29 ms·

As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here. The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters

by Siira 6y ago

As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here. The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit (e.g., they lured Amadnews's reporter, Zam, to Iraq and then kidnapped and executed him.).

nostrademons 6y ago
It's almost like the people of the world should unite in throwing out their leaders. Get rid of all the folks at the top that persist in bad behavior so the rest of us can code in peace. ...except it didn't really work all that well for the French in 1789, or the Chinese in 1911, or the Russians in 1917. Executing their corrupt leaders just led to more dictatorial ones taking their place. Maybe it's more power corrupts than corrupt people seeking power.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  It didn’t work well with the Iranians in 1977–1979 either. Originally the overthrow of the Shah was supported by a wide variety of factions in society, including secular ones, and it may well have led to a secular country. But once there was a power vacuum, Khomeini returned from exile in France and managed to install the present Islamic republic. It sort of, kind of worked with Romania in 1989, though. But in spite of massive popular discontent with the dictator, the actual overthrow of Ceausescu was largely the regime’s elites seeking to get rid of the boss so that they could rule the roost themselves. That Romania eventually became a democratic European nation feels like a happy accident.
  - marczellm 6y ago
    Are you Romanian? If you think Romania is or should be a democratic European nation, can you offer your perspective on what could stop the ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority? Some of which is described in the last paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization#Recent_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization#Recent_events
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      That Romania still struggles with a number of flaws – some a holdover from the socialist era, some new after ’89 – is why I wrote "sort of, kind of". Still, even with the grievances of the Hungarian minority, it nevertheless became a multiparty system after violently overthrowing the old dictator instead of another single-party dictatorship. Unfortunately, in several European countries today ethnic minorities fail to get the recognition and treatment they seek, so Romania’s actions towards the Hungarian minority don’t hinder it from being called today a "modern European state" or whatever.
    - noemotion 6y ago
      I am Romanian. I don't think there is an "ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority". There were isolated conflicts, mainly artificially perpetuated by radicals for (pretty small) political gains. Also, the Hungarian minority political party (UDMR) is currently a part of the government coalition (not the first time it happens).
- wincy 6y ago
  After you eat the rich you don’t eat.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  The proper way to evaluate how successful throwing out leaders is as a way towards peace is not to list cases you can think of where it failed, but to list every place leaders were thrown out with a goal of peace, and seeing how well that fared. Then to be really honest, see how well that fared against other options. Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion.
  - newen 6y ago
    Yep, cherry picking is the fallacy here for those interested.
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    I was curious about how this'd look without the cherry-picking, so I took a look at Wikipedia's list of revolutions from the 1900s on and sampled a few dozen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#1900s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell... Results from the period of 1900-1910 (19 revolutions; I don't have time to do more) is that 12 were outright failures: the revolution was crushed, the leaders executed, oftentimes with significant loss of life for the revolutionaries and nearby civilians. 5 were temporary successes: they led to some reforms or a new government, but the government collapsed within 15 years anyway, leading to either anarchy, dictatorship, or conquest by a foreign power. 2 were an "eventual success" (Young Turk revolution, and revolution in the Kingdom of Poland), where the revolution had modest success but later events achieved "peaceful" (if you can count WW1 & WW2 as peaceful) independence. 1 was a success, the Theriso Revolt that broke Crete away from the Ottoman empire and led to its eventual union with Greece. I'd come to a bleaker conclusion: most revolutions fail, and lead to the deaths of their leaders and most of the people who support them. Then of the subset that "succeed" (in the sense of not being crushed), a majority lead to government or lack thereof that is just as bad or worse than what came before.
  - war1025 6y ago
    > Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion. For that to have much weight, you'd need to list somewhere that a government overthrow actually went well. History suggests that it rarely ever does.
- Medox 6y ago
  It kind of worked for us Romanians after executing our dictator and his dimwit wife in '89, by scaring them into fleeing, then a fast capture, followed very quick - slightly unfair - trial and then firing squad, on Christmas Day of all days (and all these recorded). Of course, afterwards, the new elected president was a former communist party member who tricked everyone that he had changed, and of course his anti-west (and east) propaganda helped secure him his win (because "we should not listen to anybody anymore, so vote for me"), and of course, because of his win, the pseudo-communists still ruled/destroyed the country for the majority of the next 32 years but, anyway, I still say it was a win and I am very proud of our revolution. Sure, there are those who say that most people died in vein for the revolution but such transitions take a lot of time and it would have taken even more if we waited another 5-10-15 years. It did not help that we were right between east and west either. Now we celebrate 14 years of being in the E.U., which helped a lot, although we mismanaged tens of billions (sorry E.U.), while we are still many years away from managing so much money correctly and without illegal shenanigans... Also around 17 years in the NATO, which helped a lot I'd say (see our neighbor Ukraine for the contrary; Moldova is also behind us by some 15 years, at least). But, technologically, the new freedom brought us some very interesting 90's and 2000's, catapulting