Beta
×

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!

Afghan Government Turns To Iran For Internet

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the access-of-evil dept.

The Internet 80

Barlaam writes "Renesys describes new evidence that the Iranian national telecommunications provider, DCI, is selling (uncensored?) Internet connectivity to customers in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. 'The Internet connectivity outreach that we now see in the global routing tables seems like continuing evidence of Iran's long-term strategy: aggressively pursuing bilateral infrastructure and investment projects with its neighbors, in ways that will increase Iran's regional influence after the Americans have moved on.'"

cancel ×

80 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Iran helping? (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 4 years ago | (#33621652)

Gee, this won't hurt the US, will it?

Re:Iran helping? (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about 4 years ago | (#33621794)

It will, if you see the world through 20th century cold-war goggles. Filling a vacuum; political, military, economic, etc., was the name of the expansion game. This is simply more of the same. We could choose to see this move as ground lost to the communists... er, "Islamo-facists" (that is such and idiotic term...), or we could take a deep breath and realize that communication of that type is a thing to be exploited for commercial and cultural gain. Any bets?

Re:Iran helping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33622138)

Idiotic how?

Re:Iran helping? (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 4 years ago | (#33627580)

Assuming that you aren't mocking my typo...
Learn the definition of fascism. See if you can figure out how, even though they share some traits, radical Islam and fascism are pretty much incompatible.

Re:Iran helping? (0, Troll)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about 4 years ago | (#33622206)

Indeed, "Islamo-facists" is such and idiotic term... That is why there is the perfectly valid word "Islamist". Look it up (Islamism), Wikipedia is your friend.

Re:Iran helping? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33623118)

Indeed, "Islamists" is such an idiotic term... That is why there is the perfectly valid word "Muslim". Look it up (Muslim), Wikipedia is your friend.

Indeed, "Muslim" is such an idiotic term... That is why there is the perfectly valid word "Enemy". Look it up (Enemy), The dictionary is your friend.

Re:Iran helping? (0, Redundant)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about 4 years ago | (#33624082)

Shit, that was stupid. And post as anonymous ofcourse, what a coward... Muslim are no one's enemy. Islamist are. These words are not synonym.

Re:Iran helping? (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | about 4 years ago | (#33625134)

Exactly, it's the ists you need to be concerned about.

Re:Iran helping? (1)

VoidCrow (836595) | about 4 years ago | (#33627062)

Gott ist mit uns!

Re:Iran helping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33625116)

Ahh, the push and pull. Or for the newtypes, Gundam00. Not that the US was Celestial Being or anything, but it did a good job of uniting the eastern Middle East into a near conglomerate. As Iran has a bomb (I consider having a bomb meaning the entire tooling and raw material dug up and in play, anything else is ludicrous--someone has a gun, even if the bullet isn't in the chamber and the barrel isn't screwed in place but is sitting next to it), and has already challenged the US banking system in terms of size and resources through their funding of Dubai (as they say, it's Dubai in name, but it's Iranian money being spread around), they've tactically and strategically have screwed us (no, it's not Bush's fault, it's that we couldn't pick one direction or the other), since their one fundamental and separating point is religion.

"Any bets?"

It is lost ground. You're blind if you don't see or acknowledge that. Iranian influence in the region is not a good thing. Even if the US contributed heavily to it.

As to the bet, yes. The US has no will, policy, or money left. We've already planned for the Russians to take a significant role in Afghanistan when we leave (there isn't much "if" to that left). And remember those billions of potential raw materials assessed/found in the Afghan hills? Leftist conspiracy nuts already said that' s we went in maybe, and if we stay, it's is, since we'll rape their resources via a propped up government...as if we weren't propping up their government anyways.

iow, I could bet, but like the US people, we have no money or will. I guess religion really does win. Besides, we have little choice left in the matter--of the two scenarios, is *any* a good move? Any move we make against Iran is a defeat. We put ourselves in that position. If we bomb them, fight a war, increase sanctions, it's a defeat of the past and the present in our approach, our shared history with Iran. If we lay back, there's no way in hell Iran isn't going to manipulate those lines later (see Dubai above, remember what happened when there was a minor outage? it even affected the Wall Street trading that day).

