UK severs ties with Iranian Banks | Bitcointalksearch.org

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: foggyb on January 19, 2012, 06:46:28 PM

Quote from: genjix on November 23, 2011, 12:20:29 PM

They are just normal people like you or me in the west. Before the religious people seized control during the power vacuum of the revolution (which was for democratic reform), Iran was a westernised secular country.

According to that map, Iran is less religious than Turkey or Poland. I'd harbour that the results are skewed from the repression even and that the results are much more favourable in private.

I have a big problem with your premise. Millions of religious people DO NOT support dictatorships and oppressive rule.

So to pull out a map and label a bunch of countries in RELIGIOUS RED to point out who the oppressors are, insults my intelligence, and should everyone's. The one thing all oppressive regimes have in common is that they are oppressive power trippers.

I think that it is fair to equate religious extremism to general backwardness and retardation in other areas. Also to assume that if a relatively high percentage of the population places a high importance in religion, there is a good chance that extremism is alive an well (and again, correlated with general backwardness.)

I took Genjix's map, and a lot of other evidence I'm aware of, to be indicative of the fact that Iran is not a backward helpless basket-case who cannot defend themselves. This is the 'party line' from the mainstream media and is designed to make Western populations comfortable attacking them. I am betting that it will be a great folly and that many Joe Sixpacks will be shocked at what the event ends up producing. One of the few good things that might come out of it is that the populations may start trusting the mainstream media so much.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Quote from: genjix on November 23, 2011, 12:20:29 PM

They are just normal people like you or me in the west. Before the religious people seized control during the power vacuum of the revolution (which was for democratic reform), Iran was a westernised secular country.

According to that map, Iran is less religious than Turkey or Poland. I'd harbour that the results are skewed from the repression even and that the results are much more favourable in private.

I have a big problem with your premise. Millions of religious people DO NOT support dictatorships and oppressive rule.

So to pull out a map and label a bunch of countries in RELIGIOUS RED to point out who the oppressors are, insults my intelligence, and should everyone's. The one thing all oppressive regimes have in common is that they are oppressive power trippers.

predic

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 10

enemies of Iran are enemies of Bitcoin. why? because they repeat colonialist propaganda, they are spies. those who are paid by government, they repeat phrases of government. what spies are doing here if not spying of bitcoin development and its community Huh

of course, Iran should develop "illegal" (anonymous) ways of money transactions and functioning of industry. In the time of sanctions, all products will be available only in black market and Iran should secure that the state control black market and not individuals who could misuse situation to become rich. money from the trade should finish in budget and not in pockets of individuals. in the time of sanctions 1993 in Serbia, everything what was imported (illegal over the border with Romania), it finished in black market (benzine, cigarettes, food, etc). Serbia has 7 million people and Iran has 10 times more, so, Iran must organize and be ready for sanctions. I wish them the best and I hope they will succeed to protect themselves from colonialists.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Iran’s dire straits

Well I hope this does take off somehow, would be really cool to see!

GideonGono

hero member

Activity: 2086

Merit: 501

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

MysteryMiner & Flippro - Mirror images of insanity.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

All opinion aside, doing most business transactions with Iranian citizens would be illegal for U.S. citizens.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Lol at "Iranian navy performing maneuvers" (page 9)

genjix

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1076

Iran's government is totally insane and universally hated within Iran. Nobody likes them.

However there are many conflicting forces within this corrupted government- it isn't a monolithic dictatorship. There is even limited dissent which has been continually pushing successfully over the last decades inch by inch to reform the country.

Going to war with Iran would be extremely bad. It would rally people around a hated, deeply unpopular and resented regime. I'm also skeptical about sanctions which is simply isolating and hurting Iranian people; the government is religious and doesn't give a shit about running the country to the ground in pursuit of their dogma.

For those interested in what day to day life in Iran is like, check my pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genjix/page10/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genjix/page9/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genjix/page8/

They are just normal people like you or me in the west. Before the religious people seized control during the power vacuum of the revolution (which was for democratic reform), Iran was a westernised secular country.

