After US-Israel Attacks, 90 Million Iranians Lose Internet Connectivity (cnn.com) 240
CNN reports that images from Iran's capital "have shown cars jammed along Tehran's street, with heavy traffic on major roads after today's wave of attacks by the US and Israel." And though Iran has a population of 93 million, the attacks suddenly plunged Iran into "a near-total internet blackout with national connectivity at 4% of ordinary levels," according to internet monitoring experts at NetBlocks.
CNN reports: Since Iran's brutal crackdown earlier this year, the regime has made progress to allow only a subset of people with security clearance to access the international web, experts said. After previous internet shutdowns, some platforms never returned. The Iranian government blocked Instagram after the internet shutdown and protests in 2022, and the popular messaging app Telegram following protests in 2018.
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced an hour ago that they're "closely monitoring developments" — keeping in contact with countries in the region and so far seeing "no evidence of any radiological impact." They're also urging "restraint to avoid any nuclear safety risks to people in the region."
UPDATE (1 PM PST): Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait "are shifting to remote learning starting Sunday until further notice following Iranâ(TM)s retaliatory strikes on Saturday," reports CNN.
CNN reports: Since Iran's brutal crackdown earlier this year, the regime has made progress to allow only a subset of people with security clearance to access the international web, experts said. After previous internet shutdowns, some platforms never returned. The Iranian government blocked Instagram after the internet shutdown and protests in 2022, and the popular messaging app Telegram following protests in 2018.
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced an hour ago that they're "closely monitoring developments" — keeping in contact with countries in the region and so far seeing "no evidence of any radiological impact." They're also urging "restraint to avoid any nuclear safety risks to people in the region."
UPDATE (1 PM PST): Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait "are shifting to remote learning starting Sunday until further notice following Iranâ(TM)s retaliatory strikes on Saturday," reports CNN.
never underestimate the bandwidth (Score:2)
Re: never underestimate the bandwidth (Score:3)
In my day it was a station wagon full of backup tapes. My how I have aged.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Another Conflict (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love the Peace President.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is internet access the story? (Score:2)
As TFS points out, Iran cutting off the internet is basically just Tuesday.
The real story is what induced Iranian authorities to cut it off this time.
Iran's net access plunged suddenly (Score:2)
CNN's article says the Iranian government had years earlier blocked Telegram and Instagram, and had "made progress" on trying to block access to the international web. But there was still "national" internet connectivity, NetBlocks says. And they show it at near 100% Friday night, then dropping to 4% Saturday.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's internet had been cut off in mid January, before the massacres on January 8-9th. Since then, it had never been even majorly restored, due to the cascading dependencies w/ which Iran's internet was laid out. Therefore, this story about 90 million Iranians - essentially the entire population - losing their internet access is false. They haven't even had it since January
Hopefully, under the new regime, Iran establishes a completely meshed network w/ no single gateway to the external world, so that
USB sticks (Score:2)
If you know any Iranian people living abroad who visit family back at home in Iran, they practically all bring some media care-packages on USB sticks. There was even once an online campaign to donate USB sticks for that purpose.
The internet outages and regime-control of the access is bad, but the people have long found ways around it.
Re: (Score:2)
"they practically all bring some media care-packages on USB sticks."
Torrented TV series are hardly 'care'-packages.
It is all lies and propaganda (Score:4, Interesting)
This war is an Israel project, basically every possible threat around Israel is being eliminated, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, now Iran. Continued war helps keep Netanyahu in power. Meanwhile Israel de facto annexes the West bank with barely a peep from international community.
Trump cares nothing for Iranian people, the administration has boasted of engineering the Iran protests https://geopoliticaleconomy.co... [geopoliticaleconomy.com] and they probably hope it can collapse into a failed state and be a threat to no one like they did with Libya.
Re:It is all lies and propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
This war is an Israel project, basically every possible threat around Israel is being eliminated, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, now Iran.
