now appointed by God and mandated with a divine task. In the process, the Church took about 1/3 to 2/3 of the power away from the state over the centuries -- some centuries the state was ascendant, some the church, but the church's influence was dominant right up two Henry and the Church of England. Its "viral nature" is simply due to the fact that it promises you infinite pleasures in a future world as long as you suffer the slings and arrows of this one patiently, like a good little slave, and obey your slave masters and the divinely endorsed secular power of your God, your Pope, your Emperor, your King, and your Lord (or owner) in the chain of divine command.

Really, though, the concept of separation of church and state as an explicit meme wasn't due to either Buddha or Jesus -- it was due to the philosophers of the Enlightenment, notably Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Paine and Franklin. All of these men were closet atheists or deists, as revealed by their writings post mortem (however much they sometimes had to posture in public as Christians). They wished to formally establish the principle of freedom from religion, not freedom of religion, in a world where atheism and apostasy were still capital crimes and/or cause for immediate social and political ostracism. The amazing thing is, by playing all of the fragmented Christian groups against one another (many of whom had bitter memories of European persecution) they managed to actually make this happen! And in the process, created the meme that is slowly but surely realizing their dream of destroying the widespread belief in ancient mythologies and thereby eliminating the enormous non-democratic political power wielded by those who claim to speak for God in those mythologies. World atheism is up to 16% and rising faster than any other "belief", and in all probability this figure significantly underreports the truth, as there are plenty of "Christians" in the US who really don't believe in Jesus but who just find comfort in belonging to a church for social reasons. Young people, especially, are fleeing the church(es) in droves; the religious population is aging out in many sub-branches of Christianity as education trumps indoctrination and young people opt out.

This is what the Islamists truly fear, and rightly so. Islam is far more violent and irrational even than violent and irrational Christianity or Judaism -- violence, extortion and threat are explicit parts of all of the Suras in the Quran but two, or is it three -- and its absurd assertions are laid out straight in a much

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[sBox]

Uh, carrier fleets are already there. Not only have we been in the Gulf of Oman for decades, but I was on the first to go through the Straits of Hormuz since the 70's and this was back in the early nineties.

We also 'blockaded' Saddam's Iraq (in a way) as part of the post Gulf v1 sanctions.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[NeoXon]

Death spiral: exactly what I was thinking when I have read the title of this post. Coincidentally 'halal' means 'death' in Hungarian, so accidentally I read 'Iran developing death domestic intranet' :)

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[rgbatduke]

Because education is the universal anodyne to religious beliefs of all sorts.

This does leave them in a quandry, not unlike the Nazi quandry in WWII. In order to function in a competitive way in modern global society, you have to master technology. Technology cannot be mastered by the stupid and uneducated and ignorant and culturally isolated -- it requires education and open communications. Education is the universal anodyne to religious beliefs of all sorts.

This is a pretty serious Catch-22. A religious educated class is an oxymoron. Look at the figures for religious belief among e.g. the US National Academy (or just university professors in general). 7% of the NA are religious, 93% atheist or "agnostic" (whatever that means that is somehow different from atheist, since not knowing and not believing are the same thing). 60% of university professors are atheist or agnostic, compared to 25% of the general population. And as I said, these numbers underestimate the trend -- many of the "believers" are old people who were successfully indoctrinated when they were young, but the current generation of young people are growing up in a permissive, protected, open multicultural world that makes it very, very easy to reject indoctrination. To the extent that they remain in a church, it is often less about God than the social connections and belief that the church does good things in the community independent of whether its teachings are "true". In general, intuitive thinkers are more likely to believe in God (or accept their religious indoctrination uncritically) while critical thinkers are more likely to free their mind and reject their birth religion.

This is fairly visible among the Arab countries. The ones that are the best educated are the least fundamentalist. Given the shrinking of the world by the Internet and universal access to streaming media (movies, music, books, etc) cultural homogenization can only move its young people towards freedom and away from fundamentalist Islam, even if it doesn't move them all at once out of Islam altogether. Islam itself is going to liberalize. It has no real choice, as a non-liberal Islam cannot compete in the world of ideas or the harder world of economics and political and military power.

rgb

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[RobertLTux]

Not to mention that i would bet that a number of "civilian contractors" are former military folks (since you can Draw Down a buncha soldiers after you stop fighting in a "war").

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[ultranova]

So... the only thing we can do is topple their government and hold a knife to their throat there after so they'll behave? I really don't want to do that... but if we have no alternative... then we have no alternative.

I'm sure the Iranians appreciate you demonstrating their reasons for wanting nukes.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

The nukes are no defense and they will only deepen Iran's problems.

Iran's best move is to make itself non-threatening and move it's name off the strategic threat list.

Developing these weapons only ensures that the US and other powers take the gloves off and start playing dirty. The nukes might change the nature of the way we play but it will not change the end result.

And if Iran actually fired one of these nukes their people would be annihilated. There is nothing their people could do that would so seal their fate.

From a strategic and tactical perspective, Iran is undermining their own security.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

As to the insurgents, they're only an issue because we try to pacify their regions rather then hitting them with total war. Were Japanese or German insurgents a problem for allied forces? No. Because it would not be tolerated. The instant something like that became a problem, the whole region would be depopulated. Not killed... just moved.

The Islamists think we have treated with them very cruelly and harshly. But the reality is that there are few enemies in our history we have treated better.

Beyond that, I'm making a moral argument here. Something the islamists like to believe is that the west are demons. That we are immoral and blood thirsty. The problem with that is that if we were, they'd all be dead. So I make the military argument in part to stress the importance of the moral argument. It is the morality that defends the islamic world. OUR morality. There is no force of arms on earth that could stop us. We would roll over their military as if it weren't even there. What holds us back are certain political considerations and our own sense of revulsion at the very idea of such an act.

The insurgents if we were immoral wouldn't be a problem because we'd just shoot them all. Insurgents only get close because they pretend to be civilians. If you treat all civilians as hostiles then insurgents can't get close because disguising themselves as civilians is useless.

As to the future of war... keep in mind that every generation believes the next war will be like the last war. They're always shocked to find they're different.

