Slashdot Mirror


US Calls On Iran To Unblock Social Media Sites Amid Protests (go.com)

The Trump administration is calling on the government of Iran to stop blocking Instagram and other social media sites while encouraging Iranians to use special software to circumvent controls. "The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years," President Trump tweeted yesterday. "They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. Time for change!" ABC News reports: Undersecretary of State Steve Goldstein, in charge of public diplomacy, said the U.S. wants Iran's government to "open these sites" including the photo-sharing platform Instagram and the messaging app Telegram. "They are legitimate avenues for communication," Goldstein said. "People in Iran should be able to access those sites." Iranians seeking to evade the blocks can use virtual private networks, Goldstein said. Known as VPNs, the services create encrypted data "tunnels" between computers and are used in many countries to access overseas websites blocked by the local government. Despite the blocks, the United States is working to maintain communication with Iranians in the Farsi language, including through official accounts on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. The State Department also was to distribute videos of top U.S. officials encouraging the protesters through those and other sites.

135 comments

  1. backdoors by zlives · · Score: 0

    wonder where does the "Undersecretary of State Steve Goldstein" stand on government backdoors to encryption.

  2. "The Trump administration" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What others does the USA have?

    1. Re:"The Trump administration" by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      What others does the USA have?

      Do you think we'd be using this one so frequently if we had another option?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:"The Trump administration" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hillary identifies as POTUS. Don't be sexist.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:"The Trump administration" by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is not something new that's been trotted out for Trump. I remember people talking about "the Nixon administration", and I'm sure it goes back further than that.

      It's customary to say the "the X administration" to avoid (a) personifying the entire country or (b) implying that the legislative branch necessarily supports whatever X is saying or doing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " The State Department also was to distribute videos of top U.S. officials encouraging the protesters through those and other sites" yeah I can't imagine such an endorsement being appreciated, after the coup of 53, the later revolution, and the quite obvious sign that Iranian at large did not forget who put Shah in power , heck by their own admission in 2013 by the C fucking IA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

    So how about you butt out the fuck of that country internal affair ? Or are "interference" with a country internal affair only bad when it is the US internal affair being interfered ?

    1. Re:How about you butt out ? by bobbied · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Like the previous administration didn't meddle in overseas affairs too... They may have had a different perspective on when it was appropriate and in the USA's interest, but they meddled a LOT in various things going on overseas. It's pretty much been the case since the USA came into existence in the 1700's where we got involved in various conflicts that didn't directly involve us.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:How about you butt out ? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Like the previous administration didn't meddle in overseas affairs too... They may have had a different perspective on when it was appropriate and in the USA's interest, but they meddled a LOT in various things going on overseas. It's pretty much been the case since the USA came into existence in the 1700's where we got involved in various conflicts that didn't directly involve us.

      Yes. Like every influential nation ever, and much like the French and British meddling in the affairs of the fledgling American nation.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re: How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because what happens in Iran impacts us and our allies, you fucking imbecile. It is our business, until Iran stops funding terrorism and Islamic expansion around the world.

    4. Re:How about you butt out ? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      During the last demonstrations after the bogus election in Iran protestors appealed to the outside world for help

      http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/0...

      Mohammad: Yes. Let me tell you something. For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don't hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don't want to be isolated. Is this much of a demand for a country with more than 2,500 years of civilization? We don't deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel's rights. And actually, we want - we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform, as much as possible.

      Roberts: Interesting perspective this morning from Mohammad, a student demonstrator there in Tehran.

      Mohammad: Excuse me, sir. I have a message for the international community. Would you please let me tell it?

      Roberts: Yes, go ahead.

      Mohammad: Americans, European Union, international community, this government is not definitely - is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it's illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message...to the international community, especially I'm addressing President Obama directly - how can a government that doesn't recognize its people's rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don't leave us alone.

      And no one did anything.

      http://www.bloggernews.net/122...

      The the LA Times and other news outlets are reporting that the government sponsored "Anti American" demonstrations to celebrate the taking of the American hostages 30 years ago now have open demonstrations at the fringes of the government arranged crowds: and they are not shouting death to America but death to the dictators.

      The UK Guardian has photos HERE if you scroll down...apparently twitter is back up...and they have a bunch of photos from one of their photo-journalists...
      What is more, both of these newspapers report that some of the demonstrators are asking where is the American president, who has been so eager to make peace with the present dictatorship that he has failed to support those who are asking for democracy. Again, quote is from the LATimes:

      "Obama, Obama!" protesters chanted on a day marking the 30th anniversary of the United States Embassy takeover. "Either you're with them, or with us."

      And where is President Obama? Equivocating, as usual, and talking sweetly to the dictators;

      President Obama issued a statement Tuesday night urging Iran's leaders to join with him in overcoming the acrimony forged by the hostage crisis three decades ago.

      "This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust and confrontation," Obama said. "I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."

      This type of statement, of course, could be interpreted as President Obama backing the present regime: all in the name of peace, of course.

      I'm not suggesting the US invade or anything. But if a murderous and hostile theocracy is mowing down peaceful demonstrators the US should say that's a bad thing and nail it with sanctions.