You've over simplifying some very complicated things. I have zero love for America or Israel, but Iran has been a globally very dangerous shithole since its move to a theocracy in 1979 and it's rule by a single supreme leader. The threat it posed goes far beyond Israel, which is why largely most of the world banded together to prevent those lunatics from developing their nuclear program.
Meanwhile Israel de facto annexes the West bank with barely a peep from international community.
Israel is very much getting peeps from the international community. Just not the specific countries you seem to follow on diplomatic Instagram. This includes both local neighbours aligned to Israel and "the West" historically such as Qatar, as well as some of Israel's former besties like France, Denmark, UK and Canada. There's enough people at home even in the USA, even in the government condemning this.
So I'm not sure what selective reading you're doing there bud, but maybe it's time to broaden your understanding of what's going on in the middle east and the rest of the world.
Consider the architect of this adventure (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump's Board of Peace says what? (Score:5, Informative)
Here’s where Trump has ordered U.S. military strikes in his second term [washingtonpost.com] (with timeline charts):
Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran (now twice), Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela as well as in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
In the first 12 months of his second term, President Donald Trump ordered strikes on seven countries, in addition to his campaign against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Didn't he literally campaign on America First and No New Wars? /s
So stumped as to why he didn't get the Nobel Peace prize.
Is there an Iranian in the house? (Score:3, Funny)
On Slashdot? Seems rather unlikely. Even less likely than my getting a Funny moderation.
I admit that I'm a bit pressed to see any funny in the story. Depending on how China and Putin read and decide to play the situation, it could get quite bad quite quickly. Also the discussion says rather too little about Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan)... Tinderboxes and matches. Such a fun game. So much peace is exhausting me.
But the main reason I'd like to hear from an Iranian involves the last major war the Iranians were involved in. That was against Saddam as supported by the US. Pretty sure the Iranian perspective isn't going to see the American government as acting in a reliable or even logically consistent way. "We could have saved you all the bother of an expensive war if you just hadn't stuck your noses into the mess when Saddam attacked us..."
However the part that should be worrying the YOB is that the Iran-Iraq War went on for as long as it did. Or maybe the real problem is how many ways the Iranians could upset the apple cart versus how few paths there are to a stable victory...
Re: (Score:3)
But the main reason I'd like to hear from an Iranian involves the last major war the Iranians were involved in.
Of course, every Iranian has different backgrounds [youtube.com], and supports/opposes/is indifferent for their own reasons. Some celebrating [youtube.com], some protesting [youtube.com].
There is some [wikipedia.org] (click through to original sources) polling available [wanaen.com] but it's not as high quality or broad spectrum as one would like, so the margin of error is huge given the various sectors of society.
This video is a decent introduction to the various power players in Iran and how they got there. It's really understandable and appropriate that Iran would want
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
Now, what was all that talk of Hillary or Kamala starting a war? Will cheeto return his fake FIFA medal?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country?
Germany is one example.
Japan is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... the approach that worked required having boots on the ground
Re: Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
It's surely time for "Team America: World Police, The Sequel: Bigger Badder Stupider Oranger"
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If the US had dropped the bombs to force concessions at Yalta, the Potsdam Declaration would not have been issued prior.
The SU did supply the majority of meat to be ground, but the idea that they "did all the heavy lifting to win the war" is fucking laughable.
In fact, had the US not kept the SU afloat, it's not entirely certain there wouldn't be an old dilapidated Wehrmacht command building in Moscow today.
Pound for pound, there has not been a less effective militar
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's fair to criticize most small and medium GDP countries for basically letting the USA in with a military base, troops, etc. If your country has a hostile adversary, you want the US having your back. Expecting every country to have a respectable army is asking a lot. They should have enough security for internal matters of their own citizens and some amount of troops to lend into international coalitions. Beyond that, it's probably just not worth the GDP % to have a larger military.