Don't make assumptions... stick with what is strictly possible... not what someone will do or won't do... but rather what they can and cannot do...

The problem the islamists have is that the West is restrained by what they won't do not what they can't do... where as they are restrained not by what they won't do but what they can't do. They have morally justified using children to kill children. They have morally justified attacking innocent civilians in distant cities that have done them no injury. What did the people of New York do to the people of Afghanistan? Nothing. If anything they helped them against the Soviet invasion. And yet they justified the attack.

Where as the US in all it's righteous fury was restrained not by what it could not do... but by what it would not do even in its pain and rage.

The Islamic world is shielded by no art of their own making but by moral codes of the West's own value system. That system is not well understood by the islamic world. It has lines and layers. It is not a good idea to go spilling ink all over the system without at least grasping its significance.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

The north koreans are starving.

And even so they only maintain their position because of China. Their possible nuclear weapon is irrelevant. We know where their facilities are and they have no means of sending it anywhere that we cannot intercept before it does harm.

Launch it and it will be swatted from the sky. Smuggle it? Where an how... every ship that docks in that country is tracked and shadowed.

It's only value is as a last resort defense and the COST of that last resort is living in fear forever.

If north korea destroyed their nuclear program they'd be no less secure then they are now... and they might enjoy a solid meal every day and a good night sleep.

The weapon is almost worthless and vastly more expensive then is properly understood.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Imbrondir]

While Islamic countries have next to no industry compared to western countries themselves, they do control most of what is todays most valuable resource, Oil. If the US and Europeans suddenly went bat shit crazy to do a Hitler style campaign of eliminating all Muslims, it would quickly turn into a west vs rest of the world fight. If not due to moral, the promises of cheap oil vs the risk of western countries controlling essentially all oil production, would make them come to the rescue creating an enormous true world war. The planet would probably be destroyed afterwards.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Reservoir Penguin]

Some corrections. 1) Iran and Pakistan have industrial capacity far beyond simple IEDs. 2) Asymmetrical warfare played an important role during WW2.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[shutdown -p now]

Third, even if they did unite the whole muslim world against us that's not actually a very credible military force. When was the last time you bought something that said "made in "?

I dunno, I see "made in Malaysia" quite frequently. And, of course, Iran has a decent industry going, too; they just don't target foreign markets much.

But, generally speaking, I agree that the idea of an open conflict between the West and Islamic world led by Iran of all countries is laughable. It'll much more likely be US+Israel vs Iran, with most other Gulf states - most notably, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar - providing tacit support to US (airspace, military bases etc).

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[shutdown -p now]

Thing is, this kind of separation was advocated by early Christian sects that didn't survive for long - their position on violence and submission quite literally resulted in them being fed to the lions.

The kind of Christianity that did survive was the one that had teeth and fought back - the kind that Constantine picked up and made a state religion. The kind where one of the most renowned Church Fathers wrote as early as 4th century:

But since our discourse has now turned to the subject of blasphemy, I desire to ask one favor of you all, in return for this my address, and speaking with you; which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them there; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God. It is a common crime, a public injury; and it is lawful for every one who is willing, to bring forward an accusation. Let the Jews and Greeks learn, that the Christians are the saviours of the city; that they are its guardians, its patrons, and its teachers. Let the dissolute and the perverse also learn this; that they must fear the servants of God too; that if at any time they are inclined to utter such a thing, they may look round every way at each other, and tremble even at their own shadows, anxious lest perchance a Christian, having heard what they said, should spring upon them and sharply chastise them.

When we speak of Christians today, it must be understood that the vast majority of them (yes, including Protestants) belong to denominations that trace their lineage to that strain. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or said, or what the Bible says, on the matter. Words can always be twisted to mean what people want them to mean.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[shutdown -p now]

"Dar al-Harb" literally means "house of war", with some obvious implications. I think there is a vast difference between that, and mere separation that Judaism practices (not that the latter should be tolerated in a civilized society). And, to the best of my knowledge, Judaism does not have an explicit commandment for its adherents to wage war on unbelievers until they convert.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

I'm not advocating such military action. I'm merely pointing out that it was something and is something the west could technically do at any time. It won't do it. But it can do it.

Understand that distiction.

As to the oil... that is no concern. If the West attacked in that manner the oil could be claimed rapidly. Anything that stood in the way could be easily killed.

We have issues with insurgents because we make a point of not killing civilians. If that ceased to be an issue then the fields could probably be claimed untouched.

A few poison gas attacks and everything would cough it's lungs out in the area.

I am well aware this is a horrible concept and I really do want you to understand that I'm not advocating it. I am merely stressing the point often lost in these discussions that these people are protected by the restraint of my people. Not by any skill or power they have themselves but by the moral quams of my people. Nothing else really is holding us back.

That we do not strike these people and slaughter them to a man is a monument to our moral strength. How many of their nations do you think would be so strong in character given our physical strength? How many would you trust with our power?

And that is in part why we are uncomfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons. Because when push comes to shove they're immoral and might well use such power irresponsibly.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

Our ability to destroy every factory in a country of hte size of Iran or Pakistan surpasses our abilities in WW2. What exactly are they going to do about it? They can't even bury it under ground. We have bunker buster bombs that can reach 100s of feet under the ground through reinforced concrete.

And in any case, their people would start starving within a month once trade and agriculture were disrupted.

The rural areas would survive perhaps but they'd be unable to resist any mechanized force that was willing to kill them on sight.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Imbrondir]

No worries mate. It was pretty clear the first time that you didn't advocate it. I just wanted to argue that we may restrain our power not only due to moral, but also from the possibility of huge military implications from the rest of the planet afterwards.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Karmashock]

If I were totally immoral... I mean... if I had the soul of a demon... then I really wouldn't worry about that from a strictly military perspective.

I'm pretty sure I could cow any other power into holding their fire so long as I left them alone. Some sort of alliance might spring up to counter us but by then it would be too late. The chinese have the throw weight to make fighting them difficult. But they'd have to sue for peace pretty fast because they rely on global trade even more then we rely on it. And the west collectively is a much larger and self reliant economic system. We could also continue trade with all minor powers that are under our sphere and of course we'd be chewing on the bones of the civilizations we had just eaten.

