Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

 

 

 

is ddosing some type of spamming to sites to crash them(im awful with computers)

 

 

 

I would go for it, I dont see any country goingn after you for going after Iran's computers.

Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

 

 

 

is ddosing some type of spamming to sites to crash them(im awful with computers)

 

 

 

I would go for it, I dont see any country goingn after you for going after Iran's computers.

 

Yeah, some guy from the Iranian government isn't going to fly over to tell you to stop it...

DO IT [bleep]

Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

 

 

 

is ddosing some type of spamming to sites to crash them(im awful with computers)

 

 

 

I would go for it, I dont see any country goingn after you for going after Iran's computers.

 

 

 

DDoS for Distributed Denial of Service, or DoS meaning Denial of Service.

It seems that the Iranian government has really began to crack down on the protesters today. They stopped them joining together into a large group by using tear gas and using the riot squad to break the groups up.

 

 

 

Worryingly, Mousavi has said he is ready for martyrdom for the cause, so it looks like things aren't going well behind the scenes

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5588198/Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-ready-for-martyrdom-as-Iranians-defy-Supreme-Leader.html

It seems that the Iranian government has really began to crack down on the protesters today. They stopped them joining together into a large group by using tear gas and using the riot squad to break the groups up.

 

 

 

Worryingly, Mousavi has said he is ready for martyrdom for the cause, so it looks like things aren't going well behind the scenes

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5588198/Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-ready-for-martyrdom-as-Iranians-defy-Supreme-Leader.html

 

 

 

If Ahmadinejad wins, it's bad news for the US and Great Britain. It'll just add more tension between both nations and Iran, especially after that comment against GB and the US for "fueling" the defiance in Iran.

It seems that the Iranian government has really began to crack down on the protesters today. They stopped them joining together into a large group by using tear gas and using the riot squad to break the groups up.

 

 

 

Worryingly, Mousavi has said he is ready for martyrdom for the cause, so it looks like things aren't going well behind the scenes

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5588198/Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-ready-for-martyrdom-as-Iranians-defy-Supreme-Leader.html

 

 

 

If Ahmadinejad wins, it's bad news for the US and Great Britain. It'll just add more tension between both nations and Iran, especially after that comment against GB and the US for "fueling" the defiance in Iran.

 

 

 

If the supreme leader stays in power its bad news for the United States and Great Britain in the grand scheme of things.

Ahmadinejad has won because there is no way the result will be over-turned. Mousavi isn't particularly pro-western either, his policy is just no improve relations and not to antoganise the west further (unlike Ahmadinejad who goes out of his way to provoke). It's weird because Mousavi is part of the old guard (he was Prime Minister during the 80's) and he's become the leader of this mass movement by accident. He wasn't running on an anti-Khamenei ticket (he wouldn't have been allowed to) and he hasn't even openly opposed the structure of the government but all of these protesters who want those kind of changes have made Mousavi their figurehead for this.

 

 

 

The idea behind the Iranian government claiming that the US and UK are behind the protests is to give them an excuse to crack heads, we're just the scapegoat in their game. That is why Obama was smart by saying little on the issue because he knew he would be giving them the opportunity to take that way out - Gordon Brown wasn't as shrewd unfortunately.

Mousavi really isn't much better than Ahmadinejad, and Obama said that plainly in his CNBC interview. Some people were pissed, but really, it's true.

 

 

 

Nonetheless, he would be better than Ahmadinejad.

 

 

 

Anyway, the extreme leftist in me has to post this. I don't agree with all of it, namely that he doesn't believe the election was stolen without a shadow of a doubt (my reasons are not that Ahmadinejad won by an overwhelming majority, but other smaller things):

 

 

 

he press is up in arms about Irans election and the Khamenei regimes alleged perversion of the democratic process. I employ the word alleged here, in contrast to the dogmatic certainty expressed by American journalists, because charges of electoral fraud must be verified, rather than assumed. Middle East experts such as Juan Cole do make a convincing case that the election was manipulated, although his claims rest more on conjecture than hard evidence or empirical data (for more on this, see Coles excellent analysis: Stealing the Iran Election, at his blog Informed Comment).