I'd buy the popcorn and watch with interest how Egypt and the Saudi peninsula handled this, but given how Iran has handled it's oil resources in spite of the US, I don't think we have the will or the strategic thinking to out maneuver them. Hell, even if we converted to renewables tomorrow across the board, China would simply say "thank you", gobble up the energy at the cheaper prices, and crush us industrially, all the while the smog from the factories would continue contributing more than their usual 10-20% to the smog on the west US coast.

And before whole blame Carter, blame Bush, blame someone, realized we screwed ourselves in Iran during the 1940s, maybe even before, when we stupidly overthrew a democratic government. We're paying for that right now, despite probably a lot of us on here not even have been born then.

Re:Iran helping? (1)

ganesh.rao (1581043) | about 4 years ago | (#33625216)

Iran isn't a communist state. LOL. They have trade embargo with most of the countries in this world because of their nuclear reactor issue.

Re:Iran helping? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33627328)

er, "Islamo-facists" (that is such and idiotic term...),

Your right about that. If you look up the term "Fascist" you will see that the definition doesn't even come close to their doctrine. Actually they are very non-fascist. If you want to see a fascist in the world today look at the US. Today the US is the leading fascist state. Really go look up the term fascism and see if it doesn't fit.

Yes I am a US Citizen and yes I am ashamed of my government.

Re:Iran helping? (1, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 4 years ago | (#33621986)

of course it will.... This is brilliant for Iran. Having spent a semester in college watching Kazakhstan, like Kazakhstan, Iran sits neatly between all the new development in the Eastern EU and the huge markets in China. I don't believe Iran has any interest in starting wars... most of the leaders spent 15-20 years fighting the Shaw and Iraq. Being connected will keep the US off their backs even more than trying to develop nukes. When they become a hub for telcom and transportation in the region, it gets a lot harder to justify to Russia and China (both UN Security Council veto members) to attack Iran and cut their OWN feet off for no good reason. Iran's government is still one of the most "secular" in the region... which is a good starting point. The guy at the top is not representative of what his people necessarily want (like our last guy that liked to pick fights) But, of course, when you have a "big stick" all but threatening to attack ANYBODY will get behind the leader.

World Map (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33622210)

Seriously? You studied Kazakhstan for a semester and you don't know that the EU is far, far away?

There is no "Eastern EU" anywhere near Kazakhstan, the Ukraine is as far from joining the EU as ever (never). Are you regionally challenged? The EU is not synonymous with the continent of Europe.

As for your claim that Iran will become a hub for the "region" I doubt your map reading skills. Iran is insignificant to Russia, and China is even further away. Russia is a great deal more capable than Iran, guess who's delivering the nuclear reactor to Iran? What would Russia or China need Iran for? Russia has pipe lines to Europe as it is and transport channels from coast to coast (Baltic to Bering).

Incidentally Russia and Norway just saw the first [Norwegian freight] ships going the Northern passage route to Asia and China. It's shorter and better controlled than the pirated and dangerous waters of the Indian ocean.

You are probably right in the sense that Iran doesn't want any more wars, they do however want to remain in power and dominate the region. You can't blame them, the Sunni's have been attacking them for a long time. If they get their safety they might be less agressive. The country could become a great asset to the world.

Shaw? (1)

linumax (910946) | about 4 years ago | (#33622304)

... most of the leaders spent 15-20 years fighting the Shaw and Iraq.

While I agree with most of your comment, out of curiosity, where did you learn "Shaw"? I mean Shah is the correct word, meaning King in Farsi. It's a short form for "Mohmmad Reza Shah" (while his father, the previous king is known primarily as "Reza Shah"). I see a lot of English speakers referring to him as Shaw which to my knowledge is a last name as in George B. Shaw.

Re:Shaw? (3, Funny)

Gonoff (88518) | about 4 years ago | (#33622460)

This reminds me of some 1970s grafitti in Paris.
Someone had written "Mort Au Shah" and someone else had added
"et vive les souris"

Re:Shaw? (2, Informative)

NevarMore (248971) | about 4 years ago | (#33623846)

"Mort au Shah, et vive les souris"

Death to Shah, and long live the mice

Shah sounds a lot like "chats" which means cats. So theres the joke for non-French speakers.

