Slashdot Mirror


Iranian App Helps Users Avoid Morality Police (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Young people in Iran are using a new app called Gershad (a contraction of 'Gashte Ershad', or 'guidance patrol'), to avoid the 'morality police' by sharing the location of checkpoints with other users. At checkpoints strict Islamic dress and behavior codes are enforced, and their ad hoc nature can make them difficult to avoid. Hadi Ghaemi, the executive director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, said of Gershad, "This is an innovative idea and I believe it will lead to many other creative apps which will address the gap between society and government in Iran."

210 comments

  1. That's nice, but... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What Iran really needs is a revolution to overthrow those theocratic motherfuckers.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A revolution? Fuck, a revolution is what got them into that shit, you really think you can motivate them to try again?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:That's nice, but... by aliquis · · Score: 0

      What Iran really needs is a revolution to overthrow those theocratic motherfuckers.

      What they need is 80s Swedish glam metal or whatever:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Sweden needs a cleanse.

    3. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It might be a while. The Obama administration left the last big attempt at reform to twist in the wind.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, the Iranians are smart enough that they won't revolt against the Shah twice in a row. The next revolution will be against the current government.

      Admittedly it would have been better for them if the Obama administration hadn't left them in the wind to dangle.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:That's nice, but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh...it was a revolution that got them in this mess in the first place. Jimmy Carter was completely fooled by the Ayatollah Khomeni, and thought he was a decent fellow who wanted a grassroots revolution. 35 years ago, under the Shah and his Savak secret police, Iranian - no, scratch that, Persian women walked freely in the streets dressed however they liked. After the revolution? Let's just say that when they renamed the country the Islamic Republic of Iran (its official name still today), they weren't screwing around. Carter had the nerve to lecture the Ayatollahs on Islamic law, telling them how Allah does not justify cruelty to women. As if HE had memorized the Koran.

      And you know the real losers of the Iranian revolution? The liberals. After accepting their help to overthrow the Shah, the Ayatollahs - in a completely unanticipated and surprising move that nobody, and I mean nobody saw coming except everyone in the world - liquidated the liberals in the same way they liquidated the hated Savak. Useful idiots, as always.

      What happened afterwards? Everything everyone said was going to happen. Soviets invade Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq go to war, Pasdaran copy Communist technique of clearing minefields with human wave attacks, and Morality Police hit the streets telling women to cover up. And it was all America's fault.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:That's nice, but... by unixisc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A counter-revolution, to be more precise. Preferably, one that outlaws Islam - in the same way Communism was outlawed in Russia after 1991.

    7. Re:That's nice, but... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but pulling off a revolution now would overthrow the Islamic regime in Teheran, which would presumably bring anti-Islamists to power. It remains to be seen whether Iran would be another Egypt or Libya, where removing one Islamic regime would mean substituting it w/ another

    8. Re:That's nice, but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you know ANYTHING about Iran? WTF? The Islamic government is genuinely popular. They TRIED to have a revolution a few years ago and it went nowhere. It failed even though Western leftists changed their Twitter pages backgrounds to green in support. I know, I'm as clueless as you - how could such a move have failed?

      You want to know something really chilling? Ahmedinajad won in the 2005 election because he pulled a Bernie Sanders - he promised to give free (oil) money to ordinary folks. The man is legitimately popular and he has Morality Police on the streets, with the full support of the people who voted for him. It can happen here, people.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why there's a huge communist party in Russia today?

    10. Re:That's nice, but... by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If we've learned anything from the Arab Spring it's that most of the people living there favor these types of religiously oppressive governments, so any overthrow of the existing power structure is more likely than not to end up with something worse taking its place. If Iran were destabilized right now, they'd end up being partially controlled by ISIS. As bad as Hussein or Assad might be, at least they kept a lid on that shit.

      I think a good chunk of the Middle East might be sliding towards some hopeless cycle for the foreseeable future because anyone intelligent enough to see why that kind of system is bad is likely to leave for other, less oppressive countries. The people who could be a catalyst for reform aren't there any longer to make improvements and it's no surprise that they don't want to stick around when it's relatively easy to move elsewhere and end up in a country where you won't be killed for your religious beliefs or stoned to death for your sexual preferences.

    11. Re:That's nice, but... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " The man is legitimately popular and he has Morality Police on the streets, with the full support of the people who voted for him. It can happen here, people."

      First, he doesn't have anyone on the streets, because he is no longer president of Iran. Secondly, he was widely unpopular, particularly with the increasingly powerful educated urban population, who got Rouhani elected.

    12. Re:That's nice, but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Yeah...he was a one-termer who did a ton of damage to his own country with untenable promises. Sound familiar yet?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can happen here, people.

      If by here you mean the United States, I would have to say that such a thing is next to impossible at the present time for the following reasons:

      1. The state of public morals in the United States is at an all time low. We're in the process of discarding the religious nonsense that our parents and grandparents had to put up with. It began in the 1960s when the Boomer generation took the first steps with the sexual revolution, drugs and rock and roll and continued through the 1970s and 80s, when the religious types attempted a counter-attack that ultimately wound up in failure with the go-go 1990s and the rise of the Internet. The millennial generation with their ubiquitous mobile devices connected continuously to unfiltered news, entertainment and culture has arguably now escaped from any semblance of moral control by the state. Putting all of those genies back in the bottle, which were never fully released in Iran by the way, would be next to impossible.

      2. The press in the United States is basically free to say whatever the heck it wants and the Internet bloggers are left to say whatever the mainstream press doesn't dare and nobody is able or indeed much interested in trying to stop them. This is also unlike Iran where both the press and the Internet are tightly controlled and always have been since either the foundation of the Islamic Republic in 1979 or in the case of the Internet since it first became available. As long as this reality remains in the United States, it's hard to see how any "morality police" have any chance of enforcing morals or standards. Various private organizations on the religious right sometimes try, but most everyone else ignores them and laughs in their collective faces without consequences.

      3. Despite what the left would have you believe, the average American basically thinks that all Muslims, and especially Iranians, are terrorists who are out to get us and therefore should be preemptively smacked down by our government. For us it began with the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 to 1980. Ever since that time we have hated the Iranians and all that they stand for. Probably 6 out 10 Americans definitely feel that way and another 2 or 3 would basically go along with it because they don't much like Iranians either and think of them as scary misogynists in black turbans who aren't good people anyway. Perhaps 1 in 10 Americans, generally leftist intellectual types like our current President, hold different views but it would be a mistake for Iranians to believe that whatever deals they think they've made with President Obama will last. As soon as he's out of office, those sanctions are going to snap back so fast that the Ayatollahs' heads will be spinning.

      4. Finally, if there's one thing that Americans just can't stand it's peoples and countries who constantly interfere with our interests and seek to humiliate us publicly. We have long memories and enjoy seeing our enemies get what's coming to them. Even young people who think of themselves as liberal were still among the crowd of young people outside the White House the night that Osama Bin Laden was killed chanting USA, USA, USA. So you see, we Americans like to see our enemies laid low no mater how long that takes. The Iranians would do well to remember that.

    14. Re:That's nice, but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Khomeni was an asset. The U.S. knew the Shah was sick and going to die, and they didn't want those 'liberals' to get all chummy with the Soviets. They took him (Khomeni) out of his hibernation pod in, where was that, France, right? This precluded that threat. Can't argue with success. In a variation of the same theme the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan. Rile up the locals and give them a bunch of weapons, and wait... Carter wasn't "fooled" at all. He (the 'team') played a good game, and it worked. Destabilization is serving its purpose to this day. The whole religious angle is a ruse to sell the war. And if you don't believe me, then take a gander at our best buddy Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc., all just as fanatical as Iran. More so, Iran hasn't invaded anybody outside their borders in a very long time.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:That's nice, but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Have you been living in a hole and missed the Pasdaran fighting in Syria? They have not only lost a large number of soldiers but a bunch of commanders as well. They lead from the front. The survivors are now war heroes. Movie makers are making adoring movies about them. Imagine something like that in America - Tarantino or Oliver Stone making their own countrymen into heroes for taking sides in someone else's civil war.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:That's nice, but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Islamic State is Sunni, Islamic Republic of Iran is Shiite. They have about as much chance of working together as the socialist Bernie Sanders does with the white working class. Please stop talking about the Middle East from now on. You're ignorant, and I say that without rancor or malice. You need to read a lot of books.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re:That's nice, but... by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      A counter-revolution, to be more precise. Preferably, one that outlaws Islam - in the same way Communism was outlawed in Russia after 1991.

      99.4% of Iranians are Muslims. Good luck with that.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    18. Re:That's nice, but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Movies, war, movies about war, they all sell very well. We have Zero Dark Thirty, American sniper, 13 hours... Business is business. The idea is to keep the game running and the money flowing. Looks like Russia is giving a little push to Iran. I wouldn't worry about it. They just don't have the capital to keep it up for very long, not while the we and the Saudis keep dumping oil to depress their petro-dollars.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Outlawing Islam isn't going to happen, but some sort of controls on Islamist parties seeming to rule the country could be possible. The Shah held them in check for quite some time. With the recent experience of being subjected to their rule it may be possible to get enough popular support to do it.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    20. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just keep reaching, you'll get a valid point eventually.

      Or do you believe the one candidate who's against Citizens United and for religious freedom is a theocratic oligarch?

    21. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They TRIED to have a revolution a few years ago and it went nowhere. It failed even though Western leftists changed their Twitter pages backgrounds to green in support. I know, I'm as clueless as you - how could such a move have failed?

      Oh, I thought it failed because the government locked up mass quantities of protestations, then beat them and sexually assaulted them (regardless of gender) for a few months. Some disappeared forever and the rest were released after confessing via videotape or paper.

