Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Blamed For Major Cyberattack On BBC

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the who's-to-blame? dept.

Security 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."

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Beats real war any day (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355565)

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 (1, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355635)

Iran has never initiated overt military hostility since the 19th century. This is over 6+ regeimes.

Israel, however? The US? Two rabid dogs.

Re:Beats real war any day (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355775)

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:Beats real war any day (1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355867)

The Taliban was created as a US proxy. Same with the KLA.

Israel created and advanced Hamas to create factional divisions within Palestinian political organizing.

Don't go that way. Iran is small potatoes in the proxy-warrior arena.

Re:Beats real war any day (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355993)

The US Funded the Mujhadeen, the Vietcong, Saddam Hussein, Israel, the IRA, and god knows what else.

Re:Beats real war any day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356243)

Israel created and advanced Hamas to create factional divisions within Palestinian political organizing.

Now, if you actually had good evidence that Israel created Hamas, something not on ptimes.org , then you would get modded plus 6 informative. But instead you're spreading baseless rumor and propaganda.

Re:Beats real war any day (2)

bossk538 (1682744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356319)

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 (4, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356427)

The US backed the 'Northern Alliance' and other Mujahideen to fight the Soviets (just as the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese and North Koreans in those conflicts - even going so far as for Soviet crews to fly and man missile batteries against US forces). The US did not create the Taliban, the Pakistani ISI did (and the Taliban are still supported by the ISI - which pisses the US off no end considering the degree of financial support given by the US to Pakistan).

Re:Beats real war any day (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356991)

The ISI which was a completely funded creature of Zbignew Brezhinski's strategy?

Re:Beats real war any day (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356863)

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 care how many girls they keep out of schools, or how many people they execute for blasphemy. But since they don't, we pretend we do.

So don't even try the argument that the US somehow didn't support the same people we're trying to kill now. The only thing that has changed is who the Taliban are against. And it just so happens to be us.

Re:Beats real war any day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357117)

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.

The only reason I don't like rapists is because they're rapists. What's your point?

Re:Beats real war any day (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357309)

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:Beats real war any day (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355809)

oh lets see, USA vs. Hitler, Moussolini, Stalin (Cold War), North Korea, I think if Iran is all about good and against evil (as you seem to claim) they all falling far behind in achievements; thank god for USA, the world would be a very sad place come 1945. Have your pick Europeans: Hitler's goons or Stalin's. Same in Asia.

Re:Beats real war any day (3, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356553)

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.

...and Furthermore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355817)

From Wikipedia's article on "Nuclear weapons and Israel" (Read and see whether it sounds a bit familiar, as in "the pot calling the kettle black" familiar.)

British aid

Top secret British documents obtained by BBC Newsnight show that Britain made hundreds of secret shipments of restricted materials to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s. These included specialist chemicals for reprocessing and samples of fissile material—uranium-235 in 1959, and plutonium in 1966, as well as highly enriched lithium-6 which is used to boost fission bombs and fuel hydrogen bombs. The investigation also showed that Britain shipped 20 tons of heavy water directly to Israel in 1959 and 1960 to start up the Dimona reactor. The transaction was made through a Norwegian front company called Noratom which took a 2% commission on the transaction. Britain was challenged about the heavy water deal at the International Atomic Energy Agency after it was exposed on Newsnight in 2005. British Foreign Minister Kim Howells claimed this was a sale to Norway. But a former British intelligence officer who investigated the deal at the time confirmed that this was really a sale to Israel and the Noratom contract was just a charade. The Foreign Office finally admitted in March 2006 that Britain knew the destination was Israel all along. Israel admits running the Dimona reactor with Norway's heavy water since 1963. French engineers who helped build Dimona say the Israelis were expert operators, so only a relatively small portion of the water were lost during the years past since the first operation of the reactor.

Criticality

In 1961, the Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion informed the Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker that a pilot plutonium-separation plant would be built at Dimona. British intelligence concluded from this and other information that this "can only mean that Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons". The nuclear reactor at Dimona went critical in 1962. By 1965 the Israeli reprocessing plant was completed and ready to convert the reactor's fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium.