our internet speeds to number one (sometimes two) in Europe [1] due to our giant nation-wide interconnected LAN-party networks, fueled mainly by piracy (or lets call it "hunger for information and everything that we missed before"). But there is a long reddit post which explains those years much better: [2]. Today everybody and their parents have at least 100 Mbps. Our main ISP doesn't include a 100 Mbps plan anymore anyway. Only 300 Mbps up. Even my parents in a small poor city have fiber since 5 years. Welcome to Romania. These generated a lot of English speaking young people, me included. Lots of us becoming very good at electronics or IT. Sadly, many self-educated IT engineers left for other countries. We even had a running joke (urban legend mainly) that the second language at Microsoft was Romanian, which of course is said by other countries too (e.g. India) but somehow everybody knows somebody at Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. While many of us are still (thinking about) leaving, placing us 2nd after Syria when it comes to mass emigration, still... executing those two bastards was for the best. [1] https://i.redd.it/79y3efbig4551.png https://i.redd.it/79y3efbig4551.png [2] https://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2ct58s/average_internet_speed_in_eu_by_country/cjiyt5n/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2ct58s/average_inter...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
fennecfoxen 6y ago
Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials (France, Germany, Italy and Austria have withdrawn from the Europe-Iran Business Forum over one of these cases). Iran funds Houthi rebels in Yemen to harass the Saudis and attack oil tankers in the Gulf with limpet mines; there was that rocket attack on the US embassy in Iraq... They're also making a big show about issuing INTERPOL warrants agains Donald Trump (futile, of course, but hardly a peace-seeking gesture.)
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials Just like the KSA does, who are apparently fine with the U.S. It's almost as if it's not really about that.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  If you bring up Yemen and Saudi Arabia to make Iran look bad without mentioning the atrocities occurring in Yemen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the USA, I cannot take the rest of your comment seriously.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace." I remind you to "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
    - CameronNemo 6y ago
      When you omit relevant facts, your arguments are weaker.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace." In relation to the sanctions that were imposed as part of the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal despite Iran complying. But of course you left that part out.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit The United States does all these things too, it just has nobody big enough to sanction it. For the record, I am not a fan of the Islamist Republic, but banning access to GitHub does not punish the government, it puishes civilians. It also doesn't change the fact that it's the U.S. who pulled out of the Iran Deal or that medicine is impacted by the sanctions too. I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  > I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt don't have nuclear weapons programs, which is one of the behaviors described.
- valtism 6y ago
  There is a difference between what the US does vs. what someone like Qasem Soleimani did.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    You're right. The US has a history of supporting death squads all over the world for over 70 years, longer then the Islamic Republic even exists. The fact that ISIS celebrated his death does indicate that perhaps we acted as their air force.
mullingitover 6y ago
None of these things preclude a great relationship with the US, however. One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. None of these bad behaviors would stop you from being tight allies with the US as long as your oppressive theocratic dictatorship was in the US sphere of influence. Heck, Iran is objectively far more democratic than KSA, not that it gets them any credit. > e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. They're following the sanctions that the US unilaterally imposed after breaking its deal with Iran over nuclear enrichment, which Iran had been following.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Nor does it have a nuclear program or keeps hostages or refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties. >The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. > Nor does it have a nuclear program That's false[1]. There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi... > refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here. > That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour. It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.
aborsy 6y ago
Korea blocked Iranian assets, fearing US sanctions. Iran was pissed off being robbed, and now confiscated a ship, basically asking Korea to pay its debt (at least through products). It’s a tricky situation with both parties.
inamiyar 6y ago
It is also almost the anniversary of Iran shooting down and killing 176 Iranians/Iranian-Canadians, including people I know.[1] Iran is in its own right a regional imperialist, though it is nice to get some code interchange going. Me and my family no longer can go back to the country without risking imprisonment because of speaking out against the regime. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...
- dhbanes 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  It's worth noting that this was after the U.S. killed their top general illegally and they expected a strike on Iran after hitting some Iraqi bases in response to the U.S. assassination.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - inamiyar 6y ago
    1) Killing your own civilians is an interesting retaliation move against a foreign power. 2) In my family, the death of Qasem Soleimani was, and I don't mean to be insensitive, the death of a imperialist tyrant supporter. Iran does not deserve the sympathy you give them.
    - EB-Barrington 6y ago
      "General Soleimani remains the most popular Iranian public figure among those tested, with eight in ten viewing him favorably." University of Maryland conclusion to survey results of thousands of Iranians. source: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cissm.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2019-10/Iranian%2520PO%2520under%2520Maximum%2520Pressure_101819_full.pdf https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cissm.u...
