×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Moves To End "Facebook Revolution"

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the stole-it-fair-and-square dept.

Censorship 838

We've had a few readers send in updates on the chaotic post-election situation in Iran. Twitter is providing better coverage than CNN at the moment. There are both tech and humanitarian angles to the story, as the two samples below illustrate. First, Hugh Pickens writes with a report from The Times (UK) that "the Iranian government is mounting a campaign to disrupt independent media organizations and Web sites that air doubts about the validity of the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the nation's president. Reports from Tehran say that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were taken down after Mr Ahmadinejad claimed victory. SMS text messaging, a preferred medium of communication for young Iranians, has also been disabled. 'The blocking of access to foreign news media has been stepped up, according to Reporters Without Borders. 'The Internet is now very slow, like the mobile phone network. YouTube and Facebook are hard to access and pro-reform sites... are completely inaccessible.'" And reader momen abdullah sends in one of the more disturbing Ask Slashdots you are likely to see. "People, we need your urgent help in Iran. We are under attack by the government. They stole the election. And now are arresting everybody. They also filtered every sensitive Web page. But our problem is that they also block the SMS network and are scrambling satellite TVs. Please, can you help us to set up some sort of network using our home wireless access points? Can anybody show us a link on how to install small TV/radio stations? Any suggestion for setting up a network? Please tell us what to do or we are going to die in the a nuclear war between Iran and US." Update: 06/14 18:32 GMT by KD : Jim Cowie contributes a blog post from Renesys taking a closer look at the state of Iranian Internet transit, as seen in the aggregated global routing tables, and concluding that the story may not be as clear-cut as has been reported.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

838 comments

Hmm, tough choice (5, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327773)

On one hand, we have the freedom and lives of millions of people. On the other hand we can help bring Twitter down. Tough choice...

Re:Hmm, tough choice (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327893)

I'm trying to imagine the look on the mods faces who modded you insightful rather than funny.

Re:Hmm, tough choice (4, Informative)

mark_hill97 (897586) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327957)

Funny doesn't give karma, Some use insightful as a way to say, " Your funny and you deserve karma for that comment."

But seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327995)

On the third hand, it is time we start looking at opening up governance; getting rid of the systems which allow this sort of bullshit to happen. You can't steal an election if there are no elections and no leaders: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page [metagovernment.org]

Re:Hmm, tough choice (-1, Flamebait)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328027)

You were moderated funny, but you also deserve to be rated insightful.

Iran's connectivity problems are just as likely to be the US's fault as they are their own. Destabilising a government often involves removing access to communications then blaming it on the local regime.

The Ugly Side of Truth (-1, Troll)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328085)

In the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people. Period.

After the Kremlin exited Eastern Europe, the peoples of each nation in Eastern Europe rapidly established a genuine democracy and a free market. Except for Romania (where its people killed their dictator), there was no violence.

In Iran (and many other failed states), no external force is imposing the current brutal government on the Iranians. The folks running the government are Iranian. The president is Iranian. The secret police are Iranian. The thugs who will torture and kill democracy advocates are Iranian.

If the democracy advocates attempt to establish a genuine democracy in Iran, violence will occur. Why? A large percentage of the population supports the brutal government and will kill the democracy advocates.

Let us not merely condemn the Iranian government. We must condemn Iranian culture. Its product is the authoritarian state.

We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran. If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence. Right now, the overwhelming majority clearly oppose the creation of a liberal Western democracy. The Iranians love a brutal Islamic theocracy.

The Iranians created this horrible society. It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.

Note that, 40 years ago, Vietnam suffered a worse fate (than the Iranians) at the hands of the Americans. They doused large areas of Vietnam with agent orange, poisoning both the land and the people. Yet, the Vietnamese do not channel their energies into seeking revenge (by, e. g., building a nuclear bomb) against the West. Rather, the Vietnamese are diligently modernizing their society. They will reach 1st-world status long before the Iranians.

Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different. The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.

What's really going on. (1, Insightful)

AppleOSuX (1080499) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327781)

I wonder what's really going on in Iran. Because this wreaks of propaganda.

what is going on ? (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327797)

you are not smart politics-wise are you ? hardliners stole the election - they got 55%+ vote even in places that never voted for anyone except their ethnic candidates. election fraud has been committed. and now the government of ahmedinajad is trying to suppress discussion. thats it.

