Slashdot Mirror


The App Destroying Iran's Currency (foreignpolicy.com)

Iranians are using the messaging app Telegram to spread fake news about the rial -- and make a profit for themselves. From a report: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani owes his re-election in large part to the messaging app Telegram. During Iran's 2017 presidential election, Iranians relied on the app as a rare source of uncensored news about the race, in which Rouhani was not the candidate most favored by hard-liners. Just one year later, Telegram may end up becoming Rouhani's downfall. The app is at the center of Iran's accelerating currency crash.

The Iranian rial was generally acknowledged to have been on a stable path until May, when U.S. President Donald Trump exited the Iran nuclear deal. Prior to the U.S. withdrawal, one U.S. dollar was worth around 37,000 rials; immediately afterwards, a single dollar jumped to around 44,000 rials. The rial has continued to slump ever since, dropping to 50,000 to the dollar, and then 80,000 rials, and then 190,000 during Rouhani's speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September. Right now, it is at 120,500 rials. But it isn't just U.S. sanctions and the fundamental weaknesses of the Iranian economy that have contributed to Iran's currency freefall. It's also the deliberate circulation of rumors and fake news on Telegram by Iranian currency traders and middlemen out to make a profit.

83 comments

  1. Donald Trump upset by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

    âoeThis is an outrage! I was going to destroy that currency!â

    1. Re: Donald Trump upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stick to grabbing them by the pu$$y because your micropeni$ isn't going to please them at all

    2. Re:Donald Trump upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people blaming trump for everything are like the idiots who wrote this blithering article blaming a messaging app for people communicating.

  2. rial news by mermeid007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did he mean to say fake as in not rial?

    1. Re:rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he mean to say fake as in not rial?

      Some snowflake is gonna get rially pissed at you for that punny remark...

    2. Re:rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, 10 dollars US = 1.2 million rial

      Give an Iranian 10 dollars and they are a millionaire!!

      Everyone in Iran is a millionaire. Donald Trump makes all countries great!!

    3. Re: rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut your mouth. So traders should be thanking trump for this from the bottom of their shallow evil hearts?

    4. Re: rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will teach trump to barge into foreign policy. Christ!

    5. Re:rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know you're joking, but I'll provide a serious response nevertheless.

      Iranians don't really use Rial when discussing prices. They use Toman. 1 million Rial equals 100.000 Toman, which is mostly expressed as "100". So 10USD would be "120". They definitely do not consider themselves millionaires, but rather victims of petty fights between their own and US/Saudi/Israeli politicians.

      Nevertheless, going to an exchange office in Iran is an interesting experience. 100USD or 100EUR goes a long way in the country and you do need a bag to hold all the local notes, because it definitely will not fit in your wallet.

      At gas stations attendants walk around with a big wad of bills in their hand for change, even though gas in many places is only 0.10USD / liter.

    6. Re: rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's doing a better job dealing with disarming little rocket man and stopping Xitler's push to spread totalitarianism all over the world than puny Obama who just pussied out every chance he got and let these world leaders play him like a pawn

    7. Re: rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut your mouth. So traders should be thanking trump for this from the bottom of their shallow evil hearts?

      Found the snowflake.

    8. Re:rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're joking, but I'll provide a serious response nevertheless.

      Iranians don't really use Rial when discussing prices. They use Toman. 1 million Rial equals 100.000 Toman, which is mostly expressed as "100". So 10USD would be "120". They definitely do not consider themselves millionaires, but rather victims of petty fights between their own and US/Saudi/Israeli politicians.

      Nevertheless, going to an exchange office in Iran is an interesting experience. 100USD or 100EUR goes a long way in the country and you do need a bag to hold all the local notes, because it definitely will not fit in your wallet.

      At gas stations attendants walk around with a big wad of bills in their hand for change, even though gas in many places is only 0.10USD / liter.

      "petty fights": Iran and state-sponsored terrorism

      Those "petty fights" include the Iranian government doing things things like murdering 85 people in Buenos Aires, then five more in Bangkok, along with some assassinations in Berlin.

    9. Re:rial news by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Fake news is spreading information to deceive people.
      Rival news is spreading information to give a different view point and share additional information.

