I don't know how the law works in Sweden, but in most English speaking countries fraud requires some element of misrepresentation and some means to benefit from that misrepresentation. You don't have either in this case.
the Rules of Engagement state that they are only allowed to use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of death or injury
The ROE for ground troops on peace-keeping missions sometimes set the threshold that high. In an actual war the threshold is never set that high.
What this really means is that the people and infrastructure used in a cyber attack are now considered to be legitimate military targets. So as far as the laws of war go, very little justification would be needed for a counter attack against such targets. A counter attack would merely have to serve sufficient military purpose to justify any harm that might be done to non-combatants.
So, for example, assassinating people known to be involved in the cyber attack would be just fine, as long as the risk of hitting the wrong people were low enough. Of course that is unlikely to happen. A much more likely response would be the destruction of internet links out of the country involved.
It wasn't a technicality. A key part of the "overwhelming" evidence was the testimony of one guy, and a lot turned on whether that one guy was telling the truth. Turns out that one guy told the investigators a totally different story when they first interviewed him. That raises a substantive issue about his credibility and the credibility of the evidence he gave, not just a technical issue about whether some evidence was obtained in the right way.
The issue conservatives often complain about (actually it isn't just conservatives, just about everyone outside of the US thinks that this is an absolutely mental feature of the US legal system) is the exclusion of evidence that was obtained improperly regardless of whether the impropriety affects the credibility of the evidence.
For example, a murderer can say "Yes I killed her, and her head is in my fridge", the cops can then go and find the head in the guys fridge, only to see the freely given confession and conclusive physical evidence thrown out because someone forgot to tell the killer he was entitled to speak to a lawyer.
In other words, even if there is no doubt about the reliability of evidence, and even if the evidence is conclusive, US courts will sometimes throw out that perfectly good evidence just because someone didn't follow the correct procedures when they obtained it. That is what conservatives mean when they complain about someone getting off "on a technicality".
He was sentenced to either 3 or 6 years in prison (the article you linked to gave both numbers). He spent about six months in prison. Still way bad enough.
One serious problem with that theory. Iran doesn't have nukes yet, and the only reason people have been talking about attacking Iran is that no one wants them to get nukes.
I think the other poster already handled the point about robbery not being violent.:)...there are considerably less guns in the UK than the US and as such its a little less dangerous...
That depends almost entirely on your ethnicity. Murder rates for the white population in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ, are all very similar (and somewhat higher than other developed but non-English speaking countries). So if you are white, and you live in an English speaking country, your risk of being murdered will be about the same.
Assault rates for English speaking countries are also quite similar, except for the UK, where they are about 50% higher. I couldn't find assault figures adjusted for ethnicity, but if we assume that they follow a similar pattern to murder figures then the risk for a white person in the US would be unusually low compared to other English speaking countries, and the risk for a white person in the UK would be about 4.6 times higher than the US.
If you belong to some other ethnicity then things get more complicated. The risk of being murdered for a black person living in the US is *a lot* higher than for a black person living in any other English speaking country.
The gp explained what the term means right after using it:
meaning that in the UK, criminals enter your home without bothering to see if you're there first. In the US, they purposely enter when you're not home so they won't get hurt.
Which is why the study you linked to fails entirely to address the point. It doesn't even look at the issue of hot burglaries.
The US has a higher burglary rate than the UK. But rate at homes are broken into, while the owners are present, is eight times higher in the UK than in the US. In the US burglary is typically just a property crime, but in the UK it is typically a violent crime.
That's a big difference which is hard to explain away.
By 1807, Britain was forced to outlaw the practice...
That's an odd way to put it. Britain was not forced outlaw the salve trade. Public opinion turned against the trade and the elected government of Britain outlawed the trade.
Britain has yet to seriously discuss reparations for the damage done to Africa from the profits they made in the slave trade.
No one will ever seriously discuss reparations to Africa for the slave trade because it is impossible to have that discussion without laughing. Almost all of the slaves taken from Africa were bought from other Africans. When African states ask for reparations for slavery they are, in effect, asking to be paid twice for all the slaves they sold.
The real punch line to that joke is that the descendants of former slaves, now living and paying taxes in Britain, are being asked to pay reparations to the descendants of the people who sold their ancestors into slavery. If you want a serious discussion we should talk about how much money Africa owes to the descendants of slaves in the rest of the world.