So... if I were totally immoral that wouldn't even begin to stop me.

The west had and probably still has the power to completely dominate the world by force. After WW2 especially it became very clear that just about any resistance was futile.

The world we have today... the one with global trade... freedom of information... and a continious attempt at mutual understanding is one we created intentionally. Are we totally successful? Of course not... it's not easy and as powerful as we are by force we can't change people's minds by force. So all our power is useless if people want to be stubborn. And the islamic world with whatever virtues it has... is also very stubborn. And not in the good head strong way... but in the pigheaded and foolish way.

I don't say any of this to diss them. I really do wish them the best. I want their children to grow up bright and strong. I want their economies to run smoothly and prosper. I just wish they'd stop embracing policies that ultimately endanger their own security without actually accomplishing anything of value for anyone anywhere in the world.

I mean what are the islamists doing for the world or themselves? Nothing good. They're hurting foreigners that wished them no ill prior to those incidents and wish them no ill outside of those incidents. And they're endangering their own security. And they're poisoning their economies. They're retarding the education and social evolution of their people. They're even making their governments less stable.

There is no good effect for anyone from these actions. It's universally bad. It's like taking a dump in the river and then being the first one to take a drink. What do they think they're doing?

Anyway... I stress the military aspect not because I'm some jingoistic blowhard but because I feel like too often it is glossed over that we're only having these discussions because we're too good to just kill them. And that isn't actually a universal moral given. Most of the countries we have problems with are already power mad on their tiny bit of power. Give them enough power to set the world on fire and they'd probably be the first ones to go running around spraying gasoline all over the place and laughing as they threw matches around.

That has to earn us some moral high ground in all this indifferent to whatever anyone thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were we half the monsters we're made out to be we'd be cracking the bones of their children between our teeth. We're not... QED.

Re:Iran continues its death spiral...

[Imbrondir]

Nicely put. I agree

on an intranet far far away

[A10Mechanic]

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Re:on an intranet far far away

[alphatel]

Truly, a "Halal Mary" towards cyberspace.

Re:on an intranet far far away

[SJHillman]

Can I pilot the Millennium Camel?

Re:on an intranet far far away

[buchner.johannes]

This is going to be a golden age for Iranian hackers ... just imagine the magnitude of bugs reimplementing the internet!

Aside from the fact that the average person might not have a computer. And that they might get beaten/imprisoned/killed for hacking.

Re:on an intranet far far away

[Ihmhi]

I look forward to the new technologies that will result from this.

They take away the arms in Poland during WW2, and the Polish build bombs, guns, and APCs (!) in their garages and basements.

They take away the Internet in a country full of energetic, intelligent youths like Iran and we'll instead have coders working on a sophisticated darknet that is easy to use and difficult to track. Stuff like Tor and Freenet are nice but neither can be called user friendly or efficient.

Re:on an intranet far far away

[currently_awake]

Communications is inherently trackable. It's the real problem with darknets/tor/etc. Having large portions of the world getting squeezed by their national governments for the benefit of the 1% (RIAA/Mullah/whoever) is going to result in huge resources getting devoted to solving that one basic problem. May you live in interesting times, indeed.

Re:on an intranet far far away

[Ihmhi]

Yes they are, but even with paper we have options that are not obvious. Want to send out a message without someone being able to figure it out? Take out a classified ad in code.

With all the communication we have nowadays there is also a lot of white noise to hide it in.

Hell, American Slaves had basically 0 technology beyond simple farming tools, and yet they managed to communicate escape routes and tactics by disguising them as songs. Brazilians disguised a martial art (Capoeira) as dance. The Scots disguised military training as Olympic-like games and "tests of manhood".

I think you seriously underestimate human ingenuity, sir.

Iran has accepted SOPA

[Anonymous Coward]

and has begun implementing it. The corporations will be pleased!

Re:Iran has accepted SOPA

[fnj]

If only it *WAS* funny ...

The good news

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is that soon, we may have some left over IPv4 again.

Re:The good news

[geekmux]

The good news is that soon, we may have some left over IPv4 again.

True. Also think of the speed on this new intranet. Shit ought to be ungodly fast with only three people using it...death to freedom and buffering!

Re:The good news

[tokul]

Iran has something close to one /10 and one /12 block. SCO has more.

Eventually self-defeating.

[Anonymous Coward]

This gives a strong signal that your ideology doesn't stand up to whatever else is out there. Alright, so it's strongly worded against "the west", for which read American Freedom And Liberty And Democracy (And Republicanism) And Commercialised Happiness For All[tm], which is strongly evangelised by the world's highest tech army, navy, and air force. Before you bristle: Yes, there is a strong case to be made that it is in fact an ideology with religious fervour backing it to match. The lot of you aren't nearly as Christian as you think, you're American[tm] first. Bristle on.

The point, however, is that ultimately such a strong signal of negativism will be self-defeating. They're defining themselves as something they are not, instead of as something they are. The more they have to denounce most of the world to keep to their way, the more of their people will stray from that way and find other ways to life fulfullment. And it leaves lots of attack angles for competing ideologies. Nevermind the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, that's just the pry-bar. The more you clam up, the more others will poke at you.

Re:Eventually self-defeating.

[jpapon]

The lot of you aren't nearly as Christian as you think, you're American[tm] first. Bristle on.

I don't know many Americans who would bristle at that. Most Americans strongly believe that "Americanism" is an ideology and way of life, and back it with religious fervor. Most Americans would agree with the statement "We're right, they're wrong" with virtually no hesitation.

halal://persianbabes.allah

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

in terms of popularity halal will rank above gopher but below telnet

Re:halal://persianbabes.allah

[AbrasiveCat]

Hey, the 12 of us who still use gopher object. (Did you even know there is a swell Gopher server for OS/2. It rocks.)

Re:halal://persianbabes.allah

[rgbatduke]

Yeah, and a bunch more of us at least used to use gopher with enthusiasm. Too bad about the http thing...

