Slashdot Mirror


Iran Court Summons Mark Zuckerberg For Facebook Privacy Violations

wiredmikey (1824622) writes "An Iranian judge has summoned Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer allegations that his company's apps have breached people's privacy, it was reported Tuesday. The court in Fars province ordered that Zuckerberg address unspecified 'violation of privacy' claims made by Iranians over the reach of Facebook-owned apps, ISNA news agency reported. 'Based on the judge's verdict, the Zionist manager of Facebook... should report to the prosecutor's office to defend himself and make compensation for damages,' Rouhollah Momen-Nasab, a senior Iranian Internet security official, told ISNA. Access to social networks, including Twitter and Facebook, are routinely blocked by Iranian authorities, as are other websites considered un-Islamic or detrimental to the regime."

304 comments

  1. Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somewhere, Mark Zuckerberg is *still* laughing.

    1. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by RailGunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... until Eric Holder decides to arrest him and extradite him.

    2. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by sabri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somewhere, Mark Zuckerberg is *still* laughing.

      No, somewhere, Facebook is consulting attorneys on how to avoid a Fatwa so he won't end up like Salman Rushdie, or worse, Theo van Gogh.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      ... until Eric Holder decides to arrest him and extradite him.

      Or dispatch a drone....
        And it may not be EH potentially it could be some other nations drone.
      It need not be launched from outside. If might be launched from down
      the road and ....

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    4. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties
      Iran is not in that list.

    5. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      How exactly could an attorney help someone avoid a fatwa?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Informative

      How exactly could an attorney help someone avoid a fatwa?

      Not all countries separate church and state. Iranian attorneys (and most mid-east attorneys I'd guess) have to navigate religious law as well as civic law.

    7. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's probably just glad that he lives in a country that apparently cares less about privacy than Iran.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Facebook's unique proposition is that it can be both "un-Islamic" and "un-American" at the same time, doing the same thing.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It's Islam Shariah Law. The rich are always favored over the poor. The publicity from this in Iran is worth every penny of "compensation" (which will indeed be pennies).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      How exactly could an attorney help someone avoid a fatwa?

      Dress up as Mark Zuckerberg?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    11. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, Mr. Z can just buy a Russian nuke, detonate in that court, problem solved....

      Make sure it's big and very dirty and more than one problem will be solved.

    12. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're assembling a massive database of personal information. Sound pretty American to me.

    13. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by neoform · · Score: 1

      Yes, billionaires are real afraid of Fatwas...

      Zuck could afford to hire a private army to follow him around if he wanted.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    14. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by mmell · · Score: 4, Interesting
      No, but I'll bet he's happy to live in a country that has progressed beyond institutionalized racism. I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran.

      "...the Zionist manager of Facebook..."

      I'm guessing the verdict and sentence have already been established. All Iran needs is a victim.

    15. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the US government and Islam serve the same master, that shouldn't be a surprise.

    16. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no. Billionaires and celebrities tend to have better security than independent writers and filmmakers. No random fanatic is going to assassinate him. And as far as the Iranian government goes, there are probably people who have pissed it off much more than Zuckerberg who would be far easier to assassinate.

    17. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week. The word "fatwa" is the same thing as asking a member of the clergy for written advice.

      Yes, there are problems with Muslim extremists, but I do wish people would stop turning the words "advice" and "school" into things meaning stuff they shouldn't?

      Lets be real here: Iran has its problems, especially with extremists However, the country itself isn't evil, and Iranians in general see through the political BS more than Americans see through the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC charade.

      In the scheme of things, the Iran court is a propaganda item to shore up the hard-liners who run the country. MZ isn't going to Tehran, nor will he be extradited there. If there were an extradition treaty, virtually every US and European citizen would be in deep trouble. The Iranian population knows this charade, and they likely will continue to quietly keep to their VPNs and continue to avoid the morality police/IRG members.

      Again, one needs to separate Iran (the government from the Iranian people.) The people are smart enough not to use a jube as a waterslide.

    18. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Lorens · · Score: 1

      Dress up as Mark Zuckerberg?

      Could be a good idea... but you'd have to find a lawyer with a terminal illness and arrange for payment to the soon-to-be bereaved.

    19. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No country is on that list. They USA will never and has never extradited a person to another country.

    20. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by GNious · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran.

      From what a report on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ancestry as few years ago, I think that would have impeded his rise to "power" back in 2005.

    21. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Lies. Here's a famous one:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      Extradition treaties generally have to work both ways or there's no incentive for others to honor them. Similarly if you sign the treaty and don't deliver, expect it to come back at you.

    22. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Sound pretty American to me. " Well, only if they PROMISE not to abuse it...

    23. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, defending the "Zionist manager" could be illegal.

    24. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Hmm, can we take a nationwide vote with regard to maybe allowing extradition of Mr. Zuckerberg?

      :D

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Lets be real here: Iran has its problems, especially with extremists However, the country itself isn't evil, and Iranians in general see through the political BS more than Americans see through the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC charade.

      No shit! Mod parent up, please. Most insightful observation I've seen today.

    26. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No country is on that list. They USA will never and has never extradited a person to another country.

      Good thing you're an Anonymous Coward, because you're not even close to reality. According to US Embassy based in London:

      During the same time period, the UK submitted 54 extradition REQUESTS to the US, of which none have been refused. Of those 54 requests, 38 resulted in extradition of an individual from the U.S. to the UK. In the remaining 16 cases, the individuals either returned to the UK on their own or other circumstances made extradition from the U.S. to the UK no longer necessary.

    27. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's Islam Shariah Law. The rich are always favored over the poor.

      I don't know, the Iranians just hanged a banker.

    28. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Judge didn't say that. Some IT security guy did. Also, there are 25-35,000 Jews living in Iran, so it definitely isn't enough to get you prosecuted on its own. I'm not saying things are wonderful for them, but despite the harshness of their laws there is procedure and some kind of due process available. Jews do travel there without incident.

      Speaking of racism though, you seem to have some fairly strong and not entirely accurate views about Iran.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      I find it strange that Iran is trying to prosecute him for violating the privacy of people in every country OTHER THAN Iran...or, presumably, any other Western Infidel-blocking countries. If facebook is blocked in Iran, why would they give a fuck about it violating someone's privacy? Other than publicity.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    30. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week.

      I understand what you are trying to explain about fatwas, but that is still very creepy for me, that someone would go for written approval from a religious figure for any important decision in their own lives. If you told me that your friends went to a Catholic priest, a Hindu Holy man, the Dalai Lama or Oprah Winfrey for recommendations, I would make me feel just as creepy.

      Friends of mine are adults, with their own free will, and decided for themselves that they wanted to get married. It was their decision.

      So what do your friends do when the their imam issues a fatwa on how to trim their garden . . . ? Or who to vote for in the next election . . . ? Or that their neighbor is a Zionist . . . ? Do they have free will and responsibility in their lives . . . ?

      I feel that this reliance on religious authority is exactly what eventually leads folks down the path to commit atrocities in the name of religion . . . because, well, it wasn't their decision . . . it was made by a higher authority.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    31. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran.

      Hmmm ... do all names ending in 'berg' imply being of Jewish descent?

      I thought that was a myth. Isn't it ultimately Germanic, and 'berg' means "from this city"?

      I neither know nor care about Zuckerberg's religious background, but I've never assumed that 'berg' implied that.

      No more than I assume that names ending in "ski" or "owitz" are anything more than likely Polish or Ukrainian.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    32. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Friends of mine are adults, with their own free will, and decided for themselves that they wanted to get married. It was their decision.

      Are we to presume you never seek advice or counsel from other people? You must be an idiot to think you know everything and can evaluate every possible nuance.

    33. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're blind.

    34. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by gameboyhippo · · Score: 2

      And let's not forget "Dog the Bounty Hunter".

    35. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. Iran has some pretty intelligent people there, and much of the population is college educated.

      The problem is, after seeing Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc., no one is looking to overthrow a government any time soon, but looking instead for slower reforms.

    36. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ultimately Germanic, and 'berg' means "from this city"?

      Berg means mountain. I suppose that "Zuckerberg" would be "Mountain of Sugar".

      See: "Mountain of Ice": Iceberg.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    37. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Iranians in general see through the political BS more than Americans see through the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC charade.

      America is vastly more democratic than Iran. The more democratic a government, the less the government can use violence and fear of violence to propagate its will and thus the better the propaganda.

    38. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Both Karen Kempner and Edward Zuckerberg are Jewish. They raised Mark Jewish. Mark is religiously an atheist, but he never converted out.

      So yes, the Iranian judge's "let's kill the kike" is at least factually accurate.

    39. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duckberg...mountain of ducks.

    40. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      In Islam, Sharia law supersedes civil law.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    41. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are trying to explain about fatwas, but that is still very creepy for me, that someone would go for written approval from a religious figure for any important decision in their own lives. If you told me that your friends went to a Catholic priest, a Hindu Holy man, the Dalai Lama or Oprah Winfrey for recommendations, I would make me feel just as creepy.

      Like the president of the United States of America, who solicits written advice from a bishop, an archbishop, a reverend, a most reverend, a sister, an elder and a rabbi?

      Considering he hasn't added any humanists or atheists to his advisory staff, yes, I do find that rather creepy.

    42. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Friends of mine are adults, with their own free will, and decided for themselves that they wanted to get married. It was their decision.

      I think you will find that most churches ask you to go through some 'marriage class' or at least to 'consult with the minister/priest/etc' before being married in the church.

      Now, it's easy enough to find (or become) ordained and empowered to perform a wedding because the ceremony has nothing to do with your legal status. The point is: if you're religious, you're going to get advice from a religious leader about marriage. If you're secular, I suspect you still talk to your friends or people you trust about marriage. If you make all of your decisions with no more insight than what springs into your own head, then you're a fool.

    43. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify; You wouldn't ask for advice from someone you trust?
       
      Sounds like a Fatwa is just written advice, your free to take it or leave it. Every religion, Hells, every group has the same issue, people who do what their told without thinking for themselves.

    44. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mayer Lansky

    45. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Like this post to show your support for extraditing Zuck! Share this on your wall!

    46. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      My completely unresearched guess as to where that myth comes from would be the idea that a large number, if not a large majority, of immigrants to the United States from Germany, Poland, and some other eastern European countries were Jews fleeing the Nazis.