      The problem is for the average citizen it is hard to find the difference. As Fake news is compelling as it is often telling you what you want to hear. (often the Other is the cause of your problems) "People from other countries are taking your job!".
      vs Rival news which often gives more information which is difficult to process and may mean you are wrong. (Your life choices had put you in this predicament) "Jobs are now requiring a higher level of education to be successful at" and "other countries have better education systems"

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many of those date back to wartime and terrorism had better press in the 20th century than in the 21st (for obvious reason)

      Now what we know what the French, UK, US, Saudi, Israel plotted against them I have trouble blaming them more than necessary. Aforementioned countries used state-sponsored terrorism against Iran (the MeK), spent billions instructing Wahabbi/Salafi (religion created by Saudi Arabia) to exterminate all Shia (engineered a genocide), spent billions arming them, paying them and pouring them into Syria so as to create the Syrian Civil War and turn Iran's ally into another Libya or Somalia (supreme international crime) and the alleged recent assassination plot in France may be a false flag since everything France says has no credibility these days.

      Blowing planes etc. is something heinous to do still and completely inacceptable. But as far as international crimes go, there's worse.

    11. Re: rial news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, as opposed to Trumpie's letting the other world leaders play him like a pawn, such as Duarte, Erdogan, and Putin. Rocket Man never put away his weapons, another total failure on Trump's part - it was all just a sucker play for a photo-op with the orange God-damned dumbbell.

      Drumpf has given us such a vast improvement over the previous administrations, and all it cost us was a complete loss of our #1 position as world leaders and the respect of all our allies! Cheap!!

  3. Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't take it back now. Unless you ban it like China. Fuck them though. Fuck Xi jinping

  4. Switch to bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Switch now and get in early and reap the riches later.

    1. Re:Switch to bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're 3 or 4 years behind the times, mate.

    2. Re: Switch to bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom is 3 or 4 times begins my deck, fuckface

    3. Re:Switch to bitcoin by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Either too soon or too late. About $3-4k seems like a reasonable target for bitcoin once the get rich quick speculators withdraw. Good riddance too, all they do is destabilize the currency.

    4. Re: Switch to bitcoin by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How on earth do you calculate that as the reasonable level?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re: Switch to bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a real phrase to economists watching a commodity.

      If you're looking for a hard calculation or, if you're being especially infantile, a 2+2=4 formula, you'll be disappointed.

      If you're assuming "how do you calculate that" is impossible in economics you'll be disappointed again to learn it's something the winners have accomplished.

      It's a soft calculation, but the stats say that, yes, you can " 'calculate' a reasonable level", enough to demonstrably edge out profit.

      If you were trying to make this a conversation about the intrinsic value of an IP, you'll be disappointed yet again that I won't bite or bother.

    6. Re: Switch to bitcoin by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      If it continues to drop, it will collapse. Currently, the search "what is the cost of mining bitcoin" on google says that the cost of mining a bitcoin in the US is around $4750, depending on your cost of electricity. Venezuela and many Middle East and nearby countries have costs of half as much, but there are only a couple of dozen where the current cost makes it feasible long term unless something changes. After all, if the cost drops below the cost of electricity, then the miners that help transactions be completed should eventually quit, destroying the processing network. Of course, if they do, mining costs per coin could go down as fewer miners remain active, and those that stay get may get more coins for the same total costs, spreading the costs across more coins.

      Some technical analysts may think they can predict the market for various coins. Maybe they can, but the price has been in a slide for nearly a year, and it's always important to respect the trend, which means the price is more likely to go down than up, meaning I wouldn't buy at any price ever until their was good reason to see a turn around, and I'd just as soon have my money in a company that actually has revenues and profits that provide a floor for prices.

    7. Re: Switch to bitcoin by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      After all, if the cost drops below the cost of electricity, then the miners that help transactions be completed should eventually quit, destroying the processing network.

      That wouldn't destroy the processing network.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Shitposting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Intersting that slashdot has taken up shitposting to skip the middle-man. The story has one link, which leads back to this slashdot page.

    On the story I think the US sanctions might have somewhat more to do with the currency value than a few people on Telegram.

    1. Re:Shitposting by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      The story link is to the right of the summary headline, up in the green space.

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    2. Re:Shitposting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intersting that slashdot has taken up shitposting to skip the middle-man. The story has one link, which leads back to this slashdot page.

      On the story I think the US sanctions might have somewhat more to do with the currency value than a few people on Telegram.

      You're just now noticing?

      Bit slow on the uptake, aren't you?

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

      This what happens when you post on the internet. You get what you deserve!

    4. Re:Shitposting by NetNed · · Score: 1

      The same people that think Telegram did this are the same that think 100K in "Russian" facebook ads swung the election for Trump.

  6. Who knew "stuck in the Middle Ages" was an app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, maybe those fundamentalist Muslims can suppress women harder?

  7. Crooks Do Crooked Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a whole lot of bloviating to say crooks are lying to make a profit and are causing the currency to devalue.

