Hiya Anonymous! Hiya all fellow Progressives!
I've got a really cool idea. Why don't we all get together - millions of us, like - all wearing green
wristbands and face paint and stuff, and march through the streets of London absolutely
demanding that the Free World TAKE ACTION NOW to liberate Iran.
I know some people on here are a bit anti-war, but what about Hitler?!?!?!?
We Brits may be a bit overstretched in Afghanistan at the moment, but with all this rising
unemployment it would be a great time to recruit extra personnel.
I'd go myself if I didn't have quite such an important career to get on with. Ho hum. But there
must be plenty of bored young working-class people who would leap at the opportunity and it
would keep them out of trouble.
Another advantage is that it could really help the British Economy with all the extra orders for
Tanks, Aircraft, Cluster Bombs, Interrogation Equipment etc etc
What do people think? Shall we start booking the coaches and have a whip-round for a full page
ad in The Guardian? And maybe the Telegraph as well? We're all on the same side now!!
Viva Obama!! Via the [insert color code here] Revolution!!

so you believe you are advancing the cause of social justice by supporting the priviledged minority in Iran with access to the Internet and some of whom have pretensions of advancing their liberalising agenda so as to suit their own interests. its a bit like the way the television was used in Chile to establish a mindset and ideology among the middle class that would later support Pinochet in his war against socialists living in the slums

why don´t you target some of your energy against international declarations made against Iranian banks that make it illegal to do business with them and have been so designed to stir up the urban middle classes so as to bring about the present situation

The so called 'colour revolutions' to date, ironically all 'plants' if you assume Green means Sativa.
2003 Georgia - Rose - pro US faction
2004 Ukraine - Orange - pro-US faction
2005 Kyrgyzstan - Tulip - pro-US faction
2005 Lebanon - Cedar - pro-US faction
2009 Iran - Green - pro-US faction

Anyone good with sequences and series? Want to have a bet on the next country and whether it will be a flower or a colour or both? If so, here are two questions:
1) If Venezuala is next, what would best represent the 'revolution', Orchid or Coffee?
2) If the next 'revolution' is 'violet', then what state has just been destablised?

Obviously,Ms Johnson, you yourself must be a member of a 'priviledged minority', since you yourself have internet access [although the privilege obviously doesn't stretch as far as an education]. Opening internet access to all might just advance the cause of social justice on which you are so keen. And I'd like to see your response if the Government in the UK shut down the Internet ...

As for Danny,Indymedia's paid commentator - there is the smallest, tiniest possibility that people actually prefer these regimes, pro US though they may be. After all, the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania - they all rejected their regimes in favour of 'pro US' governments. But perhaps Danny knows something that millions of other don't - but then, perhaps not.

"Opening internet access to all might just advance the cause of social justice on which you are so keen."

Maybe - but we have a high percentage of the population with open internet access, and social justice is being eroded in this country. So, I wouldn't bank on it.

"there is the smallest, tiniest possibility that people actually prefer these regimes, pro US though they may be."

Yup life in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is an absolute hoot. How can anyone not enjoy having the jackboot of imperialism pressing down on their neck in order to advance USA/UK self interest?

No doubt after the bloodshed Iranians will find themselves free .....

Indymedia - the Daily Mail - whats the fucking difference?

>After all, the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania - they all rejected their regimes in favour of 'pro US' governments.

Yes, in similar circumstances too, after a prolonged period of the mix of US threat of nuclear destruction and open US bribery. Out of all those countries East Germany obviously got by far the best deal, instantly equally linked to Europes strongest economy. And yet where are they now they have had their pro-US revolution?

"
Unemployment in the former East Germany remains double what it is in the west, and in some regions the number of women between the ages of 20 and 30 has dropped by more than 30 percent. In all, roughly 1.7 million people have left the former East Germany since the fall of the Berlin Wall, around 12 percent of the population, a continuing process even in the few years before the economic crisis began to bite.

And the population decline is about to get much worse, as a result of a demographic time bomb known by the innocuous-sounding name “the kink,” which followed the end of Communism. The birth rate collapsed in the former East Germany in those early, uncertain years so completely that the drop is comparable only to times of war, according to Reiner Klingholz, director of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. “For a number of years East Germans just stopped having children,”
"

So, because Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not nice countries, and they are supported by the US, then all countries supported by the US are not nice. Um ... Philosophy classes? And I'm amused to see that the average Saudi is 'under the jackboot of imperialism'.