USA has o
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find Potsdam in no clash with Yalta concessoins. In fact, the declaration exactly left no room for the Japanese to save face for the Emperor, which is why it was not taken. Suppose they had taken it though, the bombs would have found another place to drop. The trigger finger was itching for a pull. You cant' just sit on a brand new toy like that.
Lend-Lease sure was important for the soviet war effort, but so was the soviets own effort. The US put many boots on the feet of soviet soldiers, and a lot
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the declaration exactly left no room for the Japanese to save face for the Emperor, which is why it was not taken.
Nonsense.
After the bombs dropped, no such concession was granted to them either.
The Potsdam Declaration was met with silence, because the Japanese Government at the time was not separate from its military, and the military hard-liners would have removed the Japanese Government if they had accepted it. After the bombing, the Emperor intervened, as he was the only person who could overrule the military.
The US looked on? This is what I'm talking about. That is revisionist drivel.
US forces were 80 miles w
Re: (Score:3)
The world is not a friendly place. It never will be. We will never hold hands, sing kumbaya and usher in world peace and prosperity. Humans don't work that way. It's utterly naive to think it's possible with our species.
If I were President with Congressional approval, I'd shrink our overall footprint around the world and take a much more defense approach. I would stop acting like the world's problems are America's problems. We can still support allies without having to run the world.
Then again, that approac
Re: (Score:2)
t ever since Chavez kicked out the US they had been getting better,
No LOL. This is an extremely ignorant statement. There's a reason that Venezuelans were celebrating the capture of Maduro.
For a while Chavez was great (and Bush should not have gotten rid of him), but over the years his popularity waned and Chavez/Maduro have needed to rely on rigged elections to win. This is widely documented, learn to read.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at the map and behold, most of the Empire is not in fact doing too good: https://www.britannica.com/pla... [britannica.com].
An Empire is a machine of violence with the sole purpose of transferring wealth created by other people back to the motherland. Rarely does anyone do good as a subject nation of the empire, and if that happens, it's only because the Empire was otherwise engaged with more important matters.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if "The Empire" is limited to its anglophone sphere, then yes, it's actually doing... well, quite fucking good.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the map and behold, most of the Empire is not in fact doing too good: https://www.britannica.com/pla... [britannica.com].
The funny part is that you don't realize they are doing worse after leaving the empire.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not too good a record since then, though. And none of the advantages of either apply to Iran.
Regime change requires a multi-generational commitment by either the invader or the invaded. The US certainly isn't capable of that these days, the Iranians are far more likely to commit to bringing back the old regime.
Re: (Score:3)
Germany and Japan faced allied forces, not just the USA on its own. And those world leaders were a tad more respectable than the ones leading the current aggressions in Iran.
In short, I don't have the same hope for a positive outcome as you might.
Re: (Score:3)
Before anyone else points this out, I do consider Stalin to be an exception to those who were "respectable." Having him in the group was a marriage of convenience, followed by a quick divorce leading into the Cold War.
Re: (Score:3)
Islamic countries are not like Germany or Japan or even China. That was made very clear to me one time when I had to wait at the waiting lot at the airport in the middle of the day. A number of Uber drivers put out little carpets pointed at a specific direction, knelt on them, put their heads to the ground and continued to do it for like 15 minutes. If you can get people to do that 5 times a day when no one is watching, no one is going to change them.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is not an Islamic country. Persians were Zorastrians. Mostly they are now something like agnostics. They don't believe in Islam, they don't want to wear the hijab, they are just held captive by a fanatical government that requires them put "Muslim" on their birth certificates.
Re: (Score:2)
ORLY? Then how come a small band of zealots were able to topple the Shah and install themselves as government in 1979? It all started with little protests here and there, like the brainwashed vapid Palestinian-loving privileged white kids here protesting for what they perceive is the latest outrage, the latest slight caused by US and Israel, prodded by their brainwashed teachers.