Re:Come on, elrous0

[Anonymous Coward]

So they don't control it for moderate purposes then?

Not the Iranians, their rulers

[Kupfernigk]

You don't think that ordinary Iranians want this? Iran is run by three power blocks: the religious authorities, the "revolutionary guards" aka "just another set of Middle Eastern military rulers that have stolen the oil revenues", and the very weak civilian Government with a President who, just like a Republican candidate, has to pretend to be a religious fruitcake to keep power.

I doubt Iranians want any of this. But the three power blocks have to posture and jockey for position, and this is what happens.

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[Ihmhi]

Man, the Iranians have it really bad. I mean, it's not like the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches keep trying to outdo each other in new levels of stupidity over here in the good ol' U S of A!

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[Moryath]

with a President who, just like a Republican candidate, has to pretend to be a religious fruitcake to keep power.

You haven't been paying much attention to Ahmadamnutjob or his Republican counterparts lately, have you? It's obvious they actually believe their religious fruitcakery. There's no pretending involved.

Especially that Santorum guy. Wow. He's basically Ahmadamnutjob in a sweater vest.

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the things that sadden me the most about the situation. A large portion (if not the majority) of the Iranian people are not only quite intelligent, they really don't want to pick fights with the rest of the world. I mean, yeah, I'm sure there are nuts, but it's not like we don't have our little crowd chanting "turn the Middle East into a radioactive glass crater."

Why must the crazies be the most noticeable? I think that's why they end up getting power. I'm also not just referring to Iran on this. I'm seriously at the point that I'd sooner vote for a duck before any of the politicians I have to choose from. Even slashdotters who like Obama can't deny that Biden is totally in bed with the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[Attila Dimedici]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was talking about the average Iranian, I used Iranian to refer to what those in power in Iran have been saying since the Revolution.
However, I think that you overemphasize the distinction between the three power blocks. In order to have significant power in either the Revolutionary Guards or the "civilian" government you must be a member of, and have a power base within, the "religious authorities". Your summary implies that the three groups are competing for power, when in fact two of the three groups are subsets of the third that are used by members of the third in their jockeying for power within that third. Also, your description of the Revolutionary Guards is somewhat flawed. The Revolutionary Guard is a separate entity from the Iranian military. The Revolutionary Guard is really just muscle for the "religious authorities" (although well enough armed that it could, at least theoretically) stand off the actual military.

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Actually, the lobbyists are just the hired hands for our single branch of government - the wealthy (many of whom are not located in the continental USA).

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You don't think that ordinary Iranians want this? Iran is run by three power blocks: the religious authorities, the "revolutionary guards" aka "just another set of Middle Eastern military rulers that have stolen the oil revenues", and the very weak civilian Government with a President who, just like a Republican candidate, has to pretend to be a religious fruitcake to keep power.

I doubt Iranians want any of this. But the three power blocks have to posture and jockey for position, and this is what happens.

That almost does not matter. Even people who would not tend to do awful things to foreigners are often very lukewarm in their criticism towards their compatriots who profess to have such plans. AFAIK, it's called in-group thinking.

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[DanielRavenNest]

Take a look at the percentage of "institutional investor" ownership of the S&P 500: http://www.nasd100.com/sp500ownership
The median is over 80%. Institutional investors are mutual funds, pension plans, and other such organizations where the beneficial owners (individual investors and pension plan participants) don't get a say in how the companies are run. The people who do get to decide are the corporate board and executives of the companies, and sometimes the people who run the institutional funds. But usually the latter leave it to the corporation, and just buy and sell the stock depending on how well it is doing. The institutional ownership share is so high, it is mathematically impossible for direct investors who buy shares in a company to have any effect on corporate policy. So the only people left who *do* have any control are the people running the companies, and the few activist institutions. Since many executives and board members sit on other boards, they form an interlocking club, where they know each other, travel to the same events, etc. Some of them are also in government and the media. These are the modern day nobility, and like any privileged class, they will do their damnedest to stay on top. You can call them "the rich and powerful" or "Wall Street" or "The 1%" as a shorthand.

In the case of Iran, if you want to understand what is going on, just like everywhere else, follow the money. Who is getting the oil income, and who is skimming off their share? Is Iran immune to the graft and corruption which leads leaders in that part of the world to accumulate billions in family wealth? I suspect not. The USA just has a more distributed system. The average net worth of top government officials (Congress, Executive, and Judiciary) is $6.5 million. You think they got that on government salaries?

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[couchslug]

Inaction is consent, and every government is by the consent of the governed.

If you don't like your government, do what the Libyans did and KILL the motherfuckers. Even the Syrians, outnumbered and outgunned, have the balls to fight.

The way to remove bad leadership is to take their lives. It works.

The Jihadists will always beat the less-superstitious because they are willing to die to get it done. Trump that or hang it up.

Re:Not the Iranians, their rulers

[rgbatduke]

Is a duck running? Which duck? Howard? Donald? Daffy? I mean, who wouldn't vote for Howard, but electing Donald would be like giving Uncle Scrooge the keys to the government, and Daffy is, well, not playing with a full deck. And of course all of these ducks are clearly under the control of the MPAA, aren't they. Bet you didn't think of that.

I must confess that I agree with your basic point, though. The Republican party -- founded, note well, by the famous atheist Abraham Lincoln -- has deteriorated to where one virtually has to sign a loyalty pledge to Jesus to be a viable candidate, and not just any Jesus, the Jesus of the straight up New Testament, not the Jesus of some crazy Book of Mormon supposedly discovered on gold plates buried in a hillside up upstate New York and miraculously translated into one of the worst-written and most obviously anachronistic examples of early American science fiction and fantasy. Sometimes some of its candidates seem sane, or are moderately sensible in some ways, but underneath it all is their pledge to end gay marriage, abolish abortion, bring back Christian prayer in the public schools, and generally make life hell for anyone whose religious beliefs differ from the set laid out on the pledge form, a.k.a. the "Republican Platform". The Democrats are mostly better on this, although they still have to pay lip service to being religious they can get away with being dignified Episcopalians or Methodists, but they are just as dumb on social issues at the other extreme of things, and of course all God's chilluns gotta eat, so they suck up to the money and power interests just as much as the Republicans do, lest the Money Dry Up in a world where campaigns cost tens of millions of dollars (and rising!).

