Slashdot Mirror
Iran Behind Cyber Attacks On U.S. Banks
New submitter who_stole_my_kidneys writes "Evidence suggests the Iranian government is behind cyberattacks this week that have targeted the websites of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The attacks are described by one source, a former U.S. official, as being 'significant and ongoing,' and looking to cause 'functional and significant damage.' Another source suggested the attacks were in response to U.S. sanctions on Iranian banks."
Iran already wants their own isolated Internet, so the rest of the world should just disconnect them.
Problem solved!
How about not doing things that need to be apologized for, to begin with?
I don't have a sig.
...someone who would like to frame Iran.
Because we don't apologize to barbarians who stone women for adultery after being raped. And, yes, even in the cases of legitimate rape.
Well, it Iran's case. It probably didn't help that we overthrew their democratically elected government, stole their oil for decades with a puppet regime, and now are sending in computer malware to blow up their centrifuges and assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Such actions do tend to cause some animosity.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
No, we don't apologize to them, we subvert their democracy and install our own monsters that kill and enslave them, much more civilized.
How about not doing things that need to be apologized for, to begin with?
First of all, "we", the U.S., didn't do anything. That low budget movie was done by an individual, a man (an Egyptian emigre) with a personal "ax" to grind. He made his movie fully aware it would be controversial. This great country allows anyone, even bozos, to freedom of expression.
To the indoctrinated Muslim, their religion defines them as a people, so of course the movie fanned the flames of unrest. But as for America, WE did nothing wrong, and have no reason to apologize. The Muslim world needs to examine their own society, and come to a resolution concerning their own behavior.
Maybe we can overthrow their government and install a brutal dictator who will torture and murder people with our approval.
Maybe we can pay a neighbouring country to start a war with them. We could give that neighbouring country chemical and biological weapons and then accuse Iran of using them.
We could impose crippling sanctions on them, denying them medicine and illegally seizing their assets where we can, and threatening anyone who trades with them.
We could fund Sunni extremists to blow up cars in crowded markets, hoping to start a wave of terror.
We could start murdering their scientists and academics.
We could launch our own cyber attack on them.
Well, we could do all these things again, as we've done them all at least once. Maybe,if we can't think of anything else, we can ask, exasperated, "Why do they hate us?"
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
You destroy their centrifuging equipment, they attempt to kick your in the bank. What ? youw ere expecting in impunity to attack a coutnry without that coutnry answering ?
"Us vs them" is not by any means a purely Republican thing, as your own comment unintentionally demonstrates.
I think this is the second or third accusation from the US to Iran about something or the other this week.
This pastern of preparing people for another war again is getting a bit obvious by now,
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
...except that we are the ones who created that mess. Remember, we overthrew the Iranian government, then they overthrew the dictatorship we created, then created their own rights-abusing government which we gave weapons to. I guess instead of apologizing to barbarians, we arm them.
Palm trees and 8
"We need to have a world court, staffed with judges representing all countries."
We have had that for years. The US wants no part of it, because lots of war criminals are US citizens.
Uh... it's not really 'aggression' when it's in response to a previous, unprovoked attack, is it? I think the phrase you're looking for is "the best defense is a good offense."
So... US/Isreal invades Iranian territory, hacks their computers causing millions in physical damage to equipment, murders Iranian nationals within their own borders with drive-by bombings, sanctions, constant threats and saber-rattling... but Iran and their allies are the terrorists for allegedly perpetrating a DDoS attack on a couple outward-facing bank websites?
Yea, I think most bullies would, at some point, realize that at least one of the people they've fucked with will eventually retaliate.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Given Stuxnet, several mysterious pipeline explosions, assassinations, explosions at munitions depots, etc. I consider attacking banking websites pretty tame in comparison.
Evil is evil no matter if it is provoked or not, and that applies to ALL sides of ANY moral issue.
The US probably could not legally be a part of such "World Court" without violating the US Constitution. Certainly the only way it would ever remotely be constitutional is if it were a ratified treaty, approved by the legislature and signed by the executive branch. There is little chance of that happening, and probably for good reason. There is no reason that a government shouldn't be able to enter into negotiations to resolve disputes with other countries, and certainly other countries should be free to sanction any country they choose, but to have some third party enter two entire nations into binding and un-appealable agreements does not sound very smart. How can you say that any of the judges are unbiased or fair? Because I know no man or woman who is unbiased, and most are not fair.
And what force ensures that people hold up their end of the judgement? The UN? The UN wasn't set up in a way that instills faith in its abilities to end disputes, or to enforce judgements.
Iran represents monetary ideas that show that modern societies can work without interest based banking.
Ha ha ha ha ha! You think their banks work without interest? Semantic horseshit. The Islamic religious fanatics in charge are STEEPED in semantic horseshit.
Islamic "non-interest" banks simply calculate what the interest would be, then adds it on to the loan as a fee. You pay the same amount, but it is added in as a lump sum fee. Instead of a $100,000 loan w/5% interest on a $100,000 house, they buy the house for $100,00 then resell it to you for $200,000 on term. That isn't sinful interest, it is a blessed fee. Bankers are still bankers. TANSTAAFL.
Oh, and wagering on horse races is illegal because gambling is a sin. Except in Iran. When you place a bet on the ponies at the track, you're given a minuscule percentage of ownership of the horse for the duration of the race. Because betting on a horse you OWN isn't a sin. Only betting on OTHER animals is. Semantics.
Guess how they handle the "sin" of prostitution? You know how Islam allows you to have up to 3 wives? Well, if you only have 1 or 2 you can pop into the brothel and have the cleric "marry" you to one of the girls for the duration -- a few minutes to a couple of hours. This way she isn't a prostitute but your wife, and thus it isn't a sin. Instant divorce when you're done. They make Las Vegas look like pikers.
So feel free to go on and on about how Islamic banks have the answer to "fractional reserve banking" and the evils of usury but when you're done, look at it again and you'll see it is the same old pig just with a different wig.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
especially when they believe their deity tells them that women are not equal to men, and shouldn't vote, or drive, learn to read, or show their face in public. i'm sick of bleeding hearts defending these muslim assholes. i haven't heard many stories of people from other faiths being so mean to their own mothers, sisters, daughters, wives.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.