Slashdot Mirror


Iran Blamed For Major Cyberattack On BBC

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."

194 comments

  1. Beats real war any day by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd rather have countries launching lame DDoS's than launching missiles.

    And I wouldn't mind living in a world where everyone put down their guns and just started being dicks to each other on the internet instead. Besides, in that world, all us losers on /. could finally be the badass war heroes who women want to sleep with.

    Of course, most will probably just use both the internet AND their guns/missiles.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Beats real war any day by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · 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.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The use of the word 'overt' is very important here. Iran trained Iraqi insurgents. Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, who have both fired rockets on Israeli civilians. Hamas has done so as recently as this weekend.

    3. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    5. Re:Beats real war any day by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Beats real war any day by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:Beats real war any day by jpapon · · Score: 2
      Besides the second Iraq war, what wars has the US initiated? WWI and WWII clearly not, Korea no, Vietnam you could make an argument for, but really it was getting involved in someone else's civil war more than initiating a conflict, Desert Storm obviously not, Afghanistan was a response to 9/11.

      The US is clearly hostile, but historically they generally let the other guy shoot first.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    8. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    9. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    10. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    11. Re:Beats real war any day by ehiris · · Score: 1

      "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.

    12. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try being a man for once.

    13. Re:Beats real war any day by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Beats real war any day by elrous0 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Beats real war any day by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The U.S. during the Cold War overthrew more countries than I can keep track of (or propped-up tyrants like Saddam Hussein).

      But since this topic is about Iran..... we overthrew their democratically-elected government in the 1950s and replaced it with a dictator (or king but that's the same difference). Why? We wanted their oil and a puppet to ensure we'd have it. Those old enough to remember the hell of living under that dictator have hated us ever since. And I don't blame them one bit.

      Oh and yes we started Desert Storm. We encouraged our long-time friend Saddam to invade Kuwait (document revealed by wikileaks & read on the floor by Congressman Paul). And then we acted surprised and attacked Saddam. We set it up. We executed it.

      Same way we set-up Libya.
      And Syria (we have troops there now).
      Time to wake up.
      Do some research on Senator McCain and his pals.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    17. Re:Beats real war any day by bossk538 · · Score: 2

      The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban emerged from Pakistani madrassas in the early 1990s, well after the Soviets withdrew.

    18. Re:Beats real war any day by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      I agree. But the truth is the number of regulations during the Bush era increased from 110,000 to 150,000 pages. To say he "deregulated", or that it caused the housing bubble, is so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

      BTW most of those regulations are god-awful stupid, like saying a banana must have at least 15 degrees of curvature or else it must be destroyed. And labeling water bottles with, "Drinking water does not cure dehydration."

      I'm not against regulations (especially the top regulations like the Constittuion and Bill of rights which block the government from harming us). I'm against stupid regulations that drive small business owners into bankruptcy and favor the consolidation of megacorp' power. That's what Congress has been busy passing these last several years.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    19. Re:Beats real war any day by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    20. Re:Beats real war any day by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    21. Re:Beats real war any day by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy. The issue is more the state of europe at the end of it all. One can reasonably presume the soviets would have been farther west and the british not as far east proportionately. But without the US the war might have taken a very different flavour, the british forming the southern or northern flanks of a combined operation, that sort of thing. Africa would have probably ended up basically the same, given that the British controlled the med and the surface of the atlantic by the time the US entered the war. Asia is a different mess, because the US and britain entered the war at the same time. I'm not sure the Japanese could have gone after the allies minus the US in quite so grandiose a way.

      From the moment the germans failed to force the soviets to capitulate in barbarossa they were doomed (and that was about 3 weeks after the US entered the war, so not much the US did). How europe would have been carved up between the british and soviets would have been very different without the americans on the british side to be sure.

      Besides that, it's sort of a nonsense statement. A lot has happened since 1945. 70 years before WW2 the world looked at germany as a beacon of political progress. Just because the US picked the right war 70 years ago doesn't mean it was right or wrong about anything in particular that has happened since. If you really want to air 70 year old dirty laundry why did the US do bugger all when their oldest friend was being marched over by the Nazi's? Right. Being right once doesn't make you always right.

      Britain and france were on the right side of WW2 also, and what did that get them. Suez, Algeria, Vietnam etc. etc. aren't exactly beacons of justice, and the US has just as much dirty laundry post ww2 as they do.

    22. Re:Beats real war any day by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      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).

    23. Re:Beats real war any day by dan828 · · Score: 1

      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.

    24. Re:Beats real war any day by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq.

      False.

      Saying Mosaddeq was communist is like the idiots who claim Obama is communist. There's no truth to it. (And even if either of those 2 things were true, that's what elections are for: So the people can remove the president. No need for outside military interference.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    25. Re:Beats real war any day by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't create the Taliban, but they supported the same exact people who turned into the Taliban or warlords of varying degrees of acceptability.

      It's completely disingenuous to argue that because the Taliban didn't formally exist until the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the US couldn't have had a hand in creating them. The only reason we don't like the Taliban right now is because they're fighting us instead of someone we don't like. That's it. If the Taliban would be fighting Al Qaeda, we wouldn't 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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    26. Re:Beats real war any day by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

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

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    27. Re:Beats real war any day by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

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

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    28. Re:Beats real war any day by redkcir · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    30. Re:Beats real war any day by Errtu76 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Afghanistan was a response to 9/11"

      More like 9/11 was an excuse for Afghanistan.

    31. Re:Beats real war any day by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed the point. It is hypocritical of you if the only time you dislike rapists is when they rape you, but you are fine if they are raping someone else.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    32. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you would want to credit the UK who came up with the regulations in the first place and introduced them to the EU.
      Or the Telegraph, who came up with the grossly distorted headline about the curvature of the bananas.

    33. Re:Beats real war any day by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      posting to remove accidental modding

      --
      BM3
    34. Re:Beats real war any day by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The soviet union also had elections. Did wonders for them, eh?

    35. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      US funded them through Pakistan. Where the hell do you think the money went? To bin Laden. To all the "foreign fighters" that were streaming to Afghanistan. You know, the "free world fighting the evil commies" mantra, or payback for Vietnam, or however the heck you want to phrase it.

      Stating that US did not fund Taliban (later split off Al Quida) is like stating that CIA never were involved in drug trafficking. I guess you can never link them directly as gov't policy, but there is no question where the money was going.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

    36. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >not understanding realpolitik
      Small countries get fucked whether you engage or disengage with them. The choice wasn't between US engagement and an independent and happy Iran, it was between a more influential US-led West and a more influential Soviet-led East with Iran the bitch in either case. Obviously the US is no angel, but if Slashdotters can continue to support Obama despite his flaws and favor him over GOP candidates, then that same reasoning of "better the lesser of two evils" should also make sense in the context of Cold War politics.

    37. Re:Beats real war any day by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "Some one is definitely going to rape that bitch. Well then, I guess it should be ME!"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    38. Re:Beats real war any day by maugle · · Score: 1

      "Afghanistan was a response to 9/11"

      More like 9/11 was an excuse for Afghanistan.

      Oh, yes. I'm sure George Bush and his cronies were just aching for some excuse to invade Afghanistan and get their hands on its bountiful supply of goats.

    39. Re:Beats real war any day by rtechie · · Score: 0

      > Iran trained Iraqi insurgents

      There is no credible evidence for this. Iran cooperated closely with the US occupation in Iraq and with the current Shia-led government. Iran was involved in the training of the new Iraqi Army and police and was involved in equipping them.