Re:Iran helping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33628570)

Thus is a regional issue ! Please explain why I am scared of this!

uncensored (0, Troll)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | about 4 years ago | (#33621684)

I'm sure they don't censor criticism of the Iranian government (see Green Revolution [wikipedia.org] ).

Infrastructure investments (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 4 years ago | (#33621698)

I seriously doubt that the Iranian government and it's nationalized telecom company will be the only company with infrastructure investments in Iraq or Afghanistan. If there's money to be made, the global conglomerates will make it.

Re:Infrastructure investments (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 4 years ago | (#33621724)

True but the services of said infrastructure will become a resource in the future.

Maybe I should RTFA and stay on topic but it could be a good plan to put that oil revenue to use on something tangible before it runs out.

Maybe I should RTFA and stay on topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33621808)

Maybe I should RTFA and stay on topic

You're not from around here are you?

Re:Infrastructure investments (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 years ago | (#33621734)

With the violence, and destruction that is rampant over there (specifically to western companies) there may not be much money to be made. And Iran is not in it for profit.

Re:Infrastructure investments (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 4 years ago | (#33623286)

With the violence, and destruction that is rampant over there (specifically to western companies) there may not be much money to be made. And Iran is not in it for profit.

They want to be known as Iranian Service Providers.

Re:Infrastructure investments (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 years ago | (#33621736)

If there's money to be made, the global conglomerates will make it.

So Halliburton will become Agfhanistans ISP . . .

Re:Infrastructure investments (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | about 4 years ago | (#33625160)

Eventually they will offer censorship services or a level of 'Islam-friendly' censorship and they will be the dominate player. I don't mean political censorship, 'omg dont let people read the Constitution' - but block porn, etc.

"Look, you get your internet from us already, get your clean internets from us too!"

I only am thinking this because I'm learning of these religious-friendly search engines. A niche market, but I get it because people want to protect their delicate minds (or just avoid that 'hate' speak or whatever... should have been Bing's business angle). I think the region would be happy with that. I imagine a great firewall, just not for politics (as the primary driver).

Dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33621740)

Could someone please trace the expenses back to see how much the US is paying for internet for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Don't worry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33621748)

As I've learned from television, they're still buying their services from American companies. Oh sure, it's a bunch of Indian programmers doing the work, but they're getting a pittance of the money.

Re:Don't worry... (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 4 years ago | (#33621772)

As I've learned from television,

Hold it ... I found your problem.

Re:Don't worry... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33621856)

Hold it ... I found your problem.

Are you saying there's not a team of expert thieves being modern-day Robin Hoods? That there's not a CTU protecting the president from outrageously complicated assassination plots? That angels don't get sent down to earth to correct their mistakes? That aliens aren't disguised among us? That a man can't be reborn as a car?

Re:Don't worry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33621992)

Are you saying there's not a team of expert thieves being modern-day Robin Hoods? That there's not a CTU protecting the president from outrageously complicated assassination plots? That angels don't get sent down to earth to correct their mistakes? That aliens aren't disguised among us? That a man can't be reborn as a car?

Fuck you, I'm a robot alien angel thief working at the CTU.

Re:Don't worry... (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 4 years ago | (#33622092)

Hold it ... I found your problem.

Are you saying there's not a team of expert thieves being modern-day Robin Hoods? That there's not a CTU protecting the president from outrageously complicated assassination plots? That angels don't get sent down to earth to correct their mistakes? That aliens aren't disguised among us? That a man can't be reborn as a car?