 

 

 

A review of the medias reaction to the election reveals much about American journalists arrogance and ignorance. Journalists take a faith based approach to Iran assuming the worst about the countrys political system, even when substantive evidence is lacking. A June 14th editorial in the New York Times, for example, bitterly condemned the [iranian] governments even more than usually thuggish reaction to protests of Ahmadinejads electoral victory. The evidence for electoral fraud, the Times contends, is seen in the large rallies at challenger Mir-Hossein Moussavis campaign events, in addition to the publication of some polls suggesting that Moussavi would win over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These developments supposedly demonstrate that Ahmadinejad was poised for a major electoral defeat, not an overwhelming victory.

 

 

 

The Times also spoke with disdain, although understandably, about the Iranian governments crackdown on the protestors. When protesters took to the streets in the fiercest demonstrations in a decade [against the elections results], the police beat them with batons. The government also closed universities in Tehran, blocked cell phones and text messaging and cut access to Web sites. Other complaints from the American press, however, amounted to vulgar propaganda. In one blatant case, the Times continued to stoke Americans fear over Irans [nuclear] centrifuges, which are still spinning, and its nuclear program, which is advancing at an alarming rate. Similarly, the Washington Post droned on about Irans nuclear weapons ambitions seen as unacceptable by American officials who responsibly wield, and contemplate the use of such weapons for the greater good of humanity.

 

 

 

In line with Americas bipartisan animosity toward Iran, reporters assume the worst about this election. Another case in point is an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, which posted a memo to the mullahs: If youre going to fake an election, at least make the results look plausible. According to the official tally in Irans presidential race, incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didnt just beat his three opponents, he crushed them, winning 63% of the vote and a majority in all 30 provinces. It is possible, however, that the declared electoral results are relatively accurate. Polling done prior to the election did suggest that Ahmadinejad retained a sizable lead against his competitors. As Reuters reported, one poll conducted three weeks before the election found that Ahmadinejad led his closest competitor by a two-to-one ratio, which was greater than the imbalance that electoral results indicated on election day. Unfortunately, we may never know the full extent of any meddling in the election, since there were no international observers to certify the events legitimacy.

 

 

 

All of the points made in the American press (and in this article for that matter) are largely beside the point anyway. A far larger question remains for us to ponder which is never discussed in mainstream dialogue: why is it that American journalists and officials assume a divine power to sit in judgment of the legitimacy of foreign governments? Isnt this precisely what got the United States in trouble with Iran to begin with? Americans share major responsibility for the rise of the Iranian theocracy, considering that it was the United States that originally overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. Mossadegh was popular among the Iranian people, but not with U.S. political and economic elites. American leaders were suspicious of Mossadeghs nationalization of Irans oil - occurring at the height of the Cold War - and decided that a repressive, but pro-capitalist dictator (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was suitable to lead the country. Pahlavi developed a well-deserved reputation for brutally suppressing his people, and eventually fell from power in the 1979 Revolution. The U.S. role in this process, unfortunately, is rarely discussed in media debates. The CIAs responsibility for the termination of Iranian democracy in the 1950s was well known by the time of the Iranian Revolution, and fears of another U.S. coup were a major motivation or the takeover of the U.S. embassy and the ensuing hostage crisis.

 

 

 

To this day, Iranians refuse to take seriously American claims that it is promoting democracy in the Middle East. One can hardly blame them, considering the events described above. Dont expect to hear about any of these unpleasant truths in the American press though. Our journalists would rather stand in judgment of whether Irans election is democratic than concede that it was the U.S. that destroyed Irans democracy in the first place. And dont expect the editors at the New York Times or Washington Post to concede another basic fact - that international and national intelligence assessments long ago concluded Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. While this reality is understood by the rest of the world, American politicians and journalists subscribe to a faith based understanding of global affairs, in which Iran remains a paramount threat. Presumably, simply repeating ad nauseam that Iran is a threat is sufficient to convince much of the public that a threat exists.