      The international free press must have gotten that wrong though.

      I thin Assad is generally popular in Syria too, since that revolution hasn't gone anywhere either...?

    22. Re:That's nice, but... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "What Iran really needs is a revolution to overthrow those theocratic motherfuckers."

      Iran is like Cuba in that it has a whole professional/business class living in exile, in places like Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills. The relations they maintain with their relatives in the old country, reminding them that pre-mullah Iran was the only nation in the region to have industries and a middle class, are setting things up for the next revolution.

    23. Re:That's nice, but... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      They had one against the amazingly corrupt Shah of Iran in 1979. This is the result.

      Revolutions don't always bring benefits to the local people or to the world, as a whole, except in the very short term.

    24. Re:That's nice, but... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > their own countrymen into heroes for taking sides in someone else's civil war.

      You mean like joining the French Foreign Legion? Or the covert support the US provided to Saigon before the Vietnam War became official? Or the roughly 100,000 US mercenaries currently working in Iraq?

    25. Re:That's nice, but... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Just wait a bit longer for the kids to grow up and the loosening grip to let go. Which way it's going to go is a mystery but it's not going to be the stifling autocratic nanny state it is now.

    26. Re:That's nice, but... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      which would presumably bring anti-Islamists to power

      Really?
      Wouldn't they have to be imported?

    27. Re:That's nice, but... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If we've learned anything from the Arab Spring it's that most of the people living there favor these types of religiously oppressive governments

      A lack of freedom of assembly for reasons other than worship is why they can't have nice things.
      To put things simply nobody but the Islamist political groups can even meet let alone get organized.

    28. Re:That's nice, but... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Blaming President Carter is just a crazy right-wing fantasy, not "history."

      Wildly crazy stuff, that seems to also require a belief in Jimmy Carter being a mutant Superhero who failed to fly over and stop it.

      The whole embassy stuff just kinda-sorta blows a hole in your theory. Check some historical newsreels kiddo.

    29. Re:That's nice, but... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      A slow revolution undermining the base for the government.

      Realize that the Iranian government is in place due to a population that largely lacks education except in the religious writings.

      Guerrilla education when it comes to science and way of living in other cultures for both boys and girls is the only way to undermine the religious dictatorship.

      Unfortunately we see a turn into religious dictatorship in the west as well - especially led by the creationists that tries to dictate that science is bad and religion is good. You can have religion, but tinker with it at home and don't push it to your peers.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    30. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You guys ever actually ask an Iranian what you think? Of the many I know, two things are clear:

      (a) Their government is a joke.
      (b) Their religion is not.

      If you keep insulting their religion or saying ignorant things, they will be pissed at you. If you point out the absurdity of their government, they'll be laughing along with you.

    31. Re:That's nice, but... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They don't have a significant number of "anti-Islamists." It is crazy silly stuff. It is almost exactly like the claim that saying "Happy Holidays" is an attack on Christians. Just as Americans are mostly not anti-Christian, Iranians are not anti-Islam. Tolerant governments of places in the region with relatively free cultures are still officially Islamic nations, including the dictatorships. Iraqi Kurdistan is the closest thing to an exception, and they're still mostly Muslims and have cordial relations with their Islamist neighbors.

      The fantasy-land "awesome Persia after a regime change" would still be Islamist, but would be moderate with secular dominance of civil society.

    32. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to disagree with the post above.

    33. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know ANYTHING about Iran?

      Just what my Iranian friends tell me, and according to them, the government is a joke. But yea, don't ask the people of the country, go to some blog labeled "war nerd"... that'll be much more accurate!

    34. Re:That's nice, but... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      They are not all the same sort of Islam. The country runs the whole spectrum from 'very devout muslim' to 'insanely devout muslim.'

    35. Re:That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I somehow have the feeling that it's more like with the US political spectrum running from "very devout" to "insanely devout" Christian in any and all political offices.

      Have you ever seen a US politician not end his speech with some phrase invoking god?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dude, please. The Iran is a theocracy, but they're not Afghanistan.

      There are actually universities in Iran that actually teach you relevant things. They're not the equivalent of US Bible colleges. Yes, there is a load of uneducated, brainwashed idiots that think their sky daddy made everything. But I guess we can both think of a few US states that fit that bill perfectly too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the paper,yes. I'd go with 30 to 40 percent.

    38. Re:That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now where does that non-sequitor come from?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen Bernie Sanders win New Hampshire, is that good enough?

    40. Re:That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Given what I've seen after a few other "Arab Springs", I would not count on a replacement regime being more moderate...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:That's nice, but... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      the same way Communism was outlawed in Russia after 1991.

      That would be not at all, of course. The communist party of Russia holds 92 seats in the Duma, and runs their candidate against Putin in the presidential elections as well.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    42. Re:That's nice, but... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      The USA has 99% literacy, Iran has 80%. That's a notably larger block of people who are especially easy to manipulate. And you certainly don't need a majority for control -- the majority in Iran voted for reformists until they found it didn't do any good. 20% is more than enough to fill the revolutionary guard ranks.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    43. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to make as much sense as your post. The problem for the Iranians wasn't the revolution, but the hijacking of the revolution by the Islamists. Why would you deny the Iranians their freedom? You got yours, screw them? With the current influx of immigrants into Europe it looks like you are going to be in for some intresting times. You know that most of them back Sharia, right?

    44. Re:That's nice, but... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      If we've learned anything from the Arab Spring it's that most of the people living there favor these types of religiously oppressive governments

      Libyans voted heavily for secular parties, it's not the people's fault that the islamist government refused to leave office and forced the legitimate government into exile in the east. Tunisia on the other hand has successfully transfered power from islamists to secularists via democratic election.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    45. Re:That's nice, but... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a US politician call for a sixteen year old girl to be executed once she admitted (after being tortured) that she had committed the crime of being raped by a fifty year old?

      I just double-checked and according to the BBC, the conviction that led to her death sentence was simply "crimes against chastity". Were actually you under some sort of impression that it was just Texas-sans-beer over there?

    46. Re:That's nice, but... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      A counter-revolution

      A dance dance counter revoltion?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUautVrEUyU

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    47. Re:That's nice, but... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      This is what we Germans call "dangerous superficial knowledge".
      Communism was not outlawed in Russia after 1991, only the CPSU was. CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) never was outlawed and is, in fact, the second largest party in Russia.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    48. Re:That's nice, but... by MastaBaba · · Score: 1

      Why do you make a point of pre-revolutionary Iranian women being *persian*?

    49. Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC... LOL.

    50. Re:That's nice, but... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      A counter-revolution, to be more precise. Preferably, one that outlaws Islam - in the same way Communism was outlawed in Russia after 1991.

      Don't be stupid. First of all, outlawing something - anything - will only galvanize those to whom the something is important. There are many people in the world, not least in Iran, who see Islam as important, you may be surprised to hear. It is not possible to bring peace and freedom by forcing Western prejudices on them; that is what led to much of the terrorism in the first place. It will only work if people actually want it.

      Secondly, revolution can easily go wrong. The revolution happened in Russia for all the right reasons, one could argue: the Czar was a despot completely out of touch with his people, and the people suffered severely - revolution seemed the only way. But it didn't work out all that well, I think. Even the French and American revolutions didn't bring instant bliss, in fact history seems to suggest that they did little to change things in a real way. After all, what is the point of rounding up the leaders and execute them, if people immediately revert to the same miserable way of doing things?

      Education of the rulers as well as the ruled has always been and will always be the only real way forward. Revolution and war will rarely do anything other than set that process back.

    51. Re:That's nice, but... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The CIA fucks, it does not un-fuck.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    52. Re:That's nice, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think a good chunk of the Middle East might be sliding towards some hopeless cycle for the foreseeable future

      Nope. It's not sliding towards it, it's been in it since the middle east rejected science. There have been momentary detentes but the history of the world is one of war and the history of that religion is that they used to be big into science, but now they're big into theocracy and ne'er the twain shall be reconciled.

      The only bright spot is that their culture keeps them from kicking our ass scientifically, or on a production basis, because of the way they treat half of their population — that is, like it has no rights, and should be glad of it. This is the reason they will always get their asses handed to them by the rest of the world when they get outwardly violent.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:That's nice, but... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > The problem for the Iranians wasn't the revolution, but the hijacking of the revolution by the Islamists.

      Revolutions are almost always hijacked, usually by the most fanatical of the revolutionaries. It's _amazing_ that US politics were so thoughtful and cautious in the first 30 years after the American Revolution.

    54. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a US politician call for a sixteen year old girl to be executed once she admitted (after being tortured) that she had committed the crime of being raped by a fifty year old?
       

      I think I saw a US politician call for the execution of a young girl who admitted to having an abortion after being raped by a fifty year old. Unlike Iran, he could not get the government to do that though.

    55. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Iran is like Cuba in that it has a whole professional/business class living in exile, in places like Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills.

      They've been dying off for decades. It's been 56 years since that revolution, and the "professional/business class" got diluted by Castro emptying out his prisons onto US soil in roughly 1980. I remember that well, my Cuban family *did not want* those gays, criminals, and political idiots from Cuban prisons joining their communities. Miami politics went *nuts* trying to deal with it, because every middle class or wealthy family wanted them shipped back, preferably in boxes, except *of course* for their particular wayward nephew or cousin who *of course* was framed for those charges and would be an asset to the community.

      I stayed the heck out of Miami for decades after that, it got *nasty* down there.

    56. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Iran is a perfect example of a people getting the government they deserve. It might not be the government they want, as such, but it's fully and well deserved and the Iranians don't deserve our sympathy.

    57. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Jimmy Carter was completely fooled by the Ayatollah Khomeni ...