      > Iran funds Hezbollah

      True. Hezbollah receives much of their funding from Iran.

      > Iran funds Hamas

      Sort of true. Iran probably gives money to HAMAS, but HAMAS receives most of it's funding from Israel. Most of their arms are provided by the IDF.

    40. Re:Beats real war any day by rtechie · · Score: 1

      > Besides the second Iraq war, what wars has the US initiated?

      The Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars come to mind, as well as the US invasion of Hawaii. These stand out because these were explicit US wars of conquest. There is also the fact that the USA is explicitly based on the genocide of Native Americans.

    41. Re:Beats real war any day by rtechie · · Score: 1

      > BTW most of those regulations are god-awful stupid,

      No, most of those regulations keep the food you buy in the grocery store from killing you. Read "The Jungle". If it wasn't for modern food inspection and regulation you'd be getting food poisoning at least once a month because that was exactly the case before modern regulation. Several of your relatives would have dies from food poisoning.

      Most people that want to eliminate food and drug regulation are either too young or too stupid to remember the situation before those regulations were put in place. Lots of people died. Dying from poisonous "medicines" used to be the #1 cause of death among women in the USA, before the FDA.

      Sometimes it goes too far. Ex. Unpasteurized milk and beer is completely illegal in the USA. This dates back to the 1930s and is because stupid Americans couldn't be bothered to refrigerate beer on store shelves and are too cheap to offer uncooked milk (which only stays fresh a few days) and ended up poisoning LOTS of people. I think you could be able to buy unpasteurized milk and beer IF it's properly stored and labeled and IF the store owners are willing to soak up the liability for poisoning people.

    42. Re:Beats real war any day by funkboy · · Score: 1

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

      ...and the most recent one figured out long ago that it was much easier to simply fund & equip Hesbolla to do their dirty work for them.

    43. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll see your good evidence that they're behind Hamas and up you a 'a married couple from Mossad currently run the MEK', which puts us sort of at a tit-for-tat with regards to each side using terrorists.

      Seriously, an objective look at the claims being made should make it pretty clear we're being the aggressors here-- they're 'weaponization' of nuclear weapons includes enriching to something like below 20%, despite weaponized uranium requiring more akin to the high 90%'s; the so-called chamber that would supposedly serve for nuclear weapon explosion testing isn't anywhere close to being rated to contain even the smallest of nuclear explosions..
      Continued references in western media to press releases made by the Iranian state press that never seem to exist; e.g. the warships that press tv announced were to be sent off the coast of the eastern seaboard of the US; no such press release appears to have ever existed from press tv et al. Uhm, what else?

      they're missles! and in general their military capabilities; if you look through the various wikileak dumps, their missles can barely reach Israel's borders much less overly penetrate the country, which jives pretty well with their capability being designed with a defensive series of operations intended..

      the continued assassination of their scientists despite all of this, etc.(all signs point to the MEK/camp ashraf crowd in this regard)

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not fan of the Iranian government, but I am a fan of being just, and it sure seems hard for an informed and objective person to reach a conclusion contrary to the west being the aggressors in this instance. So while I'd be happy to see them go, 'not like this' sorta becomes my mantra.

    44. Re:Beats real war any day by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      And I wouldn't mind living in a world where everyone put down their guns and just started being dicks to each other on the internet instead.

      Just started? Dude, by your definition World War 3 has been raging for the last 20 years!

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    45. Re:Beats real war any day by funkboy · · Score: 1

      Besides the second Iraq war, what wars has the US initiated? WWI and WWII clearly not, Korea no, Vietnam you could make an argument for, but really it was getting involved in someone else's civil war more than initiating a conflict, Desert Storm obviously not, Afghanistan was a response to 9/11. The US is clearly hostile, but historically they generally let the other guy shoot first.

      Unless the "other guy" happens to be a potential ally of the Soviet Union during the cold war. The US military (or the CIA) invaded practically half of latin america during the cold war.

      Also, don't forget that Saddam probably wouldn't have invaded Iran in the 80's (certainly at least not at the scale he attempted) if the US hadn't backed him.

    46. Re:Beats real war any day by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Similarly, let a con get away with fleecing you and you enable (and encourage) him to find another victim -- or continue to fleece you (e.g., broker).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    47. Re:Beats real war any day by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy.

      I think that's a bit of a stretch considering that half of why Britain survived was because the US was "lend-leasing" ships and planes before officially joining the war (the other half being creativity and determination). And we were sending tanks and stuff to Russia too. Without American supply, Britain wouldn't have had control of the Atlantic or Med and would have been kicked out of Africa by Rommel.

      I'm not saying the rest of your points aren't valid, but this one is a bit of a stretch.

    48. Re:Beats real war any day by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      sh!t like this

      Slashdot is an adult-friendly site. You can spell it out; if you fucking swear you won't be automatically modded down. In fact, we have one user who swears every time he posts (if from nothing other than his name, but generally it does include the content as well), Profane Motherfucker (564659).

      The US is bad (and getting worse)

      On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions. And I don't mean merely military actions; I'm also talking the unpayable loans (as Greece is finding out now) from central banks, like the IMF, World Bank, or ECB. Any time you get a central bank involved that is larger than a sovereign entity, it will determine a method to extract wealth from that sovereign entity.

      I heard news reports several weeks ago that the Greek police union had issued warrants for the arrest of international bankers, if they came into the country: "the Federation of Greek Police accused the officials of '...blackmail, covertly abolishing or eroding democracy and national sovereignty'". I haven't heard anything since; a search found nothing more than the above, but I did come across a well-written piece about Greece's plight from someone in the Occupy movement. It quotes John Perkins (author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman") as saying "Greece is a classic example... These events are classic cases of what I detail in my books..." Some good info in there; enjoy.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    49. Re:Beats real war any day by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      agreed, launch a nice nuke on Tel Aviv. problem solved.

    50. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because 'having influence over' is the same as 'being one'. Totally. Way to clarify any ambiguity in the subtlety here.

      And right - something like this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_of_1948

      could have *NEVER HAPPENED* it was a democracy! that fixes itself of course!

      not justifying military intervention, but simply pointing out how oversimplified your point is.

    51. Re:Beats real war any day by ehiris · · Score: 1

      No one is being "given" anything by force. It's a personal choice which doesn't affect anyone else and you and everyone else should stay out of it unless you have a non-liberty-restricting solution which works. (see Portugal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/portugal-drug-laws-decriminalization-_n_889531.html)

    52. Re:Beats real war any day by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1, 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.

    53. Re:Beats real war any day by ehiris · · Score: 1

      BTW, the banks all did what they did because they knew there was money to bail them out with.
      Government regulation made guarantee.