 

 

 

I have documented at length in my previous two books the ways in which the American press distorts the reality on the ground in Iran. Whether it is the question of Irans nuclear weapons, the British-Iranian hostage crisis, Iranian aggression in Iraq, or the recent election, Americas journalists show themselves to be lapdogs of the state, not independent actors. We should keep this in mind whenever we read stories about Iran in the paper of record and its cohorts.

 

 

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio06182009.html

Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

 

 

 

If you were in Iran, you could potentially get into huge trouble, but in the US? Completely safe. Even if it is illegal (which it isn't) the US government tends to turn a blind eye to those supporting democratic movements in foreign countries.

If you listen to the protesters in the streets many are just using the elections as an excuse to protest the regime. True Mousavi isn't that different but he is being used as a figure to lead something much greater.

Keep this in mind:

 

 

 

President George W Bush requested and received funding of $400 million (£200 million) for the plan after he made a secret appeal to Congressional leaders last year.

 

 

 

The money is likely to be used for operations carried out by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, according to the New Yorker magazine.

 

 

 

The appeal for funds "was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change" said the magazine.

 

 

 

A source cited the contents of the appeal - known as a Presidential Finding - as involving "working with opposition groups and passing money".

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Iran.html

 

 

 

Blast from the past, but it's very important to note.

What is most interesting is how this has moved beyond an election protest, while it sounds a bit cliched by now the iranian people are beginning to actually protest the actual structure of the government.

What is most interesting is how this has moved beyond an election protest, while it sounds a bit cliched by now the iranian people are beginning to actually protest the actual structure of the government.

 

I made mention to this in the original post, that's why the protesters don't care that Mousavi really isn't that different from Ahmadinejad. Many are using this election sham as an excuse to finally speak out against the dictatorship.

 

 

 

 

 

Side not, has anyone else watched that video that magekiller posted of the girl dying on camera? I know I made comments on it already, but it haunts me. I have seen blood and gore and even dissected dead humans in my medical classes... but that video haunts me. It was too real, too heart wrenching.

 

 

 

I haven't prayed in 14 years, but tonight I pray for her, her name was Neda.

The one he posted was taken down for some reason, but I saw another link to it earlier on digg.

It looks like Iran is going full throttle with the outside instigation route, they've ordered the BBC's permanent correspondent to leave the country and are threatening more serious action if "interference" continues.

 

 

 

The government has also arrested some of Rafsanjani's family "for their own safety". To me that looks like a way of neutralising the threat that Rafsanjani could pose the regime (hypothetically he is the only person in Iran who can depose Khamenei as he is the chair of the Assembly of Experts). Looks like Khamenei is getting a wary of a power struggle from within.

 

 

 

Also Khatami is urging for the release of all arrested opposition protesters but that is to be expected.

Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

 

No

 

 

 

But you "opening up Cmd" and pinging them isn't a DDOS will do almost nothing

The footage from Tehran today looks like urban warfare. Gone are the massive crowds. Instead we see bands of civilians under attack from bands of thugs, gunshots, flames, thin crowds chased through side streets. If the authorities succeed in keeping demonstrators dispersed and on the run, they could swiftly seize the upper hand. The Web site Tehran Bureau is reporting forty dead and more than two hundred wounded. The victims are seeking aid in foreign embassies rather than hospitals, according to Twitter reports from Tehran.

