Slashdot Mirror


Iran Acknowledges Espionage At Nuclear Facilities

wiredmikey writes "Iran acknowledged Saturday that some personnel at the country's nuclear facilities were lured by promises of money to pass secrets to the West but insisted increased security and worker privileges have put a stop to the spying. The stunning admission by Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi provides the clearest government confirmation that Iran has been fighting espionage at its nuclear facilities."

175 comments

  1. Re:Nuclear facilities? by X-Power · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Iran never tried to deny that they were building nuclear facilities, they just claim that its for nuclear energy and not weapons.

  2. espionage... at nuclear facilities? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1
  3. Don't go to the West... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a trap!

  4. Obviously by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Funny

    Iran is being spied upon. And in other news, horoscopes are fake and pie is delicious.

    1. Re:Obviously by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 5, Funny

      My horoscope says that delicious pies are spying on Iran!

      Who can I trust?!

    2. Re:Obviously by pspahn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The secret to a good pie crust is 1/4 cup of vodka in place of some of the water. Of course, it burns off in the oven, so if you have an alcoholic at turkey dinner this year, you really don't have to tell them.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:Obviously by thijsh · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder what else you put in the food and don't tell the relatives... Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    4. Re:Obviously by f3rret · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Iran is being spied upon. And in other news, horoscopes are fake and pie is delicious.

      Horoscopes aren't fake, they're a real thing. They're right there in the back of the newspaper every day, it's the predictions that are fake. The horoscopes themselves are perfectly real, why you'd think otherwise confuses me.

      Also the deliciousness depends on the kind of pie, like for example I doubt that a dish soap/spam pie would be particularly delicious.

      Really I've got nothing to add other than: "yes, people spy on countries that are perceived as 'dangerous' "

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    5. Re:Obviously by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Just curious - how does it work?

      --
    6. Re:Obviously by wmac · · Score: 1

      Your statements totally make sense :)

      People spy on countries that are perceived as 'dangerous'??????!!!

      In that case every single country should spy on US because no other country has been that dangerous to human kind!!

    7. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My horoscope says that delicious pies are spying on Iran!

      Who can I trust?!

      You must be reading the Soviet Russia horoscope.

    8. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the predictions that are fake.

      The predictions aren't fake, they're right there in the paper.

    9. Re:Obviously by Shikaku · · Score: 0

      Of course, it burns off in the oven

      This is a dangerous myth (Mythbusters, here's some new material) that it all burns off. Especially in an oven, where is the alcohol gonna go? Into the food!

      It's dangerous for diabetics, pregnants, and young children (studies show it inhibits brain development) mostly though. 1/4 cup of vodka is a blip to everyone else.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_with_alcohol

    10. Re:Obviously by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In that case every single country should spy on US because no other country has been that dangerous to human kind!!

      Except that there's no need to spy - it's not like they're being very covert about their actions and intentions. It's more like "Fuck you, I'll do what I want - I'm America! Americaaaaa, FUCK YEAH!!!".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Obviously by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      it burns off in the oven

      Calm down, man, he knows this. So he drinks it before putting the pie in the oven.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    12. Re:Obviously by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iran is being spied upon. And in other news, horoscopes are fake and pie is delicious.

      Horoscopes aren't fake, they're a real thing. They're right there in the back of the newspaper every day, it's the predictions that are fake. The horoscopes themselves are perfectly real, why you'd think otherwise confuses me.

      The predictions aren't fake either. They're right there in the horoscope section of your newspaper. They may never come true, but they are real predictions. I may predict that nobody is going to respond to this post and that prediction may end up being true or false, but the prediction in itself is a real prediction. It's the believe horoscope predictions become true that is fake. Why you'd think otherwise confuses me.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    13. Re:Obviously by weicco · · Score: 1

      Especially in an oven, where is the alcohol gonna go?

      Through cooling process into a bottle (why waste good stuff?). There is proceeds through my mouth into my stomach. After a couple of hours it ventures on to the sewer system if I only remembered to unzip my pants. Usually it just soaks in to my jeans.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    14. Re:Obviously by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, it burns off in the oven

      This is a dangerous myth (Mythbusters, here's some new material) that it all burns off. Especially in an oven, where is the alcohol gonna go? Into the food!

      It's dangerous for diabetics, pregnants, and young children (studies show it inhibits brain development) mostly though. 1/4 cup of vodka is a blip to everyone else.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_with_alcohol

      That 1/4 cup in a pie crust typically gets cut into 8 slices. So each slice has 1/32 of a cup or about 7.4 mL. According to the wikipedia article, if you cook the pie for only 15 minutes 40% of the alcohol remains which means 4 mL per pie slice. I suppose that could still be dangerous to some, but it's nothing like serving 1/4 cup straight to a person.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    15. Re:Obviously by ZDRuX · · Score: 1

      This thread is relative to my interests.

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    16. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really I've got nothing to add other than: "yes, people spy on countries that are perceived as 'dangerous' "

      That's pretty obvious. And even then that's redundant.

    17. Re:Obviously by georgeb · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the believe horoscope predictions become true that is fake. Why you'd think otherwise confuses me.

      You're all wrong. Nothing is fake. The belief is real as well. Unfounded by all means, most probably false, but not fake. Very few people fake their belief in horoscopes, most likely the authors (as long as they get their paycheck). But the target audience does genuinely believe there's some truth to the predictions in their horoscopes.

    18. Re:Obviously by david.given · · Score: 1

      Trust Nemo.

      Honestly, if you can't trust a fictious post-traumatic stress disorder victim vigilante with his own nuclear-powered submarine, who can you trust?

    19. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well clearly, you can trust these people: Ahmadinejad, Bush, Putin, Obama, Cheney, Limbaugh, Krugman, Bernanke, Geithner, Beck and such.

    20. Re:Obviously by somersault · · Score: 1

      America will be online very soon. And my karma shall burn. Teehee :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    21. Re:Obviously by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Team America was a warning, not a manual!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    22. Re:Obviously by geogob · · Score: 1

      Really I've got nothing to add other than: "yes, people spy on countries that are perceived as 'dangerous' "

      I knew it! That's why France must be spying on Canada...

    23. Re:Obviously by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Do you mean in place of 1/4 cup of water?

      Steaming pies wrapped in horoscopes are doing es-pie-onage jobs on Iran.

      Pie rats report on usage of tons of disputed topping being readied for pizza delivery.

