Today's "Iranian Bank Hacking" Story Is Solid False-Flag Bullshit!

[BFT3K]

You have to be a total moron to believe this load of crap.

[lucas131]

they have a bank in iran?

[TheSquealer]

I am so appreciative for GFY being here to solve all the mysteries of the world, banking, mechanical engineering, jihad, laws of physics, 9/11, religion/faith, government.

Seems that all you really have to do is choose the most paranoid, "anti - establishment' viewpoint and you're totally fine.

[NALEM]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I am so appreciative for GFY being here to solve all the mysteries of the world, banking, mechanical engineering, jihad, laws of physics, 9/11, religion/faith, government.

Seems that all you really have to do is choose the most paranoid, "anti - establishment' viewpoint and you're totally fine.

LMAO

[Sly]

What do you guys use as your litmus test in deciding what is real and what is fake?

There must be some serious science behind this.

[DBS.US]

Primarily been "denial of service" campaigns
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-iran...6--sector.html

[BFT3K]

"Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Friday that he believes Iran was behind the attacks."

No agenda there!

Just pure fucking bullshit, false-flag nonsense!

[potter]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

"Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Friday that he believes Iran was behind the attacks."

No agenda there!

Just pure fucking bullshit, false-flag nonsense!

So then who was behind the attacks?

[Sly]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

"Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Friday that he believes Iran was behind the attacks."

No agenda there!

Just pure fucking bullshit, false-flag nonsense!

So your theory is based on racism?

Fascinating.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by Sly

So your theory is based on racism?

Fascinating.

Lieberman is a lying scumbag neo-con turncoat with an agenda.

Call it whatever makes you comfortable.

[potter]

...Still waiting for an answer

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by potter

So then who was behind the attacks?

You'll have to ask the people who were buying yellow cake uranium in Africa. You know, right before we attacked Iraq.

[potter]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

You'll have to ask the people who were buying yellow cake uranium in Africa. You know, right before we attacked Iraq.

You are such an idiot.

[seeandsee]

send bombs on iran now, dirty terrorists

[livexxx]

Hang on, what about syria first!

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by potter

You are such an idiot.

what was idiotic about that particular comment?

it wasn't evidence of anything about banks, but the yellowcake story was one of the fabrications that got us into the war in iraq and cost the country so much money.

you could have picked a much better item of snark to use as a basis for an idiot comment.

[helterskelter808]

Most people who attack 'conspiracy nuts' don't use logic or debate, they use tiresome personal insults. Why? Because they don't know enough about the discussion to make a rebuttal based on facts. If they did know enough facts on the subject, there's a good chance they'd be 'conspiracy nuts' too.

Whatever anyone thinks about 'conspiracy nuts', even at the batshit end of the spectrum, at least they actually bother to read up on the subjects they talk about.

[- Jesus Christ -]

[Bill8]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...pe=marketsNews

I dunno I think it's kinda sweet. iran going after the big banks. it's better than we americans can do, the banks fuck us, we gave them billions in taxpayer money directly and stuck our thumbs in our mouths whilke the fed gave them trillions if short term loan guarantees backed by we taxpayers.

So I guess you demmy dems are worried this will be used as a pretext for an attack?

Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:35pm EDT

* Attacks began in late 2011, escalated this year-sources

* Hackers disrupted bank websites and networks-sources

* Attacks came after Iran beefed up cyber capabilities

* Evidence shows may be retaliation for sanctions-sources

By Jim Finkle and Rick Rothacker

Sept 21 (Reuters) - Iranian hackers have repeatedly attacked Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Citigroup Inc over the past year as part of a broad cyber campaign targeting the United States, according to people familiar with the situation.

The attacks, which began in late 2011 and escalated this year, have primarily been "denial of service" campaigns that disrupted the banks' websites and corporate networks by overwhelming them with incoming web traffic, said the sources.

They said there was evidence suggesting the hackers targeted the three banks in retaliation for their enforcement of Western economic sanctions against Iran. Whether the hackers have been able to inflict more serious damage on computer networks or steal critical data is not yet known.

Iran has beefed up its cyber capabilities after its nuclear program was damaged in 2010 by the Stuxnet virus, widely believed to have been developed by the United States. Tehran has publicly advertised its intentions to build a cyber army and encouraged private citizens to hack against Western countries.

