Topic: People are burning the banks in Iran right now (Read 459 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.

I mean I think the Iranians are stuck b/w a rock and a hard place here. They've already worked with the US on the first iteration of the Iranian deal, and they gave up all of their enriched uranium -- what they got out of it was sanction relief -- but now they got fucked, cause now they don't have any enriched uranium to use as part of their negotiations with the US to get a better deal, and their economy is under constant pressure from the sanctions.

The only thing they can do to stop this is to renegotiate the Uranium deal with the US, unless they enrich uranium again to the 2011? levels to get a better deal.

Iran probably does not have a path forward, unless they fall to the US or continue to enrich uranium and pray that the US doesn't make their sanctions worse -- as they may lose the public support battle.

50% is a burden to them of course if I were there I would probably join the protest. I've always been wanting to burn a bank, if its going to happen in my country I will probably be the first to light up the fire.

This country is one of the oldest in the world, structures here dates back to the time where Sumerians were the only civilization and yet look at how they are now. Without blockchain, countries will remain as is, they should blockchain for their fiat.

Iran is far from a socialist economy. They'd be closer to a European standard Democratic-Socialist economy based on the constitution's vision for public retirement funds, health and medicaid as well, funded by taxes. Oil is a large factor in the economy still though and the government is more of a big-state bonkers autocracy other than anything else. Too much spending on military and foreign influence campaigns while people in the mainland are starving. It doesn't take long to guess why there's unrest all so often in there. Also important to note than many of the social programs were cut, supposedly in an effort to move the country closer to developing a free market, but I think it was just a move by the government to  buy time from a collapse.

Iran also claims to be self-sufficient to a large extent, but really this internal disincentive from more participation in international trade probably stifles their potential for development even more. The local economy was never in a good shape and the spiraling inflation rate is a good indicator of what actually keeps them up and running as they are. With welfare cut, and the currency collapsing, nobody is saved. The middle class loses money while they sleep and even the poorest can no longer access basic services as the government can only keep decreasing such welfare.

Makes sense to me that they'd want to burn the banks there. Iran is one of the extreme cases of how FIAT keeps crazy regimes in power, but the people have the power to say no, starting from the ground up by denouncing the government currency.

No, what I mean by "socialism" is "a lot of central economic planning and redistribution": pretty far left on the 2-axis political compass. I'm aware of Marx's definition, but that's not really what people tend to mean nowadays. Words change, especially in politics; for example, leftists stole "liberal" from libertarians, and we stole "libertarian" from them (at least in the US).

Sigh...

Authoritian, yes. Socialist, no. Typical American here thinks socialism=communism=dictatorship.

Socialism is nothing like what the Americans imagine.

From wikipedia:


Workers? In Iran? Nobody cares. There isn't anything like that in Iran at all.

Germany is the biggest socialist state I know for example. If you want to study socialism, see Germany.

I'm far from an expert, but AFAIK, Iran is a very socialist and authoritarian country, similar to China but with an Islamic flavor and much less competent leaders. Combined with this economic mismanagement, you have US sanctions designed to destroy the Iranian economy, and probably constant CIA activity fomenting unrest. Also, many powerful players in the US and elsewhere would love any excuse to escalate militarily with Iran. This seems like a pretty much impossible situation. I'm surprised that a little bank-burning is all Iran's experiencing. What is Iran's path forward? Can it actually continue on as-is?

Don't know what to feel about this comment though, after seeing what universities, especially those in the West, have turned into. Back to the banks. There's nothing burning them would really accomplish. They got the money to rebuild the premises. Even burning the money inside does nothing, they are worthless and can be reprinted anyway if they want to.

I understand why they are pissed though. Going from 250L to 60L limit at a higher price meant they'll not be able to use their cars as much and if this also affect public transport and trucking companies, would also make the prices of other goods rise. They're not buying the redistribution shit.

What's happening in Iran? seems news is quite silent about them. The last days I see Africa is burning, more protests and dissatisfaction from their citizens. I hope this will not escalate, they are harming more their nations. Look at Hong Kong, their protest leads to investor fleeing their country, they suffer more.

Mass protest around the world are influenced by many things. In this case targeting a bank doesn't seem like a prime objective of the protesters as they are protesting against governments decision. Banks are being targeted by another group of people who have reasons to commit the crime and they are disguising themselves as protesters. It's really easy to misguide a mass to do an activity they would in sane mind won't do.

Without a doubt  due to the new US sanctions and further enforcement of such sanctions, though I don't think the people understand that there isn't much that the Iranian government is going to be able to do, unless they're willing to negotiate with the US on a new deal relating to the nuclear deal. Because the US isn't going to work with them unless they're willing to give up a lot.

As I find new news reports on the topic I'll continue to update what I've written here.

Do you really consider burning a bank as a revolutionary act during peaceful protests ??
We all fight against centralised authorities and all the traditional financial institutions, the biggest dream behind bitcoin, but this doesn't mean to burn the actual system. Just think about custmers of that bank and employees. Burning a bank is an act of crime and a civil people who protests peacefully against a relegeous Dictatorship will never burn institutions in order to burn the system.

That's because the more religious the society is the more hostile towards education it becomes. Religion = superstition and fear. Remember how they used to burn witches and books alike? They also feared and killed black cats and owls because those were witch helpers, and thought goats are possessed.

Actually, they might have been right about that last thing.

Checked out that tweet. Apparently they've also burned a university too!

Kinda weird that they took out their anger on a bank rather than directly on the government that cut down subsidies. Taking something away from people never really turn out well so there's a high potential for this escalating. Remember, the Arab Spring started from one disgruntled man burning himself in public.

I initially thought that this was fake news but after a little bit of research it seems that this is very true. But I really don't see any banks being burnt as a result of the recent price hikes in Iran. I remember this was the very decision that President Macron of France took and lead to the Yellow jacket protests. I am certain that the recent sanctions against them has taken its economic toil on the country.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/violent-protests-break-out-iran-after-shock-gas-price-hike-subsidies-cut


https://twitter.com/Raman_Ghavami/status/1195732454285414400

Quite interesting they target the banks. It is like They exactly know who is responsible for their misery and suffering. I am not a fan of Islam for other reasons but maybe they were right for being against the interest scam. You will probably counter this with "we use interest because time has value" and i'll counter you with this: "gold is timeless."