Slashdot Mirror


Israel Faces Escalating Cyberwar

New submitter 9re9 writes "The NY Times describes what may be the beginning of an actual cyberwar between a pro-Palestinian group and Israeli companies, specifically El Al and the Tel Aviv stock exchange. From the article: 'A hacker identifying himself as oxOmar, already notorious for posting the details of more than 20,000 Israeli credit cards, sent an overnight warning to Israel's Ynet news outlet that a group of pro-Palestinian cyberattackers called Nightmare planned to bring down the sites in the morning.' Though the article is skimpy on technical details, the group appears to have engaged merely in a DDOS attack. Hamas praised the attack as opening 'a new resistance front against Israel.' Is this the first acknowledged cyberwar?"

200 comments

  1. "Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cyberwar is a construct of politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money. War is war. This is not war.

    1. Re:"Cyberwar" by forkfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disagree.

      If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.

      Note that I don't include the war on drugs in that definition - that's just a massive black market. It would be a different matter if a foreign power was feeding us cheap drugs in order to put the nation into a stupor, but we're doing that ourselves.

      Nor do I include the War on Terror as a bonified war - in that case, it's too general, and it fails the first part of the definition ("organized political entity"). Now, you can have a war on al Quaeda, but not on terror in general.

      --
      Check your premises.
    2. Re:"Cyberwar" by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 2, Informative

      'bonified' isn't a word. maybe you're thinking of 'bona fide' (in good faith, sincere) but that doesn't really make sense in the context either.

    3. Re:"Cyberwar" by chaboud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that 'bonified' could reasonably be taken to be the past participle of 'bonify', which has fallen out of use, but means, roughly, "to convert into good." So this guy either means 'bona fide' or he's making a far more subtle point than first inspection would indicate.

    4. Re:"Cyberwar" by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your neighbor hacking into your computer, stealing your financial information and destroying your critical files, you're going to be as much or more impacted than if he's making his dog shit in your yard and spray painting your car. As a matter of scale the former is ultimately more harmful than the latter.

      If a foriegn entity is able to grind your nation's economy to a halt or eliminate communications or cripple your electrical infrastructure you are potentially more screwed than if there are some deaths through violence. And it can be done with relatively minor risk by a very small group.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    5. Re:"Cyberwar" by forkfail · · Score: 2

      Mea culpa.

      For some reason, I thought that it could mean "legitimate"; this does not appear to be part of the definition. Learn something every day, I guess.

      Also - yeah - sometimes, I type too fast, and wind up with attempted phonetic spellings.

      --
      Check your premises.
    6. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Me an idiot? That's unpossible.

    7. Re:"Cyberwar" by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'm going with option one based on Occam's razor, however I *really* want to believe option two.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'bonified' isn't a word. maybe you're thinking of 'bona fide' (in good faith, sincere) but that doesn't really make sense in the context either.

      Hmmm...i was under the impression that the term "bonified" also referred to bona fides, i.e., verification/validation of one's stated abilities or intentions.

    9. Re:"Cyberwar" by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Well, certainly I hear the term "bona fide bug" thrown around a lot in the workplace, meaning "actual, legitimate, proven to exist bug" - perhaps technically a misuse, but a pretty common one...

      --
      Check your premises.
    10. Re:"Cyberwar" by rolfeb · · Score: 2

      Pity. I think "bonified" would be a fine word to have.

    11. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree.

      If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.

      Disagree. If people's arms and legs aren't getting blown off, it may be bad, but it's not the kind of bad that you've obviously never experienced firsthand.

    12. Re:"Cyberwar" by Tsingi · · Score: 0

      I'm not a grammar nazi, but I don't understand how you can fuck this up because the words don't even sound the same.

      Nah, you're just a dick.

    13. Re:"Cyberwar" by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm seeing a lot of people writing "allot" when trying to write "a lot." Now you're just making up fucking words that phonetically match what you're trying to say.

      Idiots in this upcoming generation.

      rant..FAIL

      allot is a word.

      Go back to sleep, idiot.

      Yeah, but to his credit, in this sense it is incorrect in context. Allot and 'a lot' do not mean the same thing.

    14. Re:"Cyberwar" by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is (very) commonly used to mean legitimate. If the dictionary doesn't have this definition, the dictionary is wrong.

      The English dictionary is a product of the English language, not the other way around.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    15. Re:"Cyberwar" by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Perfectly cromulant.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    16. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you fail even at spelling cartoon-made-up words. It's "cromulent".

    17. Re:"Cyberwar" by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      Hamas will soon make major donations to the IDF as restitution for the Palestinian script-kids.

      Cyberwar can be very asymmetrical, my advice, look before your leap of death defiance.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    18. Re:"Cyberwar" by znrt · · Score: 1

      Cyberwar is a construct of politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money. War is war. This is not war.

      so what is war? traditional war only exists in popular imagination, the movies and history books (remember who writes history?). war boils down to violence and there is plenty of it going on in the world, on many contexts: currency, financial speculation, plundering ... each war has its own ends and means, and of course its victims.

      as for the article ... indeed "politicians and government contractors to justify spending lots of money" is often the case, but this is just zionist propaganda.

    19. Re:"Cyberwar" by JumperCable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disagree.

      If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.

      So when a nation or nations implements sanctions (for instance the sanctions on Iranian oil), you would consider that war? I think you definition of war is way to liberal.

      Also, if you disagree with me I will recognize that as an act of war on your part for trying to destroy my intellectual assets.

    20. Re:"Cyberwar" by cdrnet · · Score: 1

      If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.

      By that definition, the USA would be declaring war on the rest of the world if it would indeed enforce SOPA (including the DNS parts).

    21. Re:"Cyberwar" by Sun · · Score: 2

      I'll start by stating my bias. I'm an Israeli. I also happen to believe that the sanctions on Iran are the best alternative of the three (the other two being attacking Iran and letting it develop nuclear weapons). I am also not the original commenter to whom you were replying.

      So when a nation or nations implements sanctions (for instance the sanctions on Iranian oil), you would consider that war? I think you definition of war is way to liberal.

      Yes. I think the sanctions on Iran are an act of war. I also happen to think that GP's definition sounds fairly accurate.

      Anticipating your next question: If Iran now attacks a US aircraft carrier, would that be just a continuation of the existing war started with the sanctions? My answer: not exactly. It would be a severe escalation. There are domains to war, and opening a new domain is a non-trivial matter. Economic sanctions are one domain. Actual bombs falling is another. Cyber attacks are a much milder form of war, but war non the less.

      This should not be taken as criticism against the sanctions. I think they are justified. I also think, by this stage, that pre-emptive strike is also justified. I think there are times when opening a war is your best course of action (and, no, Iraq wasn't one of them).

      Also, if you disagree with me I will recognize that as an act of war on your part for trying to destroy my intellectual assets.

      Yeah. Now you're just trolling. Anyone disagreeing with you does not fall inside the scope of the GP's "too liberal" definition.

      Shachar

    22. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is English your first language? It doesn't look like it.

    23. Re:"Cyberwar" by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      It would certainly be an act of aggression/war.
      If you disagree then please answer this.
      What do you think the US reaction would be if for example OPEC decided to deploy sanctions against the United States and forbid all oil exports to the United States? Would the United States take that as an act of aggression?

    24. Re:"Cyberwar" by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      I disagree, whether attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation depends not on any "domains of war" but on what impact the sanctions would have on Iran.
      In this case I'd say that yes attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation of the conflict because the suggested sanctions would essentially mean economic death and the loss of a lot more lives than say the sinking of an aircraft carrier and its entire crew.

      For example I don't think the US response if OPEC put sanctions against the US and forbade all oil exports to the US would be particularly peaceful, the response would instead include several carrier groups, a lot of overt threats and possibly a bunch of explosions.

    25. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you can put it in some geek dictionary? It's not like "begs the question" where every cunt abuses the term to the point that it's gained new meaning - "bona fide" and "bonify" each have a specific and separate meaning reflecting etymology and the fact that geeks are terrible at the subtleties of human language and apply some rough shade of the original sense doesn't mean "the dictionary is wrong".

      I have two educational backgrounds: one stint in computing and one in law. For all the shit hurled about lawyers, it was very rare to hear a lawyer randomly point out the shortcomings of some guy involved in engineering or IT. But computer guys would throw shit at all the fields they didn't understand - including law, a large part of which is simply about analysing human language and intent in context - all the time.

    26. Re:"Cyberwar" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Pity. I think "bonified" would be a fine word to have.

      Why? What advantage does it have over "bona fide", other than not looking like Latin?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:"Cyberwar" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Disagree.

      If a nation-state or organized political entity orchestrates a campaign over time to destroy an enemies assets, be they economic, social or military, it's a war.

      Disagree. If people's arms and legs aren't getting blown off, it may be bad, but it's not the kind of bad that you've obviously never experienced firsthand.

      Don't be so idiotic. If country A blows up country B's oil pipeline buried under the sea and kills no one (apart from some fish) of course it's a fucking act of war.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:"Cyberwar" by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, bona fide means "real, not false". There's also a plural form that has some kind of "good faith" meaning, but that appears to be legal jargon.

    29. Re:"Cyberwar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The war on drugs is an actual war on the Bill of Rights.

    30. Re:"Cyberwar" by cavreader · · Score: 1

      As a developer I rely on the compiler to catch any important spelling mistakes.