    54. Re:Beats real war any day by cavreader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't matter who provided weapons and miltary support for those fighting the USSR. Pakistan, England, and Saudi Arabia contributed way more military assistance than the US while the US got stuck with paying for the refugee camps. They Taliban made their own choice to use the weapons on their own population all by themselves. The accusation of US military support is just as much BS as the US given Iraq large amounts of weapons in the Iran-Iraq war when they actually supplied less than 2% of the total. There is no point in the US government even recognizing Afghanistan since there is nothing to gain. It would actually save a ton of money by letting them do whatever the hell they want to on their own dime. The US can also ignore Iran and let their neighbors deal with them. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have certainly purchased enough cutting edge military technology from the US and it's time for them to use it if they feel threatened. Let them deal with Syria all by themselves if the are so outraged. The only thing the US has every provided these countries is a focus point to blame the US for all their troubles. After the US leaves they can get back to killing each other in peace just like Iraq and if we are lucky the might eliminate each other all by themselves while also depriving them of using the west as an excuse. The US also has no business getting involved in the Israeli-Palestinian never ending cluster fuck. The Palestinians have as much chance of recovering territory as Mexico would have trying to re-take Texas or California. Every time they have tried to force the issue the have been bitch slapped by the Israelis. The most important thing the US has contributed in this never ending conflict is keeping Isreal from finishing the job once and for all. Isreal could have flattened Cairo and Damascus in 1973 if the US had not pressured them to stop. The Israel-Palestinian conflict has never been about land it's been about the surrounding Arab countries trying to undo the humiliation they have suffered every time they have tried to use their state militarises. 1973 was especially humiliating because the Arabs had total surprise, the latest Russian technology, and more soldiers and equipment. The conflict has also created a group of very wealthy people directing the Palestinians sitting in their villas in Lebanon. End the conflict and these people lose money. Arafat died a billionaire by stealing aid money targeted to help the Palestinians. While he was playing liberator of the downtrodden his wife was living it up in their fancy residence in France. And while the US might supply some military systems today Isreal has a very advanced domestic military industry of their own. They know without a doubt that they can not trust anyone, including the US, to come to their aid so they have developed most of their own weapons themselves to lower the risk. Iran should also be thinking of ways to solve this nuclear issue or Isreal is liable to give them a couple for free and the only consequences Israel would face is a strong worded statement from the UN. Personally I don't care if Iran does have nuclear weapons because if they actually used one Iran would be a smoking radioactive crater about 30 minutes later. I wouldn't be surprised if Isreal did not already have the coordinates of every major middle eastern capital hardwired into their nukes to make sure any nuclear attack on their tiny country would take everyone in the region down with them regardless of who fired the first shot. What would they have to lose in such a scenario?

    55. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      US funded them through Pakistan. Where the hell do you think the money went? To bin Laden. To all the "foreign fighters" that were streaming to Afghanistan.

      No, the money used to support the war effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan did not go to Bin Laden. Good grief, this is pitiful!

      CIA – Osama bin Laden controversy

      Scholars and reporters have called the idea of CIA-backed Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) "nonsense",[16] "sheer fantasy",[17] and "simply a folk myth."[18] They argue that:

      - - with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land

      - - that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds

      - - that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of U.S. agents to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan;[19]

      - - that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.

      According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

      The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[18]

      Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

      It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[22]

      - - -

      Stating that US did not fund Taliban (later split off Al Quida) is like stating that CIA never were involved in drug trafficking.

      Since the Taliban didn't form until after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Afghan Communist government fell, I think we can dismiss charges that the Taliban were funded by the US. Al Qaeda was never part of the Taliban, they are a separate group. You information is bogus.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    56. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There is no credible evidence for this.

      Other than the fact that Iranian back militias we repeatedly found with new Iranian arms, and Quds force officers were arrested in Iraq? Not to mention that Iraqi militia took refuge in Iran?

      Iran cooperated closely with the US occupation in Iraq and with the current Shia-led government.

      Iran also tried hard to subvert the Iraqi government through bribes, threats, violence, and other means.

      Iran was involved in the training of the new Iraqi Army and police and was involved in equipping them.

      Iran had very little to do with training the Iraqi Army and police, let alone equipping them. That has almost entirely been the work of the US, NATO, and other Coalition members, which doesn't include Iran. Iran has been active in commercial development, however.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    57. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions.

      You are so desperately wrong.

      Communism kill 100,000,000 people.

      The Gruesome Consequences of a Political Idea

      In his introduction, Stephane Courtois himself a former communist, breaks with the postwar taboo on comparing the Gulag with the Holocaust. He notes that the communist body count of more than 100 million exceeds that of the Nazis. He compares the "class genocide" of communism with the "race genocide" of Nazism and states that both were "crimes against humanity."
      So controversial was this comparison that two of Mr. Courtois's editor-collaborators--Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin--later distanced themselves from what he wrote. And predictably, the French left lashed itself into a frenzy, denouncing the book's contributors for traducing the noble communist fight against fascism.

      Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

      Q&A: Greek debt crisis

      Why is Greece in trouble?

      Greece has been living beyond its means since even before it joined the euro. After it adopted the euro, public spending soared and public sector wages practically doubled.

      However, while money has flowed out of the government's coffers, its income has been hit by widespread tax evasion.

      When the global financial downturn hit, Greece was ill-prepared to cope.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    58. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't help at all. The Islamists still want to convert the world to the Islamic faith and Sharia law, and unite it under a single Muslim government - the Caliphate - combining church and state. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America - they ultimately want the same for every country - convert to Islam and establish their flavor of Sharia law. They will keep killing people and overthrowing governments if they can.

      Iran has threatened to cut off Europe's oil during winter with the expressed purpose that people freeze to death. That has nothing to do with Jews. You apparently don't understand the problems, can't identify a useful solution, and substitute genocidal fantasies in their place. That doesn't bode well for you.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    59. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S. funds Israel, who uses their weapons, political support to make gaza into the world largest open air prison. U.S. lets Israel get away with assassinations, executions, kidnapping and kidnapping of minors, and bombing gaza civilians and collectively punish them for whatever the resistance to the illegal occupation does. Yet they have the nerve to say Israel has the right to protect itself, while they deny the palestinians the same right.

      Do the palestinians have the right to protect themselves being occupied and all?

    60. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      About as much as you are.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    61. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy.

      Unlikely. Both the British and the Soviets were recipients of enormous amounts of weapons, war material, food, and other items as part of the US Lend-Lease program. The Soviets were given more than 430,000 motor vehicles, including the all important reliable supply truck. Without those the Soviet Army tactical supply echelon would have been badly crippled.

      If the US didn't join the war, the Allies would have lost the use of the enormous air forces brought in by the US, in addition to the large, well equipped American army. I doubt the UK and USSR would achieve better than either a stalemate or a much longer war without the American supplies, weapons, war materials, and food, and millions of fresh, well equipped American troops. Just look at the issue of landing craft necessary for an invasion - that alone was an enormous US contribution.

      On the flip side, I'm not sure victory without Atomic weapons would have been possible any time soon without the Soviet Army in the war. And Britain's stand against the Axis powers greatly shortened the war. Everyone had their part to play.

      The vast quantities of American trucks with USA serials provided, were so common in Eastern Europe in 1944/45, that common folk-lore interpreted the stenciled letters as Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa - Kill that Son-of-a-bitch Adolf.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    62. Re:Beats real war any day by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You are the one who chose the word "desperate". I was not talking about deaths, I was talking about suffering; suffering caused by installing dictators who killed, tortured, and taxed their citizens (possibly under communist regimes as well, aligning with your data). But anyway your input is valuable, although I would reduce the attack words. As to Greece I find it strange that they were not in such dire trouble before central bankers got involved.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    63. Re:Beats real war any day by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      My apologies then.

      But Greece was in trouble before the most recent loans, and heading for default.

      As to suffering, any movement that manages to kill 100,000,000 people is going to produce suffering.

      Here are a few links:

      Living in the Gulag
      What Were Their Crimes?
      Stalin World - Lithuania

      I suspect the Soviet system produced far more cruelty and suffering than you imagine.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    64. Re:Beats real war any day by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      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.