    47. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Because Facebook isn't "blocked in Iran". It's blocked in parts of Iran, but ISPs that abide by rulings from clerics that are not binding on everyone. If you got to Facebook right now and search you can find a lot of Iranians on there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by sabri · · Score: 1

      Zuck could afford to hire a private army to follow him around if he wanted.

      Of course he could. But (and I don't know the man personally) he probably doesn't want that. If you need protection, you are not a happy man, even if you can afford it or get it from the government.

      I'm quite sure that even Mark Zuckerberg would be happy to enjoy walking in the streets with his wife without a bunch of ironpushers around him.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    49. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Alright. That's what I get for believing a /. summary I suppose.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    50. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Like the president of the United States of America, who solicits written advice from a bishop, an archbishop, a reverend, a most reverend, a sister, an elder and a rabbi?

      Not President Bush. He gets advice directly from God.

    51. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by edjs · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran.

      "...the Zionist manager of Facebook..."

      Generally Islam has been tolerant of other religions as long as they keep to their own kind, pay their taxes, and don't get uppity. Zionism is in the getting uppity category.

    52. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to that progressive country where wearing a long beard and living in some foreign country is enough to be shot down by a drone?

    53. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Like the president of the United States of America, who solicits written advice from a bishop, an archbishop, a reverend, a most reverend, a sister, an elder and a rabbi?

      I remember the good old days when the President of the United States would seek advice from other people. Now we have an administration who rules via Executive Order and neither seeks advice nor feels compelled to explain himself to anyone.

    54. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are trying to explain about fatwas, but that is still very creepy for me, that someone would go for written approval from a religious figure for any important decision in their own lives. If you told me that your friends went to a Catholic priest, a Hindu Holy man, the Dalai Lama or Oprah Winfrey for recommendations, I would make me feel just as creepy.

      Guess what you have to do to get a divorce in Catholicism.

      Written advice from the bishop. A fatwa, so to speak.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    55. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Iran has some pretty intelligent people there, and much of the population is college educated.

      Indeed.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/n...
      The Star Students Of The Islamic Republic
      Aug 8, 2008 8:00 PM EDT
      Forget Harvard—one of the world's best undergraduate colleges is in Iran.
      In 2003, a group of students from Sharif University of Science and Technology in Iran aced the Stanford U EE Department's PhD entrance exam, getting some of the highest scores ever. Bruce A. Wooley said Sharif has one of the best undergrad EE programs in the world, among MIT, Caltech, Stanford. Tsinghua and Cambridge. Other top schools are U. Tehran and Isfahan U. of Technology. They are major players in the international Science Olympics, in physics, mathematics, chemistry and robotics, and =90% go to graduate school or work abroad. Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo employ hundreds of Iranian grads. Iranian parents push their children into medicine and engineering, rather than other fields like law, and entrance is extremely selective. Sharif U. was founded in 1965 by the Shah, under the guidance of MIT advisers. Iranian high-school system also stresses science, with subjects taught in the U.S. only to undergraduates. Education is also a way out of the country, but Iran is suffering a brain drain. Iran's history includes Avicenna, Muhammad al-Khwarizmi, and Omar Khayyam.

    56. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, he's supposed to be afraid of a Fatwa?

      Pffft.. Zuckerberg could hire a hit on the goddamned judge too.

      If you think a mill or two can't buy somebody else's death (even a judge in a foreign country) I've got a bridge to sell you. Hell, if I were him I'd kick it up a notch and offer double the money if the Iranian judge's family gets taken out with him if I were Zuckerberg.

    57. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they have a good idea there ......

    58. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro...
      It does not matter that a majority of the people want or do not want or how much of a charade the average person thinks about something is. All that matters is what the official government does or what a specific person or small group of people in the government want and if they have the power to do it.

      Separating the people from the government two does very little for international relations. We all know that "controlling interests" and propaganda are exactly that. We all know every person is an individual and may or may not agree with the rest of the culture or their government. That applies to every country. Look how many people dislike Americans or the US because of the US government. How many of those people know me, my feelings, or my beliefs? Just about NONE.

    59. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      America is vastly more democratic than Iran. The more democratic a government, the less the government can use violence and fear of violence to propagate its will and thus the better the propaganda.

      That's why we have the armed police and the drones - we're so ... democratic!

    60. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Samuel Huntington, is that you?

    61. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran."

      Judaism is an officially recognized religious minority in Iran. Jews are guaranteed representation in the Iranian legislature. Jews are also protected by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini.

      So I guess we know how much your state of "pretty sure" is worth. At best it is 90 years out of date, since even Reza Shah Pahlavi was favorable to the Jews, despite his association with the Nazis.

    62. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why we have the armed police and the drones - we're so ... democratic!

      We have armed police and drones because the population overwhelming supports both. That is democratic. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it non democratic.

    63. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by charlieo88 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, generally, people with that kind of money and exposure, already have a protection detail.

    64. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      No, somewhere, Facebook is consulting attorneys on how to avoid a Fatwa so he won't end up like Salman Rushdie, or worse, Theo van Gogh

      Sigh... What's the world coming to. now attorneys are needed, even to pass a good bribe?

      More seriously... Zuckberg wasn't a muslim like Rushdie who was branded a traitor, and he hasn't personally been the responsible for something so enraging or challenging to the Muslims such as Theo Van Gogh's Submission.

      In short... he's not likely to have a fatwa issued against him declaring him an 'enemy of God,' because he Zuckerberg just hasn't done anything notable, worthy, or extraordinary enough.

    65. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jmrives · · Score: 1

      Unless something has changed recently, there is no such as Catholic divorce. In order to separate as a couple, the marriage has to be annulled, which is usually accomplished by establishing the one or the other or both parties were unfit to enter into such an agreement at the time of the marriage.

    66. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That fag can't manage a real laugh, he'll hire interns to do it.

    67. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      You're basically taking the position that just because the entire government is evil that doesn't mean the country is. I think for the purposes of this dicsussion the two are synonymous. The few Iranians I know are good people but that doesn't mean the country isn't really messed up. I'm also not sure that it's valid to say that Iranians as a people have some advantage because they "see through the political BS more than Americans". I mean sure, I'd get super sceptical pretty quick if my government routinely arrested dissidents and paraded them hooded in front of national TV to give forced confessions for things like going out in public without wearing a veil but that doesn't mean I've suddently become more sophisticated or gained any great insight. It just means my country got really evil.

    68. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure... is that two euphemisms or what?

    69. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A statistical fluke.

      Now, if they can exterminate all the rest of the parasites around the world, I might be convinced that religion has done something good for the world. Provided I can ignore that they murdered human beings...

    70. Re: Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not according to the Koran. A Muslim must obey all civil laws in the state that they live in.
      Such miss-statements do anyone any good.

    71. Re: Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slow reforms often work. Revolutions often just bring in a different set of often worse bastards.

    72. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week. The word "fatwa" is the same thing as asking a member of the clergy for written advice.

      Yeah, I wish people would stop misusing perfectly good words like "fatwa" and "jihad" and "qaeda" and "swastika" to mean something negative.

    73. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by sjames · · Score: 2

      I vote we send him over Angry Birds style.

    74. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly could an attorney help someone avoid a fatwa?

      The attorney could preemptively put Fuckerburg in the ground before a fatwa could be issued, saving both Facecrook users' privacy and Fuckerburg's dark soul in one go. Fuckerburg's first name was bound to bite him in the ass one day, since he treated every user of his surveillance machine as though they had the same first name (sans caps).

    75. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Eddy_D · · Score: 2

      I'll buy-in when they start hanging lawyers.

      --
      - I stole your sig.
    76. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      America is vastly more democratic than Iran.

      Tut now. Unless I miss my bet (and I'm not in the states, so I may will miss) you folks aren't a democracy, any more than any other country in the world. You are an elected oligarchy, in that you vote from a presented group of other citizens to have them represent your wishes, etc, within the governmental system of your country.

      Of course, once elected, they're not obliged to behave according to the wishes of the people that elected them.

      I suspect Iranian government is much the same - but maybe the choices of oligarchs are more ... severe.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    77. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the rest of the wold doesn't follow nor recognize sharia law as anything; check-mate. Pretty sure America won't extradite their favourite data gathering jew to some shitty corner of the earth following quite possibly the shittiest assembled form of law.

    78. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of racism though, you seem to have some fairly strong and not entirely accurate views about Iran.

      Seriously? Jumping to the racism card so soon. I question you actually know what that word means.

    79. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it ultimately Germanic, and 'berg' means "from this city"?

      I think that's "burg" you're talking about, as in "Hindenburg" or "burgermeister". Spelling counts.

    80. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, we'll put you on the plane and airdrop you in country... take care of it ok?

    81. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Iran has some pretty intelligent people there, and much of the population is college educated.

      The problem is, after seeing Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc., no one is looking to overthrow a government any time soon, but looking instead for slower reforms.

      Well, after the CIA's last involvement with "government reform" in their country (aka - ousting their democratically elected leader and installing the Shah), can you exactly blame them that they aren't interested in "rapid reform" like the CIA/US.Military backed "reform" in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc?

    82. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your country just comes up with secret evidence in a secret court to allow the president to assassinate anyone he feels like with a drone strike based on said secret evidence, and even keep the fact they did it secret if they want. And I'm sure the fact that your law enforcement can bust down people's doors with full SWAT teams armed with assault rifles is just A-ok... so what if they shoot your dog and your wife, you never liked that dog anyways right?

    83. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we have the armed police and the drones - we're so ... democratic!

      We have armed police and drones because the population overwhelming supports both. That is democratic. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it non democratic.

      Right, in Iran they're merely oppressed by the government, while in USA they're brainwashed and deceived into oppressing themselves through democratic means.

    84. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      No, but I'll bet he's happy to live in a country that has progressed beyond institutionalized racism. I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran.

      Actually their real problem is with the *state* of Israel, not all people of Jewish descent. Might have something to do with Israel taking land from countries Iran might see as their "neighbors" and constantly threatening them? You might want to read up on the difference between being Jewish and being Zionist, they aren't the same thing.

      Iran hasn't actually started a war against any country in 300+ years. The last real war they were in was when Iraq/Saddam *invaded them* in the 80's, which was purely defense on their part. How many countries has the US started wars with or put troops into in the past even 100 years? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, to mention a few, not counting financing the 'overthrow' (or attempt) of Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and of course "aid" to help put brutal leaders all over South America at various times, and financing death squads, drug lords, etc. I guess since we blow up/kill/coerce/control/overthrow African/Asian/Middle-Eastern/Slavic/etc people with equal prejudice we're not "racist" right?