      Yes, Western press painted Khomeni as the devil reborn. I think it was the US ambassador there, who opined that Khomeni was a sock puppet for the militant factions to hide behind. It's interesting that the rest of your post talks about the Ayotollahs, not just Khomeni.

      And it was all America's fault.

      While there's no concrete evidence, there's a feeling or a suggestion that the current Iranian government wants to isolate the theocracy ruling it. The USA would do well to stop the 'evil empire' rhetoric, not just because the world can see the hypocrisy now but because this chink in the armour is an opportunity to push secular policies. To my dismay, I expect the US state department to demand US-friendly policies that mimic imperialism and alienate the country again.

    58. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Assad might be, at least they kept a lid on that shit.

      The fact that Syria is suffering a civil war which militant extremists are using to establish a break-away state, suggests he did not keep a lid on it. What should have been a minor regime-change turned into a unending bitch-fight among foreign interests.

    59. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin will be in charge until he decides he's had enough and wants to appoint a puppet. There is no democracy going on in Russia.

    60. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, the Iranis (Iranies? Iranes?) are not happy how the clergy's hijacked the revolution.

    61. Re:That's nice, but... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The literacy rate is 97% among 15-24 year olds, both male and female. Iran is changing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    62. Re:That's nice, but... by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      That's a good point... the weakness of the federal government at the time may have helped. There wasn't a power structure larger than an individual state to seize.

    63. Re:That's nice, but... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bwahahaha! I expect better out of you, Cold Fjord!

      From Wikipedia:

      In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as the prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran, after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.

      There are photographs you can find on the internet (not going to Google for you) that show how progressive Iran was before 1953. I'm talking about women wearing Western clothing and attending university, completely unaccompanied by a male relative, moving as freely about the institutions of higher learning as Hypatia at Alexander.

      Let's see. If we're going to blame a president, who was COC in 1953? Wikipedia? Looking at this graph, I blame Eisenhower (R)!

      On the other hand, Eisenhower gave this famous speech warning about the Military-Industrial Complex in 1961, so the rest of the story is likely quite complicated.

      Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

      This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

      In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial [sic] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

      --D. Eisenhower. January, 1961.

    64. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Hillary wanted her dead for the abortion, more likely it was going public with the rape accusations...

    65. Re:That's nice, but... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Hypatia at Alexander

      Argh! Alexandria! Shaka, when the walls fell; Hypatia, when the library burned.

    66. Re:That's nice, but... by dabadab · · Score: 1

      in the same way Communism was outlawed in Russia after 1991.

      Yeah, that really worked as intended, so there's no chance that an ex-KGB agent would seize the power, turn into a dictator and would start to revive the Soviet Union.
      Oh, wait...

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    67. Re:That's nice, but... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You can have religion, but tinker with it at home and don't push it to your peers.

      If that was the attitude, religion wouldn't be around. Yes, that would be a good thing.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    68. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      One of my favorites is people who point to the French revolution and don't actually know what happened, how it happened, and what the results were. Very few revolts had the anticipated results. I am not a historian but I find history fascinating and so I guess you could say I'm a student of history. It's absolutely insane the things people will point to as acts of good and to be emulated or admired.

      The adage about history repeating itself? I think there's some veracity to it. I'm not sure it's a cycle that can be stopped.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    69. Re:That's nice, but... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Reading loses its charm when the quran is the only thing you're allowed to read.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    70. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I do believe that their justification is that the rape could not have happened if she'd been with a male relative and that she's to blame for not having followed the law, being a temptation too great, and getting raped. If she'd just been following the rules and been with a male relative then she'd have been fine and the man would not have raped her.

      Not that I agree with that - I'm just adding that to the pile. Sadly, I have to point out that I'm not in agreement with them because there are some people here who think that just mentioning it means that one condones it. Yes, yes their idiots but it's faster to type this out than it is to reply to 'em.

      At any rate, it's amusing when people try to equate the two. One of my favorites is when they try to equate Christians and Muslims. And no, no... I'm not a Christian either. I just chuckle at the rabid people.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    71. Re:That's nice, but... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The percentage that's permitted into university in Iran is not going to topple the imbalance that exists.

      It may not be as bad as Afghanistan, but it's not good either by western standards.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    72. Re:That's nice, but... by vvaduva · · Score: 1

      You mean Evolution? Revolutions usually end up with the same shitbags running the same show.

    73. Re:That's nice, but... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing is that there have been two revolutions in Russia in 1917. The first one (the february revolution) forced the tsar to abdicate and established a republic with a provisional government (a coalition of democratic socialists and classic liberals). The second one (the october revolution) was a bolshevik coup which overthrew the provisional government, and was, strictly speaking, unnecessary.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    74. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tunisia is not a good example. Tunisia is fighting against islamization. Woman used to be able to walk uncovered over the streets, but are now attacked by conservative Muslims. They are still fighting for their secular rights but are only protected by police and army. But they are still in an economic crisis. How long will they be able to fend of the islamization?

    75. Re:That's nice, but... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      So her crime was . . . existing? Or more specifically existing while female?

    76. Re:That's nice, but... by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Stop. Just stop. Comparing theology in the US to that in Iran and pretending they are alike is dishonest and disingenuous. We don't have "morality police" here in the US. We have plenty of people who think there should be a morality police but it's just their opinion.

      Iran, on the other hand, has a real morality police. With legal teeth that can affect people's lives. To suggest that their system is anything like the US is ludicrous. Stop it.

    77. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The West is currently in the grip of wannabe morality police attacking everything they find offensive. Twitter, Facebook are the current targets of the offendatrons - including a recent banning of Viz comic from Facebook (been gleefully "offending" zealots for 36 years). They are also trying to get games banned in Korea and Japan and ISPs censored.

      Don't be so quick to claim Iran needs a freedom revolution. So do we.

    78. Re:That's nice, but... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      It's _amazing_ that US politics were so thoughtful and cautious in the first 30 years after the American Revolution.

      In the early years, the U.S. did actually come very close to devolving into the same kind of mess that the French Revolution did. The Whiskey Rebellion and several other regional rebellions could have easily escalated into a collapse of the new government. Fortunately, the country had a good leader in George Washington, who took a very Napoleonic view of the various uprisings (i.e. he sent in an army and told them if they didn't stop, he would kill them).

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    79. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Sort of. It was being alone in the company of an unrelated male. They're a bit gung-ho with the victim blaming and circular reasoning. To them, had she obeyed the rules then she'd have not been in that situation. She's not only responsible for her behavior but she's also the cause of the man's behavior. He couldn't have raped her if she'd not been alone with him and she'd have not been alone with him if she'd been with a relative.

      Yes, yes it is kind of retarded, barbarian, draconian, authoritarian, and evil. I've had the chance to visit a few areas in the Middle East. Iran is not one of those areas. So, I'm not familiar with the country but I'm a little familiar with the mentality. I'm not one for doing typical 'touristy' things when I travel, I prefer to meet real people and not go hang out with people who are just like the tourists I can find at home. So, I've talked with people all over the place and the above is how I understand the way of thinking to be.

      I'm not sure I can find an equivalent in my country... Hmm... Try this?

      Let's say that you and I get really high on PCP and decide to do a home invasion. We go kick the door in and it turns out that the home owner is not as timid as we thought. He pulls a gun and shoots me and I die. You are legally culpable for my death even though you didn't kill me.

      While that's not even remotely the same - the similarity is that she's culpable not just for breaking the rules but for him committing the offense. He could not have committed the offense had she not been present. So, with her committing a crime she's also to blame for other crimes committed, actions taken, or the likes. That's a horrible analogy but I can't really think of a better one. It's kind of foreign enough to where I'm not able to think of anything that's all that similar in my culture.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    80. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It can happen here, people.

      I'm a little skeptical of that claim in the current environment. I'm not sure that the person would be "legitimately popular" here.

      I'm assuming that you're speaking of the United States? If not then, I'm sorry and don't want to live where you live. If you are then, well... Not even Obama's well liked. He's not hated but he's not that popular. He doesn't even have very low approval ratings.

      Not even the most die-hard Christian fanatic would be "legitimately popular" - even in the South. I really think you're being hyperbolic and that it can't happen here with the current environment. I don't know if I'd say that the post 9/11 military responses were "legitimately popular." I'd say they were popular with some people but we're pretty diverse here.

      In Iran, something like 97% of the population are Muslims. In the US, not even 97% of the population is citizens. Other than basic human functions, there's nothing that's 97% that I can think of. Hell, 97% of the population doesn't even eat meat. 97% of the population can't even tell you their street address. 97% of the population probably doesn't even know the president's name, day of the week, what year it is, or even have a job.

      Oh, wait... We do (they say, I'm a bit curious about the standard for determining this) have a 99% literacy rate but that's only among adults. I have no idea how they determined that. We don't even have much that's 50% or better unless we ask skewed opinion poll questions to self-selected people. We do seem to have a consensus, greater than 50%, that Slashdot can dump the videos. I suspect that's only because there's two options... If they'd fleshed it out more, they probably would have different results.

      So, I question your conclusion that it can happen here (in the current environment). If you're referring to a time that is not the current environment and a vastly changed environment then I'm not sure that's actually pertinent. Seems mighty hyperbolic (and mistaken) if you ask me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    81. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      One of the oddities that I've noticed is that Carter has done so much more, so much more good, in his post-presidency than he ever did while he was in office. It turns out that he's a great man and a great humanitarian. He's just been more able to act after his presidency.

      As I look back through history, I really can't think of an equivalent. He's really done a lot since then. It's actually kind of impressive. He doesn't even appear to have done those things in order to remain in the limelight. He's a genuine humanitarian. I've had the opportunity to say hello and shake his hand but that's it. I'm really quite grateful that the world has had his presence. It probably won't be long before he's gone and the world will be a slightly lesser place without him.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    82. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      They have about as much chance of working together as the socialist Bernie Sanders does with the white working class.

