Slashdot Mirror
Iran Deleted From the World's Banking Computers
dtjohnson writes "Iran is being deleted from the world banking system Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) computers as of Saturday at 1600 UTC. Once the SWIFT codes for Iranian banks are deleted, Iranian banks will no longer be able to transfer funds to and from other worldwide banks, turning Iranian international commerce into a barter operation. SWIFT is taking the action at the request of EU
members to comply with international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons. The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."
I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.
SWIFT is a co-operative society under Belgian law, which its shareholders own and control
Just in case you didn't think global capitalism and corporations were significant, here's a good reminder.
The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.
Ah yes. That must explain how Iran already had such facilities working before 2002, and all those hidden facilities back in the 90's. It also must explain why North Korea has been working on it since the 60's.
Anyway, simple point, you've got the order wrong. They were pursuing nuclear weapons before the speech.
Palestine is the name of the formerly-sovereign state of Israel, given by the Romans after their conquest. So the Jews invaded their own country?
You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.
It's not hard to get them at the table. Iran has been negotiating, and the Egyptians even got an agreement out of them, but Obama chose to go forward with sanctions instead of accepting a deal that would have accomplished what the sanctions were intended to accomplish. Check out the March 8th Daily Show with Trita Parsi for details.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If that is a not-so-subtle attempt at Godwinning me, you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history, or what fascist or imperialist intentions they have shown. You might also want to think about how that argument could so easily be turned back on the U.S., and ask those same questions about the U.S. in the last ten years. The answers point to a truth you probably don't want to think about. So why not just sit down instead?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Came across this the other day....
I would want Nukes if I saw this.
http://www.conspiracyuk.co.uk/iran-who-is-threatening-who/
The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979
Actually, even before that due to our support for the Shah.
As for Israel, Jello Biafra has some interesting comments here.
The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile. To claim otherwise is in flagrant denial of reality and you only oust yourself as some anti-Zionist nutcase.
1953 wasn't exactly a good year for the relationship between the US and the people of Iran. You know, when the US and Britain overthrew their democratically elected government and converted the Shah from a figurehead to a dictator. The population might have gotten a bit peeved at that.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
They only lack several human rights
Are you joking? Stoning? Torture? Widespread censorship? Get off Slashdot and go read Amnesty International.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
Actually, he isn't a dictator. The Supreme Leader is the one actually in charge.
you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history
Does Hezbollah count? Or are we only counting official military activity. Because if that's the case, the CIA's help to the Shah shouldn't count either.
Iran has done at least as much harm to stability in the mideast as the US, they just don't do it with "shock and awe". Israel is a major irritant to mideast stability, and Iran is one of the biggest reasons.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech
The mistranslation of the speech that the person in (IIRC) 14th place in the chain of command made? I can't think why the OP didn't think that was worth mentioning.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Cuba wasn't embargoed because it was sponsoring terrorists. It was embargoed because they were in bed with the USSR, a fully communist devoted country at the time. Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help. Cuba was a proxy for disagreements between the USA and USSR.
That you think it has anything to do with terrorists is laughable. The policy is only bizarre to you because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
That is mainly because Castro likes the embargo and has actively worked against being removed. The half baked embargo allowed Fidel Castro to blame the Americans for everything that went wrong in Cuba even if it had nothing to do with the embargo.
Check this out
Clinton noted that in 1996, when her husband former President Bill Clinton was seeking to improve ties, Cuba shot down two small U.S. planes that were distributing leaflets. The incident effectively ended that overture.
Since then he has made sure to lob insults at both Bush and Obama near the beginning of their terms just to make sure the embargo sticks.
Khatami(the closest thing Iran has had to a moderate and the only honestly elected president Iran in the last 40 years) wanted to normalize relations with the US in 2003. Iran hated Al Queda who they view as an enemy and a rival for power. In 2003 iran was willing to do everything the US wanted(including fighting al queda,stopping support of hamas, full cooperation with the IAEA) in exchange for normalized relations and "mutual respect". A detente with the US would have likely strengthened Khatami's power base in Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf
Bush wanted iran to capitulate to all US demands first instead of "mutual respect"
I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map. He said that the Zionist government of Israel should be erased from history. In effect, he was calling for regime change just like we did. The story was based on a misreporting of the translation.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Don't forget Gaza and Iraq. There are supertankers full of Palestinian and Iraqi blood on Iranian hands.
And other country from middle east. Why are they singled out ?
Because Iran is the only country in the Middle East actively trying to build a nuclear bomb that has a leadership that has talked about wiping Jerusalem off the map.
The elected leadership of Iran is a figurehead with no real power. and the last election was very clearly rigged the last time so that the Supreme Clerical Council would not have to invest effort in grooming a new pawn.
Iran has elections, just like the US.
Do you remember all the protests about the unfair elections last year? Do you also remember how the government started killing protestors? Do you also remember that you can be arrested for criticizing the government in Iran?
IF YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY. This is extremely important, and is why the US constitution specifically protects freedom of speech.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech
A lot of things get lost in translation, and some things are misquoted and taken out of context. For Ahmadinejad, it happens quite often on purpose. You can't rally the troops at home if your "enemy" actually sounds reasonable. The English translations are just propoganda pieces. He may be an antisemite (or may not--not supporting Israel has nothing to do with being antisemetic despite what everybody wants you to think), but he's not crazy.
He didn't actually say "wipe Israel off the map." He said something closer to, "It'd be better if Israel didn't exist." To paraphrase, he meant there wouldn't be as many problems in the Middle East if Israel hadn't been created in the first place.
There are numerous other things that he supposedly said that paint a very negative picture of him. These are mostly untrue when taken in context and translated properly. In order to even understand the situation, you first have to recognize that when it comes to any information related to Israel, the propaganda machine is on full blast. Some of it is unintentional, but most of it is very intentional.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Changed like in previous election? Jumping from the frying pan to the fire? The bad trends on Bush administration continued and improved under Obama, from the other party. Checked how similar are the backers of both parties candidates? You are electing the same boss, just with a different public face.
And if well you can argue that Iran people could deserve the government they elected, what about the rest of the world regarding the government US elected? Because a lot of their latest laws are meant more for the rest of the world than for US (heck, the NDAA enables to kill or kidnap kidnap and send to guantanamo or similars those that put in danger "national security" with not even a trial, like the childrens tortured there for years, and the most that Obama did was a statement regarding rights of some us citizens). And a lot other of the other countries are straight pushes from US (i.e. Sinde law in Spain)
Any place that does not have freedom of speech can not be called a democracy, no matter how much they vote.
What good is freedom of speech if you can't be heard? Unlike the 1780s, where it was reasonable to believe that a middle-class charistmatic person had a chance to influence a sizeable proportion of voters, nowadays you need access to big media, for a long time, and all levels, and the PR skills to use that access to further your goals.
Ranting on your blog to 2000 followers isn't going to help.