      Like a pizza, it can be used to show how much is intended for domestic and foreign consumption.

      Also like a pizza, it can be used to make Klee faces of the leader.

      Work continues on pizza delivery vehicles for all occasions.

    24. Re:Obviously by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

      obviously its those darn undercovers pies that are spying on Iran!

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    25. Re:Obviously by somersault · · Score: 1

      But the secret signal is so practical!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    26. Re:Obviously by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Especially in an oven, where is the alcohol gonna go?

      Well, according to the wikipedia article you quoted - part of the alcohol does not stay in the food. If you'd bake something for an hour you'd have only 25% of the alcohol left. So where did the 75% go?

    27. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umad?

    28. Re:Obviously by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      lol, the guy mentioned obama in the list (and krugman), and you're all 'you forgot obama, you partisan hack'.

      someone's a partisan hack here, and it aint the guy you were replying to.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    29. Re:Obviously by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      In that case every single country should spy on US because no other country has been that dangerous to human kind!!

      Whatever makes you think that they don't?

      Sure, there are some Third-World hellholes that can't afford a pot to piss in that don't bother to spy on us, but it's probably safe to say that everyone else (including our allies) spies on us.

      And for that matter, that we spy on everyone else (including our allies).

      All that said, I think it's fairly safe to say that the USSR, China, and Germany have managed to do in far more people each than the USA has managed during its entire existance. If I were looking for a country that fits the bill "no other country has been that dangerous to human kind!!", I don't think I'd be looking in North America, frankly.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re:Obviously by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are comparing dishes with alcohol in the sauce (which forms an azeotrope and so does not all evaporate off unless all of the sauce evaporates), with alcohol in a dough. If you are worried about the trace amounts left after this, then you shouldn't eat bread, which also contains alcohol before it is baked.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Obviously by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Most countries do spy on the USA, even her allies (who also spy on each other). Do you honestly think that they don't?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Obviously by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Captain Nemo was an Iranian, until I watched LXG. I guess they had a nuclear program way back in the 19th Century...

    33. Re:Obviously by ffreeloader · · Score: 2, Informative

      Especially in an oven, where is the alcohol gonna go?

      For those people, like you, who have never used an oven, air circulation is designed into all ovens. There is no door seal around the bottom of the oven door, and there is a vent built into the roof of the oven that exits, in the vast majority of cases, under the right rear burner. If there were no air circulation in an oven nothing would brown on top, such as cookies, cakes, turkey, chicken, etc... and nothing would cook evenly.

      Turn on your oven and let it warm up. Then put your hand over the right rear burner and you will feel the warm air rising. For those of you with glass top ranges the oven will vent elsewhere, usually out the back.

      So where does the alcohol go? It evaporates into the air in the oven and exits the oven through the vent, as the wiki article only mentions cases where the alcohol is NOT stirred into the mixture or the dish is removed from the heat as soon as the alcohol is added, and if you had ever made a pie crust from scratch you'd know that the water used is part and parcel of the dough of the pie crust itself. That alone removes it from the wiki list of examples. Furthermore, a baked pie crust is very dry without the filling, meaning the liquid used to make the dough has been evaporated during the baking process, and alcohol evaporates faster than water so it is the first liquid to evaporate. And, yes, you bake the crust before you add the filling.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    34. Re:Obviously by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      the predictions are real too, they're just random and not accurate or precise.

    35. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that Ahmadinejad and Putin became members of US Republicans, but it's not surprising.

      Also I am pretty sure that while Krugman is a Keynesian shamanistic hack, Obama, Bernanke and Geithner do really belong on the Republican list, after all they are the guys bailing out banks and printing stimulus to pass to the large monopolies, of-course Obama just continued what Bush started, but he did continue it.

      As to Cheney, Limbaugh, Beck, didn't you see, I said:

      you can trust these people

      - so there you go, are you satisfied. Just because I am moderated as funny, doesn't mean that you also didn't get what you wanted - a definite endorsement of who to trust, right?

      P.S.

      You know, I do actually trust that Christine O'Donnel is not a witch, I just don't think she is me.

    36. Re:Obviously by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      America will be online very soon. And my karma shall burn. Teehee :)

      Why is that? With your attitude you have nothing but bad karma anyway.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    37. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It provides moisture for the crust to allow it to be rolled out, without adding water, which reacts with the gluten in the flour and would make the dough tough. You want "some" gluten activated, but not as much as you'd get if you made the dough moist enough to roll out with out tearing. gluten is not water soluble, so the vodka is "wet" but not "water.

      See, for example, Alton Brown's books/show..

    38. Re:Obviously by doctorfaustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you never opened an oven after baking, say, a frozen pizza, and had the escaping moist heat cloud up your glasses? That's where it goes.

    39. Re:Obviously by iceborer · · Score: 1

      The preceding list is not all-inclusive, naturally, as I'm sure yours isn't either. I just found it interesting that you were modded "funny" for a bunch of partisan hackery, so please enjoy this counterbalance.

      Goddamit, where is the +1 Irony moderation?!?

    40. Re:Obviously by david.given · · Score: 1

      Actually he's Indian (go read The Mysterious Island).

    41. Re:Obviously by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate how much Americans love to see "Fuck you, I'll do what I want - I'm America! Americaaaaa, FUCK YEAH!!!" whether it's serious or to poke fun at them. There's a reason the Colbert Show is so popular, that stuff cracks them up ;)

    42. Re:Obviously by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      This isn't spying, this is interfering and undermining in key plans and personell. Probably what got Iran upset with the west in the first place.

    43. Re:Obviously by somersault · · Score: 1

      Really? Because it's been at "Excellent" since not long after I started actually posting.. not all the mods are (or should I say "not everything is") American you know.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    44. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It evaporates ass hat.

      Lol you are an idiot.

    45. Re:Obviously by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      It's dangerous for diabetics, pregnants

      Current research seems to indicate a drink in moderation is not necessarily bad for pregnant women. Also, the majority of the alcohol does evaporate so we're really talking about minimum levels. For 99.999 percent of the population, its not a health risk. Besides, there are so many foods and medications which do include alcohol, a discussion of minimal levels is a complete misdirection.

      In this case, we're talking about alcohol suspended in dough, which is in direct contact with an extremely high temperature pan. So we're talking about maybe 30%-40% retention of 1/4 cup. That's roughly 0.1 fluid ounces, assuming 40%, divided amongst eight pieces. Or roughly 0.0125 ouches of alcohol per piece of pie. And if the pie is provided several hours of cooling time it likely has even far less. You likely get more alcohol with your dose of medication.