Re:what is going on ? (4, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327825)

First rule of cheating.. don't let people know you're cheating.

The polls showed a dead heat between Ahmedinajad and his primary opponent just one day before the election. This is fraud and oppression of the first degree.

Re:what is going on ? (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327907)

First rule of cheating.. don't let people know you're cheating.

...unless you want them to know just how little their voices matter.

Or if you are afraid that a closer win might push (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328137)

That is one option, it is however that of a completly mad dictator. A more human answer is that the goverment is afraid. Afraid that a closer more realistic faked result would spark revolution. Its soldiers might be willing to shoot on citizens if they think they represent a minority. If the are a majority, then things could be different. Think China vs Russia. The russian soldiers sided with the people recently, the chinese soldiers with their leaders. The reason? Simple, the russian soldiers knew the truth of who was winning the popularity contest.

Re:what is going on ? (3, Insightful)

cheftw (996831) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327923)

Maybe that's just what the liberal left-wing media wants you to think!

Ahmedninjad would hardly have won an election if he was a power-hungry lunatic, would he?

Re:what is going on ? (1, Troll)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327855)

Ok, how does that change the propaganda aspect? Suddenly we have people who absolutely n33dz teh Hax0r Sk!llz posting on slashdot?

Hurry, post some docs for an ad-hoc wireless mesh network before teh death star blows these people up!!

Seriously, in times of turmoil the last thing anyone should be doing is adding new skills - that is how you get busted on trumped up charges and executed as an enemy of the revolution.

Re:what is going on ? (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327941)

noone can execute us. we are not in iran. thats why they are asking us to do something.

if you dont wanna do something, dont. but also dont fuckin try to water down the issue with irrelevant blabbering bullshit. people are being suppressed there, with its true meaning. i dont think you understand the weight of this matter.

Re:what is going on ? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327943)

New mods, don't mod this reply to myself...

Upon further reflection, and further reading down this thread, I am stunned. How are people suggesting that Iranians who have obviously not prepared themselves for resistance begin resisting either through violence or setting up amateur radio transmitters etc..?

Imagine if you had family over there. Literally, the people who were prepared for this eventuality do not need our help. The people who were not prepared for the completely predictable irregularities in this election need to hunker down and ride it out, and perhaps next time they will pay attention before it is too late.

This is many times better than justifying a total crackdown in the minds of their more conservative fellow citizens by undertaking actions that endanger other civilians. The one thing that liberal Iranians should not do now is alienate their hardline brothers and sisters in the civilian populace - there will be no end to that bloodshed.

So seriously, all you noob Iranians who want to resist but don't know how, stfu and get your head down. Petition for U.N. observers, or whatever else you need to do, but don't go Hollywood Hacker on anyone or you will be out in the cold for good.

Re:what is going on ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328005)

Yes, and your are? I suppose you are yet another f****** expert!? Don't you understand that the pro-Israel media in the west is blowing it all out of proportion?

Re:what is going on ? (1)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328051)

There's always someone ready to claim an election was stolen.

This is only Ahmadinejad's second four-year term and despite being wildly unpopular overseas to due his own actions and various foreign propaganda, it does sound like he was re-elected fairly despite vocal minorities. Sound like anyone you know?

Just because the US doesn't like someone, doesn't mean they stole an election. Just because a vocal minority in the US hates Bush, doesn't mean he cheated either. Sometimes half the vote isn't enough to silence your critics from claiming you cheated.

Re:what is going on ? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328113)

you are not smart politics-wise are you ? hardliners stole the election - they got 55%+ vote even in places that never voted for anyone except their ethnic candidates. election fraud has been committed. and now the government of ahmedinajad is trying to suppress discussion. thats it.

can you point to any sources that are reporting this %55 figure? Emotionally believing that the election was stolen is easy to do, but I have yet to see any major news sources making the same claims that you are. Although it may be that I am not looking in the right locations.

Re:what is going on ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328179)

we are going to die in the a nuclear war between Iran and US

Only stupid "politics-wise" people could possibly fail to believe that.

The "hardliners" took power with tanks and AK-47s, not tweets and SMS messages. They did not indulge hysteria over the performance of the phone system. Been watching the cell phone videos of the "revolution"; looks like a soccer riot anywhere in Europe.

This third world election drama won't survive the Monday news cycle unless Obama chimes in, again, and props it up till Tuesday.