East German and others: I didn't think that the present governments are there as a result of nuclear intimdation of their predecessors. They've had nearly twenty years to sort themselves out, and they still don't vote for those Communists. Wonder why? As for East Germany - ever been there Danny? The reason why it's still behind the west is that it was in such a dire state. The money that's been pumped into the east since re-unification is phenomenal. The autobahn north from Berlin was the HItler original in 1991. It's been rebuilt - guess where the money came from. And why do you think all those people left East Germany, Danny? Could it be that the 'pro-US' west was actually a better place to live.

I am actually in Lithuania at the moment. The redevelopment that's gone on over the past 18 years is phenomenal. And just try asking the people here if they'd prefer to go back to things before the US bribed and bullied them into becoming independent. They'd laugh at you even louder than I do.

"So, because Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not nice countries, and they are supported by the US, then all countries supported by the US are not nice."

No, of course most US dominated countries have no self interested ruling classes, and are run in the interests of the general populace. It isn't as if capitalism is anything other than the most efficient way of ensuring that no-one ever goes hungry, is it?

You cited a whole load of Eastern European states to prove that the CIA backed Mousavi will be a benign force in Iran. I just pointed you to two of the closest client states in Iran's own neighbourhood . Israel would be the third. All three are shining examples of US core values of freedom and democracy in practice.

"Um ... Philosophy classes?"

Um - Logic classes?

"And I'm amused to see that the average Saudi is 'under the jackboot of imperialism'. "

If at any point the Saudi rulers decided to adopt a course of action that was in their own self interests, but not in the self interests of the US, then I'm sure the human rights abuses will be a rallying point to justify the war. Wealthy states get to feel the jackboot through a bit of insulation.

Of course, there's nothing like making smears you can't substantiate - the 'CIA backed Mousavi'.And your evidence for this? You might get on rather well with Senator McCarthy - 'Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the CIA?'

'No, of course most US dominated countries have no self interested ruling classes,' I assume this supposed to be sarcasm [let us know if it isn't]. So Iran has no self-interested ruling classes? Maybe, like the Ayatollahs?

I was in East Germany illegally before the wall came down. I am not saying it was a better country to live in than West Germany, just that the wall fell after a long period of nuclear standoff, an arms race that destroyed the Soviet economy, and CIA shennanigans, similar to the 'colour coded' revolutions, similar to what Iran is now facing. In no other meaningful way does Lithuiania, an occupied country, compare to Iran, a soveriegn state. The US has a long history of overthrowing elected regimes, including Iran. The Shah and his secret police were the 'Pro-US' regime change of his day, leading to the Iranian revolution. You would have loved it under the Shah judging by your metrics of good governance, it was very westernised with lot's of development in Tehran.

The current Iranian regime was put in place by the Iranian people and can be swept away by the Iranian people. For Anonymous to cast themselves as the saviours of Iranian people, while contributing solely to what is obviously an external campaign of destabilisation by the CIA, is seriously dodgy. The stated aim of replacing a working class, popularly elected President with a middle class unelected President, while maintaining the theocracy that controls policy, is not revolutionary, it's not very admirable. I don't believe the CIA aim was to have Mousavi in power, I think the CIA is only intent on destablising the country.
I wonder how Anonymous' motives are purer than the CIAs when they are pursuing the same tactics. Do Anonymous really support Mousavi as president under an ayatollah and if so why? How is that an improvement for anyone? Which protestors are Anonymous bravely going to support next - the middle-class protestors against Chavez? The Cuban exiles in Florida?

Anonymous are known for pranks and slagging Scientology, but they didn't invent criticism of that cult and haven't criticised other more dangerous cults, they've played it safe. The thing about cults is, you may despise cults, but nobody hates a cult like the member of a competing cult, and to criticise one and not the others is suspicious. Maybe it's best Anonymous postponed interfering in other nations politics until they are old enough to vote.