    85. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      It's Islam Shariah Law. The rich are always favored over the poor. The publicity from this in Iran is worth every penny of "compensation" (which will indeed be pennies).

      And that is different than the US, UK, EU, how exactly? How many lobbyists do you have working for you on K-street in DC? How many bankers went to jail after 2008? Where do our Treasury Secretaries, SEC/CFTC heads, etc, come from? Go to after they leave? When exactly was the last time a "poor" person was elected President?

    86. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could probably send you to some sites that have pictures of young children with limbs blown off, dead mothers/fathers, burned with white phosphorous, birth defects from DU shells poisoning their environment... this little place called Iraq, maybe you've heard of it? I might consider that something good came out of it all, provided I can ignore that they murdered innocent human beings...

    87. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week. The word "fatwa" is the same thing as asking a member of the clergy for written advice.

      Yes, there are problems with Muslim extremists, but I do wish people would stop turning the words "advice" and "school" into things meaning stuff they shouldn't?

      Lets be real here: Iran has its problems, especially with extremists However, the country itself isn't evil, and Iranians in general see through the political BS more than Americans see through the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC charade.

      In the scheme of things, the Iran court is a propaganda item to shore up the hard-liners who run the country. MZ isn't going to Tehran, nor will he be extradited there. If there were an extradition treaty, virtually every US and European citizen would be in deep trouble. The Iranian population knows this charade, and they likely will continue to quietly keep to their VPNs and continue to avoid the morality police/IRG members.

      Again, one needs to separate Iran (the government from the Iranian people.) The people are smart enough not to use a jube as a waterslide.

      No kidding. We make fun of Iran, but the Iranians are quite cosmopolitan. Iranians have women's rights and a surprising amount of dialog for a state considered repressive. Saudi Arabia--our ally--is repressive by comparison.

      If we didn't meddle in Iran's affairs, we probably would've had an ally similar to Turkey, rather than a theocracy which only could've risen up because we set up a puppet dictator.

    88. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      They don't need no stinkin' bankers. They have the Ayatollah.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    89. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One needs to separate any/all government/s from its people.

      Central to all ideas is this problem.

    90. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I don't know about "deceived" I'd say convinced. But in any case if you read 4 posts above: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    91. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      First off the selection of candidates in America is rather broad. There isn't some small group from which they are selected. The process of being selected is democratic it involves collecting signatures and then a primary or caucus. Moreover the preselection process is merely who gets position on the ballet. The voters can write in candidates during the general election. And that does happen for example Senator Lisa Murkowski was a write in candidate for her seat.

      Of course, once elected, they're not obliged to behave according to the wishes of the people that elected them.

      The USA has rather frequent elections. For example the House Representatives is every 2 years. In 2/3rds of the states one of the Senators is up for election every 2 years. Often in odd years the state houses, governors or state houses go up for election. And in many states there are direct ballet measures. So in theory if there were widespread opposition the people can react pretty strongly and effectively. It is complex because the USA system takes into account intensity of opinion not just opinion but I'd say that our policies mostly do look like an intensity weighted average of opinions. The problem is our electorate not our democracy.

    92. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "In Islam, Sharia law supersedes SANITY."

      FTFY

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    93. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by smithmc · · Score: 2

      You know, nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you use Facebook. If you don't want to use it, don't use it.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    94. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of pre-cana?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    95. Re: Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's heresy. Muslim doesn't have to obey the law of non-Muslim country. Infidels do not have the same rights, according to Quran.
      Taking into account that you can't even spell the Name of the Book, you have no idea about Islam.

    96. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, all -bergs are Jewish, here is one notorious Jew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    97. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      When was I asked to support drones, or the ever increasing militarization of our police ?

      Just because you call it "Democratic" does not mean you have "overwhelming public support".

    98. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Collectively 2002 when the Republicans ran on their strong support for the war on terror and the militarization of the police.
      2004 when Americans continued to support an aggressive posture toward Al Qaeda and supported policies like the patriot act.
      and since then when pacifistic candidates have not had much traction most places in the USA.

      As far as drones Obama ran on a switch towards targeting Al Qaeda in 2008 and won in a landslide. Prior to that he won in a primary against Clinton who was more traditional in her approach agreeing with Bush somewhat more.

    99. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week. The word "fatwa" is the same thing as asking a member of the clergy for written advice.

      That's what I was getting at. A fatwa is not a legal declaration, an attorney has nothing to do with it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    100. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all countries separate church and state.

      No country can have a legitimate government unless it separates church and state. Religion breeds fanaticism, and fanaticism is the opposite of reason. All human beings have a right to rational government.

    101. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Hamberg...

    102. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by maroberts · · Score: 1

      So yes, the Iranian judge's "let's kill the kike" is at least factually accurate.

      I think that was the news agency, not the judge.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    103. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Testudo+Kleinmanni · · Score: 1

      "I'm pretty sure just being of Jewish descent is enough for a prosecution in Iran."

      Judaism is an officially recognized religious minority in Iran. Jews are guaranteed representation in the Iranian legislature. Jews are also protected by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini.

      So I guess we know how much your state of "pretty sure" is worth. At best it is 90 years out of date, since even Reza Shah Pahlavi was favorable to the Jews, despite his association with the Nazis.

      Upstanding man, that Pahlavi. Letting Iranian Jews live as second rate citizens for the time being while supporting the shit-comet of a rising global power that, had it not been eradicated, was as likely to spare them after winning the war as I am to respect your intellectual integrity. This is the first time I wish I could mod a comment down.

    104. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Not all countries separate church and state.

      No country can have a legitimate government unless it separates church and state. Religion breeds fanaticism, and fanaticism is the opposite of reason. All human beings have a right to rational government.

      Let's see here:
      1. No country can have a legitimate government unless....
      2. Religion breeds fanaticism
      3. fanaticism is the opposite of reason
      4. All human beings have a right to rational government

      1. I'm sorry, but if this is true, there have only been a handful of legitimate governments throughout history, and most of them did not end well. Just because the USA (and most of the western world these days) separates church and state -- because it's a good idea to keep people from using one to overly influence people regarding the other -- does not mean that's the only legitimate way to govern a group of people.

      2. So does science. See Global warming as an example -- on both sides.

      3. No, it's orthagonal. It's perfectly possible to be reasonable in most areas but a fanatic about one topic.

      4. I hope you're not using the USA as an example here. Rational Government has to do with having a governance structure that is fully defined and cannot be modified without the agreement of the people -- those governing can't do an end run around it. Unfortunately, this method of governance appears to be as common as that of More's Utopia.

    105. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did I claim that Reza Shah was good for anything, just merely not as bad at a particular thing as someone was claiming.

    106. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Do you mean the news agency fabricated the use of the word "zionist" from the judge? Otherwise I don't see how the news agency isn't conveying the clear message.

    107. Re:Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Islam Shariah Law. The rich are always favored over the poor.

      I don't know, the Iranians just hanged a banker.

      That might be less an example of Iran's courts remaining neutral between rich and poor, and more an example of a rich person who either ticked off even richer people or who failed to spread his wealth around (bribe) correctly.

  2. Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no way I see Zuckerberg appearing in an Iranian court anytime soon, regardless of the charges. I personally wouldn't step foot in the country myself, as an atheist, I'd be risking my neck because I'd likely say something stupid and get myself thrown in prison for heresy.

    1. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regardless of my actual ethnicity or religion, if my last name ended in ...berg I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.

    2. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

      Regardless of ... well, pretty much anything, I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And I certainly wouldn't suggest going if you are a big 'A' atheist. The Iranian government doesn't like our ilk very much lol.

    4. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Zuckerberg wouldn't even need to say anything. He'd be jailed as an evil Zionist spy or some other nonsense the moment he tried to leave the country. I wouldn't fare any better with the last name Levine. You couldn't pay me enough money to travel to Iran.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      During conversation, people sometimes say things that reflect (or are derived from) their beliefs. A casual statement about evolution, or perhaps the thoughtless use of the word "superstition," would be harmless if made by an atheist in America. But in a country that is hostile to atheism and defensive of their own religious beliefs, it could get you jailed and/or killed.

      And while it is true that atheists (and secular humanists) are not required to say such things, sometimes they do so without thinking, as everyone does.

    6. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding? I hear there's some great hiking up along the border.

      ( god damn retards )

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    7. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history, and from everything I've heard the residents are actually a friendly and cordial people -- unless it's a lynch mob whipped up by the propaganda machine :(

    8. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has never been a Lynch mob in Iran. They have culture.

    9. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the goons who do the lynching.

    10. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I am not required to say anything 'stupid' as a big 'A' atheist, and worse, an anti-theist, but I am required as a moral person to point out that maybe there is a better solution than stoning that wife of yours to death, just because she was just caught committing adultery. Or chopping the hand off of a thief, or any number of other religiously motivated bad moral calls.

      Extreme examples? Maybe. I would likely not be wandering around those areas of Iran that are likely to see such events. But I would have to bite my tongue and avoid moral discussions, least my head be separated from my body or my liberty be taken away from me in Iran, due to some perceived heresy against the "prophet". I do not have to avoid such conversations here where I live, and in fact, I have many a lively debate with lots of religious people. I don't begrudge their belief systems, but I do love to point out that it's patently impossible to load 2 of every animal onto a wooden ark, with all the necessary provisions, and expect a small family of 5? to do all that work for a 40 day global flood. You cannot avoid the laws of physics.

    11. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where that country belongs, back in time - should have been wiped from the face of the earth centuries ago.

      Let's just fix that and wipe em from the face of the earth now. Easy enough to do, and we can always used the polished glass crater as a beam focuser for molten sand energy production.

    12. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Regardless of my actual ethnicity or religion, if my last name ended in ...berg I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.

      The Iranians have problems with German names?

      Hint: "berg" is German for "hill" (as opposed to "burg" which is German for "city"). Any association you might have between Judaism and "berg" is really an association between Germans and "berg".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling at all. As a fellow jackass, I just don't see how religion has anything to do with it.

      What you describe is no different than a Christian asking Jesus to bless a Jewish wedding, or a Muslim preparing a nice onion-and-garlic sauce for an Ananda Marga meal. It's also no different from making dead-baby jokes in front of the mother of a stillborn child, or discussing depressing topics at a celebration.