    It's got nothing to do with the president, or the sanctions, or the nuclear deal, or the Telegram app...

    It has to do with scammers scamming people. The end.

  8. Don't shoot the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reasons a currency gets destroyed are not because citizens communicating with each other.

  9. Fundemental weakness by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

    "But it isn't just U.S. sanctions and the fundamental weaknesses of the Iranian economy..."

    What's this "fundamental weakness", aren't the US sanctions the problem ?

    1. Re:Fundemental weakness by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Strong dependence on a single commodity (oil). When oil drops, as it is now, the economy suffers.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Fundemental weakness by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That and they must support the clergy parasites and their military having their palms into various sectors of their economy. They are also funding stupid wars in Syria and Yemen, meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. Iran is willing to fight until the last Arab dies...which says a lot since Iranians are mostly Persians, not Arabs.

    3. Re:Fundemental weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's okay when Israel does it. America gives them the money to buy their toys.

  10. The solution should be obvious by timholman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Iran should switch to Bitcoin!

    Then, once the next cryptocurrency hack cleans out the Iranian treasury, the entire country will be flat on its back. No more nuclear weapons program!

    Stuxnet couldn't hold a candle to the damage that BTC would do to Iran. :-)

  11. Another utterly useles summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This tells me several times the same thing, veers off into other stuff, comes back to tell me the same thing again... and leaves me with a clear impression of having wasted my time.

    I might as well read bbc news instead, which does the same idiot thing only has some veneer of respectability. Fuck you, msmash.

  12. Published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that maybe the ability for anyone to be a "news source" with the internet has made it so news is much more easily manipulated than it used to be. It is funny how when a friend told you the sky was falling you'd laugh and think they were unbalanced. Now you read it on a sketchy news site after a google search and the same person who was unbalanced posted "the sky is falling" on FB and it becomes "truth", because well it was in print after all. I am not sure how to change the mindset that you should trust sources that check facts. Maybe we are hardwired to believe what we read but are skeptical of what we hear. Maybe it is google's fault to some extent as their search algorithm is ignorant of source verification. But how would they filter now? If they did, the unbalanced would scream foul.

  13. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets send our boys into the meat grinder!

  14. Solution is Simple! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will see how fake news is spread once the head is cut off. Use a dull sword. Or a Saudi bone saw. Hack. It. Off!

  15. I call B.S. by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An app isn't killing their currency, the United States reckless foreign policy is. It's pretty obvious, what with the sanctions and us backing out of the deal that was and is still working that we've decided it's time for a "regime change". It's the same bloody thing we did in Iraq with the added bonus that we're going to wreck their economy first.

    What bothers me is that not only is it so transparent what we're doing but that nobody particularity cares. You'd think Americans on all sides would be pretty angry that we're overthrowing gov'ts left and right. Outside of a few left wing news outlets and the BBC I don't see anyone talking about it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'we've decided it's time for a "regime change".'

      In other news: 7 billion people want a "Regime Change" in the US.

    2. Re: I call B.S. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Despite all the anger at Bush after the Iraq invasion, before the war, most Americans supported it. The most telling point for me at that time was a commentator who said, "Most Americans would answer the protest 'no blood for oil' with 'why not?" Arguably people weren't upset about invading Iraq, they were upset that Bush didn't get the job done quickly. Win already. For comparison, people were basically OK with the Lybia invasion under Obama, too, even if some Republicans complain a ton about Benghazi.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: I call B.S. by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      a commentator who said, "Most Americans would answer the protest 'no blood for oil' with 'why not?"

      (Which Bush? Which war? I assume you are referring to Operation Desert Shield, under George Bush Jr, in 2003.)

      A commentator may have said that, but it is not true. Americans did not think invading Iraq was about oil. At the time, oil prices were very low so such motivation would have been weak. They were convinced that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons, that he was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that he held a store of chemical weapons. The public wanted revenge for 9/11 and were willing to attack whatever strawman the government assigned the blame to. They knew from experience in the prior war in 1991, that oil prices were not going to go down.

    4. Re: I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although - of course - with the general caveat of "if what they are telling us is true".

      Remember those truck photos, that were said to be WMD's ? Every layman looked at the pictures and said "well I assume they know more about those trucks, because those just look like trucks".

      Turns out, years later - they were just trucks - and people in charge said "turns out they were just trucks". Somehow they didn't fry for that - not sure how.

    5. Re: I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      911 broke america in a deep and fundamental way. We did find and kill binladen, but ultimately he still won because he succeeded in pitting the west against islam which was exactly his goal.

