Iran Blamed For Major Cyberattack On BBC 194
Qedward writes "Iran is privately being blamed for a major cyberattack on the BBC that blocked access to its popular Persian TV service and disrupted the Corporation's IT using a denial-of-service attack. The multi-pronged March 2 attack took down much of the BBC's email, overloaded its telephone switchboard with automatic phone calls, and blocked a satellite feed for the BBC Persian station. BBC servers were also on the receiving end of a DDoS. In an unprecedented tactic, the BBC has trailed a speech to be given this week to the Royal Television Society in which Director General Mark Thompson will mention the attacks in some detail while stopping short of formally naming Iran as the perpetrator."
Beats real war any day (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have countries launching lame DDoS's than launching missiles.
And I wouldn't mind living in a world where everyone put down their guns and just started being dicks to each other on the internet instead. Besides, in that world, all us losers on /. could finally be the badass war heroes who women want to sleep with.
Of course, most will probably just use both the internet AND their guns/missiles.
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:4, Informative)
>>>Fixing banks with less regulation is like fixing Lindsay Lohan with more cocaine.
I agree. But the truth is the number of regulations during the Bush era increased from 110,000 to 150,000 pages. To say he "deregulated", or that it caused the housing bubble, is so far from the truth it's ridiculous.
BTW most of those regulations are god-awful stupid, like saying a banana must have at least 15 degrees of curvature or else it must be destroyed. And labeling water bottles with, "Drinking water does not cure dehydration."
I'm not against regulations (especially the top regulations like the Constittuion and Bill of rights which block the government from harming us). I'm against stupid regulations that drive small business owners into bankruptcy and favor the consolidation of megacorp' power. That's what Congress has been busy passing these last several years.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW most of those regulations are god-awful stupid, like saying a banana must have at least 15 degrees of curvature or else it must be destroyed. And labeling water bottles with, "Drinking water does not cure dehydration."
That was the EU that came up with those lovelies. Give credit where credit is due.
Re: (Score:2)
> BTW most of those regulations are god-awful stupid,
No, most of those regulations keep the food you buy in the grocery store from killing you. Read "The Jungle". If it wasn't for modern food inspection and regulation you'd be getting food poisoning at least once a month because that was exactly the case before modern regulation. Several of your relatives would have dies from food poisoning.
Most people that want to eliminate food and drug regulation are either too young or too stupid to remember the situ
Re: (Score:2)
And I wouldn't mind living in a world where everyone put down their guns and just started being dicks to each other on the internet instead.
Just started? Dude, by your definition World War 3 has been raging for the last 20 years!
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:5, Informative)
The use of the word 'overt' is very important here. Iran trained Iraqi insurgents. Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, who have both fired rockets on Israeli civilians. Hamas has done so as recently as this weekend.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US Funded the Mujhadeen, the Vietcong, Saddam Hussein, Israel, the IRA, and god knows what else.
Re: (Score:2)
The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban emerged from Pakistani madrassas in the early 1990s, well after the Soviets withdrew.
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US funded them through Pakistan. Where the hell do you think the money went? To bin Laden. To all the "foreign fighters" that were streaming to Afghanistan. You know, the "free world fighting the evil commies" mantra, or payback for Vietnam, or however the heck you want to phrase it.
Stating that US did not fund Taliban (later split off Al Quida) is like stating that CIA never were involved in drug trafficking. I guess you can never link them directly as gov't policy, but there is no question where the money
Re: (Score:2)
US funded them through Pakistan. Where the hell do you think the money went? To bin Laden. To all the "foreign fighters" that were streaming to Afghanistan.
No, the money used to support the war effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan did not go to Bin Laden. Good grief, this is pitiful!
CIA – Osama bin Laden controversy [wikipedia.org]
Scholars and reporters have called the idea of CIA-backed Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) "nonsense",[16] "sheer fantasy",[17] and "simply a folk myth."[18] They argue that:
- - with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land
- - that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds
- - that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of U.S. agents to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan;[19]
- - that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.
According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,
The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[18]
Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:
It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[22]
- - -
Stating that US did not fund Taliban (later split off Al Quida) is like stating that CIA never were involved in drug trafficking.
Since the Taliban [wikipedia.org] didn't form until after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Afghan Communist government fell, I think we can dismiss charges that the Taliban were funded by
Re: (Score:2)
About as much as you are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't create the Taliban, but they supported the same exact people who turned into the Taliban or warlords of varying degrees of acceptability.