Human infants fail your moral reasoning test. By you're logic we shouldn't care if infants suffer.
Depends on how you understand "capable". Most infants will be capable of moral reasoning once they grow up, which in a sense means they are capable of moral reasoning. It just takes them longer.:) You can compare this with the case of an unconscious adult. He may not be capable of moral reasoning while unconscious, but he will be capable when he wakes up. The delay over time is just longer. In contrast, a lobster won't get it no matter how long you wait.
Some ethicists take your view that "capable" means "capable at a given moment" and conclude that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia (in cases of severe dementia or comma), are all justified. Some take the kind of view that I just outlined, where "capable" includes "will be capable" or "capable at some point in time", and conclude that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are all at least problematic.
There's also a third approach where "capable" means something like "belongs to a species whose members, under normal circumstances, develop the capability".
I thought this was one of those "Intro to Ethics" bits that looks like deep wisdom that solves a major ethical issue packaged in a neat little sentence, that after a week of debate turns out to have some good points, but is still incomplete and not nearly as deep as it looked at first... Yep, ethics is complicated stuff. After you get through the intro to ethics course you get increasingly more sophisticated versions of the simple version I gave here.
1) The "Torturing the Severe Autistic Game" - they don't really understand that other people exist, so their suffering doesn't count.
There's a bunch of similar cases that are all troubling because they involve choices about individuals who are really close to being moral agents, but they don't quite make the cut. When you state a hypothetical case like this you can make the line look sharp by stipulating that the individual is totally incapable of moral reasoning. In real life the line is always blurry because we never know with such certainty. So people have conflicting intuitions. They understand what the theory says we should do in the hypothetical case, but they also know that they would never act that way in real life.
Personally I don't think this adds up to a serious objection to the theory. What you get is more like a note of caution that real life is messier than the examples in ethics textbooks.
2) The "Skynet/Alien/Posthuman Super-Ethics" - their ethics are so advanced that human beings can't comprehend them - good luck begging for mercy!
I never though much of this objection at all. Suppose they conclude that it would be best to wipe us out. If we accept the stipulation that their moral reasoning really is above and beyond what we are capable of comprehending then the situation is just: (1) It would be right for them to wipe us out; and (2) We wouldn't understand why.
That would be tough, but it's no great philosophical puzzle, and being nice to lobsters now won't help us if this ever comes to pass.:)
3) The "Problem of Other Ethics" - if boiling a lobster is OK because it can't understand that boiling a human is wrong, shouldn't that same logic suggest that boiling a human is OK if they don't believe that boiling a human is wrong?
I might be missing something here, but are you asking whether it's OK to boil people who think it's OK to boil people? Interestingly this is almost Kant's theory of punishment in a nutshell. If you boil people like that then they very quickly come to understand what's wrong with boiling people. Punishment is moral education by means of applying the individuals moral principles to the individual himself.
"Capable of moral reasoning" doesn't mean "always knows what is right", or "always does what is right", or even "sometimes does what is right". Being "capable of moral reasoning" is a low standard for humans to meet. It just means that you could think about questions of right and wrong, if you felt inclined to do so.
On this view even really really bad people deserve moral consideration. Of course it will often be the case that such people also deserve to be punished for what they have done.
...that it may or may not be our moral duty to consider...
This being the crucial point of disagreement. A lot of our food is capable of suffering. The point where ethicists disagree is on the question of whether this matters. A common view is that moral consideration is only warranted for moral agents that are capable of engaging in moral reasoning, and thus capable of reciprocating moral consideration.
A less technical way to put it is that the average lobster doesn't give a shit about whether humans suffer, so there is no reason for humans to give a shit about whether lobsters suffer.
This study is saying that religious people are more likely to insist on non-palliative chemotherapy and mechanical respiration even though there's no chance of it succeeding.
Yeah, it's almost like these idiots believe in miracles...
The individual right analysis of the 2nd ammendment usually supposes that the right covers the types of weapons that might be used by an infantryman (there are several accounts of how you get to that, but they all land in much the same place). That's why nukes, tanks, giant lasers, and genetically modified wombats, are not covered, even though they would clearly be useful.
When GIs start going into combat armed with crypto tools I'm sure the NRA will take more notice.