      I've met a lot of expat Iranians and they all loath the Islamic Republic regime and consider it far worse than the Shah's. And from a foreign policy perspective a democratic Iran would be mighty handy - Iran dominates Syria

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re: How about you butt out ? by johanw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that is true, when are the US sanctions against Saudi Arabia announced?

    6. Re: How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is our business, until Iran stops funding terrorism and Islamic expansion around the world.

      Why? to keep score? The Obama Administration was the single largest donor of terrorism in prior years. Syria alone the US state department funded $500mn in arms, don't you remember the Toyotas?

    7. Re:How about you butt out ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The point is not that American meddling is unique, but that it is STUPID and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

      By speaking out on behalf of the protesters, we are helping the government paint them as unpatriotic stooges working for the benefit of Iran's enemies.

      We really need to learn when to just STFU.

    8. Re:How about you butt out ? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Disagree.

      The Germans, the French, and the Americans have notably stepped forward in support of the protesters... and nearly every western democracy would issue an opinion if asked.

      Whether or not this aids the ruling Islamic regime is an interesting point for debate, but the shutdown of the internet and ongoing suppression of the freedom of speech will either snuff out the spark of revolution or kindle it. Either way, those in power will try to blame outside influence, rather than internal unrest, for the dissent.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:How about you butt out ? by jodido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll be more impressed when the US starts calling out Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Or apologizes for the military dictatorships it sponsored in Latin America for decades.

    10. Re:How about you butt out ? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 0

      The White House is asking nicely because Langley has spent a lot of time and money instigating this latest round of protests, after the Green Revolution one that fell flat. It looks like this latest CIA attempt will probably fall flat too.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    11. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SA and Bahrain bend over backwards to accommodate US policy and actions in the ME. On the other hand Iran celebrates it's version of the 4th of July with their "Death to America" parade. The Iranians created their own problems starting back in 1979. While the liberal and progressive students were busy holding US hostages the hardcore Islamists were busy taking over the country. It's ironic that the protests that paved the way for the hardcore religious fanatics created a state where protests were forbidden. The current unrest is not as bad as the media makes out. A few thousand protesters scattered across the country are not going to change anything.

      And US Latin America foreign policy has been one of benign and disinterest outside of US border issues. The South Americans have created their own mess all by themselves but it is easier to blame the US for their lot in life and do nothing except make things worse..

    12. Re:How about you butt out ? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Ugh... Can we please stop modding obvious what-about-ism posts up? What the last guy did is irrelevant, both to the point being made by TFA and to the behaviour of the current administration.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - especially when you like to point out what the last guy did when you approve but whine "what-about-ism" when it's something you disproved of.

      Just more typical SJW thought control.

      But I'll be happy to throw it back in your face when you do it now.

    14. Re:How about you butt out ? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What the last guy did is irrelevant

      No, it's directly relevant because their actions or inactions have caused problems that other people have to deal with. Obama shipping boatloads of cash and gold, and knowingly doing so with the explicit fact that it would be used to fund terrorism isn't "what-about-ism." It's something that everyone should be pissed off about, just like if you raged over Bush Jr., and the neocons going into Iraq. Or why Lybia's nuclear program is sitting in Tennessee and was handed over with the explicit guarantee that if they did hand it over, they'd leave him in power. Which of course worked out very well to this day, and Lybia hasn't collapsed to a near non-state.

      And while on the neocon bit, democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call yourself. When republicans started driving them out, you know where they fled to? That's right you do, because the democrats playbook was straight out of it and is to this day. Which is why people like David Frum and ilk were welcomed with open arms by the democrat leadership.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SA bends over backwards to accommodate US policy in the middle east, which just happens to be war with all of SA's enemies. Fancy that.

    16. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh....you're violating the slashdot anti-American circlejerk. Remember: whatever happens, the US is to blame.

    17. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the US should definitely just ignore people who want human rights and democracy. FFS, it's not like Trump's saying he's going to invade, just that he supports their mission.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    18. Re:How about you butt out ? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ugh... Can we please stop modding obvious what-about-ism posts up? What the last guy did is irrelevant, both to the point being made by TFA and to the behaviour of the current administration.

      My post was about *more* than what the "last guy" did or didn't do. I'm pointing out the fact that foreign relations is the purview of the president and has been since our founding. Complaining about what the current administration does or doesn't get involved in is pretty much pointless as is isolationism as a policy. Like it or not, we are involved one way or another.

      Now if you want to discuss WHY one should or shouldn't do something... That's a totally different kettle of fish..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why US don't complain about human rights in Saudi Arabia, Israel and other allies.

    20. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll have a hard time convincing anyone from South America that the authoritarian dictators the US installed in their country was "benign". Pinochet alone is treated in Chile like Hitler in Germany. And the fuck all of it, is that in every single instance the "free market" dictator that sold the country to US interests ruined the nation's economy, and it never recovered until the dictator was unseated and the nation returned to it's previous socialist policies. There is so much hard evidence for this it's staggering, but right wingers and hard evidence mix like oil and water in almost every case.