There was big time buyers remorse after Mullahs took over and people realized reality was nothing like the marketing materials.
All the kiddies helped them do it. They wanted it, they got it, and and now you say they're secular?
A lot of them are. Iran is a real modern country not some oil cursed shit hole.
Re: (Score:3)
I see this all the fucking time from people who don't know any Muslims.
On one hand, you've got the Iranian regime which wants to define being Muslim so that they can say that everyone is their particular brand of Muslim, and on the other hand, you have their opponents, who are often atheist trying to do the same fucking thing in order to say that Iranians aren't Muslim anymore.
You are both wrong.
Iran has a vibrant non-denominational Muslim culture (like many central-asian/
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? The only side in American politics angling to make the country a religious dictatorship is the one that thinks Trump was sent by God.
I swear you right wing fuckers are so out of touch with reality you literally imagine things now and attribute them to imaginary enemies because it's so much easier than realizing the liberal and left wing sides of the political spectrum might be almost always correct about everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran was a muslim country in 1979, when the last Shah was toppled. But over 47 years, the people have been so disgusted w/ islam that most of them have apostatized. An Iranian survey group called GAMAAN did one 6 years ago, and found that contrary to what various encyclopedias said about 98% of Iranians being muslim, only 40% are. The bulk of the other 60% are a combination of Atheists, Agnostics and non-denominational Deists, followed by Zoroastrians and Christians. Note that this survey was 6 years ag
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be noted that the GAMAAN "survery", if it can even be called that, doesn't demonstrate that only 40% are Muslim. Rather, it shows that only 40% are one of the 2 main denominations of Islam.
To emulate the poll in a Christian country, imagine it asked the following:
Which of these best describes you?
1. Catholic.
2. Methodist
Re: (Score:2)
And yet other polls not conducted by groups who's mission statement is the collapse of the regime show that an overwhelming majority of the country identifies as Muslim.
Not their mission statement. Why are you making shit up? What is your malfunction?
It should also be noted that the GAMAAN "survery", if it can even be called that, doesn't demonstrate that only 40% are Muslim. Rather, it shows that only 40% are one of the 2 main denominations of Islam.
This is nonsense. All categories are spoken for. If you assume everyone in "Other" is Muslim you end up at 40.5%. Adding Sufi to the pot you end up with 43.7% Either way you are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Not their mission statement. Why are you making shit up? What is your malfunction?
Read between the lines, dude.
This is nonsense. All categories are spoken for. If you assume everyone in "Other" is Muslim you end up at 40.5%. Adding Sufi to the pot you end up with 43.7% Either way you are wrong.
What kind of fucking weird Fox News concept of Muslim are you operating with, dude? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
GAMAAN demonstrates that 60% of their Social Media cohort identifies as either: Shia, Sunni, or None.
That maximal cohort is 70% of the total Iranian population.
The maximal error (unrealistic scenario) is that all 30% of the missing cohort are Muslim, giving you 42% + 30%, or 72% Muslim.
That is assuming that the actual reach of the survey was 70% of the population, which of course realistically- it wasn't. It was a tiny fraction of that.
So the maximal error is almost certain
Re: (Score:2)
This is fascinatingly stupid.
Iran is 99% muslim, and has been for pushing 1000 years.
Discussions of what religion they followed 2500 years ago is less than meaningless.
What is fascinatingly stupid is accepting regime statistics at face value.
This is closer to reality:
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/... [gamaan.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is a culturally Muslim country, and has been for a millennia.
That doesn't mean every single one of them is a hard-line practicing Shiite or Sunni, but the overwhelming majority of them are thinking of Allah when you ask them if they believe in God.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as stupid as accepting a poll so far from a random sampling that one wonders if it was just made to further the rhetorical goals of GAMAAN.
I certainly don't think so. I don't place any value at all in regime statistics. Can you point to a substantive objection or refutation of this study? Do you have a better source of Iranian public opinions about religion?