The attacks on the three largest U.S. banks originated in Iran, but it is not clear if they were launched by the state, groups working on behalf of the government, or "patriotic" citizens, according to the sources, who requested anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The hackers also targeted other U.S. companies, the sources said, without giving specifics. They said the attacks shed new light on the potential for Iran to lash out at Western nations' information networks.

"Most people didn't take Iran seriously. Now most people are taking them very seriously," said one of the sources, referring to Iran's cyber capabilities.

Iranian officials were not available to comment. Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup declined to comment, as did officials with the Pentagon, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency and Secret Service.

A U.S. financial services industry group this week warned banks, brokerages and insurers to be on heightened alert for cyber attacks after the websites of Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase experienced service disruptions.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said o n F riday that he believes Iran was behind the attacks.

"I think this was done by Iran and the Quds Force, which has its own developing cyber attack capability," Lieberman said during a taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program. The Quds Force is a covert arm of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

"I believe it was a response to the increasingly strong economic sanctions that the United States and our European allies have put on Iranian financial institutions," he said. ()

Tensions between the United States and Iran, which date back to the revolution in 1979 that resulted in the current Islamic republic, have escalated in recent years as Washington has led the effort to prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear bomb and imposed tough economic sanctions.


DISRUPTIVE CAMPAIGN

Denial-of-service campaigns are among the oldest types of cyber attacks and do not require highly skilled computer programmers or advanced expertise, compared with sophisticated and destructive weapons like Stuxnet.

But denial-of-service attacks can still be very disruptive: If a bank's website is repeatedly shut down, the attacks can hurt its reputation, affect customer retention and cause revenue losses as customers cannot open accounts or conduct other business.

Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase have consulted the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and National Security Agency on how to strengthen their networks in the face of the Iranian attacks, the sources said. It was not clear whether law enforcement agencies are formally investigating the attacks.

The Iranian attackers may have used denial-of-service to distract the victims from other, more destructive assaults that have yet to be uncovered, the sources said.

Frank Cilluffo, who served as homeland security adviser to former U.S. President George W. Bush, told Reuters he knows of "cyber reconnaissance" missions that have come from Iran but declined to give specifics.

"It is yet to be seen whether they have the wherewithal to cause significant damage," said Cilluffo, who is now director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University.

Security experts said Iran's cyber capabilities are not as sophisticated as those of China, Russia, the United States or many of its Western allies. Jim Lewis, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, said Iran has been testing its cyber technology against Israel and other Gulf states in recent years.

"It's like the nuclear program: It isn't particularly sophisticated but it makes progress every year," said Lewis, who is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally Posted by Bill8

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...pe=marketsNews

I dunno I think it's kinda sweet. iran going after the big banks. it's better than we americans can do, the banks fuck us, we gave them billions in taxpayer money directly and stuck our thumbs in our mouths whilke the fed gave them trillions if short term loan guarantees backed by we taxpayers.

So I guess you demmy dems are worried this will be used as a pretext for an attack?

You were doing so well until you went full retard right back into left/right paradigm.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

You were doing so well until you went full retard right back into left/right paradigm.

hows that? elaborate.

my position is it's a waste of time to worry about iran saber-rattling - even if the neocons and neolibs want more wars, and sure they do, all more wars do is speed up the time when the system breaks, and a system break is in all of our best interests.

the war talk is actually in all of our interests, and to all of our benefit.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

Yea, war is really going to benefit "us"....you can't be serious

This is all propaganda to get the war drums going

dude, you especially should be eager for the neos to make the mistake of starting another war.

as a consciousness-forcing move by the owners, nothing could be better.

consciousness cannot change without shock and struggle and intelligence testing.

bleeding more treasure into sands we have no use for is exactly what the doctor ordered. the owners cannot be stopped by any peaceful means.

you should be trying to lure them into making a series of increasingly more stupid mistakes. force the test.

if you have a better plan, spell it out.

guerilla strategy is based on the idea of forcing the occupiers to make the mistake of overreacting, and stressing their logistics and governamce chains. this is insurgency 101.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

This is all propaganda to get the war drums going

of course it is, duh. you'd have to be a complete fool not to understand that.

thats why it's to our benefit.

you need to study guerilla and irregular warfare theory strategy and tactics.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

They are pitting peaceful people against each other

again, duh. same as it ever was.

we are going to be up to our knees in blood before all that long, one way or the other. this is inevitable, the choices we made 30 years ago made this the only thing that can happen now, no matter what we do.

good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics.