 

 

 

Interestingly, the regime has disseminated reports of a bomb blast at the shrine to Khomeini on the outskirts of Tehran. Many observers and analysts suspect the bomb was planted or invented by the government, in an effort to tar the demonstrators as counter-revolutionaries. The protesters have done everything possible to complicate such stereotypes. There are reports that those demonstrators who came out today planned, via the Internet, to bring Korans onto the streets, and to sit and read from them when attacked by militiamen. Such tactics are in keeping with these demonstrators use of slogans and imagery taken from religion and from the Islamic Revolution of 1979shouting Allahu Akbar from the rooftops, organizing demonstrations as public memorials for the dead, refusing (for the most part, at least until today) to attack Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei by name or to call for an end to theocratic rule. In effect, they are saying, We are not against the revolution or against the Islamic Republic. We are its defenders from desecration. Having the former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi for a leader helps in this regard, because of his close historic association with the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

 

 

 

Nonetheless, the protesters posture has not been particularly effective with Khamenei, who yesterday threatened them and their leaders with bloodshed and mayhem. So who, exactly, are the demonstrators trying to convince? And who are the authorities trying to persuade with these reports of the shrine bombing?

 

 

 

I think there is still a battle being waged for the hearts and minds of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij. Successful nonviolent movements in other countries have depended on the cooptation of the rank and file in the armed forces; one remembers the moving scenes of Serbian riot police embracing demonstrators. Of course, the Serbian opposition spent months working up to that. In the summer of 2000, when Slobodan Milosevics government issued a statement to the army saying that the student activists were terrorists, an activist told me that he and his friends retaliated by sending care packages to soldiers in the hope that in the key moment when he orders them to shoot on us, they wont listen. The success of Serbias democratic movement was not only that it deposed a rancid dictator but that it united, at least momentarily, a divided and scarred society.

 

 

 

Iran is not Serbia. The relationship between the people and the revolutionary shock troops is far older and deeper than anything that took root during Milosevics relatively brief tenure. By 2000, Milosevics fiefdom was rotten to the core; it survived on corruption, the fear of exposure on the part of many criminals and war profiteers, and hostility toward the world. The Islamic Republic, by contrast, was born in a peoples revolution and built on faith in a religion that is deeply held by most Iranians. The states ideology is not the hollow construct of political elites, as communism was by the time it collapsed in much of Eastern Europe. Rather, Iranian Islamism was forged over decades, in long struggle with the despotic regime of Mohammad Reza Shah, and from the potent raw materials of Iranian nationalism and Islam. Although the countrys constituency for democracy is vast and growing, the regime has a constituency, too, and it is passionately loyal and heavily armed.

 

 

 

The purpose of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij is the defense of the Islamic Revolution and the Supreme Leader. Rarely have the true believers in the militias been forced to consider the possibility that these two functions might come into conflict. Such a moment may have arrived. It is one thing to unleash brutal force on crowds that insult the Leader or Islam. That was how the members of the Revolutionary Guards and Basij could defend their assault on demonstrators at Tehran University in 1999. But now, in the name of Ahmadinejads controversial presidency, they are being asked to violently disperse fellow Iranians who are chanting religious slogans, carrying Korans, and calling for the lawful counting of their votes. Whether or not the rumors of splits at the top of the Revolutionary Guards hierarchy are true, the rank and file is not necessarily monolithic.

 

 

 

I am reminded of a conversation I had in December 2006 with a twenty-one-year-old Basiji named Mohammad Mahdi Kafshi-Ershad. He joined the Basij in high school, at the urging of his religious parents. Although he was a devout believer, he did not consider himself political. He said, Among the Basijis, some are political and others just want to keep the government and country based on the religious fundamentals. If the government is one hundred per cent religious, there is no danger to belief. But today we have a mixture of politics and religion together. To its own benefit the government has mixed those things. Some clerics, he told me with disgust, had become very rich and powerful, and they lived in lavish homes in North Tehran. The martyred Imam Ali would not approve of such lifestyles. As for voting, he was not himself inclined. What if I vote for Ahmadinejad, and Ahmadinejad made a mistake? he said. It could be a sin. I dont want to be a partner in a sin. I wonder if there are other young men like Kafshi-Ershad, and how willing they will be to play partner to a political power grab by inflicting physical pain on protesters reading from the Koran.

 

 

 

If the opposition does indeed hope to appeal to the common humanity of its attackers, however, todays events have not been particularly encouraging. Reports on Andrew Sullivans indispensable blog show unremitting violence, and a turn toward more frankly oppositional slogans on the part of the demonstrators.