According to that map, Iran is less religious than Turkey or Poland. I'd harbour that the results are skewed from the repression even and that the results are much more favourable in private.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 23, 2011, 12:42:15 AM

America incited any violence on Iran's part. If they are going to blow us up, it's our own damn fault. The best thing we can do for our national security and lowering Iran as a threat -- nuclear or otherwise -- is leaving them the fuck alone.

However, a war is what they want and a war is what they are going to get, not from Iran and not from the American people, but the bankers. Wealth destruction on our end is more gold in the pockets of big banking interests. They control the money supply that funds this crap.

+1 War only helps the bankers get richer. And we (America) need to fucking leave the rest of the world alone. Unfortunately, before we can do that, we need to break our oil dependence. Perhaps, though, just leaving and letting market forces break our dependence would work. It would be painful short term, but I would rather stop creating America haters than continue to burn gasoline for transportation. However, America runs on semi trucks, so until they adapt, the price of goods will go through the roof if gas spikes.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

America incited any violence on Iran's part. If they are going to blow us up, it's our own damn fault. The best thing we can do for our national security and lowering Iran as a threat -- nuclear or otherwise -- is leaving them the fuck alone.

However, a war is what they want and a war is what they are going to get, not from Iran and not from the American people, but the bankers. Wealth destruction on our end is more gold in the pockets of big banking interests. They control the money supply that funds this crap.

pointbiz

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 415

1ninja

I don't think it's realistic that Iran would use a nuclear weapon, especially not against Israel. If they attack Israel that will harm Palestinians, Lebanese and there will be radiation in Iran because of the proximity. Not to mention Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam. Plus the Fatwa against it, plus there not being any verse twist-able to justify that. The person who has his fingers on the red button in Iran, The Ayatollah, has zero incentive to launch one. He's living in a walled garden.

They are playing the same WMD card against Iran as they did against Iraq. And they don't worry at all about Pakistan?!?

Besides, America and Israel are already engaging Iran covertly. Remember the car bombs against Iranian nuclear scientists? Who do you think pulled that off? Osama? Saddam loyalists?

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: memvola on November 22, 2011, 07:08:33 PM

+1

Islamic Republic of Iran never started wars, and probably never will. Their threats are a political strategy towards their own subjects, which they pretty much have to exercise to retain power. USA and Israel are very easy targets because of their track records, and every government in the region use them to gain public sympathy once in a while. The public despises those countries for mostly legitimate reasons, but also because of penis envy. So if anything, Iran might be attacked or else provoked to go to war, possibly with a neighboring country, and it's almost unimaginable that they might use any weapon of mass destruction. Iraq used them against Iran over and over again and they never
responded. Why do you think is that? And why did USA lie about it during the war?

As I understand things, the US saw that Iraq was going to lose the war to Iran and suggested chemical weapons. They also sent 'agricultural' helicopters and survey teams to gather data from the little lab experiment (Rumsfeld didn't want to let that opportunity go to waste.)

But I understand that Iran did indeed also use chemical weapons after being attacked with them.

In the end, Iran was much more creative and simply better at it and won the war although they took huge losses.

Quote from: memvola on November 22, 2011, 07:08:33 PM

On the other hand, IMHO it's very unrealistic to imagine any State to support Bitcoin. They might overlook its usage, but I don't think they would in Iran's case. Maybe someone from the region might share some insight about this? Can Bitcoin replace international wire transfers for countries like Iran? How would exchanges operate?

I cannot imagine any country officially sanctioning Bitcoin. Hoping for that seems to me like a total pipe dream and waste of time to me, and probably genuinely damaging to the potential that the system has.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: MysteryMiner on November 21, 2011, 06:28:27 PM

It's unlikely to happen, but Iran might support gold as a payment medium. This will have almost the same effect on western economics that is bouilt upon scam scheme also known as fractional reserve banking.

FWIW, Gaddafi was planning to do that.