"Of course, there's nothing like making smears you can't substantiate - the 'CIA backed Mousavi'.And your evidence for this? You might get on rather well with Senator McCarthy - 'Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the CIA?' "

The CIA and Mousavi are highly unlikely to publish the minutes of meetings in the near future, and i haven't attended them myself. However, it is an absurd position to suggest that the USA is not involved in trying to undermine the Ahmadinejad regime ... its involvement in other countries is clearly documented, and Iran is pretty high up the administration's list of priorities right now.

Explain this if you like:  http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/705850.html

"'No, of course most US dominated countries have no self interested ruling classes,' I assume this supposed to be sarcasm [let us know if it isn't]. So Iran has no self-interested ruling classes? Maybe, like the Ayatollahs? "

You're on Indymedia - home to plenty who don't support any regime, and who try to see past mani stream media distortion of situations. Of course the ruling elite in Iran has plenty of self-interest - it just so happens it is not the same as US self interest. You're the one saying that some elite's self-interest is better than other elite's self-interest, aren't you?

'The US has a long history of overthrowing elected regimes' ...name us one - in the last, say, 30 to 40 years. You sound like a French politican shouting, 'We've got to build up our armed forces! Germany has a long history of invading us! 1870, 1914, 1940 - they've got previous, haven't they?'

And you seem to know an awful lot about the CIA - their intentions and their motives. No doubt you'll say 'They've done it before!' with the umpteenth rehashing of the overthrow of Mossadagh ... and I'll say to you, 'The Germans are going to invade! They've done it before!'

I C - Mousavi is a CIA agent because ....well, I don't really know, and I've no proof at all, but America's bound to be involved somehow, so .... well, therefore he is. Um. Really convincing.

'Tweets confound Iranian attempts to quell protests' - and this is evidence that the US is trying to undermine the regime?? In some parallel universe, perhaps, but not in the world the rest of us live in. You mean, the State Department actually wants to let people talk to each other, instead of silencing them? What a dreadful idea. Silencing people would be much better,and the regime in Tehran is certainly trying hard to do that.

I'm not interested in any 'elite's self interest' - just that they count the votes in an honest fashion, and don't lie about it.

"You mean, the State Department actually wants to let people talk to each other, instead of silencing them? What a dreadful idea."

Its a fantastic idea. I'm all in favour.

Why not start with a friendly regime first, to show that you REALLY mean it?

from wikipedia:

"Saudi Arabia does not grant freedom of speech or freedom of assembly. Most notably, any speech perceived to be against the King, Kingdom or against Islam can lead to corporal punishment."

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

"I C - Mousavi is a CIA agent because ....well, I don't really know, and I've no proof at all, but America's bound to be involved somehow, so .... well, therefore he is. Um. Really convincing. "

and

"I'm not interested in any 'elite's self interest' - just that they count the votes in an honest fashion, and don't lie about it. "

And of course you witnessed the 'dishonest fashion' in which the votes were counted for yourself?

You wouldn't base any of your assertions on less stringent proof than you demand of others, would you?

Right - there's censorship in Saudi Arabia - and the relevance to Twitter and the State Department is?

No, I haven't counted the votes [nor have the Ayatollahs by the sound of it], but a very large number of people in Iran obviously feel cheated. Do Piratical Pete or Danny support the street protests? No, they cry, it's the CIA, innit. Reminds me of the people who said that CND protests were encouraged by the KGB ....

"Of course, there's nothing like making smears you can't substantiate - the 'CIA backed Mousavi'.And your evidence for this? You might get on rather well with Senator McCarthy - 'Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the CIA?' "

That is the closest you two come to a cogent point so I will address it.

You quote me as saying the 'CIA backed Mousavi'.
I can't remember saying that, can you provide me with a link to where I said that?

Actually, I have good evidence that the CIA don't care which candidate wins, they simply want disruption. Which is why US soldiers have been operating in Iraq blowing people up for the past few years, according to the New Yorker.

(nm)

No, it was Pete who said Mousavi was CIA backed.

US soldiers operating in Iran? They must be very good at disguise. After all, it's not as though they would really blend in well, is it? Oh, I'm sure there are some conspiracy websites which say they are, however.

Does the US care who wins? In many ways, there's very little to choose between the two candidates. But to take the position that the opposition on the streets of Teheran being shot and beaten are poor deluded fools being guided by the puppet hand of America is morally rather nauseating.

"Right - there's censorship in Saudi Arabia - and the relevance to Twitter and the State Department is?"