Because you still technically exist in a Nation of Laws.
The rule of law means you don't go to jail if you don't get convicted. It does not mean that murdering people is fine so long as you don't get caught.
This is exactly why some people are troubled by Obama's association with Ayers. It indicates that, just like you, and far too many lawyers, he can tell the difference between legal and illegal, but he has no clue when it comes to the difference between right and wrong.
Speaking of disingenuous, you might also want to mention, in the interests of not trolling, of course, that the man was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and that thye word "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.
Why would we want to mention those things? Ayers admits everything he was accused of. Why would the important consideration be that he was never convicted, rather than the fact that he was guilty and admits it? And why would it matter that the term terrorist gets bandied around a lot and applied to some less-than-terrifying activities when Ayers himself was the genuine article - the kind of terrorist who wanted to randomly murder innocent people?
Some uses of copyrighted works are illegal,unless you have permission, some uses are legal, even without permission (fair use etc). Ignorance about which uses are legal is ignorance about the law, and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.
Some songs are copyrighted, some are not. Ignorance about whether a song is copyrighted is ignorance about a matter of fact, and ignorance of fact is often an acceptable defense, or at least a mitigating circumstance.
Sure, that way we could a poorly considered proprietary solution that has never faced any actual competition or real world use. Then we could deploy it everywhere and be stuck with it forever.
Roads and highways had been around for a really long time, and were a mature technology before the interstate system was built. Here we are talking about technology that is in its infancy - they haven't even figured out how to make it safe and weatherproof yet! This is absolutely *not* the right time for the government to pick a system and inflict it on everyone.
You have the Vietnam War, massive protests throughout the country, civil rights movements (and everything that went along with it)... etc.. The world will always be a messy place, no reason to stop making progress.
None of those problems had anything to do with a lack of money. Indeed some of the the social upheavals were the result of prosperity, rather than poverty, and in the late 1960s the US embarked on the largest scale anti-poverty spending scheme in history (LBJ's "Great Society program).
The GP is correct that Russia's problems are of an entirely different sort. The population is imploding, and the domestic economy is going with it. The only thing keeping Russia going is the current high price of oil.
Time and time again we've seen this happen. Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam was a nationalist. He refashioned his politics in terms favored the only backers available to him and became "communist" when it was clear the US would continue supporting it's puppets in the south, for example. You need to figure out the difference between history and communist propaganda. Communist revolutionary doctrine called for creating 'nationalist' fronts in the early stages of the revolution. Partly this was because communism itself was often unpopular (for religious reasons, and because peasants tend to be very attached to what little property they have). In other words, pretending to be a nationalist was the first play in the communist play-book.
The claim that Ho Chi Minh was really just a nationalist is obviously false. Ho Chi Minh had been a communist for decades before he came to power in North Vietnam. He was a founding member of the French Communist Party, he worked for the Comintern in Moscow, he founded and organised several other communist parties in Southeast Asia. The claim that he suddenly turned into a nationalist after WWII is (to put it politely) silly and unsupported by any evidence.
Castro has less of a paper trail, but the first place he went looking for help when he was raising money and men for an invasion of Cuba was the USSR (via KGB contacts in Mexico), and his buddy Che Guevara (who organised much of the murder and persecution of non-communist elements in Cuba) was certainly a committed communist well before the revolution.
Their hatred for the US had almost nothing to do with US support for the regimes they opposed.
In Iran the fundamentalists did not care even slightly that the US had helped to overthrow a democratic regime - they despised democracy. Neither the fundamentalists nor the communists cared that the US backed regimes were repressive - both movements were authoritarian. Nor did they care about foreign interference for nationalist reasons - both movements were internationalist in character.
In Iran the biggest problem that the fundamentalists had with the Shah was that his regime was too liberal - he allowed too much in the way of sex, drugs (well, alcohol at least), and rock and roll. In short, they hated America on principle, and they hated the Shah because he was too American.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how the law works in Sweden, but in most English speaking countries fraud requires some element of misrepresentation and some means to benefit from that misrepresentation. You don't have either in this case.
the Rules of Engagement state that they are only allowed to use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of death or injury
The ROE for ground troops on peace-keeping missions sometimes set the threshold that high. In an actual war the threshold is never set that high.