Weapons production 1967–present

Israel is believed to have begun full scale production of nuclear weapons following the 1967 Six-Day War, although it may have had bomb parts earlier. A CIA report from early 1967 stated that Israel had the materials to construct a bomb in six to eight weeks and some authors suggest that Israel had two crude bombs ready for use during the war. According to US journalist Seymour Hersh, everything was ready for production at this time save an official order to do so. Another CIA report from 1968 states that "(...) Israel might undertake a nuclear weapons program in the next several years." Moshe Dayan, then Defense Minister, believed that nuclear weapons were cheaper and more practical than indefinitely growing Israel's conventional forces. He convinced the Labor Party's economic boss Pinchas Sapir of the value of commencing the program by giving him a tour of the Dimona site in early 1968, and soon after Dayan decided that he had the authority to order the start of full production of four to five nuclear warheads a year. Hersh stated that it is widely believed that the words "Never Again" were welded, in English and Hebrew, onto the first warhead.

In order to produce plutonium the Israelis needed a large supply of uranium ore, some of which was procured by the Mossad on the pretense of buying it for an Italian chemical company in Milan. Once the uranium was shipped from Antwerp it was transferred to an Israeli freighter at sea and brought to Israel. The orchestrated disappearance of the uranium, named Operation Plumbat, became the subject of the 1978 book The Plumbat Affair.

Re:Beats real war any day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355833)

Yes. Iran and Persia are a very old empire. And from my mediocre knowledge of history, people of former empires have a tendency to be wise, overall, of state relations.

When asked about not being a super power any longer, an Englishman replied, "Life goes on."

And when we, the US stop being a super power (it's happening now), I hope we'll become as wise as these old civilizations.

Although, the UK has been a bit 'lap doggy' to us....

Sometimes I wonder about out fear of China. They were once a HUGE super power and now they're rising again. Will they forget their past and repeat the West's stupidity or will they remember their past and be something new?

Re:Beats real war any day (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355835)

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 who are pissed with their government).

Re:Beats real war any day (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355927)

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.

Re:Beats real war any day (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356303)

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 (4, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356519)

So the US overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq. Big deal. Who they were really trying to stop is the Tudeh (the communist party of Iran) - who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq. At the height of the Cold War this made sense at the time. Yes, it would be lovely for the US to stick to its stated principles about democracy, but if the Tudeh got in power (backed by the Soviets) then the resulting 'democracy' would be meaningless. Just as the democracy is essentially meaningless under the ayatollahs. This was 'realpolitk' at its ugliest - sh!t like this was done so the West could win against the Soviet empire. If you know anything about the historical reality of the Soviet empire you'll also understand its a damn sight better that the West won (despite its own flaws) than the Soviets did. So, stop living in the utopian dream and come to the real world, you'll get a good perspective on why things were done. The US is bad (and getting worse), but they pale compared to the Soviets or the ayatollahs on the badness scale.

Re:Beats real war any day (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356703)

>>>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:Beats real war any day (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357037)

Oh, so it's good to commit terror when it's for "us".

FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VALUE (4, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357087)

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 -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94:
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.
***
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.

Re:Beats real war any day (1, Interesting)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357265)

"Afghanistan was a response to 9/11"

More like 9/11 was an excuse for Afghanistan.

Re:Beats real war any day (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356039)

This post is so full of ignorance it's pathetic. Learn some history outside your bubble man, it's making you look sad.

Re:Beats real war any day (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356131)

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.

Another war will make us poor. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357167)

Lying to start a war is treason.

In a democracy, government secrecy is treason. Citizens cannot help run the government if they don't have any way to understand what the government is doing.

There is now an extensive public relations campaign in the U.S. to start a war with Iran, using money from U.S. taxpayers. These are some of the players:

1) Those who control the U.S. government want constant war. War creates numerous opportunities for easy profits that can be hidden from taxpayers.