    31. Re:"Cyberwar" by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I await the day when alternative energy sources eliminates the necessity of dealing with the oil supplying countries. As oil demand drops the middle eastern countries will be too busy trying to convert sand into food with little time or money left over to cause international mischief. Maybe we can send them some still suits as a gesture of good will. Other countries who also depend almost solely on oil exports for revenue would be screwed. Venezuela tops that particular list. The US is already down to importing only 49% of it's oil and the majority of that imported oil is not from the middle east. If necessary the US has the ability to increase it's domestic energy supplies by increasing offshore drilling, shale extraction, and re-activating the wells that were shut down when it became cheaper to import oil then produce domestically.
      If Iran attacked a carrier that would be one of the stupidest military decisions since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler invaded the USSR. I imagine the US would use that opportunity to destroy more than just the assets involved in the attack. One thing that has bothered me about this whole Hormuz strait gamesmanship is that there has been no mention of the environmental damage if Iran followed up their threats to sink even one tanker. Attacking a tanker could almost be classified as a bio-weapon attack which would subject Iran to very harsh penalties. The Iranian people are not being represented well by their leadership throughout this whole episode. Even with the weekly Death to America rallies the Iranian public is the least anti-us country in the region. I am old enough to remember the 1979 revolution and hostage stand off and we actually had 2 Iranian families move on my street after they fled from Iran. There were about 10 Iranian students in my HS graduating class that had also been successful in fleeing Iran and they all seemed like normal people to me and I did not detect any animosity directed towards the US for the predicament they had found themselves in.

    32. Re:"Cyberwar" by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      No there is simply no way oil could constitute a bio weapon unless the legal definition of what constitutes a bio weapon was radically changed and such a change would make the US guilty of such an infraction as well because of the whole BP incident(because the extreme and blatant negligence involved pretty much equals actual intent)

      The attack on Pearl Harbor was not really a stupid mistake, it was tactically and strategically sound and had it been executed according to Isoroku Yamamoto's directives the result would have been devastating and the US would most likely have been forced to sue for peace. Now that obviously didn't happen, the Japanese commander failed to achieve the goals set out and the Japanese declaration of war was delayed until after the attack so the attack became undeclared which in turn galvanized the US population.

      If the US imports no oil from Iran then any US sanctions would be meaningless unless by sanctions the US actually means a blockade which would be a formal act of war comparable to the undeclared attack on Pearl Harbor and a war with Iran would definitely not be in the best interest of the US as it would most likely be costlier, have much higher casualties and a lot more drawn out than either of it's current wars. Sure the US would eventually win in the end if they committed enough resources but at what cost? Can the US economy really afford another war? Could the US international relations really afford another drawn out war? Would the US public accept another drawn out war with yet more soldiers coming home in body bags?
      And if Iran actually managed to sink a US aircraft carrier what would that mean for the image of the US Navy in particular and the US armed forces in general?

      And yes I didn't say that OPEC sanctions against US would be a likely or probable even only that the US most likely would not react peacefully to such an action. And well even if you enact sanctions against the US there will always be other nations willing to buy the surplus oil, China for example.

  2. Ooohhhhh by Cyphase · · Score: 1

    Cyberwar, how dramatic.. *queue dramatic news music*

    --
    by Cyphase ( 907627 )
    1. Re:Ooohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. So, how long until we see an attempt.... by forkfail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... at security classification for programming, networking, system administration, etc.

    Or limits to who can take college classes. Or access web sites with that sort of information. Or own a non-registered compiler.

    I used to love the cyberpunk novels about the underground cowboy devs outsmarting the global security nets. Now that we may be heading towards that sort of thing in reality, this old dev isn't quite so enthralled by the scenario...

    --
    Check your premises.
    1. Re:So, how long until we see an attempt.... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, FWIW, the Department of Defense already requires IT-2 and IT-1 certification for anyone accessing their bits. IT-1 is the equivalent to Top Secret, in that it requires an investigation of the past 10 years of your life plus your current credit rating, a criminal records check dating back to the dawn of time, etc. Be thoroughly prepared to discuss in detail any breaks in your employment, any divorces you may have had, and a whole cornucopia of little details similar to that.

      In other words, trust me - it's already here, and has been for some time.

      (Disclosure - I have an IT-1 clearance from a previous job back in 2006. A colonoscopy would have been less invasive.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:So, how long until we see an attempt.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      This would be slightly more on-topic in a SOPA thread, but your mention of restricting compilers makes it relevant:

      The Right to Read

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:So, how long until we see an attempt.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't asking about clearance to access a secure system. He's asking about clearance to learn the tech. Think demolitions certification for IT. Trying to restrict the number of people who know how to engage in this type of activity.

      Of course it's not terribly feasible to do so, what with the number of people who already know, the reading materials available and the free speech issues in trying to control it.

    4. Re:So, how long until we see an attempt.... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      A colonoscopy would have been less invasive.

      Don't worry, the Israelis have taken care of that too:
      http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/01/15/2317219/mri-powered-pill-sized-robot-swims-through-intestines

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:So, how long until we see an attempt.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      (Disclosure - I have an IT-1 clearance from a previous job back in 2006. A colonoscopy would have been less invasive.)

      Who forced you to do that job?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Bringing down the websites by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Big deal, call me when they can bring down the booking system or actual order processing system of the stock exchange. Saturating someones bandwidth or connection pool limits on their load-balancers is childs plays if they aren't specced to handle it.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Old news: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been going back and forth on pastebin.com for some time. The usual posting of claims and counterclaims. Lots of posting of alleged Israeli/Arab credit cards and facebook accounts, etc.

    It's only now hit the media due to the Tel Aviv stock exchange being a target.

  6. They've done quite a bit of attacking themselves by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Israel has a very developed a very advanced cyberwarfare infrastructure, capable of both defensive and offensive attacks. And it's widely believed that they're the ones behind Stuxnet and other attempts at sabotaging Iran's nuclear program.

    And that's just what they do in cyberspace. You get a LOT worse treatment from them if you happen to be an Iranian nuclear scientist.

    Rest assured that Israel dishes it out at least as well as they get it. They're hardly innocent babes in the woods.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  7. Cyberwar by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 1

    Is this the first acknowledged cyberwar?

    yes.

    As Lem put it short: Every new invention puts civilization forward and has a good and an evil usage. I'm surprised it took this long for media to notice what is really happening on cyber-front. Remember a recent /. story about cyber-insurances? http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/24/1254250/cyber-insurance-industry-expected-to-boom

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:Cyberwar by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      No. It is about the 15 millionth "cyberwar." Ignoring for the moment the significant questions surrounding the dubious term "cyberwar," the internet has been a battleground of malware for decades. This may be a new incident, but it's not new.

    2. Re:Cyberwar by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      It's the open acknowledgement that's new, not the concept. The concept existed as soon as computer a was able to talk to computer b.

    3. Re:Cyberwar by Morty · · Score: 1

      No. It is about the 15 millionth "cyberwar." Ignoring for the moment the significant questions surrounding the dubious term "cyberwar," the internet has been a battleground of malware for decades. This may be a new incident, but it's not new.

      The folks who define the term "cyberwar" limit it to nation-state actions, to make it analogous to traditional war. Certain folks use this term with a very specific agenda: to justify expanding the scope and budget of military activities to include computer and computer network defense/offense. Most malware exists for vandalism or theft/fraud. From the perspective of jurisdiction, that means most malware falls under law enforcement rather than the military. As such, most malware is not in scope for "cyberwar". It's only "cyberwar" if it's the action of a nation-state.

      It appears that a fair number of governments have used "cyberwar" type capabilities. "stuxnet" is probably the most famous example, and for good reasons: it was highly sophisticated and had physical-world implications. There have been other incidents, such as the attacks on Estonian and and Georgian websites. However, none these incidents has ever, AFAIK, been officially acknowledged by the perpetrating government.

      The "oxOmar" incident was not directly initiated by a Palestinian government entity, but was publicly praised by a government entity, i.e. Hamas. That's the closest we've come to having an officially acknowledged cyberwar.

  8. Lesser Evil by omganton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather see cyber war between Palestine and Israel than real war. The can DDOS each other all day as long as it keeps them away from car bombs.

    1. Re:Lesser Evil by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      I think ultimately the point is to know exactly where to put those car bombs...

    2. Re:Lesser Evil by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      That's what you say now but what will you say when one side makes a Skynet Virus?

    3. Re:Lesser Evil by jd · · Score: 1

      It won't stay limited, that's the problem. A DDoS or other cyberattack can shut down a reservoir (a major issue in a place like the Middle East) or disrupt other critical computers that should not be online but are. A stupid decision by a power station or an airport could result in major anger. And in a region where anger is usually accompanied by automatic weapons fire, rockets and mutilation of the enemy, it wouldn't take much to trigger a major confrontation.

      It wouldn't need to be that major. A DDoS against an extremist group won't be met with returning ping floods, it'll be met with an all-out assault on the innocent (extremists of all brands have long figured out that killing innocents is by far the best strategy -- innocents don't shoot back, and their deaths have far greater potential to cause shock and terror than the deaths of militants - people expect militants to die, it's practically in the job description).

      This tactic does have one thing going for it, as far as all sides other than the aforementioned innocent are concerned - unlike regular confrontations, a DDoS can be done from a safe, warm location where you're not going to get shot at. Since militants on both sides have invested a lot in Perpetual War, this cuts down on recruitment and training overheads. It might even make recruitment more cost-effective, since if innocents die and warriors don't, there's a considerable incentive to stop being an innocent.

      Of course, once a hot war does break out, militants on both sides will get slaughtered (again with lots of innocents), but at worst it boosts their life expectancy and at best it boosts their odds of surviving the entire campaign more-or-less intact.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Lesser Evil by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      "when elephants do battle, the grass suffers." -- african proverb

      =/

    5. Re:Lesser Evil by ozduo · · Score: 1

      I agree, those Palestinian rocks sure make some serious scratches on the israel tanks

      --
      I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
    6. Re:Lesser Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Palestinians are probably putting on their suicide bomber vests, pulling up an Israeli website, and blowing themselves up.