What this really means is that the people and infrastructure used in a cyber attack are now considered to be legitimate military targets. So as far as the laws of war go, very little justification would be needed for a counter attack against such targets. A counter attack would merely have to serve sufficient military purpose to justify any harm that might be done to non-combatants.
So, for example, assassinating people known to be involved in the cyber attack would be just fine, as long as the risk of hitting the wrong people were low enough. Of course that is unlikely to happen. A much more likely response would be the destruction of internet links out of the country involved.
No we already have schools that loose, and we have students that loose because they are forced to attend these failed institutions.
If students were free to move to another school then some schools would be shut down for lack of students. And that would be nothing but good.
It wasn't a technicality. A key part of the "overwhelming" evidence was the testimony of one guy, and a lot turned on whether that one guy was telling the truth. Turns out that one guy told the investigators a totally different story when they first interviewed him. That raises a substantive issue about his credibility and the credibility of the evidence he gave, not just a technical issue about whether some evidence was obtained in the right way.
The issue conservatives often complain about (actually it isn't just conservatives, just about everyone outside of the US thinks that this is an absolutely mental feature of the US legal system) is the exclusion of evidence that was obtained improperly regardless of whether the impropriety affects the credibility of the evidence.
For example, a murderer can say "Yes I killed her, and her head is in my fridge", the cops can then go and find the head in the guys fridge, only to see the freely given confession and conclusive physical evidence thrown out because someone forgot to tell the killer he was entitled to speak to a lawyer.
In other words, even if there is no doubt about the reliability of evidence, and even if the evidence is conclusive, US courts will sometimes throw out that perfectly good evidence just because someone didn't follow the correct procedures when they obtained it. That is what conservatives mean when they complain about someone getting off "on a technicality".
Not so much. Winter is just starting in the southern hemisphere. The equinox was March 20 so in Antarctica the sun only went down a few weeks ago.
He was sentenced to either 3 or 6 years in prison (the article you linked to gave both numbers). He spent about six months in prison. Still way bad enough.
One serious problem with that theory. Iran doesn't have nukes yet, and the only reason people have been talking about attacking Iran is that no one wants them to get nukes.
I tried to bring light to Afghanistan for the Unocal Central Asian oil pipeline in 2002.
So that's the reason we invaded Afghanistan? Makes me wonder what Maj.Gen.Smedley Butler was leaving out of the original version.
I think the other poster already handled the point about robbery not being violent. :) ...there are considerably less guns in the UK than the US and as such its a little less dangerous...
That depends almost entirely on your ethnicity. Murder rates for the white population in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ, are all very similar (and somewhat higher than other developed but non-English speaking countries). So if you are white, and you live in an English speaking country, your risk of being murdered will be about the same.
Assault rates for English speaking countries are also quite similar, except for the UK, where they are about 50% higher. I couldn't find assault figures adjusted for ethnicity, but if we assume that they follow a similar pattern to murder figures then the risk for a white person in the US would be unusually low compared to other English speaking countries, and the risk for a white person in the UK would be about 4.6 times higher than the US.
If you belong to some other ethnicity then things get more complicated. The risk of being murdered for a black person living in the US is *a lot* higher than for a black person living in any other English speaking country.
"Hot burglary"? Is that like a "hot cop"??
The gp explained what the term means right after using it:
meaning that in the UK, criminals enter your home without bothering to see if you're there first. In the US, they purposely enter when you're not home so they won't get hurt.
Which is why the study you linked to fails entirely to address the point. It doesn't even look at the issue of hot burglaries.
The US has a higher burglary rate than the UK. But rate at homes are broken into, while the owners are present, is eight times higher in the UK than in the US. In the US burglary is typically just a property crime, but in the UK it is typically a violent crime.
That's a big difference which is hard to explain away.
"Hot burglary"? Is that like a "hot cop"??
By 1807, Britain was forced to outlaw the practice...
That's an odd way to put it. Britain was not forced outlaw the salve trade. Public opinion turned against the trade and the elected government of Britain outlawed the trade.
Britain has yet to seriously discuss reparations for the damage done to Africa from the profits they made in the slave trade.
No one will ever seriously discuss reparations to Africa for the slave trade because it is impossible to have that discussion without laughing. Almost all of the slaves taken from Africa were bought from other Africans. When African states ask for reparations for slavery they are, in effect, asking to be paid twice for all the slaves they sold.