      Basically, if you are concerned about this level of alcohol, you never leave your home.

    46. Re:Obviously by somersault · · Score: 1

      Good point.. the actual percentage of Americans that actually get upset that the rest of the world stereotypes them as arrogant assholes is probably quite small, owing to them obviously all being a bunch of arrogant assholes :)

      Got to love the meta-humour, and once again I await with excitement the experimental results (ie, is my karma is going to burn?) - since this post says pretty much the exact same as my original, but in an even more flamebaitish manner!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    47. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot wait until the > 65yo/FoxNews crowd dies out so the Republicans can go back to being a moderate party (or at least tolerate it).

    48. Re:Obviously by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Funny

      in other news, horoscopes are fake and pie is delicious.

      Our intelligence shows that it is actually yellow cake which is delicious.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    49. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ruining somebody's opportunity to display righteous indignation and appear intelligent at the same time. You are taking away their rights.

    50. Re:Obviously by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      We're talking about real karma, friend.

    51. Re:Obviously by Nyder · · Score: 2, Funny

      lol, the guy mentioned obama in the list (and krugman), and you're all 'you forgot obama, you partisan hack'.

      someone's a partisan hack here, and it aint the guy you were replying to.

      Give him/her a break, probably public school, and you know how bad the public education system is.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    52. Re:Obviously by Nyder · · Score: 1

      According to the wikipedia article, if you cook the pie for only 15 minutes 40% of the alcohol remains which means 4 mL per pie slice. I suppose that could still be dangerous to some, but it's nothing like serving 1/4 cup straight to a person.

      I should point out most pies cook from 30 to 45 mins. I've never had to cook a pie shorter, but while I've done a lot of baking and cooking, I don't like pie so I don't cook them as much.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    53. Re:Obviously by IICV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also you're serving them pie, which is already dangerous to diabetics and children.

      Seriously, Americans are way too fearful of alcohol. A little bit now and then really won't hurt anyone more than some sugar would.

    54. Re:Obviously by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fresh orange juice can have as much as 380mg/L of ethanol. That's a lot higher than your piece of pie. Grandparent poster, do some basic research before you give out health 'advice'.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    55. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent was talking about delicious pies spying on Iran, and then you replied with "Who can I trust?!", and with my mind still on delicious pie, I read "Who can I crust". Mmmmm crust!

    56. Re:Obviously by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I see. An opportunity now equals a right. I've been wondering how the progressives reach many of their conclusions. Now I understand where they are coming from. They make up their own word definitions as they go. ;)

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    57. Re:Obviously by weicco · · Score: 1

      alcohol evaporates faster than water so it is the first liquid to evaporate

      Everyone who is or has been a student in some part of their life should know that alcohol vaporizes in 83 Celsius. And in fact my empirical studies, purely academic of course, have shown that the temperature of the liquid does not rise significantly over 83 C until all the alcohol has been evaporated. (Collect it to a flask and filter it through activated carbon. Just remember to toss the first decilitre away or you might get blind.)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    58. Re:Obviously by somersault · · Score: 1

      I did wonder that. It's a good thing that pretty much everyone else in the world has the same attitude as me, and therefore it will all balance out, or if the concept of karma is actually a load of bunk (what a preposterous idea! of course it's real), then the fact that everyone else agrees and I don't live in America will also do little to hurt me.

      I don't actually hate Americans btw, I just have found the attitude of many of them to be rather grating. It's not been so bad since 9/11, but it can still be seen from time to time. As a culture you're very self assured and outgoing, and my own culture, and personality, is anything but.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    59. Re:Obviously by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Damn skippy dude, you can't let a bunch of expat Quebecers wrestling cultural leadership of the francophone world from from it's true source! The Spanish spy on Mexico too!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    60. Re:Obviously by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      So far, the only knowledgeable and correct post on the subject.

      Everyone spies on everyone. The only real difference is the degree to which one country actively attempts to spy. For example, US and Briton have excellent communication most of the time and share considerable information so little active spying takes place. Notice I didn't say none. "Trust but verify", is the mantra after all.

      As for most dangerous, the US is easily at least fifth from the top. And if you want to throw cultural values into the mix, it continues to drop even further.

    61. Re:Obviously by denobug · · Score: 1

      They make up their own word definitions as they go. ;)

      Dude, Politics 101, you make up words as you go!

    62. Re:Obviously by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      By that time, the new >65yo crowd will be in and hating all this trendy left wing stuff.

    63. Re:Obviously by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      And that's our bad karma as Americans. We act like arrogant bastards, the rest of the world treats us like arrogant bastards.

      It's still a good idea to make sure you're right in every case.

    64. Re:Obviously by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      And in fact my empirical studies, purely academic of course, have shown that the temperature of the liquid does not rise significantly over 83 C until all the alcohol has been evaporated.

      Yeah, there's a technical term for that. It's called latent heat. As long as the alcohol is absorbing latent heat, in this case the amount of heat (btu's) needed for the alcohol to change state to a gas, the measured temperature of any of the liquid will not change. As for the latent heat required to evaporate methyl, propyl, and ethanol alcohols is 335 - 473 btu's. The boiling point is ~172 degrees Fahrenheit. All of these specs are well below those of water.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    65. Re:Obviously by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Must be why I'm not a politician....

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    66. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush inducted Putin in to the holy republican empire by invocation of a sacred right.
      During said right Bush saw in to Putin's soul, thus granting Putin entry in to the ranks of the sacred elephant.

    67. Re:Obviously by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

      Actually, the yellow cake is false.

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    68. Re:Obviously by swilly · · Score: 1

      I assume you meant to say that the yellow cake is a lie.

    69. Re:Obviously by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And the Iranian Dear Leader?

    70. Re:Obviously by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Umm he did mention Obama. You are looking for bias that at least isn't documented in the above post.
      So I would say that you own roman_mir and apology.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    71. Re:Obviously by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "I don't like pie"
      You are a freak and must be removed from the gene pool before you reproduce! That is just unnatural.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    72. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dotted or 'woo-woo'?

    73. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandparent poster, do some basic research before you give out health 'advice'.

      so says the guy who links to a 404 page...

    74. Re:Obviously by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Wow, Slashdot attention to details such as these gets amusing sometimes.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    75. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's fake? Not just the moon but all the planets and the constellations affect us via gravity. These tidal forces act on any body of water, and did you know your body is mostly water? Gravity proves horoscopes are real, it just makes sense.