      Umm... What?

      No, seriously. What? Do you actually know who Sander's supporters are? Have you looked to see where Sander's funding is coming from? You might want to do that some time. 'Cause, well... Err... Let me see...

      Are you sitting down? You might want to sit down. Seriously, sit down.

      The white, working class, people are actually the people who are supporting Bernie's candidacy. I know that may seem odd but it's not the welfare class that's supporting him because they don't have any money. No, it's individuals and unions of individuals that are supporting him. Most of them, by all appearances, are very much white and working class.

      The very wealthy, perhaps still working, don't seem to be the group with the most supporters. The welfare class seems to favor the Republicans (often Trump, Cruz, or Bush) or they favor Clinton. Even if they did support him, they're not sending him much money. It's not, on average, business owners who are supporting him. It's pretty much white working class folks who are supporting him, speaking about him, volunteering for him, and things like that.

      I... I... I don't know how you would think that the two wouldn't be working together? I read your post. I read your post three times. I'm baffled that you'd say such a thing and then tell someone else to stop talking about something, calling them ignorant, and then suggesting that they need to learn something. Who the fuck did you think was supporting Bernie? No, really... Who do you think his supporters are? Have you ever seen his constituents? They're pasty white, working-class, people from Vermont!

      Yet, you sit there and claim another is ignorant and needs an education. The mind, it boggles. I encourage you to look at the demographics of his constituency and to look at the people who are supporting him. I have no idea why you'd think he'd not be able to work with them when they're (very specifically) the ones supporting him.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    83. Re:That's nice, but... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Their revolution wasn't hijacked by lslamists, it was always from the Islamists.

    84. Re:That's nice, but... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      A counter-revolution, to be more precise. Preferably, one that outlaws Islam - in the same way Communism was outlawed in Russia after 1991.

      Score:4, Interesting? It is certainly an interesting idea.

      There's a big difference between an unpopular political party, and a religion. Don't forget, the Soviets, (and the Chinese), tried to ban religion. They were not successful. Trying to outlaw Islam in Iran would be much the same as trying to outlaw Christianity in the US. You'd have a much easier time outlawing the Republican and Democratic Parties, (a worthy goal). I don't know if you've noticed, but religions tend to outlast political institutions. What the people of Iran wanted, and tried to accomplish, was a more secular government. That is, a greater separation of mosque and state, and a government more responsive to the people. I'm no fan of religion, but your suggestion, (and comparison), is absurd.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    85. Re:That's nice, but... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      That may annoy you and (to a lesser extent) I, but it's still a false equivalence. Politicians referencing their religion does not a theocracy make.
      Whatever whacko extremist christians may exist in the Americas and Europe, they're far and away outnumbered and out-violenced by, and have far less clout and influence on the world than extremist Islamists, in any remotely modern and relevant context.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    86. Re:That's nice, but... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Not suggesting all Iranians are extremists, BTW, that was a tangent; just ranting about the whole "Christianity same as Islam" argument. Correlation is not causation. The key is to see what motivates someone into dangerous behavior; are they doing so in the name of their religion, or regardless of it?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    87. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(film)

    88. Re:That's nice, but... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      If we've learned anything from the Arab Spring it's that most of the people living there favor these types of religiously oppressive governments, ...

      Then you have indeed learned nothing from the Arab Spring.

      Millions of young Arabs really did take to the streets demanding liberty, and dignity, and justice. .... It wasn’t a mirage. We really do exist.

      We’re not a minority, either. We only appear to be a minority because we’re not organized; we’re not on the menu. When the only options presented are black or white, it does not mean that red or green or blue are a minority. When the only options presented are religious authoritarianism or nationalistic fascism, it does not mean that a third option doesn’t exist. It’s just not on the menu.

    89. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until Rafael "Ted" Cruz gets elected.

    90. Re:That's nice, but... by Copid · · Score: 2

      This is something really important that a lot of people who live in healthy democracies miss. A lot of them seem to assume that freedom and democracy are the natural state of things and that when governments topple, democracy is likely to spring up like magic. This attitude is not helpful when it comes to our inclination to topple any government we don't like and assume that what replaces it will be better.

      The reality is that at the end of a revolution, there's usually at least one faction with a lot of guns. Democracy requires that the guy with all of the guns say, "You know what? I'll just let you guys run this place instead of becoming a dictator myself." Guys who amass and lead private armies tend not to be the types of guys who do that.

      It's rare that people are smart enough to say that nobody gets to be dictator. Most people just seem to want to argue over whether it's their turn to hold the whip. The lesson people get from, "The other guys abused us when they were in charge," is almost always, "Now that we're in charge, we're going to get those fuckers," instead of, "Maybe nobody should be doing this."

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    91. Re: That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's a start.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    92. Re:That's nice, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give it time, we're getting there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    93. Re:That's nice, but... by sjames · · Score: 1

      We don't have "morality police" here in the US.

      Sure we do, it's just not as strict. A great many places have some sort of indecent exposure law. There are even people on a lifetime offender's registry for peeing on a dumpster.

    94. Re:That's nice, but... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The USA has 99% literacy, Iran has 80%. That's a notably larger block of people who are especially easy to manipulate. And you certainly don't need a majority for control -- the majority in Iran voted for reformists until they found it didn't do any good. 20% is more than enough to fill the revolutionary guard ranks.

      As if that doesn't hold true in the USA. Yes, we claim a 99% literacy rate, but the question is how do you measure literacy? What do we consider literacy? Most importantly, how do we measure a population's ability to do critical thinking and adaptability in this increasingly multi-polar globalized world?

      Just look around. For Christ' sake, we have kids, hordes and hordes of kids who graduate from HS who 1) have no skills whatsoever, 2) are not trained to do any form of critical thinking, and 3) who need a calculator to perform basic arithmetic. No, I'm not exaggerating, this is the truth.

      Travel the world and talk to people. It's is mind blowing. You talk to an average literate person in, say, Japan, or Iran, and you are going to notice a dept of basic knowledge (true literacy) that is severely lacking in our general population.

      So throwing numbers around about how close to 100% literacy we are doesn't do squat. It means nothing. It is not quantity, but quality that matters.

    95. Re:That's nice, but... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Reading loses its charm when the quran is the only thing you're allowed to read.

      1) Nice to see you are making that assumption about Iranians.

      2) Replace Quran with Bible, and you are pretty much describing 1/3 of this country. This is the country where we have people who believe some batshit crazy stuff, like the world was created 6000 years ago, chemtrails, birtherism, UN Agenda 21 conspiracy theories and so on and so on.

      We are not the smartest of people, and we shouldn't be making uneducated statements about countries we know next to nothing about.

    96. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've met hundreds of Iranians. Maybe two were "devout".

    97. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's _amazing_ that US politics were so thoughtful and cautious in the first 30 years after the American Revolution.

      Perhaps it's amazing as long as you keep thinking about that event as a "revolution." Where I grew up, in Western Europe, that event was commonly referred to as the American War Of Independence, which seems like a better fit.

      Revolution is what happens when people in failing or failed states get fed up and overthrow their governments. That is always ugly, if only because the starting point was massively fucked up to begin with. The American "Revolution," on the other hand, was a bunch of peaceful, thriving, getting-better-all-the-time colonies, who decided they could do *even better* by breaking free from the British Empire. Getting rid of some of your tax burden and gaining autonomy is nice, sure, but it's hardly revolutionary à la French or Russian Revolution.

    98. Re:That's nice, but... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I think I'll go with the "retarded, barbarian, draconian, authoritarian, and evil" assessment. Especially if they're not even bothering to claim she seduced him, just that her mere unprotected existence was provocation.

    99. Re:That's nice, but... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Communism is as much a religion as Islam is, or conversely, Islam is as much an ideology - a geopolitical one - as Communism is

    100. Re:That's nice, but... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Assad is popular w/ Alawites, and the supporting groups - Druze & Christians, who support him b'cos they know that if Sunni Arabs take over the country, their fate would be no better than the fate of non-Sunni Arabs in ISIL territory. You are right about Iran, but used the wrong analogy w/ Syria. Iran would be analogous to Syria if you had the Farsis - 50% of the country - in a full blown civil war against the other 4 groups - Azeris, Kurds, Balochis & Arabs.

    101. Re:That's nice, but... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      There is quite a difference b/w Arabs and others when it comes to Islam.

      Islam, at its core, amongst everything else, is a vehicle for Arab supremacy. The Quran is in Arabic, allah understands only Arabic, Mohammed said that the Arabs were the best of people, et al. Even non Arabs, when they embrace Islam, are not deemed as good as the Arabs. They have a hierarchy of most favored peoples - first the Quraysh Arabs (the tribe that Mohammed was from), then the Arabian Peninsula Arabs (which is why al Qaeda didn't allow for leaders outside the peninsula until the GWOT eliminated all their top leaders from the peninsula) then other Arabs (from places like Egypt, Syria or Iraq) and finally others (like the Turks, who held the Caliphate for a while). All this is very attractive and appealing to Arabs - so much so that even non-Muslim Arabs, like Pali Christians - are supportive of Islam despite being at the receiving end of discrimination by it. Throw off Islam, and there is no other school of thought that declares the superiority of Arabs over everyone else.

      That's completely different for other people, who have nothing to lose by casting off Islam. For the Iranians, it's a question mark on what they might do if allowed, but they do have a religious history before the Arab conquest: Zoroastrianism. They could embrace that w/o incurring any accusation of Westernizing, which they would were they to become Christian. One small problem - Zoroastrianism has never allowed entry of people into the religion, but usually, these things get worked out by the numerical inertia: if you have 50,000 people wanting to join a religion, 5 of them won't be enough to stop them from doing it, and claiming it as their own.