What has the State department done to support people in Saudi Arabia expressing opposition to the regime? Is it showing consistenC or does it only care that people in shite regimes can communicate disagreement when the USA has a problem with the regime?


"No, I haven't counted the votes [nor have the Ayatollahs by the sound of it], but a very large number of people in Iran obviously feel cheated."

Thanks to twitter and some websites presumably - thepeople who feel cheated weren't at the counts either - and the regime was shite prior to the elections, was it not?

"Do Piratical Pete or Danny support the street protests? No, they cry, it's the CIA, innit. Reminds me of the people who said that CND protests were encouraged by the KGB ...."

What does supporting the street protests from outside of Iran mean? Should I go to a pro-Mousavi rally? Shall I appeal to the Iranian regime by sending the embassy emails? Should I appeal to the hypocritical imperialist British state? What are you doing to show your solidarity?

I'm always delighted to see people on the streets. But the main stream media only backs the protests that suits the capitalist agenda. Does it not?

After the protests the people of Iran will be free.....

The very fact you would try to dismiss the Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker as 'conspiracy' means you are not a journalist and not a friend of the Iranian people. You are indistinguishable from the CIA.

"Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature."

Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated "Color Revolution?"

A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.

The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.

As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.

There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs' lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad's attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs.

Commentators are "explaining" the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad's win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.

On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”

The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.

Daniel McAdams (1) has made some telling points. For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would there be a ‘green revolution’ prepared prior to the vote, especially if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in the election protests.

Timmerman goes on to write that “the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions . . . Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.” Timmerman’s own neocon Foundation for Democracy is “a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran.”

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:  PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com


(1)  http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027782.html

I think whether we prefer one regime or another in Iran is kind of irrelevant to this story. I'm not very familiar with Iranian politics so I don't really understand the merits of either side, but they are both governments so I assume they are both bad.

This is about the Anonymous and geek ideal of zero censorship.

It's also about practical anarchism - censorship requires a centralised authority. Find ways to work around censorship and it makes life more difficult for authoritarian regimes, whether they be pro- or anti-US.

Governments love to censor people, therefore we should try to frustrate them in that goal.

And didn't I read somewhere that Iran has the highest proportion of bloggers of any country in the world? This isn't a developing country of illiterate peasants living in mud huts (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with such a lifestyle!) Internet access is widespread in Iran as far I as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong.

>I think whether we prefer one regime or another in Iran is kind of irrelevant to this story. I'm not very familiar with Iranian politics so I don't really understand the merits of either side, but they are both governments so I assume they are both bad.

Good assumption.

>This is about the Anonymous and geek ideal of zero censorship.

What is about geek ideals? Your post- the Tehran deaths ?

>It's also about practical anarchism - censorship requires a centralised authority.

Centralised authorities require censorship.

>Find ways to work around censorship and it makes life more difficult for authoritarian regimes, whether they be pro- or anti-US.

So why are you not doing this in Saudi Arabia, which happens to be a friend of the US and happens to be a far more repressive regime? Why indeed aren't you targetting your own fucking government?

>Governments love to censor people, therefore we should try to frustrate them in that goal.

That is not what you are doing. You are supporting one government destablise another. There is censorship on the web, and that is achieved mostly through the Cisco NMS. Not Iranian I hasten to add.

>And didn't I read somewhere that Iran has the highest proportion of bloggers of any country in the world? This isn't a developing country of illiterate peasants living in mud huts (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with such a lifestyle!) Internet access is widespread in Iran as far I as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong.

5 star luxury hotels are wide-spread in the UK but we can't all afford to live in them. Iran has a large well-educated middle-class and since the revolution it is a more equal society than say the US or UK, but most people in Iran will not regularly use the internet.

">Find ways to work around censorship and it makes life more difficult for authoritarian regimes, whether they be pro- or anti-US.

So why are you not doing this in Saudi Arabia, which happens to be a friend of the US and happens to be a far more repressive regime? Why indeed aren't you targetting your own fucking government?

* * *

A few points.

Firstly, these are not activists who chose to target Iran. These are computer geeks who chose to stand up for freedom of expression. As such, rather than attacking them for attacking the Iranian state rather than the British (or Saudi), I want to - and do - salute them for their work against the Iranian state.