    76. Re:Obviously by chgros · · Score: 1

      That's a lot higher than your piece of pie
      In fact, that's a lot lower.
      1mL is about 1g (true for water, nearly true for alcohol)
      So, to have about 4mL of alcohol, you'd need about 10L of orange juice.
      BTW, here's your corrected link:
      http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/dr-woodrow-monte10.html

    77. Re:Obviously by weicco · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info! That confirms my hypothesis that thermostat is totally useless thing when doing my purely academical studies. It just slows down the process.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    78. Re:Obviously by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Then why are horoscopes different depending on when you were born? If gravity is the reason, the same illness, (mis)fortune or coincidental bumping in with the next love interrest should be based on geographical location, not date of birth.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    79. Re:Obviously by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction - I missed that pesky 'm' for milli.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    80. Re:Obviously by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Or they see it as a kind of entertainment (I hope... but such approach does seem to resonate with many woman, "of course I know it's BS, but I like to be amused")

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    81. Re:Obviously by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Though not nearly so bad as constantly misquoting some "rights" from some text about becoming independent...which wasn't made legally binding in any appreciable way.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    82. Re:Obviously by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Depends what one counts I guess. If the category would be, say, "willingly contributing to societal collapse of some specific parts of local population" (to be most generic) it isn't as clear anymore... and some legacy of Manifest Destiny certainly remains alife.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. Re:yeah, we know.... by gyaku_zuki · · Score: 1

    I think you were the target of some espionage....

  6. Setting the bar low by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's amazing how little we require of foreign powers these days, in order to believe that they're making some sort of tremendous admission. I blame the Iraqi Information Minister for causing us to set the bar so low.

  7. No really? by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

    The stunning admission by Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi provides the clearest government confirmation that Iran has been fighting espionage at its nuclear facilities.

    Truly amazing indeed...

  8. Re:yeah, we know.... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    You should get +1 Recursive, not -1 Redundant.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  9. In other news The Pope acknowledges he is Catholic by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    Seriously. It's no secret that alot of countries are concerned about Iran's nuclear program because (and likely so) they are worried it is for development of nuclear weapons. Of course there are going to be attempts to get information, and part of that is going to be attempting to buy secrets.

  10. Famous last words by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    "Now, these routes have been blocked. The possibility of information leaking is almost impossible now," Salehi was quoted as saying.

    I am frankly amazed that anybody would risk getting caught spying in Iran given that they were going to stone a woman to death because she may or may not have cheated on her husband after he died of natural causes. Or is it a double standard: one woman commits a sex crime and they go all mediaeval on her but one of the guys steals nuclear secrets and gets a slap on the wrist?

    1. Re:Famous last words by wmac · · Score: 1

      Died of natural causes?!!! Where did you bring that? He died because they killed him!!! If I should judge you based on this bold section I should not accept other parts of your message.

    2. Re:Famous last words by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "He died because they killed him!!!"

      "Natural Sharia causes".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Famous last words by georgeb · · Score: 1

      Sex crime?? Did she rape anybody? How on earth is having consensual sex with an adult considered a crime... Of course, in Islam everything a woman does can be construed as a crime.

    4. Re:Famous last words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike in the US, where just showing your boobs is enough of a sex crime. Worse if you under eighteen, doubly worse if you took a picture of your boobs. What's more, you can get anyone into jail and on a lifetime record in a sex criminal list by SMSing your boob pictures to them then calling the police.

    5. Re:Famous last words by georgeb · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, indeed. Showing your boobs in public in the US is treated the same as it is in Iran, isn't it.

      I heard they have naturist clubs about 5 miles outside Tehran too. Not to mention Iran's Mardi Gras. Wow, it was a blast last year.

    6. Re:Famous last words by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      that's right AC, compare STONING A WOMAN TO DEATH for a private act to the public act whose consequences are nothing compared to being stoned to death. Or lashes, maybe they'll just give her 40 lashes and leave her physically disfigured. Or dump acid in her face. Yup, those are so comparable.

    7. Re:Famous last words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point was that it's all a matter of degree. People have an amazing capacity to be all for freedom and tolerance right up to the point of their personal comfort. After that point, horrible punishment is ok for offenders. It's apparently doubly ok as long as there's a country to point to that has even harsher treatment.

      Oh, a note to the grandparent. Some states, such as Maine, actually allow women to go topless wherever men go topless. It's an equal protection under the law thing.

  11. More than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that even if they would not have found any spies, Iran would say that they have. "People probably are spying on us... But we can't find any. Let's at least bluff that we've found and punished some in order too keep some credibility and justify stricter control over the workers..."

  12. "Acknowledges" ... by Angostura · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... seems a rather odd word for a news source to use in this context. I probably would have gone with "claims" unless the Washington Post has concrete sources saying that such espionage has occurred.

    1. Re:"Acknowledges" ... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      The WaPo has a lot of ties to the establishment. It's almost certain that they have off-the-record knowledge of the extent of American (and probably other countries') espionage against Iran.

    2. Re:"Acknowledges" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I probably would have gone with "claims" unless the Washington Post has concrete sources saying that such espionage has occurred.

      Dude, you don't REALLY seriously doubt that they're being spied on, right? What do you think our secret services are for?

    3. Re:"Acknowledges" ... by Angostura · · Score: 1

      I'm absolutely sure that the U.S tries to spy on Iranian nuclear facilities. Has it successful turned a number of facility workers? No idea, probably, but I've only got the Iranian spokesman's word for that. In the same way that I only really have the Iranian spokesman's word that the 'Green Revolution' was sponsored and organised by western intelligence agencies.

  13. Re:yeah, we know.... by santax · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You sire, are my new best friend :D

  14. Just reading the headline by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Iran Acknowledges Espionage At Nuclear Facilities"

    From the headline, I thought Iran had admitted to espionage at foreign nuclear facilities which would have been more newsworthy.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Just reading the headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Iran Acknowledges Espionage At Nuclear Facilities"

      From the headline, I thought Iran had admitted to espionage at foreign nuclear facilities which would have been more newsworthy.

      Lets me guess, its not the spying that would have been surprising, its the honesty about it?