Re:What's really going on. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327891)

This is what happened, Ahmadinejad and his pals:
  • Run the election
  • Collect and count the votes
  • Supervise the whole process
  • Investigate the complaints

Some are looking for proof of fraud. But unless anyone is expecting Ahmadinejad to admit that he cheated, no solid official evidence is going to show up.
On the other hand, they:

  • Shut down SMS service, main mode of communication reformists used for monitoring voting stations and reporting fraud. Minister of Communications says he doesn't know how it happened, which is quite an interesting thing to say considering he is the one who runs the switches.
  • All 5 prominent reformist websites were also filtered night before the election, still blocked in Iran.
  • Historically, conservatives have always lost when turnout goes above a certain number; around 60% participation. This time participation was 80+ and they won, by a landslide. There's simply no logical explanation.
  • Pro-Ahmadinejad sources announced his victory, by a large margin, even included mostly accurate numbers hours before official results of initial count came out.
  • Youtube, other online video sources, BBCPersian TV, Mobile phones in Tehran are all down/inaccessible.
  • Prominent reformist figures have been detained (few of the top ones including former president Khatami's brother and his wife were freed this morning in fear of more tension, yes government is afraid)

Here's a clip from Corriere Della Sera on police attacking protesters. [corriere.it]

Re:What's really going on. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327967)

But unless anyone is expecting Ahmadinejad to admit that he cheated, no solid official evidence is going to show up.

Especially since he had help from his pal Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The man disregarded the post-election buffer (three days, IIRC) used to look for any discrepancies in the presidential election, and declared Mahmoud president immediately after the vote counts were announced. Unfortunately for the peoples of Iran, the supervisory group that holds any sway over the Ayatollah was neutered to begin with, so yeah - those folks are fucked.

Re:What's really going on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328117)

> Historically, conservatives have always lost when turnout goes above a certain number; around 60% participation. This time participation was 80+ and they won, by a landslide. There's simply no logical explanation.

Where are you getting your information? Ahmadinejad only received 64% of the vote.

Another interesting thing I'm seeing: supporters of Ahmadinejad describe themselves as anti-Bush. Bush is gone, but his unpopularity is continuing to influence other countries in a manner most of you see as negative. You only have yourselves to thank.

wah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327785)

seriously, wah...nuclear war, pollution, oppressive rule is all enabled by...guess who? GEEKS! You wanted gadgets and toys, and the spin offs have destroyed our planet and politics. Plastic wouldn't exist without you. Bombs wouldn't. Islamo-fascism wouldn't have the pull it does. Own it and weep.

Re:wah (1)

mark_hill97 (897586) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327953)

Hate to break it to ya Mr. Amish guy, Oppressive rule has been around since we learned how to beat people over the head with clubs. Pollution is caused by population. And so far, only two nuclear bombs have ever been detonated. We have never had full scale nuclear war, and it looks like we never will.

Gandhi isn't always right (5, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327787)

Sometimes in some situations the only real answer is unyielding violence. Sure you can hedge on the bet that eventually enough old people will die off that Iran could become a free country but at the rate they can find new help... sometimes a peaceful revolution just isn't a realistic expectation.

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (4, Insightful)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327915)

Sure you can hedge on the bet that eventually enough old people will die off

There is always some young power hungry hateful bastard waiting to take the old asshole's spot, though.

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328053)

There is always some young power hungry hateful bastard waiting to take the old asshole's spot, though.

Ok, that's me. But I promise to be a benevolent dictator. Free pr0n for everyone!

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (5, Insightful)

mark_hill97 (897586) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327937)

Even Ghandi recognized the power of violence. He once said that the best kind of person to lead in his non-violent revolution was a person who had served in the military or police. You see, he recognized that even though violence was a solution, there were other ways for him to achieve his goals. He never said violence should not be used; Only that it should be a last resort. Iranians have tried the path of peace, the problem here is: You can never get a person who thinks he has god on his side to believe he is wrong.

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327979)

You are right; sometimes some clear violence (or better; threat of violence) does work; but you have to pick your moment. Doing things badly is normally much worse than not doing them at all. Right now Iran is split 50/50 so it may not be the best moment. Any civil war could be really bloody and nasty. Unless the opposition is properly prepared, they are likely to lose. Normally there should be a long period of peaceful protest and visible repression to get people against the government. Then a demand. Then only any threat of violence when most of the active people and a large part of the army will stand with you. On the other hand, any later moment could be worse than now. Who knows. I just know I'm glad not to be Iranian tonight and I hope for a peaceful and fair solution.