The U.S. government has a long history of using violence. See the Timeline of United States military operations. [wikipedia.org] See also the Military history of the United States. [wikipedia.org] The Bush and Cheney families had, or have, investments in weapons companies. [slate.com] Those in control hid their involvement. [hermes-press.com]

2) Jews want U.S. taxpayers to pay for Israeli security. A better, cheaper, less self-destructive method would be for Jews to be less arrogant and more caring toward their neighbors. The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for more than 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl that he owned. Those ancient problems with relationships will not be solved by guys in Washington who often don't even have a good relationship with their wives.

It would be foolish to think that statement is anti-Jew. A war with Iran will likely mean further troubles for Israel because it is likely to escalate the violence in the area. I'm not the only person who thinks that. See the 60 Minutes episode, The Spymaster: Meir Dagan on Iran's threat. [cbsnews.com] Lesley Stahl, 60 Minutes interviewer, does her disgusting "Oh wow, oh wow!" routine, but there is useful information. (The 60 Minutes program needs better editing.)

Quote: "You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you've ever heard. That's a direct quote." -- Lesley Stahl, quoting ex-chief of Mossad Meir Dagan. Mossad is an Israeli government agency that rivals the U.S. government for secret violence, as Jeremiah Cornelius said in the parent comment.

There are only 5,874,300 Jews in Israel [jewishvirtuallibrary.org] . There are approximately 5,275,000 Jews in the United States. [wikipedia.org] In some ways, the U.S. is as much of a Jewish country as Israel. It is amazing how much power that small group of 1.7% of has over U.S. government policy. The population of the U.S. is 313 million [census.gov] .

To many people, the idea of 6 million Jews encouraging violence against 1.6 billion Muslims [wikipedia.org] is self-destructive.

It is a mistake to think that all Israeli Jews agree with Israeli or even Jewish policies. For example: Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jews 'harass' 8-year-old girl over dress [youtube.com] . Quote: "... 50 people involved in the abuse of an 8-year-old." Also see Israel braced for protests against treatment of women after girl, 8, is spat on by Jewish extremists. [dailymail.co.uk]

3) The nuclear power industry wants fewer competitors. Nuclear power is, unfortunately, a necessary reality now that oil is becoming far more expensive. It is sensible for Iran to have a nuclear program; all countries must have one, or face economic ruin.

Re:Beats real war any day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355995)

So would I. Nothing solves an argument like a good old game of [insert game], then the following bitching and accusations of cheathax noobs and wallhacking and occasional DDoS of a server because someone got a little too upset.

What's that, you want to pass SOPA? QUAKE BATTLE!

Re:Beats real war any day (1)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356043)

"Fixing banks with less regulation is like fixing Lindsay Lohan with more cocaine."

Blaming the cocaine on her problems is like blaming the gun on someone who commits suicide.

Re:Beats real war any day (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356163)

Are you arguing that the best way to help a suicidal person is to give them more guns?

Re:Beats real war any day (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356561)

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:Beats real war any day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356083)

Try being a man for once.

Re:Beats real war any day (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356389)

>>>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:Beats real war any day (1)

dan828 (753380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356627)

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:Beats real war any day (1)

redkcir (1431605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357095)

I don't know. One well placed bomb could solve so much of the worlds terrorist activity. If they hate the world so much you would think they would just close their borders. Instead they export and train terrorist to the rest of the world.

FUCK IRAN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355577)

And the horses they rode in on !!

Israel !! NUKE IRAN NOW !!

What evidence is there? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355639)

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? (5, Funny)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355725)

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:What evidence is there? (1)

catalina (213767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356023)

So the headers came from Jeff Dunham????

Iran itself? (1, Interesting)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355697)

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:Iran itself? (1, Flamebait)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355777)

Like it or not, out here in the real world a citizen's actions reflect upon their country.

Re:Iran itself? (4, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355853)

I hate the way the USA posts Goat.cx links to Slashdot all the time.

Re:Iran itself? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355957)

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:Iran itself? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356187)

You dumb fucken faget, thats not what it fucken means. It means we blame rickrolling on the entire cuntry that the rickroller is from. It means that even though .cx is Christfuck Island if the person who posted the link was from fucken Argentina then we blame fucken Argentina for posting a goatsex link.

