Iran is doing to our networks what it did to our spy drone, claims Uncle Sam: Now they're bombing our hard drives Hackers operating on behalf of the Iranian government have turned destructive, the US Department of Homeland Security has claimed. A statement issued over the weekend by Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) director Christopher Krebs describes how Tehran-backed miscreants have gone from simply attempting to …
Have you noticed how the word "Impeachment" has disappeared from the news while this crap is going on?If you don't think that's a coincidence, it's time for your nurse to give you more anti-psychotic meds.
Acually I've stopped taking anti-psychotics. I'm donating them to the US government. They seem to need them much more than I do at the moment!
(As to 'news' - if I was to watch even a few minutes a year on the goings on of the US, I'd be taking anti-psychotics by the truckload and still loosing control!)
This crap or the somewhat earlier Mueller report, what's a totally partisan lie among commentards? Even the loony left don't want to appear utterly out of their minds. Last I heard, google colluded to change election results far more than other actors...Do try to keep up!
why should be believe any word of what they say?
Why would you believe that an operation led by Donald J Trump, right-wing flake Mike Pompeo, and aspiring war criminal John Bolton might not be entirely honest and forthcoming?
However, I would point out that Trump's Iran policy is quite similar to that applied to Japan by the US and England in the 1930s. In both cases, the US would like the object of their ire to pack up and depart the planet forthwith. While 1930s Japan (and today's Iran) certainly were/are less than ideal global citizens, leaving them with little option other than war is a strategy that will quite likely lead to war. In 1941, that meant discovering the hard way that the US Pacific Fleet was poorly prepared for a Pacific naval air war. Today, that's likely to mean discovering the hard way that the US is far more dependent on the internet and vulnerable to cyberattack than Iran and that in cyberspace we are all neighbors and all distressingly vulnerable.
This might conceivably be one of the few cases where President Dingbat and his enablers are mostly telling the truth.
The widespread dislike of Mr Trump does not warrant suggesting that previous administrations were any better in practice. Deeds matter more than words, and the golden-tongued Mr Obama killed far more people than Mr Trump has (so far).
As Noam Chomsky observed almost 40 years ago, if the Nuremberg laws were actually put into practice every single US president since 1945 would have been hanged.
The reason they weren't is, of course, that Goering was absolutely right when he stated - with no particular rancour - that the Nuremberg Tribunal was a kangaroo court dispensing victor's justice.
https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/
"While 1930s Japan (and today's Iran) certainly were/are less than ideal global citizens..."
I agree with the main thrust of your comment, but this remark is completely over the top. There is no possible comparison between the two cases.
In the 1930s Japan was aiming to establish itself as a peer of the USA, Britain, France and other Western imperial powers. Having been told, in about 1898, by Teddy Roosevelt that they were now "honorary Aryans" (look it up if you don't believe it) they felt entitled to behave like "Aryans". So they set out to create an empire comparable with those of Britain and France. They attacked and occupied Korea and China, killing millions of their citizens, and their armed forces expanded through the islands of South-East Asia and the Pacific.
In stark contrast, Iran has never attacked another country - certainly not for several centuries, at least - and is committed to a peaceful existence.
The only common factor is that the US government wishes to overthrow Iran, just as it wished to overthrow Japan in the 1930s.
"In stark contrast, Iran has never attacked another country - certainly not for several centuries, at least - and is committed to a peaceful existence."
The first half of that is pretty much true, Iran has not started any wars, but they've always been more than happy to push back pretty hard when they've been attacked, so I'd dispute the second half. Taking a pop at US drones (whether they're overflying your territory or not) isn't the most peaceful solution.
(Still, you know you're the underdog when both the USA and the Soviet Union are supporting your opponent...and you still win)
As the French naturalist put it, "This animal is very bad. When attacked, it defends itself."
The explanation of the US attitude to Iran is quite simple. Due to the quality of history teaching in US schools, Trump, Bolton and co. think the film 300 was a documentary about recent history.
>Taking a pop at US drones (whether they're overflying your territory or not) isn't the most peaceful solution.