I would also point out that parts of Anonymous have worked with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wikileaks, the the Pirate Bay - all of which stand against censorship and digital repression worldwide - including the UK. Similarly, their fight against the Scientology cult was initially prompted by an attempt by a corporate body (the "Church" of Scientology) to have material removed from the internet which it felt could be harmful to its public image - something which I think most IMCers can agree is a Bad Thing.

* * *

">Governments love to censor people, therefore we should try to frustrate them in that goal.

That is not what you are doing. You are supporting one government destablise another. There is censorship on the web, and that is achieved mostly through the Cisco NMS. Not Iranian I hasten to add."

Yawn.

While I don't dispute for a moment that US agents have been interfering with Iranian politics for year upon year, to suggest that this entire revolt is simply a US operation is enormously fucking insulting. There are people out there RISKING THEIR FUCKING LIVES, going against riot squads, guns, jail, torture, even death - and you're dismissing them as US stooges. Where the fuck do you get the ego?

I would think the fact that the Iranian state tried to block access to various opposition sites, and Twitter, and any number of blogs, and has run internet filtering for years, implies that they do see internet access as a major issue. Anon isn't pushing any particular ideological line so much as demanding free communication for all - and if you see that as somehow promoting the US agenda, then you are once more a patronising fool.

To oppose the Tehran regime does not mean supporting that of the US, and if you want to claim otherwise, you'd best have some fucking solid proof.

* * *

Any revolt grows out of its original parameters. The protests in Iran may have started as support for one candidate over another, but to suggest that this is all they are is breathtakingly naive. Similarly, it is ridiculous to dismiss the movement as a whole on the basis of its most visible portions (i.e. those portions shown to us by the mass media, which are pro-"the other candidate" and therefore reformist) without regard to the union and student movement which have been active in Iran over the years.

* * *

The Iranian government is out to censor people in the midst of a revolt.

Anonymous is out to stop this.

Fair fucking play to them.

The Scientology cult are scum and Anon has been kicking their ass for over a year. If they're now targetting the Iranian state, even better.

And if you disagree you're a knob.

>>This is about the Anonymous and geek ideal of zero censorship.

>What is about geek ideals? Your post- the Tehran deaths ?

Erm, this article is about geek ideals: "...a site advising Iranians on various ways of keeping their internet communications open despite the Iranian Government crackdown..."

>>It's also about practical anarchism - censorship requires a centralised authority.

>Centralised authorities require censorship.

true, they both need each other.

>>Find ways to work around censorship and it makes life more difficult for authoritarian regimes, whether they be pro- or anti-US.

>So why are you not doing this in Saudi Arabia, which happens to be a friend of the US and happens to be a far more repressive regime? Why indeed aren't you targetting your own fucking government?

I'm nothing to do with Anonymous or the people doing this, I'm just an anonymous (small a) person commenting on this article. But in my own way I suppose I am involved with helping destroy censorship around the world, including the UK and Saudi Arabia. Why would I want to stop censorship in Iran but not in the UK, the US or Saudi Arabia? That wouldn't make sense.

>>Governments love to censor people, therefore we should try to frustrate them in that goal.

>That is not what you are doing. You are supporting one government destablise another. There is censorship on the web, and that is achieved mostly through the Cisco NMS. Not Iranian I hasten to add.

Again, it's not me doing this. But if someone helps break down censorship, and someone else abuses that to do something bad, I don't think you can blame the censorship breakers.

Hopefully the governments will all destabilise each other and we will end up with an anarchist utopia. Well, we can dream. But I don't think there is much to choose between an oppressive theocracy like in Iran, and an oppressive oligarchy, which is what capitalism effectively is.

>>And didn't I read somewhere that Iran has the highest proportion of bloggers of any country in the world? This isn't a developing country of illiterate peasants living in mud huts (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with such a lifestyle!) Internet access is widespread in Iran as far I as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong.

(This article estimates 700,000 Iranian blogs as at 2005:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Blogs)

> 5 star luxury hotels are wide-spread in the UK but we can't all afford to live in them. Iran has a large well-educated middle-class and since the revolution it is a more equal society than say the US or UK, but most people in Iran will not regularly use the internet.