      Being "not constantly aware" is indeed the problem, but again, that has nothing to do with your religion. Your jokes, regardless of the topic, might offend someone, so the nice thing to do would be to take a moment to consider your surroundings. Apparently that's not your habit, though.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    14. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by mmell · · Score: 1
      Athiest: "Mohammed can't be a holy prophet because there is no god."

      Islamic court: "Infidel! We'll behead you now - publicly."

      I suspect an athiest's trial in Iran would last exactly five seconds longer than mine would (I'm not a religious Jew, but I am a secular Jew. I'm pretty sure the Iranian justice system wouldn't care about the difference).

    15. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history, and from everything I've heard the residents are actually a friendly and cordial people

      I've known many people over the years who identify themselves as 'Persian'.

      They've been exceedingly nice, smart people for the most part. But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.

      And, I'm sorry, but the present-day country called Iran is no place I'd ever want to go. The historical Persia which had art, and science, and philosophy (and tolerance), and lots of cool things ... that I'd love to see.

      But don't ever forget there's a difference between the historical entity, and the present one. And the present one is ruled by crazy idiots.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      Beautiful country.
      A shame about the government.

      Wait, who were we talking about again?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    17. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has never been a Lynch mob in Iran. They have culture.

      BWAAA HAAA HAAA

      You so funny!

      Pictures worth a thousand words - literal Iranian lynchings

    18. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a 100 years that is what people will be saying about America. Just before your country kills them for even daring to think it.

    19. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I won't go anywhere near Zuckerberg, and we'll call it a deal so long as he keeps his punk ass out of my details.

    20. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they practice stoning, not lynching.

    21. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-evolutionism is a Christian concept. Don't be so ignorant.

      A Christian that accepts the young-earth model of the universe would have trouble with the concept that life evolved from basic organic molecules into complex organisms over eons. (The theory that life evolves and adapts or dies can be observed happening in (relatively!) short timeframes and is not incompatible with the young-earth model of the universe.)

      I can't tell you how funny and ironic the last part of your comment was given the above.

    22. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by harrkev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history

      It really is a shame. That part of the world used to be known for arts, sciences, and education. I wish that it were still that way...

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    23. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant to write terraformed instead of formatted, and his spell checker got the best of him. Though, formatted may be a valid representation of terraformed with regards to making a planet habitable. LOL!

    24. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      They don't lynch you; they stone you. Yeesh, get it right.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    25. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You can offend a vegetarian with onions and garlic? Wat

      Diet and fasting: Lacto-vegetarian diet of Ananda Marga avoids meat, fish, eggs and some substances which are claimed to have a negative effect on the mind.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    26. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      They fall under that "negative effect" category. They're considered to be tainted by evil, as their spice comes from the ground. I'm afraid I never looked too far into it, though.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    27. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by nytes · · Score: 1

      It depends. Did they send him a Facebook invitation?

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    28. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your eggshell-walking, social justice bullshit offends me. The obvious recourse is for you to behead yourself. I'll wait.

    29. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by TheSync · · Score: 3, Informative

      But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.

      I just met a guy who claimed "Iranian" heritage. His (muslim) family left "Iran" in the 1800's, and moved to Lahore.

      On the other hand, I live in a neighborhood with Jews most of which moved from the Islamic Republic of Iran shortly after they revolution. They call themselves "Persian".

      As per Wikipedia, the term "Eran" is found to refer to Iran in a 3rd-century Sassanid inscription, meaning "Land of the Aryans".

      On the other hand, the country has been known in the West as "Persia" from the Greeks "Persis", meaning land of the Persians. There are Persians in Iran, but not all Iranians are Persians. Some Iranians are Lurs, Ossetians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balochs, and Tajiks.

      In 1935, Reza Shah requested that the international community refer to the country as Iran.

      So it is complex...

    30. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Regardless of my actual ethnicity or religion, if my last name ended in ...berg I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.

      "Berg" is a common German family name. Both the Germans and the Iranians are the Aryan race. Thus, the "Berg" families would be closer to the Iranians than most other westerners.

      Note that the nation changed its English name from Persia to Iran at the insistence of Nazi Germany, to identify itself with Aryan pride (before the second world war). The words Aryan and Iran are cognate.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    31. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's Flying Spaghetti Monsters all the way down...

    32. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Everything comes from the ground sooner or later (not to mention that all plants they're likely to eat grow in soil). Or are you saying that it's because the spice is derived from the root which physically grows in the ground?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    33. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      That's where that country belongs, back in time - should have been wiped from the face of the earth centuries ago.

      Let's just fix that and wipe em from the face of the earth now. Easy enough to do, and we can always used the polished glass crater as a beam focuser for molten sand energy production.

      You do realize that the CIA helped to overthrow the secular, democratic government of Iran in 1953 to protect the profits of western oil companies, and installed an autocratic despot who would play nice with the western oil companies for a cut of the loot.

      The corruption and violence of the Iranian regime is what spurred the 1979 revolution that installed the current Islamist government.

      As such, it was the CIA and its sycophantic support of the western oil industry that, in no small part, helped created the monster that is the current Iranian government. So, before you call for the genocide of millions of people, why don't you look at the complicity of others in creating modern Iran.

      I could go back even further to discuss the British drawing up borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

      I suggest that you remedy your lack of historical perspective. That way, you might actually be able to make a positive contribution to discussions like these.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    34. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Yes, the physically-in-the-ground bit. Pulling from very old and vague memories of my time with the monk (about six months, a good many years ago, during which time I was more concerned with not dying than with deep religious exploration), I think the logic went something like this:

      • You must not hurt any innocent soul.
      • Animals are good people reincarnated, so don't eat or harm them
      • Evil souls are trapped in the Earth
      • Things from the Earth with a harsh taste must have absorbed evil souls
      • If you eat an evil soul, you'll be tainted with evil.

      There were a few more forbidden foods, but I don't recall them offhand.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    35. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      So you can't eat animals because they're good...or bitter plants because they're bad...so sweet or nondescript-tasting plants are neutral and the only okay thing to eat. Huh.

      my time with the monk (about six months, a good many years ago, during which time I was more concerned with not dying than with deep religious exploration)

      Sounds like an interesting story.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    36. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also no different from making dead-baby jokes in front of the mother of a stillborn child.

      Yes it is. The mother of a stillborn child does not neccesarily follow a religion which explicitly tells its followers that the right thing to to with *me* (or any other non-follower) is to either force me to submit to it's religion with violence, *or* force me to submit to the followers of the religion and then treat me as a second class citizen *or* kill me whenever they see me. Someone subscribing to such a philosophy has no right to walk around not being insulted, as their whole religions is an insult to everyone not following it.

      Being "not constantly aware" is indeed the problem, but again, that has nothing to do with your religion. Your jokes, regardless of the topic, might offend someone, so the nice thing to do would be to take a moment to consider your surroundings. Apparently that's not your habit, though.

      After actually reading the quran, I am more aware of its contents than I like, and I see it as what it is - a mental virus in book form created by a mad warlord, which instructs its followers to be exceedingly destructive towards non-followers.

    37. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear and drastic public actions are required to keep extreme unnatural regimes and beliefs stable and thriving. There is a direct correlation of the extreme actions to the amount a regime deviates from the norm. It happens with repressive governments, religions, and extremist groups. Without the fear, people would naturally question the original motives and could potentially build up a critical mass of unbelievers and revolt against the current system bringing it and the current benefactors of the system down in the process. China with its censorship, Scientology with its methods of separating you from your family, some religions on how they treat they writings and beliefs, and so on.

      Religion is VERY powerful, people are taught religion from very early on and to decide to go against everything you have ever been taught and away from a lot of your family is a hard decision to make. Watching others get punished with little to no trial in front of people that go against the religion makes it that much harder.

    38. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      To make things more complicated, peppers are apparently not just okay, but good for cleansing. Since it's a religion coming out of India, peppers were a stable. You can probably guess how well that worked out for my cowardly American stomach.

      The local parasites, however, thought that the cuisine was an invitation to a party, so they had a grand time carousing within my intestines. An interesting story, indeed... someday I'll get around to anonymizing my journal and posting it somewhere.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    39. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      True, but that's not what's keeping him from wanting to visit, same as me. It's the batshit insane religion based government. I too hear most of the actual people are pretty cool. At least, the younger generation is.
      But I wouldn't dream of going anywhere near the middle east these days, as much as I'd love to see the great pyramids, or the supposed location of the hanging gardens of babylon, or numerous other historical sites across the land.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    40. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      | The corruption and violence of the Iranian regime is what spurred the 1979 revolution that installed the current Islamist government

      Indeed, but the continued radical hostility and virulent anti-Israeli ideology and corruption and terrorism and violence and lack of freedom of the current Islamist government is the fault of Ayatollah Khomeini and his fellow ideologues.

      After all, Vietnam is hardly anywhere near as hostile as Iran, and the USA bombed half the country and killed a million, instead of merely being highly friendly to an authoritarian ally. Likewise all sorts of Central and South American ex-dictatorships, none exhibits the hostility of Iran despite worse actions by the USA.

    41. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      | The corruption and violence of the Iranian regime is what spurred the 1979 revolution that installed the current Islamist government Indeed, but the continued radical hostility and virulent anti-Israeli ideology and corruption and terrorism and violence and lack of freedom of the current Islamist government is the fault of Ayatollah Khomeini and his fellow ideologues. After all, Vietnam is hardly anywhere near as hostile as Iran, and the USA bombed half the country and killed a million, instead of merely being highly friendly to an authoritarian ally. Likewise all sorts of Central and South American ex-dictatorships, none exhibits the hostility of Iran despite worse actions by the USA.

      You're absolutely right. The hostility and anti-semitism of the current Iranian government is disgusting.

      However, I was responding to the ignorant ramblings of the previous poster, who posited the appropriateness of genocide against the Iranians. He was clearly ignorant of history and, apparently, doesn't value human life. I find that AC's hostility and bigotry disgusting too.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    42. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've known many people over the years who identify themselves as 'Persian'.

      They've been exceedingly nice, smart people for the most part.

      I had a cat that was a Persian. She was also exeedingly nice and sweet, but as dumb as a box of rocks.

    43. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very recent news. The Iranian religious police came down hard on a small group of youth who made an informal dance video to Pharrell's song "Happy".