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (4, Insightful)

rpillala (583965) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328031)

That wasn't Gandhi's bet. Gandhi's bet was that raw injustice would not be allowed to continue by inherently good people.

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328057)

Esp. considering Ahmadinejad came out and said that his opponent's safety "cannot be guaranteed". When they threaten to kill any who oppose, how many options do you have?

Re:Gandhi isn't always right (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328079)

You can pretty much replace the word "Iran" in your post with North Korea and "the Iranian people" with the west and you're still correct.

Waiting for regimes like the ones in Iran, Iraq and North Korea to simply die off or leave without the use of violence is just naive and silly...leftwing thinking for the win.

Sanctions and protests do nothing. They need to be removed by force.

A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (2, Insightful)

russlar (1122455) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327793)

Leave. Now. While you still can.

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (0)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327861)

Leave. Now. While you still can.

Many people have. That's why there are so many Iranian businessmen in the US. But it's harder to get into the US now.

Before Iran had an Islamic theocracy, Iran had a brutal (but pro-US) right-wing dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran had 2,500 years of monarchy before the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran has never had anything like a democracy.

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327963)

Actually Iran had a democracy from 1951-1953 under Mohamed Mossadeg until he was ousted in a coup, which of cause everyone knows was CIA sponsored. Here are the declassified CIA documents on the history of operation AJAX:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328049)

This is why I can't take the view point that the muslims hate the west because we are successful. If the west hadn't been dicking around with the middle east in such a ham fisted way then the environment wouldn't have been created for an anti-western sentiment. I'd be pissed too if I had been subjected to the same treatment.

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328055)

Note to mods! Untrue, read up!

In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Recent_history_.281921.E2.80.93present.29 [wikipedia.org]

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328151)

I don't think this guy was a king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (5, Insightful)

johannesg (664142) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328153)

Before Iran had an Islamic theocracy, Iran had a brutal (but pro-US) right-wing dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran had 2,500 years of monarchy before the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran has never had anything like a democracy.

Commonly established history has it that Iran was a democracy from 1951 to 1953, when the first democratically elected leader in ***9000 years*** was overthrown by the americans because he nationalized the oil industry. source [wikipedia.org] . In case you guys are wondering where the current tension between Iran and the US comes from, this is at least part of the answer...

As to the matter at hand: would it be possible to make a torrent-like point to point system for exchanging small messages? It would have to feature some sort of encryption, and be able to hide as something else (illegal downloads of movies would be a good candidate). Making it is not really a big problem, but is there enough "internet" left working that something like this might work?

Re:A suggestion to Mr. Abdullah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328195)

"Iran had 2,500 years of monarchy before the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran has never had anything like a democracy." Not true, Iran was a democracy before a US backed coup restored the absolute monarchy - the Iranians had voted to nationalise their oil.

HAM Radio (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327795)

Re:HAM Radio (5, Insightful)

druke (1576491) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327865)

Mod this up, however... wikipedia would be on the first list of medias to be blocked. Military style Ham radio is a good source of organization, easy to use, mobile (because you can't stay in one place), and not to expensive. The problem is that every other "green cell" will also need a radio IIRC. I was born after the age of HAM, but it sounds perfect for your situation. Organize, be patient, be angry.

Re:HAM Radio (3, Interesting)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327919)

WTF is "after the age of HAM"?

The ham UHF digital voice repeater that is sitting next to me connected to a Linux gateway begs to differ with you.

73, w7com

Re:HAM Radio (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327975)

HAM? You guys are suggesting our fellow muslims to eat pork? You have any idea how insulting the very thought is!

Re:HAM Radio (1)

younata (1555631) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328193)

I was born after the age of HAM, but it sounds perfect for your situation.

You sir, are ignorant. Consider this a friendly request by someone (who is most likely younger than you are) to get informed.

73, kg6ymn

Re:HAM Radio (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327969)

And if you don't want to bother with obtaining a license (legal requirement in my country), you can use SPAM radio...uhm, I meant CB.

Iran (2, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327805)

That's right Mr. theocratic dictator. Go ahead and keep pushing down the relatively minor calls for reform and watch in horror as the demands for freedom and civil discourse grow more and more demanding, and more and more "extreme". This is how true democracies begin.

We got rid of our idiot leadership, now Iran looks to be doing the same.