    21. Re:How about you butt out ? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      No. Obama is the most recent president so of course he is going to be what is compared to.

      If you disagree with what Obama did, than own it. Show some consistency. And honestly, he's out of office so I don't understand why that would be hard for you to do. You aren't going to lose anything.

      If you disagree with a policy only because Trump is doing it now instead of Obama, then take a look in the mirror and evaluate yourself.

    22. Re: How about you butt out ? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      If that is true, when are the US sanctions against Saudi Arabia announced?

      You want us declaring war or starting conflicts on more of the Middle East

    23. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be more impressed when the US starts calling out Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Or apologizes for the military dictatorships it sponsored in Latin America for decades.

      The US has done all that! Here are a few links I got just from a quick google search:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Human_right_controversy
      https://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11317904/obama-argentina-dirty-war

    24. Re:How about you butt out ? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I mean, the US definitely should condemn Saudi Arabia more, but there aren't exactly protests going on there right now, are there? It makes sense that the US would focus its attention on places where encouragement might make a difference.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    25. Re:How about you butt out ? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The point is not that American meddling is unique, but that it is STUPID and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

      By speaking out on behalf of the protesters, we are helping the government paint them as unpatriotic stooges working for the benefit of Iran's enemies.

      We really need to learn when to just STFU.

      We are involved, even when we don't want to be, lack of action is an action too. Isolationist policies don't work because they are impossible due to our shear size and power. We ARE involved by our shear presence in the world.

      What's stupid and counterproductive is not realizing that we are the world's sole remaining super power and taking or not taking overt action has consequences regardless of our intent. We don't have the option of not being involved...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Be careful what standards you set by Solandri · · Score: 1

    Couldn't the Iranian government just claim they detected foreign countries attempting to influence last year's election via social media, and use that as U.S.-proof justification for blocking access to social media sites? I mean I know it'd be ridiculous. But that's why censorship is a very slippery slope.

    1. Re:Be careful what standards you set by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even worse! Foreign countries are attempting to influence their revolution via social media! I hear Trump himself is personally involved.

      We need a special prosecutor to determine whether the leaders of the rebellion have colluded with Trump or other America-connected individuals.

    2. Re:Be careful what standards you set by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Let the NSA, GCHQ in. They want to help the CIA and MI6 do a color revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Be careful what standards you set by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The Iranian regime is going to blame Jews and Americans no matter what. Might as well take the opportunity to kick 'em while they look a bit unstable given they'll accuse you of it anyway.

      Here's Netanyahu explaining that Israel isn't to blame but wishing the demonstrators well

      https://www.haaretz.com/israel...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Be careful what standards you set by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, quoting Bibi the lying scumbag is no help for your shilling bullshit Hal, neither is your copy paste bullshit impressing anyone.

    5. Re:Be careful what standards you set by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'overnment just claim they detected foreign countries attempting to influence last year's election via social media, and use that as U.S.-proof justification for blocking access to social media sites?"

      That was the long slow case building attempted by most of the Warsaw Pact nations intelligence services in the early 1980's.
      Given more time they really thought they could to find the CIA, MI6 backed spy rings funding protesters in their cities. Another fews years and it could all go to an open trial. The CIA funds, slogan writing, media events can all be discovered.
      The problem with that method of under cover police work over a decade is everyday the under cover police try and find the funding, support networks is another day of real protests. The undercover police have to keep their cover and become visible protesters.
      Years trying to prove, show, find western support for domestic protests allowed protests to grow in size and become an event. By the time the security services had their evidence the governments had fallen into the pre set trap of "negotiations" with "dissidents" and CIA funded "intellectuals".

      China took a very different approach. Consider every protester the problem and never allow any mass moment to build around a person or their actions.
      Stop any protests on the day and totally. No waiting, undercover, investigations. Prison for all who show up to protest.
      Dont wait for years to find Western spy rings, the very first protester is the spy. No need to follow, befriended, allowed to protest to draw out a larger group for more investigations over years.

      Much smarter and immediate tactics are also seen by US state, city and federal police against individuals wanting to protest in the USA. Each new protester attracted to an event gets a FBI visit and a field interview. Two agents, one to witness the other, street clothes.
      If thats not chilling enough to make a person reconsider "protesting" then a COINTELPRO 2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is used on one person and their small group of friends before any group grows nationally.
      No movement is allowed to grow in the USA without direct police, federal interviews, intervention, chat downs. The group is then lost, or becomes a fully informant front doing gov approved protest busy work to show "freedoms" and attract any emerging protesters. The protests go on in the USA but the topics are approved, safe and boring. Very different solutions to dealing with other nations funded protests.

      The German police have a new tactic too. Identify the person online as social media reports the users account. Police warn the person about their online speech once in a direct way thats still private.
      If the person keeps on attempting to speak out about German politics direct uniformed police interviews start. Uniform police visit a home, the persons work.
      Questions are asked about a persons health, work, politics, friends, hobbies, reading, online activities. Bank accounts are looked into.
      A fine is presented for past online speech. The possibility of time in prison is the next topic during a more formal interview given the past fine.
      Germany stops questions of governments directly with each person before any movement can start. The person cannot afford to have no job, face larger fines, have banks accounts look at, find and still pay for an approved lawyer to prevent jail time. They stop their online comments and are never allowed to grow into a protest movement.