      Untrue. (Yes, I know who April Glaspie is, and no, she did not give Hussein permission on behalf of the US government to invade Kuwait.)

    65. Re:Beats real war any day by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

      Try adding the occasional html 'br' tag to break up your comments, you have to put the symbol for less than and greater than around it. Use two to get a nice gap ..

      like this.

      Your analysis is pretty naive though. Israel should stop building new settlements and come to a proper agreement with the Palestinians. If they did that and the Palestinians broke the agreement they'd have the moral high ground again, as it is they have lost most of the world's goodwill through illegal 'pre-emptive' killings of officials that also murder civilians (this happened only the other day during an otherwise peaceful period), and continued land grabs.

      Also as an Englishman I should probably pedantically point out that 'England' doesn't have a foreign policy it's 'Britain'. We joined with Scotland in 1707 and Ireland in 1800 although it is admittedly all a bit complicated.

    66. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Citizens are going to be killed, and Patriot Act will be renewed. Well, I guess it should be Obama!"

    67. Re:Beats real war any day by cavreader · · Score: 1

      My analysis is my own based on 16 trips to the region in question and seeing the situation up close and personal. Let Isreal put an ewnd to the BS like the US did with Japan.

    68. Re:Beats real war any day by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

      In what way is the situation comparable with WWII?

      You sounded slightly reasonable in your first post, turns out you're an arsehole.

    69. Re:Beats real war any day by cavebison · · Score: 1

      especially the top regulations like the Constittuion and Bill of rights which block the government from harming us

      Heh. I do love sarcasm. Keep it up.

    70. Re:Beats real war any day by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Well according to a lot of people all the violence in the middle-east is because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so I would say it's getting close to the pain in the ass the Japanese refusal to surrender in WW2 caused. The US could have refused to use the nukes and prolonged that conflict for years but instead decided enough was enough.

    71. Re:Beats real war any day by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      16 trips to the region huh?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    72. Re:Beats real war any day by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      There are now 12,000 US troops in Libya.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    73. Re:Beats real war any day by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You are correct that Greece was in trouble before the most recent loans; however, look back further than the ECB for insightful details. And you're right; the deaths at the hands of communists (currently) outweighs the deaths at the hands of the USA. However, the suffering at the hands of the USA is increasing every year; at least the communists rest...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    74. Re:Beats real war any day by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      ...and unfortunately I had one more thing to say, and Slashdot doesn't allow editing posts. Today I read (on goldprice.org, you can too) commentary that stated that central bankers have "repossessed an entire country, now that takes balls." This is what I was referring to when I referenced the Greek police taking out warrants for international bankers' arrests.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    75. Re:Beats real war any day by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Do you use a straw when you drink the Kool-Aid?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    76. Re:Beats real war any day by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Computer System consultant gathering and sharing information for several multi-international corporations. The teams involved take turns to for their visits. Intel and Raytheon are 2 of the main companies involved. Been in the IT development environment for 26+ years.

    77. Re:Beats real war any day by KevReedUK · · Score: 1

      On the point about Greece and tax-evasion, I can confirm this from personal experience.

      In 2004 I spent several months working on one of the Greek islands in a variety of bar jobs. The only thing they all had in common was that, unless there was a uniformed police officer in the bar, or a known government official, all bar staff were told in no uncertain terms that less than 1 in 10 transactions were to be processed through the till, the rest to be rung through as "no sale". The reason quoted when asked was that the audit rolls of the tills were used in calculating the tax the business owed. Curiously, the tills didn't appear to mark the audit roll with "no sale" entries. On speaking to colleagues throughout the rest of the town, this was not just a peculiarity of the bars I worked at, but was SOP across the entire resort (with the possible exceptions of the medical practices, local branch of McDonalds and supermarkets.).

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
    78. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let Isreal put an ewnd to the BS like the US did with Japan.

      Fine.. Let 'em do it on their own dime.

    79. Re:Beats real war any day by cavreader · · Score: 1

      They will. They may negotiate with the US or other countries but they will not base their actions on receiving foreign aid. They had no US assistance in 67 and in 73 all they got was re-supply assistance after the issue had been pretty much been decided. And even then they only received US re-supply after they intentionally reveled to the US and other international security agencies that they were arming their Jericho and F-4 based nuclear weapons. Until that point the US was more concerned about the Russians than the Israelis.

  2. What evidence is there? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:What evidence is there? by netwarerip · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too easy to blame some country or entity for attacks these days. What proof do they have that it was Iran?

      I think they analyzed the packets from the DDoS and each header said either "SILENCE!" or "I KEEEL YOU!"

    2. Re:What evidence is there? by catalina · · Score: 1

      So the headers came from Jeff Dunham????

  3. Iran itself? by mr100percent · · Score: 1, 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.

    1. Re:Iran itself? by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

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

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Iran itself? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Iran itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:Iran itself? by vlm · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Iran itself? by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Hrm, so you're saying we're all rocket scientists? Thanks!

      Ooh, you meant "faggot."

      Fucking idiot.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Iran itself? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Iran itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the BBC is pro-Israel.

    8. Re:Iran itself? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Iran created the "Iranian Cyber Army" in 2010, and around the same time they started massively censoring the country and throttling bandwidth to such an extent you couldn't even upload a video to YouTube.

      Iran's internet is so locked down now (and no, not simply an easily bypassed Chinese style firewall) that the only way you could do this from Iranian systems right now is if you're the Iranian state and hence not party to the massive restrictions they have in place.

      Hence, if they can link it back to Iranian addresses then there is little chance it can be anything other than state sponsored.

      Still, for what it's worth, if you read what the BBC said, you'll see that even they were a little cautious with blame regardless. They pointed out that Iran was jamming the BBC's satellite transmissions of the BBC Persian Service - something which genuinely could only be state sponsored at the scale it was done, and that these attacks on other parts of the BBC's infrastructure related to the BBC Persian Service occured at the same time - they clearly state that this could be coincidence, but seems suspiciously a little too coincidental to really be coincidence.

      I genuinely agree with your point - particularly regarding China where Chinese hackers can act unilaterally without state oversight, but Iran with it's vastly tighter internet lockdown and monitoring? and the rest of the circumstances surrounding it? I think it's pretty likely it was state sponsored, which is why the BBC's director probably felt he wasn't out of line to speak out about it.

  4. Pure propaganda. by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful

    2. Re:Pure propaganda. by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, it's not like the IAEA "declared its latest inspection visit to Iran a failure, with the regime blocking access to a key site suspected of hosting covert nuclear weapon research", 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", 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.

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

      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.

    3. Re:Pure propaganda. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it's not like we are doing far worse - assassinations and overt spying with drones, plus at least two targeted computer viruses.

      This could just be the Iranian equivalent of Anonymous, just because the attacks appear to come from Iran doesn't mean "Iran" did it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Pure propaganda. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Pure propaganda. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is there a world where you can imagine that the US would actually do something right (including exercise force), or that Iran might actually be doing something wrong?

      Or is this just all an intellectual exercise in moral relativism, where the US is always "in the wrong" or that any other nation has a "right" to do whatever they wish?

      Why must this be obviously NOT an Iranian cyber attack (and attribution is admittedly anything but certain), and must instead be some kind of subterfuge?

      When the US entered World 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?