u801e 6y ago
I really don't see much difference in Iran having nuclear power or weaponary compared to Pakistan. Yet we don't see this type of attitude from the US and other countries in the immediate area (other than India) towards Pakistan. The domestic affairs handling applies equally to both countries, so why should Iran get singled out here?
- adventured 6y ago
  They're not singled out. North Korea is also being treated similarly in regards to their pursuit and build-up of nuclear weapons. North Korea has been suffering under brutal sanctions and embargo on and off for decades now. Pakistan already has nukes and they're dangerously unstable. Pakistan is by a large margin the most unstable nuclear power. North Korea by comparison is a stable insular kingdom ruled by a dynasty family that has held power through thick and thin for 70 years. Pakistan is a powder keg always waiting to explode. Applying North Korean style sanctions on Pakistan is a lot more likely to result in an exceptionally bad outcome. And Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, so if they crack into revolution right now that would not risk potential nuclear war or proliferation of nuclear weapons. Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat. They say it whenever they get the chance. North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule, they repeat that at every opportunity (and when a country says for decades that they want to conquer you and they have nukes, you have to take them at their word).
  - u801e 6y ago
    > Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat. Based on my understanding, that's based on a misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in Farsi. Even so, the attitude of the population and government in Pakistan towards Israel isn't that much different. Even if you consider the dynamics between Pakistan and India, the last war was 50 years ago and other than some skirmishes, nothing major happened. If we were to substitute Iran for Pakistan and Israel for India, would the situation be really that different? > North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule To a certain extent, this is what happened in Vietnam and the country appears to be doing okay these days.
typon 6y ago
By the way, being Iranian doesn't give you special understanding of foreign relations and the US role in the middle east. I'm sure it helps, but using it as an appeal to authority of some sort is misguided.
- refurb 6y ago
  No, but it likely gives way more insight into Iranian society and their gov’t than a random engineer from San Francisco.
swarnie_ 6y ago
> They also pursue nuclear weapons. I have zero problems with this. Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone. I believe the moral principle you're looking for is "ad baculum".
ircoder 6y ago
As an another Iranian I think you talk like a person who does not live and breathe the cruel sanctions where you can not even buy medicine. Get your facts straight. Show some solidarity. If those behaviors were the basis of sanctioning the nation, then every single nation should have been sanctioned. First and foremost the US.
8leafclover 6y ago
As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here--that or you're purposefully muddying up events to create a narrative. Lets go down the list. The confiscation of the Korean ship was a result of the Koreans freezing Iranian funds. They lead many proxy militias...uhhh who doesn't?? They pursue nuclear weapons...evidence? All evidence suggests the program was stopped in 2003. Their handling of domestic affairs is quite bad though its impossible to look at this in a vacuum without considering the role of sanctions.
coldtea 6y ago
>does a lot of small-scale aggression Most states do, and many do much much worse, and still have great relations with their western allies (if not being directly funded to do so). Heck, they were hunky dory with Germany, merely a few years after they started a World War that killed 30+ million people, burned 6 million jews, etc., because "Cold War". >e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters After Korea seized some billions of their assets in its banks. >They also pursue nuclear weapons That's because any state without them is toast when the big dogs decide. Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king. Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that was their ex ally, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone). Plus they have another country nearby with ample foreign support that's used as a proxy for foreign power in the area, and which has nuclear weapons itself.
- Siira 6y ago
  > Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king. If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh. (Check out what streets are in his name. The IR reveals who they favor quite accurately in their naming scheme.). The people mostly don't care that much about Mosadegh, as the school history books are written by the IR, and Mosadegh is not painted all that well. Most Iranians also hate communists now (communism has long since been out of the overton window). > Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that were their ex-allies, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone). A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and especially the Guards. A war that the IR itself protracted for years, perhaps because they were gathering power and clueless, fungible young people were dying, which was quite cheap. Their domestic strategy ever since has been to give merits to a minority that follows their orders, and crush their opposition thoroughly by any means necessary.
hutzlibu 6y ago
"They also pursue nuclear weapons." That always feels strange to me, why this is considered evil. If there is a strong military might with nuclear weapons on your doorstep threatening you, then also going after nuclear weapons is just logic and self-preserving. (I mean, not that I want more idiots on this world having nuclear weapons) Evil is indeed all the other shit they are doing, but I am not sure if collective punishment helps with that. And collectivily banning any person from iran collaborating with the rest of the software world via Github is a very strong collective punishment, which I doubt would make me see the west in a nicer view, if I would be such a developer in Iran. (and never mind all those other bans, like money transfer). Maybe I would even feel a push to close ranks with the hardcore idiots who are in control.
- hulahoof 6y ago
  I can understand not wanting more actors that can initiate MAD. I sure would feel safer if my country had nuclear weapons, but the risk of every sovereign being armed is too high.