  9. Unfortunately for oxOmar by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seems to me the likely way for the Israelis to handle a threat like this is to track down the attackers in meatspace, and kill them.

    1. Re:Unfortunately for oxOmar by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      I'm sure their on it. It'll give some poor chemical engineer schmuck in Iran a few more minutes to find a better hiding place.

    2. Re:Unfortunately for oxOmar by cshark · · Score: 2

      They will. Or they'll hunt them down and make them stand trial. These are people who can find nazis in ohio fifty years after the fact. And you're going to piss them off? Yeah, good luck with that.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

  10. Seriously by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taking down someone's web page is a cyberwar now? When two countries (not companies vs script kiddies) start destroying actual (not virtual, potential or imagined) property within each other's borders and killing actual people, with the goal of conquering or annihilating each other, then maybe it'll be a cyberwar.

    1. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When two countries (not companies vs script kiddies) start destroying actual (not virtual, potential or imagined) property within each other's borders and killing actual people, with the goal of conquering or annihilating each other, then maybe it'll be a cyberwar.

      I believe we call that an actual war, not a cyber war.

    2. Re:Seriously by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      you call that serious? as someone already pointed out, what you're describing is war, not cyberwar. and re: war, they're kinda already doing that. doing it on another level doesn't take away from that, it's supposed to have some kind of synergy effect (of suffering and stupidity, but that's besides the point).

      lastly, data is not virtual or imagined: it takes time and resources to collect/compute, and has real-life uses and implications I cannot even be arsed to enumerate right now, because really, just heh...

    3. Re:Seriously by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      We don't necessarily go to war with the goal of conquering or annihilating our enemies.

    4. Re:Seriously by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No? Name some exceptions. And when I say conquering, I don't necessarily mean occupying their country and enslaving them. Conquering includes making helpless.

    5. Re:Seriously by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      No, cyberwar, if it's to mean anything, is regular old war using computers as a weapon. Just like mechanized war is still killing people, but using machines. Mounted warfare is on horses. Trench warfare is from trenches.

      Yes, if you destroy data that actually has real world consequences, in terms of real property or real lives, as I described, then you're engaging in war. Taking down someone's web page does not, and is not.

    6. Re:Seriously by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      That's not the standard definition of conquering. Conquering means expanding the empire through conquest.

    7. Re:Seriously by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      war is "armed conflict". I cannot see "killing people" anywhere in any definition, and you yourself fall back to "or property" in the next paragraph, so there ;) and information is more and more becoming important property. and not just recently, think "enigma code", or even "theoretical physics", if you catch my drift.

      and hey.. let's say, if you could create a virus that would make another nation mindless slaves, without killing anyone, that wouldn't be war why, exactly? after all it'd just be skipping to the end result, annexiation. so yeah, I kinda doubt your definition... but I cannot argue this in detail because wikipedia is on strike today ^^

      though I surely can agree that taking down a website is 100% meaningless. here's my gut ranking:

      1. peace (always best)
      2. funny and insightful defacements
      3. silent infection and real evil things
      4. leaking sensitive data, or its complete destruction (including backups which is more or less impossible I guess), depending on what the data is
      5. JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
      6. making a website inaccessible from the outside.

  11. Name spelling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pardon the pedantry:
    Is it "oxOmar" or "0xOmar"? "0x0mar"? This kind of matters for pronunciation.

  12. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by Kenja · · Score: 2

    The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never get involved in a covert war with an Israeli opponent".

    Really. Those guys (and gals) dont play fair.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by Pope · · Score: 1

      Huh. I never realized war was supposed to be "fair."

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well duh. Everyone should get a participation award rather than declaring a winner or loser. We dont want to hurt any feelings.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    3. Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by Prune · · Score: 2

      In fact, war is supposed to be fair, to the extent that international law is fair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    4. Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by Feyshtey · · Score: 0
      So how do car bombs and suicide bombers specifically targeting non-military non-police at religious centers, markets, restaurants and schools rank on the Fair Scale? Where is that in the Laws of War, exactly? Is this the line from your source? :

      People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    5. Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      I never realized war was supposed to be "fair."

      this is not bowling but it still has rules.

      its the rules that stop mega-powers from just crushing their opponents. if the US did not hold back, it would have levelled half of the ME in retaliation. brutal and extreme, but maybe it would have been the one and only event in our 'gulf war 2'. instead, our war on fear and terror has lasted longer than the very real world wars 1 and 2, combined.

      we pussyfooted around in the gulf wars. we held back (significantly). I do wonder if trying to be 'too gentle' during war has actually cost us.

      if the other side had as much power (tables were turned) would they exercise as much restraint? then, why did we? I think it was unwise. if you go to war, you GO to war and don't fuck around. instead, we fucked around and dragged it out a decade (and its still going on).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:You fell victim to one of the classic blunders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an Israeli and I have a keen interest in international law. I doubt that you bothered to study what the laws of war actually are. There is nothing in LOAC and humanitarian law that makes the war 'fair'. It does nothing to create an artificial parity between warring opponents, and to do so would be absurd and contra legem; all it does is setting forth a standard of protection of non-combatants and a minimal formalization of wartime conduct from what has already been established as the custom.

      I have heard people many times referring to principle of proportionality as the key innovation of modern international law that is supposed to make war 'fair' by restricting the ability of the stronger side to attack. This is nonsense espoused by the people who do not understand law and, more often than not, identify with the weaker side and rationalize their way to this moronic conclusion. The principle of proportionality works together with the principles of necessity and distinction. It means that in cases when an attack must be carried out that may cause loss of innocent life, such loss should be minimized. It certainly does not suggest that Arab irregular forces should be awarded tanks and airplanes in order to make a level field.

  13. Hmmm poor form by arcite · · Score: 1
    Announcing your intended crime to your victim before you actually accomplish anything.... Kinda like a comic book villain plot? Cower in fear and behold our power to reveal your credit rating!!! Now you'll get spammed to death! High interest rates for all!!!(cue maniacal laughter...)

    I would wish the hackers good luck if only because they are the underdogs.... I suspect they'll be getting a knock at the door any moment now. They should probably avoid motor vehicles for the foreseeable future as well. Oh and wear a hat! (The eye in the sky is always watching!)

  14. Better than killing people by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    If I had to choose, I think I would prefer having my CC posted on the net over being blown to bits by somebody with a vest full of semtex and wood screws mixed with rat poison.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Better than killing people by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      two words for you: false dichotomy.

  15. It could be if.... by arcite · · Score: 0

    The hackers attacked a key infrastructure such as a desalination plant and cause them to burn out. Hmmmm kinda like what happened in Iran. That would be ironic punishment.

    1. Re:It could be if.... by Baloroth · · Score: 1, Troll

      Are you really saying attacking a nuclear weapons enrichment program, whose sole end purpose is the creation of WMDs, is just like attacking a desalination plant, whose end purpose is clean water? Really?

      Also, that is not what "ironic" means.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:It could be if.... by SealBeater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you really saying that it's a weapons enrichment program, contrary to our own CIA and national security reports? Also keep in mind that civilian generation of nuclear power is within their rights under the IAEA?

      I mean, if you have some evidence, please produce it. Fear doesn't count.

      Also, at this point, with a foreign hostile nuclear power fighting wars of occupation on both sides of their country, I would want a nuke too.

      --
      -- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
    3. Re:It could be if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it would be Iranic punishment

    4. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 4, Informative

      nuclear weapons enrichment program, whose sole end purpose is the creation of WMDs

      Now this is just parroting bullshit western propaganda. Can you please finally get your head out of your arse? No fucking proof they are creating weapons grade fissile material or even want to do that, while Israel [gag, puke] threatens with nukes it really has.

      is just like attacking a desalination plant, whose end purpose is clean water

      Attacking desalinization plant is worse. That's actually mass destruction.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    5. Re:It could be if.... by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      No fucking proof they are creating weapons grade fissile material or even want to do that

      The Iranian government has released or allowed to be released photos of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring enrichment plants with many rows of centrifuges. The numbers on the floors below the centrifuges seem to indicate that there are hundreds or even thousands of centrifuges. Now, I'm no expert, but from what I've read the most likely explanation is that the centrifuges are being used in a cascade fashion to enrich substantial quantities of Uranium well beyond what is required for power plant operation (between three and five percent enrichment is required for use in commercial reactors depending upon whom you ask). Why would the Iranians want to do that if not to enrich enough material to construct a bomb? Natural uranium, properly enriched in sufficient quantities, can be used to construct a bomb of the "gun-type" design which, although crude, will be almost guaranteed to work even without extensive testing or experience with fission weapon design. There's really no other plausible explanation for the behavior of the Iranians in this matter, or at least none that I can see. Everyone knows what they (the Iranians) are doing. The Americans know it, the Europeans know it, the Russians know it and yes the Israelis know it too. Anyone who cares to look can see this. Why can't you?

    6. Re:It could be if.... by hjrnunes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone knows what they (the Iranians) are doing. The Americans know it, the Europeans know it, the Russians know it and yes the Israelis know it too

      Yes we all see it. They're minding their own business. Which happens to be nuclear power. So, lets hear again why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power, military or otherwise?
      I'll anticipate the answer: "Why, because they are Islamic fundamentalists and raving lunatics and they'll use it to wipe Israel off the map!!!!111!!"