Fucken dumb fucken faget. Learn to fucken read. Your stupid.

Re:Iran itself? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356923)

I really wish you would stop calling random people rocket scientists [wikipedia.org] . It's unbecoming.

Re:Iran itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355947)

And that is why Saudi Arabia is universally blamed for 9/11 WTC attacks..?

Re:Iran itself? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356005)

Wow, the USA sure is a faget, then. A big, fat, ignorant, obnoxious, cock gobbling faget.

Re:Iran itself? (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356909)

Hrm, so you're saying we're all rocket scientists [wikipedia.org] ? Thanks!

Ooh, you meant "faggot."

Fucking idiot.

Re:Iran itself? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357049)

U mad, faget? Obviously your in touch with you're feminine side or you wouldnt be so sensitive about someone being called a faget, which means your probably faget because fagets are sensitive ladyboys. Haha go eat some more semen faget.

Pure propaganda. (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355705)

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.

Re:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355851)

+1 Insightful

Re:Pure propaganda. (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355893)

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 sanctions on Iran, five of which invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes force to compel compliance [wikipedia.org] .

It's all pretty much just "propaganda". (And before you go spewing ignorance about how this is "just the same as Iraq", read this [slashdot.org] .)

If it makes you feel better to believe that the US and/or the West are what's wrong with the world, and that regimes like Iran are really innocent and have just been unfairly targeted by some evil cabal, then I really hope you get the world you wish for: a world where principles of liberal democracy and freedom are not projected and protected — even if imperfectly and with too many mistakes to count — and you'd then see what oppression and "propaganda" really are.

Re:Pure propaganda. (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356085)

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:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356167)

Before you go spewing off about UN Security Council resolutions authorizing force.

Be aware that "the US is giving up to 270% more foreign aid to Security Council members as incentive for them to support US positions.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_military_action_against_Iran#Reactions_to_UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1737_by_anti-war_groups [wikipedia.org]

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356361)

Just a comment - you've cited yourself, USA Today, Wikipedia and the UK newspaper the Guardian as sources. Hmmm. Not the most reliable sources for detailed analysis (possible exception of the 'Guardian' - but that used to be known as the Gruniad owing to the number of misprints). And USA Today? I thought that was mainly a weather map?

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 nice bunch of people. We'd just like to be treated as adults. Or at least thinking, intelligent citizens. My Voltaire quote (see sig) is very apt ...

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356749)

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 didn't there would be a flood of, "But what about all the Iraqi WMD lies????!!!1111lulz" posts, and though it would be better to at least preempt them by way of explanation. Now, one might not agree with the reasoning, but it's a factual explanation of how the intelligence process works and how it applied to Iraqi WMD. If someone thinks it isn't referenced well enough or doesn't agree with it — well, what can I say: it's a slashdot comment, not a scholarly paper that is aligned with every reader's ideological viewpoint.

That said, of course we're "preparing for trouble with Iran" — but it's not because we're manufacturing the threat. 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? You'd like to be treated like an adult, but at the same time it's not possible for the BBC to report that its Persian service was a victim of a cyberattack without it being "propaganda", when meanwhile Iranian state media (which actually IS propaganda in the negative connotation) is continually "demonizing the enemy," often with no factual basis?

Your Voltaire quote is ironic because the subject of "truth" is exactly what I was discussing in my other post [slashdot.org] .

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357253)

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 truth was - and is - a political beast. Which makes no sense.

Re:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356425)

Its rather telling of what's happened to the /. readership over the years. The 100% rhetoric post with aboslutely nothing but dick swinging is rated +5 insightful while the post full of facts and links remains unmoderated.

Sadly, the moderation system on /. has become more about popular ignorance and stupidity than actually functioning as intended. And its not that the moderation system itself is all that bad. Its just that following simple directions and actually doing something selfless which seems to be all but impossible for the Entitled Generation.

+10 Informative - damn the /. readers are so broken these days

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356693)

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 an epic scale.