    6. Re: I call B.S. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oil prices were at their highest price since the oil shock ended. They weren't "very low"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:I call B.S. by jythie · · Score: 1

      The effect of the app is kinda like a secondary infection, it can only happen when the system is already weak, but that does not mean its own impact is insignificant.

    8. Re:I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran aided killing American troops in Iraq, supports the Taliban in Afghanistan, has terrorist movement in half the Middle East, and aids Assad and Putin's genocide in Syria. Add to that that the deal was very weak, with all restrictions on Iran coming off after a decade - killing off the deal was the right idea. And I, for one, don't care what happens to Iran's regime - they've earned the sanctions by their own behaviour.

    9. Re:I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An app isn't killing their currency, the United States reckless foreign policy is. It's pretty obvious, what with the sanctions and us backing out of the deal that was and is still working that we've decided it's time for a "regime change". It's the same bloody thing we did in Iraq with the added bonus that we're going to wreck their economy first.

      What bothers me is that not only is it so transparent what we're doing but that nobody particularity cares. You'd think Americans on all sides would be pretty angry that we're overthrowing gov'ts left and right. Outside of a few left wing news outlets and the BBC I don't see anyone talking about it.

      Where was your outrage when Obama fucked up Libya worse than Iraq?

    10. Re:I call B.S. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What bothers me is that not only is it so transparent what we're doing but that nobody particularity cares. You'd think Americans on all sides would be pretty angry that we're overthrowing gov'ts left and right.

      Why would anyone think that? The US has been overthrowing governments for decades. Why would people on all sides suddenly be angry about it? The people that didn't like it 30 years ago still don't like it, and the people that didn't care 30 years ago still don't care.

    11. Re: I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libyan invasion? I must have missed that one. It sounds like "sporadic airstrikes and raids in the country, predominantly against Islamist groups (ISIS)" is a much more appropriate description of the US's involvement in Libya as opposed to "invasion". What has the USA done in Libya?

      • In 2012, the assassination of the US ambassador to Libya by Ansar al-Sharia took place
      • In 2014, U.S. commandos seized an oil tanker bound for anti-government militias and returned it to the Libyan national government.
      • In 2014, The U.S. embassy in Tripoli was evacuated due to a heavy militia presence in the capital.
      • In 2015, U.S. warplanes killed the head of the Islamic State in Libya in a strike.
      • In 2017, the day before President Obama left office, the United States bombed two IS camps in Libya, reportedly killing 80 militants.

      These types of operations have continued under the Trump administration with a September 2017 airstrike killing an estimated 17 ISIS militants.

    12. Re:I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how did he do that? Where exactly did he invade? Do you have ANYTHING other than "fox news told me so"?

    13. Re: I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah right, for 1000 years the Religion Of Peace, and the religion of the Prince of Peace, had no reason to fight. Not the crusades, or the Moors in Spain, not the first American foreign war in 1799...

    14. Re:I call B.S. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It is the job of the US government to aggressively reorder the Middle East and ruthlessly destroy all the enemies of Israel. Overthrowing Iraq did a lot for Israeli security and now it's time to go to the next target. Don't like it? You some kind of anti-Semite Nazi?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    15. Re: I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      911 broke america in a deep and fundamental way. We did find and kill binladen, but ultimately he still won because he succeeded in pitting the west against islam which was exactly his goal.

      Did he win though? If America goes full fascist, as it so eagerly wants to, the resulting genocidal war could end Islam. The US has more force at its disposal than Nazis ever did, and a bloodthirsty streak a mile wide. The US military could level every majority Islamic city using nothing but conventional weapons, it has so many bombs. Completely ignoring the nuclear bombs.

    16. Re: I call B.S. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      America's religious and racial diversity prevents it from ever getting that far without a civil war first. So it would implode internally and lose the power to project force in any meaningful way.

  16. USAmerikans Are Morons You Say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the hot tip!

  17. Bad headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even the summary says what is really destroying the currency - " deliberate circulation of rumors and fake news". Telegram (the app) is not at fault. It might be ENABLING the destruction of the currency, but it's not CAUSING it.

  18. Fake news everywhere by Dorianny · · Score: 1

    The " fake news on Telegram" is no more fake then the government propaganda pretending that everything is fine and dandy. Everyone knows the government and the tightly controlled media is lying, they have no choice but to seek the truth elsewhere which makes them a easy target for manipulators and scammers

  19. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Hamas upgrading the rockets they bombard Israel with daily to be nuclear...

    Israel and Palestine are so close they would essentially be nuking themselves.