  15. Four reasons by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That can be summed up as MICE:

    Money. This is an easy one to understand. People are greedy. You find the right kind of person and toss the right amount of money (surprisingly too much can be as ineffective as too little) at them, they'll do it. Yes it is dangerous but then people get in to drug trafficking all the time and that is dangerous even if you don't take jail in to account. The money makes it attractive to some.

    Ideology. Some people disagree with the ideals of their government. Some REALLY disagree. This is true in any nation, but Iran probably has more problems than most. If you've not noticed their government has been having a bit of a popularity problem lately to the point of massive protests and fixed elections. So someone may decide it is worth the risk to help a nation they see as having the proper ideology, a nation that can maybe help against the government in Iran.

    Conscience. Most humans have one, even if it sometimes has a rather strange calibration. When someone's conscience is offended enough, they may go and do things like espionage despite the risks. Perhaps some people are really worried, they suspect that the reactors will be used for weapons, and they think the government is crazy enough to use them. They don't want to see their country destroyed, so they try and help other nations to put a stop to the nuclear program.

    Ego. Some people will do it just for pure ego, just for the thrill basically. They figure they can get away with it, they are smarter than the government, whatever, just pure ego drives them. Stupid? Sure, but then think about how many cases of pure ego pushing people to do stupid things you've seen.

    That is just how it goes. Punishments don't matter. The US managed to spy on the Soviet Union successfully plenty, and the punishment there was death after torture basically (torture wasn't official, just a part of the interrogation basically). Spying has been going on forever, and will probably continue to do so. It is generally dealt with very harshly (death is an extremely common sentence in history) but it still happens.

    1. Re:Four reasons by Chocky2 · · Score: 1

      "Coercion" or "compromise" usually, rather than conscience, which would tend to fall under ideology, whereas coercion is primarily blackmail/initmidation/etc

    2. Re:Four reasons by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doing something for money doesn't mean you are doing it out of greed. Debt(and often times not even your own debt) drives people to do things they would never ever have considered otherwise. Just look at Van Tuong Nguyen. The guy smuggled drugs through Singapore to help repay his BROTHERS debt even though he knew he was risking serious penalties if caught. Well he did get caught and it ended up costing him his life.

      Thats why the number one cause of people getting denied/losing their security clearance in the US is debt(the second being criminal history). It's just too easy to gain leverage over that person.

    3. Re:Four reasons by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least cite your source!

      Tom Clancy, Red Rabbit. Chapter 15

    4. Re:Four reasons by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      People disagree with their government's policies/behavior in many parts of the world violently, because violence is used against them.

    5. Re:Four reasons by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

      You think he made it up? This has been an intelligence maxim for far longer than Clancy has been an author.

  16. I would be surprised by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ..if all governments didn't fight espionage at their nuclear facilities, including the US, France, UK, Pakistan, India etc etc

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  17. Why the secrecy? by pesc · · Score: 1

    But the Iranians insist the nuclear facilities are for research and civil uses. It is against islam to create nuclear weapons!

    So why the secrecy? Why not be open about everything and build some trust?

    --

    )9TSS
    1. Re:Why the secrecy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, aren't you daft.

      Ask Iraq and Hans Blix about being open and building some trust.

      The second it is clear that you have insufficient means to properly defend your country (or to wage a devastating retaliation onto the country of the offensive invader), you will be invaded by the very same powers who previously claimed you to have WMDs and accused you of warmongering.

    2. Re:Why the secrecy? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Theoretically you might want to keep something secret just because it's commercially valuable. I suspect they are more interested in the bomb-making side of things, though.

    3. Re:Why the secrecy? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I think if anyone wanted to spy on someone for copying commercially viable nuclear power plant technology, they would be spying on the French, not Iranians.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:Why the secrecy? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, I forgot we support now "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide"? (also, ask Hans Blix what do we think about inspectors providing us military intell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hassurances there's no foul play going on)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  18. taxation without representation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's US. that's what we have here. sound familiar?

  19. keeping an open mind by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about what nuclear innovations the U.S are concerned about gathering intelligence about in Iran's Nuclear program. The likely basis for Iranian Nuclear technology is Russian, but considering the isolation by the global community, Iran's determination to have a nuclear program and the threat of military intervention the pressure on the engineers must be enormous.

    Despite Iran's questionable human rights record, when it comes to science and technology we should not discount Iran's achievements. May be the CIA is just curious too and are trying to asses the Iranian program. The irony of all this is would be if Iran came up with the most modern reactor design because it was a state enterprise unconcerned with the cost constraints that govern western designed commercial reactors like the AP-1000.

    If, as it is alleged, Iran has built Nuclear facilities underground this alone would be a major step forward in reactor facility design.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:keeping an open mind by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      More likely the US cares if they are doing things which have more of a weapons angle than a power angle.

    2. Re:keeping an open mind by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      More likely the US cares if they are doing things which have more of a weapons angle than a power angle.

      What do you mean *if*. There is very little doubt that this *is* what is occurring and as the old adage says "necessity is the mother of invention".

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:keeping an open mind by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because after Iraq the US would probably prefer to have a little more evidence than "we think" and "it's obvious".

    4. Re:keeping an open mind by murdocj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US isn't interested in technical innovations. They're interested in just how close Iran is to building a nuclear weapon.

    5. Re:keeping an open mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence (aka "spying") is more than simply learning new technology. It is also simply learning about what a potential enemy is up to, what resources they have, and in the case of this nuclear power plant just what else they may be up to. It doesn't matter if Iran is at the same level of experimentation that America was in the 1940's, it is mainly to find out if they've somehow been able to get past that point.

      In theory, if Iran really had nothing to hide, they could bring in "international inspectors" including foreign diplomats and even engineers from other countries that may be interested. Heck, doing that might even help push their program forward simply by exchanging knowledge. Publishing the details out in the open and letting anybody with a network connection find out what they wanted to know would remove the need for spies. The point is, however, that Iran simply doesn't want anybody else to know what it is that they are doing.

      I could speculate why Iran is building facilities underground, but I really don't think it is to improve the facility safety or to improve the actual nuclear power production requirements. Facility "security" perhaps, but not really safety.

    6. Re:keeping an open mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of evidence is reasonable doubt mate - or did we learn nothing after Iraq and 'no doubt' we had then?

      And if reasonable doubt is enough to get someone off a murder charge - then it's enough to hold off bombing a sovereign nation, at least until we actually acquire some fucking proof.