Fortunately Israel is doing a 'North Korea' and threatening crazy stuff unless the West/US promises to sort Iran out - otherwise the West would only wring its hands as the Iranians built a nuclear weapon stockpile (kicking off the nuclear arms race in the region). The West/US have been pretty limp-wristed in their response so far and Iran has had nearly an entire decade to evade and continue their work (they're up to 20% enrichment now and are not far from breaking out into full nuclear capability; plus their ballistic missile test program is now pretty much ready for 'special' weapons).

If Iran would allow inspectors unfettered access to all of the *dozens* of nuclear research sites they have then the excuse for war would evaporate overnight. It is clear the Iranians don't want/can't allow this (since they actually are working on weapons, despite their public statements) so they are string the International Community out as long as they can. It is currently a race between the Iranian secret weapons programme and the International Community to see who can resolve this first, one way (Iran has nukes and is invulnerable) or another (US destroys the sites [Israel can't get them all by itself]).

Re:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356969)

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 sanctions on Iran, five of which invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes force to compel compliance [wikipedia.org] .

It's all pretty much just "propaganda". (And before you go spewing ignorance about how this is "just the same as Iraq", read this [slashdot.org] .)

If it makes you feel better to believe that the US and/or the West are what's wrong with the world, and that regimes like Iran are really innocent and have just been unfairly targeted by some evil cabal, then I really hope you get the world you wish for: a world where principles of liberal democracy and freedom are not projected and protected — even if imperfectly and with too many mistakes to count — and you'd then see what oppression and "propaganda" really are.

If you are really for liberty and freedom, first thing you would've done would be to abolish all the current western governments.
Not sure if you are an American, but you've heard of NDAA? If you are really an American for liberty and freedom, what's happening to your action on YOUR government who have been destroying YOUR liberty and freedom, and give you a grope on your and your children's genitals before you get on the plane?

Yes, the US and the West are what's wrong with the world, because these countries are not controlled by its people, but are serving the interests of big banks and corporations who give 0 shit of your liberty and freedom. The people who actually do care about liberty and freedom would study history and understand WHO is terrorizing the world (it's certainly not Iran).

Oh, and if my memory serves me right, isn't these "Guardian", "USA Today" sewage stream media the same group who pumped up the war machine for Afghanistan and Iraq? hmmm...

Re:Pure propaganda. (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357197)

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 (only chemical weapons we had sold them), the intelligence reports presented to policy makers were selected to present a particular viewpoint, and did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence analysts. Furthermore, you are wrong when you state that many other intelligence agencies supported the conclusions of the american ones. They didn't. The French specifically stated that Iraq probably didn't have any WMDs, and the Germans were skeptical as well. Sorry I don't have any links - I don't save links from about 10 years ago. But I - and a lot of other people who didn't rely on US press - knew that in 2001-2003, the US executive was flat out lying about Iraq's WMD plans.

Finally, even your last paragraph neatly fits into the run up to the Iraq war. There as well, the final fall-back argument was "well, Saddam is evil, and we aren't, so we should support the plans to invade Iraq, because if we don't, Evil will win".

It's absolutely fucking eerie that you can sit here and make the same arguments, almost verbatim, and act surprised that everyone thinks you're lying. The worst part is: Iran IS working towards a nuke. But you are exactly the reason that they are working towards a nuke, because they saw what happened when you just bluff about having nukes: you get invaded. But if you have a nuke, and can point it at Tel-Aviv - well, chances, are you won't. So yes - I'm flat out blaming you, your entire rhetorical structure and everyone you got your ideas from for trying to start another war in the Middle East.

And this time, it won't go nearly as well. Not only is our military overstretched, but there is nothing to achieve there outside of an ideological win: an Iran without a nuke. Even if we win, the cost will be astronomical compared to the actual prize. And if we lose.... yeah, was nice knowing you, USA.

TL;DR: Fuck off with your rhetoric of inevitable war. It has always lead to a disaster. It's stupid from a realpolitik perspective, and it's even worse from an ideological perspective.