  20. Fiat currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much the value of solid gold is affected by politics vs the fiat funny money countries worldwide print out.

    I'm thinking almost nil.

  21. You're it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you support nuclear proliferation now? Just trying to be clear on this.

    As for 'regime change', President Trump hasn't started any wars, nor does he have the support of the many news outlets that pretended to be tricked after reporting all the nonsensical propaganda that helped start the war in Iraq.

  22. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Hamas would simply say that Israel detonated the Nuke to make Hamas look bad.

  23. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by jythie · · Score: 1

    Meh, Iran with nuclear weapons would probably be one of the most stabilizing events that could happen in the region, even if it did hurt the US's feelings that the country which embarrassed them still refuses to do as it is told.

  24. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think they would care if they did?

    They are living their lives by very different rules to you or I.

  25. None of what you just wrote is true by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that "Plane full of cash and gold" was us giving them back money that was theirs. We'd gotten ahold of about $6 billion of their money and basically stole it. You can do that if you're at war. We're not.

    And they don't have nukes. Even after Trump reneged on the deal they keep following it. Just like Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction. We've got independent investigators confirming that.

    Fact it, Trump wants a war. Just like Bush needed one to stay in power. You know this. You're either Trolling or being paid to Troll. Either way it pisses me off. We're spending trillions overthrowing governments. Meanwhile we don't have universal healthcare and tuition free college. Both of which are killing us on the competitive world stage.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:None of what you just wrote is true by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Troll

      Claiming that Trump wants a war when he's been the least warmongering president in recent history is quite a laugh.

      Hillary and Obama invaded (and destroyed) Libya - all Trump has even done is a few small smackdowns in Syria when things got a little out of hand.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:None of what you just wrote is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are literally talking about a guy who asked "what's the point of having nuclear weapons if you don't use them?" We're one presidential cocaine bender away from a nuclear annihilation, and you're just fine with that because it's *your* doomsday cult making it happen.

    3. Re:None of what you just wrote is true by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Fun fact: you know who wrote the infamous false flag WMD memo that was used as justification to start the Iraq War? Robert S. Mueller III. Yup, the same one. The smoking gun right here.

      The Bush administration's central justification for the Iraq war was the belief that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could transfer them to militants. No such weapons were found after the invasion.

      Here's video evidence of Mueller lying to Congress. He gave the impression that the FBI, the trusted organization that would never lie, approved of the invasion as absolutely necessary. Because Iraq was going to give WMD to Al-Qaeda, despite Saddam utterly hating Islamists and Al-Qaeda utterly hating nationalists like Saddam.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re: None of what you just wrote is true by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      ^^^ This. Amen.

      Just don't expect a troll to respect facts.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  26. Only fake news here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that telegram is somehow responsible for spreading fake news. It's just another assault on privacy as Telegram offers excellent privacy, and is developing it's own blockchain. It's just another attack on free speech and sound money

  27. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Reckless was not supporting full fledged revolutions, like Obama chose to do.

    USA's attempts at meddling several decades ago is how Khomeini got into power. Meddling backfires more often than not. You make it sound like a sure-shot thing. The newer crew always think they are better at meddling.

    The rest of your accusations are too vague to evaluate. No negotiations will give us everything we want; we'll have to make trade-offs. To think one can magically get everything they want without making concessions to the other side is silly and/or arrogant.

  28. Brazil by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    If you want Real currency you have to go to Brazil.

  29. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good to know that you agree the current administration is reckless for tearing up the deal that existed to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. (btw this is actually an obvious strawman, since it accuses your opponent in the argument of something that they actually oppose.) There is no evidence that Iran was trying to cheat on the deal in any serious way. If anything, the removal of the deal (including the parts allowing inspections) make it much more likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.

  30. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Genocides is good, right? The Iranian controlled militias in northern Iraq are actively cleansing out the Shia and enslaving the few remaining non-muslim populations.

  31. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you saw news about people dying in Yemen, and just assumed that the bogeyman of the year must be to blame, like an obedient sheeple.

  32. You can thank America for that too. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Seriously. The reason for the Clergy being so prevalent in Iran is that when we overthrew their democratically elected gov't and installed the Shah the one place their people could foment a rebellion was in the Mosques. So we've got ourselves to thank for radicalizing Iran.

    As for the Military, the most powerful nation on earth has repeatedly signaled a desire to invade. They're gonna want a strong military. They can't win, but they can hope to give us a bloody enough nose that we turn around and go home.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  33. Re:Reckless is letting Iran have nuclear weapons by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    They do not want to destroy their own holy lands. That would defeat their purpose.