    7. Re:Pure propaganda. by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.

      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.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    8. Re:Pure propaganda. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Therefore we should cut-off food and starve 1 million Iranians just like we starved 1 million Iraqis during the 1990s embargo. And when that doesn't work (because it won't), we should bomb the hell out of them and kill (or maim) another 1 million innocent men, women, and children like we did in Iraq in 2002 to 2011.

      Why don't we listen to the head of Israel's Mossad who said, "Iran is not an existential threat to us." Therefore there's no need for us to go over there and start starving or outright killing people. I don't understand this desire of the U.S. or its people to hold the record for the most corpses created during the last three decades. It reminds me of how another nation circa 1931 to 39. (No not Germany..... Japan in China, Taiwan, and Vietnam because they needed oil and natural resources.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Pure propaganda. by Garth+Smith · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    12. Re:Pure propaganda. by ehiris · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Pure propaganda. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

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

    14. Re:Pure propaganda. by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there a world where you can imagine that the US would actually do something right (including exercise force),

      Yes. It's a daring plan I call "Operation: Stay the Fuck Out of Other Countries Because That's None of Our Goddamned Fucking Business."

      ...I have a committee working on a better name.

    15. Re:Pure propaganda. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Pure propaganda. by Kittenman · · Score: 1
      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 ...

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    17. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    18. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus at least two targeted computer viruses.

      No, that was cool.

    19. Re:Pure propaganda. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      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]).

    20. Re:Pure propaganda. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    22. Re:Pure propaganda. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Funny, but if you actually think the world would be a better place for humanity at large if nations throughout the last couple of centuries which have stood for principles of freedom over the alternatives did nothing, I think you'd be unpleasantly surprised at the result.

      And if you think that nations which are manifestly NOT free are isolating themselves and standing still, you'd be sadly mistaken. I'm always amused at the effects of the lens through which many view their own country, and how ignorant people are of threats in the world.

    23. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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", 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", 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.

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

      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...

    24. Re:Pure propaganda. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh hi - I was wondering where you had gone to. Seems not much has changed. Still supporting government jack boots in all their forms.

      Note sure what you're trying to show with your two posts, because they pretty much make the case that
      a) we're seeing the same exact events unfold now with Iran that unfolded with Iraq
      b) the US position on Iraqi WMDs has been conclusively shown to be wrong

      You can try to argue all you want that "the truth pointed to WMDs", but the actual truth was that Iraq didn't have nukes (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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    25. Re:Pure propaganda. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    26. Re:Pure propaganda. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      which have stood for principles of freedom

      Would you care to name a few such noble nations? I cannot recollect any. As far as I have seen, any nation that goes to war is not because it is altruistic, but because it wants to rule the world and impose its ideology on the other nation.

    27. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please allow me to correct you. Chapter VII does not "authorize force" in the sense that would be understood by somebody who isn't specifically interested in how international law and organizations work. There are several more somewhat restrictive barriers to overcome before a nation, or nations, acquires a legal right to use force. This is not to propose that Iran is innocent (I am an Israeli with pro-settlement views), but my point is that SC resolutions are a cheap currency which is at any given time issued by the currently dominant global political interests and that there is no need to overestimate their significance. Don't forget this is Middle East, a lot of sabre rattling and putting one's honor against a honor measurement device. Iran wants to find a way out while saving face, as if it doesn't, the public will throw it out.

    28. Re:Pure propaganda. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I think nearly anyone in the world could attack the United States and they would lose. This is not jingoism or nationalism ,it's simple practicality. We have one of the best militaries in the world, and we're buffered by two oceans and two very friendly countries.

      Trade embargoes? Sure. Pull our diplomats. Rescue American citizens held hostage. But we have absolutely no goddamn business firing missiles, dropping bombs, or otherwise assaulting other communities around the world for whatever reason.

    29. Re:Pure propaganda. by rtechie · · Score: 2

      The USA and Israel stand completely alone in wanting to bomb Iran. The vast majority of Western democratic nations oppose a bombing campaign against Iran and consider Iran's quest for nuclear power legitimate. And the US doesn't give a crap about democracy in the Middle East. The US continues to back vicious Arab dictators against popular liberal democratic opposition movements throughout the Middle East. The US explicitly backs the torture and murder of prisoners in these nations, all of whom are far less democratic and have far worse human rights violations than Iran. The US' support for China, the very worst of the worst, invalidates any "moral high ground" the US is standing on.

      The problem is a huge amount of dishonesty on the part of the US. Nobody really believes that Iran is going to nuke Israel. That's asinine. The situation is much like Cuba. The US is still butthurt because it "lost" against the revolution in Iran and is whining about the fact that the Islamic government EXISTS. The US doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons because that would make an Iraq-style US invasion of Iran impossible, and overthrowing the Islamic government is still an explicit policy goal of the US.

    30. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12012/us-admits-iran-has-no-nuclear-weapons-program491/

      http://www.ww4report.com/node/929 (this is still in effect btw)

      http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/03/obama-playing-nice-with-israel.html

      looking like the same as iraq to me.

    31. Re:Pure propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada.

    32. Re:Pure propaganda. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And I agree with the OP - we are being prepared for trouble with Iran.

      Its awfully big of you to overlook the truck bombs that the Iranians occasionally have delivered to Americans or American allies to clear out a market place or appartment building of breathing people.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    33. Re:Pure propaganda. by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Therefore we should cut-off food and starve 1 million Iranians just like we starved 1 million Iraqis during the 1990s embargo.

      The sanctions on Iraq never restricted food or medicine.

      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.

      The vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq during that period was due to Muslim-on-Muslim violence, not US bombs.

    34. Re:Pure propaganda. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Rather than repeat myself, see my comment here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2725743&cid=39362271

      To sum up, the BBC came under attack in a number of ways - cyberattack via the internet, with the source coming from Iran, and satellite jamming of their broadcasts in Iran itself. These attacks happened simultaneously and both targetted BBC Persian, rather than the BBC in general.

      Unless anonymous or it's ilk have gained the ability to perform nationwide satellite broadcast jamming in recent years it's unlikely that aspect was anything other than state sponsored. As the other attacks happened at the same time, it seems surely a little too coincidental?

  5. PressTV Claims Jamming in Europe by quantic_oscillation7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:PressTV Claims Jamming in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen the (Iranian) Press TV signal on Optus C1 being disrupted by apparent jamming of the uplink. The interference was active for about two weeks until about two weeks ago.

  6. War Against Beer? by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    I read the headline the first time and though, "Why does Iran hate good beer?"

  7. I blame Iran by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  8. The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by VinylRecords · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by Kenja · · Score: 2

      You've clearly never had a good shawarma.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by vlm · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by vlm · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Encourage your citizens from touring that area.

      No. Getting to know each other is the best way to keep from killing each other.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that way we can create a new, bigger, Somalia.

      Because it's not like Somalians ever leave their failed state on boats and commit piracy causing problems there or anything like that is it?

      Why do you think there's renewed focus on sorting Somalia out recently? Precisely because just leaving it alone as we have since the US pulled out in the 90s has only caused other problems.

      If you ignore a country like Iran or Syria completely, they'll just masacre the opposition in their countries. Once the opposition is gone you can be rest assured they'll start focussing their attacks externally to try and broaden their influence.