      Iran today: The place where Happy goes to die. Oh I know, the religious police have a set of reasons for why they did that. And not all people in Iran are unhappy. And the students were apparently released after an intervention by the newly elected President.

      In the end nothing mitigates the fact that an official group of religious zealots, sanctioned by the state, had as their mandate the duty to threaten and intimidate a group of youth having some extremely tame fun. This is not a happy state of affairs.

    44. Re:Good luck on that... he won't appear by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history

      It really is a shame. That part of the world used to be known for arts, sciences, and education. I wish that it were still that way...

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

      Iraq also. And Egypt. Most of the middle and near east used to lead the world in enlightenment.

      I'd love to travel to Iraq just to see the ancient ruins alone Babylon for instance. It is a huge shame. Places like the fertile crescent were where the world first saw modern cities and latter modern states. The first large scale irrigation, the first agriculture, the first writing, etc.. (there are some competing areas for 'oldest' in the far east depending on what you are looking at).

      It seems like every 'source location' (birthplace of X) for any modern X is now a very unstable, unwelcoming place. Odd.

  3. This is why we need benevolent dictators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just through all the extremist into a black hole prison somewhere and be done with them.

    1. Re:This is why we need benevolent dictators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That sounds awfully extreme. Is there a hole somewhere waiting for you too?

  4. Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No.

    1. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Archtech · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No."

      If you're a US resident, don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities. (Or even for having a name that some cretin thinks is like some other name that some other cretin put on a list).

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    2. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No."

      If you're a US resident, don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities. (Or even for having a name that some cretin thinks is like some other name that some other cretin put on a list).

      Yeah, because whatever happens in the world, it is hundreds of times worse in the US. You are the definition of a Fucking Asshole.

      I hear that People in X country are killing each other because of their Religion.

      "Yeah, but in the Fucking US, People are burned alive for having Pimples! They have special pimple courts that automatically convict you."

      Did you hear about the genocide in Africa?

      "Fuck that! In the US, People are screwed and treated worse than anywhere else in the world. Worst country ever! " Dumbass.

    3. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      The fact that you're making that comment is a pretty strong statement about the (un)likelihood of that actually happening.

    4. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, but in the Fucking US, People are burned alive for having Pimples! They have special pimple courts that automatically convict you."

      Ah, if only. I'm afraid that is only a utopian dream.

    5. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by mmell · · Score: 1
      Yes, you can be killed without due process here in the US. Muggings, traffic accidents, natural disasters - there are all sorts of horrible ways to die here in the US, none of which involve due process or warning.

      At the hands of the state without due process? Haven't heard about that one here. I call bullshit on your post.

    6. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The fact that you're making that comment is a pretty strong statement about the (un)likelihood of that actually happening.

      As long as the guy getting killed without due process isn't you it's cool right?
      We've been through this before. If they can take someone elses rights away, they can take yours away to. It's as simple as that.

    7. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a US resident, don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities. (Or even for having a name that some cretin thinks is like some other name that some other cretin put on a list).

      Really? When has this actually happened?

      And if you're talking about Obama's Drone Strike Policy, that Rand Paul was bashing. Rand Paul stated exactly the same policy in his filibuster/rant.

    8. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If they can take someone elses rights away, they can take yours away to. It's as simple as that.

      They can take away the rights of people whom the public despises. Right now it's largely Muslim terrorists and pedophiles.

      That does not mean Obama could say "Hey, guess what, from now on you can kill Protestants with no penalty, because the Catholic Church is the one true church!" and get away with it.

      So no.. it's not as simple as that.

    9. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post would have been valid if you said "US citizen" instead of "US resident". The citizens killed without due process were not residents of the US. Not by a long shot. They were not on vacation over seas. They were fraternizing with Islamic extremists targets, and you know that. You're just a karma whoring faggot. I doubt they even had a US address or driver's license.

    10. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      "Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No."

      If you're a US resident, don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities. (Or even for having a name that some cretin thinks is like some other name that some other cretin put on a list).

      If you consider plotting a real crime against the government or people of the US as 'offending an official', I might buy into that. Other than that, this statement is from fantasy land.

    11. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities.

      No you can't. There is no assassination in the United States of US citizens. You most certainly can choose to comply with due process even if you live abroad. If you fail to comply, and determined to be a threat, then you can be killed. That's not without "due process" it is a more limited process.

    12. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Well, that's not the example given. The president certainly could have a single person killed for some arbitrary reason, he's already doing it. Which is what the OP had suggested. We've no idea how widespread the governments clandestine activities have gone. People disappear in this country all the time. 1 in 100 are in prison right now. How do we know a lot of that isn't politically motivated? If you'd have suggested such a thing to me a few years ago I'd have laughed. But ever since Snowden and the drone strikes on US citizens? It's all out the window. I've no idea what they're up to or even capable of. If they feel justified in murder without trial on US citizens overseas, I just don't see a line between that and me sitting in my living room other than "The president's discretion" which, quite frankly, is not enough of a line for my tastes.

    13. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      They can take away the rights of people whom the public despises. Right now it's largely Muslim terrorists and pedophiles.

      ... and tomorrow, once they explain they have secret evidence that's been proven in a secret court, evidence which they can't show to the public but which *proves* that you are a "Gay Terrorist Muslim Pedophile", the public will despise you too and won't have any problem with them taking away your rights either.

      It's a slippery slope once you start allowing rights to be taken away.

    14. Re:Where's grumpy cat when you need him? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The president certainly could have a single person killed for some arbitrary reason, he's already doing it.

      Sure, Obama could send a secret hit team to kill some random guy for no good reason, but he wouldn't be able to get on TV and admit it. Contrast that to a press release saying "Yeah, we sent a drone to kill that guy because he's a Muslim terrorist."

      If they feel justified in murder without trial on US citizens overseas, I just don't see a line between that and me sitting in my living room other than "The president's discretion"

      The line is public support, not the president's discretion.

  5. Zuckerberg the Zionist by gavron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure Mr. Zuckerberg is aboard the first American Airlines flight from San Francisco to Tehran.
    Oh wait, no Southwest flight goes to Tehran.

    Surely he's booked on United Airlines. No, wait, they don't fly to Tehran either.

    Looks like NONE of the US carriers go there. Is it because they don't like money? That can't be
    right. Is it because they are shareholder driven and their shareholders are all either dirty jews
    or clean jews or some combination of clean and dirty jews? That seems unlikely.

    OH WAIT, I GOT IT!

    IRAN IS A TERRORIST NATION, A SPONSOR OF TERRORIST GROUPS, CALLS THE US
    THE GREAT SATAN AND WANTS TO DESTROY US AND ISRAEL TOO AND IS A HOTBED
    OF RELIGIOUS CRAP THAT MAKES THE BIBLE BELT AND WASHINGTON DC LOOK LIKE
    SECULAR NOOBS.

    I guess they won't have Zuckerberg to demonize if he doesn't go there.

    Perhaps they'll burn his effigy along with President Obama, the US Flag, and a fake
    nuclear wessel.

    Ehud
    Tucson AZ US

    1. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is wrong with you?

    2. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Great Satan" -- first used in Nov 1979 to label the USA by Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini.
      "Axis of Evil" -- first used in Jan 2002 to label Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea by President George Bush.

      So it is childish to make the comparison, but "they started it", if you are comparing the two phrases.

    3. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His post is signed Ehud, a Hebrew name. According to the prevailing narrative, Jews and Iranians aren't supposed to get along. Therefore, it's likely that he's just trying to play his role to participate in the narrative. Supporting evidence includes strong anti-Iranian rhetoric and bewilderment at the actions of Iran consistent with ignorance (inadvertant or willful) of the time the United States overthrew the Iranians' elected government and installed a pro-Western shah. Posting anon because people don't like to hear the truth.

    4. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EPIC TROLLING!

    5. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an intelligent person with insightful thoughts. What are you doing here?

    6. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's remember that "Shaitan" (Satan) means "adversary" in Arabic.

    7. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      While they have not done it yet they seem to want to wipe another country off the map.

    8. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, the USA is a terrorist nation - indeed, the only really significant one since the Third Reich, Mao and Pol Pot. Iran, on the other hand, has not attacked anyone since it was recreated on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago. (In spite of having its democratic constitution overthrown by US agents, and being ferociously attacked, at the direct instigation of the US government, by Iraq with a loss of over 1 million of its citizens).

      If you aren't convinced, try totting up the numbers of people killed, maimed, bereaved, and rendered homeless by each of these nations since 1945.

      How many people has the US executed for being homosexual?

      But I guess that's not "really significant", right?

    9. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by rossdee · · Score: 1

      The leaders of Iran started it long before Khomeini

      They have been persecuting people of other Faiths for 170 years or so

    10. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Hmm, as I recall China managed ~100 million since WW2. Which makes it number one of all time, I think. The USSR was number 2, the Germans (in ww2) were number 3, we may be number 4 (though there's a strong case to be made for Vietnam, and a weaker one for North Korea).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (In spite of having its democratic constitution overthrown by US agents, and being ferociously attacked, at the direct instigation of the US government, by Iraq with a loss of over 1 million of its citizens)

      Hey now, the oil companies hadn't bought the government. Yet.

    12. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Iran is a great place to live. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the people there are truly happy. They're so happy they should make a video about it.

      Oh crap, they did? And they got arrested? Huh. Who wouldda thunk in such a great place you can get arrested for making a music video about being happy. Gee, if that's a great place and the US is a terrible place - I wonder what they do to kids in the US for making videos? What? Nothing? Are you kidding me? Wait, the US freed Europe from the Nazi's? Gee from your post I thought it would have been the other way around. Holy crap, you're telling me Samsung exists because South Korea isn't under the dynamic leadership of the north? Wow. Some bad move the US did in preventing those poor South Koreans from being under the loving authority of the guys to the north! Hey what's this Bill Clinton Boullevard ? Holy crap, you're telling me a bunch of *MUSLIMS* love us in Kosovo?

      Wow, look little girls can now go to school in Afghanistan! What a travesty, must be the fault of those oppressive americans! Oppressing them away from not having an education. Sheesh! Jerks!

    13. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by mmell · · Score: 1

      So you'll be moving back to Iran soon, right?

    14. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      You have a point; it's even more of a point when you realise that "satan" means adversary. Now it means more in the USA when you say "Satan" -- but Christianity uses the name to represent "The Devil" or "Lucifer" -- in which case "the great satan" wouldn't really fit, as that would imply more than one satan.