It's completely disingenuous to argue that because the Taliban didn't formally exist until the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the US couldn't have had a hand in creating them. The only reason we don't like the Taliban right now is because they're fighting us instead of someone we don't like. That's it. If the Taliban would be fighting Al Qaeda, we wouldn't car
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who provided weapons and miltary support for those fighting the USSR. Pakistan, England, and Saudi Arabia contributed way more military assistance than the US while the US got stuck with paying for the refugee camps. They Taliban made their own choice to use the weapons on their own population all by themselves. The accusation of US military support is just as much BS as the US given Iraq large amounts of weapons in the Iran-Iraq war when they actually supplied less than 2% of the total. T
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:4, Insightful)
You missed the point. It is hypocritical of you if the only time you dislike rapists is when they rape you, but you are fine if they are raping someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no credible evidence for this.
Other than the fact that Iranian back militias we repeatedly found with new Iranian arms, and Quds force officers were arrested in Iraq? Not to mention that Iraqi militia took refuge in Iran?
Iran cooperated closely with the US occupation in Iraq and with the current Shia-led government.
Iran also tried hard to subvert the Iraqi government through bribes, threats, violence, and other means.
Iran was involved in the training of the new Iraqi Army and police and was involved in equipping them.
Iran had very little to do with training the Iraqi Army and police, let alone equipping them. That has almost entirely been the work of the US, NATO, and other Coalition members, which doesn't include Iran. Iran ha
Re: (Score:3)
Iran has never initiated overt military hostility since the 19th century. This is over 6+ regeimes.
Israel, however? The US? Two rabid dogs.
well.. not against people from outside Iran.
what's overt military hostility anyways? shelling kurds isn't one?
that said, Iran has way too much internal problems to actually start messing with any of it's neighbors(apart from kurds) with real military action, if they were to initiate something it would be in the american way - to do inside country politics with outside country politics(find a common enemy, blame them for everything while tightening the grip on civilians which have nothing to do with it but w
Re: (Score:3)
The US is clearly hostile, but historically they generally let the other guy shoot first.
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. during the Cold War overthrew more countries than I can keep track of (or propped-up tyrants like Saddam Hussein).
But since this topic is about Iran..... we overthrew their democratically-elected government in the 1950s and replaced it with a dictator (or king but that's the same difference). Why? We wanted their oil and a puppet to ensure we'd have it. Those old enough to remember the hell of living under that dictator have hated us ever since. And I don't blame them one bit.
Oh and yes we started Desert Storm. We encouraged our long-time friend Saddam to invade Kuwait (document revealed by wikileaks & read on the floor by Congressman Paul). And then we acted surprised and attacked Saddam. We set it up. We executed it.
Same way we set-up Libya.
And Syria (we have troops there now).
Time to wake up.
Do some research on Senator McCain and his pals.
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq.
False.
Saying Mosaddeq was communist is like the idiots who claim Obama is communist. There's no truth to it. (And even if either of those 2 things were true, that's what elections are for: So the people can remove the president. No need for outside military interference.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The soviet union also had elections. Did wonders for them, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, so it's good to commit terror when it's for "us".
Re: (Score:2)
"Some one is definitely going to rape that bitch. Well then, I guess it should be ME!"
Re: (Score:2)
sh!t like this
Slashdot is an adult-friendly site. You can spell it out; if you fucking swear you won't be automatically modded down. In fact, we have one user who swears every time he posts (if from nothing other than his name, but generally it does include the content as well), Profane Motherfucker (564659).
The US is bad (and getting worse)
On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions. And I don't mean merely military actions; I'm also talking
Re: (Score:2)
On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions.
You are so desperately wrong.
Communism kill 100,000,000 people. [harvard.edu]
The Gruesome Consequences of a Political Idea [harvard.edu]
In his introduction, Stephane Courtois himself a former communist, breaks with the postwar taboo on comparing the Gulag with the Holocaust. He notes that the communist body count of more than 100 million exceeds that of the Nazis. He compares the "class genocide" of communism with the "race genocide" of Nazism and states that both were "crimes against humanity."
So controversial was this comparison that two of Mr. Courtois's editor-collaborators--Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin--later distanced themselves from what he wrote. And predictably, the French left lashed itself into a frenzy, denouncing the book's contributors for traducing the noble communist fight against fascism.
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism? [dennisprager.com]
Q&A: Greek debt crisis [bbc.co.uk]
FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VALUE (Score:5, Informative)
The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indis
Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA (Score:4, Insightful)
evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
If you think the Soviet Union wasn't using every dirty trick they knew to get pro-communists in power in those same countries you listed then you're delusional. Also, if you don't think they have done every legal and illegal thing they could have to maintain their hold over those "democratic" communist parties you're even more delusional. Of course, the Soviets had no legal mandate to ever release their records of such things.