by Siira 6y ago

nostrademons 6y ago

It's almost like the people of the world should unite in throwing out their leaders. Get rid of all the folks at the top that persist in bad behavior so the rest of us can code in peace. ...except it didn't really work all that well for the French in 1789, or the Chinese in 1911, or the Russians in 1917. Executing their corrupt leaders just led to more dictatorial ones taking their place. Maybe it's more power corrupts than corrupt people seeking power.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
It didn’t work well with the Iranians in 1977–1979 either. Originally the overthrow of the Shah was supported by a wide variety of factions in society, including secular ones, and it may well have led to a secular country. But once there was a power vacuum, Khomeini returned from exile in France and managed to install the present Islamic republic. It sort of, kind of worked with Romania in 1989, though. But in spite of massive popular discontent with the dictator, the actual overthrow of Ceausescu was largely the regime’s elites seeking to get rid of the boss so that they could rule the roost themselves. That Romania eventually became a democratic European nation feels like a happy accident.
- marczellm 6y ago
  Are you Romanian? If you think Romania is or should be a democratic European nation, can you offer your perspective on what could stop the ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority? Some of which is described in the last paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization#Recent_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization#Recent_events
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    That Romania still struggles with a number of flaws – some a holdover from the socialist era, some new after ’89 – is why I wrote "sort of, kind of". Still, even with the grievances of the Hungarian minority, it nevertheless became a multiparty system after violently overthrowing the old dictator instead of another single-party dictatorship. Unfortunately, in several European countries today ethnic minorities fail to get the recognition and treatment they seek, so Romania’s actions towards the Hungarian minority don’t hinder it from being called today a "modern European state" or whatever.
  - noemotion 6y ago
    I am Romanian. I don't think there is an "ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority". There were isolated conflicts, mainly artificially perpetuated by radicals for (pretty small) political gains. Also, the Hungarian minority political party (UDMR) is currently a part of the government coalition (not the first time it happens).
wincy 6y ago
After you eat the rich you don’t eat.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
The proper way to evaluate how successful throwing out leaders is as a way towards peace is not to list cases you can think of where it failed, but to list every place leaders were thrown out with a goal of peace, and seeing how well that fared. Then to be really honest, see how well that fared against other options. Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion.
- newen 6y ago
  Yep, cherry picking is the fallacy here for those interested.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  I was curious about how this'd look without the cherry-picking, so I took a look at Wikipedia's list of revolutions from the 1900s on and sampled a few dozen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#1900s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell... Results from the period of 1900-1910 (19 revolutions; I don't have time to do more) is that 12 were outright failures: the revolution was crushed, the leaders executed, oftentimes with significant loss of life for the revolutionaries and nearby civilians. 5 were temporary successes: they led to some reforms or a new government, but the government collapsed within 15 years anyway, leading to either anarchy, dictatorship, or conquest by a foreign power. 2 were an "eventual success" (Young Turk revolution, and revolution in the Kingdom of Poland), where the revolution had modest success but later events achieved "peaceful" (if you can count WW1 & WW2 as peaceful) independence. 1 was a success, the Theriso Revolt that broke Crete away from the Ottoman empire and led to its eventual union with Greece. I'd come to a bleaker conclusion: most revolutions fail, and lead to the deaths of their leaders and most of the people who support them. Then of the subset that "succeed" (in the sense of not being crushed), a majority lead to government or lack thereof that is just as bad or worse than what came before.