      And I think it's safe to say that Khomeini and his regime considered the US their great adversary -- as did the USSR at the time.

      So many arguments throughout history began as a misunderstanding about word choice. Not saying that's the case here (as he was probably making an intentional play on words), but it's possible.

    15. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its been happening since there was religion, and the monotheists seem to be the worst.

    16. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the 2 million plus in Iraq, and the 1 million plus in Iran (killed in the war Saddam began, egged on and supported by the USA). There are enough million-plus figures without getting down into the tens of thousands here and there (e.g. Libya).

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    17. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by Archtech · · Score: 1

      "How many people has the US executed for being homosexual?"

      Quite a few in the past:

      http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/...

      And perhaps quite a few more in the future:

      http://www.toledonewsnow.com/s...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    18. Re:Zuckerberg the Zionist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What's so special about since 1945? That year seems cherry-picked to avoid two of the most murderous regimes in history.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Nothing short of a Fatwa... by jaeztheangel · · Score: 0

    will get Zuckerberg's attention.

    1. Re:Nothing short of a Fatwa... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, but Facebook just reorganized how they display postings and the Fatwa didn't appear. Maybe they would like to advertise with Facebook to ensure that their Fatwa status updates appear at the top of everyone's feeds?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Nothing short of a Fatwa... by jaeztheangel · · Score: 0

      or perhaps they just don't care. :-) i hate it when demagogues start shouting, don't you?

  7. Good luck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that!

  8. It's Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably just easier to execute him for drinking alcohol. I'm sure you can find a photo of him drinking somewhere on facebook...

  9. South park episode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, sounds like an emmy award winning south park episode

  10. Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon everyone there will be switching to "jihadbook".
    Social networking with twice the fatwas.

  11. Do go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a trap
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA
    It's a trick
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxFOVtr9fbk

  12. CIA Protects their own by anthony_greer · · Score: 1

    Of Course Zuc wont appear in Iran, the CIA wont let the greatest target fed intel gathering effort in history go down so easy.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/tec...

    1. Re:CIA Protects their own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time please link to a reputable news source. There are plenty out there that are not the propaganda arm of a political party. Thanks.

    2. Re:CIA Protects their own by gaudior · · Score: 1

      Name one. Go, on. I'll wait...

      See, the thing is, ALL news outlets are aligned with, or controlled by the political power structures. /I will probably regret calling out an AC, but, YOLO and all that.

  13. It's an interesting question by maroberts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The USA has on a number of occasions extended its own laws to cover interactions with foreigners over the Internet. You only have to look at a certain naturalised New Zealander who the US have tried to extradite (Mega something or other, wasn't it)

    The European Union isn't perfect either, as this "Right to Be Forgotten" law also seems to want to establish national law when the dealings are with foriegn companies that essentially only have sub-offices over here. In actual fact, the Iranian allegations of "Invasion of privacy" are fairly similar to the European Union position, which is one reason why I hope that the silly ruling is buried in some manner.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:It's an interesting question by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      With Kim Dotcom's/Mega case, the US tried to extradite him and he was detained by New Zealand authorities. It wasn't a covert black ops where he was kidnapped in the darkness of night. New Zealand obviously was working with the US (even if the US was pulling the strings)

      With the EU's law if the company has a nexus somewhere in the EU then the company needs to comply with EU laws.

      The likelihood that the US or just about any other country that Zuch would visit would cooperate in detaining him in any manner is almost zero. And since Facebook doesn't have any Iranian presence, my guess is that Facebook respectfully tells Iran to go f' themselves.

    2. Re:It's an interesting question by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Neither was Iran's request a covert black ops operation. I'm not claiming countries are running black ops operations to get the accused, I'm stating that all countries are trying to claim the coverage of their national law extends into other countries. Prior to the Mega operation, where a country was based and principly did business was regarded as almost inviolate. Also it was not regarded as "has a nexus", it was "headquartered or controlled from".

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    3. Re:It's an interesting question by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The European Union isn't perfect either, as this "Right to Be Forgotten" law also seems to want to establish national law when the dealings are with foriegn companies that essentially only have sub-offices over here. "

      Yeah, because it's not like they're making any money over here off the data they gather here on the citizens that live here or anything is it?

      I mean really, you think companies should be free to make profit in a nation off that nations citizens but not be bound by it's laws. You realise how stupid that idea is right? What next? Amazon doesn't have to pay the UK's minimum wage to it's warehouse staff because well, all it has is a bunch of warehouses here...

      If you want to make profit in a country, you better damn well abide by the laws in that country.

    4. Re:It's an interesting question by maroberts · · Score: 1

      If Amazon employs bodies in a physical location then of course it has to follow employment law in that location.

      The Right to be Forgotten idea is silly as no local paper will be permitted to have archives any more.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    5. Re:It's an interesting question by Xest · · Score: 1

      "If Amazon employs bodies in a physical location then of course it has to follow employment law in that location."

      But if a company takes data from a region it doesn't have to follow data laws for that region? What?

      "The Right to be Forgotten idea is silly as no local paper will be permitted to have archives any more."

      Oh so you're one of those, one who has no idea what the right to be forgotten is actually about, or even what it is. I'll forgive your ignorance then. Where did you even get that idea from? No court ruling nor no written law has ever said newspapers cannot have archives anymore. Did you just make that up or what?

    6. Re:It's an interesting question by maroberts · · Score: 1

      No but let us say that said newspaper is electronic in form and those archives are electronically searchable, they're screwed by this made up right. People want past misdeeds to be forgotten about and removed from search engines and if it starts with Google, it will move on to the search engine of the website of your local paper. Where will this mythical right end?

      No court ruling has applied this right to the newspaper, but it has certainly been applied to Google which in turn was referencing a website which could be a local paper, a publication of record etc.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    7. Re:It's an interesting question by Xest · · Score: 1

      "No but let us say that said newspaper is electronic in form and those archives are electronically searchable, they're screwed by this made up right."

      No they're not. You're making things up:

      "The right to be forgotten is of course not an absolute right. There are cases where there is a legitimate reason to keep data in a data base. The archives of a newspaper are a good example. It is clear that the right to be forgotten cannot amount to a right to re-write or erase history. Neither must the right to be forgotten take precedence over freedom of expression or freedom of the media. The right to be forgotten includes an explicit provision that ensures it does not encroach on the freedom of expression and information."

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

      Stop talking shit and making things up.

    8. Re:It's an interesting question by maroberts · · Score: 1

      The Gonzales case is exactly about the archives of a local newspaper being referenced by a search engine - it relates to a newspaper reference to a property auction due to Gonzales having financial difficulties in the past. It is basically saying that such archives are no longer searchable or indexable online.

      What this can mean is that if you're about to enter politics, you can clean up your record before there is a public interest defence and then enter politics with a shiny clean record.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    9. Re:It's an interesting question by Xest · · Score: 1

      You don't even have a basic grasp of the discussion at hand. The right to be forgotten is a clause in a law that has not even been passed yet, it's still under development. The Gonzales case is a simple application of existing data protection law to Google in the same way it applies to absolutely every other company and as it has been applied for near 2 decades now.

      What the court case did was made it clear that Google is not a special case, and that like all other companies must abide by data protection legislation. That means that by law it cannot arbitrarily farm personal data. This data protection legislation stems back to the 1995 European directive on the issue, that means it's been about nearly 20 years - this isn't some new law, or some right to be forgotten, but well tried and tested data protection law.

      For example, credit reference agencies cannot make use of public data in response to credit searches by their clients after 7 years because it's deemed no longer relevant by that point. Such data might be for example, court rulings against someone who has gone bankrupt. There's a belief in Europe that people can change and should be given a second chance, hence why one failed business 20 years ago is deemed not to be worth ruining the entire rest of your life over. This is extremely sensible and seems to work as it's one reason why Europe has lower crime than say the US - by not condemning people to a life of crime because they've had every other option permanently removed and giving them chance to change and try again we limit the problems that stem from the American way.

      "What this can mean is that if you're about to enter politics, you can clean up your record before there is a public interest defence and then enter politics with a shiny clean record."

      That's a bad thing why exactly? Unless you're the sort of retard who thinks it's great to screw people forever then that's not a bad thing. Given the time limits involved it means there'd be at least 5 years since the wrong doing occurred assuming it's nothing serious, that's not an unreasonable amount of time to give someone a second chance after. If it is something serious (like, say, murder, or fraud rather than something like bankruptcy due to a failed business attempt) then it can't be removed due to public interest. Even then there's nothing to stop journalists rifling through archives as they do currently anyway to dig out information - it just has to be worth their time, rather than just mud slinging for the sake of it. Again, a good thing.

      You're literally arguing against something that you have not the slightest clue about. It's absolute nonsense. Why would you even bother engaging in discussion you're completely out of your depth in? Are you enjoying making a fool of yourself or something? It even looks like you're even in IT in the UK so you can't even feign ignorance of European culture, or British data protection law - you've no excuse for spouting the nonsense you are.

    10. Re:It's an interesting question by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Google is not arbitrarily farming personal data, it is providing a link to an item that was in a local paper. The information in the local paper is a matter of public record. As you have stated yourself, local papers should be able to have searchable archives and these archives should exist for eternity in my humble opinion.

      I am not of the opinion that people should be screwed forever, but if I vote for someone I definitely want to know his entire history for a lot longer than 6 years. Every side has a chance to mud-sling and it should be easy for people to fact check for themselves. If one side is mud-slinging I want to be able to find out for myself if the mud-slinging has a basis in fact or is an unsubstantiated allegation. There is an equal belief in America that people are allowed to get back on their feet after screwing up - its almost a badge of honour to have a failed business startup and the big question is whether they learned from their mistakes.

      From browsing your comments, you seem to take an actively hostile and abusive, ad-hominem line in your arguments when someone has the temerity to disagree. I think this law will gain "mission creep" and is antithetical to the idea of the ability to easily access information that the Internet supports today.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  14. Be a hero Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be a hero Zuckerberg, make a stink about it, Unstoppable Freedom of speech enabled by the internet is a force Iran fears. I don't think you can change Iran, but America needs to be real about what Iran stands for. Get America off this "to each his own" arbitrary truth crap. Let freedom ring. But i say to you, love your enemy.

  15. Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we send the Beeb's in Zuck's place I think we could make everyone happy. Iran gets a white boy they can prosecute or just hold without cause for a really long time and the US no longer has to put up with his illegal actions or that noise he purports to call music. Considering there's a petition before the White House to have him deported back to the Canada anyway, I vote we offer this as an alternative.