Re:Pure propaganda. (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355917)

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:Pure propaganda. (1, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356049)

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 War II, did we do the "right thing", or was that also wrong? Who should have won? When is it okay to protect our interests?

Re:Pure propaganda. (2, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356223)

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:Pure propaganda. (1, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356825)

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 people are of threats in the world.

Re:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356783)

Sure, the US does a lot of good things, however the invasion of Iraq was certainly not one of them. And the invasion of Iran, if it happens, will also fall into the "bad things" category. Let me ask you, is there a world you can imagine where the US actually does something wrong? Even if the media says the people we're invading are "really bad people"?

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?

Yes, we are constantly subjected to moral relativism in the United States, although not in the way you are thinking. Actions performed by the United States are commonly considered good while the exact same actions performed by other countries are evil. A well-known example is water-boarding. For years this was done in the United States and was not called torture by the media, it was instead called "enhanced interrogation" or intelligence gathering. Water-boarding done in other countries was always called torture by the same media outlets.

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356207)

Right, we're just as bad. We just have better P.R. and more money.

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356313)

It's completely different. You see, our hats are white, while their hats are black.

Re:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356593)

plus at least two targeted computer viruses.

No, that was cool.

Re:Pure propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355929)

Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest it's entirely possible that countries acting like dicks is a slightly more likely precursor to war - anyway?

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355977)

Sure, but I'm not sure how effective this particular story will be to that end. "Oh mah gad! They done carried out a DDOS attack against a British news website! THIS CANNOT GO UNANSWERED! If we don't stop this menace here and now, where does it end? Next they'll be spamming the French Parliament with penis enlargement pills!! They might go so far as to order a bunch of pizzas to be delivered to the White House!"

I mean, I guess the voters are probably actually that stupid. According to one poll, more than half of them were confused into thinking that Saddam Hussein had caused 9/11, and no one was actually on TV saying that.

Re:Pure propaganda. (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356081)

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:Pure propaganda. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356089)

I treasure the BBC and I resent the accusation that they are acting as a mouthpiece for the government. CHeck wiki for details of the many times when the opposite has been true.

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356149)

It's election season in the U.S., Israel, and Iran. The rhetoric is flying in all directions. I hope political pandering isn't what starts WWIII.

Re:Pure propaganda. (1)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356203)

Only major news brought to you directly by BBC in a while probably. Everything else on there is fed to them by Reuters, who also feeds CNN, FOX, and all the other brain-washing machines.

You can tell when a country feels nervous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355745)

It starts blocking alternative sources of information.

If I were Iran, I'd feel nervous. The US is talking about alternatives to dialog(ue), Israel is takling tough. Then again, its almost as if Iran is egging the others on. Its not a good outlook. Better start pricing up how much a horse costs to run....

PressTV Claims Jamming in Europe (3, Interesting)

quantic_oscillation7 (973678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355751)

Iranian State Media PressTV Claims Jamming in Europe and Online http://cryptogon.com/?p=27668 [cryptogon.com] if that's true, that it was Iran, well they were just replying the cortesy....

War Against Beer? (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355781)

I read the headline the first time and though, "Why does Iran hate good beer [bbcbrew.com] ?"

I blame Iran (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355789)

I have moles digging through my backyard. I think Iran put them there. Damn you Iran! Damn you!

Pure bullshit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355793)

BUT. We gotta come up with some reason to attack iran.

Or better yet. Get them to attack someone. Or piss someone off. Or litter. Jaywalking? Whatever so long as its an excuse.

Re:Pure bullshit. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355819)

They turned me into a newt!

(I got better.)

The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out (2)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355815)

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:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355973)

You've clearly never had a good shawarma.

Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355987)

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:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356047)

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 (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356289)

The problem is that we're addicted to using their oil. It's not like we're giving them money out of charity.

Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel! (-1, Flamebait)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355845)

Hey look over there at that evil Rush Limbaugh and even more evilily evil Iran! Nevermind that the Obama administration just declared that it has the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. Nevermind that the "Grand Bargain" zombie shit sandwich is being dug out of its grave again, where the "bargain" means the working class bends over and takes it so we can keep our $1.2 trillion military budgets, our tax cuts for the rich, and bankers bailed out. And then stuff like this:

Obama's personal role in a journalist's imprisonment [salon.com]

Despite that important journalism - or, more accurately, because of it - Shaye is now in prison, thanks largely to President Obama himself. For the past two years, Shaye has been arrested, beaten, and held in solitary confinement by the security forces of Saleh, America's obedient tyrant. In January, 2011, he was convicted in a Yemeni court of terrorism-related charges - alleging that he was not a reporter covering Al Qaeda but a mouthpiece for it - in a proceeding widely condemned by human rights groups around the world. âoeThere are strong indications that the charges against [Shaye] are trumped up and that he has been jailed solely for daring to speak out about US collaboration in a cluster munitions attack which took place in Yemen,â Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, told Scahill. The Yemen expert, Johnsen, added: âoeThere is no publicly available evidence to suggest that Abdulelah was anything other than a journalist attempting to do his job.â

False flag? (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355887)

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

Re:False flag? (2)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356169)

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 divisions and MOAB bomber crews as we speak". After the complete lack of WMDs in Iraq it seems obvious that the U.S. government just doesn't care what anyone thinks.

The U.S. military doesn't need any real reason to invade another country anymore. We could just say that Iran posses a large stash of radioactive kryptonite and that they must be stopped.

Re:False flag? (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356833)

"It works the same in any country."

Re:False flag? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357245)

Problem is Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 (contrary to Israeli 'translations' of things he's said) and that most of the Saudi terrorists are other people who are still alive and well.

Israel did 9/11 - the US Military already knows this, and it's the only reason Iran has not already been attacked.
Search for Dr Alan Sabrosky.

So yeah - the US DOES care about false flag attacks - it's how it prosecutes illegal wars of aggression.

Iran did this? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355895)

Oh yes, on the brink of war, the government that's most likely to get stomped by the US and it's allies, does something really stupid against a propaganda outlet that could precipitate said war.

If the Iranians did do this, and I doubt it since there's little to no strategic value in doing so, they're fucking morons.

But I think a greater and more scary possibility is that this is a false flag attack kind of like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the US invasion of Vietnam.

flaming bullshit. (-1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356329)

this country has been on the americas shit list for well over 2 decades with nothing to show. Theyre a party member to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but were found in violation of that treaty for enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. the NPT allows this, but the US slapped it with non-compliance anyway.

israel by comparisson has never signed the treaty, operate their own squad of international assassins that have in the past used western passports to perpetrate murder. they regularly bomb surrounding nations. they are never criticized by the US for this.

iran has the largest minority of jews in the middle east.
iran has a population larger than england
sure, theyre leaders are inflammatory and bigoted but so long as we're willing to put up with assholes like rush limbaugh we dont have much of an argument.

Oh, Hell No (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356677)

Playing your games in the political environment is bad enough (whether it actually was Iran or this is just another warmongering excuse), but when you threaten to cut off the world's Dr Who source....
It's ON!

Pow (1)

milkman479 (1017240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356809)

I will pay tens of dollars to anyone that removes Iran from the map. Why do we put up with this shit? We have the bombs (to quote Dennis Leary)! We could nuke them back to the stonea......oh, right, nevermind.

It's the new "my dog ate my homework" excuse. (1)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357007)

Your network was probably hacked because you used lousy passwords and/or your employees got phished. If Iran didn't do it, someone else eventually would.

Suuuuure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357155)

Iraq has WMD's
Muslim Terrorists performed 9/11

Sorry BBC and western zionist owned media - we're wise to your games.

Sick Nation (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357359)

Perhaps Iran thinks this is like the movie The Mouse That Roared. The plot was that a tiny nation declared war on the US in order to get rehabilitation funds after the tiny war ended. What the heck can Iran be thinking? Israel does not need much of an excuse to bomb Iran into the stone age and England and the US might not mind it either. Under conditions like that Iran needs to be pleasant, friendly and down right courtly to avoid chaos and destruction. It is too easy for US to do that to them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>