    7. Re:keeping an open mind by jiteo · · Score: 1

      The likely basis for Iranian Nuclear technology is Russian

      It's more than likely, it's widely known to be Russian. The Germans started building the Bushehr reactor, the Soviets and then the Russians finished it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant). The Russians are even operating it, with the fuel coming from Russia, and spent fuel sent back to Russia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11045537).

    8. Re:keeping an open mind by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And if they have a nuclear reactor underground, then we will be sure to give them our best.

      As to Iran coming up with an innovative design, that WOULD be amazing.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:keeping an open mind by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because after Iraq the US would probably prefer to have a little more evidence than "we think" and "it's obvious".

      In international espionage, you routinely don't get what you want here. The first clear indication that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons will be when they actually set one off. They'll make that public.

    10. Re:keeping an open mind by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You still try.

    11. Re:keeping an open mind by khallow · · Score: 1

      You still try.

      And when you fail, then what? As far as we can tell, Iran is building a nuclear bomb. They have the infrastructure in place including several parts that have been deeply buried at great expense. Sure, the interpretation could be wrong, but this isn't a court of law.

    12. Re:keeping an open mind by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Depends. The simplest option would be to let Israel take the heat. But there a are good reasons I'm not in the military/espionage business.

      The best option would have been to not have blown the load on Iraq when it was obviously the wrong place and hence be able to take more risks this time, but I also don't have a time machine.

    13. Re:keeping an open mind by sznupi · · Score: 1

      In practice, despite the inspectors being pretty damn sure that there's no foul play going on, somebody might just wish for the invasion too much; indeed, probably using inspectors as a source of intelligence useful in the attack...

      Building underground is good if you have some defensive to the point of paranoia (not without very good reasons of course; doesn't change much in the end) neighbor.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    14. Re:keeping an open mind by khallow · · Score: 1

      The simplest option would be to let Israel take the heat.

      If the sabotage claims are true about Israel being behind the Stuxnet worm, then I'd consider Israel out of the running. IMHO you don't try stuff like Stuxnet unless you don't have better options.

  20. You forgot one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extortion
    First of all, to be fair, the Soviet Union had by far the best espionage apparatus ever and one method they used (and that Russia still does, at least in one minor but recent instance) was to have young, attractive women lure targets into extramarital relationships, which obviously gave them enormous leverage. The target became emotionally fucked up and with threats of explicit photos being sent to the target's wife, they became very, very cooperative. During the cold war, some US diplomats in the Soviet Union supposedly even willingly revealed secrets in return for sex. The KGB had plenty of women that were willing to do anything for "Mother Russia".

    1. Re:You forgot one by Chocky2 · · Score: 1

      "The KGB had plenty of women that were willing to do anything for "Mother Russia"."
      Yep, Anna Chapman even went so far as becoming a realtor, *shudder*.

      Many nations intelligence services still use honey-pots, indeed only a couple of weeks ago a Rabbi ruled it was okay for the Israeli intelligence services to do this. Israel & Russia (nee USSR) may have excelled at it for decades, but even the various Western European & North American agencies aren't too averse to a technique that's been proven time & again to work very effectively.

  21. Re:baal worshippers in center of every US town by DrXym · · Score: 1

    AC, Sanity. Sanity, AC. I hope you two can become acquainted with each other.

  22. They'd damn well better by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all the spying the government does on Americans, they'd damn well better be spying on our enemies. Isn't this EXACTLY what the CIA and friends are for?

    1. Re:They'd damn well better by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that espionage is a common occurrence within any organization doing something even mildly interesting. I doubt there is a government anywhere that isn't worrying about both sides of the espionage equation. You'd be foolish not to.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:They'd damn well better by sznupi · · Score: 1

      "Enemies"?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:They'd damn well better by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Iran? Absolutely.

    4. Re:They'd damn well better by sznupi · · Score: 1

      In what way?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:They'd damn well better by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Their leader wants to drive our allies "into the sea," for one thing. They fund terrorist attacks on American civilians worldwide and insurgent attacks on the American military. Their government has invaded US soil and held Americans hostage.
      Maybe you're one of those goofy liberal types that can't see exactly what the problem with all this is. (Note: Not all liberals fall into this category. Most real life ones don't.) Surely you can see something to dislike in their human rights record. Whether it's how they treat women, or gays, or non-Muslims, or political dissidents, or whoever, there's something for everyone to disagree with. No matter what human rights issue you pick to criticize the US for, Iran is a million times worse. Do you really want them to be able to enforce their views on the way things ought to be via nuclear weapons?
      Even if you still can't tell that they don't like us, it's probably a bad idea to trust anyone except our allies with nuclear weapons, like they're trying to obtain. Anybody looking for nukes who we aren't explicitly friends with should be monitored by our intelligence services. That's what they're there for.

    6. Re:They'd damn well better by sznupi · · Score: 1

      "Wants"? Follow more closely what your leaders want sometimes...and most importantly what some of our "allies" want.
      Also, we can be pretty sure that proofs of funding (if such widespread, surely there) would be very useful - and indeed most likely already used. Recollect also what was the conduct of the "West" (for lack of a better term) on their soil, before the breach of diplomatic standards / "invasion" that you mention.

      Human rights issue stands on a very, very shaky legs. We don't have problems with supporting such regimes (most of the region is like that, also our "allies") as long as they are "on our side" - hence we ourselves demonstrate it's not much of a factor at all, just a rhetoric.

      Even if watching somebody closely is a good idea, that does not automatically make them an "enemy" - so again, why? Is it already decided / I didn't get the memo and now we just have to again find ways to actually treat them like ones treats an enemy?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:They'd damn well better by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      "Wants"? Follow more closely what your leaders want sometimes...and most importantly what some of our "allies" want.

      Neither the US nor Israel want to destroy a population because they want to practice a religion peacefully. It's when they want to use religion to subjugate others where we step in.

      Also, we can be pretty sure that proofs of funding (if such widespread, surely there) would be very useful - and indeed most likely already used.

      For the record, I read about the fact that Iran was funding insurgents and terrorists generally in news sources from all over the political spectrum. AP, CNN, Fox, you name it, they reported on it. (But I'm not going to do a Google search for someone who's just arguing to take a contrary position.) Also, the proof of Iran funding terrorists would be used for what, exactly? To justify spying on them? That's probably one of the ways they justify it, yeah, but they don't make that part of the CIA's budget public.