The real punch line to that joke is that the descendants of former slaves, now living and paying taxes in Britain, are being asked to pay reparations to the descendants of the people who sold their ancestors into slavery. If you want a serious discussion we should talk about how much money Africa owes to the descendants of slaves in the rest of the world.
Human infants fail your moral reasoning test. By you're logic we shouldn't care if infants suffer.
Depends on how you understand "capable". Most infants will be capable of moral reasoning once they grow up, which in a sense means they are capable of moral reasoning. It just takes them longer. :) You can compare this with the case of an unconscious adult. He may not be capable of moral reasoning while unconscious, but he will be capable when he wakes up. The delay over time is just longer. In contrast, a lobster won't get it no matter how long you wait.
Some ethicists take your view that "capable" means "capable at a given moment" and conclude that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia (in cases of severe dementia or comma), are all justified. Some take the kind of view that I just outlined, where "capable" includes "will be capable" or "capable at some point in time", and conclude that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are all at least problematic.
There's also a third approach where "capable" means something like "belongs to a species whose members, under normal circumstances, develop the capability".
I thought this was one of those "Intro to Ethics" bits that looks like deep wisdom that solves a major ethical issue packaged in a neat little sentence, that after a week of debate turns out to have some good points, but is still incomplete and not nearly as deep as it looked at first...
Yep, ethics is complicated stuff. After you get through the intro to ethics course you get increasingly more sophisticated versions of the simple version I gave here.
1) The "Torturing the Severe Autistic Game" - they don't really understand that other people exist, so their suffering doesn't count.
There's a bunch of similar cases that are all troubling because they involve choices about individuals who are really close to being moral agents, but they don't quite make the cut. When you state a hypothetical case like this you can make the line look sharp by stipulating that the individual is totally incapable of moral reasoning. In real life the line is always blurry because we never know with such certainty. So people have conflicting intuitions. They understand what the theory says we should do in the hypothetical case, but they also know that they would never act that way in real life.
Personally I don't think this adds up to a serious objection to the theory. What you get is more like a note of caution that real life is messier than the examples in ethics textbooks.
2) The "Skynet/Alien/Posthuman Super-Ethics" - their ethics are so advanced that human beings can't comprehend them - good luck begging for mercy!
I never though much of this objection at all. Suppose they conclude that it would be best to wipe us out. If we accept the stipulation that their moral reasoning really is above and beyond what we are capable of comprehending then the situation is just: (1) It would be right for them to wipe us out; and (2) We wouldn't understand why.
That would be tough, but it's no great philosophical puzzle, and being nice to lobsters now won't help us if this ever comes to pass. :)
3) The "Problem of Other Ethics" - if boiling a lobster is OK because it can't understand that boiling a human is wrong, shouldn't that same logic suggest that boiling a human is OK if they don't believe that boiling a human is wrong?
I might be missing something here, but are you asking whether it's OK to boil people who think it's OK to boil people? Interestingly this is almost Kant's theory of punishment in a nutshell. If you boil people like that then they very quickly come to understand what's wrong with boiling people. Punishment is moral education by means of applying the individuals moral principles to the individual himself.
"Capable of moral reasoning" doesn't mean "always knows what is right", or "always does what is right", or even "sometimes does what is right". Being "capable of moral reasoning" is a low standard for humans to meet. It just means that you could think about questions of right and wrong, if you felt inclined to do so.
On this view even really really bad people deserve moral consideration. Of course it will often be the case that such people also deserve to be punished for what they have done.
...that it may or may not be our moral duty to consider...
This being the crucial point of disagreement. A lot of our food is capable of suffering. The point where ethicists disagree is on the question of whether this matters. A common view is that moral consideration is only warranted for moral agents that are capable of engaging in moral reasoning, and thus capable of reciprocating moral consideration.
A less technical way to put it is that the average lobster doesn't give a shit about whether humans suffer, so there is no reason for humans to give a shit about whether lobsters suffer.
This study is saying that religious people are more likely to insist on non-palliative chemotherapy and mechanical respiration even though there's no chance of it succeeding.
Yeah, it's almost like these idiots believe in miracles...
