Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 1, 2012 @12:45AM from the cyber-bombshell dept.

diewlasing sends this excerpt from the NY Times: "From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet."

302 of 415 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 00:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

So I guess this means we're officially at war with Iran since it was declared that acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?
1. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Soilworker · 2012-06-01 00:52 · Score: 2
  
  So the fact that stuxnet was developed by the US gov is official now ?
  So they paid the 2 company to get valid hardware certificate ??
2. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Torvac · 2012-06-01 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  usa&israel
3. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Extremus · 2012-06-01 00:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which brings up a interesting question: can a cyberwar escalate to a real war? If so, what would provoke that transition?
4. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-01 01:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We are at war in Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
5. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by joebagodonuts · 2012-06-01 01:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war.
  
  --
  "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
6. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-06-01 01:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No it's not offical. this is just a reporter's opinion sourced from conversations with people whose names he won't reveal at times he won't reveal, who know things that nobody should know. for instance, he details the exact contents of a meeting that consisted of 3 people, president Obama, vice president Biden, and (At the time) CIA director Leon Panetta. For him to have this conversation, it means he has interviewed either the president, the vice president, or Panetta on this. Fat fucking chance.
  It's probably true, but no it's no way in hell close to "offical".
7. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-06-01 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.
8. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  It used to take an act of congress to declare war. These days the president just skips the formality. Technically, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were not wars but 'conflicts'.
9. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-06-01 01:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.
  they were "police actions" goddamit.
10. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by camperdave · 2012-06-01 01:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.
  they were "police actions" goddamit.
  So, because they "never happened" , they don't count as losses on America's war scorecard?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
11. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by crazyjj · 2012-06-01 01:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I know what happened in a lot of meetings I never personally attended. Participants talk, transcripts are shared, etc. I suspect this info came second or third-hand from the people under Panetta.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
12. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by isorox · 2012-06-01 01:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?
  Only when perpetrated by the bad guys
  Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion
13. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-06-01 01:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I like that line of thinking.
  We're still undefeated!
  well, I guess that whole war of 1812 thing is still debatable...
14. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by TheSpoom · 2012-06-01 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  You think the rules that the US declares apply to other nations, apply to the US? How naive.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
15. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by crazyjj · 2012-06-01 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The U.S. has a remarkable history of fighting people that we ourselves have trained and armed in some earlier coup. That may have something to do with the fact that meddling in other country's interest may have short-term benefit, but it can (and frequently does) backfire and produce long-term problems. Iran is a great example. We overthrow their democratically-elected government to put in our figurehead so we can get their oil. Worked great until 1979. Now we've spent the last 30 years with a country that despises us.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
16. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by ArcherB · 2012-06-01 01:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.
  Yes, but there are no nuclear weapons production facilities, according to Iran. It's hard to go to war over damage to facilities that don't exist.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
17. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-06-01 01:26 · Score: 2
  
  Illustration of the principles of secrecy
18. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-06-01 01:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  that's exactly why this isn't anything even close to offical. even assuming Panetta told his underlings what "really happened" (which itself sounds a bit dodgy for the director of the freakin CIA), second-hand or third-hand info is suspect as hell.
19. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by crazyjj · 2012-06-01 01:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  this isn't anything even close to offical
  You waiting for the CIA to issue a formal press release on one of its secret wars? Good luck with that.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
20. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Errol+backfiring · 2012-06-01 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  The hardware (nuclear installations in this case) blowing up should be sufficient, I guess.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
21. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Errol+backfiring · 2012-06-01 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Europe, and the US do seem like bad guys time and time again. They even declared war on the Netherlands for housing the International Court of Justice. How bad can you be?
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
22. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by drinkypoo · 2012-06-01 01:34 · Score: 2
  
