Topic: People are burning the banks in Iran right now (Read 458 times)

Normal people/protesters would never damage those kinds of properties ^{[apart from those I already mentioned, they even destroyed side street fences + stoplights]}, they would only voice their concerns...
- Based on the videos, they infiltrated the crowds and influence some to join them.

I do ^{[most likely that's the case]}...

What're they going to do, drone-strike a few people, airdrop in some replacements from Washington, and expect those people to actually be able to lead? Iran has institutions. If the top 100 people in government are all killed on a single day (which won't happen...), there are thousands of people in the Iranian government who currently aspire to someday have those jobs, and who will at that point have the chance to take them.

In order to install a puppet government, the US would need massive popular support. The US hasn't even been able to install its puppet leader in Venezuela, which has much weaker institutions than Iran and a much more anti-government population.

Different how? You think they belong to some other faction? Provocateurs maybe? Trying to heat things up? USA is a pretty well-known country for being behind these kind of activities in foreign countries.

Their strategy is simple:

First they make you elect a complete moron, then they punish you for being retarded.

I am sure there are lots of people who would like to have changed in Iran, the US don't actually need to go to WAR to achieve this, they will just have to assassinate top level members of the Iran government and put people in place who are Pro US. A war wouldn't be ideal at the moment but am sure most of the Iranians will like a change in people at the leadership.

The middle east has been in constant conflict, all because for war of oil and its scarce supply. Due to the product of greed, conglomerates has been fighting on whose gonna get the most out of it with no regards for human life. This is one of the examples in why bitcoin and why a decentralize currency is needed to fight the current system.

I've heard that around three countries on the planet do NOT have a Rothschild owned central bank at this time:  North Korea, Syria, and Iran.  Interesting matches there with those who find themselves under U.S. [austensibly] military pressure.

I also expect that whatever might (or might not) be going on in Iran would be largely driven by people who consider themselves 'Jews' and inevitably, whether they know it or not, most of their actions tend to be tribal and to the benefit of the current dominant debt-based banking system.

Between these two hypotheses, one would expect the 'rioters' to be focusing on causing problems for Iran's non-aligned banking sector.

Targeting the banks is really the least of their problems because they are the ones that will eventually suffer for it. Its just like group of students protesters destroying the facilities in the school to express their angers they actually forgot that before they are called back they will be forced to pay back damages that would be much more than what was destroyed. The anger should be channeled toward the people in charge of those institutions and not those facilities. If the protest is against government, it can be forced to change but destroying public infrastructures will be met with further hostilities from agent of the state.

Unfortunately, that's true ^{[same goes with people of other countries]}...

Exactly. I have a feeling Trump is currently holding the strikes off until after the election ^{[if he gets to stay for another term]} then that's likely the time he'll be moving the set-pieces...

Indeed and that could quickly turn into another world war ^{[I hope not]}. US will surely have other European + a few of the middle eastern countries by their side and Iran might have Russia and China by their side.

---

In addition to my previous post:
- I forgot to mention that there's still no definite proof ^{[they claim they've already paid to majority of those in need]} that the government has paid money to those in need "using the money they've collected from increasing the gas prices".

Little update:

• Mobile operators remain disconnected from the internet ^{[home networks should fully be restored first, prior to them getting connected].}
• Significant rise ^{[might be a bubble]} in car prices ^{[mostly involving foreign cars]}.

Currently, the US population doesn't care about Iran one way or the other. The average American wouldn't be able to find Iran on a map, and most think due to the similar name that it's basically like Iraq. They're OK with attacks against Iran that don't have immediate consequences for the US. But once American soldiers start dying and/or military costs become truly ridiculous, the US population will demand an end to the war. Certainly the US wouldn't be able to draft its population to fight in Iran.

If a military objective can be accomplished in weeks, then the US could do it, since that'll be over before the American population notices. If a lot of Americans die, though, there will be significant political fallout for whoever orders the attack.

The only way a multi-year campaign could be done is if Iran perpetrates an attack against the US similar to Pearl Harbor (or if the US population is led to believe this). In this case, the US could conquer some territory, but it still doesn't have enough resources to take and hold large sections of Iran. And after a few years, the costs in lives and materials would pile up to the point where it'd lose any public support that it once had.

A US vs Iran war would be like Vietnam, but much worse for the US because Iran is a much stronger target. If the US's goal is to destroy a few cities or assassinate a few specific targets, it can definitely be done, but the US cannot conquer Iran without a lot of support from either allied countries or a substantial percentage of the Iranian population.