    102. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush Sr. did a great job though, and he was the last 1-term president for quite a while. His victories include a win in the first Gulf War due to strategic goals with limited resource commitment, successfully showcasing US technologies from the cold war era that dwarfed the Warsaw pact well for the rest of the 20th century.

    103. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to lay the fuck off the conservative victim-hood koolaid.

    104. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Bwahahaha! I expect better out of you, Cold Fjord!

      From Wikipedia:

      In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as the prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran, after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.

      I see where you went wrong, you didn't use the best source on that topic.

      1953 Iranian coup d'état

      By 1953, economic tensions caused by the British embargo and political turmoil began to take a major toll upon Mossadegh's popularity and political power. The people were increasingly blaming him for the economic and political crisis. Political violence was becoming widespread in the form of street clashes between rival political groups.[7][9] Mossadegh was losing popularity and support among the working class which had been his strongest supporters. As he lost support, he became more autocratic.[59][60] As early as August 1952, he began to rely on emergency powers to rule, generating controversy among his supporters.[60] After an assassination attempt upon one of his cabinet ministers and himself, he ordered the jailing of dozens of his political opponents. This act created widespread anger among much of the general public, and led to accusations that Mossadegh was becoming a dictator.[7][9] The Tudeh party's unofficial alliance with Mossadegh led to fears of communism, and increasingly it was the communists who were taking part in pro-Mossadegh rallies, and attacking opponents.[7][9]

      By mid-1953 a mass of resignations by Mossadegh's parliamentary supporters reduced the National Front seats in Parliament. A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99.9 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against*.[61] The rigged referendum was widely seen by opponents as a dictatorial act, and the Shah and the rest of the government were effectively stripped of their powers to rule. When Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament, his opponents decried this act because he had effectively given himself "total power". Ironically, this un-democratic act by a democratically elected prime minister would result in a chain of events leading to his downfall.[7][9] . . .

      The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mossadegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[7][8][9] It resulted in him being accused of giving himself "total and dictatorial powers." The Shah, who had been resisting the CIA's demands for the coup, finally agreed to support it.[7][8][9] Having obtained the Shah's concurrence, the CIA executed the coup.[62] Farmans (royal decrees) dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi (a loyalist who had helped Reza Shah reunify Iran decades earlier)[8] were drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[8] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[63] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mossadegh considered unfair.[9][64]

      * At the time of the vote, Time magazine pointed out that neither Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union nor Adolph Hitler in Germany was able to match that lop-sided outcome. Fraud, per chance?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    105. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Curly, his face covered in pie. ;)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    106. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Oh what a cruel society you live in to be sanctioned for exposing your genitals to random people on the street or in the park.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    107. Re:That's nice, but... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or hidden behind a dumpster at 2 in the morning...

    108. Re:That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Been to San Francisco lately?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    109. Re:That's nice, but... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It may even be that during his Presidency he was exactly the same man, doing exactly the same things, but wasn't given credit by the media. As an ex-President, he has little power in the political system and is treated positively by the media.

      This leads to people saying things like, "it was worth living through President Carter to have ex-President Carter;" something I've heard uttered at least 30 or 40 times. But instead of just, "yuk yuk"-ing, I ask them what President Carter actually did wrong and nobody has ever (ever!!!) listed even a single thing that is true. People like to mention Iran, but they say insane things that won't match the history if you look it up. There are also accusations that parts of the US Government were supporting conservatives in the elections, and actually interfered with Carter resolving the Iran crisis. That should be considered also when making accusations about that whole scenario. The anti-Carter people don't even have a clear accusation other than "didn't magically prevent using words."

      I don't know that there is any other example of a US President being so vilified by the press for all of their career up to the end of their Presidency, and then lauded afterwards. There are certainly other examples of Presidents whose reputational legacy doesn't match the history of their career in any way, but perhaps none with such a mixed bag.

    110. Re:That's nice, but... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That mostly tells me that you see a few things, but you attempt to understand them even without searching for context.

      Moderate regimes who have a revolution will tend to become extreme; a liberal revolution will typically be replaced within days by an extremist one, for obvious reasons about who is more willing to shoot each other. There are many other cultural and political factors necessary to switch from extreme or draconian government to liberal or moderate government, a revolution by itself does not move a culture towards values of freedom.

      An extremist regime doesn't likely have numerous more-extreme parties waiting to fill a power vacuum; they have a collection of moderate and differently-extreme options. And in the case of Iran/Persia, all of the options with significant constituencies are less extreme.

      Perhaps a moderate Persian regime would seem extreme in some ways compared to the Egyptian military, but it is hard to think of any area of governance where it would be more extreme than the current regime. Moderate to who? I think most people who are critical of the current Iranian government would consider freedom of association, dress, and religion to be significantly moderate, even if it was a dictatorship with an official government religion.

    111. Re:That's nice, but... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      A revolution? Fuck, a revolution is what got them into that shit, you really think you can motivate them to try again?

      I thought it was the USA that interfered in the overthrow and the putting of the Shah on the throne, later to be overthrown.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    112. Re:That's nice, but... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say Carter did much wrong (things are subjective) but that he didn't do much while president. It seems to me, he wanted to do more but really wasn't able to. Now? He's got nothing holding him back. I am *definitely* not anti-Carter. I did expect more from him after his campaign.

      My comment wasn't that he wasn't a good president, but that he's been able to accomplish a lot more since his presidency. And he has, he's influenced so many people and so many decisions that he's really been an asset to the world. In hindsight, I can see my comment might be interpreted as my not liking his presidency.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    113. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll bite:

      But instead of just, "yuk yuk"-ing, I ask them what President Carter actually did wrong and nobody has ever (ever!!!) listed even a single thing that is true.

      I nominate The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, which included language to restrict Pu reprocessing with the goal of curtailing nuclear weapons proliferation through "leading by example". The origination of that part of the act was outlined in Carter's policy statement, which resulted from a review initiated by President Ford.

      The entire concept of "setting an example" in this way was woefully misguided, particularly when the example was to be set by a nation having an advanced (at the time) nuclear triad with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the Soviet Union, China, and undoubtedly a few other choice regions - all backed by an openly advertised MAD policy. It stopped nothing, which was a surprise to just about nobody except Carter. India and Pakistan still developed Pu reprocessing and nuclear arms. Even South Africa tested an atomic bomb. Plenty of other nations, including the UK, France, and Japan, have peaceful fuel reprocessing capability without enhancing proliferation risk. Regardless of what your opinions might be about the economic viability of nuclear power generation, this idea of Carter's was an unparalleled example of policy (and law) derived from pollyanna-ish misplaced optimism and a fundamentally flawed view of the role human nature plays in geopolitics.

      Also, it strains credibility that "nobody has ever (ever!!!)" brought this up to you. Other defensible, strong critiques of the Carter administration have been brought forth by individuals with real facts and analysis to back them, and (of course) far more gravitas than some slashdot AC like myself. You cannot have missed every such analysis published over 35 years since Carter left office. I submit that either you automatically dismiss, or stubbornly refuse to accept, objectively valid criticisms of the Carter administration.

      - T

  2. Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With our wonderful influx of immigrants who don't wish to assimilate with our western culture, you can expect this here soon... just as Sharia law has already wormed it's way in Seattle and other liberal havens. And you can thank LIBERALS for this when it happens. The irony.

    1. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by _merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've already got your own morality police: the feminists, SJWs, etc. turning campuses into "safe spaces" and branding words and behaviours "problematic".

    2. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You should have given a "trigger warning" that you would use the word "problematic."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot political correctness and not being able to critic women even when right. And people using she instead of it in texts.

    4. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      Seattle's investigating loans where the interest is calculated up front and people pay back a known amount, rather than having the interest calculated continuously.

      ... Sorry, how was this going to cause the creation of the morality police again?

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    5. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you've never been in the middle east? I spent six months in Saudi Arabia, and only an ignorant twat would equate *radical* feminists and SJWs with the mutawwi. One is an individuals choice in what they believe and a private attempt to correct society, the other is state sanctioned and can have your ass beheaded for not having the correct type of beard.

    6. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      can have your ass beheaded for not having the correct type of beard.

      They'd have to employ the services of a samurai warrior to behead ones ass.

    7. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here where we're much more enlightened, they'll simply work to make you unemployable, so they're not the same, but they're still variants of an angry mob.

    8. Re:Morality Police - coming soon to the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when his head is stuck so far up there.

  3. Meanwhile, back in reality by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The head nutjobs are saying "This is an innovative idea and I believe it will lead to not only arrests for having the app on your phone, but by poisoning the data we can catch even more infidels".

    1. Re:Meanwhile, back in reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS!
      How long until Apple/Google get hit with a "lawful request for data" from the Iranian government?

  4. good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea, then they can be free like Iraq and Syria

  5. Not really innovative by ewibble · · Score: 1

    I am sure that there are apps that use crowd sourcing to avoid police checkpoints already.

    But just wait till the state,forces service providers to install a back door that can use this app to track down trouble makers, and hold them without trial for the good of the country. No country would do that right? Oh wait they do.

    1. Re:Not really innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have the desire to track down the and/or backdoor the troublemakers & users... but that is quite different from having the means to do so.

      If WikiLeaks and The Pirate Bay have taught us anything, it's that building decentralized services which are run out of more amenable nations can ensure your website/service lives on, even in the face of state actors who which to take you down.

    2. Re: Not really innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they are. Polish drivers use Yanosik app on daily basis.

      It is a navigation app with crowdsourcing component allowing driver to enter information about speed controls and accidents.