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally Posted by Bill8

hows that? elaborate.

my position is it's a waste of time to worry about iran saber-rattling - even if the neocons and neolibs want more wars, and sure they do, all more wars do is speed up the time when the system breaks, and a system break is in all of our best interests.

the war talk is actually in all of our interests, and to all of our benefit.

The system does need to break, but do you really think it requires the murder of more people?

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

The system does need to break, but do you really think it requires the murder of more people?

require, in an absolute sense? - no - if we were smart enough.

but, we are not smart enough, therefore the murder of more people is statistically likely, almost certain, on almost any future path you can model out.

so, to answer what I am guessing is your real question - yes, the murder of more people is required. It will happen, one way or the other.

so, then, you have to ask yourself - is it better to murder a smaller number now for a chance at the stress that triggers intelligence increase, or better to delay those murders, requiring the murder of many MANY more people later, to get what will be then a smaller intelligence increase.

personally, I myself will be better off if we delay the murders. but, I can see clearly how delaying the murders actually means a worse outcome for people younger then me.

logistically, the choice seems clear to me.

[- Jesus Christ -]

I understand your utilitarian position, but I disagree with it.

Thought experiments about what might happen are not a strong enough argument for me to support the direct funding of violence.

[Dcat]

This shit is too predictable, ..almost comical really.

Yet ANOTHER propaganda campaign (blaming those evil Iranians) to scare Americans into complicity right on the heals of Barck's Cybersecurity Executive Order.

This Cybersecurity EO will be a dooozy.

[Dcat]

Originally Posted by JohnnyClips

They would never do that!

..of course not, that's "conspiracy theory."

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

I understand your utilitarian position, but I disagree with it.

Thought experiments about what might happen are not a strong enough argument for me to support the direct funding of violence.

nobody asks our permission.

i dont support it, i am just resigned to it.

aikido. use the energy of the attack against the attacker.

[lazycash]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

You have to be a total moron to believe this load of crap.

This is how most of us feel about your threads.

[IllTestYourGirls]

And Rand Paul is the only one standing up against this bullshit.

[[Labret]]

Clips spends part of the day trying to convince us all that religion is a joke, then rest of the day supporting a nation of Shia.

I am going to bathe in your guts, clips.

[BFT3K]

Mmmmm that Kool Aid tastes good, doesn't it sheeple?



https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DqHyIcsO8E

[IllTestYourGirls]

Senate approves harsh sanctions that will lead to war. Vote was 90-1.

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approve...044224956.html

[Bill8]

you have to give the iranians credit for a wonderful choice of target. and if the idea spreads virally, an equally wonderful choice of swarm warfare strategy.

imagine all the l33t scriptkiddies and botnet mobs around the planet getting a laugh out of endless ddos attacks against the big wall street banks.

and imagine americans being dumb enough to send expensive soldiers off to die in iranian sands - just to keep the TBTF banks websites online.

[BFT3K]

Check this out...

Think about what this paragraph really means...

"In a bipartisan show of steadfastness on Iran, Senators passed a non-binding resolution - nearly unanimously - for the United States to pursue a policy other than containment, if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

[EriktheRabbit]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

"Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Friday that he believes Iran was behind the attacks."

No agenda there!

Just pure fucking bullshit, false-flag nonsense!

Was Joe at the Standley benefit luncheon? Joe is one fine piece of shit.

[EriktheRabbit]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Check this out...

Think about what this paragraph really means...

"In a bipartisan show of steadfastness on Iran, Senators passed a non-binding resolution - nearly unanimously - for the United States to pursue a policy other than containment, if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

The Seals and Delta are going to be very very busy fellas.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by potter

You are such an idiot.

solid counter argument.

'fascinating'

[Dcat]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Check this out...

Think about what this paragraph really means...

"In a bipartisan show of steadfastness on Iran, Senators passed a non-binding resolution - nearly unanimously - for the United States to pursue a policy other than containment, if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

It's ALWAYS bipartisan when it comes down to the overarching agenda of the elite.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Dcat

It's ALWAYS bipartisan when it comes down to the overarching agenda of the elite.

funny illo, good one-liner.