I'm not saying that all, you can't trust what you see on television. I read it all in the National Enquirer.

so what? Big F-ing deal (5, Insightful)

Big Jojo (50231) | about 4 years ago | (#33621784)

Who else should be providing Internet access and building local business ties but neighboring countries? In this case, Iran looks like they're being a good neighbor. It's time to move beyond this prejudice against Iran. They've been the victim of US (and British) Corporate interests for numerous decades ... and if they dare to object or fight back, or otherewise look after their own interests, they get demonized. Recall that the CIA overthrew the Shah to protect interests of what became British Petroleum (BP): The Iranian government of the time was just trying to control its own oil. Naturally, the people of Iran weren't keen on the CIA coup. And US/British Corporates weren't happy with pushback on their plans to steal all that oil wealth. So here we are ... Iran does something innocuous and the western establishment press still wants to find a way to blame them for something (what?) while spinning the West as blameless.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (2, Interesting)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | about 4 years ago | (#33621834)

They might not be being a *good* neighbour - I mean, doing this is going to be in Iran's interest - but it's in the interest of Iraq and Afghanistan too to have internet feeds from multiple political entities. Regardless of how America is treating them now, it is not a good idea for Iraq or Afghanistan to be 100% reliant on them.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33622048)

I agree it's not good for any nation to be 100% reliant on any other nation. I would far prefer all nations to have as many Internet feeds as they can sensibly afford - greater reliability through greater redundancy, shorter paths to destinations makes for better performance, and the avoidance of any particular political master prevents "unfortunate accidents" disconnecting sources that may conflict with one ideology or another. (Both the US and Iran have extensively used disinformation and psychological warfare, we have to assume other nations use these techniques as well, so the only possible way to get good information is to get maximal information.)

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 years ago | (#33621956)

Pushback? What have you been smoking, and where can I get some? Iran is a theocracy. Maybe you missed it back in 1979 when Shiite Muslims overthrew the government? Who controls Hezbollah? Who ordered the troops to fire on peaceful protesters last year? Who has real-live religious police? Seriously man, update your Persian outlook to 2010, please.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33622026)

The Shiite muslims overthrew an externally-imposed government after the Iranian President was assassinated - possibly at the request of the US, but that information won't get released for 10 more years at the very best. I regard the state of affairs in Iran as basically part of a standard pattern that repeats throughout history - when a government is created through violence, it will maintain itself through violence and it will usually collapse through violence. This cycle will be repeated endlessly until enough people take the risk of being peaceful.

(It is the main reason I mistrust the 2nd Amendment - you will never have enough people willing to take the risk of being peaceful when they perceive there to be a quick and easy way out of their problems. The only way out of the quagmire is neither quick nor easy and depends on the renunciation of force, not the use of it.)

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33622102)

That's an interesting point of view on the 2nd amendment. Personally, even though I am am my self a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I find that most people would be too lazy to even attempt an armed revolution, and the ones that talk the most about it are in the least position, physically, to be able to withstand the demands of guerrilla warfare. Its mostly the Vietnam vet generation, like my dad, who have had too much beer and too many years behind them to make a decent revolution. They're the same old people bitching at these tea party rallies.

I think that the inaction is inevitable, but not because people are "willing to risk being peaceful" but because hardly anyone is stupid enough is willing to risk NOT being peaceful if they have to do it by themselves, because the "masses" that agree with them are in no shape to actually help them.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33629926)

I'm open to different viewpoints - it's a great way to learn - and I have to say that your posting is an excellent one to learn from. Thank you.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

Jurily (900488) | about 4 years ago | (#33625094)

This cycle will be repeated endlessly until enough people take the risk of being peaceful.

How many of your neighbors have the Westerners invaded? I bet you wouldn't be so peaceful if you saw a Russian tank rolling down your street one morning.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33630152)

Neighbors? Let's see. I'm from England. That makes my neighbors Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall (it has it's own parliament, so yes it counts), Norway, Denmark and France. Now, children, can anyone tell me which of these has NEVER invaded one or more of the others?

Would I be peaceful if I saw a Russian tank rolling down my street? For starters, I probably wouldn't care. NO country has ever successfully invaded England except when requested to do so by the majority in England. (Strange but true.) Thus, if there was a successful invasion by Russia, it could only be by the democratic will of the nation. As a believer in democracy, I will NOT dictate to my countrymen what I believe to be the right choice for the nation. If the majority wish a foreign takeover, then it is their right to make that choice and I would be utterly in the wrong to oppose it.