      You can't isolate these problems, they don't just stay self contained, if left alone they grow, and spread. The finest example was probably 9/11 - America got the soviets screwed over and kicked out of Afghanistan by supporting the radical islamists then basically ditched all contact and support for the region, having just left it to fester. The islamists including al Qaeda whiped out opposition within Afghanistan and enforced their strict and brutal Islamic law, then, content with domination of their homeland, decided it'd be a good idea to spread their wings and fly planes into the World Trade Centre, at which point much of the rest of the West woke up, and had a look round, then noticed said radical islam was being preached and spread right in their own back yard, with associated terrorist attacks to follow.

    6. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative interpretation of these same events is that it is Western interference that keeps making things worse. And this interpretation may well be wrong, but as an intelligent Western person who is well-informed about politics, you might want to consider if you are missing something.

      "Once the opposition is gone you can be rest assured they'll start focussing their attacks externally to try and broaden their influence."

      Rest assured? You assume Syria and Iran are run by people who are simply insane. Of course the Syrians might be pissed that the US has been supporting that opposition, with official visits and approving words from Mrs Clinton. They might possibly blame America for their problems. Because after all it was the aim of the opposition to secure Western help a la Libya. If the US hadn't responded as it did... But then, even if Syria does hate America, what are they going to do? Build some WMDs perhaps, like Saddam didn't?

      "You can't isolate these problems, they don't just stay self contained, if left alone they grow, and spread."

      Donald Rumsfeld would agree.

    7. Re:The Greater Middle East is toxic...just get out by Xest · · Score: 1

      "An alternative interpretation of these same events is that it is Western interference that keeps making things worse. And this interpretation may well be wrong, but as an intelligent Western person who is well-informed about politics, you might want to consider if you are missing something."

      I pointed to examples where the West has avoided interfering and it's just not worked. There's an argument that initial Western interference dating back many, many decades was the cause and that if we hadn't done it then then it wouldn't be an issue and I'd largely agree, but we're well past that stage. Sure this means we shouldn't interfere in new areas, but we're so well entrenched into the Middle East now that we can't just leave it without it spreading back to bite us.

      "Rest assured? You assume Syria and Iran are run by people who are simply insane. Of course the Syrians might be pissed that the US has been supporting that opposition, with official visits and approving words from Mrs Clinton. They might possibly blame America for their problems. Because after all it was the aim of the opposition to secure Western help a la Libya. If the US hadn't responded as it did... But then, even if Syria does hate America, what are they going to do? Build some WMDs perhaps, like Saddam didn't?"

      Again, see the 9/11 example. The secular and moderate portions of Lebanese society are breathing a rather big sigh of releif that Syria and Iran are so caught up in their own problems and feeling the financial squeeze from sanctions that they can't continue to give the likes of Hezbollah the funding and weapons they have for the last few decades.

      "Donald Rumsfeld would agree."

      Surprisingly, so would most politicians across all shades of the political spectrum. That's why many very left leaning European countries all the way through to very right leaning US, whatever the leader has held the same opinion.

      Please realise that I'm not making the case for full blown war here, not for a minute, but simply that political pressure and covert support for dissidents and other such low level interference with these states - i.e. the sort that exploits those who genuinely want to, and hopefully eventually will see change in their country is a good way to try and limit the problems to their own back yard, and prevent them exporting them into our back yards.

      My point is simply that completely isolating yourself from the region is as foolish and idiotic a solution as a full blown invasion of said countries is. The best options are low level interference, economic warfare, and support of those who want to see genuine change. The problems there just aren't problems we can walk away from without them coming back to bite us.

  9. ...and Furthermore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  10. Re:Pure bullshit. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    They turned me into a newt!

    (I got better.)

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. False flag? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, 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

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230303.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Speculations_about_the_target_and_origin

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334001/Iranian-nuclear-scientist-killed-wounded-separate-bomb-attacks.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?scp=1&sq=january 2009 sanger bush natanz&st=cse

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:False flag? by VinylRecords · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:False flag? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      "It works the same in any country."

    3. Re:False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:False flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Your prophet, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, is a kook who needs serious psychological help from real doctors. If you actually believe him, then you either have extremely low intelligence, or mental illness. If it's the latter, then you too need to seek treatment for your mental illness. If you are already under the supervision of psychiatrist, then I wish you the best of luck in your future treatments - you're gonna need it!

    5. Re:False flag? by poity · · Score: 1

      The thing with conspiracy theories is that they can go anywhere. One fun thing to do is to flip everything on their head and see if that would make sense as well. For example:

      1. Stuxnet was a false flag perpetrated by Iran to gather world wide sympathy
      2. Iranian intelligence service discovered one of their "scientists" was a CIA asset that was leaking info on their nuclear program, they killed him in a manner that would frame the US/Israel and thus garner more sympathy. Two birds with one stone.
      3. The creative mind could go on and on.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  12. Iran did this? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  13. OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  14. We're addicted to their oil by bigtrike · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:We're addicted to their oil by jdgeorge · · Score: 1
    2. Re:We're addicted to their oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is strictly military. Oil determines the outcome of an aggressor's military action. There is no alternate source of mobile energy; if you want to kick in a neighbor's teeth and take their resources, you need oil to do it. Got no oil? Then you've only got defense, unless another country supplies you with oil.

      So, where are you going to get that oil from? I guess it depends on who your pals are. If you aren't interested in western democracy, your options are pretty limited. The push in the Middle East isn't about ensuring Uncle Sam saves a buck fueling his SUV, it's about controlling the flow of oil. What happens, after the taps are turned off, for the "bad" countries? I couldn't speculate, but I suspect once Iran falls, he new boss will step in and lay down a whole new set of controls for everyone (everyone) to follow.

  15. Pow by milkman479 · · Score: 0

    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.

  16. It's the new "my dog ate my homework" excuse. by BLToday · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VALUE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

    The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
    * making the world safe for American corporations;
    * enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
    * preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
    * extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
    This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

    The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

    China, 1945-49:
    Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

    Italy, 1947-48:
    Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

    Greece, 1947-49:
    Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

    Philippines, 1945-53:
    U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

    South Korea, 1945-53:
    After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

    Albania, 1949-53:
    The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

    Germany, 1950s:
    The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

    Iran, 1953:
    Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

    Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
    A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indis

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  18. Suuuuure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iraq has WMD's
    Muslim Terrorists performed 9/11

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

    1. Re:Suuuuure by NoKaOi · · Score: 1
  19. Sick Nation by glorybe · · Score: 1

    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.

  20. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US blamed for participation in the systematic murdering of half a dozen Iranian scientists, but who cares? That's not news, even for slashdot.

    But if true, that's the definition of terrorism, for me.

  21. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

    If you think the Soviet Union wasn't using every dirty trick they knew to get pro-communists in power in those same countries you listed then you're delusional. Also, if you don't think they have done every legal and illegal thing they could have to maintain their hold over those "democratic" communist parties you're even more delusional. Of course, the Soviets had no legal mandate to ever release their records of such things.

    So yes there was a conspiracy in the same way as there was a giant pro-US conspiracy, a giant game of chess played across the globe at hideous cost.

  22. And the Japanese would have lost Asia, also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Both the Germans and the Japanese took on a military task that was far too large. Germany wanted to conquer all of Europe. The Japanese wanted to conquer all of SE Asia, including China. They had about 70M citizens. China had 450M. A small amount of help from 3rd parties, and Japan would have eventually lost.