      Let's see, they are 1) Islamic fundamentalists - I don't see the problem, so is Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. (and to a much worse degree), but they're considered good friends of the US. I wonder why... Anyway, Islamic fundamentalism has never got in the way of being on the good graces of the West. 2) They're raving lunatics - well I wish the whole world was raving lunatic like they are, given they haven't invaded any country in centuries. Don't see why that would suddenly change now. 3) They want to wipe Israel off the map - ahh, now we're getting somewhere aren't we. But, in fact, that is completely baseless and pretty much amounts to deception. What the president of Iran said, was that Israel should disappear from the maps. The 'we'll wipe it off the map' thing was a (deliberate) deceptive translation from Farsi by MEMRI which is a shill for Israeli interests and provides translations of Muslim media, carefully tailored to their master's objectives. It is, by no means, an unbiased news source. And even if it was, their translation is wrong.

      The question now is: Do you see what the US and Israeli elite are doing? Everyone knows. Anyone who cares to look can see this. They're leaving a pretty unmissable breadcrumb trail, and it passes through Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq and Pakistan. Except they're not using breadcrumbs. They're using cluster bombs.

      I don't know if you're American, but if you are, they're using your tax money for it while at the same time claiming they can't pay for your healthcare. Anyone can see this. For a lot of people indeed, it was the last thing they ever saw. Why can't you?

    7. Re:It could be if.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Are you really saying attacking a nuclear weapons enrichment program, whose sole end purpose is the creation of WMDs, is just like attacking a desalination plant, whose end purpose is clean water? Really?

      Also, that is not what "ironic" means.

      No, he's not saying they're the same thing, he's just pointing out that if you call attacking a desalination plant an act of war, you would certainly have to call an attack on a nuclear weapons enrichment program war, too.

      And yes, if an enemy spy blew up a desalination plant, electricity sub-station or telephone exchange, they would certainly be acts of war.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:It could be if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm not a fan of Israel, I think their actions are disgusting, nor do I like the US, but this attitude of defending Iran to sock one to both these countries is just getting fucking stupid.

      It's pretty clear Iran is interested in more than just nuclear power, if they weren't then they would simply adhere to their IAEA obligations, and then the IAEA wouldn't have to issue pretty fucking damning reports pointing out that Iran is preventing them from determining that they do not have a nuclear weapons programme. The point is worsened by the fact that Iran has just recently announced it is going to start enriching Uranium to a level beyond that required for nuclear power, if their interest is nuclear power then why on earth would they do this? They even built a secret new enrichment facility in hardened underground bunkers surrounded by a massive military defence complex, and only announced it when Western intelligence outed it anyway. You really think it's about nuclear power?

      Of course if you want to follow the Iranian excuse, that they don't want the IAEA to see everything because it's full of Western spies and they want to keep their magic new nuclear technologies secret then you can, but this is even more absurd because Iran's nuclear programme is built entirely off German and Russian technology, and they've got nothing we don't have better anyway.

      Look, hate Israel and the US all you want, I'll gladly join you in that, but this binary thinking, that if Israel and the US are bad, then their enemies must be good, is just pathetic, it's mental ineptitude at it's finest. The fact is they're all as fucking bad as each other. Just as you say the US is after Middle East resources, it's equally clear Iran's pretty clearly going after nuclear weapons. Sure we can't prove out and out either of these claims, but it doesn't take a genius to see what's happening.

      People like you would gladly let Iran reach the point of North Korea - where it's finally got a workable device that it then detonates as North Korea now has twice, and you'd then be like "Oh, I guess they were after nuclear weapons after all!". Similarly with Syria had Israel not already blown their covert nuclear programme to hell back in 2007 or whenever it was. Look, I even get why you do it - in your mind, you think if you can increase the credibility of the enemies of nations you hate then that strengthens your argument against those nations you hate, but it doesn't do that- it makes you look like an irrational human being not capable of taking a balanced view, and hence probably not worth listening to about much at all.

      You're emblematic of the idiocy that's rife on Slashdot now when you do this kind of thing, there's no more balanced, sensible debate, it's all "US bad, so Iran must be good" type simple minded bullshit. Even my fucking cat understands that because the dog in the house to the left of us chases it, that the dog to the right of it wont also given the chance, simply because both dogs also hate each other- it understands that despite them being enemies, they'd both gladly chew on it's tail given the chance too.

    9. Re:It could be if.... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Also keep in mind that civilian generation of nuclear power is within their rights under the IAEA?"

      I assume you mean the NPT, but either way, no it's not, not if they can't adhere to their nuclear inspection obligations, which they are not doing, hence, they are not within their rights.

      Last November the IAEA also issued a public statement citing concern that Iran may well have continued it's nuclear weapons programme after 2003, so using the IAEA to imply Iran is fulfilling it's obligations is a little naive to say the least. See here and note specifically the offer from the IAEA to send an inspection team to clarify that this is not the case, to which Iran responded with nothing but a load of the usual rhetoric about Western imperialism:

      http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2011/amsp2011n030.html#iran

      Of course, Iran would be within it's rights to pull out of the NPT, but then it can no longer use the shield of claiming to be an NPT member in it's defence if a country attacks it's nuclear programme without a prior UNSC resolution. That shield is important to it, because it'd be a pretty bad precedent if an NPT member's well publicised nuclear programme was attacked as it would bring the whole worth of the NPT into question if NPT procedures and rules weren't being followed. This is why the likes of the US and Europe have been doing things via the IAEA, to ensure procedures are properly followed prior to any potential attack because it is at this point, that if an attack is legally justified, that Iran would officially have been seen to have failed in it's obligations. Currently things are heading precisely this way, because Iran isn't doing anything to demonstrate it's fulfilling it's obligation, hence the recent IAEA condemnation of that fact.

      If Iran is attacked it only has itself to blame, it's had plenty of opportunity to fulfil it's obligations under the NPT but has chosen not to. Other NPT signatories don't seem to have a problem fulfilling their obligations without any drama, including those who the US would also love to bomb.

      If you're going to quote the IAEA as some way to absolve Iran of blame over the issue, at least get your facts straight. Right now the IAEA most certainly doesn't believe Iran is fulfilling it's obligations, and most certainly does suspect Iran has continued a nuclear weapons programme on from 2003.

      Sure the GP can't out and out prove they have a nuclear weapons programme, just like you can't personally prove that Elvis is really dead, but sometimes we just have to go on the balance of evidence, and trust objective multi-national organisations like the IAEA, and on the weight of the evidence, it seems likely that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons to at least some degree - whether it's to the degree where they'll have a bomb within a year or two as some of the fear mongers suggest is more in question of course, but there's a decent degree of likelihood that they're at least heading down that path. Only time will clarify things further though.

    10. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      they would simply adhere to their IAEA obligations

      Meanwhile, Israel is still ambiguous is one of 4 (FOUR) countries not to have ratified NNPT.

      Also, an interesting trivia: the Taliban are recognized as legitimate political power by three Middle-Eastern countries - Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. All in more or less tight embrace with the USA - financial or otherwise. Wake up. It's not about Islam extremism. It's about this, as was Iraq and Libya.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    11. Re:It could be if.... by demiurg · · Score: 1

      So if he says "shall" instead of "should" will this be an evidence enough fro you, or does he actually have to bomb Israel in order for you to believe?

      P.S. I am an Israeli and I'm not willing to wait for a evidence in a form of a bomb falling on my head.

    12. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      P.S. I am an Israeli and I'm not willing to wait for a evidence in a form of a bomb falling on my head.

      A preemptive strike is kind of implied here, no? As in the case of your neighbors and the nation for whom you've build a concentration camp on land you stole from them. I think you should remember what Golda Meir said, but go ahead, strike first. I can't wait to see everyone turning their backs on Israel or better delegalizing its existence, because you can't behave.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    13. Re:It could be if.... by demiurg · · Score: 1

      If by "can't behave" you mean "suck it and commit suicide" than sorry, we can't.

      P.S. Cut the crap about the "concentration camp". This has nothing to do with reality and you know it.

    14. Re:It could be if.... by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with reality and you know it.

      No he doesn't. Neither do I or the majority of people that don't depend on Fox News et al. for their news. In fact, what we do know, is that your country actively represses Palestinians and destroys or steals their homes, depriving entire families of shelter, as any random photo shoot of a Palestinian protest will show. Moreover, even foreign citizens (even if they're Jewish and American, which btw pay for your 'security') are targets of repression or even murder for protesting about the appalling situation that you impose on the Palestinian people.

      Your country murders, abducts and steals from unarmed foreign citizens (including journalists) on international waters in what amounts to piracy if not even an act of war. Your country trapped the people of Gaza and conducted warfare against it, in what can be described only as collective punishment which is completely forbidden by the Geneva Convention to which Israel adhered, for no reason except disagreement with the outcome of a democratic process.

      Also, while Iran may or may not be procuring nuclear weapons, the fact is that your country does have a sizeable nuclear arsenal and hasn't even signed the Treaty for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, and doesn't allow inspectors from the IAEA in your nuclear facilities.

      So if there actually is a threat, the threat is Israel. No country (including your closest ally and financier, the USA) can trust that your military or secret services will not attack, abduct or murder any of it's citizens anywhere in the world, as all this has happened before. You claim to be a democracy but you restrain the rights of your own women to exercise their religion like men do. You restrain the right of Palestinians to become citizens of your country by marriage, which I think is unique in all claimed democracies in this world, and can be classified as nothing but racist. Perhaps the rest of the world, say Turkey for example, should do a preemptive strike on Israel lest you murder every Turkish on international waters... But we know what would happen then wouldn't we?

      In conclusion, if there is such thing as a rogue state, then Israel is one by any objective consideration. Your victimising is no longer effective as people get alternatives to traditional news sources that are not under the payroll of your efficient lobbies, and actually witness what is happening in Palestine. Like the man said "You can't fool everyone all the time". Because of your nuclear WMDs your country is in effect militarily untouchable, but if you persist on your arrogant, contemptuous and delusional attitude towards the rest of the world you'll get more and more isolated internationally and you'll end up like North Korea, a pariah nuclear threat looming over the Middle East, Europe and the world.