Neither is flying your drones in an area known to provoke this style of response...
I suspect, given the US (military) control of the GPS satellite system, we can not rely on either the Iranian's corrrectly identifying where the drone was and the US not misrepresenting the location of the drone to Iranian security services - to provoke exactly the response they received...
>Taking a pop at US drones (whether they're overflying your territory or not) isn't the most peaceful solution.
That drone was collecting targeting information on their country, it wasn't out for an evening stroll in the country. There's only one reason for collecting up to date targeting information....
The US operates a 200 mile defense zone off our coasts (its marked on the charts) so I'd guess that any Iranian drone that was flying up and down along the coast of California would get the same treatment.
"but they've always been more than happy to push back pretty hard when they've been attacked"
Funnily enough when you have a history of around 5000 years of being invaded, you tend to get tetchy about wanting to be left the fuck alone. Russia's still raving on about Ghengis Khan taking Moscow and St Petersberg. Iranians still scare their children with stories about Alexander killing Darius.
Ghengis Khan taking the St.Petersburg? That's news worthy disseminating!
FYI:(1) Ghengis Khan never invaded Russia, his descendants (Batu et al.) did.
(2)Tartar-Monghol rule in Russia ended in late 14th century (1380), at the battle of Kulikovo field, where the forces of Dmitry Donskoy defeated forces of Mamai.
(3) St.Petersburg was founded by Tzar Peter I The Great in 1703.
Jeez, man, go learn some history before coming back!
>Jeez, man, go learn some history before coming back!
Let's get a bit more up to date. Starting with Napoleon. Then the Crimean War -- France, England and Turkey versus the Russians. Then there's WW1 (although Russia was on the attack initially due to the web of alliances). Then there's WW2, something that was not so much an invasion as a form of genocide (Slavs were intended to become slaves, at least those left west of the Urals).
So, yes, the Russians are a bit touchy about being invaded because they've had a lot of practice at it.
Iran's history goes a way back. Modern history starts with the end of the Ottoman Empire and various interventions by Western interests due to them being blessed with oil reserves. The most recent experience was in '53 where their government was replaced by one of our choosing (complete with a Synthetic Shah) and some really serious oppression of those that didn't toe the line. (Look up "SAVAK" .....that's the recent Persian experience of "Freedom and Democracy (TM)".)
US policy was not the reason Japan chose to go to war nor was Japan anything like Iran is today.
Japan had choices. They decided to align themselves with Nazi Germany as a power move to dominate all of Asia. They had already beaten Russia and taken territory as a result, crushed an weak France for more terriorty and had even begun carving out portions of China. for their own. They were a powerhouse with a modern Navy and Air Force.
"US policy was not the reason Japan chose to go to war"
I think the USA's trade embargo and oil blockade had a hell of a lot to do with it.
The USA knew that they were going to have to go to war with Japan, but they were planning for about 1943. What they didn't _expect_ was for Japan to reach out early and hit the fleet at Hawaii as a starting shot.
" Today, that's likely to mean discovering the hard way that the US is far more dependent on the internet and vulnerable to cyberattack than Iran "
Whilst ALSO discovering that aircraft carriers were obsolete for warfare sometime ago (as the USA did with battleships in 1941, despite many years of warnings).
Hint: DF21D, DF26 - and they don't even need to have explosive tips. A kinetically achieved hole in the flight deck is more than sufficient to ruin the Admiral's day.
"While 1930s Japan (and today's Iran) certainly were/are less than ideal global citizens"
The thing is, while 1930s Japan was doing the "invading other countries with a view to expanding the empire" thing, Iran hasn't done much in the way of serious empire building for centuries - and (to give one example) hasn't forgotten the invasion by Western-backed Iraq (in the days before Saddam Hussein was recast as the devil incarnate) that led to a very long and very bloody war.
So when a "foreign power" threatens Iran, turns the screws one way or another, when the Iranian leadership feels under pressure and without friends in the world - oh look, they kick back. Quelle surprise.