Howard the Duck does indeed seem like a breath of fresh air in comparison...

rgb

Re:Come on, elrous0

[Anonymous Coward]

The phase is more commonly "for all intents and purposes".

Work around.

[arthurpaliden]

Wear a burka.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[jpapon]

The expression is "for all intents and purposes", and your statement is incorrect, the internet would still function if the USA went boom.

Atheism

[Rik Sweeney]

will insulate its citizens from Western ideology and un-Islamic culture

No wonder atheism is on the rise. Religion was a great idea a thousand years ago, but it's time it was consigned to the history books.

Re:Atheism

[Spad]

"Religion" in this context is just a means of control; you can't do that because God says so, you must do this because God says so and you can't question God's word so get off Facebook. I'm willing to bet that the Mullahs won't restrict themselves to this "halal" Irannet, no, they'll need to be able to check on all that corrupting, un-islamic content to make sure it's still out there and all corrupty - you know, for the good of the people.

Religion is a tool, it can be used for good or evil, help people or harm them, but in general when people in power get hold of it they move firmly into the "harm" category.

Re:Atheism

[betterunixthanunix]

Yeah, it is not like there could be any secular reason why people might try to set up a national firewall...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_firewall_of_china
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA

This is what comes from clerics making law

[Jawnn]

And I mean clerics of every stripe and color. Once you've empowered people with the weight of "the word of gawd", allowing them to govern based on that authority is a recipe for suffering and injustice. It has always been so, and it always will be. The world will be a far, far better place when we can tell all the believers to STFU about what everyone else must do and to focus more on walking their own spiritual path.

Re:This is what comes from clerics making law

[DigiShaman]

One level higher. When you empower men of any and all stripes and colors to the highest ranking of power, you have a recipe for suffering and injustice. Deep down inside, we are assholes. Only the true power of asshole-ness comes to fruition when we've been empowered to have dominion over other peoples lives. This has always been the case for mankind. This will not change today, or tomorrow either.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[elrous0]

Yeah, okay, that was a cheap shot. But I couldn't resist. And while the U.S. is certainly no Iran when it comes to repression, it is good to keep in mind that there is a slippery slope that's all too easy to slide down into once you get going. Right now the government/coporatocracy in the U.S. doesn't face any real threats, so it's easy to be generous with freedoms. But what would happen if something like the Occupy movement really started to gain ground and actually started shutting down cities and firebombing corporate HQ's? Would the powers-that-be hesitate to start using some of that power we've given them to start suppressing internet access here? It's already happened here at least once, on a smaller scale.

Here coems the next one

[JustNiz]

So Iran is going to be the next state where the people finally have had enough and overthrow the overbearing dictatorship.
You'd think these dictators would get a clue from recent history and simply ease up a little instead of getting deposed by a popular revolution (and usually executed) but they never seem to get it.
Have the freedom protests started in Iran yet?

Re:Here coems the next one

[dintech]

They kind of tried a little bit already and got totally stomped on.

Re:Here coems the next one

[fnj]

We've been waiting more than 60 years for North Koreans to get a clue and a backbone, yet you think Iranians will wake up after half that time under the most cynically intolerant religious bootheel in living memory? It took being ground into dust by the world's two mightiest powers, with very outsize help from a third power that was no piker, to snap the people of the Third Reich and the militarized Japanese Empire out of their acquiescence to evil. And their respective religious fervor wasn't even driven by surrender of humanity to a supernatural deity in either case.

Wrong name

[mseeger]

They should call it "Crackdown on Internet Piracy" and they would become best buddys with some congressmen.

The current political elite is loosing it's grip. So it is only natural that they start fighting. Same here, same there.

Re:Wrong name

[Nidi62]

The current political elite is loosing it's grip. So it is only natural that they start fighting. Same here, same there.

No they aren't. The political elite in every government, every society has always had infighting, ranging from "office politics" (for lack of a better term) to outright armed struggle. And it isn't even limited to government. The political elite (or its equivalent) in any organization have infighting to some extent. Its human nature: there is always the desire to consolidate power or wield as much authority as possible. As long as there are multiple elite in an organization, the amount of power that can be wielded by any one individual is limited. It is not a new thing, nor does it signal that the elite is losing it's power. And it is not necessarily a bad thing either. If the form of conflict is to try and garner more votes than the other person, then the average person may benefit by seeing better legislation proposed, or more jobs coming their way. Hell, Congress has been fighting over pork-barrel for years. That is infighting to gain more power in Congress to ultimately gain more votes so that they can stay in power longer.

Re:Wrong name

[mseeger]

IMHO: The internet is as destructive for the current form of politics as for the music industry. If we will have a free internet, ways and means of politics are changing massively and render most political capital of the current political generation meaningless.

Since they start to realize it, they start fighting the free internet. Just my POV.

Not a "crackdown"

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "crackdown" implies that the victim is doing something wrong or immoral in the first place. Same as when the US government begins a "crackdown" on peaceful protestors, or medical marijuana patients, or people who enjoy modifying the electronics they rightfully own, or any of a thousand other victimless "crimes" created out of thin air -- the term "crackdown" attempts to tilt the scales of public opinion in favor of those imposing the "crackdown". It's pure propaganda.

So let's call a spade a spade here: the correct term is oppression, not "crackdown". In this particualr example, the Iranian government is oppessing the iranian people's human right to free association, not "cracking down" on it. Why? Because that human right was given to them by human nature, which preceded organized coercion (goverment) -- not the other way around.

Re:Not a "crackdown"

[rgbatduke]

Because that human right was given to them by human nature

Did Hobbes, then, live in vain? "Life in the state of nature is ugly, nasty, brutish and short..."