      Recollect also what was the conduct of the "West" (for lack of a better term)

      Seriously? The West "for lack of a better term?" The Prime Meridian is the deliminator line for East/West. Iran is on the east side of it. The US is on the west side of it. We are, in fact, west of them.

      on their soil, before the breach of diplomatic standards / "invasion" that you mention.

      Well given how they've been acting since they took power, we were right to want to get rid of them, weren't we?

      Human rights issue stands on a very, very shaky legs. We don't have problems with supporting such regimes (most of the region is like that, also our "allies") as long as they are "on our side" - hence we ourselves demonstrate it's not much of a factor at all, just a rhetoric.

      You're right. Maybe "it's cool that you oppress women, gays, and political enemies so long as you don't threaten to nuke our allies" isn't the best human rights policy. But it's a hell of a lot better than Iran's human rights policy of oppressing women, gays, and political enemies. Again, I defy you to point to something the US is doing in this arena that Iran isn't a million times worse at.

      Even if watching somebody closely is a good idea, that does not automatically make them an "enemy" - so again, why? Is it already decided / I didn't get the memo and now we just have to again find ways to actually treat them like ones treats an enemy?

      We treat them like our enemies because they treat both us and our allies like enemies. And we spy on everyone, enemies or not.

    8. Re:They'd damn well better by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Why do you think I was talking about Israel?... look with how many other places you are allied there (hell, Egypt gets practically the same amount of aid as Israel) Or in other areas - destabilizing South America wasn't that many years ago.

      WMDs in Iraq were also "facts" in all the news, across the spectrum (seriously, you don't see any similarities?). If it were something even remotely solid, you can be pretty damn sure it would surface in a much more serious way - if only because Iran wants to play a major role in its region, and ruling castes of some other places there (basically similar / still, our allies, w00t!) ultimately want to have a say in that. They would be very interested in Iran also destabilizing their regimes, in practice.

      Accidentally, I'm on the East side of Prime Meridian... still, we're in the same boat (generally, I don't like West/East terms, too simplistic; even if there's nothing much better... and it's beside the point anyway)

      And you do remember why they took power / from a puppet regime installed by whom, right?

      "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" - you really want to tell me you haven't heard how we justify torturing people now?! (NVM purposely keeping them in legal limbo)

      Please explain how they treat us like enemies. Heck, did they at least invade somebody? (violating good diplomatic customs... borderline at best) BTW, who shot down their airliner? Who supported another nasty/nastier regime in a war with them? Sure, it's all a clusterf**k of a mess out there, we must ultimately do certain things (some not), but at least don't sing all the praises you should, all the condemnations you should... and that's it (at least the smallest bit of cynicism, for example)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:They'd damn well better by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Why do you think I was talking about Israel?... look with how many other places you are allied there (hell, Egypt gets practically the same amount of aid as Israel) Or in other areas - destabilizing South America wasn't that many years ago.

      OK, so are any of our other allies trying to "drive a people into the sea?" I'd love to hear about this, actually.

      WMDs in Iraq were also "facts" in all the news, across the spectrum (seriously, you don't see any similarities?).

      WMDs in Iraq were never presented as "fact" in the American media. The outlets that support conservatives generally were not skeptical of the government's claims, and the ones that support liberals generally were skeptical. This is a problem with the American media, sure, but the liberal faction in the media buys its side's lies too. When both "sides" in the media agree on something of this magnitude, they're generally on to something.

      If it were something even remotely solid, you can be pretty damn sure it would surface in a much more serious way

      What do you mean by that? Iranian trained operatives have been captured by the US military in Iraq conducting insurgent operations. What would you consider "remotely solid proof?"

      - if only because Iran wants to play a major role in its region, and ruling castes of some other places there (basically similar / still, our allies, w00t!) ultimately want to have a say in that. They would be very interested in Iran also destabilizing their regimes, in practice.

      Yeah. Iran wants to play a major role in that region by expanding their subjugation to their neighbors and destabilizing them. This is why we need to spy on them.

      Accidentally, I'm on the East side of Prime Meridian... still, we're in the same boat (generally, I don't like West/East terms, too simplistic; even if there's nothing much better... and it's beside the point anyway)

      If your country has (or is developing) nuclear weapons, the US should spy on that operation. And you complained about east/west terms, not me.

      And you do remember why they took power / from a puppet regime installed by whom, right?

      Because they were threatening our allies?

      "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" - you really want to tell me you haven't heard how we justify torturing people now?! (NVM purposely keeping them in legal limbo)

      Iran does way more torture than the United States. It's more widespread, it occurs for more trifling offenses, and the actual torture is worse. It doesn't make it OK for America to do, but if you're against American torture, you should be ABSOLUTELY against Iranian torture.

      Please explain how they treat us like enemies.

      They're developing nuclear weapons to attack our allies?

      Heck, did they at least invade somebody? (violating good diplomatic customs... borderline at best)

      Holding innocent people, who were captured in an office (as opposed to on a battlefield), as hostages for almost 500 days is a little worse than bad manners.

      BTW, who shot down their airliner?

      Terrible accident, and we paid reparations for it.

      Who supported another nasty/nastier regime in a war with them?

      We supported our ally (1980s-era Iraq) in a war against our enemy. When that ally started threatening its peaceful neighbors, we tried to rein them in peacefully, and with force when that failed.

      Sure, it's all a clusterf**k of a mess out there, we must ultimately do certain things (some not), but at least don't sing all the praises you should, all the condemnations you should... and that's it (at least the smallest bit of cynicism, for example)

      I can't understand what you m

    10. Re:They'd damn well better by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Take closer look at actions of leaders and judiciary or at population sentiments sometimes... (heck, it's so messed up that, while regimes of some of our allies are nominally on our side, populations seem to be actually somewhat further away than Iranians; and many not really recognizing Israel, to use this example) But do it better than remembering how WMDs were presented (really, revisit it; it was pretty conclusive, even in my "don't forget Poland" place where at the same time politicians were able to outright say "we're joining also for our future economic interests" in local media)

      As for "proofs" - the deal is that somehow they didn't quite put a wedge between local powers... solid actions (I assume within limits of course) or policy statements would give somewhat better message. It wasn't about a need for espionage, just jumping at pushed labels

      You complained about my usage of "West"...

      So you don't remember (or don't want to look at what shaped large part of last half a century there) / there was nothing honorable about making 1953 coup d'etat happen and keeping Shah in power for the next 3 decades; with a blatant violation of democratic, etc. principles.

      And once you go down the "but we make less torture" while being able to quantify with certainty how "we're million times better", there is no moral high ground left...