So yes there was a conspiracy in the same way as there was a giant pro-US conspiracy, a giant game of chess played across the globe at hideous cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Ho Chi Minh would have been as anti-Soviet or PRC as he was anti-US. More so. He'd been a student in France.
Re: (Score:2)
...have you looked at the history of Vietnam before the Vietnam war at all? Ever?
Ho Chi Minh was falling out of power, those in power were very glad to side with the soviets. After all, the soviets were giving them supplies to cement their power bases with.
Or did you mean military opposition by Ho Chi Minh against his own pro-soviet government? Using weapons supplied by some magical fairy I take it or are you suddenly okay with the US interfering with the "internal" affairs of other countries?
Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA (Score:4, Interesting)
El Salvador:...A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
This is basically wrong. I've lived in El Salvador. The country is richer now than before the war (although some say the land re-distribution was a bad thing), no one is afraid to vote for the 'wrong' party. I attended rallies favoring the 'wrong' party. The FMLN was fully integrated into the government, and has even won elections. Hope you had a better source of information for the rest of your stuff there, because someone is misleading you. I'll bet your source of information had an agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
This was written over ten years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest complaints about the settlement were that the land redistribution was botched, and it
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Afghanistan was a response to 9/11"
More like 9/11 was an excuse for Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
"Afghanistan was a response to 9/11"
More like 9/11 was an excuse for Afghanistan.
Oh, yes. I'm sure George Bush and his cronies were just aching for some excuse to invade Afghanistan and get their hands on its bountiful supply of goats.
Re: (Score:2)
> Besides the second Iraq war, what wars has the US initiated?
The Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars come to mind, as well as the US invasion of Hawaii. These stand out because these were explicit US wars of conquest. There is also the fact that the USA is explicitly based on the genocide of Native Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the second Iraq war, what wars has the US initiated? WWI and WWII clearly not, Korea no, Vietnam you could make an argument for, but really it was getting involved in someone else's civil war more than initiating a conflict, Desert Storm obviously not, Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. The US is clearly hostile, but historically they generally let the other guy shoot first.
Unless the "other guy" happens to be a potential ally of the Soviet Union during the cold war. The US military (or the CIA) invaded practically half of latin america during the cold war.
Also, don't forget that Saddam probably wouldn't have invaded Iran in the 80's (certainly at least not at the scale he attempted) if the US hadn't backed him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This post is so full of ignorance it's pathetic. Learn some history outside your bubble man, it's making you look sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they did use military force to overthrow the puppet shah the U.S. put into place when they overthrew Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953 in an oil grab.
But that's probably not an example that puts the West in the best light.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has never initiated overt military hostility since the 19th century. This is over 6+ regeimes.
...and the most recent one figured out long ago that it was much easier to simply fund & equip Hesbolla to do their dirty work for them.
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy. The issue is more the state of europe at the end of it all. One can reasonably presume the soviets would have been farther west and the british not as far east proportionately. But without the US the war might have taken a very different flavour, the british forming the southern or northern flanks of a combined operation, that sort of thing. Africa would have probably ended up basically the same, given that the British controlled the med and the surface of the atlantic by the time the US entered the war. Asia is a different mess, because the US and britain entered the war at the same time. I'm not sure the Japanese could have gone after the allies minus the US in quite so grandiose a way.
From the moment the germans failed to force the soviets to capitulate in barbarossa they were doomed (and that was about 3 weeks after the US entered the war, so not much the US did). How europe would have been carved up between the british and soviets would have been very different without the americans on the british side to be sure.
Besides that, it's sort of a nonsense statement. A lot has happened since 1945. 70 years before WW2 the world looked at germany as a beacon of political progress. Just because the US picked the right war 70 years ago doesn't mean it was right or wrong about anything in particular that has happened since. If you really want to air 70 year old dirty laundry why did the US do bugger all when their oldest friend was being marched over by the Nazi's? Right. Being right once doesn't make you always right.
Britain and france were on the right side of WW2 also, and what did that get them. Suez, Algeria, Vietnam etc. etc. aren't exactly beacons of justice, and the US has just as much dirty laundry post ww2 as they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy.
I think that's a bit of a stretch considering that half of why Britain survived was because the US was "lend-leasing" ships and planes before officially joining the war (the other half being creativity and determination). And we were sending tanks and stuff to Russia too. Without American supply, Britain wouldn't have had control of the Atlantic or Med and would have been kicked out of Africa by Rommel.