Iran is a culturally Muslim country, and has been for a millennia.
That doesn't mean every single one of them is a hard-line practicing Shiite or Sunni, but the overwhelming majority of them are thinking of Allah when you ask them if they believe in God.
Put up or shut up motherfucker. Cite a better source or fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't think so. I don't place any value at all in regime statistics. Can you point to a substantive objection or refutation of this study? Do you have a better source of Iranian public opinions about religion?
That isn't a study, you ignorant shit-for-brains. It's a poll.
The poll's shortcomings are mentioned right in the link you sent.
It was a social-media driven survey. 70% of the country is estimated to be active, in some way, in social media.
Now of the 30% missing, how do you think they lean?
Put up or shut up motherfucker. Cite a better source or fuck off.
I love stupid people. [worldvaluessurvey.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't a study, you ignorant shit-for-brains. It's a poll.
They call it a study.
"This study was financially supported by and carried out in cooperation with Dr. Ladan Boroumand, cofounder of and senior fellow at the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran"
No worries, I'll just call you a loser.
The poll's shortcomings are mentioned right in the link you sent. It was a social-media driven survey. 70% of the country is estimated to be active, in some way, in social media.
You said 99% Muslim and now you are quibbling over the minority of group not captured. Literate above 19 years old is 85% and not everyone on social media. Even if you assume 100% of the group not captured are Muslim it would not come close to explaining the d
Re: (Score:3)
They call it a study.
I have no doubt they do.
It is a survey/poll. It is not a study.
No worries, I'll just call you a loser.
I find that amusing since you don't understand the distinction.
I have already called out the authors for rhetorical goals, and you're going to use them as evidence for a linguistic dispute? lol.
You said 99% Muslim and now you are quibbling over the minority of group not captured.
The 99% was hyperbole, man, for-fucks-sake.
Literate above 19 years old is 85% and not everyone on social media. Even if you assume 100% of the group not captured are Muslim it would not come close to explaining the discrepancy between your assertions and the conclusions of the study.
The survey was conducted only via Social Media. Get it, now?
You're otherwise correct, that's merely the first problem.
They then make no reasonable attempt to even try to identify the bias (which is another re
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Japan is another."
Indeed.
And it needed only 2 nukes to change their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
So... after one war where the US was a participant rather than a unilateralist or semi-unilateralist, we saw two countries improved.
Wars really are not a great way to spread democracy, even if that were the aim which is highly improbable given Trump's position on democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
When you say "Argentina", what do you mean precisely? It's had a lot of militaristic dictatorships followed by at least nominal democracy, but I assume you're referring to the most recent one. However, the Falklands war was more a symptom of the collapse than the cause, and didn't lead to an invasion of territory controlled by Argentina before the outbreak of war. I can't understand why you consider it a "clear example". I'd put it in a third category: militaristic dictatorships which collapse involuntarily
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd have to say "yes and no" to that. Yes, it's true that they couldn't have voted the old regime back into power but no, we didn't give them a pre-picked list
Re: (Score:2)
It's not something we even like to think about much less talk about as a country because the idea that we killed that many people and that many US soldiers died so that an oil company could have a pipeline is just to monumental a horror for most people to wrap th
Re: (Score:2)
There was no regime change in Japan.
Surprisingly, this is accurate. At the end of the second world war, after the unconditional surrender of Japan to U.S. forces, when the U.S. occupied Japan, they allowed the emperor to remain.
This turned out to be a brilliant decision.
Re: (Score:2)
It does raise an interesting question. What does "regime change" mean in such a system?
Technically, the Suzuki Government did resign after the surrender, and the Government was handed to the Emperor's brother by allied forces, as well as the military leadership removed.
I think by all definitions, it was a regime change.
Never give up, never surrender [Re:Finally] (Score:3)
So let me get this straight. The Japanese were already looking for a way to surrender while keeping their emperor.