No, no, I'm no fan of the current Iranian regime - but on the other hand, I can sympathize to some extent. And anyway, what sort of clown thinks you can treat Iran like it's some sort of fragile little mayfly nation which will cave in under a bit of pressure? Someone who's ignorant of history both modern and ancient, that's who.
Yeah. It goes back forever -- the Gulf of Tonkin incident was heavily fictionalized by the CIA and the Johnson Administration in order to start the Vietnam fiasco, there were lies in the run-up to the Gulf War in 1990, there were multiple lines by multiple liars leading to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Any US politician who advocates going to war with Iran should be drawn and quartered, old-style, and his head put on a pike. Lookin' at you, Johnny "Chickenhawk" Bolton.
Any US politician who advocates going to war with Iran should be drawn and quartered, old-style, and his head put on a pike. Lookin' at you, Johnny "Chickenhawk" Bolton. .... Palpy
That's a tad drastic, Palpy, but there's sure to be many realising it is not the worst of solutions?
Here's another head for those pikes, Palpy, ......... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/462586-jeremy-hunt-uk-support-iran-war/ ...... and because of that quaint notion of Cabinet Collective Responsibility, that a target rich environment for anyone who prefers peace making rather war-mongering.
Do you think there is a screw loose in Jeremy head, for he does appear to be easily led to believe there are enemies everywhere which need addressing with the spending of billions which he doesn't own and knows can never be repaid? What a loser be he. ...... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/24/jeremy-hunt-pledges-extra-15bn-defence-ensure-britain-can-guard/
And how very odd to think that he or anyone else would think he be of Prime Ministerial materiel. Is there a MADness virus out there in the wild targeting Politically Inept Parties?
For Iran, it kinda goes back to 1953. Iran was part of the Empire, and Britain was happily looting it's riches. Then along came Mohammad Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalise Iran's oil industry. So Churchill & EIsenhower cooked up Operation Boot & Ajax to depose Mosaddegh and install a more friendly/compliant government under the last Shah, Pahlavi. Then he was removed in '79 with Iran's revolution and declared the US & UK as the greater and lesser Satans.
Which is somewhat understandable give Ajax, interventions during the Iran-Iraq war, shooting down an Iranian airliner and not apologising etc etc.. And also a long history of secular conflict between Sunni and Shia, plus Iran's self-proclaimed "National Liberation Army" or MEK, who've flitted between being proscribed terrorists, and paying Bolton for speaking engagements. If they're supposed to take over the running of Iran Ukraine-style, then Bolton doesn't really understand Iran.
It was obviously a misprint but not without merit.
As Sir John Glubb pointed out, a lot of the history of the Middle East is actually the story of conflict between Baghdad and Damascus, with the intervention of a chorus of assorted warlords, marginal states, and Iran from time to time sticking its oar in to defend its frontiers. The recent war is a perfect example of how valuable Glubb's insight was since it exactly met the description.
Religious differences, as in Northern Ireland, are pretexts to cover the real reason for these wars - pursuit of commercial and political advantage for an ethnic grouping. It helps to have a label for the other side to differentiate them or you end up with a free for all as so often happened in Europe till Protestantism was invented.
Pretty much. UK & Russia invaded it in 1941 replacing the then Shah with his son, Pahlavi. Then Russia was supposed to vacate in 1946, but stuck around leading to an Anglo-Iran shindig in 1946. Behind that, the British had been.. facilitating the production, extraction and wealth transfer of oil thanks to William Knox D'Arcy doing an oil deal in 1901. Naturaly the Iranians objected to the looting, and the US coming in with their own Saudi JV, leading to Operation Boot/Ajax and revolution. So the UK and US lost their oil interests in an utterly predictable way, and have been sulking ever since.. And also explains why Iranians don't trust the West to negotiate in good faith.
With actual hackers shutting down cities with ransomware or uploading millions of records (not to mention NSA hacker toys) to the dark web, wiping some hard drives seems lame, especially with no evidence.
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this showed up in the Who, Me? column in a few years. "I was working late and I accidentally reformatted a disk when I meant to check it for errors. So I called my supervisor and blamed it on Iranian hackers. Tehran got nuked but I kept my job and even got a bonus for discovering it."
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020