Who is this "human nature" and how and when did she "give" anyone at all anything at all, let alone something as ephemeral and indeed openly imaginary as "rights"? Human rights are a convenient social collaborative hallucination. They don't exist in reality, they exist only in our minds, and they are not inborn in our minds -- small children clearly believe in "anything I can take and get away wish is mine" as often as they beleive in "here, take my toy and play with it", and it is only by shaping them by discouraging the former and encouraging the latter than the little amoral darlings develop a shaky and often overwhelmed "morality". They are memes, social axioms that lead to a fairly successful society, one that is often able to outcompete more repressive societies that do not offer "rights" but rather duties and obligations without balance (e.g. slave cultures, feudal cultures, dictatorships and other hegemonies). People fight best, it turns out, when they at least can fool themselves into thinking they are fighting for themselves.

Don't get me wrong -- human rights are glorious memes, ones I fully endorse and hope to see spread (and do my best to help spread). But I do not make the mistake of asserting that they are "given". They are not -- Jefferson got this one dead wrong. They are taken. We have no rights save those that we invent and then establish as a moral basis for our society. No God gives them to us, not even the "god" of human nature. If anything gives them to us, it is human reason, reason that can see and understand how we are collectively and individually better off living in a society with protections and freedoms than in a society where the strong can do anything they like to the weak, even if we happen to be one of the strong (for now). Ultimately even the slaveholders have to realize that only by abolishing slavery can they ensure that they and their descendants will not be at risk of being enslaved. Ultimately, even the powerful have to realize that when others come to power, only accepted limitations on power itself prevents them from going up against the wall come the revolution. Glorious memes indeed. Beats the hell out of the alternatives. My reason tells me so.

rgb

This is not good,

[3seas]

This can only work towards continuing the psychopathic elite control over people and causing problems that otherwise would not exists.

It is by the people of the planet talking with each other that the power of the psychopathic elite lose their power over the people, as the people find there are no ghost in the closet or monsters under the bed in reference to people around the world.

Such censorship and control need to be deteriorated in every way possible..... As a matter of peace.

When you see "US", "China", "IRAN" etc., in the news in terms of insinuating all they people of that country...... you are being lied to. i.e. US is going to war... does not mean the people, but rather the few who think they are a country called the United States and lied their way into a position of commanding war.

The mass majority of the people of this planet are to busy living their daily lives to have time for war. Its only the few who play their game at the expense of the rest of us. And they need to be ended.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[Cro Magnon]

I thought it was "all intensive porpoises". Though I don't understand what dolphins have to do with the US internet.

And the US ally KSA might do ...

[Coeurderoy]

... the same, oups wait, no they never had an open Internet.

Iran is on the Internet since approx: 95/96 (ok at that time they had about 19200b/s to connect them to the university of vienna...
KSA started to authorise Internet only around 2001 and only after they had installed a "country firewall"....

But all this shows that Internet is a tool, not a "solution"... Internet does NOT "route around sensorship", people do using the tools at hand, and it is not easy because the means of sensorship are many...

Making in country hosting very expensive and throttling international internet access are the most comment means...
Manipulating the search engine, either because you own it, or through various "preservation" laws another...
Make laws about what you are allowed to say is an all time favorite..

The Jim Crow laws have been repelled, including the laws forbidding to critisize them, but equivalent laws about drug policies, Intellectual properties policies, etc... abound in all the world...
With the effect that even with an "open internet" the info might "be there", but no local person therefore no "locally connected" person can point to it... (thing thai monarchy for an example concerning another "ally")

Only civic movements can change things, and even then "your mileanage might vary", (see the result of the "arab spring", now the new arab winter...)

Re:And the US ally KSA might do ...

[Zeromous]

> Internet does NOT "route around sensorship",

How on earth is this garbage modded insightful?

Re:And the US ally KSA might do ...

[Coeurderoy]

maybe people read the comment, and forgive the typo (censorship, yep shouldn't have missed the red twiddly lines....
moreover, it helps to explain one disagree, keeping with oh no this is wrong... kind of lacks arguments...

Good video on governments blocking Tor

[FunkyELF]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX46Qv_b7F4

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done what the CIA couldn't

[GrpA]

He's convinced every young person in Iran to hate the regime...

GrpA.

Wasn't this the last straw in Egypt?

[joshamania]

If I'm not mistaken...and I think this came from the PBS/Frontline eppy about it...wasn't the Mubarak regime's decision to cut the internet the last straw in their revolution? That is...when the cut the internet...things really blew up. Pissed the ppl off big time.

The US "Capitalist" Version

[Required Snark]

Just go back to the previous Slashdot post http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/06/004211/ap-and-28-news-groups-to-collect-fees-from-aggregators.

In Iran, they build a halal closed internet. Here in the US they let the entrenched media conglomerates control the flow of information by abusing civil law to maintain a de facto cartel.

Iran has a state enforced religious code, in the US they privatize the enforcement to self serving corrupt economic interests that want to maintain the status quo by eliminating competition. Without meaningful competition there is no functioning capitalism.

The difference in only in the execution, not the result. The US version is more sophisticated, and the Iranian version is more crude. That's about it.

Re:The US "Capitalist" Version

[inhuman_4]

Here in the US they let the entrenched media conglomerates control the flow of information by abusing civil law to maintain a de facto cartel.

The situations are not equivalent. In the USA the media makes people pay a fee to access information they have collected, they are trying to make money providing a service. But they cannot stop others from publishing their own information, most importantly information from outside of the USA. The goal is more profits.

In Iran, it is the government who is trying to censor information from both domestic and foreign source. The goal is control of public opinion.

The US situation is about money. The Iran situation is about censorship.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[ibsteve2u]

If you ever saw Big Cable going in and out of our FCC offices, you'd know something fishy was going on.

Re:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done what the CIA could

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, he borrowed the strategy from the CIA's playbook:

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

Re:Come on, elrous0

[erroneus]

http://www.primermagazine.com/2008/learn/10-words-you-mispronounce-that-make-people-think-youre-an-idiot

See the part about "intents and purposes."

The Satanic Technology

[davide marney]

creating new blocks against foreign content and stepping up surveillance of browsing habits.

. OK, which Satanic US corporation has the contract to deliver this technology and support it?