Not really, no. There's been a later retcon saying that the Japanese were looking to surrender, but that was not at all clear at the time; in fact, when the emperor recorded his radio address announcing the surrender, there was literally a coup de état attempted by the military to prevent the surrender. The coup failed, but it is not at all clear that they were "looking for a way to surrender."
The US didn't want to let them do that, so they forced an unconditional surrender by committing history's most evil act of terrorism by nuking 2 civilian cities.
Terrorism and war are two different things. The bombings were an act of war, not an act of terrorism. If you
Re: (Score:3)
The short is that some people in the top leadership were looking to surrender, some people were looking to fight to the end, and their (intentionally designed) slow bureaucratic process made them unable to come to any agreements quickly.
The smart thing would have been to look for a settlement after Guadalcanal, when they probably could have kept some of their gains. And absolutely after Leyte Gulf it was objectively obvious that they had no c
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1980s in Lebanon, Hezbollah, funded and trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, carried out bombings that killed American personnel: the April 1983 suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (17 U.S. deaths) and the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing (241 U.S. Marines and sailors killed). These attacks are widely attributed to Iran-backed Hezbollah and associated groups.
In the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, a group linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel. An FBI investigation found Iranian involvement in planning/support.
During the Iraq War (2003–2011), U.S. officials have stated that Iranian-backed militias (armed, trained, and supplied via Iran’s IRGC) were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops (Pentagon estimates put it at over 600).
More recently, Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria have carried out rocket and drone attacks on U.S. forces. In early 2024, a drone strike in Jordan killed three U.S. soldiers, and U.S. assessments have linked such attacks to Iran-backed groups.
Other examples include Iranian support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which have killed U.S. citizens in terrorist attacks abroad (e.g., bus bombings in Jerusalem in the 1990s), though these involve complex networks of support rather than direct Iranian command.
This is not exhaustive but shows that over decades, Iran has sponsored or enabled groups that have killed American service members and civilians through proxy networks.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Why do they hate us?!?! Waaaaahhhh!!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
Now, what was all that talk of Hillary or Kamala starting a war? Will cheeto return his fake FIFA medal?
When has US sponsored regime change ever before come at the direct request of the people living there? (Maybe Vichy France.)
Persians hate the Islamic regime. They have been in the streets by the millions protesting against Khomenei (who is hopefully now deceased). In response he ordered his personal forces and secret police to open fire on them, killings tens of thousands of innocent people over just two days, another ten thousand put in prison and placed under sentence of death. They went to the hospital
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.
No, they are a pressure tactic to bend Iran's resolve in nuclear negotiations -- which would not have been necessary if Trump hadn't torn up the JCPOA signed on July 14, 2015 between Iran and China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the USA. But that agreement happened during Obama's administration, so in Trump's mind, it had to go.
And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.
No, and if I did, you would have happily quoted where I said that. Instead you are just being tactically obtuse so you can reframe the argument around an evaluation of US intentions instead of what I actually commented which was regime atrocities.
I am for the people of Iran no longer having to deal with a government they don't want and which blithely murders them en masse. Somehow in your reply you managed **not a single word*** for the Iranian people or the tens of thousands killed. Just desperate it make
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.
No, and if I did, you would have happily quoted where I said that. Instead you are just being tactically obtuse so you can reframe the argument around an evaluation of US intentions instead of what I actually commented which was regime atrocities.
Note that I qualified my statement with "seem to think." That means your post left that impression in me. And I have good reason to have that impression. You asked rhetorically when was the last time people asked the USA to be liberated, thus implying that this was the objective of the current offensive in Iran.
I am for the people of Iran no longer having to deal with a government they don't want and which blithely murders them en masse. Somehow in your reply you managed **not a single word*** for the Iranian people or the tens of thousands killed. Just desperate it make about your petty US internal politics.