      Long term investigations just let protest grow. Thats a fail. Undercover police quickly get identified and avoided.
      Immediate arrests stop protests. Keeps a gov in power but the optics are bad.
      Creating controlled front groups to waste creative protesters energy and time on silly issues is real winning. Freedom of speech, freedom after speech. Few police needed as the protest group is real, the approved issue is boring and the group kept tame.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re: Be careful what standards you set by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you heard that eh? I'm not surprised since it's right in the fucking summary. Dumbass.

  5. It's the Americans on Line 1, sir... by rmdingler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With the US request, and five dollars, you can still get a cup of Starbucks.

    This is a dictatorial Islamic Republic, in crisis. The squelching of dissent alone guarantees these sites remain as closed as Jimmy Hoffa's eyes.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:It's the Americans on Line 1, sir... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US never blocks social media sites, even if they are used by foreign enemies to impact the election of an incompetent dictator.

    2. Re:It's the Americans on Line 1, sir... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but how's the free wifi at Cafe Raees?

  6. Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by aberglas · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Our ignorance about Iran is overwhelming. How many times have we heard news reports about what "The Government" in Iran is doing without even mentioning that there are two governments in Iran. The (fairly) democratic one and the repressive Islamic one. Without understanding that, and the resulting conflicts, you understand nothing about Iran.

    Ignorant vitriol from the US and Trump does not help the difficult situation on Iran. But they are not meant to. Their purpose is purely to whip up ignorant anger in the US.

    1. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job parroting what you read on CNN this morning.

      "This moment is about Iran, not about Trump"

    2. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Nope, did not see that on CNN. Just a common sense reaction to the nonsense seen elsewhere.

    3. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by cheesyweasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate reformer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... How the fuck is a revolution going to make that situation better for the people of Iran or the stability of that region? This is clearly about the US working with the Saudis (who bombed the world trade center, which was used as a pretext to invade Iraq) and the geopolitical advantage the US has if they are allies with the Saudis, rather than allies of Iran (their protestant/catholic style enemy). It all boils down to the US worrying more about Russian influence in Iran, and countries closer to Russia, and trying to calm down the nutjob Saudis, while also keeping Israel happy so they don't have to stockpile more nuclear bombs. Isn't it about time we show countries like Russia that we can be more functional if we focus on fixing our democracies? Civil discourse, civil engagement rather than this individualistic meltdown that our society is currently experiencing. Maybe then we can show that the world that you don't need a strongman to run a country. Short answer.. fuck this world, fuck its leaders and its uninformed self-centered public.

    4. Re: Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a revolt against the hard-line Islamic rulers, not the powerless democratic puppets.... You fucking imbecile.

    5. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Wovel · · Score: 2

      The revolt is against the theocracy. You should have spent a few more minutes building your Wikipedia presentation.

    6. Re: Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by cheesyweasel · · Score: 2

      Yeah.. and the last big revolution work out great against Edrogan in Turkey didn't it? How many moderates were locked up in prison as a result? Fucking imbeciles use words like fucking imbeciles to argue their point.

    7. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the revolt is orchestrated for Israel. All our wars are for The Greater Israel Project where they take over the middle east and the world. I wish we would stop fighting wars for Israel and showering them with money. They can defend themselves. They just become more powerful and dangerous and manipulate our own country to have open borders and race mixing and anti-white policies while they create a fascist pure Jewish Ethno state out of Israel and push their borders into Syrian territory.

    8. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW. How much did they pay you to type that?

    9. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      And isn't it interesting how the White House and US media have so little to say about violent political repression in Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates (Look them up here: https://www.hrw.org/ ), or the US tactical support for the Saudi bombing campaigns that target civilians (a war crime) in Yemen?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    10. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Look who's talking. The demonstrations clearly started for economic reasons. Then they got hijacked. It's nearly over I think. All that's left is the rioters.

    11. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it hard to believe that Trump has any working knowledge of geopolitical politics to actually address anything. We're talking about the man who goes to China and learns the history of Korea from a rival, not from his own spy agencies then blurts out his ignorance in front of the world.

    12. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderate? Still funding and directing Hezbollah and the Iranian republican guard is still sending weapons into Iraq. I don't think that is moderate.

    13. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW. How much did they pay you to troll this?

    14. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an odd idea of moderate.

    15. Re:Iran is about Iran, not about the USA by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Americans understand very well the concept of a deep state. You have the fairly democratic elected President Trump and then the FBI led deep state which is trying to trash and derail his agenda. The Ayatollahs are the deep state in Iran

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  7. Yea sure.... Not going to happen by bobbied · · Score: 2

    If you think that Iran will willingly let this unrestricted social media thing happen, you are sadly mistaken. Those in control in Iran are not interested in open debate or listening to protestor's complaints.