  23. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Ho Chi Minh would have been as anti-Soviet or PRC as he was anti-US. More so. He'd been a student in France.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  24. Blame it on Iran by hackus · · Score: 1

    1) Bad Weather.
    2) Your constipation
    3) Any politicians constipation.
    4) 2012 December 21st, Iran destroys the world
    5) You burn the pizza. (Classic Peperoni too...with the real Wisconsin cheese.)
    6) The recent talk your girlfriend had with you about...that size issue.
    7) Software Bugs...any software...doesn't matter.
    8) Why ICS will never have decent apps with 15 gazillion versions running around.
    9) You lost your job.
    10) Yes, and the final reason why everything is IRAN's fault is:

    Because it has been too long since we had a nice World War.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  25. False Flagging has begun by gVibe · · Score: 1

    See my comment from another post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2716871&cid=39335521

    Slide of hand used by all traditional magicians...look at this hand, and pay no attention to what is going on over there in my other hand.

    Just sayin'

    --
    Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
  26. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by phantomfive · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  27. Awwwkward! by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Seeing how the BBC has Iran's cock so deep down their throat it's coming out the other end like a tail. Wait wait I know the answer to this one .....they both blame the Jews......

  28. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    This was written over ten years ago.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  29. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I lived there over ten years ago. The war ended amazingly well. There was a peace agreement, the two opposing sides came together and formed a government. They created a new civil police force. Each side was adversarial, always watching to catch the other side do something wrong, so neither side got too out-of-hand. The people themselves were careful to vote in such a way that neither side got too much power.

    The biggest complaints about the settlement were that the land redistribution was botched, and it probably could have been better. The second complaint was about the general amnesty for war criminals after the war. Some people wanted revenge.

    But there is no question life is better for the average Salvadoran now, compared to before the war.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  30. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by Rakishi · · Score: 1

    ...have you looked at the history of Vietnam before the Vietnam war at all? Ever?

    Ho Chi Minh was falling out of power, those in power were very glad to side with the soviets. After all, the soviets were giving them supplies to cement their power bases with.

    Or did you mean military opposition by Ho Chi Minh against his own pro-soviet government? Using weapons supplied by some magical fairy I take it or are you suddenly okay with the US interfering with the "internal" affairs of other countries?

  31. Re:OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!!

    You should probably change the title of your post to, "Iran threatens its neighbors, Europe, the US, and some other country they want to remove from the pages of history." You didn't post anything about how convenient those the US bases in nearby countries make Iranian or Iranian backed attacks against US forces performing missions in those other countries. Also, I notice that Iranian bases and activities aren't depicted on the map - I suppose that would challenge the narrative of "poor little Iran". I will also note that this post is barely skimming the surface of Iran's activities. For instance, it doesn't cover much of anything about Iran's activities in Syria, where it is helping prop up the current regime, or Lebanon, where its proxy Hezbollah is virtually a state within a state, and armed with 50,000 rockets to attack Israel.

    Gulf States on Arms Buying Binge to Counter Iran Threat

    Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf monarchies are buying huge amounts of advanced arms from the United States and Europe. The weaponry is clearly aimed to counter the growing threat they see coming from Iran.

    The United States alone has around $100 billion in potential sales in the pipeline right now. The biggest is a Saudi deal, initiated in 2010 and approved by Congress, totaling around $60 billion. The package includes jets, helicopters, hundreds of Harpoon anti-ship missiles, training, and logistical services. Israel, initially worried about the sale, agreed — after U.S. assurances — to support it in September

    Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions - First Publish: 2/28/2010

    Brigadier-General Hossein Salami of Iran's Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that Iran has the power to cut Europe's energy supply. The warning was issued as European leaders prepared to debate sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

    "Iran sits on 50 percent of the world's energy, and if it wants, Europe will spend the winter in the cold,” Salami told Iranian troops in the city of Kerman. His speech was published by the Iranian Fars news agency.

    Iran threatens to block Strait of Hormuz oil route

    Iran threatens US Navy over Gulf activity - Warns US aircraft carrier not to return to Gulf waters

    Iran Threatens Two More Naval Chokepoints - In addition to the Strait of Hormuz.

    Considerable attention is being given to Iranian threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large proportion of the world’s petroleum sails. The U.S Energy Information Administration estimates that “almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million bbl/d in 2009-2010,” sails past Iranian gun and missile emplacements along the coast, mine-laying ships, and Revolutionary Guard fast boats. In 2011, that amounted to “roughly 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.”

    Yet the recent visit of two Iranian naval vessels to the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah should draw attention to two more vital naval chokepoints—the Bab el Mandeb Strait at the southern tip of the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal located between the northern tip of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. (See this map.) More than three million barrels of oil pass through the Bab el Mandeb every day on the way to the Suez Canal and the SUMED (Suez-Mediterranean) pipeline used by tankers that are too big to traverse the Can

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  32. You mean "Pure Whining" by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.

    Should we be checking your post for secret clues as to your location and who is holding you hostage and forcing you to read and post on this issue? There are plenty of other stories on the front page to read and comment on. I think most people would consider apparent state sponsored DDOS attacks to be interesting and newsworthy.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  33. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Your post would have been considerably shortened if you had simply summarized it as the US fought Communism around the globe. That is why so many countries are free today. It is a good thing too or else the bloody, oppressive march of communism would have continued. Contrary to what you wrote, Communism was a world wide conspiracy, and a bloody one at that. Sadly I don't have enough time at the moment to correct all of the twisted renderings of facts in your post, as it would be a Herculean task. I think just comparing the history of the Berlin Wall to what you wrote might give a sense of how twisted the history you give is.

    More information about: The Berlin Wall

    Before the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between

    And lets provide some background material:

    Communism killed ~ 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

    Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

    What Were Their Crimes?

    Have you ever been late to work?

    In the Stalin era, a person who arrived late to work three times could be sent to the Gulag for three years.

    Have you ever told a joke about a government official?

    In the Stalin era, many were sent to the Gulag for up to 25 years for telling an innocent joke about a Communist Party official.

    If your family was starving, would you take a few potatoes left in a field after harvest?

    In the Stalin era, a person could be sent to the Gulag for up to ten years for such petty theft.

    Living in the Gulag

    Some claim that the US is militarist, but it has no custom like the annual military parade through Red Square.
    Soviet Military Parade 1984

    Stalin World - Lithuania

    The KGB Museum - (the Museum of Genocide Victims)

    The Soviet Union conquered Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and annexed them. At the ends of WW2 it took part of Poland as its own territory. The Soviets turned the governments of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the rest of Eastern Europe into not merely client states, but puppet states.

    Revelations from the Russian Archives - UKRAINIAN FAMINE

    The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.

    The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industri

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  34. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 2

    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.

    After the communists lost an election and a referendum, the armed forces of the Greek communist party fought to impose a totalitarian dictatorship on Greece, with substantial moral and material support from the Soviet Union, against those who either fled or fought against the Nazis, causing a considerable loss of life.

    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.

    "Popular progressive forces" being Stalin, who ordered the invasion and conquest of Korea, right?

    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.

    I suppose you honestly do believe that the Berlin Wall was built to keep people out.

    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

    After the murder of his predecessor, whose policies Mossadegh opposed.

    A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz,

    Arbenz never won a free and fair election.

    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.

    Or rather, what happened was that Arbenz instituted land reform, but then banned opposing political parties, dismissed the supreme court, arrested the parliament, suspended civil rights, murdered his opponents, and sought arms from the Soviet Union to deal with his enemies. Only then did the CIA start sending guns to the resistance.

    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.

    Bullshit.

    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.