Quote from: tvbcof on November 22, 2011, 12:18:04 AM

Quote from: amincd on November 21, 2011, 11:53:14 PM

Quote from: FlipPro

The sad part is, I really think they are crazy enough to do it. That will start an evil chain reaction, and then starts the "holy war". Is that what you really want?

Iran is NOT going to start a nuclear war. They're highly rational and risk-averse. They're not going to commit mass-suicide/murder in a nuclear attack.
...
And this assumes Iran will get 30 bombs, which is completely unrealistic, given the level of international scrutiny it's under. Iran's Supreme Leader has even issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, yet this war propaganda continues, and people continue to buy into it.
...

Here's one person who's not buying that crap. I personally never bought all the BS about Saddam and his WMD's, but even after that people still listen to the propaganda? Amazing really. In spite of all the garbage fed to use constantly by the mainstream media, I've not seen one sign that Iran has anything but a defensive posture and want's simply to be left alone. But they also want to retain their Khuzestan region and have a history of fighting effectively when attacked.

I have little doubt that the political leadership in Washington would rather lose DC than see Tel Aviv harmed, and would rather lose 100,000 trailer-trash American grunts than 5000 of God's Chosen people if they had to make a choice. So Iran's best chance is to make a credible threat to badly harm Israel. I'm not saying it is a 'good' thing to do...just the most tenable defense against a clear and present danger and one which, with luck, means that an attack never comes and nobody needs to die in any country.

+1

Islamic Republic of Iran never started wars, and probably never will. Their threats are a political strategy towards their own subjects, which they pretty much have to exercise to retain power. USA and Israel are very easy targets because of their track records, and every government in the region use them to gain public sympathy once in a while. The public despises those countries for mostly legitimate reasons, but also because of penis envy. So if anything, Iran might be attacked or else provoked to go to war, possibly with a neighboring country, and it's almost unimaginable that they might use any weapon of mass destruction. Iraq used them against Iran over and over again and they never responded. Why do you think is that? And why did USA lie about it during the war?

On the other hand, IMHO it's very unrealistic to imagine any State to support Bitcoin. They might overlook its usage, but I don't think they would in Iran's case. Maybe someone from the region might share some insight about this? Can Bitcoin replace international wire transfers for countries like Iran? How would exchanges operate?

meanig

hero member

Activity: 531

Merit: 501

Another country in need of Bitcoin is Iceland.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/7275

Quote

Capital controls are exactly wrong for Iceland

Icelandic firms seeking to invest abroad need rarely-granted permission from the Central Bank. Icelandic citizens need a government authorisation for foreign travel, since a Central Bank licence is needed to get tightly rationed foreign currency for travel. Any individual seeking to emigrate from Iceland is at least partially locked in by the capital controls by virtue of not being able to transfer his or her assets abroad, a restriction on emigration not commonly seen in democracies. This disregard of individuals’ civil rights as a result of the capital controls violates Iceland’s legal commitments under the European four freedoms.

The article says the controls have been in place since 2008 but this is the first I've read about them. Any Icelanders care to elaborate on how difficult it is to leave the country with cash?

bitcon

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1008

Quote

< alolymous> SterNiX: Short version of what bitcoin is: it is a currency, but an entirely new kind of currency that can’t be seized or frozen by governments

not seized or frozen by govt, most likeley seized and frozen by the exchanges who have to comply with govt law.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: amincd on November 21, 2011, 11:53:14 PM

Quote from: FlipPro

The sad part is, I really think they are crazy enough to do it. That will start an evil chain reaction, and then starts the "holy war". Is that what you really want?

Iran is NOT going to start a nuclear war. They're highly rational and risk-averse. They're not going to commit mass-suicide/murder in a nuclear attack.
...
And this assumes Iran will get 30 bombs, which is completely unrealistic, given the level of international scrutiny it's under. Iran's Supreme Leader has even issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, yet this war propaganda continues, and people continue to buy into it.
...

Here's one person who's not buying that crap. I personally never bought all the BS about Saddam and his WMD's, but even after that people still listen to the propaganda? Amazing really. In spite of all the garbage fed to use constantly by the mainstream media, I've not seen one sign that Iran has anything but a defensive posture and want's simply to be left alone. But they also want to retain their Khuzestan region and have a history of fighting effectively when attacked.