    I suppose you can ask nicely, but if you know the answer is going to be no, why bother?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Yea sure.... Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are not interested in open debate or listening to complaints.

      Sounds like they have something in common with antifa and feminists.

  8. Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social media by ffkom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... as it took only one day of the new censorship tool "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" until the first Tweets with government-critical content were deleted based on it (under the allegation they would be hate speech, the new one-fits-all word to criminalize public dissent).

  9. Meanwhile in Iran... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Trump administration is calling on the government of Iran to stop blocking Instagram and other social media sites while encouraging Iranians to use special software to circumvent controls.

    Meanwhile, Iranians are calling on the government of America to start blocking Trump from Twitter and other social media sites while encouraging Americans to use the "block" button to remove him from their feeds.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      Trump is about the worst person to ask any other country to "do better".

    2. Re:Meanwhile in Iran... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. It specifically forbids the government from making any law which restricts free speech. This is because the founding fathers knew that robust political discourse was the best defense against tyranny.

    3. Re:Meanwhile in Iran... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Clearly I didn't plant my tongue far enough in my cheek if you've taken it as a serious suggestion that anyone's free speech should be curtailed.

  10. As an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why do we have to call on them to do anything? For once, can we just shut the fuck up and let others deal with things as they see fit.

  11. I'll be impressed by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When we say the same thing to the Saudies. Until then this is just another example of an unpopular administration trying to start a preemptive war with a nation that posses little or no threat to the nation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'll be impressed by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Most of us know that the Saudis are the real enemies. How many here know that is illegal not to be a Muslim in that country?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re: I'll be impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've been taught that by people who are woefully ignorant of history. Well, that Orr paid to deliberately misrepresent it. Iranian controlled militias have completed the ethnic cleansing of Talafar, continue their puppet war again Saudi Arabia without any regard to the humanitarian disaster they've created in Yemen, continue to enslave the people of Eritrea, and murder women and children in Somalia, but you took the bait and think it's just the Saudis who are bad.

    3. Re:I'll be impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Saudis are actually reforming such as giving the right to drive to women among other things. They are slowly changing now.

    4. Re:I'll be impressed by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      No overtures for war were stated. Do you have any other strawman arguments to put up for us?

  12. Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The USA "preaches" to other nations as if it's never done anything to stifle "free speech and expression" in areas under its jurisdiction.

    Don't we all remember what happened to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations?

    For those that do not remember, folks engaged in these protests were all evicted.

    1. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Seriously.
      Even Google, Facebook etc are actively searching for and removing anything they arbitrarily label as inflammatory.

    2. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Wovel · · Score: 2

      Seriously? Thats what you have? Moving people living in the middle of the park for months for months? Your are free to protest. It doesn't mean you can move onto public land and live there.

    3. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Evicted from squatting and evicted from life are substantially different.

    4. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... after camping two months in a public park, you forgot that part.

    5. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Your are free to protest. It doesn't mean you can move onto public land and live there.

      Camping on public land was the greatest protest idea since the 60's - which is why Obama crushed OWS at the federal level. Because a nice, polite, convenient protest is an irrelevant protest. But when all else fails (before violent riots) you make yourself enough of a (non-violent) pain in the ass that its easier for TPTB to throw you a bone than continuing to ignore you.

    6. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your are free to protest. It doesn't mean you can move onto public land and live there.

      Camping on public land was the greatest protest idea since the 60's - which is why Obama crushed OWS at the federal level. Because a nice, polite, convenient protest is an irrelevant protest. But when all else fails (before violent riots) you make yourself enough of a (non-violent) pain in the ass that its easier for TPTB to throw you a bone than continuing to ignore you.

      The problem is that the pain in the A wouldn't affect you (obviously from your reply) because it was not in your own backyard. The effect of the OWS was not really to the government either, but it was to those who live/work in the city. Don't you get it?

    7. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      OWS demonstrators were cleared off of private land, not public. The owners of the park had every right to remove people, especially when they were breaking the rules the owner set out (no tents, etc.) and making the park totally unsanitary.

      What's more, clearing people off of land is far different from running them over or shooting them dead in the street.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    8. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      OWS wasn't camping on public land - that park was private property.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    9. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Camping on public land was the greatest protest idea since the 60's

      Since the 1960s?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    10. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Taking a dump in a public park isn't free speech.

    11. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Was the Bonus Army protesting in towns, cities and state capitals across the country?

    12. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Thanks for a link that backs up my point:

      Zuccotti Park wasn't the protesters' original destination. The organizers first tweeted plans to gather at Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull Statue and at 1 Chase Plaza. But the New York Police Department got wind of that and barricaded both locations, which are city-owned parks that require protests to have permits.

      And you do know OWS was a nationwide protest movement, yes? Case in point, the pepper spraying pig meme after the assault on protesters on UC Davis.

    13. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The effect of the OWS was not really to the government either, but it was to those who live/work in the city. Don't you get it?

      No, you didn't get it. Being a PITA to local bourgeoisie is the idea. If you have to step outside of your bubble because you were 15 minutes late to work you may actually pay attention long enough to demand change to the status quo.