    Ho Chi Minh was sent from Moscow, where one of his duties prior to 1944 was organizing the murder of Vietnamese nationalists, to rule over Vietnam. Once in power, he purged 85 percent of the Communist party. During forced collectivization, which happened long before the US responded to his making war against the South, Ho Chi Minh set execution quotas of five people or five percent of each village.

    Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who

  35. Iran vs US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran has not attacked any nation for over 300 years. The US has killed more civilians since WW2 than everyone else put together. QED.

    1. Re:Iran vs US by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Your assertion is not so much absurd as it is insane. I'll see your "The US has killed more civilians since WW2 than everyone else put together", and raise you a Mao and a Pol Pot.

    2. Re:Iran vs US by dataxtream · · Score: 1

      Absurd? Insane? I think not. Facts speak for themselves. The US killed 2 million in Vietnam, 2 million in the Korean war. Another million in the 2 wars in the gulf. And I'll leave you to count the innumerable casualties in the so many other wars the Americans have fought, and continue fighting. To even say that "America wasnt as bad as Pol Pot" is saying something for a nation that pretends to be the champion of human rights. You can look up Wikipedia for the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

    3. Re:Iran vs US by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      The US was not responsible for starting either the Korean or Vietnam wars, and certainly did not kill 2 million people during the Vietnam war, which is actually the figure for both sides. In Iraq, most of the killing done was Muslim-on-Muslim violence.

      Mao, on the other hand, was responsible for around 30 to 60 million deaths, possibly as high as 76 million, according to R.J. Rummel. Pol Pot, around 3 million.

  36. The IRS by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the IRS

  37. Re:...and even Furthermore... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    In 1944 Major Jordan, more worried than ever, attempted to see the Lend-Lease liaison officer at the State Department but was intercepted by a junior official who told him "Officers who are too officious are likely to find themselves on an island somewhere in the South Seas". Not long after he was removed from White Falls. His book contains the complete list of Lend-Lease shipments which, as liaison officer, he was able to see and copy. This shows all the chemicals, metals and minerals suitable for use in an atomic pile which were transferred, and some of them may also be suitable for use in the hydrogen bomb; they include beryllium, cadmium, cobalt ore and concentrate (33,600 lbs), cobalt metal and cobalt-bearing scrap (806,941 lbs), uranium metal (2.2 lbs), aluminium tubes
    [365] (12,766,472 lbs), graphite (7,384,482 lbs), thorium, uranium nitrate, oxide and urano-uranic oxide, aluminium and alloys (366,738,204 lbs), aluminium rods (13,744,709 lbs), aluminium plates (124,052,618 lbs), brass and bronze ingots and bars (76,545,000 lbs), brass or bronze wire (16,139,702 lbs), brass and bronze plates (536,632,390 lbs), insulated copper wire (399,556,720 lbs), and so on.

    These lists also include the "purely postwar Russian supplies" (General Groves), such as an oil-refinery plant, forging machinery and parts ($53,856,071), lathes, precision boring-machines, canning machinery, commercial dairy equipment, sawmill machinery, textile machinery, power machines ($60,313,833), foundry equipment, electric station equipment, telephone instruments and equipment ($32,000,000), generators ($222,020,760), motion picture equipment, radio sets and equipment ($52,072,805), 9,594 railway freight cars, 1,168 steam locomotives ($101,075,116), merchant vessels ($123,803,879), motor trucks ($508,367,622), and endlessly on.

    Among the major donations obviously intended to strengthen the Soviet Union industrially after the war, Major Jordan's records include one repair plant for precision instruments ($550,000), two factories for food products ($6,924,000), three gas generating units ($21,390,000), one petroleum refinery with machinery and equipment ($29,050,000), 17 stationary steam and three hydro-electric plants ($273,289,000). The Soviet lists reproduced by Major Jordan suggest that a spirit approaching hysteria in giving moved Mr. Hopkins and his associates, for they include items for which no rational explanation can be found, for instance: eyeglasses ($169,806), teeth ($956), 9,126 watches with jewels ($143,922), 6,222 lbs of toilet soap $400 worth of lipsticks, 373 gallons of liquor, $57,444 worth of fishing tackle, $161,046 worth of magic lanterns, $4,352 worth of "fun fair" devices, 13,256 lbs of carbon paper, two "new pianos", $60,000 worth of musical instruments and (an item which conjures up visions of the "Beloved Leader", Mr. Roosevelt's and Mr. Churchill's "Uncle Joe"), "one pipe", valued at ten dollars!

    Posted for its entertainment value

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  38. Re:...and even Furthermore... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    Mr. Hopkins's past as a professional fund-raiser and welfare-worker seems to show in the donation of $88,701,103, over four years, for "relief or charity"; those who have visited Soviet Russia may try to imagine this money being doled out by the Commissars to the poor! This was not the end of cash-giving under "Lend-Lease". In 1944 Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Mr. Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, and his Assistant Secretary, Mr. Harry Dexter White (later shown to have been a Soviet agent) ordered the shipment to the Soviet Government of duplicates of the United States Treasury plates to be used for printing money for the use of the forces occupying Germany after the war. This meant that the money printed by the Soviet Government for the use of its troops was redeemable by the American Government as there was no distinction whatever between the paper printed. By the end of 1946, when public protests caused the American Government to stop paying its own troops with these notes, [366] so that the Soviet Government could make no further use of them, the United States Military Government in Germany found that it had redeemed about $250,000,000 in excess of the total of notes issued by its own Finance Office. (The Soviet Government ignored a request to pay the modest sum of some $18,000 for the plates and materials delivered to it, which had enabled it to draw $250,000,000 straight from the United States Treasury).

    Thus for four or five years there was an unlimited transfer of the wherewithal of war, of supplies for post-war industrial use, and of wealth in manifold forms to the revolutionary state, and "re-discussion" of this policy lay under ban at the highest level. Moreover, "preference" and "priority" for this policy, in relation to American needs or those of other allies, was explicitly ordered at that level.

    There were two other ways in which the revolutionary state could be "supported" and helped to "extend": (1) the conduct of military operations; (2) the direction of State policy at high-level conferences issuing from these military operations. As the policy of delivering arms and wealth was so firmly, even fanatically pursued in favour of the revolutionary state, it was logical to expect that the same policy would be pursued through military operations and the conferences resulting from them. In fact, this happened, as good observers foresaw at the time and as the receding picture of the war now plainly shows. It also was the inevitable result of the capture of a great measure of power behind the scenes, in the American Republic, by means of the invasion described in the last chapter.

    The effort to turn all military operations to the advantage of the revolutionary state, which in complicity with Hitler had started the war by the joint attack on Poland, began soon after Pearl Harbour. It failed then but was entirely successful in the last stages of the war, as the outcome showed. The leading part in this process was taken by the most enigmatic figure of the Second War, General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army. To him Senator Joseph McCarthy, in his oration before the Senate on June 14, 1951 (a carefully-documented indictment which is a major reference-source in this matter) attributed "the planned steady retreat from victory which commenced long before World War II ended" and the fact that America, having power to tip the balance, operated between the policies advocated by Mr.Churchill and the Soviet dictator Stalin "almost invariably in support of the Russian line".

    In view of the vast consequences which General Marshall's interventions produced the circumstances of his original elevation are of interest. President Roosevelt appointed him Chief of Staff in 1939 over the heads of twenty major generals and fourteen senior brigadiers (six years earlier his nomination to general, being adversely reported on by the Inspector General, had been barred by the then Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur). One of General Marshall's earliest acts was, in

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  39. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran was always blamed for everything.