Re:The Satanic Technology

[fnj]

It doesn't matter, because they would virtually all jump at the chance to make a buck by helping to shackle the people of Iran.

No more viagra spam?

[ubrgeek]

Instead mailboxes will be filled with email promising the fastest delivery of pork products.

Security cameras?

[PPH]

I predict a sudden increase in the wearing of niqabs or burqas in Iran. By both women and men.

And.....?

[confuscan]

Iran is pursuing the same approach as China. Rather than block social media sites, leverage their citizen's desire for them by replacing them with similar state-approved (sic - controlled) duplicates. Nothing new. I would be more interested in what Western technologies are making this possible, a more interesting discussion for Slashdot.

Buy their oil, and leave them alone

[walterbyrd]

That is my philosophy. We dont' understand them, they don't understand us. Oh well.

Just leave them alone. We have our own backyard to clean up.

Re:Buy their oil, and leave them alone

[Miamicanes]

Hmmm. You know, if China quietly told the US it intended to invade Iran, somehow got permission from Russia, Germany, France, and Britain to do it, and could somehow convince the Pentagon that it could pull it off without getting Israel nuked in the process... it would be politically awkward (to put it mildly), but almost an epic win for the US.

On one hand, it would put China in direct control of much of the world's oil. On the other hand, China would buy most of Iran's oil output *anyway*.

It would nicely allow the US to outsource a nasty, bloody war, and would let CHINA's army get beaten up for once instead of ours. Americans could look at horrible things done by the PLA in Iran, say "Tsk.", and celebrate the return of $2/gallon unleaded. With China firmly in control of Iran's oil, global markets would be flooded by it (or at least, flooded by cheaper oil from elsewhere no longer being purchased by China).

The big wildcard is Israel. It wouldn't take much for Iran to destroy it, and for obvious political reasons, Israeli troops can't be allowed to go anywhere *near* Iran regardless of what happens there. I suspect that if China could convince Israel that it can be its reliable protector & get tacit (if grudging) support from Russia & European leaders, approval by the US would almost be a formality.

Israel is also theocratic, by law!

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is also theocratic, by law!

Which makes their behavior against Palestinian equally bad and why people loath Israel, but not the Jews living there.

This is also why all the Eurotrash loathes the US, because the US is so near being theocratic as can be, without being it, really.

People hates Iranian government too, because they believe God too.

Do you see pattern?

Stop worshiping Jesus, or any other fuck face religion, for fuck sake.

Re:Israel is also theocratic, by law!

[RockDoctor]

Stop worshiping Jesus, or any other fuck face religion, for fuck sake.

If I start a religion that requires daily oral sex ... would you want to join?

moooo

[amalek]

Oh, I can't wait to see the cow Hilary gives birth to

Re:Come on, elrous0

[dkleinsc]

Everything, of course. Have you never read Alice in Wonderland?

‘If I’d been the whiting,’ said Alice, whose thoughts were still running on the song, ‘I’d have said to the porpoise, “Keep back, please: we don’t want you with us!”’
‘They were obliged to have him with them,’ the Mock Turtle said: ‘no wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise.’
‘Wouldn’t it really?’ said Alice in a tone of great surprise.
‘Of course not,’ said the Mock Turtle: ‘why, if a fish came to me , and told me he was going a journey, I should say “With what porpoise?”’
‘Don’t you mean “purpose”?’ said Alice.
‘I mean what I say,’ the Mock Turtle replied in an offended tone.

Thank god for burqas

[Comboman]

Internet cafes in Iran have 15 days to set up security cameras and start collecting information on customers

Which means 16 days from now there will be a massive increase in the popularity of burqas among Iranian internet cafe users.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[elgeeko.com]

I personally prefer "intensive purposes", despite it not being the "cliche", it sounds "intense". What I dislike are grammer Nazis and people who find it oh so important to point out misspelled wods on a forum... I would rather see the mistake than someone getting up on their high and mighty pedestal of superiority (no offense). If you are about to reply and tell me I misspelled grammar and words then for all intensive purposes you're who I'm talking about. Had a roommate in school who was an English major, drove me nuts (I'm from a rural area and speak fluent Hayseed), then again I suspect i gave him a bit of a tizzy as well.

Halal?

[G-Man]

A big government program without Pork? Good luck with that...

Re:Come on, elrous0

[Moryath]

But what would happen if something like the Occupy movement really started to gain ground and actually started shutting down cities and firebombing corporate HQ's?

Why would they have to shut down cities or firebomb corporate HQ's?

The treatment of "Occupiers" in public parks (or pseudo, "it's a park on private property that is required to be available to the public 24/7 by terms of agreement with the city" bullshit) was a good indication of how it goes down.

Step 2 has been SOPA.

Last time we had a movement like OWS, they were the Hoovervilles and the Bonus Army, and just like today, the Republican response (courtesy of Herbert Hoover) was to send in troops to beat them up.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[badboy_tw2002]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

You didn't think they would just LET it happen, did you? This kind of change will require more than a few pounds of flesh.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less what it commonly is. Language changes and it is a doggy dog world out there. If you can't learn to infer the writers intention then you need to get a brain moran.

What I find interesting....

[ducomputergeek]

...is that there has been this "Myth" that nothing can stop the internet. We've all heard the saying: the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it.

Well I've always had a theory that it would only remain so until the powers that be sat around and figured out how to get the genie back in the bottle. There were those who claimed it could never happen, but I remember looking that the vast majority of the backbone of the internet is controlled by only a handful of companies.

I think a lot of countries have been waiting to see if countries like China and Iran can implement restrictions on the internet and frankly they've done so quite successfully. Has it been 100% successful. No. But it doesn't have to be. It just has to bee good enough to keep those that don't know technology trapped into a small little corner.

It's the fact countries like China and Iran have had enough success at it that we're now seeing it happen in the US, only we're calling it SOPA. Which is what I was predicting to friends and co-workers about 10 years ago that by 2020 the "internet" would become fractured and restricted most likely by law.