The individual right analysis of the 2nd ammendment usually supposes that the right covers the types of weapons that might be used by an infantryman (there are several accounts of how you get to that, but they all land in much the same place). That's why nukes, tanks, giant lasers, and genetically modified wombats, are not covered, even though they would clearly be useful.
When GIs start going into combat armed with crypto tools I'm sure the NRA will take more notice.
Because you still technically exist in a Nation of Laws.
The rule of law means you don't go to jail if you don't get convicted. It does not mean that murdering people is fine so long as you don't get caught.
This is exactly why some people are troubled by Obama's association with Ayers. It indicates that, just like you, and far too many lawyers, he can tell the difference between legal and illegal, but he has no clue when it comes to the difference between right and wrong.
Speaking of disingenuous, you might also want to mention, in the interests of not trolling, of course, that the man was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and that thye word "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.
Why would we want to mention those things? Ayers admits everything he was accused of. Why would the important consideration be that he was never convicted, rather than the fact that he was guilty and admits it? And why would it matter that the term terrorist gets bandied around a lot and applied to some less-than-terrifying activities when Ayers himself was the genuine article - the kind of terrorist who wanted to randomly murder innocent people?
Some uses of copyrighted works are illegal,unless you have permission, some uses are legal, even without permission (fair use etc). Ignorance about which uses are legal is ignorance about the law, and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense.
Some songs are copyrighted, some are not. Ignorance about whether a song is copyrighted is ignorance about a matter of fact, and ignorance of fact is often an acceptable defense, or at least a mitigating circumstance.
Time for government to step in...
Sure, that way we could a poorly considered proprietary solution that has never faced any actual competition or real world use. Then we could deploy it everywhere and be stuck with it forever.
Roads and highways had been around for a really long time, and were a mature technology before the interstate system was built. Here we are talking about technology that is in its infancy - they haven't even figured out how to make it safe and weatherproof yet! This is absolutely *not* the right time for the government to pick a system and inflict it on everyone.
You have the Vietnam War, massive protests throughout the country, civil rights movements (and everything that went along with it)... etc.. The world will always be a messy place, no reason to stop making progress.
None of those problems had anything to do with a lack of money. Indeed some of the the social upheavals were the result of prosperity, rather than poverty, and in the late 1960s the US embarked on the largest scale anti-poverty spending scheme in history (LBJ's "Great Society program).
The GP is correct that Russia's problems are of an entirely different sort. The population is imploding, and the domestic economy is going with it. The only thing keeping Russia going is the current high price of oil.
Time and time again we've seen this happen. Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam was a nationalist. He refashioned his politics in terms favored the only backers available to him and became "communist" when it was clear the US would continue supporting it's puppets in the south, for example.
You need to figure out the difference between history and communist propaganda. Communist revolutionary doctrine called for creating 'nationalist' fronts in the early stages of the revolution. Partly this was because communism itself was often unpopular (for religious reasons, and because peasants tend to be very attached to what little property they have). In other words, pretending to be a nationalist was the first play in the communist play-book.
The claim that Ho Chi Minh was really just a nationalist is obviously false. Ho Chi Minh had been a communist for decades before he came to power in North Vietnam. He was a founding member of the French Communist Party, he worked for the Comintern in Moscow, he founded and organised several other communist parties in Southeast Asia. The claim that he suddenly turned into a nationalist after WWII is (to put it politely) silly and unsupported by any evidence.
Castro has less of a paper trail, but the first place he went looking for help when he was raising money and men for an invasion of Cuba was the USSR (via KGB contacts in Mexico), and his buddy Che Guevara (who organised much of the murder and persecution of non-communist elements in Cuba) was certainly a committed communist well before the revolution.
Their hatred for the US had almost nothing to do with US support for the regimes they opposed.
In Iran the fundamentalists did not care even slightly that the US had helped to overthrow a democratic regime - they despised democracy. Neither the fundamentalists nor the communists cared that the US backed regimes were repressive - both movements were authoritarian. Nor did they care about foreign interference for nationalist reasons - both movements were internationalist in character.
In Iran the biggest problem that the fundamentalists had with the Shah was that his regime was too liberal - he allowed too much in the way of sex, drugs (well, alcohol at least), and rock and roll. In short, they hated America on principle, and they hated the Shah because he was too American.