(Bush was terrible by just about any measure - I'm an independent voter and have voted for Dems and Repubs)

Re:Iran (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327867)

We got rid of our idiot leadership, now Iran looks to be doing the same.

In all fairness, you didn't get rid of your "idiot leadership", Bush left office as his second term ended. You had an opportunity to get rid of him after the first four years and you blew it.

Re:Iran (4, Insightful)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327881)

Never mind Bush; look at your nation's founding.
Your ancestors asked (quite nicely at first) for moderate tax relief from the British Government.
The British ignored them.
Your ancestors then started asking about representation in Parliament; if the current people won't change the taxes, maybe we can get some of us elected to help persuade them.
The British still ignored them. Result: full out warfare and for the want of a 10% drop in basic tax, a few MP's and a end to the tea and cotton taxes, they lost the entire American colonies...

The Irani people are an increasingly connected, modern and well-educated (by Middle east standards) lot. Eventually, too many lame excuses by the crackpots will push the majority into outward disobedience. Then a lot of people will get shot, and public anger will rise, eventually resulting in another revolution. Hopefully this time without the Council of Nutjobs and the Supreme unelected Loony they currently have at the top of the tree.
Unless they start moderating towards the public opinion, it will only make this happen faster.

Re:Iran (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327929)

Please check your history. The American Revolution was over *who* controlled the tea trade, not how much tea cost. Imported tea from Britain was cheaper than the tea the colonial financiers could provide. These people bank-rolled the revolution because they had a financial interest in stopping the subsidised British tea import businesses. Nothing to do with freedom, all to do with finance. Not much changes.

Khamenei knows what he's doing (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327885)

The extent of the fraud perpetrated is clearly intended to send a message. If the powers that be in Iran just wanted Ahmadinejad reelected, they could have done so subtly. Give him 45% or so in round 1, to Mousavi's 39%, and then have him win round 2 with 52% or so. People wouldn't like it, but it'd at least be believable.

No, by giving Ahmadinejad ~67% of the vote, even in Mousavi's hometown, they are very clearly sending a message to the people that their votes do not count. After such a high turnout, after so much enthusiasm, this is a clear move to disenfranchise the Iranian people, so that they don't even try to vote against the entrenched powers in the future.

Re:Iran (5, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327903)

North Korea (and several african states)

---

It is possible to keep a dictatorship your entire life despite the will of the people.

You just have to be willing to be brutal enough.

Re:Iran (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327925)

We got rid of our idiot leadership

In the US I am fairly sure we never really get rid of an idiot leadership, just postpone noticing things because the media hangs to the new side until some point halfway through an elected officials term, and then get a different sort of idiocracy as different issues come about. But there is no such thing as a total approval, everything done will piss off atleast some number of people somewhere.

But the system, no matter how it seems at the present, has worked for many years.

The US Military and the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327809)

I heard at a talk that if the internet falls, the United States' military could not be mobilized. The situation in Iran sounds similar, but with the citizens. While the more liberal citizens are crying foul, the majority of the populace still supports the state. Religion has a disgusting influence on people.

Re:The US Military and the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327879)

"While the more liberal citizens are crying foul, the majority of the populace still supports the state."

CITATION PLEASE!

Calling all techy lefties & righties! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327811)

Regardless of your political leanings, this is an opportunity to help out some folks in a country that is crying for help!

Re:Calling all techy lefties & righties! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327833)

If internet is only filtered, not completely blocked, TOR could work as an anonymized/crypted proxy: http://www.torproject.org/

Dial-up (1)

jciarlan (1152991) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327831)

Computer to phone line. Dial up to a north american ISP. They'll have a hard time filtering web content through what shows up as a phone conversation. I'd be willing to pitch in for the bill, though I doubt many companies would charge for that. Someone set up a netzero account for these people or something, I only have $6.75 in my checking account (and no credit card). Either that, or http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de] for an encrypted tor-like connection.

Re:Dial-up (1)

TimTucker (982832) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327959)

If they're blocking SMS and foreign web content, what makes you think that they won't be blocking international calls?

make a pirate tv station (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327835)

http://osvideo.constantvzw.org/your-own-private-pirate-tv-station/

Next step: bullets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327837)

There are many documents available by torrent (check piratebay) on conducting insurgency. Sabotage, bombmaking, organizational structure to reduce infiltration, etc. A government that rules illegitimately does not deserve the acquiescence of its citizens. I understand there are already active insurgencies in Iran, and I'll bet an insurgency could get assistance from forces located in nations immediately to Iran's west and east. Tweets are great, but the government isn't going to change course until things start blowing up.