 

 

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... -election/

As I am still on the road (returning tomorrow night), I have not been able to comment on the developments as much as I have wanted. But I did manage to see some CNN coverage this morning at my hotel. What do you expect from a network that relies on Octavia Nasr as "the senior Middle East" expert for the network? But the hypocrisy is quite stunning. They are admiring the dare of the population when the Palestinian population shows more dare. They are outraged at the level of repressive crackdown by the regime when Israeli crackdowns on demonstrations are far more brutal and savage? They are admiring the participation of women in a national movement, when Palestinian women led the struggle from as far back as the 1930s (see the private papers of Akram Zu`aytir). They are outraged that the Iranian government is repressing media coverage, when the Israeli government is far more strict: when it was perpetrating slaughter in Gaza few months ago, the Western press was not allowed any freedom of movement except the hill of death where Michael Oren led reporters to watch Israeli brutal assualt on the Palestinian civilian population from a distance. The media coverage in the US and UK prove beyond a doubt that increasingly the Western press has been serving as a tool for the various Western government. If the government cheers, the media cheer, if the government condemns, the media condemns, etc. And would the Western media ever be as unrestrained in its glamorization and glorfication of demonstrators and demonstrations in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Jordan as they are now? There are no claims of even covering a story anymore: it is merely how can we best help the beautiful demonstrators who are not bearded and whose women are more loosely veiled. This is not to say that the Iranian regime is not repressive and needs to be overthrown: far from that. But it is to say that the Iranian regime is as bad (in fact Saudi Arabia and Egypt are probably worse) and as unjust as the various Middle East governments that are supported by the Western governments and Western media. When Western media sit with Saudi and Egyptian leaders, it is as if they are sitting with a friend. And notice that just as in Western media coverage of Lebanon, only one side of the demonstrations are being covered. Yesterday, the Ahmadinajad side mustered tens of thousands in a show of force, yet the three thousands who demonstrated for Khomeini groupie, Mousavi, received far more coverage. It is the bearded demonstrator rule: bearded ones don't deserve coverage and they don't coung. Pro-Saudi media was ecstatic at first but now I sense that they are getting a bit nervous for reasons that I have no time to get into.

 

 

 

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/w ... erage.html

 

 

 

As'ad speaks the truth.

Could we even be prosecuted for attacking an enemy government's servers by DDOSing them? I'm tempted to open up Cmd right now.

 

No

 

 

 

But you "opening up Cmd" and pinging them isn't a DDOS will do almost nothing

 

Since almost nothing is on the something side of nothing... I figured we'd go with that.

Hey, guys! Great news! While the police and militiamen were busy trying to stop the protests, a coup was staged and Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah were both overthrown. This group of people were part of a large organization that disrupted the government's only way to communicate: through their websites. After that, they placed Mousavi as the new president and Moot as the Supreme Leader. The coup was very swift and only resulted in a brief power struggle between Iran's top leaders and the pro-Mousavi leaders of this organization. It also resulted in a renaming of the country to commemorate the second Iranian revolution.

 

 

 

Here's the new map:

 

 

 

^^ Wow... you must be like... funny or something?

Hey, guys! Great news! While the police and militiamen were busy trying to stop the protests, a coup was staged and Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah were both overthrown. This group of people were part of a large organization that disrupted the government's only way to communicate: through their websites. After that, they placed Mousavi as the new president and Moot as the Supreme Leader. The coup was very swift and only resulted in a brief power struggle between Iran's top leaders and the pro-Mousavi leaders of this organization. It also resulted in a renaming of the country to commemorate the second Iranian revolution.

 

 

 

Here's the new map:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahha Sere your having alot of fun with this :D

Iran's religious clerks in Qom and members of the Assembly of Experts, headed by Ayatollah Rafsanjani, are mulling the formation of an alternative collective leadership to replace that of the supreme leader, sources in Qom told Al Arabiya on condition of anonymity.

 

 

 

from: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/21/76567.html

 

 

 

Maybe something will come out of it eventually