    14. Re:Whatever happened to Occupy Wall Street by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Your point appeared to be what you said - namely, "Obama crushed OWS at the federal level". NYC didn't let OWS protest in those in public parks because they weren't following city ordinances, not federal ones. Moreover, since you directly referenced camping on public land, I thought you'd want to know that hadn't happened.

      The bulk of OWS was in NYC. UC Davis students did a thing, and again, local cops shut them down. OWS had more than one location, but it wasn't widespread enough to be "nationwide", and local cops responding certainly isn't an action of the federal government.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  13. There's something more going on here by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Why would the US government really care about Iranians access to social media?

    If Instragram, Facebook et al didn't all happen to be US businesses wuld they still give a shit?. Either that or they perceive a high value to the pro-US agenda brainwashing being actively pushed through such channels.

    1. Re:There's something more going on here by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      It allows the US and UK clandestine services to help create and support photogenic uprisings and protests all over Iran.
      Without domestic looking social media been open to all such coordination looks too much like other nations astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      With social media it can still be passed to the 24 new cycle as been spontaneous domestic protests for better conditions and "democracy".
      Social media allows a few events in any nation to be presented as a national uprising.
      People can be told where to protest, when and with what well designed slogans. Then the stickers, t shirt are ready, a slogan and the needed people in a set part of the country. The pre positioned charismatic english speaking people can give a "spontaneous" interview to pre positioned Western media about freedom.
      Perfect audio, location, protest colors, slogans, voice and sound levels, accent and background. The prepackaged face of an uprising.
      The strange new forums, sites, proxies that support freedom and can get around any national "censorship". Usually a front for Western intelligence services and their well funded domestic supporters.
      Account with no photo or just a short list of political slogans. Repeating the same political messages in a local language between 9am and 5pm GMT.
      The events in Serbia are the playbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that showed the used of media, tv, print, slogans, t shirts, stickers and the funding of articulate locals to be the face of protests.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:There's something more going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They care because it would allow the CIA to continue to use it to foment dissent and negative opinion of the Iranian government.

      They haven't got access to a TV-station or newspaper, so social media is what they use these days. It's probably more effective than TV, radio and paper as well.

  14. So ignoring helps more? How?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ignorant vitriol from the US and Trump does not help the difficult situation on Iran.

    You see a guy laying in the street bleeding, best just to avert your eyes and move along, right?

    Ignoring Iranian protests was what Obama did years ago, how well did that work? Protestors killed, the silence from the outside world ensured defeat and brutal submission.

    Even if you are not going to get involved just a word of support can mean a world of difference to fragile movements.

    It is time to stop letting the men, and especially WOMEN of Iran suffer any longer under the hands of true tyranny. The benefits of a truly democratic and free Iran would be massive, from a huge reduction in terrorists around the world to removing another backer of North Korea (but then I repeat myself).

    I have a friend from Iran, the people of Iran are really different than the government that oversees them. If they were free to do as they like I think it could honestly lead to a renaissance across the Middle East, instead of the endless quagmire we have today. Time for real change.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. Re:So ignoring helps more? How?? by aberglas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your post provides good support of my original comment. You have no idea about Iran, yet strong feelings. You are probably unaware, for example, that the USA actively supported Iraq in the war against Iran in which over a million people were killed, many by Iraqi poison gas. The point being that while those demonstrators want change, you can be sure that none of them see the USA as a beacon of light and democracy, instead, vitriol from Trump really helps the religious reactionary's cause.

    As to North Korea, yes, should be dealt with far more forcefully, which means dealing with the USA's banker, China. But you are also probably unaware that N Korea was actually under control under Clinton. It was when Bush went to Iraq that the N Koreans saw their opportunity. And then, of course, Obama did nothing. And Trump will do nothing either except bluster, which may ultimately end up with a very bad result.

  16. Re: So ignoring helps more? How?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SeriI us question, How much do they pay you to shill?

  17. Looting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, the trump crime family shovels cash payouts from their new tax bill into the van, and trump jr pours lighter fluid on the Constitution and burns it in the driveway....

    1. Re:Looting.. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      ... and trump jr pours lighter fluid on the Constitution and burns it in the driveway....

      Rather ironical when you look at the desperate repeated attempt of "democrats" to get rid to the Bill of Rights.

  18. Still convinced these are "Iranian" protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same old, same old...

  19. Re: So ignoring helps more? How?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you working for the same organization that pays the NY Times to shill for Iran?

  20. Re: So ignoring helps more? How?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So because the US supported Iraq decades ago, we shouldn't support Iranian citizens now?

    Are you really that fucking stupid? You're incoherent.

  21. Interfering with a country ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

    ... much?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  22. "The great Iranian people have been repressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... since early 1979."

  23. If the US were a comic book hero... by lionchild · · Score: 2

    Super Dipolamtic Powers...Activ...oh, nevermind. :-(

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  24. Re:"The great Amerca people have been butt hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since becoming losers in early1979.
    FTFY

  25. Another manufactured war is in the works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta love that Neocon foreign policy eh?