I have a ton of sympathy for what the people of Iran have had to endure over the past several decades within a fundamentalist religious state. I'm just not convinced that the current US administratio
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are a pressure tactic to bend Iran's resolve in nuclear negotiations
This is correct.
What I don't understand, though, is why so many people have apparently forgotten that, only last June, Trump claimed to have "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
lol you do know that it's mostly Democrats getting torpedoed by their appearance there, right?
No, I didn't know that. And if it's true, I don't care. If it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
When has US sponsored regime change ever before come at the direct request of the people living there? (Maybe Vichy France.)
This idiotic metric can be used to justify regime change literally anywhere. Even the fucking United States.
Persians hate the Islamic regime.
Some of them, yes.
A majority of them? No, there isn't evidence of that.
Re: (Score:2)
This idiotic metric can be used to justify regime change literally anywhere. Even the fucking United States
It's not a "metric" and "idiotic" is trying to shove across the implication that the attitude of the local population into irrelevance. That is intuitively unintelligible. A rational person could contextualize the popular sentiment as less important than some other factor if they had good evidence, but to dismiss it out-of-hand is just flailing. Provide evidence. Provide examples. Show me where the United States has people cheering for outside attack and for British monarchs to reassert themselves, since ap
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a "metric"
Of course it is.
metric (n): a system or standard of measurement.
You have made a system of measurement of "the direct request of the people living there".
and "idiotic" is trying to shove across the implication that the attitude of the local population into irrelevance.
Irrelevance? Hardly. I'm saying you're taking an obvious truth: That some of the population is against the regime, and trying to promote it to "The People Are Against The Regime".
There is no evidence that is the case.
Should we point at protests against Trump as evidence that "The People" are against Trump, even though he won an election?
Tbh, it's not unexpected for people without ties to the area to be ignorant of what it's really like in Iran. You don't get a great picture from Western media, which mostly focuses on the government. But I don't understand knowing nothing about it and then feeling justified to make sweeping claims.
It's also not u
Re: (Score:2)
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
Popular accounts of US overthrows in Iran are misleading at best and some don't even make logical sense. The US very much tried to meddle in the affairs of Iran for corporate advantage of hydrocarbon industry. Yet persistent narrative the US having installed the king of Iran or orchestrated a coup are simply not true.
The king at the time had the power according to their system to shit can the prime minister (Mossadegh BTW deserved to be shit canned) and ultimately ended up doing exactly that. Maybe Kermi
Re: (Score:2)
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country? Iran is in their current state because of US meddling decades ago.
Now, what was all that talk of Hillary or Kamala starting a war? Will cheeto return his fake FIFA medal?
Well, Iranians all over Iran are coming out in the streets in celebration of Khamenei's death. Iranian counter-attacks have tried to hit Gulf countries - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Emirates and even Qatar. US & Israeli bombs have only taken out IRGC targets, and Iranian civilians, anticipating this, had originally stayed indoors, until the news of Khamenei's death got around
Unlike in the case of Iraq, we need not be involved. Reza Pahlavi has put together a transition team and plan which includ
Re: Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is germany an example, the entire continent of Europe has just come out of an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity which has been started by the US and her allies after WW2;
This is entirely due to the Marshall Plan [marshallfoundation.org]; where the U.S. decided to help the conquered nations, rather than leave and let them go to hell.
This is in contrast to the end of the first world war, where the result was... the second world war.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
50 years ago Iran was still ruled by the US-installed shah, who got put there after Iran had decided to nationalize their oil, that is, Iranian oil should probably belong to Iran and not the British as the former colonists would want.
It was the ousting of the widely unpopular puppet shah by the Islamic Revolution that put Iran to the US enemies list, where it remains to this day. Much like how Cuba got to be on the list when they ousted their own US regime.
See a pattern there?
There's another pattern to look out for. US success in waging wars in the Middle East. Nothing good is going to come out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing good is going to come out of this.
this is undoubtedly very bad, but we shall see ...