  6. Re:Still better than the US by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Weeeeeellllll... no, not really.

    At least not yet. Let's wait where the next elections take us.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Interesting... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it can be extended to avoid bad moderators? They are kin I think.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if you didn't spend all you time trolling/shilling, you wouldn't get modded down.
      I like a whiny Cold a Fjord in the mornings, it sounds like victory.

    2. Re:Interesting... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if you didn't spend all you time trolling/shilling, you wouldn't get modded down.

      In other words you want me to mouth the opinions you like instead of my own. Typical fascist.

      It's not whining to point out that substandard and abusive moderation is too common. With any luck some of my suggestions will be used and that would really suck for you.

      But on the other hand, maybe I need to start posting more actively again to help you recalibrate. You've apparently gone out of kilter.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Interesting... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the moderation... GO AWAY. you're not going to change the culture of this site to accommodate your imbecilry,

      By all means, keep posting your nonsense, keep getting modded down, and soon no one will ever see the feces that spout from your face hole.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:Interesting... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Actually the culture of Slashdot has moved somewhat in a better direction over the last 10-15 years, so you're wrong about it not changing. And there have been some procedural changes that help limit the abuse somewhat, but more is possible. I hope to foster additional improvement at Slashdot. Frankly I think it would be a pity if Slashdot were to be a place where ignorant hostility is preferred to civil discussion, where name calling and trolling is preferred to evidence. That doesn't really go with the supposed respect for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math that people like to claim alliance to here, does it?

      And you are quite wrong about why I am generally modded down. It isn't so much because my answers are bad somehow but because they are often in conflict with various popular but mistaken views, or are otherwise uncomfortable to consider. Lots of people have mod points, but no counter-arguments. Facts are stubborn things, but many on Slashdot resist them. That makes people uncomfortable and angry. You seem angry. Why?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. Re:Still better than the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're free to be a nut. I say go for it. I'll be amazed if you manage to avoid Sharia punishments. That question is, which one will you get first? Whipping? Amputation? Blinding? Stoning? I say go for it and let us know how it works out for you.

  9. the last we'll ever hear about them by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    and their 'honeypot'

  10. Re:Bernie Sanders 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kid, if you don't want people to vote for Sanders, just tell them why. This reverse-trolling bullshit isn't the clever subversion you (or the last 50,000 idiots like you who tried it) think it is.

  11. Less Obama by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    more Michael Jackson. It's funny how the entire Arab Spring went bust after the public lost interest when M.J. died. Of course, it was obviously not much of a thing if all it took was one (albeit very famous) dead pop star to distract us all.

    No, what Iran needs is for our Right Wing politicians to stop meddling in their politics. They were well on their way to modernizing until we decided they were just a little too 'commie' for our tastes and disposed their democratically elected gov't.

    What Obama has done is nothing short of a Miracle. When a significant portion of the country was pushing for yet another pointless war so they could line their pockets and use fear to control America he calmed things down and averted a global crisis. Unless you're some kind of whack job then he's unquestionably the single greatest president alive today, and maybe in history. If you ever want to know how great a man is he look up his response to the question "Did you inhale?".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, what Iran needs is for our Right Wing politicians to stop meddling in their politics. They were well on their way to modernizing until we decided they were just a little too 'commie' for our tastes and disposed their democratically elected gov't.

      I can help you with that point of confusion. The person that overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government was the Iranian Prime Minister. He dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, faked an election, and caused the legitimate head of state (the Shah) to flee. The US and UK assisted in restoring Iran's legitimate head of state to power. It's history, I suggest you look into it.

      As to being "too commie", most of the world has rejected that. It sucks as a form of government and delivers substandard results, usually with great loss of life and enormous oppression. Communist regimes were pretty much environmental horror shows with poisonous legacies that will last for decades or longer.

      I'm willing to go so far as to agree that Obama is currently the greatest American president currently in power. He isn't a great American president. The true miracle is that things haven't turned out worse given his close relationship with the man that wrote Prarie Fire .

      Your ideas about "pointless war" so "they could line their pockets" and "use fear to control America" doesn't stand much scrutiny. If the "mighty" MIC was so powerful, how did it go from 40% of GDP at the end of WW2 to only about 4.5% GDP today? What other institution would you consider super threatening if it lost 90% of the resources it used to control?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re: Less Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is also the least powerful current president. Logic!!

    3. Re:Less Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MJ died in 2009. The Arab "spring" was in 2011.

    4. Re:Less Obama by peragrin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Stop comparing GDP to spending. The USA isn't a communist nation and therefore the GDP has no basis on government spending. Currently theMIC composes of 30% of the budget and 35% of the reveune. The current 4.1 trillion budget is over estimated on tax reveune by 10%. Which will be closer to 3.5 trillion. Possibly less.

      The GDP is only useful, if the government nationalised every industry. Let me know when the government does that. Until then stop being an idiot and compare government revune(taxes for the stupid) to spending. That paints a much bleaker picture were our debt is 5-6 times our current income.

      Ask a Bank to give you a loan when your debt is 5 times your income.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Less Obama by toonces33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is funny that you say that the Shah was the legitimate head of state, when in fact he was placed in power by a CIA-inspired coup which deposed Mosaddeq.

    6. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Stop comparing GDP to spending. The USA isn't a communist nation and therefore the GDP has no basis on government spending.

      Go tell it to NATO. (Really, you can't do the conversion / math?)

      Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says

      Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.

      Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)

      One other thing - national defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the US Federal Government. And that other stuff ....?? Allowed, but not required.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Less Obama by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try comparing Russia's condition and market share to what it was eight years ago? You just might find we are winning the war. And since their petro-dollars are worth shit, the threat is further reduced. The latest news is our new buildup in Eastern Europe. Now's the time, right? So, really, what is your complaint? Let the proxies and mercenaries fight the wars for us, more money, less American blood. In the Game of Empires our position has never been better, and is getting better still.

      And where did you get that 4.5% nonsense? That might cover the toilet paper, if that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Troll

      You have your history confused. The Shah was in power prior to all of that, beginning in 1941. Mosaddegh came later, became PM, and overthrew the government. The UK and US helped restore the Shah to power in 1953.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Less Obama by aliquis · · Score: 1

      more Michael Jackson. It's funny how the entire Arab Spring went bust after the public lost interest when M.J. died.

      Well, Michael Jackson has contributed more value worth to the world than all of the Middle-east and North and central Africa combined so no surprise there.

    10. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And where did you get that 4.5% nonsense? That might cover the toilet paper, if that.

      Although you may have a source to "prove" otherwise, I'm pretty sure that the US defense budget doesn't take 100% of GDP. I think someone would notice.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Less Obama by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm only asking where you got 4.5%, not 100%

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This it isn't an obscure fact. The US Defense budget has been bouncing around 4-5% of GDP for more than 10 years. There are pleny of place to find the numbers. Here is one. I refer you to page 6.

      Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)

      I will refer you to page 320 of this document:
      BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - Historical Tables

      Supporting the Force: The Industrial Base and Defense Conversion

      The Defense Drawdown After World War II

      During World War II, the nation truly had a defense economy. In the war's last year, 1945, over 39 percent of the nation's GDP was devoted to defense. By 1948, less than 4 percent of GDP was spent on defense. (Ibid., p. 140.) Defense spending in 1945 was $714 billion in 1987 dollars; by 1948, it was under $65 billion. Thus, in only three years, defense spending had fallen by 90 percent. (Ibid., p. 128.)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:Less Obama by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      I love how Greece is on that list when they're the ones that can probably least afford to be.

    14. Re:Less Obama by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      more Michael Jackson. It's funny how the entire Arab Spring went bust after the public lost interest when M.J. died. Of course, it was obviously not much of a thing if all it took was one (albeit very famous) dead pop star to distract us all.

      This must be some new record in correlation of unrelated events.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:Less Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't worry too much, you've got some very competitive posts in that regard.

    16. Re:Less Obama by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, 2% of nothing is still not much. I probably spent 2% of Greece's GDP on toast last year...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Less Obama by Guy+Harris · · Score: 0

      Well, 2% of nothing is still not much. I probably spent 2% of Greece's GDP on toast last year...

      About 5.7 billion dollars buys a lot of toast.

      Or did you mean "2% of Greece's per capita GDP"? That would be about USD 430 or so spent on toast.

    18. Re:Less Obama by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have your history confused even more, which is not surprising, due to your your political views and general stupidity. The shah was installed by the Brits in first place by invading Iran and forcing the previous shah to abdicate. Oh by the way, that previous shah was also installed by the Brits 20 years before.
      And Mosaddegh was democratically elected.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    19. Re:Less Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. One can say a lot of nasty things about those regions - but they brings us lots of oil & coffee. All MJ ever did was make some music I sure could live without. He was no more than an entertainer. Some actually liked him - but still. My coffee is more important than canned music - I can sing myself if the music goes away, but coffee won't grow in this climate. Most people can't get oil from their own ground either.

    20. Re:Less Obama by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Well look at you, you stopped going backwards once the narrative comforted you. You truly are one of the most one-eyed and least credible posters on this site, and that is fucking saying something. You should work in PR.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re: Less Obama by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. Obama's the shittiest president we have!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The question we were commenting on was the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. Let's see how your post contributes to that discussion.

      You have your history confused even more, which is not surprising, due to your your political views and general stupidity.

      Mockery. It doesn't add any useful facts to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.

      The shah was installed by the Brits in first place by invading Iran and forcing the previous shah to abdicate.

      An irrelevant factoid not related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.

      Oh by the way, that previous shah was also installed by the Brits 20 years before.

      An irrelevant factoid not related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.

      And Mosaddegh was democratically elected.

      A mostly irrelevant factoid not strongly related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. A pity you couldn't have at least mentioned he was Prime Minister.

