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."

40 of 194 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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"
    7. 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.

    8. 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"
    9. 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).

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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"
    13. 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.
    14. 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..."
    15. 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.
    16. 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

    17. 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.

    18. 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?

    19. 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
  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!"

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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"
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  4. 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....

  5. 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?"
  6. 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.
  7. OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  8. 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.

  9. 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..."
  10. 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.

  11. 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."
  12. 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