Would it be helpful for me to not be peaceful? Well, the Russians defeated the German invasion by throwing themselves at tanks and lobbing petrol bombs down the hatches. The death toll on the Russian side alone ran into the tens of millions as a result. You will also notice that Russia (a country riddled with violence at the best of times) also took a steep turn downwards at that time, becoming infinitely more rabid than it had been before. Those tens of millions who died "saved" Russia from what? They stopped a Fascist dictatorship but only at the cost of creating a Communist dictatorship every bit as large and unpleasant as the one they stopped.

This achieved what?

C'mon, you seem to have an answer, so what is it? What did these (unquestionably brave and heroic) Stalingraders die for, in the end, that they could not have created by living? And had the Russian Revolution been one of peace, rather than bloody conflict and nihilism, would Russia not have been the better-able to stop Germany long before it ever got to Stalingrad? If the autocrats and the populace had worked together, rather than in endless cycle of destruction, modern Communism would never have happened.

Even World War II was merely a byproduct of the senseless destruction of World War I and the mindless destruction wrecked by the Treaty of Versailles. If the nations had been less bent on revenge and more bent on preventing future conflict, Hitler would never have happened at all. In more modern times, the Rwandan massacre was the product of the French colonialists creating divisions and antagonism. That massacre has resulted in subsequent revenge massacres. This is unlikely to stop any time soon.

Now look at a different conflict, that in Northern Ireland. The cycle of violence was largely broken by both sides, resulting in peace that would not have been imagined possible in our lifetimes a mere 20 years ago. Sure, there's some groups still stirring up trouble. You can't stop a flywheel instantly. But so long as nobody works to put energy into that flywheel, the energy coming out will die out. The epiphany by both sides that they could actually work together AND achieve their goals has resulted in something that no amount of wars has ever achieved.

Did the US invasions of Grenada or Haiti produce anything comparable to Stormont? What about those of Iraq or Afghanistan? No?

Ok, what about other conflicts? ETA declared a ceasefire. Not sure if it was entirely sincere, but they did it and the Spanish government ignored it. Result, the violence did not end. One side fighting rather than two didn't change a damn thing. What would have happened if the Spanish government had opted instead for a Stormont-like deal and decriminalized the Basquist politicians? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. What I do know is that they didn't and their decision didn't work - and that like decisions throughout history have never worked. Insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results.

Maybe Spain wasn't capable of cohesive peace that time round, that had the government done something different it wouldn't have altered the outcome that much. I don't have the information necessary to say and neither do you. I do have enough information to say, though, that when peace is achieved it will NOT be achieved through the gun.

What about the current disaster known as the Middle East? Most of the current mess was caused by the un-dealt-with aftermaths of prior messes. Virtually all of it has been preventable and virtually all of it has been worsened by violent tit-for-tat exchanges between whatever extremist was in power and whatever extremist was not. Nobody has actually bothered to try defusing anything. Nooooo, pouring more oil onto the flames has been so much more fun for outsiders. (Choice of analogy deliberate.)

Again, if I go back to the Troubles in Ireland, America was shipping arms and money to the IRA at the same time as they were shipping arms and money to the British government. What the hell were you guys thinking? Oh, I'll tell you exactly what you were thinking - how much better the explosions would look on TV. You didn't give bugger all consideration to anyone's lives. When you FINALLY stopped and allowed those involved to actually find their balance, they did. Great surprise that one. Rational people, when not antagonized and spurred on, are capable of great things. Those same people, when fueled with hate and bitterness, are also capable of great destruction.

And THIS is why I say that peace brings peace, war brings war, and never the twain shall meet.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | about 4 years ago | (#33622188)

Indeed, there is a country with a religious police, which outlaws practicing any religion but Islam, regularly executes citizens for moral crimes, and is a monarchal theocracy that does not hold elections and is accused of widespread human rights violations. They are about to close an arms deal worth 60 billion dollars to buy a fleet of the world's most advanced jet fighters and helicopters and related equipment. Their mosques preach violence against the west, and indeed, they send foreign fighters to Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Yemen to train for militant jihad.

That country is Saudi Arabia. And their supplier is the United States.

Iran, on the other hand, has a broken democracy, does in fact protect the right of religions to practice (but not to proselytize), and even has 30,000 practicing Jews and 300,000 practicing Christians with hundreds of churches and synagogues openly operating. Though they are subject persecution by the government, they are guaranteed a small number of seats in their representative government. The Ba'hai faith are widely seen as more persecuted than Jews or Christians, since they are officially outlawed.