As someone that's been living in Iran for years ^{[half of my life]}, I would like to also share some information in regards to this topic...

Based on some of the videos that have been circulating within the country, people that burned "some of" those banks, gas stations and buses were different from the rest of the protesters. It looked like they were from a certain group that had specific targets/missions.

• We only had access to a national intranet for the past few days, in other words: We didn't have a normal internet like other countries ^{[with the exception of a few]}.
• Iran Internet Shutdown: Real-time Connectivity Chart by NetBlocks

They can but they won't.

Prior to recent changes, there weren't any limits ^[250L] and currently, this is the new gas system:
- A monthly limit of 60L ^{[for sedan/hatchback car owners, other vehicle types have different limits]} at a 50% increased price.
- Any excess monthly usage is counted at a 300% increased price.

Exactly but the government claims they will control it ^{[based on history, normally the opposite "always" happens]}...

That's not the only case. Apart from other things that are on news or those I've already mentioned, hundreds of people have died ^{[unfortunately]}.

That's the case right now...

Rage/violence shouldn't be a choice...
- Anything that leads to collateral damage, isn't a smart move/step.

IIRC, US has x4 the military manpower ^{[apart from other military technologies]} of Iran but a war between these two is going to be ugly for both.

During such protests looters also take advantage by targeting banks. Though actual reason of protest was increase in oil price.

The HK protests have started earlier and so far seems to have no sign of dying down so yeah got more coverage and participants (weird that almost never hear about the Yellow Vests). The gov't in Beijing still haven't stamped down hard on it but there's still a possibility of another Tienanmen.

I would say the one in Iran have a higher chance of erupting into a full-blown rebellion complete with an armed resistance though. The people in HK are protesting for the right to be heard, the people in Iran are protesting for essentials as likely prices on all goods would go even higher with the new policy.

They are not the same.
Banks in the middle east (Islamic Banks) are not operating like the Banks of the West.
Maybe you don't know the difference between those two categories.
They might be characterized as cartels but their goals are not the same as emirs or kings.

I'm not going to comment on what side is tamer, as I truly don't know. But if you are to look at both protests based on sheer magnitude of members, sheer amount of news coverage and so on and so forth -- HK is the winner here, without a doubt.


... You're a spammer and this has been reported. You didn't read anything or get involved in the conversation at all, just spammed something about banks because BANKS ARE BAD..

banking cartels are same like emirs, kings or other powerholders.

More and more people have started hating banks and the banking system in general.
This is absolutely a great advantage for bitcoin combined to the fact that young people have already acquired bitcoin and the ecosystem becomes widely known.
I believe that more protests around the world are going to begin in the near future.

.

The protest in HK is far tamer. The protesters still go to work, that's why the protests are larger during weekends. And it still haven't got to the point that buildings are erupting in flames. These protesters in Iran really want to destroy stuff. I'm surprised the Iranian government haven't yet blamed "foreign agents" for instigating the protests.

Oh yeah, getting out of the Iran deal was done because OBAMAS SIGNATURE WAS ON IT  and conservatives didn't think the deal was strict enough.

Iran would be more then willing to get a deal done, though they'd want it to go through Congress instead of just being signed as the stroke of a pen from the President. Which is what they should've demanded from Obama (I'm assuming they did, but still)

I think that public support could shift to bombing Iran depending on what they do -- but boots on the ground is is a TOTAL NO. Unless they try to kill American soliders or something along those lines ----

banks will get burned all over the world, world trade will continue to prefer western currencies

printing money doesnt make rich its hard work that does. but in a religion that says serve no one but good, there is no real readiness for sacrifices

Agreed. Trump clearly got out of the deal almost entirely for political reasons, and he'd probably accept even a slightly better deal. But if Iran went along with this -- allowing a counterparty to break a deal on a whim -- it'd make them look really weak. Meanwhile, there's nothing really pressing the US to back down.

I suppose that Iran's strategy is to pick at the US and its allies with small strikes, but make it small-scale/ambiguous enough, and set things up politically (eg. pointing to the broken nuclear deal) that the US couldn't rely on many allies if it wanted to invade Iran fully. The US doesn't have the political will to sustain a real war against Iran for long. The US could do a lot of airstrikes etc., though, and I'm not convinced that small strikes by Iran will ever get them anywhere.