Re:Next step: bullets (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327973)

Yeah, building a bomb from instructions found on the Internet sounds like the start of a great Myth Busters episode. One in which Buster gets blown to hell again.

Remember kids, don't try this at home.

Does Iranian President Matter? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327843)

Does he really set policy?

Aren't all the presidential choices pre approved?

Will a different choice change any meaningful policies that might make a difference in Iran getting nuked?

Seems Iran needs another revolution, not just another figurehead.

Re:Does Iranian President Matter? (5, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327991)

This election would have had little impact on foreign policy, but the Iranian president does have a lot of leeway on domestic matters. Under Ahmadinejad, inflation and unemployment have skyrocketted. Rather than try to take action to fix it, he just lies about the figures (easy to do, when you control the media). That was really a key issue in the "election".

Of course, not having a Holocaust denier as president would probably help foreign relations a bit as well.

(Yes I know he never comes out and denies it. He just "questions" it. A lot.)

They disabled facebook, myspace etc?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327857)

Dey too eur jawbs!!

Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327887)

I bought into this whole idea of helping out the dissident Iraqis who were trying to establish a democracy under Saddam. I supported President Bush's invasion of Iraq even though I knew the WMD was a crock because I thought the idea of kicking out a dictatorship and allowing a democracy to flourish was a good idea.

It turned out, after the invasion, that these people had little native support of their own and many people either liked Saddam or liked the Mullahs.

Having heard a bunch of leftists cry about how much better Saddam was for Iraq, and how wrong it was to actually try and get rid of a dictatorship, and seeing that the people on the ground really kinda liked their dictatorship, my ears for Iran are pretty deaf right now.

If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves. If the left wants to lament the death of democracy in Iraq, they can spare me the tears. They had no problem advocating tyranny in Iraq.

Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327977)

The thing is, Bush never cared about the Iraqi people, and left them to fend for themselves once he secured the oil wells. Democracy in Iraq could have been possible if he were serious about helping them, but of course he was just interested in making money.

Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327981)

Aw fuck off, when did left advocate tyranny? Military Non-intervention != advocacy

when did left advocate tyranny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328171)

When did the left advocate Military non-intervention?

I see little support for non-interventionism from any part of the American political spectrum aside from Ron Paul and a few other voices than remain mostly unheard.

Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (3, Insightful)

druke (1576491) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327983)

they're not asking for an army, they want tech advise...

Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (0, Troll)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328023)

If anything Iran deserves more help from the west as it was the west that effectively put the bad guys in charge in Iran, when they toppled the democratically elected government in the 1950's and installed their own pet despot (under the guise of saving the world from communism) . IMHO the flow on from this act set the scene for creating a large part of the mess that the middle east is in.

Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (3, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328067)

I thought the idea of kicking out a dictatorship and allowing a democracy to flourish was a good idea.

Yeah... that rarely works. You can't forceably make a democracy from the outside. A country has a dictatorship for a reason: when fear is the only path to stability. This is understandable in places where there are major social problems such as ethnic or religious strife combined with low standards of living. A dictatorship achieves stability at the cost of freedom.
A better idea might be to work with the dictator to improve the standard of living. Bring in education and technology in exchange for diminishing the brainwashing. Once the society rises to a standard of living where they are enlightened enough to live in peace, under the rule of law instead of the rule of the fear, then democracy can begin.
Ironically, the idea of invading other countries for humanitarian reasons is a very leftist concept. And one that George Bush denied during his bid for the presidential election. He said something like "If we'd just leave people alone, they might not hate us so much. We should stay out of their business." But the warhawks flipped his opinion 180 degrees, and the "conservatives" followed them. To this day, I am amazed when I hear American Republicans support the war. It is the exact opposite of their platform, but they blindly follow it even against their own philosophy.

If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves.

If they want help, I could understand the UN deciding to assist them. That is similar to what happened in Afghanistan - the UN forces assisted the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. But that is different from ousting the dictator without having been asked to assist.

Re:Deeply Skeptical of Iranian Cries for Help (5, Insightful)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328163)

If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves.

Dude, pay attention, that's what they're doing. There's a huge difference between us invading Iraq to unseat Saddam and the Iranians standing up to overturn a massively corrupt election. The Iranian people are pissed, and this is their first step toward something less like a dictatorship.