Saudi Arabia for some reason has better public relations than Iran, but something tells me there's a reason for that [wikipedia.org] .

Judging from history, our bizarre ethos of "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" has come back to bite us many times. Maybe there will come a day when, after some terrorist act committed by Saudi citizens, our foreign policy will change to a more reasoned stance when dealing with the complexities of Middle Eastern politics.

Oh wait, I forgot. Never forget... to forget.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33623002)

not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about china

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33623140)

not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about america
not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about the roman empire
not to forget that with very few adjustments to your first paragraph, you'd suddenly be talking about something completely different.

your point?

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | about 4 years ago | (#33625952)

Thank you for a very insightful comment. I was wondering about that last part: "Never forget ...to forget" ? I know it's ironic i just dont understand what you mean.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33626048)

Most of the 9/11 hijackers and the funding for them was from Saudi Arabia. He was being sarcastic about an act of terrorism from there influencing our policy towards the country.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33629976)

He means the September 11 attackers were all Saudi citizens. If you had lived in the U.S. or followed its politics following 9-11, you would have heard "Never forget" a lot.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | about 4 years ago | (#33631164)

ic thanks for the explanation!

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33626026)

When people start saying stuff like this about any country, just stating so called facts they saw on TV and read in the mainstream media, I ask them, have you ever been to that country?

I have lived in Saudi Arabia for 26 years, I have seen great change, the people are nice and most are moderates, they don't hate everyone, I can do a lot of stuff that people think I would get stoned or beheaded for.

The problem is with all countries and all cultures, is that moderates are not as loud as extremists, you won't see a group of people going to protest because they are happy. you only see and hear extremist protesting weather from the left or right and the 24 media will turn 10 people protesting into something like a million people marching.

The $60 billion deal is to buy some F15s.... which are what? over 30 years old now? it will save 75000 US jobs too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11288683

read up on history and look at every side, maybe then you'd know why there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi, who created the fear? who created the hate? who funded those afghan mujahidin? and why? this all started in early 80s.

The only reason Saudi Arabia has better PR is not because of Al-Waleed, it's because their rulers accepted the deal that was cut to them buy the west.

This all is done for profit of a small group of people. My life and yours is worthless to them, and the more we hate each other the more profit they make out of us.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

copponex (13876) | about 4 years ago | (#33627952)

I agree with much of what you said, but the point is that decrying the moral state of Iran is nonsense when our top allies are just as, if not far more, immoral. Since Saudi Arabia is a client state, we arm them and turn a blind eye to their anti-democratic totalitarianism and theocratic injustices. Since Iran isn't a client state that has submitted to US authority, they are critiqued for the very same transgressions. That's my point.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

butlerm (3112) | about 4 years ago | (#33630120)

No question our relationship with Saudi Arabia is an alliance of convenience. The big difference though is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and Saudi Arabia isn't. If that ever changes...

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33631782)

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and Saudi Arabia isn't.

[Citation needed]

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (2, Interesting)

Cidolfas (1358603) | about 4 years ago | (#33622018)

While I agree that the west has fucked with Iran a lot, the analysis the article makes isn't the crazy, anti-Iranian spin you're making it out to be. Iran absolutely wants to become the regional hegemon of the middle east, and this is a way to increase their ability to do so. Whether or not that's innocuous is up for debate. I lean on the side that feels Iran being a hegemon is ok as long as that means they give way to control by their democratized populace instead of being run by secret police and a theological council. But having a government that's run on a religious level calling shots over a sphere of influence is a step backwards to incorporating the middle east into the larger world.

You might not have an issue with the Ayatollah asserting his unilateral authority against the general will of the people (see the Green Revolution), but I do. Remember: the CIA-made puppet government was overturned by scholars and students acting in Iran and abroad, with the population expecting democracy afterwards. Then the theocrats gained power by thuggery (each street had a block captain to point the thug squads in the right direction) and the scholars started disappearing. I don't want those people making regional security calls Monroe-doctrine style

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (1)

oiron (697563) | about 4 years ago | (#33624624)

It may or may not be innocuous, but is it in any way surprising? As of now, they seem to be the only reasonably stable polity in that belt, apart from Saudi Arabia. It's a no-brainer that they would try to exert their influence over their neighbours. In pretty much the same way, and with about the same amount of justification, as you rightly mention, as the Monroe doctrine.