In Iran 34.9% of the population use the internet, according to this site:
 http://www.internetworldstats.com/me/ir.htm
Compared to 70.9% in the UK, and 48.9% in Europe as a whole:
 http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm
So not too far behind, if you can trust these figures.

According to Wikipedia, Iran, "...has the second highest percentage of its population online in the Middle East, after Israel.":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Iran#Internet_Censorship_in_Iran

So... the point being that helping end internet censorship in Iran isn't just something for 1% of the elite, it can potentially affect a large chunk of the population.

>Firstly, these are not activists who chose to target Iran. These are computer geeks who chose to stand up for freedom of expression. As such, rather than attacking them for attacking the Iranian state rather than the British (or Saudi), I want to - and do - salute them for their work against the Iranian state.

Anonymous are arseholes. They slip hardcore porn into YouTube videos aimed at children. They target one cult but not the others. They support a CIA backed destablisation of a foriegn country without any undertanding of the country, without any action against their own country. I've only met one person who identified themselves as Anonymous, and he was a rich Edinburgh Uni wannabe student who was overtly and unconciously racist against Roma while portraying himself falsely as an anarchist.

>I would also point out that parts of Anonymous have worked with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wikileaks, the the Pirate Bay - all of which stand against censorship and digital repression worldwide - including the UK. Similarly, their fight against the Scientology cult was initially prompted by an attempt by a corporate body (the "Church" of Scientology) to have material removed from the internet which it felt could be harmful to its public image - something which I think most IMCers can agree is a Bad Thing.

Volunteering as CIA flunkies is a Bad Thing. When Anonymous are prepared to stand up to the NSA or Cisco, I'll pay attention. You can't do that because you aren't really geeks, you are media whores.
>While I don't dispute for a moment that US agents have been interfering with Iranian politics for year upon year, to suggest that this entire revolt is simply a US operation is enormously fucking insulting. There are people out there RISKING THEIR FUCKING LIVES, going against riot squads, guns, jail, torture, even death - and you're dismissing them as US stooges. Where the fuck do you get the ego?

It came with the id and the super-ego. Where the fuck did you get your lobotomy? Come on,, you most humble of posters, tell me why they are RISKING THEIR FUCKING LIVES?

>I would think the fact that the Iranian state tried to block access to various opposition sites, and Twitter, and any number of blogs, and has run internet filtering for years, implies that they do see internet access as a major issue. Anon isn't pushing any particular ideological line so much as demanding free communication for all - and if you see that as somehow promoting the US agenda, then you are once more a patronising fool.

Yeah, freedom of expression - but just for the citizens of hostile states.


>To oppose the Tehran regime does not mean supporting that of the US, and if you want to claim otherwise, you'd best have some fucking solid proof.

The only proof I am offering is that you are a moronic numpty, and the proof is your previous sentence.

>Any revolt grows out of its original parameters. The protests in Iran may have started as support for one candidate over another, but to suggest that this is all they are is breathtakingly naive. Similarly, it is ridiculous to dismiss the movement as a whole on the basis of its most visible portions (i.e. those portions shown to us by the mass media, which are pro-"the other candidate" and therefore reformist) without regard to the union and student movement which have been active in Iran over the years.

So what are they then? Are they a revolt against theocracy? Cos that hasn't been said so far.


>The Iranian government is out to censor people in the midst of a revolt.
Like every other government. Like your government that you are too cowardly to oppose.


>The Scientology cult are scum and Anon has been kicking their ass for over a year.
Calling them names and then running away isn't kicking their ass. Without any criticism of any other cult there is nothing to distinguish Anonymous from LaRouchies, another arrogant, ignorant anonymous cult. Although unlike Anonymous, they don't feed hardcore porn to kiddies. Funny, I never read that bit in V for Vendettta, the bit where he makes children watch pornography. Maybe you were just defending the paedophiles right to escape censorship?


>If they're now targetting the Iranian state, even better.
And if you disagree you're a knob.

And if you agree you are the CIAs soapy-tit wank that this shit for brains espouses.

Some people here seem to attribute very lofty ideals to the btards of Anon.

They are a bunch of rich, western kids/teens/overgrown kids who troll the internet. Nothing so bad about that (well, except the rich bit) but to claim they are political and even anarchist is so LULZ! as to be unbelievable.

Anon are good for a laugh, nothing more.