      Go on, cry anti-semitism now.

    15. Re:It could be if.... by demiurg · · Score: 1

      Judging by the length of your response you obviously have more time than I do. Forgive me for not reading through all of this. I will take just one of the so called "facts" that you write about, show that it is in reality a lie which for every sane person should further discredit everything that you write. Tom Hurndall was killed by a soldier, which was later trialled by Israeli military courted and sentenced to 8 years in prison. Fair trial and not "murder" [sic] is what Israel does. And you are a liar.

    16. Re:It could be if.... by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      I will take just one of the so called "facts" that you write about

      Yes. I knew you would choose that one. Let us consider, however, how it all played out according to the article I posted:

      Hayb was convicted of manslaughter and obstruction of justice by an Israeli military court in April 2005 and sentenced to eight years in prison.

      From the Wikipedia article on manslaughter:

      Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
      manslaughter (...) requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.

      Back to Hurndall:

      The IDF initially refused more than a routine internal inquiry, which concluded that Hurndall was shot accidentally in the crossfire, and suggested that his group's members were essentially functioning as human shields. (...) Hurndall's parents demanded an investigation.

      As pressure from the parents mounted, supported in part by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in October 2003 Israel's Judge Advocate General Menachem Finkelstein ordered the IDF to open a further military police investigation into Hurndall's death.

      Idier Wahid Taysir Hayb (or al-Heib), claimed, he had shot at a man in military fatigues although photographic evidence clearly showed Hurndall was wearing a bright orange jacket denoting he was a foreigner. Hayb was an award-winning marksman and his rifle had a telescopic sight. He claimed to have aimed four inches from Hurndall's head, "but he moved". Hayb said a policy of shooting at unarmed civilians existed at the time.

      On 10 April 2006, a British inquest jury at St Pancras coroner's court in London found that Hurndall had been "unlawfully killed". (...) The lawyer representing the family, Michael Mansfield QC, stated:

      Make no mistake about it, the Israeli defence force have today been found culpable by this jury of murder.

      A week earlier, an inquest found that the British journalist James Miller had been killed by an Israeli soldier just three weeks after Mr. Hurndall was shot, a mile away from Hurndall's position.

      So, while your compatriot was charged and convicted with manslaughter, what really happened was murder. Unless an award-winning marksman shot a head on top of a bright orange jacket near some children without intention to kill or unaware he was creating a deadly situation.
      And yes, I I take time to carefully write most of my posts because that's how I think everybody should do. But I take extra care when replying to people like you, so that everybody here sees who the delusional person is.

      Wanna choose another 'fact' I'm lying about?

    17. Re:It could be if.... by demiurg · · Score: 1

      To me, 8 year sentence for killing a man in a combat situation is not even justice, but actually overreaction to media hysteria. At any rate I'm not going to discuss the details of the trial - they are not important.

      And my point is still valid - this is a crime committed by an individual, not a state as you claimed. So you are still a liar.

    18. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      combat situation

      LMAO. That, at best, was an assault situation. Assault by IOF (yes, offense). So you're still a liar.

      Hurndall had seen a group of children playing and had noticed that bullets were hitting the ground between them. Several children had run away but some were "paralysed with fear" and Hurndall went to help them.

      In a normal country that would qualify for life sentence.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    19. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1
      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    20. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      No country (including your closest ally and financier, the USA) can trust that your military or secret services will not attack, abduct or murder any of it's citizens anywhere in the world, as all this has happened before.

      Let me repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    21. Re:It could be if.... by demiurg · · Score: 1

      Trolling...boring...

    22. Re:It could be if.... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Trolling...boring...

      Yeah, labeling is what your kind does as a last resort, when you've lost the argument - "liar!", "antisemite!", "terrorist!", "troll!" You really can't behave.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  16. Bet these kids will think they're smart... by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when they're getting blown literally to pieces with real weapons. Might school them in reality.

    1. Re:Bet these kids will think they're smart... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And thus Israel becomes seen as the agressor for being the first to start shooting. Or worse, given the age of many script kiddies, they are caught killing children. No, Israel wouldn't be that stupid: So long as the hackers don't start getting into anything like military systems, they'll fight with improved security... and maybe the odd counter-DoS.

    2. Re:Bet these kids will think they're smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem to have undue faith in the emotional maturity of Israelis http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-vows-to-hit-back-after-credit-cards-hacked-1.406004

  17. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, and to what effect? Iran's nuclear program has, by all estimates, been accelerating with every attack. Which is, frankly, no great surprise -- nuclear powers don't get messed with nearly as much as non-nuclear powers, so one should expect nations that consider themselves under threat to become nuclear powers as soon as possible. Whilst the Libyan situation is extremely complex, absolutely no dictator is going to go away with the message that they should reform - dictators don't think that way, even when they do think. Dictators will see that Libya has been attacked by foreign powers with the exception of one period - the time when Libya had weapons of mass destruction.

    Cyber warfare won't make any difference. Israel has made it clear in the press that it doesn't distinguish between targeted killings and targeted website attacks, which means we can expect to see people fall over from sudden lack of organic essentials like brains, a heart, etc. This will lead to physical reprisals and another spiral of attacks and revenge. Limited wars NEVER stay limited, again as demonstrated in Libya. It is the nature of warfare of any kind to escalate beyond the control of one or all parties involved.

    In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all. Sun Tzu himself stated that the best strategy for warfare is to not be in one.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. Best of times coming.. by vencs · · Score: 1

    For cyber-mercenaries AKA basement dwellas. Time to rename js as jihad-script.

    --
    Please disturb, im in a meeting.

  19. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Tsingi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rest assured that Israel dishes it out at least as well as they get it. They're hardly innocent babes in the woods.

    I'd like to nominate that as the understatement of the year.

  20. Corrupt, don't bring down by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fixing a non working system is easy.

    Corruption can't be fixed. If you want to cause real damage, you corrupt data, you don't delete it. Corruption, is very difficult to recover from, and the longer the corruption goes on unnoticed, the worse it is to recover.

    Taking down a system denies the use of the system as an asset. Corrupting the data or processes on the system makes that system work against it's owner. It becomes worse than useless.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Corrupt, don't bring down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that data that is corrupted can be restored just as if it was deleted, right?

    2. Re:Corrupt, don't bring down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just goes back to the old military principle that it's better to wound than kill, since the wounded need to be carried off the battle field and cared for for a substantial amount of time.

    3. Re:Corrupt, don't bring down by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 2

      You realize that data that is corrupted can be restored just as if it was deleted, right?

      Not if the corrupted data seems legit, and has been mixed up with legitimate data over time. Say, sensor data from a processing plant. Your backups would contain the same corrupted data, you can't trust it, nor can you resample it, and it's effectively lost. People might have made bad decisions based on that data, and it can be a huge mess to tidy up. Mr. Smith got his +5 Insightful for a reason.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  21. If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're going to, as a nation, threaten your neighbours, arm yourself with nukes and the best military technology money can buy while oppressing and condemning a minority within your population (the Palestinians). If you're going to talk the talk about "peace" while continuing to invade and build on the occupied territories in dispute and supposedly under negotiation at peace talks. If you're going to take hundreds of millions in "Aid" dollars from someone your neighbours see as the "Great Oppressor".

    Well, if you do these things, don't be surprised if cyber terrorism is the least of your worries.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Informative

      while oppressing and condemning a minority within your population (the Palestinians)

      If by "Palestinians" you mean Israeli Arabs, well, these are probably much better off living in Israel rather than in the neighbouring countries. In Israel, they have at least some political power (proportional to their votes).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "Israeli Arabs" you mean Golgafrinchans, these are probably not getting oppressed in Gaza or the West Bank

    3. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Flamebait" my ass. The truth hurts. Bend over and TAKE it.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm lost here. Are you talking about Iran? or Iraq? or Turkey? or Russia?

      I guess that list can go on when you say "as a nation, threaten your neighbors..."

      What about not as a nation, and doing little to become a nation? Then are you talking about Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority... ?

      I need a program.

    5. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by demiurg · · Score: 1

      And yet many would kill to join this "oppressed minority". I wonder why.

    6. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and the best military technology money can buy"
      Please, we build our own gizmos and much better than the foreign rubish. We don't have to pay anyone for them, others pay for our stuff.
      Cyber terrorism IS the least of our worries for the very reasons you mentioned, only inversed.

      If you're going to paint such a one sided picture of reality, ignore the reasons and reprecussions of actions done to and by a nation, while attempting to be patronizing If you're going to over simplify and misrepresent a harsh and complex situation ... Well, if you do that, you're just an ass with a good vocabulary :D

    7. Re:If you're gonna threaten your neighbours... by msobkow · · Score: 1

      So if it's Israeli built it doesn't cost anything? Interesting concept. Free jets for everyone! *LOL*

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  22. A good cyber attack by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Would have the bombers hit the wrong target.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:A good cyber attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The suicide bombers should check that their bomb vests work inside their own mosques.

  23. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

    Does Sun Tzu also advocate running in fear when war comes to you? Perhaps it's wise to be submissive, hmm? Sometimes you don't have a choice but to defend yourself. Often, the cost of doing so means killing the aggressor. Not to say Israel is innocent here, but Hamas is extremely gleeful when rockets kill innocent Israeli children.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  24. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What they get are children suicide bombers exploding themselves in crowded public spaces. Israel doesn't descend to that level, not even close. No, they are not innocent by any means, and I am not justifying what they do, just pointing out how hyperbolic your claims really are (which is, in a word, "very"). They have also been repeatedly attacked by nearly every one of their neighbors, and many of them have expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. Again, just to put things into the proper perspective.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  25. Laugh... by koan · · Score: 1

    If a 19 year old kid stealing credit cards and DOSing a web site is war then I call hyperbole!!!
    It's an inconvenience at worst, but I do like the Israeli kid trying to take high moral ground by releasing the CC's but not enough info to actually use them.
    That won't last.