    1. Re:Another manufactured war is in the works! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Supporting protestors and saying people want human rights is so incredibly different from leading up to an invasion. Maybe take a step back and remove the partisan hatred.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  26. If there were actually anything we wanted by hey! · · Score: 1

    from Iran, this would be a great time to drive a bargain.

    In general you don't want to bargain with a regime that is too secure to feel the need to compromise. But it's a mistake to think you want to deal with a weak, insecure regime. Such a regime can't afford to be seen as compromising. What you want is someone who desperately needs a win, even a small one.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  27. Let's try the opposite story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Trump could do better if he had a sense of humor. Let's face it, his official rebuke of this situation won't mean anything to the people in Iran that are making the decision to shut off access to social media. What if instead, he said nothing about it. I would bet that there would be people, even here in this forum, that would claim that "Once again! The US is backing a corrupt Iranian regime!"

  28. Nuclear Bombs In One Year!! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You are probably unaware, for example, that the USA actively supported Iraq in the war against Iran

    I know all of that and more, and like I said I actually have friends FROM Iran, and I followed the Iran/Iraq war far more closely than you could ever dream of. What makes you think your own knowledge is especially deep? It certainly does not seem at all well informed by history, by the way people were there before Islamist rule (and yes I ALSO know the part the U.S. played there, which doesn't make trying to fix things now wrong).

    But you are also probably unaware that N Korea was actually under control under Clinton.

    I am defiantly not aware of other people's fantasies, I am aware of how long it takes to develop nuclear weapons and it's a lot longer than Trump has been president. So to claim she had it "handled" is so laughable it borders on the offensive, as Trump said it's not like NK is a recent problem - it's a problem that presidents have been shuffling under teh rug for 30-40 years and the bill has come do. Just because Clinton had slightly better taste in rugs does not excuse that, among many other, crimes against humanity directly attributable to her actions.

    I'll let you have the last word since you have entered the realm of abject fantasy.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Nuclear Bombs In One Year!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello crazy internet people... you're having a classic misunderstanding where you're just talking past each other. I don't particularly agree with either one of you, and I don't have the time to untangle all of it, but for one part, the GP was referring to President Bill Clinton, not some failed presidential candidate.

    2. Re:Nuclear Bombs In One Year!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goodness SuperKendall, you didn't just hit a foul ball. I think you struck the umpire with the bat and then hit him a few more times for good measure.

      Regardless, you're laughably wrong, and the group of Iranians I work with highly doubt that you've ever met anybody from the Middle East at all, and are 100% certain you've never met an Iranian in your entire life. It really didn't help that you got your decades confused, of all things. But sycophants like you that obsess over Hillary Clinton are highly predictable, if nothing else.

  29. Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran is not the only country practicing censorship

    Facebook, Twitter and Google are American companies AND THEY PRACTICES CENSORSHIP !!

    If you want Iran to take down their censorship, STOP CENSORSHIP IN AMERICA FIRST !!

  30. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    Holy mackerel! Think of all the Scrabble points you'd earn from that word.

  31. The Saudis aren't enemies by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    but they're not necessarily good people. I'd like to see my country really stand up for freedom. And to do that we have to do it everywhere. And not by declaring anyone an "enemy". That's not going to help. Better to lead by example. Don't attack unless your attacked. Demand human rights from our trading partners and our allies. And no, just because you're not an ally doesn't mean you're an enemy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  32. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    69 points, excluding multiplier spaces and bingo.

  33. Re:So ignoring helps more? How?? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    While I admire the sentiment, what can we actually do that we are not already doing?

    Invading won't work, it will just create another Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Unfortunately you can't just make a country democratic, because the people will just vote for religious extremists. I think we may just have to accept that they will need to get there in their own time, with as much support from us as we can offer.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  34. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Not really anything to do with the new law. She is under criminal investigation, so even before for tweets would have been removed, at least until the investigation / prosecution ends.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  35. Why are we directly involved? Hello, UN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point of the UN is to handle crap like this so the country if interest can't say "Trump is bullying me". Please stop talking directly to Iran and get the UN to pressure the idiots. And keep pushing until the fucking UN actually does something worthwhile.

  36. We can at least express support by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    While I admire the sentiment, what can we actually do that we are not already doing?

    The governments of the world can do what the US and Israel (and probably other countries now) are doing - express support, so that if there is a regime change the protestors will know some countries will be willing to help them.

    That's not invasion, just providing a sounds base for the government to change according to people's wishes.

    We can also call out violations of basic rights - like the protestors that are being shot. Let the soldiers taking orders know that actions they take have the eye of the world on them and they may be paying for it later. Let the government know that actions like this will have consequences in trade and diplomacy with other countries.

    Unfortunately you can't just make a country democratic, because the people will just vote for religious extremists

    That is where you severely misunderstand the people of Iran. If they were allowed to truly vote they would NOT be voting in religious extremists. Most Iranians are not that religious, search Twitter for the many examples of how open and free the people of Iran were before the government was taken over by extremists.

    You don't get as widespread protests as we are seeing from a people who just want to vote the same government back into power!