      So we're already sure they're developing nuclear weapons? How likely they are to attack? If anything, we ourselves have shown recently that when a country cooperates with inspectors, and they give military intel that the invasion is saf^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hassurances that there is no foul play, it doesn't help much. But even few crude warheads and threats - and your country is safe.
      The politburo of Iran might say some things, but it doesn't change how the place is one of the most secular in the region; making them automatically "enemies" - that's somewhat further along - won't exactly allow us to exploit it. What our populations could think what one should do with an "enemy", hm? A war, obviously...

      You said bad manners, not me - fact is, those in the embassy were perceived (and indeed were doing it for quite some time) as upholding previous regime. Such things tend to blow back (if only that one time...) / it's still "merely" a very serious breach of diplomatic protocol, not an invasion. Accident (plus war with, largely supported by US, Iraq) just played along... think how you would perceive such actions.
      "We supported our ally (1980s-era Iraq) in a war against our enemy." - and this nicely shows the issue. "Ally"? Seriously? If it's so arbitrary (face it, "enemy of our enemy" at best / just a recipe for blowbacks), then "enemy" has similarly little meaning; never mind what treatment made them an "enemy" (also, FYI Iraq was initially informed by US ambassador that it has basically free reign in dealing with Kuwait... is that what you meant by "rein them in peacefully"?)

      Yes, spying, that's fine. Everybody does that on everybody. At least at the end you haven't used "enemy" / dropped the outright praises and condemnations while forgetting some important subtleties. It's not that hard to find practical reasons for some actions, within limits (mine "we must ultimately do certain things (some not)"), no need for all the promoted "us vs. them" bull-crap.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  23. talk about sabotage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't we do anything/something about our own backyard? why must we always be prompted to look elsewhere, & encouraged to hate people/ways of life we know NOTHING about, while avoiding recognition of the murderers in our midst. it's possible to see/hear of, the bodies piling up, but the motives/methods remain nearly invisible. retired politicos (many, major felons/murderers themselves) are touting (even scheduling) alien visits & the ever favorite TERRORIST attacks, as if on cue, in the next/coming weeks. what's that say near election day?

  24. Re:yeah, we know.... by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    You can say that again... and again... and again.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  25. Worker Privileges by el_tedward · · Score: 1

    So, they both increased security AND increased work privileges? This could get interpreted so many different way.. I mean, is it a case of the employees now get to eat lunch and if they're extra good not have to get their daily 20 lashes? Are there prostitute dispensing vending machines in the staff lounges? What kind of worker privileges are we talking about?

  26. Because they are worried about weapons by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    In terms of technology, no the US has nothing to gain. The latest and greatest in reactor technology is something the US has access to. Some of it was developed there, some developed in the EU, and so on. Nearly all of it is related to making better power generation stations, and as such isn't the sort of thing countries need to keep a tight lid on. The US could have the very latest in reactor tech if they wanted, it is politics that prevent new reactors from being built, not lack of tech.

    The concern is that Iran isn't really building the reactor for power, that they are building it to make nuclear weapons. Reactors can have a lot of different uses, depending on their design. One use could be to make plutonium, and that could then be used to make nuclear weapons. That is a real concern to the US given that the government of Iran has been a bit, well, crazy to put it politely and a US ally, Israel, is in easy missile range.

    I would presume the US (and perhaps other nations) are interested in what the reactor is really being used for. They want accurate information so they can decide what to do. If it really is just a power facility, then it can be ignored. Nothing wrong with more nuclear energy in the world, we could use it. If it has a hidden agenda, they'd like to know so they can at the very least be ready, and perhaps act on it.

  27. What if the information the spies supplied .... by grandpa-geek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... was the details of the PLC applications being targeted by the Stuxnet worm. Hmmmm.

  28. There are no spies... by drgregoryhouse · · Score: 1

    at their nuclear facilities, just like there are no homosexuals in Iran.

  29. Yes, yes, I am so sure that is true. by davev2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    insisted increased security and worker privileges have put a stop to the spying.

    And, there are no homosexuals in Iran either.

  30. I S R by cosm · · Score: 1

    espionage acknowledges you

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  31. Something to think about by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    If the Iranians claim the nuclear facilities are for peaceful purposes, then why is there espionage to pass secrets to the west...?

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:Something to think about by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The same reason it's illegal to pass secrets about U.S. reactors to Russia and other countries...because it could be used for sabotage.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Something to think about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so secret?

      You hit it with your shoes until it stops working.

    3. Re:Something to think about by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Wait, was the surveillance of Iraq in search of WMDs supposed to create them, is that how it works?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  32. Passing nuclear secrets to the West? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    Passing nuclear secrets to the West? What's next? Smuggling drugs into Mexico?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  33. Re:In other news The Pope acknowledges he is Catho by PaulMeigh · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't find it odd if the Pope called a news conference to announce that he is Catholic?

    The story is in the announcement, not the underlying fact.

  34. WTF? Really? by frankxcid · · Score: 1

    What is the information that needs to be uncovered by spies? US nuclear facilities are already 50 years old, what technology do we need from Iran? the only contention is whether they are getting weapons grade fuel out of their reactors, not something the electric generator plant workers will know about. Next a trojan horse to take down a power plant? What, do they have a laptop running the cooling pump or the control rods? What ridiculous, stupid news. The Washington Post takes this so seriously after a news release from Iran saying they cured AIDS? I call BS on this and all other releases from Iran.

  35. Re:In other news The Pope acknowledges he is Catho by budgenator · · Score: 1

    That's not so much a problem now that the Iranian Nuclear Scientists are all living in government supplied "housing" with Armed Guards to protect them from being kidnapped by the CIA.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  36. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course plenty Iranians want to help. The Iranian government is evil and corrupt. Why would anyone think it stands for the people? They don't even have real elections over there.

  37. Cordwainer Smith was a visionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Golden the Ship Was - Oh! Oh! Oh!

  38. mbt shoes by aotian · · Score: 0

    Robert Forest is Mbt Reebookof my favorite poets. You've heard, I'm sure, his famous Purchase Mbt ShoesThe road not taken. But today I want to recommend you another poem from Order Mbt Shoes, which has touched my heart and brought me warmth and brightness in this Mbt Shoes For cold winter. Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening. I guess the poem itself is a tribute to the mbt shoes clearance sale, dispelling its coldness and while melting our hearts.

    --
    http://www.mbt-shoes.com