    Personally I think the term "war" is over used.

    "#
    20,000 Arabs Facebook Accounts
    #
    Hacked By Hannibal" Interesting name choice.
    http://pastebin.com/N8T3QY2i

    Israel "response" to the website DOS
    http://pastebin.com/GyyqkGxs

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  26. What's an escalator cyberwar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are escalators connected to the internet? And what about elevators?

  27. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What they get are children suicide bombers exploding themselves in crowded public spaces. Israel doesn't descend to that level, not even close...

    I wonder how hard you would have to come down on someone to make them think that blowing themselves up is a better choice than living. You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure. Probably have to take their land away from them, do all sorts of nasty stuff, and make sure that they just can't see any end to their suffering or the suffering of their children. If you take away their future, then I guess some people would chose to blow themselves up and take as many of the enemy with them as possible. Don't kid yourself, Israel has as much to do with creating suicide bombers as any country over there.

  28. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sun Tzu also stated (paraphrased) that if you find yourself in a position where war is final option, you expend every ounce of your military force from the first moment and crush your enemy absolutely, demoralizing them and ending the conflict forever. The reasoning being that conservative encounters prolong the effects of war, ultimately causing more death and pain for both parties unnecessarily. You kill 1 million on day one to prevent the deaths of another 5 million over time.

    But we're evolved enough now to believe in a kinder gentler politically correct warfare that extends for decades, kills millions, an improvrishes many more.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  29. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by dskoll · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure.

    Not at all. You'd just have to feed them toxic religious bullshit and then look for weak-minded individuals to take advantage of. You know, kids, the mentally unstable, etc. Most suicide bombers are recruited when recruiters notice their mental state.

    The people doing the recruiting, of course, are coldly calculating and sane. They probably don't even believe the religious bullshit they peddle to their victims, the suicide bombers.

  30. Infromation Security in Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite some rather stupid moves by politicians in recent years (Eli Yishai, I'm looking at you!), Israel has a large infosec community, that works hand in hand with both the public and private sectors extensively.

    1. Re:Infromation Security in Israel by cshark · · Score: 1

      Ha! Inside Israeli joke! Funny! True though.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

  31. Score: Israel 1, attackers 0 by dskoll · · Score: 1

    http://www.elal.co.il is up and running happily. http://www.sama.gov.sa/ and http://www.adx.ae/ are both down.

    1. Re:Score: Israel 1, attackers 0 by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      Hummm...

      Flying from Toronto to Tel Aviv
      $335 CAD + 100 points for Economy class
      $2595 CAD + 200 points for Business class

      Look like it was Israel 0, attachers 1 after all...

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
  32. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Cry me a river. Either Israel gets to slow down Iranian nuclear weapon development or they get to bomb it outright. Which would you rather have? Don't expect them to sit on their hands as Iran openly boasts about its plan to wipe Israel off the map and develop the weapons for doing so.

    PS: Every one of your points is hearsay. None of the aforementioned attacks on Iran have been linked back to Israel. There are plenty of countries going out of their way to slow down Iran, many of such attacks even coming from other Arab countries.

  33. At least .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    you probably earned a genuine clearance that stays with you if you switch jobs!

    That's one of the big rip-offs I've seen in recent years with regard to "security clearances". Many times, an employer will require obtaining a clearance, but they'll say it's "provisional", and add on a stipulation that the clearance is only valid for the length of time you're employed with them.

    A good friend of mine applied for a (low paying) job handling government records, some years back (I believe it had to do with health records of retired military personnel), and they grilled her and all of her close friends for weeks. I remember getting a phone call where I was asked all sorts of things, such as if I was aware of her communicating regularly with anyone who resided outside the United States, if I had any background on why she got divorced, etc. etc. This wasn't even a top secret clearance ... merely a "secret" one. As it turns out, she was offered a better-paying job in the private sector while all this was going on, so she wound up not accepting it anyway. So all that digging they did was for absolutely nothing, since they said her not accepting the position automatically invalidated it.

    I understand why some govt. agencies or contractors would be concerned that you're just going to apply there to obtain the clearance and then jump ship to a better job that demands you already have one.... but after you've offered that much information up to them and it's determined you not some sort of risk? It seems like a clearance is a clearance. If too many people get it and run, that probably means you're simply not paying enough.

    1. Re:At least .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you probably earned a genuine clearance that stays with you if you switch jobs!

      All security clearances issued by the US Government are based upon a 5 year approval. You can switch jobs during that 5 years and keep using the same clearance. At the 5 year mark, the clearance has to be renewed (a slightly less invasive process). However, if you move to a job that does not require a clearance, after one year of "inactivity" your clearance will be invalidated and you will need to reapply for it.

  34. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 1

    If you haven't read his work, it's no wonder you lose.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  35. Go for the greater evil: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    "I'd rather see cyber war between Palestine and Israel than real war."

    But what about the combination. Think of the possibilities.

    Blow up the wrong target. Then make them think someone else did it. When the others end up bombing each other post a troll face.

    Then you can post "You mad, bro?"

    1. Re:Go for the greater evil: by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      with the new laws on the books, both israel AND palestine can be sent to gitmo.

      so, you two better behave! you don't want me to call papa.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  36. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..but Hamas is extremely gleeful when rockets kill innocent Israeli children.

    {Citation needed}

  37. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or threaten to kill them and their parents if they don't listen, and then fill the kid with narcotics.

  38. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kindness and political correctness have little to do with it, except perhaps as a small amount of lubricant for the wheels. Selling more military equipment and services has everything to do with it. And a conflict that drags on ultimately means more sales.

  39. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Israel doesn't descend to that level, not even close.

    I think using children as human shields is pretty close (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A)

    and many of them have expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.

    Who said this? I know a while back there was a mistranslated speach that was repeated non stop on the news even after the correct translation was posted.

  40. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Feyshtey · · Score: 0

    I see. So when Democrats pursue reducing the military budget they are really trying to prolong the wars in which we're engaged, kill more and allow more to be killed, and cash in on their secret contracting investements.

    It's so obvious...

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  41. clearance by schlachter · · Score: 1

    It's more than just passing an investigation. You also forfeit some of your rights as a citizen. Limits are placed on your right to freedom of speech, your expectations of privacy, and you agree that you can receive jail time for violating aspects of your clearance. Still worth the cost for many, but it's something to keep in mind.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  42. stock exchange by schlachter · · Score: 1

    They took down the stock exchange. That has real effects. It causes panic and costs money, which in turn forces compromises elsewhere. It's not always so easy to draw a clear line b/w virtual and real world.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:stock exchange by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      They DDOSed the web page. They didn't take down the stock exchange.

  43. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 1

    Yes, but he also stated that you shouldn't destroy infrastructure in the process (since the victor ends up having to rebuild it anyway and rebuilding efforts weaken you), nor should they be any greater of a drain on you than absolutely necessary. The "shock and awe" tactics used in Iraq 2 were a direct violation of this stipulation, with consequences that were entirely predictable as a result. Sun Tzu did not advocate total destruction, he advocated very surgical destruction.

    However, I agree completely with your point that wars should be short, sharp and final if they absolutely have to be fought. I don't see that as being necessarily in conflict with being socially responsible (people and skills are resources and part of the infrastructure too and you ultimately have to replace what you destroy). Even in chess, it is only the poor players who try to capture everything, the best players are those who capture only what is necessary to achieve the objective.

    The problem with "short, sharp, final" wars is that they're not the ones people tend to fight. Israel has not successfully demoralized their enemies, nor successfully ended conflict for more than a few months. All that seems to have happened is deeper entrenchment of rivalries and hatreds. What do the experts have to say about situations like that? Well, both Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi said that being predictable is usually a fatal error in war. That would suggest that a different tactic should be employed, rather than being so samey.

    Should Israel defend itself? Absolutely. But it really shouldn't use methods likely to be a long-term failure. That won't achieve anything, as we have already seen. Israel has not, as a rule, been surgical. It has been considerably more so than many other nations (both inside and outside the Middle East), nonetheless it has steered round too many tumours and cut out far too much that has been healthy.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  44. innovate their way out by schlachter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As Israel has always done, and must always do, they will innovate their way out of the situation. Reducing the threat they face, while making a name for themselves in the cyber security market and profiting immensely.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:innovate their way out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      innovate means to be the opressor and act the victim now? Thats Israel MO for 63 years now.

  45. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    Israel (and Iran for that matter) cannot politically be surgical in the sense you describe. They cannot do what is necessary to end the conflct. Any aggression at a level required to bring the on-going war to a close would be vilified by the rest of the world. It's true in every stage on which hostility is currently being played out. If either side chooses to embrace being the aggressor and finish the engagement in as short a period as is possible (and minimize civilian or infrastructure destruction) as Sun Tzu describes would be wholly condemned for not pursuing "diplomatic" resolution for as many decades as that might require.

    There is so much demand that there be no war at precise historic and geographic points on a large scale that we ensure dispersed small scale unending war.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  46. One would think this is fairly easy to defeat by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    without state backing I don't see how some small band of hackers is going to make any difference.

    On the bright side, the threat of this will likely motivate the banking industry to finally close some giant security holes in their system.

    Many businesses don't change slowly. They change in bursts typically as a result of some sort of trauma or unlikely opportunity. Nothing changes and then everything changes all at once.

    So... maybe this will be the catalyst.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:One would think this is fairly easy to defeat by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      You assume there isn't state backing?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    2. Re:One would think this is fairly easy to defeat by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well... to be relevant the state backing it would have to have enough resources to make a difference. I don't know if Iran has the abiliity to wage as cyber war and I know Palestine doesn't.