      It seems that despite your implied mental superiority you didn't really manage to contribute in a meaningful way to the topic under discussion. I'm pretty sure you've managed to accomplish that before.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:Less Obama by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It is a pity that you couldn't have been a little more specific on the exact nature of your disagreement with my post. That would have made it easier to reply, but I'll make a wild guess: you think more of Iran's history should have been included? That wasn't really needed, the question was a fairly narrow one: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. The answer I gave was adequate for that question. If you think more history should have been included then make a case for that.

      You're also mistaken about me being "one of the .... least credible posters." Nonsense. It isn't that my answers are wrong, but that they aren't liked, they aren't politically correct. That is an entirely different question. Besides, if I'm posting links to major media coverage of an issue, how do you think that isn't "credible"? Has it crossed your mind that the nature of the world and society isn't quite what you think it is? That is a fairly common problem on Slashdot.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    24. Re:Less Obama by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Great, now show me the 'other' set of books... I kid... kinda..

      Heh, checking out more recent figures (lord knows why you wouldn't link to them :-), looks like Homes brought the deficit spending down by almost 70% since he took office (p. 359? feel free to correct). It's very phony of course because of the Wall Street bailouts. When you exclude them, the deficit almost tripled since 2007, which may not be true either, since the bailouts are still ongoing, so the 'real' deficit might be hard to pinpoint. The whole thing is a fantasy anyway.

      Anyway, your new number for defense is 3.6, more bang for the buck, where's the beef? Still, I wouldn't mind if they found that eight and a half tril, it's not exactly chump change.

      Getting back to the story, let's all be happy that people are making censorship in Iran (and everywhere else) a little easier to circumvent. Freedom of speech is always a good thing, right?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Re:Bernie Sanders 2016 by Alypius · · Score: 0
    Yeah, because this place will be so much better with the government running Slashdot, Google, Facebook, Comcast, Ford, Intel, Microsoft...

    Socialism is for the historically ignorant.

  13. Re:Still better than the US by Alypius · · Score: 1

    Spoken like someone who's never traveled beyond the county line.

  14. Re: Still better than the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then pack your bags and get the fuck out. Love it out leave it, cocksucker!

  15. Re:Bernie Sanders 2016 by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, because this place will be so much better with Slashdot, Google, Facebook, Comcast, Ford, Intel, Microsoft, etc, running the government...

    Fascism is for the historically ignorant.

    TFTFY.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  16. A better use of this... by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 2

    ...would be setting up rapid ambushes on those checkpoints.

    The Morality Police will give up quick on their bullshit if they start getting shot with no witnesses every time they set up a checkpoint.

    Marg bar dictator - marg bar Khomenei.

    1. Re:A better use of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Morality Police will give up quick on their bullshit if they start getting shot with no witnesses every time they set up a checkpoint.

      Sounds like a good way to deploy cheap Chinese drones loaded with home made explosives and nails. I am surprised I don't hear anyone in the world doing that already. Considering there is a legit use for similar technology like package delivery there should already be a legit open source software with an available plugin or two that extend functionality in an "unintended" way.

  17. The government is perfectly ok with this by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    It's like VPN's to go around the "great firewall" or satellite dishes, yes it's kind of illegal, but meehhh...
    It's a nice to have add on if the government decide to arrest someone, and meanwhile it gives the reactionary class the feeling that "everything is ok", while letting the educated class breath just a tiny little bit and not completely freak out.

  18. perspective. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Tor: App that helps americans avoid morality police

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:perspective. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Tor was developed by American spooks at the US Naval Research Laboratory, nimrod. It can be penetrated by the NSA anytime they choose. Please make sense before posting. The only morality police in America are the ones on campus.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only morality police in America are the ones on campus.

      And the religious people who want to censor the world to keep the children safe, or otherwise ensure only their view of the world is voiced.

      The screeching Christians would very much like the idea of morality police, don't kid yourself.

    3. Re:perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be both screeching and spouting nonsense, but you clearly aren't Christian. I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to censor Christians.

      Maybe you should look at how the formally atheist communist countries turned out? Hint: SUX

  19. Checkpoints? by mariox19 · · Score: 1

    Don't the Iranian powers that be have something to say about this? When people began writing apps to publicize checkpoints here in the U.S., our morality police threw a hissy fit.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Checkpoints? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The morality police bases its authority on the books that contain the Shariah laws. But in what chapter and what verse did the middle age desert dweller write down laws and appropriate punishment concerning the avoidance of morality police check points through the use of smart phone apps?
       

  20. What's the big deal? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're simply enforcing Iran's version of political correctness. As stalwart adherents of PC here in the west, we should welcome such diversity in the behavioral expectations forced on people for the sake of the insecure and easily offended.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is it with you guys and 'political correctness'. you act as if you're trapped in a womyns study class
      at Bryn Mawr

      no one is stopping you from being a loud mouthed racist and misogynist if you want. certainly some people
      might take offense, but thats the nature of discourse. by all means keep complaining about how misguided
      'affirmative action' is.

      but please stop pretending your voice is being silenced, because it clearly isn't

    2. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...forced on people for the sake of the insecure and easily offended..

      Are you a hetrosexual, white male? Thought so. Must be nice not to hear slurs about your race, gender and sexuality every...single...day. Words have power, too.

      Do you let your children call you a mother fucker? You should, so that you don't become too easily offended.

    3. Re:What's the big deal? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. defending the idea that liberty applies for everyone (not just non white non straight non males) is not defense of bigotry. Imposing and reenforcing the idea of 'victim' castes is.
      2. They're doing their damnedest to kill free speech, yes. These days, these crusaders destroy the careers of people who refuse to step into line.
      3. That last bit of advice is better suited to proponents of modern 'social justice.'

    4. Re:What's the big deal? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Are you saying white straight men don't deserve liberty? I hear slurs about men and white people all the time. All I need to do is turn on some chris rock, some hiphop, or watch mainstream television. The difference is I don't get offended at someone making fun of stereotypes. If the jokes are funny, I laugh. I do take issue with 'one way tolerance' of this, however. Modern 'social justice' is actually now demanding REsegregation in the form of social, political, and economic 'safe spaces', which form de-facto social castes. The original goal was DEsegregation where everyone had equal opportunity and equality before the law.

      Depends on the definition of 'mother fucker', right? If I had kids with a woman who had at least one other prior child, then at least one definition would be true. Words have power over you only if you let them. Adults are supposed to have learned this by the end of adolescence. Unfortunately, today's schools and culture encourage victimization complexes and the oppression olympics rather than life lessons and how to deal with them. As a result, now we have a whole generation of easily offended adult aged children moving into positions of power in society. A scary time indeed.

  21. Re:Bernie Sanders 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You overlook the possibility that it isn't a troll. Scary, huh?

  22. Not so Nice...and.... by shubus · · Score: 1

    Next the poor Iranians will have to have an app to avoid the Thought Police.

    1. Re:Not so Nice...and.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You can never have an app to protect you from the dream police....

      Every single night they're driving me insane
      Those men inside my brain
      The dream police, they live inside of my head
      The dream police, they come to me in my bed
      The dream police, they're coming to arrest me, oh no

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. DUI checkpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe DUI and police locator apps were banned in the US by either authorities or app stores. Very useful app.

  24. If you don't like it MOVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US will take you. And put in the Gitmo. And bathe you upside down, with a rag over face and flood your face with cleansing water. You'll love it! Pay back is a mofo, they may say, but it's paradise. Really, go there and find out. Just don't stay at the Babylon Motel. They know about that place already.

  25. Hindsight is 20/20 by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The Shah was a monster and Khomeni was an unknown quantity with zero blood on his hands at the time so a lot of people were "fooled".
    The revolution was almost bloodless. What happened next was not.

  26. Why do people think it's a democracy? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Why do people think it's a democracy in Iran?
    Ahmedinajad and the others have been figureheads and never allowed to decide anything important. That's why his rants about Israel were not much to worry about, sabre ratting for the sake of popular support with no way he could follow through. It should be taken no more seriously than if the Mayor of Springfield threatened to invade France.

    The man is legitimately popular and he has Morality Police on the streets, with the full support of the people who voted for him. It can happen here, people.

    You haven't had your balls squeezed by the TSA yet? They are a populist measure that is functionally equivalent.

  27. Parkme Iran by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    An app where one can sell "morality free parking" information . Alternative names "Gaystack" because the moral police are so against heterosexual contact of any nature.

  28. Diabolical Rebellion like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is why encryption must be banned for anyone that isn't us!

    Sincerely,
    FBI

  29. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islam is not the traditional religion of Persia. The ancestors of the modern Iranians were converted to the "religion of peace" at sword point. Now they live under the rule of a merry band of cultists who desperately want to bring about the end of the world, and who Obama has just provided with a path to nukes.

    All revolutions tend to be run by a very motivated few in the presence of a mostly passive populace in opposition to an ineffective and disconnected elite. It worked well in the US where the revolutionaries were rooted in a good ideology. In Iran it was a disaster as the revolutionaries were radical Muslim nutjobs pining away for their exiled death cult leader, and they agitated the public with shrieks about the great evils of the Shah (a bad guy for certain, but not even of the same scale of evil as the guy they wanted to bring home to Iran to replace him). Under the Islamic Revolution, far more people have been oppressed and killed than under the despicable Shah, but there'll be no end to it until the Iranian people get sufficiently motivated to cast it off - permanently.

    Fun fact: It was the NAZIs of the 1930's who caused the Persians to change the name of the place to "Iran" AKA "Aryan". Everything that has happened in that land has been evil since its leaders signed-up to the ideology of Jew hatred.

  30. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no point to such a revolution, and nothing really "wrong" with what's happening in Iran. It's also not worth anything to change it.