- war1025 6y ago
  > Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion. For that to have much weight, you'd need to list somewhere that a government overthrow actually went well. History suggests that it rarely ever does.
Medox 6y ago
It kind of worked for us Romanians after executing our dictator and his dimwit wife in '89, by scaring them into fleeing, then a fast capture, followed very quick - slightly unfair - trial and then firing squad, on Christmas Day of all days (and all these recorded). Of course, afterwards, the new elected president was a former communist party member who tricked everyone that he had changed, and of course his anti-west (and east) propaganda helped secure him his win (because "we should not listen to anybody anymore, so vote for me"), and of course, because of his win, the pseudo-communists still ruled/destroyed the country for the majority of the next 32 years but, anyway, I still say it was a win and I am very proud of our revolution. Sure, there are those who say that most people died in vein for the revolution but such transitions take a lot of time and it would have taken even more if we waited another 5-10-15 years. It did not help that we were right between east and west either. Now we celebrate 14 years of being in the E.U., which helped a lot, although we mismanaged tens of billions (sorry E.U.), while we are still many years away from managing so much money correctly and without illegal shenanigans... Also around 17 years in the NATO, which helped a lot I'd say (see our neighbor Ukraine for the contrary; Moldova is also behind us by some 15 years, at least). But, technologically, the new freedom brought us some very interesting 90's and 2000's, catapulting our internet speeds to number one (sometimes two) in Europe [1] due to our giant nation-wide interconnected LAN-party networks, fueled mainly by piracy (or lets call it "hunger for information and everything that we missed before"). But there is a long reddit post which explains those years much better: [2]. Today everybody and their parents have at least 100 Mbps. Our main ISP doesn't include a 100 Mbps plan anymore anyway. Only 300 Mbps up. Even my parents in a small poor city have fiber since 5 years. Welcome to Romania. These generated a lot of English speaking young people, me included. Lots of us becoming very good at electronics or IT. Sadly, many self-educated IT engineers left for other countries. We even had a running joke (urban legend mainly) that the second language at Microsoft was Romanian, which of course is said by other countries too (e.g. India) but somehow everybody knows somebody at Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. While many of us are still (thinking about) leaving, placing us 2nd after Syria when it comes to mass emigration, still... executing those two bastards was for the best. [1] https://i.redd.it/79y3efbig4551.png https://i.redd.it/79y3efbig4551.png [2] https://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2ct58s/average_internet_speed_in_eu_by_country/cjiyt5n/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2ct58s/average_inter...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fennecfoxen 6y ago

Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials (France, Germany, Italy and Austria have withdrawn from the Europe-Iran Business Forum over one of these cases). Iran funds Houthi rebels in Yemen to harass the Saudis and attack oil tankers in the Gulf with limpet mines; there was that rocket attack on the US embassy in Iraq... They're also making a big show about issuing INTERPOL warrants agains Donald Trump (futile, of course, but hardly a peace-seeking gesture.)