      It takes a technological society to back a cyber war. China, Japan, South Korea, many countries in europe, or the US... that's about it. If your country doesn't have an information economy then you can't wage cyberwar anymore then a per-industrial society can wage mechanized warfare. You can't build tanks without factories and you can't wage cyberwar without a software industry. At least not with state backing.

      Something that happens if a state backs it is that companies get paid to develop cyber warfare weapons. Several US weapons contractors are already selling such tools to the US government and it would be folly to think that wasn't going on all over the world in every information economy. However, I don't think Iran has an information economy. Maybe I'm wrong... and I know Palestine doesn't... so who is backing it if not disqualified powers that lack the resources?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:One would think this is fairly easy to defeat by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      The Ukraine isnt exactly known as a technological powerhouse, and yet botnets and malware consistently originate there. (Yes, they are often identified but...)

      You dont need massive amounts of technology to wage a cyber war. You need only a small number of very intelligent and very talented individuals, and being from a less developed nation precludes neither. Motivating those individuals can be done in any number of means, ranging from turning them into religious zealots, or threatening their loved ones. Iran would shrink from neither.

      Besides, if your argument is that a nation that can build nuclear power plants (or perhaps bombs) cant also fund or organize cyber attacks I'd say you have a long road to convincing most people.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:One would think this is fairly easy to defeat by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the Ukraine is more a target then a source for such things and that source is actually Russia.

      You do have a point... though both Russia and Ukraine have information economies. There are fairly large software companies and industries in both countries.

      Again, possibly Iran has one too. I really don't know that much about their economy. Though it would surprise me.

      In any case, I'm pretty sure Israel's information economy could stomp Iran's... so I'm not too worried about it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  47. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure. Probably have to take their land away from them, do all sorts of nasty stuff,

    lets see, for hundreds of years longer, we have been doing this to the native americans ('indians').

    when was the last time you saw an american indian suicide bomber, other than some caricature on tv? maybe an old western movie? but IRL? not really.

    through out history, people have conquored others and land has shifted ownership. why is this somehow different? and if you go back farther in time, that land certainly has had many owners. to whom do you give it, then?

    why stop there? so many other places in the world where X has taken Y. no matter what country you are from, in your history someone has taken someone's land or there is a dispute about its ownership in some way.

    I fail to see how 'palestinian' is any more special and why this argument applies to them and not every other people who fought and lost?

    israel fought many defensive battles, gained land and then gave it back. but that's still not enough, is it?

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  48. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been verified and reported time and again that suicide bombers typically are well educated and well off; or indoctrinated and dependent on people who are well off but who lock these unfortunate onto this path. The suicide bombers themselves typically are doing pretty well here on Earth while they lust for their trip to their chosen heaven. Think of the 9/11 hijackers (at least those who knew they weren't coming home from that venture). They traveled freely and methodically pursued their goals using their weapon of choice, not their weapon of desperation.

    What you've actually done is go out on a limb by interpreting the actions of a suicide bomber from your provincial perspective rather than from the suicide bomber's perspective; then you jumped off that limb by extrapolating beyond your data to indict a third party. It's an easy thing to do, especially since you don't need any data to accomplish it.

  49. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    You dropped his name with regards to a topic that's non applicable. Presumably with a holier than thou righteous attitude. I don't accept the premise that conflict can be avoided. Prolonged sure, but never avoided. This Middle East conflict has been going on far longer than and most likely started from the most mundane of reasons hundreds of years go. People, groups, etc tend to gunny sack grievances to the point of full out warfare. Eventually, the innocent and damned get caught in the fog of war until at some point (hopefully) those same group of people realize that it wasn't worth the POV they so stood steadfast by. Or, one group completely annihilates the other or enslaves them to a declaration of surrender. Which ever comes first.

    Talk down to me will you? Fuck you!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  50. It might start off cyber... by jholyhead · · Score: 1

    ...but will it still be a Cyberwar when Israel starts bombing the Gaza Strip in retaliation?

  51. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all."

    That is considerable. Would you rather be on the worse end of a war or the better?

    There isn't much historic record of "winners" crying themselves to sleep over "not losing"/

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  52. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Ah, but the Native Americans got casinos in the bargain. The last laugh may be on the palefaces.

  53. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by timeOday · · Score: 2

    Don't expect them to sit on their hands as Iran openly boasts about its plan to wipe Israel off the map

    You're repeating an infamous misquote. In short, the American version of the phrase is "regime change." In other words, neither am I pretending Iran is a friend of Israel.

  54. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 0

    I talk down to my mental inferiors, yes. Since that position is a choice, not a requirement, pick yourself up and be an equal for once.

    I use the names of military strategists and philosophers in matters of military strategy and philosophy because they are the experts in matters of military strategy and philosophy. Hardly inapplicable. Far from it. Knowing how to win, when to win and why to win is 99% of ensuring you'll win. Cyber warfare is NO different from any other in this regard. Pay attention and win, ignore the experts and lose. Your ignorance confounds the limits of the imagination sometimes.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  55. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 1

    You'd be surprised at the number of winners who have indeed cried themselves to sleep over Pyrrhic victories. You'd also be surprised at the number of "losers" of a war who have been ultimately unchanged by that war, supplanting the "winners". (The DNA traces of the Normans in Britain essentially don't exist. Nor do the DNA traces of the Romans. The Celts and the Saxons comprise 95% of the population by genetic marker.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  56. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 1

    Diplomacy is important - both Iran and Israel might like to try it for a change. Israel has badly damaged itself by continuous sabre-rattling. Had it genuinely bothered with diplomacy up to now, the world would have little objection to it launching a surgical war. Even if the world did verbally object, it wouldn't be strenuous. The problem is that Israel has been way too busy being a pulpit bully (and sometimes a physical bully), which means it has little diplomatic credibility. You don't get clean hands by washing them in the blood of your enemies.

    Iran is no better, and arguably far worse. Sure their democratic leader got ousted in a CIA coup and replaced by a schill for western oil companies. Replacing the Shah with a religious dictator just swapped one lunatic for another. It didn't help Iran, which would have done far better by returning to the system they'd been prevented from having. THAT is how to "stick it to the man", not gunning down your own populace. Iran's suspicion of others is historically reasonable but nobody is going to change their mind by Iran screaming blue murder at them. The only intelligent solution would be for Iran to bite the bullet rather than other people's necks - go for honest, open, sincere diplomacy. No threats, no bluster, no iron-fist-in-an-iron-glove, but sincere "we're not stupid, we can solve this". Again, if they did this, honestly, openly, without any possible challenge from their foes, there would be a hell of a lot less objection if they then beat the crap out of anyone who abused them.

    Very few people object to a conscientious, sincere and responsible person smashing the brains out of anyone trying to mug them, but many people object - with reason - to provocative, exploitive, malicious people doing exactly the same thing.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  57. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ^ I imagine this guy like the comic dude in the simpsons or that light saber kid on youtube. I just don't see you as a fighter, but as someone that reads about fighting. You remind of Napoleon Dynamite :D That's the one!

  58. If it were by superwiz · · Score: 0

    it would be a first acknowledged war between Israelis and Palestinians, and maybe Israel would be allowed to win for once without international condemnation for winning a defensive war.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  59. He who... by Ossifer · · Score: 1

    He who lives by the hack, dies by the hack...

  60. Oops Omar's been Oxed by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    Two guys on a motorcycle just attached a magnetic bomb to his hard drive platter. Don't fool with Mossad.

  61. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vdare.com has a new column out today which is particularly disgusting.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/jews-leftists-immigration-my-journey-to-nietzsche-some-responses-to-readers

    Jewess Susie Green pretends she is on 'our side.' ((The side of white, western civilization.)) But we learn what she really thinks and cares about at the very end of the column:
    "Because of the errors and superstitions of today, the West is doomed to endure a very long and painful period of barbarianism, misery and even mass death. When it finally becomes unavoidably clear that group differences are real, I worry that the Jews, as the intellectual leaders of modern egalitarianism, will be shamed and no longer respected in philosophy and the social sciences."

    Got that? Because of the Jewish-led philosophy of egalitarianism, the West is doomed to barbarism, misery, and mass death. Pretty grim, huh? That sounds like a pretty strong indictment of Jews in general. It would be reasonable to resent Jews just a tad if they were to cause all that in the future, now wouldn't it?

    Nope! Susie Green doesn't think so. No matter what Jews do, Jews can never be blamed or resented for it, for that way leads anti-semitism, which, to her, is an even GREATER evil than sinking the entire West, billions of people, into 'barbarism, misery, and mass death.'

    "Even worse, there is a danger that, out of this dark period, a deep anti-Semitism will emerge, as revenge for the betrayal by the intellectuals. The Right could become what the Left already claims—Nazis—and Left could become the lesser of two evils."

    Did you read that correctly? "EVEN WORSE" than the majority of the 1st world reverting to the stone age, losing at least half of our population, and the remainder living in eternal 'misery,' is the prospect that ANTI-SEMITISM might rear its ugly head again!

    The most damning statement of all is that even at this point, even once the left has plunged the flower of the Earth, billions of beautiful, brilliant white people into 'barbarism, misery, and mass death,' it would still be preferable to stick with the left than to side with the "GREATER" of two evils, Nazism.

    Because we all know that Nazi Germany was EVEN WORSE than living in the stone age, with half the population mere skulls and crossbones, and the other half miserably going about their broken, wasted lives, because it DISLIKED JEWS.

    It is worse for Jews to be hated, as a world historical outcome, than that all whites should suffer and die.

    So says Susie Green, and she's "on our side."