And is it in any way wrong for Afghanistan (and possibly Iraq) to seek better relations with their neighbours, no matter how extremist that neighbour might be? Indeed, the more extremist, the more incentive to appease them.

Not saying that any of it is right, but neither was the CIA-backed coup in Iran... It's all just one travesty after another...

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33624488)

Recall that the CIA overthrew the Shah

Why do people get modded +5 for making glaring factual errors like this?

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33625872)

The CIA didn't overthrow the Shah, they were the ones that put him in power.

Britain and the US overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh, a democratically elected president I might add, because he nationalised the oil industry and kicked out the likes of BP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Overthrow_of_Mosaddegh

the Saudi's are buying over $60 billion dollars of weapons from the US and creating 75000 US jobs, why? to protect itself from Iran and it's nuclear threat? That's what they tell you on the news, it's to protect another country from Iran's nuclear threat... just like it did in the late 70s early 80s, only this time the weapons are outdated and over priced F15s, the western economies can't survive with out these kind of deals, plus it's easier to have your competition fight amongst themselves than for them to team up and compete against you.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a puppet of the west, he was put there to create artificial instability in the region, to divide and conquer, to create hate between Sunni and Shaia Muslims and to create hate between members of the same sect. this will lead them to sell outdated weapons to the region's countries, under the guise to protect themselves from an artificial enemy, while the true enemy sits in a corner and laughs.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33631824)

Nice response.
Iran is being kicked at every turn by the western media and it's bullshit.
They are not the US or UK, get over it.

Re:so what? Big F-ing deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33643880)

Don't rant if you can't get the basic facts straight. The CIA didn't overthrow the Shah. The CIA installed the Shah and the people overthrew him. Read a history book before babbling narrow sighted history lessons and sweeping generalizations.

Non issue (2, Interesting)

http (589131) | about 4 years ago | (#33621830)

Someone trying to make a buck off of providing alternate internet routes. How unusual.
As for the article itself, you have got to be kidding me - "aggressively pursuing"? Why not just post a photo of the cheque from the US State Department?

Countries (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33621844)

Investing in network connectivity with its neighbour is just crazy. They should be busy invading countries thousands of miles away.

regional (0)

screamphilling (1173499) | about 4 years ago | (#33621894)

the thing is.... teh interwebz turns the planet into a region... therefore, teh interwebz provide regional influence on Iran and not vice-versa. ohhh noes, the middle east is improving their communication infrastructure and not using expensive western-owned satellites to do so... terrorists win!

Is this Slashdot or the AIPAC newsletter? (4, Insightful)

compucomp2 (1776668) | about 4 years ago | (#33622012)

Or possibly FOX News?

Just because the United States has an embargo in Iran, doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to have one as well. Besides, the mullahs in Iran don't particularly like Afghanistan either, they almost went to war with the Taliban in 1998. I thought this site was for "news for nerds", not biased political pieces bordering on propaganda.

Truth Be Told Regardless (1)

andersh (229403) | about 4 years ago | (#33622258)

Well, the regime in Iran does have its way with the Internet offered there, so I wouldn't exactly call it a great day for Afghanistan either. It is news for nerds everywhere that a country is locking down their Internet, it could encourage others to do the same.

On the other hand that might be exactly what the Afghan government wants; a censored Internet. It would suit them as well after all.

I have no hostility towards the nation of Persia, or the Persian people, I greatly admire their country and believe they will regain their rightful place in the world.

Re:Is this Slashdot or the AIPAC newsletter? (1)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | about 4 years ago | (#33622306)

When a state provider only has a couple of network peers and seems to be changing them around - that's things that nerds (or network nerds at least) would be interested in. When those states have dominated political agendas as much as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have in the past decade then that makes it newsworthy.