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials Just like the KSA does, who are apparently fine with the U.S. It's almost as if it's not really about that.
CameronNemo 6y ago
If you bring up Yemen and Saudi Arabia to make Iran look bad without mentioning the atrocities occurring in Yemen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the USA, I cannot take the rest of your comment seriously.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace." I remind you to "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    When you omit relevant facts, your arguments are weaker.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace." In relation to the sanctions that were imposed as part of the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal despite Iran complying. But of course you left that part out.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

> The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit The United States does all these things too, it just has nobody big enough to sanction it. For the record, I am not a fan of the Islamist Republic, but banning access to GitHub does not punish the government, it puishes civilians. It also doesn't change the fact that it's the U.S. who pulled out of the Iran Deal or that medicine is impacted by the sanctions too. I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here.

reissbaker 6y ago
> I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt don't have nuclear weapons programs, which is one of the behaviors described.
valtism 6y ago
There is a difference between what the US does vs. what someone like Qasem Soleimani did.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  You're right. The US has a history of supporting death squads all over the world for over 70 years, longer then the Islamic Republic even exists. The fact that ISIS celebrated his death does indicate that perhaps we acted as their air force.

mullingitover 6y ago

None of these things preclude a great relationship with the US, however. One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. None of these bad behaviors would stop you from being tight allies with the US as long as your oppressive theocratic dictatorship was in the US sphere of influence. Heck, Iran is objectively far more democratic than KSA, not that it gets them any credit. > e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. They're following the sanctions that the US unilaterally imposed after breaking its deal with Iran over nuclear enrichment, which Iran had been following.

yyyk 6y ago
>One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Nor does it have a nuclear program or keeps hostages or refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties. >The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. > Nor does it have a nuclear program That's false[1]. There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi... > refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here. > That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour. It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.

aborsy 6y ago

Korea blocked Iranian assets, fearing US sanctions. Iran was pissed off being robbed, and now confiscated a ship, basically asking Korea to pay its debt (at least through products). It’s a tricky situation with both parties.

inamiyar 6y ago

It is also almost the anniversary of Iran shooting down and killing 176 Iranians/Iranian-Canadians, including people I know.[1] Iran is in its own right a regional imperialist, though it is nice to get some code interchange going. Me and my family no longer can go back to the country without risking imprisonment because of speaking out against the regime. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...

dhbanes 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
AsyncAwait 6y ago
It's worth noting that this was after the U.S. killed their top general illegally and they expected a strike on Iran after hitting some Iraqi bases in response to the U.S. assassination.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- inamiyar 6y ago
  1) Killing your own civilians is an interesting retaliation move against a foreign power. 2) In my family, the death of Qasem Soleimani was, and I don't mean to be insensitive, the death of a imperialist tyrant supporter. Iran does not deserve the sympathy you give them.
  - EB-Barrington 6y ago
    "General Soleimani remains the most popular Iranian public figure among those tested, with eight in ten viewing him favorably." University of Maryland conclusion to survey results of thousands of Iranians. source: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cissm.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2019-10/Iranian%2520PO%2520under%2520Maximum%2520Pressure_101819_full.pdf https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cissm.u...

u801e 6y ago

I really don't see much difference in Iran having nuclear power or weaponary compared to Pakistan. Yet we don't see this type of attitude from the US and other countries in the immediate area (other than India) towards Pakistan. The domestic affairs handling applies equally to both countries, so why should Iran get singled out here?