Nobody is calling for substantial outside help (that I've heard of), like asking us to invade Iran to help a revolution. The "left" has nothing to do with this, and the western media seems not to care all that much about the situation. Even the guy who sent the Ask Slashdot only wanted advice on communicating with others!

Regardless of what happens, this whole shebang was started and led entirely by Iranians who are upset with their government, and they're not looking for some foreign power to send in the cavalry, which I have to respect.

Read the article titled "The Ugly Side of Truth". (2, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328191)

tjstork wrote, "If the people of Iran want to get rid of their government, they can do it themselves. If the left wants to lament the death of democracy in Iraq, they can spare me the tears. They had no problem advocating tyranny in Iraq."

Read the article titled "The Ugly Side of Truth [slashdot.org] ".

Use this as a call to arms, not start of revolt (1)

waTR (885837) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327897)

Iranians are not organized (the people), you cannot expect to achieve anything until you get organized. Start building groups, decentralized cells that operate on their own without a centralized leadership. Read and learn! Most of the Iranian supporters of Mousavi are intelligent, that is your weapon. Learn about tactics, sabotage, etc., and gather supplies you will need. You cannot gather in groups and attack the police using the police's own tactics of large-scale street battles. You need insurgency, and sabotage. You are intelligent Iranians, you can get into employment and infiltrate agencies that no other Iranian can. The only way a government can be brought down is with an insurgency from within. Look at the Soviet collapse for an idea of how this is done. Most importantly, build international support, you cannot do this on your own. There are many organizations that would support a move towards democracy with supplies and money. Without the above, you cannot achieve anything except suffering for those who would most likely be wanting to help the cause.

Tor (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327899)

If what is disrupted are specific sites, and not the whole internet, you can use it to get anonymous/encrypted communication with wherever you want.

In the other hand, tor sounds too much like Thor, and if Iranian government things you are of another religion you could be screwed.

Election fraud or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28327913)

Is it an attempt to silence rightful opposition to a fixed election or is it riot control to restore the peace after a democratic election? I mean, are there reports of election fraud or are we just unhappy with the result?

Proxy volunteers? (1)

gibbsjoh (186795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327927)

Surely there's other /.'ers out there willing to set up a proxy with Squid or something?

Let me know if this would be helpful and I will.

Re:Proxy volunteers? (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328001)

Sure I'm going to put up an open proxy on my net, I'll get right to it. Hold it, what's all this spam and kiddie porn on my net?

Re:Proxy volunteers? (1)

gibbsjoh (186795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328069)

Cynic. Not too hard to put a content filter on, is it? Like I was going to post it directly to slashdot.

Iran got Slashdotted? (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327961)

From the Article:
"I'd say that there are probably a lot more people around the world pulling local content from Iran's providers right now, and that surge of demand is probably contributing to increased congestion and (perhaps) some of the route instability we see."

We've really outdone ourselves this time!

Use Ham/CB/FM Radio (4, Interesting)

TheRagingTowel (724266) | more than 4 years ago | (#28327989)

I think that what momen abdullah is asking can be achieved using ham radio. Look for PSK31 for low-bandwith digital communications. Maybe "truckers" in Iran are using CB radio? You can use that as well, maybe hack it a bit. Anyway, building a simple 80-100MHz FM band transmitter is very easy to build, just hook it into a power amplifier for better coverage.
Look at the first search result on google for "fm transmitter", this [zen.co.uk] is what i found. seems easy enough to build with easily attainable components.

SSH tunneling (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328011)

I might suggest surrogate ssh tunneling. Have some volunteers with ssh servers in other countries to allow encrypted tunneling. The only thing is you want to arrange this setup discreetly and probably not on the normal ssh port. If this is too slow of an option to load the pages I would suggest using a text only browser that doesn't bother downloading images unless you specifically want to.

Networking won't solve this (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328033)

I'm afraid if you want change, it has to come from within. The Iranian people will have to rise up and displace their government, by force if necessary. Chatting about it on the net won't help, and the US is not going to at all be interested in forcing change at this point. As with pretty much any real change in life, at has to come from within. If this really matters to the people of Iran, then they have the power to change it. You CAN overthrow a government, history has plenty of examples.