Re:Is this Slashdot or the AIPAC newsletter? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 4 years ago | (#33646456)

biased political pieces bordering on propaganda

It's only propaganda when teh evil terrorists do it.

so what (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33622014)

We in Iraq already have several links into the country coming from FLAG Cable, Iran , Turkey , Kuwait , Saudi , Jordan......besides the VSAT terminals which is still widely used here.
Turkey was the first to sell internet to iraq via fiber links since sometime ago....iran's link is rarely used here.

Re:so what (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | about 4 years ago | (#33625770)

How's the broadband? And I swear to god if it's better than what I have, I'm moving.

Or maybe they are just doing business? (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33622160)

Look at the map. When you are a landlocked country you get your connectivity from your neighbors. I suppose they could run cable all the way over to western Afghanistan from Pakistan. Would you want to sole-source all your connectivity from Pakistan? The other choices aren't worth mentioning.

Re:Or maybe they are just doing business? (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | about 4 years ago | (#33622648)

mod parent up.

They are all landlocked neighbouring countries; the practicalities of telecommunications business - laying long, expensive stretches of cable - are overriding here. There are fiber optics cables running even between Isrel and Arab countries despite their wars...

Re:Or maybe they are just doing business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33624398)

The other choices aren't worth mentioning.

RTFA. A majority of Afghanistan's internet connectivity is via Uzbekistan.

Re:Or maybe they are just doing business? (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | about 4 years ago | (#33625296)

If we are going to be scared, as a people, by who they pick as their uplinks, it should be Pakistan more than anyone. Pakistan hates the US and likely the west a lot more than Iran (of the two, which has the terrorists we are looking for?).

But it's just packets, I don't know if I am that worried. Redundancy is best, for political and technical reasons - maybe I'd like to see a new Wifi distance record set and have Afghanistan beam their bits to a router on top of Mt. Everest? I would hope that the landmass they are on would prompt them to come up with something, idk, new?

"after the Americans have moved on..." Into Iran! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33622180)

" in ways that will increase Iran's regional influence after the Americans have moved on."

Yeah, after Iran is invaded from the east, south, and west by America.

Break the UN charter, break the UNSC resolutions, break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, export terrorism, send elite troops dressed in civilian clothes into Iraq to kill Americans, and yeah, you'll find yourself getting your ass kicked, exactly like you should.

Re:"after the Americans have moved on..." Into Ira (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 4 years ago | (#33623652)

Yeah, after the US economy collapses and the union disintegrates.

Break the UN charter, break the UNSC resolutions, break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, export terrorism, send elite troops dressed in civilian clothes into Iraq to kill civilians, and yeah, you'll find yourself getting your ass kicked, exactly like you should.

fixed

Language Bias? (2, Insightful)

1 a bee (817783) | about 4 years ago | (#33622310)

A quick look at the map shows a language bias of Farsi in the population. Iranians are some of the most prolific producers of web content in that region of the world. And virtually all of that is in Farsi. I don't know the details of how routing algorithms work, but if a majority of users in these regions browse Iranian web sites wouldn't that skew the routing tables towards routers in Iran?

Fools (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | about 4 years ago | (#33622408)

They should have gotten the Comcast Super Combo Deal and save a bundle.

IPTables (1)

RichM (754883) | about 4 years ago | (#33623242)

Time to block Iran [countryipblocks.net] then.

What I could do without... (1)

matunos (1587263) | about 4 years ago | (#33623390)

I tell ya what I could do without from the /. RSS feed: ads for Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" BS.

why didnt we think to do this (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 4 years ago | (#33623660)

"The Internet connectivity outreach that we now see in the global routing tables seems like continuing evidence of Iran's long-term strategy: aggressively pursuing bilateral infrastructure and investment projects with its neighbors...."

The Horrors!!!!

When did they start this ploy? (1)

BraksDad (963908) | about 4 years ago | (#33624254)

War it Cyrus or Xerxes?

is it an oxymoron or an anachronism (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 4 years ago | (#33624576)

Just think high speed data transfers, GB/s speeds, fiber optics leaping into the 21st century, and yet, their women are still stuck in the 12th century. They only seem good for one use only, god...er I mean allah help them if they produce more girls than boys. Backward countries that want, no demand equality with the rest of the world as long as it doesn't include gender. What an idea!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?