    1. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by c · · Score: 4, Funny

      Considering there's a petition before the White House to have him deported back to the Canada anyway, I vote we offer this as an alternative.

      As a Canadian, I second this proposal.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    2. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not speak for all Canadians?

      While we're at it, anybody have any objections sending Rob Ford as well?

    3. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Third, I'll even purchase the one-way ticket.

    4. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO BACKSIES!!!

    5. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by rwv · · Score: 3, Funny

      Rob Ford is a good source material for jokes. He should get some form of immunity.

    6. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we send the Beeb's in Zuck's place I think we could make everyone happy. Iran gets a white boy they can prosecute or just hold without cause for a really long time and the US no longer has to put up with his illegal actions or that noise he purports to call music. Considering there's a petition before the White House to have him deported back to the Canada anyway, I vote we offer this as an alternative.

      And you wonder why Iran wants to build nuclear weapons?

    7. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's batshit crazy. If you send him to Iran, they'll learn from him.

    8. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Rob Ford is a good source material for jokes. He should get some form of immunity.

      Yes, think of the comics!

    9. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Funny

      The White House already responded to the petition and refused to comment on his specific situation, despite the fact that over 270K people signed the petition, making it one of the most (if not the most) supported petition yet on the site.

    10. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by c · · Score: 1

      anybody have any objections sending Rob Ford as well?

      Let's not push our luck.

      Besides, I was thinking Ford should tag along with Rodman on his next jaunt to North Korea...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    11. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      This might be a solution for Facebook.ca but not for Facebook in Iran, which is an offshoot of the al-Qaeda hating country.

      That said, maybe he could just attest that all the Iranian apps are Taoists.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    12. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OT but i love that petition, because apparently no one realizes that it was the corporate greed of the american music industry that brought him to the US, and then gave him an ungodly amount of money before he turned 18. just so that they could make 200 times that amount of money and now that they screwed him up you guys just want to send him back.. funny because in my eyes the petition is completely baseless.

      "We the people of the United States feel that we are being wrongly represented in the world of pop culture."

      well you turned him that way, but lets assume that he came to you from Canada all messed up, we only need to look as far as the kardashians, spears, simpson, and almost all of Hollywood to see a similar pattern. you cant sweep these problems under the rug just because you corrupted a youth with your Hollywood lifestyle. if beiber came to the US messed up, then shouldn't people be going after the corporate entities who got him the green card? the ones who brought him to your country would then be held criminally responsible.. but no that wouldn't fly in corporate america.

      as the old saying goes, "you break it, you bought it"

      ps you did lose the Olympics and as per the internet meme agreement, your supposed to keep him.

    13. Re:Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      As I recall (and I clearly don't keep up with pop culture as much as you do, so I may be incorrect), wasn't that petition in direct response to a criminal incident he was involved in (he crashed a car into someone?)? The sort that would have resulted in any typical foreigner being deported for criminal activities? Whether "we" (I won't defend or allow myself to be associated with the MTV culture) screwed him up or not doesn't matter. What matters is applying the same standard to everyone, regardless of how much money is in their pockets. A laughable and antiquated notion, I know, but one I strongly believe in nonetheless.

  16. What he should tell them... by MiniMike · · Score: 2

    He should say that he'll fly over as soon as they send one of their Iranian stealth fighter jets to pick him up.

  17. ... nobody is talking about the privacy violations by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.

    Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  18. with that kinda money by tommyatomic · · Score: 1

    He really could hire multiple private armies and stage an invasion just to make a token appearance @ their Kangaroo court. But inbetween the border crossing of his choice and the prosecutor's office there is likely thousands of iranian troops that are unlikely to surrender.

  19. Zionist? by sqorbit · · Score: 1

    Is he actually a Zionist or is Iran just jumping to a conclusion based on his heritage?

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
    1. Re:Zionist? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      The news agency was probably jumping to a conclusion, not the judge. Like reporting over here, the press agency put their own spin on it.

      Zuckerberg personally claims to be an atheist, which presumably is not really compatible with being a Zionist. In addition, it seems that he's not too popular in Israel or with US Jews either....

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:Zionist? by fazig · · Score: 1

      Yes, Zuckerberg the Zionist manager of facebook, immediately caught my attention too because it makes it sound that the verdict already is 'guilty of all charges'.
      I can't answer the question about Zionism, I've never heard such allegations before, but it's very likely for "Iran" to jump to conclusions based on his yiddish (?) name.

      According to a recent survey (http://global100.adl.org because the Preview didn't show me a working link), especially the middle Eastern and northern African people have rather biased opinions about the yewish faith and ethnicity. Interestingly Iran is among the nations with the least prejudices, albeit still high with 56%.

    3. Re:Zionist? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Is he actually a Zionist or is Iran just jumping to a conclusion based on his heritage?

      I'd guess #2: based on his actions since school days, he's more an opportunist than a Zionist. But Zionist is the Arabic Moslem version of Communism's "Capitalist Pig".*

      * Yes, I know that Iran is less Arabic Moslem than the US is Chistian, but we're talking about leadership here -- and Iranian leadership IS managed by Arabic Moslems, even if the majority of the people living there could care less and have their own much deeper traditions.

    4. Re:Zionist? by mbkennel · · Score: 1


      Iranian leadership is managed by Persian non-Arabic Moslems. They have many disputes with Arabs, but anti-Jewish bigotry and ideology is a common bond.

  20. Apple should buy Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And rename it iRan

    Buh dum tss.

  21. On the other hand.. by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 2

    ...they could ask for someone who would show up instead. What's Dennis Rodman up to these days?

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  22. A new humanitarian ward by cryingpoet · · Score: 1

    Being order by an Iranian judge to appear is akin to being nominated for a humanitarian award. I cannot image now proud I would be if asked to appear. Has anyone worked out some kind of award system for being asked to appear in foreign country or tried in absence for human rights work?

  23. Did Iran run out of homosexuals to murder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe women who dared to marry a Christian?

  24. Deport Zuckerberg! by Aero77 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Deport Zuckerberg! by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Page removed or does not exist... I was so going to "like" it... :-)

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  25. I don't know who to root for here... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    erm, violating Iranians' privacy...
    That's a beheadin'

    Ayatollah Japser Beardly

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  26. Iran's Leadership by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

    They have a "Committee for Determining Criminal Web Content"? Really?

    Someone should send them a link to 4Chan and watch the entire committee's heads explode.

    1. Re:Iran's Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real reason they want to get Zuckerberg is they are fearful that the next FB "friend" change might expose the regime's vast animal porn viewing habits.

  27. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    You're right, when I upload pictures of my drunken escapades to a social networking site to an account tied to my real name, and my real friends and family, I really do expect that they will be held in the strictest confidence.

  28. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

    While I have no love for Facebook -or Zuckerberg - and its invasive policies, I have to wonder if Iran has any jurisdiction over Facebook anyway?

    Does Facebook run any servers in Iran? Do they have any offices in Iran? Do they actively seek to bypass attempts by the Iranian government to block its citizens from accessing Facebook? And, if so, do they have any evidence that Zuckerberg himself is behind these heinous "crimes"?

    The very fact that this judge is calling on Zuckerberg himself (and using inciteful language by calling him a "Zionist") rather than taking the Facebook.com to task reveals the true motivations of this summons. It has nothing to do with "privacy violations"; if Facebook.com's success was due to an awesome collection of cute kitty photos, the judge probably would have accused Zuckerberg of leading believers astray from the faith by distracting them with false idols or something.

    There are many (many, many) problems with Facebook, Israel, the United States, etc. that need solving. However, the judge has no interest in opening discussion about these issues. This is just another obvious attempt by the Iranian political machine to inflame anti-American and anti-Semitic hatred.

  29. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    or convincing you to willingly give up private information

    You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.

    IOW, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it. Noone is making you start a Facebook page (well, I should qualify that: noone has ever tried to force ME to make a Facebook page. Maybe I'm special, and the rest of you lot are held at gunpoint until you have your Facebook page set up).

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  30. US Court issues summons for Mohammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the religion based around this entity has been the seed from which too many terrorist organizations have grown, the US Judge has summoned Mohammed to appear before it to answer for the crimes against humanity perpetrated in his name.

    If Mohammed should fail to appear, then it is will be considered a proven fact that Islam is a false religion, and all practitioners of the faith should be either converted to another fake (but less terroristic) religion, or executed on the spot to prevent future terrorist outbreaks.

    1. Re:US Court issues summons for Mohammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you summoned everyone named "Mohammed" you'd likely get a quarter of the Muslim world showing up.

  31. No one from the law and order faction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To say he should face the charges against him.

  32. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    or convincing you to willingly give up private information

    You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.

    I am well aware of that. However a large number of facebook users apparently are not.

    IOW, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it.

    And I don't use it.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  33. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to your future employer when he asks you for the facebook password to browse your profile before hiring!

  34. Brain ... hurting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Iran ... Zuckerberg ... ... not sure ... who to root for ...

  35. Yea, I'm sure he gives a rat's ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but I'm sure he will if PR starts winning against Facebook.

  36. this is really reaching. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    it should be reiterated that when the government of Iran refers to "zionist" its usually directed toward leaders of israel (who are, admittedly, zionist.) Extending this descriptor to Zuckerberg based solely on his last name feels like the court is making a leap of faith. It wouldnt surprise me if the whole thing is a 'look over there!' maneuver from local courts to deflect criticism of Irans own violations of privacy as they pertain to the internet. Certainly no respectable political or legal figure in Iran would realisically expect this to work outside of the sphere of public opinion. Its all rather akin to George Bush remarking that terrorists attacked us because they 'hate our american freedoms.'

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  37. Extraordinary rendition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if the Iranians can't get a legal extradition they can always follow the US example and use extraordinary rendition. I do believe Israel has also used the same method when they couldn't get what they wanted. If I was MZ I would not leave US soil. Which would make him a prisoner in his own country.

  38. Billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billionaires - especially the primaries of large corps - have security. They are Blackwater or some other thugs that will take you down in a heart beat.

    Sue? Go ahead. $50,000, $100,000 myabe more to make you go away (if you're lucky) is nothing to those people.

    And that's if you're still alive to even sue.

    Jeff Bezos - the founder of Amazon - has this incredible security detail all paid for by the stockholders of Amazon.

