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."
Re:Beats real war any day (Score:1, Interesting)
Iran has never initiated overt military hostility since the 19th century. This is over 6+ regeimes.
Israel, however? The US? Two rabid dogs.
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.
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.
PressTV Claims Jamming in Europe (Score:2, Interesting)
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-killed-wounded-separate-bomb-attacks.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?scp=1&sq=january [nytimes.com] 2009 sanger bush natanz&st=cse
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:Beats real war any day (Score:2, Interesting)
"Afghanistan was a response to 9/11"
More like 9/11 was an excuse for Afghanistan.
Re:Beats real war any day (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 barbarossa it was a matter of rate, not eventuality. The US hastened germanies defeat, and significantly altered the manner of that defeat, but germany and italy were doomed. The british basically dealt with africa on its own, it was the invasion of france, the south pacific and the pace of buildup and mobility that lend lease gave the allies. Had it not been for lend lease we probably would have been looking at an invasion of france in 47 or something along those lines.
The aid to the soviet union came after they blunted the axis attack. From then on it was a matter of how many millions of people were going to die over how long a period. The UK is essentially the same, by the time the US was trading destroyers for bases the UK was capable, but the longer it dragged on the more likely it was that people would starve.
It's not like you can do a comprehensive analysis and say 'if the US didn't exists at all' because by virtue of existing at all it altered the play of the war. Resources that are easier to produce in the US (oil and trucks for example) were produced in the US rather than elsewhere. Would japan have launched an aggressive war if the Philippines still belonged to Spain? Does that sort of question even make sense? The fact that they were no longer getting oil from the US made the US involved, so you can't entirely decouple them. But if you crunch the numbers, the British empire and soviet union had the upper hand once the SU signed a non aggression pact with japan, after that it was all a matter of rate, and losses to get there.
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.