It's a PR campaign

[currently_awake]

The USA follows a set pattern. They make the leader of that country look like a crazy warmonger, they say the country is going to attack us, they make it look like we've no choice but to pre-emptively attack them. They did this in Iraq too, if you care to check. The only reason the war hasn't started yet is because the USA was busy with other wars and doesn't have the resources/people ready to go yet.

Re:It's a PR campaign

[Moryath]

Wait, so Ahmadamnutjob saying he wants to wipe out the Jews, talking about "end times" of Islam vs The World in some crazed holy war, sending Iranian military to poke and prod US ships in the gulf... is all a "US Plot"?

You probably need a new tinfoil hat, yours is leaking :P

Re:Come on, elrous0

[tmarsh86]

It's one thing to misspell a word when it does not change the meaning of what you are saying, but "intents and purposes" and "intensive purposes" do not have the same meaning.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[oldmac31310]

I would of modded you're comment up if had the points. It brung a knew incite to the this cushion.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[oldmac31310]

Your command of the language is dismal. I shouldn't have to read a short comment like yours three times to figure out the lame-brained meaning you intended. Being from a rural area is not a valid excuse for a diminished ability to communicate clearly.

Sneakernet to the rescue

[kheldan]

What China and Iran don't understand is that they may be able to completely cut their citizens off from the outside world of the Internet, but they're not going to stop dissent or people from organizing protests. The Internet has only been around for mere decades; people have been around orders of magnitude longer, and if enough people in a geographical region are unhappy with the way things are, they'll find a way to get together, share ideas and information, and perhaps overthrow their government if if comes to that.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, the ironing. You just wasted a perfect opportunity to tell the GP to put a brain more on.

Yes, language changes. The direction it changes in is a directly related to the attitude of its users. In this case, less educated and more inconsiderate.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[moj0joj0]

and just like today, the Republican response (courtesy of Herbert Hoover) was to send in troops to beat them up.

Republican? Try Political response. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter and hasn't mattered a damn for years now.
 
While I agree with a large part of your statement, don't put this on any one particular group - aside from rhetoric, there is no fundamental difference between the two parties.
 
Obama is a moderate Republican and Romney is a moderate Republican - regardless of with which parties they affiliate themselves.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[operagost]

Republicans are in charge of all those cities? Check again.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[operagost]

I personally prefer "frumious bandersnatch", despite it not being the "cliche", it sounds "frumious".

Re:Come on, elrous0

[advocate_one]

it's the Government response... it doesn't matter which party is in power, the Government response is to protect the establishment...

Re:Come on, elrous0

[tragedy]

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "You might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"
"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"
"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 7)

Dumbing down a country...

[Julz]

This seems like a guaranteed way to stop innovation and learning as well, unless it's islamic. And hey while you're at it why not make the thoughts of workforce exodus to another country more appealing. Duh!

Take your country back into the stone age and prophecies.

I must say..

[hawkingradiation]

...that although not funny in many ways. This attempt to recreate the Internet is HAHALarious.

Sounds like a Good Idea

[vga_init]

First of all, I'm aware of Iran's Internet censorship and policies. Iran is a unique case because they have a very soft form of Internet censorship; they block sites using a weak blocking method, whose weakness I'm sure they are well aware of. In terms of realpolitik this works well for Iran, because it gives the veneer of tough moral policy ensuring public welfare, and yet doesn't really stop anyone from getting access to what they want. This is not at all unlike the public policy debate in Western countries regarding topics such as to what lengths a society ought to go to protect the innocent (eg minors viewing porn) from content deemed socially or morally unacceptable, except in Iran it's openly acknowledged that the censorship covers content opposing the government's rule, whereas in the US such political designs are discretely hidden to maintain a sort of cultural illusion of "free society", a game that must be played in the US and other Western nations which may not exist in other cultures.

Iran has a policy which conforms to cultural norms, and is not meant to be a totalitarian control mechanism a la China. China takes its Internet and information control very seriously--much more seriously than Iran. China takes it to a whole other level, so let's not be fooled into thinking Iran is some kind of a totalitarian commie regime. Yes, they are staunchly theocratic, but personal freedom in Iran far exceeds a long list of modern nation-states in the world, some of which you will be surprised to find (or not) being strong allies of the US.

Having a strong domestic intranet is very good for a country's national interest and security. Any country should have robust domestic network that can serve as an alternative to foreign services. If the Internet had been invented in Iran and the majority of all Internet traffic in the world went through Iran (like it does through the US today), the US would have conniption fit. Do you have any idea how nationalistic the US is and hostile to other nations? US politicians openly state we must have the most powerful military in the world to maintain global dominance; the Internet in the US is mainly domestic and the US wants to keep it that way. Who are we to blame Iran for wanting to foster its own alternative, even if it's stated purpose is to censor foreign influence? We wouldn't like Iranians trying to change our culture, and they don't like it when we do it to them.

On a broader scale of human interest, international politics aside, local intranets are an important tool to counteracting authority. If I'm Joe Bob living in Arkansas and I'm upset that the government is imposing on me through the Internet and other media, what can I do? Use my own network--network with my peers. The little guy is Joe Bob, and big brother is the guv'mint. Let's go back to international politics. Iran has the little guy complex; the US is big brothering it up the world over. See how the logic works? The principle remains the same.

Re:Sounds like a Good Idea

[dewexdewex]

Thank you.

Re:Sounds like a Good Idea

[vga_init]

For you anyone following this thread, I happened upon this article today through Digg: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398527,00.asp

Propaganda

[dewexdewex]

Rubbish story, badly written.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[elgeeko.com]

Is it my command of the language that is dismal or your inability to understand it when it isn't used the way you done learnt it? I'm sure William Shakespeare would find both of us revolting in the way we have twisted up the Queen's language. Never said I had a problem communicating, said I had an issue with a roommate being a self righteous grammar nazi that insisted on correcting people when they done didn't follow all 'em "rules". I suspect you might want to go back and read it a forth time, 'cause you still haven't caught the meaning of what I was saying.

Re:Come on, elrous0

[elgeeko.com]

it's "frumious bandersnitch" not "frumious bandersnatch".