adventured 6y ago
They're not singled out. North Korea is also being treated similarly in regards to their pursuit and build-up of nuclear weapons. North Korea has been suffering under brutal sanctions and embargo on and off for decades now. Pakistan already has nukes and they're dangerously unstable. Pakistan is by a large margin the most unstable nuclear power. North Korea by comparison is a stable insular kingdom ruled by a dynasty family that has held power through thick and thin for 70 years. Pakistan is a powder keg always waiting to explode. Applying North Korean style sanctions on Pakistan is a lot more likely to result in an exceptionally bad outcome. And Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, so if they crack into revolution right now that would not risk potential nuclear war or proliferation of nuclear weapons. Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat. They say it whenever they get the chance. North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule, they repeat that at every opportunity (and when a country says for decades that they want to conquer you and they have nukes, you have to take them at their word).
- u801e 6y ago
  > Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat. Based on my understanding, that's based on a misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in Farsi. Even so, the attitude of the population and government in Pakistan towards Israel isn't that much different. Even if you consider the dynamics between Pakistan and India, the last war was 50 years ago and other than some skirmishes, nothing major happened. If we were to substitute Iran for Pakistan and Israel for India, would the situation be really that different? > North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule To a certain extent, this is what happened in Vietnam and the country appears to be doing okay these days.

typon 6y ago

By the way, being Iranian doesn't give you special understanding of foreign relations and the US role in the middle east. I'm sure it helps, but using it as an appeal to authority of some sort is misguided.

refurb 6y ago
No, but it likely gives way more insight into Iranian society and their gov’t than a random engineer from San Francisco.

swarnie_ 6y ago

> They also pursue nuclear weapons. I have zero problems with this. Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.

a1369209993 6y ago
> Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone. I believe the moral principle you're looking for is "ad baculum".

ircoder 6y ago

As an another Iranian I think you talk like a person who does not live and breathe the cruel sanctions where you can not even buy medicine. Get your facts straight. Show some solidarity. If those behaviors were the basis of sanctioning the nation, then every single nation should have been sanctioned. First and foremost the US.

8leafclover 6y ago

As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here--that or you're purposefully muddying up events to create a narrative. Lets go down the list. The confiscation of the Korean ship was a result of the Koreans freezing Iranian funds. They lead many proxy militias...uhhh who doesn't?? They pursue nuclear weapons...evidence? All evidence suggests the program was stopped in 2003. Their handling of domestic affairs is quite bad though its impossible to look at this in a vacuum without considering the role of sanctions.

coldtea 6y ago

>does a lot of small-scale aggression Most states do, and many do much much worse, and still have great relations with their western allies (if not being directly funded to do so). Heck, they were hunky dory with Germany, merely a few years after they started a World War that killed 30+ million people, burned 6 million jews, etc., because "Cold War". >e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters After Korea seized some billions of their assets in its banks. >They also pursue nuclear weapons That's because any state without them is toast when the big dogs decide. Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king. Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that was their ex ally, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone). Plus they have another country nearby with ample foreign support that's used as a proxy for foreign power in the area, and which has nuclear weapons itself.

Siira 6y ago
> Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king. If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh. (Check out what streets are in his name. The IR reveals who they favor quite accurately in their naming scheme.). The people mostly don't care that much about Mosadegh, as the school history books are written by the IR, and Mosadegh is not painted all that well. Most Iranians also hate communists now (communism has long since been out of the overton window). > Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that were their ex-allies, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone). A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and especially the Guards. A war that the IR itself protracted for years, perhaps because they were gathering power and clueless, fungible young people were dying, which was quite cheap. Their domestic strategy ever since has been to give merits to a minority that follows their orders, and crush their opposition thoroughly by any means necessary.

hutzlibu 6y ago

"They also pursue nuclear weapons." That always feels strange to me, why this is considered evil. If there is a strong military might with nuclear weapons on your doorstep threatening you, then also going after nuclear weapons is just logic and self-preserving. (I mean, not that I want more idiots on this world having nuclear weapons) Evil is indeed all the other shit they are doing, but I am not sure if collective punishment helps with that. And collectivily banning any person from iran collaborating with the rest of the software world via Github is a very strong collective punishment, which I doubt would make me see the west in a nicer view, if I would be such a developer in Iran. (and never mind all those other bans, like money transfer). Maybe I would even feel a push to close ranks with the hardcore idiots who are in control.

hulahoof 6y ago
I can understand not wanting more actors that can initiate MAD. I sure would feel safer if my country had nuclear weapons, but the risk of every sovereign being armed is too high.