  Those wars all accomplished what our masters in the MIC wanted them to accomplish; they made big fucking piles of money. Those wars are all massive successes from their point of view, and since they're the ones calling the shots, they all WERE massive successes. The goals simply weren't what you were told.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe he got a transcript of the meeting from the Chinese?
24. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  There are transcripts of any official high-level meetings of this sort, generally to cover the asses of everyone involved. Those transcripts are generated by somebody, collated by somebody else, then filed by yet another person, all of whom have the opportunity to read the details. Then there's the matter of the participants talking, and I can imagine Biden being the kind of guy who would go around bragging about his meetings, so... yeah, things do tend to get around a bit more than they should.
  That said, this report taken as a whole doesn't pass the sniff test. I say the reporter is full of shit.
25. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by krammit · 2012-06-01 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The late, great Bill Hicks said it best: I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up."
  "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."
  "Pick up the gun."
  "Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."
  "Pick up the gun."
  
  Boom, boom.
  
  "You all saw him. He had a gun."
  
  --
  "Watch your cornhole, bud."
26. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by kilfarsnar · 2012-06-01 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war.
  
  I love that this got modded "Funny".
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
27. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Nidi62 · 2012-06-01 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Only when perpetrated by the bad guys
  Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion
  Apples and oranges. Iraq invaded Kuwait for 2 reasons: their oil, and they wanted better access to the Gulf. The US invaded Afghanistan in response to an attack that was made possible through the materiel and other support of the Taliban government. Iraq went into Kuwait to steal oil. What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas. You're comparing 2 different actions with 2 completely different motivations and justifications.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
28. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Hentes · 2012-06-01 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, it didn't. And if there will be a real war it won't be caused by the US hacking Iran but because Iran creating nukes.
29. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 02:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Also note that said reporter is trying to sell a new book.
  Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, by David E. Sanger. Hardcover on Sale: June 05, 2012.
30. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-06-01 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Historically one reason sticks out above all others when it comes to casus belli. People go to war when 2 things are satisfied :
  1) they want to (for whatever reason, racism, jealousy, or even justified grievances. Grievances usually only justify a limited conflict, like capturing military superiority in a sea passage)
  2) they think they can win
  For Iran 1) is certainly true. I would even say it's obviously true. 2) not so much.
31. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 2
  
  There is confusion here about what "war" means.
  1) the real-world situation. Of course this doesn't require an act of congress, as the military forces involved aren't controlled by congress or the president. Nor does it take an act of war for the US to get into a fight in international waters for example. And if an enemy force operates within the borders of the US, the president is free to act without congressional approval (to illustrate an extreme case, if someone bombed congress killing most of the representatives).
  2) the legal term. War is essentially a series of laws that need to be "enabled" by congress which give the president the power to invade foreign soil, bring it under US government control using violence (if he can do it peacefully, he's at liberty to do it without congressional approval)
  So in reality the US can get into a conflict without congressional approval. The US president (and thus the army) cannot start a large scale military offence on foreign soil without congressional approval. Most everything else is perfectly allowed, even without so much as informing congress.
32. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by operagost · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  The UK was also complicit in this. In fact, they were the instigators because they wanted to improve the position of their oil assets in Iran. I point this out because it makes the idea that the Islamists hate us mostly because of what the US did in Iran a lot shakier... you see, the US is the "Great Satan," Israel is the "Little Satan". Why isn't the UK a "Satan"?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
33. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-06-01 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  They even declared war on the Netherlands for housing the International Court of Justice.
  
  Citation?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
34. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by tqk · 2012-06-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  well, I guess that whole war of 1812 thing is still debatable...
  No, it's not.
  You can add the Bay of Pigs fiasco and your abject failures in Central (Nicaragua) and South America. "American Imperialism" is a very real fact to them. Cf. Venezuela's Chavez. They have lots of good reasons to hate the things you do, or the things that are done in your name.
  Salvador Allende was in bed with the Russians, but was Pinochet an improvement?
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
35. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Darth+Snowshoe · 2012-06-01 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not ever from there, but I want to object to the way the city of Chicago has been turned into political invective. If I said "Everybody from Dallas is a jackass", that would be just plain wrong. But somehow NYC and now Chicago are always fair targets. And if the next Democratic president were from, say, Toledo, then I'm sure suddenly being from the Toledo would be a tremendous mark against him.
  I'm pretty certain Mr. Obama did not learn any political tricks from Richard Daley, who died in 1976 and is the only mayor of Chicago most people can name besides the current one. I think it's fair to let the president be defined by his own actions rather than geographic location.
  When you refuse, in an argument, to let the other side describe themselves in a term that is neutral and descriptive, you remove yourself from the group of civil and persuadable actors.
36. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by operagost · 2012-06-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure we didn't lose Desert Storm, and the Korean War ended in stalemate. Saddam Hussein is dead, and a democratic government is in place in Iraq. Bin Laden's dead and a democratic government is in place in Afghanistan, so I'd have to call that a "win" although it doesn't seem like one.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
37. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by sixtyeight · 2012-06-01 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. A bill has now been introduced in the Senate to impeach Obama.
  