I'm not saying the rest of your points aren't valid, but this one is a bit of a stretch.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Benefited from, and required are not the same thing. The SU survived without US help. It pushed back the other way *faster* because of US help, and the UK who traded destroyers for bases *benefited* from US help, but they would have survived without it. The Afrika Korps was doomed 6 months after the US entered the war, and was mostly a separate operation.
Don't get me wrong. The US helped, a even before it entered the war. But once the germans gave up on the air battle for britain, and once the failed at
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy.
Unlikely. Both the British and the Soviets were recipients of enormous amounts of weapons, war material, food, and other items as part of the US Lend-Lease program. The Soviets were given more than 430,000 motor vehicles [o5m6.de], including the all important reliable supply truck. Without those the Soviet Army tactical supply echelon would have been badly crippled.
If the US didn't join the war, the Allies would have lost the use of the enormous air forces brought in by the US, in addition to the large, well equip
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing that the best way to help a suicidal person is to give them more guns?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing that the best way to help a suicidal person is to give them more guns?
Please read the parent post again. Your (sensationalist) statement doesn't match what they were trying to say (unless somehow you intended to be funny).
Re: (Score:2)
agreed, launch a nice nuke on Tel Aviv. problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't help at all. The Islamists still want to convert the world to the Islamic faith and Sharia law, and unite it under a single Muslim government - the Caliphate - combining church and state. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America [guardian.co.uk] - they ultimately want the same for every country - convert to Islam and establish their flavor of Sharia law. They will keep killing people and overthrowing governments if they can.
Iran has threatened to cut off Europe's oil during winter with the expressed purpose that
What evidence is there? (Score:3, Interesting)
Too easy to blame some country or entity for attacks these days. What proof do they have that it was Iran? It might have been someone else in the Arab region who wants to see Iran and Israel go at it because they benefit from higher oil prices due to a regional conflict, or that someone else is doing the dirty work for them.
Re:What evidence is there? (Score:5, Funny)
Too easy to blame some country or entity for attacks these days. What proof do they have that it was Iran?
I think they analyzed the packets from the DDoS and each header said either "SILENCE!" or "I KEEEL YOU!"
Re: (Score:2)
Iran itself? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why are they saying Iran did it? Are they saying the country's leadership ordered it rather than a bunch of script kiddies? If anything, wouldn't it be more accurate to say Iranians did it than the country itself? It seems /. keeps lumping countries together, as if all China pirates or hacks etc.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Like it or not, out here in the real world a citizen's actions reflect upon their country.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the way the USA posts Goat.cx links to Slashdot all the time.
Does this mean we can blame rickrolling on Rick Astley... born in Lancashire, England?
Besides .cx is Christmas Island not USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish you would stop calling random people rocket scientists [wikipedia.org]. It's unbecoming.
Pure propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, it's not like the IAEA "declared its latest inspection visit to Iran a failure, with the regime blocking access to a key site suspected of hosting covert nuclear weapon research" [guardian.co.uk], or that "satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at the site, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger" [usatoday.com], or that there are six binding and currently in-force UN Security Council resolutions imposing sancti [wikipedia.org]
Re:Pure propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore we should cut-off food and starve 1 million Iranians just like we starved 1 million Iraqis during the 1990s embargo. And when that doesn't work (because it won't), we should bomb the hell out of them and kill (or maim) another 1 million innocent men, women, and children like we did in Iraq in 2002 to 2011.
Why don't we listen to the head of Israel's Mossad who said, "Iran is not an existential threat to us." Therefore there's no need for us to go over there and start starving or outright killing people. I don't understand this desire of the U.S. or its people to hold the record for the most corpses created during the last three decades. It reminds me of how another nation circa 1931 to 39. (No not Germany..... Japan in China, Taiwan, and Vietnam because they needed oil and natural resources.)
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree with the OP - we are being prepared for trouble with Iran. Demonize the enemy is Warfare 101. I don't think either the OP or myself would defend Iran as a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd say this: I'm not really "citing" anything; I could have said that comment without any links at all, but included them for background. That said:
— The usatoday.com link is an Associated Press story, and one that has been heavily covered by other wire services.
— The wikipedia article is merely a handy list of easily-referenced UN Security Council resolutions — need I link them?
— I didn't "cite" myself, and that post includes its own references; I included it because if I did
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand that it's possible for other players in the world to do things that we and our allies view as "bad things" for whatever reason, and thus want to stop them?