Re: (Score:2)
50 years ago Iran was still ruled by the US-installed shah, who got put there after Iran had decided to nationalize their oil, that is, Iranian oil should probably belong to Iran and not the British as the former colonists would want.
This has no basis in reality. The US didn't install the Shah, he merely succeeded his father after he abdicated (Thank the British) during WWII.
It was the ousting of the widely unpopular puppet shah by the Islamic Revolution that put Iran to the US enemies list, where it remains to this day. Much like how Cuba got to be on the list when they ousted their own US regime.
See a pattern there?
The pattern I see is people being spoon fed bullshit and having no clue what actually took place.
People are way better off deriving their lessons from the study of human psychology than history. It is just too easy to reinterpret events or fail to understand the context of the time to push whatever narratives reinforce preconceived political agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I suppose you can argue this on the technicality of my wording, but Operation Ajax was very much a real thing.
I completely agree, it was an attempt to change the government to favor US economic interests. The framing is still complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a successful attempt. Before the coup the role of the monarch in Iran was similar to Great Britain, although the shah had started to change that. But in the coup the government was overthrown, democracy died, and Pahlavi took the reigns and started to persecute the people with a secret police, relying heavily on the US to stay in power. While in his return to the country after the coup he was mostly cheered, by the time of the revolution the country was overwhelmingly happy to get rid of him.
Importan
Re: (Score:2)
It was a successful attempt. Before the coup the role of the monarch in Iran was similar to Great Britain
The hell it was, there was no coup and the monarch had the power to remove Mosaddeq the entire time.
But in the coup the government was overthrown, democracy died
The government was not overthrown, Mosaddeq tried to become a dictator and instead he was ousted.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are quite the misinformation peddler, aren't you?
Sure, the coup was supported by the CIA and MI6, but Mosaddegh's government was ready to collapse after 18 months of dictatorial rule, and rapidly collapsing livelihoods of Iranians.
This is just more revisionist horse-shit from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This should have been taken care of 50 years ago.
50 years ago we didn't have a government that needed a distraction from an ever-growing scandal.
Re: (Score:2)
USA already put in a pro-Western puppet. It eventually failed, and lead to the Ayatollah.
Some of the common wisdom surrounding Iran is comically wrong. This so called pro-western puppet won his power/position by succession. His father abdicated during WWII I believe at the behest of the British.
Re:Classic blunder? (Score:4, Informative)
Iran International has confirmed Khamenei's death [iranintl.com]
Reza Pahlavi has issued a tweet declaring the end of the islamic regime. Iran will gain a new transitional authority in the next few days
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone can claim to end a regime by killing a leader. The "Classic Blunder" is trying to stabilize the country over the next few decades, especially without putting yourself into trillions of new debt.
Re: Trump is wagging the dog (Score:2)
So what he and netanyahu are doing is airstrikes that "accidentally" Target civilians in the hopes that he can provoke an attack from Iran or their proxies on American soldiers or boats. If you can get that then he thinks he can get the American people to support another forever War.
How divorced can you be from any concept of what is actually going on there? Iran could not care less if any of their citizens died they are by an unfathomable margin the ones killing the. And there very first response on the attack was to launch missiles at all neighboring countries hitting hotels in Dubai, office buildings in the UAE, streets in Bahrain, and of course killing civilians in Israel. Your picture of who the Iranian government is and their motivations doesn't match up with *anything.*
Re: (Score:2)
So what he and netanyahu are doing is airstrikes that "accidentally" Target civilians in the hopes that he can provoke an attack from Iran or their proxies on American soldiers or boats
Maybe or maybe not, but Iran managed to provoke most of the gulf state kingdoms by hitting them with drones and missiles.
Incidentally, if Iran becomes democratic, the gulf state Kingdoms will suddenly become the worst dictatorships in the region. Not a great change for them.