As for nuclear war, I wouldn't worry too much about that. The US isn't going to strike first, and Iran lacks the technology to deliver nuclear payloads to the US. Also, as a practical matter while Iranian leadership seems to be oppressive and such, they aren't insane. I'm sure they full and well understand what the US response to a nuclear attack would be, and nobody wants to be the ruler of a glass parking lot.

So I wouldn't worry about nuclear war, but I would worry about Iran becoming a whole lot more oppressive. If you are Iranian, the only real solution to that is to displace your government. Sorry, but that just seems to be the fact. They've made it quite clear they aren't interested in democratic change, and the president of the US isn't interested in starting another war that the military can't sustain, nor would the US population go along with it.

So if change matters, you'll have to do it yourselves, and yes it may be bloody. That or get out of the country, which is probably what I'd opt for. I'd like to think I could stand up and fight but realistically I'd just run away, I don't have the guts to be a revolutionary I think.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
--Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States.

Fox News only true source of news these days (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328037)

From the Topic "We've had a few readers send in updates on the chaotic post-election situation in Iran. Twitter is providing better coverage than CNN at the moment"

Fox News this morning and last night was talking about the same thing. They commented on how most other US news sources had little or nothing on the Iran election.

CNN, and MSNBC has the lowest ratings of any Cable/Network News channel in the US. They provide almost no news which is truthful or accurate. The print media, like the New York Times hide real news stories from the public.

Where I work, MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times are blocked.

When will the good citizens of the US follow Texas and just pull the plug on CNN, MSNBC, and the New York times.

Nuclear War? (0)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328071)

Seriously? If this election is stolen, it will be the same as any other stolen election. If the US went in with Nukes every time a dictator faked Democracy, there wouldn't be any life left on Earth.

Step up or shut up (1)

redkcir (1431605) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328075)

Maybe it's time to do something over there. If you don't like the government's deciding what you can and can't do, you have the option to change it. But you won't be able to do that on Twitter or any other on-line option. Physical action may be your only choice. As you have seen, the ones in power will stay there by any means necessary. It's your country, you solve the problem. That's what we did in America. If you don't want to act, you deserve what you get.

Send David Lettermen to Iran (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28328101)

We should send David Lettermen to Iran. If sending him there, does not resolve the world's problems with Iran, it will resolve the US problem of David Lettermen.

Iran election: "Mission accomplished" (1, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328121)

Controversy reigns after the Iranian election on Saturday, in which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with a landslide 63% of the vote and returns from all districts precisely matched Government pre-poll predictions [today.com] .

Mr Ahmadinejad credits his win to democratic methods perfected by George W. Bush. "We fully understand the international community's desires to see that Iran's democracy transparently works to the highest standards found in other nations. Mr Bush's work has been exemplary."

The "hanging chad" technique has been particularly effective. "Rounding up opposition voters, politicians and journalists named Chad and hanging them. In those cases where the opposition insurgent was not named Chad, we of course took care to change their names to Chad posthumously. Democratic procedures must not only be observed, they must be seen to be observed."

"I stand one hundred per cent behind my brother Mahmoud," said Supreme Leader Ali Khameini Rove of the Project for a New Iranian Century. "Occasionally with his mouth moving in time with the movements of my hand. Clever, isn't it?"

Mr Ahmadinejad has been condemned by some as a "lunatic redneck" and "a gibbering madman perilously close to the nuclear button." "These charges are most unfair. When I declaimed the necessity of obliterating and deleting the unnameable Zionist entity with cleansing atomic fire, it was implicit in these statements that we would need to reach a resolution to undertake such action through proper procedures of international diplomacy. Mr Bush's excellent work in decapitating Saddam Hussein's odious regime shows the way forward in this regard."

"We stand in solidarity with the Iranian people," said President-in-Exile Al Gore from his cave high in the mountains of Afghanistan. "For my own part, I will never give up the fight to take back America and Iran from the Republican counterrevolutionaries and will not rest until all Americans and Iranians breathe the free air of socialism ... what? Democrats elected? Huh, next you'll try telling me the President's black. You can't fool me! Back where you came from!"

Ways to help (5, Informative)

Martin Spamer (244245) | more than 4 years ago | (#28328165)

Some ways to subvert the censorship.

1) anonymous web proxies that only accept inbound connections from Iran IP space.
2) TOR servers [torproject.org] .
3) Ad-Hoc WiFi networks could be used to create a Mesh networks.
4) Multicast information, documents, video over the Mesh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...