Yes. However, painting yourself into a corner that requires war is probably the worst way to go about resolving "bad things". I can tell you that the ramifications of a war with Iran will be far worse than what we experienced with Iraq. As a result, the threat of war better have some meaningful reason. And working towards a nuke ain't it.
As for your comment about Voltaire - I find it doubly ironic. You pretty much spend the entire post discussing varying levels of "truths", and end up basically saying that
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree with the OP - we are being prepared for trouble with Iran.
Its awfully big of you to overlook the truck bombs that the Iranians occasionally have delivered to Americans or American allies to clear out a market place or appartment building of breathing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Great post. Even worse, if they get the world they wish for then Iran has nukes and using their usual pattern, maintains plausible deniability while their agents (Hezbollah et al) sow terror around the world (just as Iranian agents have been operating recently in Georgia, India and Thailand, and formerly in Argentina). Even worse, because Iran has nukes all the other countries in the region decide they must have them (the Arabs and Persians *really* do not like each other). That would be a clusterfsck on a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh hi - I was wondering where you had gone to. Seems not much has changed. Still supporting government jack boots in all their forms.
Note sure what you're trying to show with your two posts, because they pretty much make the case that
a) we're seeing the same exact events unfold now with Iran that unfolded with Iraq
b) the US position on Iraqi WMDs has been conclusively shown to be wrong
You can try to argue all you want that "the truth pointed to WMDs", but the actual truth was that Iraq didn't have nukes (on
Re: (Score:3)
The USA and Israel stand completely alone in wanting to bomb Iran. The vast majority of Western democratic nations oppose a bombing campaign against Iran and consider Iran's quest for nuclear power legitimate. And the US doesn't give a crap about democracy in the Middle East. The US continues to back vicious Arab dictators against popular liberal democratic opposition movements throughout the Middle East. The US explicitly backs the torture and murder of prisoners in these nations, all of whom are far less
Re:Pure propaganda. (Score:5, Informative)
And it's not like we are doing far worse - assassinations and overt spying with drones, plus at least two targeted computer viruses.
This could just be the Iranian equivalent of Anonymous, just because the attacks appear to come from Iran doesn't mean "Iran" did it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there a world where you can imagine that the US would actually do something right (including exercise force), or that Iran might actually be doing something wrong?
Or is this just all an intellectual exercise in moral relativism, where the US is always "in the wrong" or that any other nation has a "right" to do whatever they wish?
Why must this be obviously NOT an Iranian cyber attack (and attribution is admittedly anything but certain), and must instead be some kind of subterfuge?
When the US entered World
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a world where you can imagine that the US would actually do something right (including exercise force),
Yes. It's a daring plan I call "Operation: Stay the Fuck Out of Other Countries Because That's None of Our Goddamned Fucking Business."
...I have a committee working on a better name.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, but if you actually think the world would be a better place for humanity at large if nations throughout the last couple of centuries which have stood for principles of freedom over the alternatives did nothing, I think you'd be unpleasantly surprised at the result.
And if you think that nations which are manifestly NOT free are isolating themselves and standing still, you'd be sadly mistaken. I'm always amused at the effects of the lens through which many view their own country, and how ignorant peopl
Re: (Score:2)
which have stood for principles of freedom
Would you care to name a few such noble nations? I cannot recollect any. As far as I have seen, any nation that goes to war is not because it is altruistic, but because it wants to rule the world and impose its ideology on the other nation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think nearly anyone in the world could attack the United States and they would lose. This is not jingoism or nationalism ,it's simple practicality. We have one of the best militaries in the world, and we're buffered by two oceans and two very friendly countries.
Trade embargoes? Sure. Pull our diplomats. Rescue American citizens held hostage. But we have absolutely no goddamn business firing missiles, dropping bombs, or otherwise assaulting other communities around the world for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, we're just as bad. We just have better P.R. and more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I guess the voters are probably actually that stupid. According to one poll, mo
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.
Hold your knee-jerk reaction horses.
Calm the fuck down.
And now, with a dose of articulation please try to argue why you think these claims are false. Keep in mind that the BBC is a well-respected news agency (one that actually has reporters on the ground and shit, you know, good-oldfashioned journalism), so it's not like we're just going to take your word for it, Mr. Beelzebud.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "Pure Whining" (Score:2)
Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.
Should we be checking your post for secret clues as to your location and who is holding you hostage and forcing you to read and post on this issue? There are plenty of other stories on the front page to read and comment on. I think most people would consider apparent state sponsored DDOS attacks to be interesting and newsworthy.