    No, Susie Green, you're not on our side. You're a sick, sick woman, a Jewish Supremacist, who is only thinking about what is good for the Jews, and you could care less about what happens to the rest of us. You hate white people and loathe them as all potential, proto-Nazis just waiting to burst out of our Jew-hating cocoons. You would prefer we all die out in your fantasy dystopia than that we should ever see and realize just who were our friends, and who were our enemies, all along. And that puts you decidedly on the "other" side.

    Pro-white Jews are a joke. All they care about is anti-semitism, their own Jewish hides. They police us like they're our betters, and act as though they're the only people with the right to criticize Jews. At the last moment, they always betray pro-white peers and stab us in the back. Just like they stabbed Germany in the back in World War I. Just like they stabbed Spain in the back and aided the Moors. Just like they stabbed Tzar Nicholas in the back and assassinated the Imperial family of Russia, ushering in the communist reign of terror. Just like they stabbed America in the back with the 'HART-Cellar' immigration act of 1965 that took a 90% white nation, the strongest, richest, happiest nation on Earth, and gave it away to the 3rd world flood. Jews have betrayed and destroyed every single culture

  62. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Mashiki · · Score: 2

    israel fought many defensive battles, gained land and then gave it back. but that's still not enough, is it?

    To those that hate Israel? No it's not enough, because the only way they'll be happy is when every Jew and Israeli citizen(that includes arabs, and other minorities) are dead.

    As it stands now, it'll be another war especially with the rising tide of Islamic supremacist screaming going on, and the brotherhood gaining a foothold. People like to say "oh they've changed, they're not blah blah blah pro-toss women back to the dark ages" yeah, give it a year and get back to me. Anyway, you can bet that within 5 years there will be border skirmish's, within 10, Israel will probably control the Sinai again.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  63. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not quite. Sun Tzu said it was best to win without fighting.

    Also, you can't use the word warfare like that. The best strategy for warfare is to not be in a strategy for warfare?

  64. Israeli Hackers already retaliating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Israeli hackers took down the Saudi Arabian exchange website, and have also been leaking Facebook, Email, and CC information of Saudi citizens. Follow
    Hannibal's posts on pastebin:
    http://pastebin.com/u/hannibal

  65. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh. A misquote. I see.

    I'm sure nobody would be terribly bothered if the President of the United States were to say that the regime occupying Tehran must vanish from the page of time.

  66. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by stenWolf · · Score: 1

    I'll do two better - not just hamas - many "unaffiliated" gazans, and not a blind rocket - children were specifically targeted and killed at close range - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041106,00.html

  67. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by El+Torico · · Score: 1

    The US did it the old fashioned way and nearly annihilated the Native Indian population. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Carthaginian Peace"?

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  68. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by mpe · · Score: 1

    Sun Tzu also stated (paraphrased) that if you find yourself in a position where war is final option, you expend every ounce of your military force from the first moment and crush your enemy absolutely, demoralizing them and ending the conflict forever.

    This would only be possible if your military is capable of doing this to your enemy. Wonder what he had to say about the situation of facing an enemy who's military greatly outmatches yours...

  69. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once they finish all Israelis they will kill each other as history has proved repeatedly

  70. Level Playing Field by kbx911 · · Score: 1

    Finally the armed-with-stones-&-sticks Palestinians have something to prod israeli asses with

  71. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US eventually gave the Native Americans citizenship and equal rights in 1924.

    Israel was founded by forcing people out of their land and they've been colonizing ever since. Easily the most racist 'Democracy' I've ever been to.

  72. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by ogdenk · · Score: 1

    You don't think the Native Americans wouldn't have strapped on bomb vests if they had them available? Especially toward the final conflicts? Nobody likes being conquered. Now you just have more wonderful tools and free easy-to-get weapons knowledge to wage guerrilla warfare almost indefinitely. Just because your underfunded and running low on options doesn't mean you no longer have the right to resist.

    You have a right not to be conquered and use any means at your disposal to repel an enemy or make his stay as unpleasant as possible. If it comes down to suicide bombing, well desperation is a bitch.

    Though personally, If I were them I'd think it wiser keep my recruits alive. There's no such thing as being an "expert" suicide bomber. Generally people become more effective with greater productivity if they have more than one attempt at a task.

  73. Hardly a war by carrioki · · Score: 2

    A 19 year old aiming a DOS attack at a couple of websites is as much an act of war as if someone stood outside the airport or outside the stock exchange shouting that he really didn't like these institutions and maybe harrassing passers-by a bit.
    Methinks Yoni Shemesh exaggerates. It's one thing for the NYT to publish that quote, but Slashdot submitters should know better than to take it seriously.

  74. foxhole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry mum, I've been drafted into the army. I won't be leaving my room for the next 6 months.

  75. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    You'd have to make their lives a living hell, for sure.

    Not at all. You'd just have to feed them toxic religious bullshit and then look for weak-minded individuals to take advantage of. You know, kids, the mentally unstable, etc. Most suicide bombers are recruited when recruiters notice their mental state.

    The people doing the recruiting, of course, are coldly calculating and sane. They probably don't even believe the religious bullshit they peddle to their victims, the suicide bombers.

    Actually, as an Israeli who is sympathetic to the suffering of our neighbours, I will tell you this: it is not a stretch to understand that our neighbours value going to Heaven over suffering on Earth. They are here to get to Heaven, and neither you nor I can judge their values. We can judge their methods, though.

    For what it is worth, it is well established that you cannot hold someone down without keeping yourself down as well. Nobody wants to see a prosperous Palestinian people more than the average Israeli does (I am excluding the fanatic minority, both sides from which suffer). That will only lead to a more prosperous Israel, a goal shared by all Israelis.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  76. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Saying that it is better to avoid fighting a war if you can avoid it is most certainly not the same as saying you should never fight a war.

    Most military theorists would agree that fighting an actual war should always be the last resort, not the first reaction.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  77. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Israel (and Iran for that matter) cannot politically be surgical in the sense you describe. They cannot do what is necessary to end the conflct.

    And what is necessary is to use their nukes to obliterate Iran. However, the threat of it makes Iran's own desire for retaliatory nukes a lot less insane sounding.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  78. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Elldallan · · Score: 1

    What he says pretty much boils down to choosing a battlefield where your enemy can't bring their superiority to bear whether it be numerical or technological.

    Sun Tzu also puts a lot focus on using subterfuge rather than direct battle to obtain your goals, so much that he said "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"

  79. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No instead they descend to the level of aerial/artillery bombing crowded population centers which is worse. And no it doesn't matter whether you drop leaflets of your intentions prior to the bombardment or not, it's still a war crime, just more so because your prior warning(because the only time it's permissible to attack areas that might contain civilians is if you're under immediate direct fire from that area and even then you're supposed to minimalize structural damage and civilian loss of life so aerial bombs/artillery barrage is pretty much illegal any way)

  80. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by timeOday · · Score: 1

    I'm sure nobody would be terribly bothered if the President of the United States were to say that the regime occupying Tehran must vanish from the page of time.

    We don't just talk about regime changing other nations, we do it, and quite often. On the other hand, that's still different than annihilating everybody there.

  81. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by chrb · · Score: 1

    lets see, for hundreds of years longer, we have been doing this to the native americans ('indians').

    No, the U.S. stopped its war on native americans a long time ago, and integrated them as citizens. If Israel had done the same thing to the conquered Palestinian population then the two situations may be comparable, but they haven't. Your naive idea that native americans didn't turn to violence is completely wrong - the native americans *did* turn to violence in an attempt to defend their territory, but they were wiped out by an army with superior technology. If those native american resistance groups were still active today, then they would be called terrorists and insurgents.

  82. The big difference by chrb · · Score: 1

    The big difference between other countries that have conqured land and Israel is that the population of the Occupied Territories have no political representation within Israel. Every other democratic nation that has conquered land has integrated the population of that land as citizens, given them the vote, human rights etc. The U.S. did it with native indians, and they did it with Mexicans in California and Texas when they annexed those territories from Mexico. The UK gave all of the population in Northern Ireland the vote, and the same legal rights. Spain gives the Basque people citizenship, legal rights and representation in the national government. Israel is uniquely different in giving no representation or legal rights to the population of its occupied territories. "No taxation without representation" - remember that? Israel controls taxation of millions of people in Gaza and the West Bank, and yet the people that are taxed are not considered to be citizens, have no legal rights, and have no representation in Israeli politics.

  83. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, that's still different than annihilating everybody there.

    Is it? I honestly haven't heard many anti-Israel arguments that could make that distinction, or cared to. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, I've heard too many that didn't.

    Yours sort of stands out in that sense, that it does. Take it as a compliment.

  84. Re:They've done quite a bit of attacking themselve by jd · · Score: 1

    You can imagine what you like. Chances are, imagination is all you're physically capable of. Me, well, since you don't give a shit about what others say what difference would it make what I said? You're not interested in being convinced, you're only interested in proving your ego right. And why should I spend my time and effort trying to convince a moron who won't listen of my skills? What's in it for me, besides a lot of pain and no gain?

    You're not going to try to convince me it's worth my effort?

    What a surprise. That's because talk's cheap and bitching is cheaper. You don't like the fact that there are people better than you, so you mod them down, harass them, beat them down. It's the only way you can walk taller than them.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  85. Media Scare by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

    I recommend everyone read This Article from a day or two back. It basically explains how none of this was newsworthy and it's only been the media truppetting it which has made it into an issue. It feels like Wag the Dog or Tomorrow Never Dies. If the article is right, the tail truely is wagging the dog to the destruction of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    --
    I do security
  86. War ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of war on poverty, they got a cyberwar so the police can bother me.

  87. Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "CyberWar" isn't really a word. Anyways, it's not even the first computer attack. Much ado about nothing.