    I think we may just have to accept that they will need to get there in their own time

    I am accepting that maybe the time is now, if they believe they have support from the outside to demand real change. It is up to them but it is hard to escape a tyrant without help.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:We can at least express support by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I basically agree, but we are already doing those things. Well, okay, I suppose more countries could join in.

      The people of Iraq were quite cosmopolitan in parts too. The problem is that after a war everyone is vying for power, and the moderates tend to get crowded out by extremists who can very effectively get their vote out and make sure the ballot isn't split.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  37. Poor Iranians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Made poorer by US sanctions.

    The real reason Israel and its client state USA are against nuclear deal is because they prefer to keep Iran down to keep them poor so they will have less power and resources with which to screw with KSA so Trump pulling this shit is quite amusing.

    KSA is a belligerent oil cursed nation of inbred (Provable fact) backwards lunatics who until recently would not even let women drive. The same dotards who export terrorism globally via radicalization mills known as madrassas.

    Iran has more than its share of nutcases running things yet at least Iran is a real functioning country with a more or less normal modern society.

    Israel and her client state USA is on the wrong side of the cold war between Iran and KSA.

  38. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're talking about this von Storch tweet?

    How 'bout we export her wholesale to the US, the Land Of The Brave And The Free?

    We don't need her here.

    (Captcha: "customs")

  39. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    It's not possible. Not enough Z-tiles. Scrabble tile letter distribution is as follows:

    A-9, B-2, C-2, D-4, E-12, F-2, G-3, H-2, I-9, J-1, K-1, L-4, M-2, N-6, O-8, P-2, Q-1, R-6, S-4, T-6, U-4, V-2, W-2, X-1, Y-2, Z-1 and Blanks-2.

  40. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Oh damn I'm wrong, there are enough blanks.

  41. Hungry for food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2017 Global Hunger Index (PDF) cites as a country with low hunger problems. As opposed to Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia, for example.

  42. CIA calls on Iran to unblock social media* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a more correct headline. Of course they would love that, so they could continue what they've been doing for the last few years. Not saying that the situation in Iran is OK, but when massive social unrest bubbles up in these places, you can bet that America and its terrorist organizations have a hand in the matters.

  43. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Oh damn I'm wrong, there are enough blanks.

    But a Scrabble board is only 15 squares across, OPs word has 27 letters. I win today's scrabble nerd competition.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  44. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I have no countermove to that! I hoped to play out my 'superscrabble' trump card but it only has 21x21 grid.

  45. Iran and Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get rid of the real problem- Israel.

  46. Re:So ignoring helps more? How?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Iran, I'll just add that there is a general perception in the middle east that the US has double standards. That is, it occasionally acts with some conviction, but only seems to do in certain places. It doesn't use even 1/10th of that conviction with other players who do the same things (primarily because they appear to "play along" with US demands, trade, etc). As the US is also seen as "the west" (at least in part), it means that better behaved countries are "tarred with the same brush" (at least to some extent).

    As noted above, the US (and others) have whipped up a certain amount of dissent in various nations, but then failed to back up the dissenters with anything meaningful. IMHO, only a complete spanner would now believe that they could protest in Iran and get anything more than some poor grammar in a tweet to back them up.

  47. Kaspersky by ghoul · · Score: 1

    Iran will unblock Twitter when USA unblocks Kaspersky.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  48. Russian Interference by ghoul · · Score: 1

    USA is so outraged by Russian interference in US elections. All Russia "allegedly" did was air Clinton's dirty laundry and post ads on facebook. They didnt change any votes or rig any voting machines or tell any lies, "again allegedly".
    Yet USA is outraged and investigating and crippling a democratically elected President.

    Yet Americans see no irony in trying to interfere in Iran's internal politics?

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  49. Re:So ignoring helps more? How?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you are also probably unaware that N Korea was actually under control under Clinton

    You mean when we gave NK a ton of fuel/money, they promised to dismantle their stuff? How can you not remember the laughable UN inspection terms or how the head UN inspector was shitting on NK all the time for inspection impediment?

    'Memba how US intelligence agencies concluded NK was still pursuing nukes by other means?

    But ah - I walked into this one. You yourself are clearly providing evidence for your original comment.

  50. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    It's sad that the USA has become the last bastion of freedom in the world. Freedom used to be loved by many and now they gladly relinquish it in the name of political correctness and security theater.

  51. Re:Why are we directly involved? Hello, UN? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    The UN can't be bothered with such things. There is a tweet going around highlighting that even the "UN Expert on human rights in Iran" has been silent on this matter.

  52. Re:Pls. also call on Germany to unblock social med by ffkom · · Score: 1

    If you think that the parliamentarian Mrs. Storch was the only victim already censored via the "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz", you are under-informed. Multiple postings from comedians and satire magazines were equally silenced using the new censorship tool - read on e.g. here: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt...

    And even if only Mrs. Storch had been censored, it clearly shows that this is a tool of censorship, and nothing else. I hope the Bundesverfassungsgericht will stop that nonsense sooner or later.

  53. Why meddle in other country affairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Iran tells US to ratify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

  54. Re:So ignoring helps more? How?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #makeIranGreatAgain