PressTV Claims Jamming in Europe (Score:2, Interesting)
War Against Beer? (Score:2)
I blame Iran (Score:2)
I have moles digging through my backyard. I think Iran put them there. Damn you Iran! Damn you!
The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out (Score:3)
Nothing good is coming from any involvement between countries in the Greater Middle East and countries outside of it. Diplomacy is awful. The U.S. is waging war all over creating chaos. Humanitarian aid is handled disastrously. And any cultural exchange is met with hostility such as the BBC establishing a television channel.
Just let that part of the world be alone by itself and cut them off completely. Don't send them money. Don't send diplomats. Don't send businesses. Encourage your citizens from touring that area. And don't ever send soldiers and bombs.
All I hear about that part of the world when it comes to foreign relations are horror stories. The Middle East is backwards. They are regressing into even more oppressive religious states and I don't see outsiders feel like they need to be a military or cultural influence over there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just let that part of the world be alone by itself and cut them off completely. Don't send them money. Don't send diplomats. Don't send businesses. Encourage your citizens from touring that area. And don't ever send soldiers and bombs.
Agreed, but we do sell censorship and wiretapping gear to them, and we like to buy oil from them, so...
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomacy is awful. .... Humanitarian aid is handled disastrously ... any cultural exchange is met with hostility such as the BBC establishing a television channel.... backwards.... They are regressing into even more oppressive religious states
I reread your post and on second thought I think the US politicans hate Iran because they are on the same path as the US, just a little further along / more successful.
Its a jealousy thing.
We're addicted to their oil (Score:2)
The problem is that we're addicted to using their oil. It's not like we're giving them money out of charity.
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't import oil from Iran. [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Encourage your citizens from touring that area.
No. Getting to know each other is the best way to keep from killing each other.
False flag? (Score:2, Interesting)
Was it Iran or someone else? It appears most of the hacking (and killing of nuclear power plant scientists) has been done by Israel, Britain, and the U.S.. The more I read the more I think Iran is being used as a patsy by Western warhawks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=2&hp [nytimes.com]
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230303.html [presstv.ir]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Speculations_about_the_target_and_origin [wikipedia.org]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334001/Iranian-nuclear-scientist-kil [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think that the US cares about false flag operations? Bin Laden and 16 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and we decide to declare war on Afghanistan and the Taliban. The entire UN weapons inspection team claimed that Iraq didn't have WMDs but we ignored all evidence and invaded and overthrew Saddam with no hesitation.
If the U.S. wanted to they could declare war on Iran for an overdue library book. "We know that Iran has the book...it's overdue...we are mobilizing our infantry d
Re: (Score:2)
"It works the same in any country."
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with conspiracy theories is that they can go anywhere. One fun thing to do is to flip everything on their head and see if that would make sense as well. For example:
1. Stuxnet was a false flag perpetrated by Iran to gather world wide sympathy
2. Iranian intelligence service discovered one of their "scientists" was a CIA asset that was leaking info on their nuclear program, they killed him in a manner that would frame the US/Israel and thus garner more sympathy. Two birds with one stone.
3. The creat
Blame it on Iran (Score:2)
1) Bad Weather.
2) Your constipation
3) Any politicians constipation.
4) 2012 December 21st, Iran destroys the world
5) You burn the pizza. (Classic Peperoni too...with the real Wisconsin cheese.)
6) The recent talk your girlfriend had with you about...that size issue.
7) Software Bugs...any software...doesn't matter.
8) Why ICS will never have decent apps with 15 gazillion versions running around.
9) You lost your job.
10) Yes, and the final reason why everything is IRAN's fault is:
Because it has been too long sin
Awwwkward! (Score:2)
Seeing how the BBC has Iran's cock so deep down their throat it's coming out the other end like a tail. Wait wait I know the answer to this one .....they both blame the Jews......
Re: (Score:2)
They turned me into a newt!
(I got better.)
OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/US-bases-Iran11.jpg [lewrockwell.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!!
You should probably change the title of your post to, "Iran threatens its neighbors, Europe, the US, and some other country they want to remove from the pages of history." You didn't post anything about how convenient those the US bases in nearby countries make Iranian or Iranian backed attacks against US forces performing missions in those other countries. Also, I notice that Iranian bases and activities aren't depicted on the map - I suppose that would challenge the narrative of "poor little Iran". I w
Re: (Score:2)
I found this for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness [wikipedia.org]