    Thats right peons - HIS security is coming out of our pocket for those of you who have Amazon stock in your 401K, IRA, mutual fund, .....

    It's good to be a billionaire in the US of fucking A!

    Profits are yours and expenses are for the little people.

  39. I guess it never occurred... by yt8znu35 · · Score: 1

    ...to Iranian users not to use FB.

  40. Ah, but to do the REALLY big massacres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you need to be an atheist; See: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot....

    The meme that religion is the big killer is every bit as anti-scientific, anti-historic, and anti-intellectual as any claim that the world is 6K years old

    1. Re:Ah, but to do the REALLY big massacres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler was not an atheist, and even had an agreement with the Catholic church

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_and_atheism
      and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany#Catholic_adaptation_to_Nazism

      Nazism itself could be argued to be a religion, with Hitler as its high priest, so no, Hitler was not a strict Atheist

      The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

      —Sam Harris [10 myths and 10 truths about Atheism]

      So again, no you cannot use fascism and communism as criticism of atheism and then say it's the atheists who killed.

  41. Blah blah blah blah .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what do your friends do when the their imam issues a fatwa on how to trim their garden . . . ? Or who to vote for in the next election . . . ? Or that their neighbor is a Zionist . . . ? Do they have free will and responsibility in their lives . . . ?

    Roll their eyes like when your minister bitches about premarital sex, drinking, voting for the Republican douche who is running with a "family values - creationism" platform, etc ....

    lets face it, clergy are scum. They are parasites.

  42. The Zuck should go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a clown who's apparently bought into all the globalist claptrap, and if it's safe to indescriminately flood the US labor markets with people from all over the world (because, hey, we're all the same, dude) then surely all our governments and judicial systems are also equally trustworthy and valid and he has nothing to fear from any jury over there...

    [end sarcasm]

    The funny thing about open-border globalists is that they never actually subject themselves from a full-on exposure to the downsides of globalism. Globalists with media empires push for global IP laws that subject the "little guy" in any nation to their whims. Globalists needing labor push for immigration and labor laws that help them maximize profits. Globalists wanting to hide their money from the taxman, and facilitate thier "mergers and acquisitions" push for global banking and exchange systems that make the world's banks interdependant and vulnerable. But when the time comes for THEM to be "subject to" a legal/monetary/regulatory system or competition from some other country THEY are the first people to be seen dodging the very globalism they have advocated. Globalists are dirtbags who, in the guise of being "good people" who care about the whole world and everybody in it, are actually sell-outs of the nations they live in and the cultures which gave them what they needed to rise to the positions they hold.

  43. Iran = NZ by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    I'm sure the Iranians have observed America's approach to Kim Dotcom with interest.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  44. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    That's not facebook, that's a bad employer.

  45. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.

    That's because everyone here knows that. It's not news.

    Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.

    Well, nobody cares, because everybody knows it's coming apart, take one last look etc etc. I mean, privacy is going away, whether we like it or not. We only have to decide what we're doing about it. Will we decide to live and let live, or continue to go to war with one another over our differences, only now armed with the terrible knowledge of just how many differences we have? Oh sure, we'll learn about similarities too, but for some reason we don't seem to focus on those. Here's hoping, though.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. Knock knock by presidenteloco · · Score: 1, Funny

    Who's there?

    > Iran

    Iran who?

    > Iran away.

    > Knock knock

    Who's there?

    >Iran

    Iran who?

    >Iran for office but as soon as I got there they locked the door and threw away the key.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Knock knock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's there?

      > I keeel you!

  47. I am fairly certain that apps have no religion by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    There is no core system but 4LL4H

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  48. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Oh shit!

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  49. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody loves pie.

  50. do NOT answer that kangaroo court by swschrad · · Score: 1

    what Mullah wants, Mullah gets. and Mullah wants scalps on the wall.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  51. April Fools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it April fools again?

  52. There is no divorce in Catholicism by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    No, you cannot obtain a divorce in the normal sense as a Roman Catholic. The closest you can get is an annulment.

    A decree of nullity does not dissolve a marriage. It declares that a specific union, thought to be a marriage by all appearances, did not include, from the beginning, the proper intentions and/or capacities for a valid marriage according to Church teaching and thus was not fully valid.

    There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment. See also Matthew 5:31-2 and Matthew 19. My family used to joke that they believed in murder but not divorce, as a way to keep the relevant spouse on their toes. You should try again with a different analogy.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:There is no divorce in Catholicism by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment.

      You might believe that, but practice is a bit different. My parents were married for six years, then (civilly) divorced. Two years later, they remarried each other (I have no comment on how smart my parents are) or, in the Catholic view, "renewed their vows." This marriage lasted another two years or so before they separated for good (the divorce followed along a couple of years later).

      Fast forward a decade and a half, and my father (who in the interim married a second wife and had a second divorce) wants to marry a devout Catholic who refuses to marry outside of the Church. My father was able to obtain an annulment despite the opposition of my mother, her family, and my father's entire family (my grandmother (dad's mom) felt strongly enough about it to write letters to an archbishop and a cardinal). The archdiocese of Oakland saw no reason not to grant the annulment, and did so.

      While I do wish my father domestic happiness, the result here is completely absurd, and goes to show that if you send enough money the church's way, morality is flexible.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    2. Re:There is no divorce in Catholicism by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I suppose venality is an acceptable grounds for almost anything.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  53. I'm Iranian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with that country the way it is right now, even I wouldnt dream of returning (30 something living in Canada for the past 25 years -- parents are political refugees).

  54. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.

    Exactly. If this were any other country (or rather, if this were a predominately Christian or Caucasian country) saying the exact same things (minus the word "Zionist") everyone on /. would be applauding them.

  55. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    Replace "Facebook" with "Megaupload," "Mark Zuckerberg" with "Kim Dotcom," and "Iran" with "United States," and you have the exact same result.

    The only difference is the victim. In the case of Facebook, its users (the "little guy") are the victims. In the case of Megaupload, big corporations are the supposed victims. Now, explain to me why this case makes the Iranian government more evil than the US government?

  56. I dunno. by mmell · · Score: 1
    The reference to Mr. Zuckerberg as a Zionist pretty well sums it up for me. Prejudicial, pejorative.

    I'm still pretty sure the Iranians would give him a show trial. Pretty sure. Yup. Pretty sure.

  57. Can we send Justin Beiber as his ambassador? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes,yes,OK,send justin beiber

  58. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by monkeyFuzz · · Score: 1

    You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.

    So by your logic, every password, security question, or purchase you've ever made using the "interwebs" is open to public scrutiny? I suppose there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in your world?

  59. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which betrays ignorance, hubris & overt elitist bias on part of the /. membership posting on this thread? I must admit observing similar biases on a number of stories here that suffer from jingoist condescension and hypocrisy.

  60. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

    The US was no less wrong with insisting they had jurisdiction over Kim Dotcom. That in no way excuses what Iran is doing.

    But that is besides the point. The OP was asking why nobody was discussing the alleged privacy violations. This is because - although there is no defending Facebook's actions - it is widely recognized that it would be a pointless discussion; the judge (and the Iranian government in general) is not interested in discussion about those issues but rather is merely engaging in a diatribe against the United States and the Jews, using Zuckerberg as its red flag.

  61. wwhooaahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fuck you. Leave Oprah out of it.

  62. Psss...Iran...don't use Facebook then by ikhider · · Score: 1

    I mean really, who is twisting their arm to use the stupid program? Sheep thinkers use it. Make your own app, make it transparent that respects the users' freedom. Use GNU Social. Zuckerberg made suckers of the American people among other users, selling their habits for data-mining to the highest bidder. Facebook is a big help to Prism. But no one is focing Iranians to use Facebook. Educate people and offer free (as in freedom) alternatives. Arabs and Persians used to be foremost in maths and sciences in the civilized world, they have long lost that distinction. Maybe it is time to get it back. Make a better alternative. Creat something even Amercians would want. That would be a breakthrough.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  63. Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, I know this is slashdot, but, seriously, why is this news? Zuckerberg is not going to go to Iran of his own volition, and the US government (even the current one) is not going to extradite him to Iran. This is a stupid move by a stupid judge. We don't need to look to Iran for that type of thing.

  64. Sounds legit to me... by Eddy_D · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  65. Jewish Surnames by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    So traditionally Jews used their father's name as a surname e.g. 'ben Moshe'. In the late 18th Century various governments, including the Austrian Empire, tried to integrate Jews more fully, both by granting them rights as citizens, and by forcing them to adopt some of the local customs, such as having a hereditary surname. Napoleon did the same thing. In Czarist Russia, the Jews were allowed to choose surnames. In most of the German states, well.

    Zuckerberg ('sugar mountain') got off lucky. We also had Mandelbrot ('almond bread'), and various of the type pleasant word + natural feature, e.g. Goldbach ('gold brook') or Rosenblum. Those people who were unlucky, well...

    Jews were named Bettelarm (destitute),
    Maschinendraht (machine wire), Fresser (glutton), Saufer (boozer), Taschengreifer (pocket grabber) and
    Todtschlager (killer). Beider, who was unable to replicate most of Franzos's findings, insists that only "a small
    series of surnames were totally contemptuous."

    Long story short, the type of compound surname he has is very strongly associated with Germanic Jewish ancestry. And yes, as far as that goes, he's Jewish. The linked article goes into more detail, and is pretty interesting, if you have a spare minute.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  66. Can I have some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of what he's smoking?

  67. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by smithmc · · Score: 1

    Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.

    All of which you agreed to when choosing to use Facebook. Believe it or not, you don't have to use it.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  68. Re:... nobody is talking about the privacy violati by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.

    All of which you agreed to when choosing to use Facebook. Believe it or not, you don't have to use it.

    And believe it or not, I have intentionally chosen not to use it. I have never had an account there. Yet, they likely have quite a bit of personal information about me based on all of my friends and relatives who do use it regularly.

    My point more so, however, is that they make money by selling personal information. Now, if people are willing to give up their personal information to a for-profit in exchange for crappy free games and making it easy to find out which of their friends most recently crapped in which coffee shop restroom, then so be it. However when they are not clear about how much information they give to who - and at what cost - then they do deserve to be examined a little closer.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  69. South park episode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, isn't South Park afraid to take on Islam. That's why they don't show Mohammed on their show.

  70. Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the Iranian judge should be made aware of the response given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).