    You see, I've been told that all religions are equal. Religions are just belief systems. If there is no God, then religions differ from other belief systems only in a quirky detail of an imaginary character, and given that the character is imaginary, it's really no different from a belief system without an imaginary friend. All systems of belief have some quirks. All belief systems are, by this reasoning, equal. After all, if God is just a human construct then a belief system without God is no different from one with God but perhaps lacking some other random irrational human construct. It does not matter that an imaginary God causes people in a particular system to do "bad" things; people in other belief systems still do bad things, just for other reasons..... and who gets to define "bad" anyway?

    I've also been told that we're all just evolved animals, and when we each die we simply cease to exist. There's no "greater good" and no point to any of it.

    As a result, why does any of it matter? I don't care about the cows that provide the meat for my fast food or their beliefs. Why should I care about the beliefs of any other animals? Who cares about the equal-to-any-other belief system of the animals populating Iran today? Who cares what the next generation of animals there will face? Who cares what the current or future generations of animals here face? Why should I spend any of my fleeting moments on Earth worrying about the welfare of some distant animals when I could be seeking personal pleasure? Once I'm gone, POOF! what I have left behind won't matter to me, and as a bonus it won't matter to me that it won't matter. I won't even exist anymore to be concerned about whether anybody remembers me or thinks about me, and since they'll eventually die and completely cease to exist too it is irrational for them to think about any of this too. Who cares about future generations? I won't, and neither will they as each generation dies off. Hell, even the genetic codes driving evolution don't care and they are not driving "us" to any particular destination.

    Anyone care to join-in listening John Lennon's brain-dead but melodious "Imagine"? Simon and Garfunkel's "America"? Oh, that's right. None of you matter either. Wow. I'm starting to feel the Bern..... I'm convinced that I'm "good" and should be all concerned about social justice and equality while denying all the intellectual pillars the provide any justification for those things or any reason to care about them. Whoops! Darn! I've lost it!

    It turns out that I just cannot maintain that bleak philosophy. If I could have, it would not have mattered enough to write about it. sorta meta? The truth of the matter is so very obvious, and the proof is right before our collective eyes every day all over the world: all religions are NOT equal. All philosophies are NOT the same nor are they equal in value. Regions ruled by Muslims and their laws are some of the worst hell holes on Earth, only ever exceeded in their evil and barbarity in human history by places run by Communists or National Socialist pagans. Oh, and YES, there is such a thing as "evil".

    1. Re:Why bother? by gerddie · · Score: 1

      Regions ruled by Muslims and their laws are some of the worst hell holes on Earth, only ever exceeded in their evil and barbarity in human history by places run by Communists or National Socialist pagans. Oh, and YES, there is such a thing as "evil".

      Don't forget the witch burning Christians on that list, and all the old religions where human sacrifices were common, or maybe it is all just about "power of authority" like shown e.g. by the Stanford Prison Experiment

  31. It happens here in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Multiple times, police have held checkpoints in the US where they try to enforce and attempt to convert people stopped into Christianity. This isn't unique to Islam.

  32. Need one for the USA as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it seems we have quite a large US based morality police force starting to form.

  33. Obvious problem by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    I'm completely amazed that the Iranian government don't see the obvious problem with their society when they need a 'morality police' to make the population comply with some arbitrary standard that the population obviously don't agree with. Shouldn't the standard be defined by the people, not by some out-of-touch-with-reality council or similar?

    Religion is once again beyond stupid.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:Obvious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have the same problem here in the US, police are required to enforce our 'no murder' policy because people don't agree with it and they go out and murder people.

      When will the US stop oppressing murderers. /sarcasm

      captcha: safety

    2. Re:Obvious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make it even better the people enforcing morality are doing public service as punishment for their own "immorality".

  34. What happens when they find the app? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    So now when they get caught, they're going to be in trouble for everything they would have been in trouble for before ... and on top of it for intentionally avoiding the checkpoints ... and the app they have on the phone.

    Why do I think this isn't going to work out like expected and heads are literally going to roll because of it?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:What happens when they find the app? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      this++. The mere presence of the app is automatic self-incrimination. Like using encryption leads to automatic assumption that you're hiding something illicit - except here you're less likely to get body parts cut off with a sword.

  35. Waze? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool, waze in the news again!

  36. The average Iranian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just another example of how the average Iranian feels... Don't assume that what you see in the Media about Iran is necessarily the 'whole' truth.

    I'm no media conspiracy nut, but I do know from interactions and conversations I've had with what I would consider average Iranians that they are not all raving religious nutters.

    There's a good proportion of Iranians who really do grate under the oppression of the morality patrols.

  37. Business Opportunity by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Now all someone needs to do is use that app to set up a burkha rental booth in front of that checkpoint when its discovered. You give a large deposit for your rental burkha, don't get pinched by the pigs, then drop your burkha off at the deposit booth on the other side of the morality police checkpoint, where you get most of your deposit back.

  38. Islam, Iran, Zoroastrianism, Persia by unixisc · · Score: 1

    THIS!!! A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS

    Iran was converted to Islam by the Samanid rulers in the 8th and 9th centuries, who encouraged aggressive trolling by Islamic fanatics, demolished Zoroastrian shrines wherever they could, and encouraged discrimination in favor of Islam and against all non-Islamic religions - Zoroastrianism, Christianity & Judaism - which resulted in that country going Islamic.

    Contrary to popular view, Shia Islam is NOT any more an Iranian religion than Sunni Islam. The Samanid dynasty - which converted Iran to Islam - was Sunni, as was every Iranian dynasty until the Safavid, while the first Shia dynasty was the Mamluq sultanate in Egypt. The start of Shia Islam was their belief that Mohammed's legit successor was Ali, rather than Abu Baqr. None of them Iranian.

    Now it was the Safavid dynasty forcibly converted all of Iran from Sunni to Shia - the second time in its history that that country underwent a religious conversion. None of the succeeding dynasties - Nadir Shah or the Pahlavis - chose to turn back that clock, so end result was that Iran remained Shia.

    Today, while there are a number of Iranians sick of their regime, there is a spectrum of opinion when it comes to Islam. That ranges from those who want to remain Islamic to some who want to go completely Atheist/Agnostic to some who want to revert to Zoroastrianism - their original religion. How many want what is something that cannot be known as long as this regime remains in power in Iran. But if they ever become free, it would be interesting to see whether they do throw off Islam.

    One historic precedent does exist - when Iran was under the Mongol Ilkhanate of Hulegu Khan - who was Buddhist, non Muslims had the same rights in Iran as Muslims. The Iranians didn't convert from Islam to Buddhism or Shamanism or Christianity. Centuries into their reign, when the Ilkhanate embraced Islam, that opportunity was lost, and w/ it, the non Muslims of Iran lost their religious freedoms again.

    1. Re:Islam, Iran, Zoroastrianism, Persia by Bill+Privatus · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points today. Thank you.

      --
      Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
  39. Non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does a handful of misguided Christians centuries ago acting completely contrary the plain text of the Bible's New Testament (the core text of Christianity) have to do with a religion that explicitly commands its followers to subjugate and oppress, or kill, all "others"???? The Koran explicitly teaches that Jews, atheists, and polytheists are to be murdered, anywhere they are found. The exceptions are generally when Muslims are present in such small numbers that it's more practical to conquer the non-Muslims by other means.

    The reason the western world was never aflame with witch burners and that the United States has not been completely dominated by witch burners throughout its history, while being overwhelmingly Christian, is that witch burning was NOT compatible with core Christian teachings or principles. If you think witch burning is a normal Christian activity, then explain why it never happens even in the most-religious places in the nation. Just how many witches are they burning at rallies in South Carolina this week?

    Oh, and are you now excusing all the violence and oppression and poverty and backwardness of Muslim-run nations by asserting that they are all quasi-prisons? If so, then you have made my point without even realizing it. The thing western elites, including both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, are unwilling to face is that no true Muslim nation will ever be capable of being a democracy; in a democracy, PEOPLE make the laws (which is contrary to Islam). Furthermore, Islam demands that its prophet, Mohammed, was "the perfect man" and therefore everything he did is "good" and cannot be banned; which means polygamy, child brides, and all the rest are "good" and any government that tries to stop these things is evil and must be destroyed.

    It's amusing that people who insist that all religions are equal (thereby asserting that the specifics of a person's beliefs do not matter) will then get very upset that people believe differently from THEM. If the details of what a person believes do not matter, then why does it matter if some people do not believe in evolution, or in man-made global warming, or gay marriage, or social justice, etc? For that matter, if the specifics of a set of beliefs do not matter, then why are so many people in the west so willing to hate Christians or hate Jews but unwilling to say anything half as harsh about Muslims?

    The specific things people believe are VERY important; they influence how those people behave, and that in-turn indicates how safe it is to be around them (among many other things). As a result, it is completely mindless to say that all religions are equal, or that all of any category of ideology/philosophy is the same as any other. It's very important that people engage their brains before uttering such rubbish.

  40. HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White hetero males are the ONLY group not protected by political correctness and the SJW maniacs.

    And THAT offends me.

    And THAT makes me feel oppressed

    Therefore political correctness and social justice warriors must be banned to protect me from their microaggressions...

    Think the PC police and SJWs will go away? Nope. Of course not, because their cause has never been honest and never been what they claimed it was. Their cause was never about making sure everyone felt "safe" and free from "oppression" or bigotry or hatred. They specialize in hating people who disagree with them, harrassing people who disagree with them, oppressing people who disagree with them (getting them fired from jobs etc) and more. Their cause was tearing down the western civilization which they despise. They do not seek equality, they seek revenge for past perceived slights, even to the point of behaving like the mentally ill who think "everybody is out to get me" and therefore interpret everything around them as an attack on them.