I have little doubt that the political leadership in Washington would rather lose DC than see Tel Aviv harmed, and would rather lose 100,000 trailer-trash American grunts than 5000 of God's Chosen people if they had to make a choice. So Iran's best chance is to make a credible threat to badly harm Israel. I'm not saying it is a 'good' thing to do...just the most tenable defense against a clear and present danger and one which, with luck, means that an attack never comes and nobody needs to die in any country.

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Quote from: amincd on November 22, 2011, 12:06:43 AM

Woosh..

How do you think Russia and other strategic partners to Iran react to Tehran burning in flames at the hands of the "wicked west"?

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Woosh..

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Quote from: amincd on November 21, 2011, 11:53:14 PM

Quote from: FlipPro

The sad part is, I really think they are crazy enough to do it. That will start an evil chain reaction, and then starts the "holy war". Is that what you really want?

Iran is NOT going to start a nuclear war. They're highly rational and risk-averse. They're not going to commit mass-suicide/murder in a nuclear attack.

They have a military budget of $9 billion, or 1/80th that of the US. The US recently purchased 20 bunker buster bombs for $300 million. In other words, one order of US bombs costs more than 3% of Iran's annual military budget.

Even if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, it would be a primitive one, with a yield on the order of magnitude of "Little Boy". A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that IF Iran acquired over thirty nuclear bombs, and had a nuclear exchange with Israel, it would be destroyed beyond the point of recovery, and would lose 16-28 million people, while Israel would lose 500,000 and could survive:

US report: Israel would weather nuclear war with Iran

And this assumes Iran will get 30 bombs, which is completely unrealistic, given the level of international scrutiny it's under. Iran's Supreme Leader has even issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, yet this war propaganda continues, and people continue to buy into it.

For thirty years, a Iranian nuclear bomb has been imminent:

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

Quote

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."

***

1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought" – about five years away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of dangers in the coming decade. The report speaks of an "acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program," claims that Iran "began an intensive campaign to develop and acquire nuclear weapons" in 1987, and says Iran was "believed" to have recruited scientists from the former Soviet Union and Pakistan to advise them.

1997: The Christian Science Monitor reports that US pressure on Iran's nuclear suppliers had "forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years."

If they even *TRY* to nuke Isreal they will be obliterated. They are close to *trying*...

I never said they would succeed...

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: FlipPro

The sad part is, I really think they are crazy enough to do it. That will start an evil chain reaction, and then starts the "holy war". Is that what you really want?

Iran is NOT going to start a nuclear war. They're highly rational and risk-averse. They're not going to commit mass-suicide/murder in a nuclear attack.

They have a military budget of $9 billion, or 1/80th that of the US. The US recently purchased 20 bunker buster bombs from Boeing for $314 million. In other words, one order of US bombs costs more than 3% of Iran's annual military budget.

Even if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, it would be a primitive one, with a yield on the order of magnitude of "Little Boy". A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that IF Iran acquired thirty nuclear bombs, and had a nuclear exchange with Israel, it would be destroyed beyond the point of recovery, and would lose 16-28 million people, while Israel would lose 500,000 and could survive:

US report: Israel would weather nuclear war with Iran

And this assumes Iran will get 30 bombs, which is completely unrealistic, given the level of international scrutiny it's under. Iran's Supreme Leader has even issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, yet this war propaganda continues, and people continue to buy into it.

For thirty years, an Iranian nuclear bomb has been imminent:

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

Quote

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."

***

1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought" – about five years away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of dangers in the coming decade. The report speaks of an "acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program," claims that Iran "began an intensive campaign to develop and acquire nuclear weapons" in 1987, and says Iran was "believed" to have recruited scientists from the former Soviet Union and Pakistan to advise them.

1997: The Christian Science Monitor reports that US pressure on Iran's nuclear suppliers had "forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years."

Topic: UK severs ties with Iranian Banks (Read 3901 times)