  --
  The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
38. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by splutty · 2012-06-01 02:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well, just look at what you said for a simple explanation.
  US (Big S, Big Satan)
  Israel (Small S, Small Satan)
  United Kingdom (No S at all, so no Satan)
  
  --
  Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
39. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by cdrguru · 2012-06-01 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem with this kind of journalism is that we can sit back and say that of course this guy doesn't have the real scoop. But why wouldn't someone high up in Iran not take this to his boss and say "See, they admit it!" The logical followup from Iran is to step up actions, unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.
  Sure it is nice the people in the US are free to come up with stuff like this and "theorize" about it. The problem is that the separation between the journalist and reality may not be quite so apparent to those on the other side of this. This is actually an extremely provocative statement, supposedly from informed sources in the US government. So provocative in fact as to pretty much dare Iran to do something about it.
  It doesn't matter that we can laugh and say it is all BS. It might not appear that way in Iran. And it isn't going to be a subject of humor to them, ever.
40. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Culture20 · 2012-06-01 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Iraq went into Kuwait to steal oil. What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan.
  Yes we did. The Afghanistan/Iraq pair up was about Iran from the beginning.
41. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by cdrguru · 2012-06-01 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  Uh, except these aren't nuclear weapons production facilities, supposedly. It is uranium enrichment for peaceful nuclear power.
  If this "admission" were to be taken seriously I would expect Iran to be mighty pissed about it and want something worth millions (tens of millions?) to happen to the US, somewhere, somehow.
42. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by splutty · 2012-06-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  they were "police actions" goddamit.
  I think you made a small typo there. I'm sure you meant to type 'policy actions'.
  
  --
  Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
43. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA, “Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room."
  So it wasn't just Obama, Biden and Panetta.
44. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by ravenshrike · 2012-06-01 03:04 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I fucking live in Chicago, well, the greater chicagoland area now, but I used to be in Chicago. So take your whiny bitch ass and shut up about it suddenly being political invective. Our politicos are some of the scummiest on the planet and have been for the past century.
45. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Don't join the military, the less people join and drink the cool-aid the less chance they will be so easy to go to war. I can't see the draft even having a chance any more unless real civil unrest shoots up. But considering people are not that smart lets go hunger games!
46. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by denobug · 2012-06-01 03:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oh, by the way. Would someone please explain it to me why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?
  Try this analogy: I have a gun on my hand, not pointing at you. You went around looking for a gun while screaming and whining that I have a gun and I am about to shoot you, so you must have a gun, and point your shiny new toy at me. I don't think 1) that makes me feel secure, simply because I inevitably has a gun first, and 2) people around you feels very sane for you to have a gun, because you are yelling and screaming that you want to hurt me.
  
  that's sums up why american doesn't want someone else to have nuclear weapons. The less nations has it the less likely we are towards planetary destruction.
47. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by jrmcferren · 2012-06-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  There is no mod for inaccurate, but if the military needs people bad enough they will just re-instate the draft and draft the men that they need. We will be able to get the men no matter what.
  
  --
  sudo mod me up
48. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by joocemann · 2012-06-01 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Apples to apples.
49. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Don't like it? Do something about it.
  Chicago and New Orleans are well known as the two most corrupt metro areas in the USA. Particularly the police, but certainly including the local politicians.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
50. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by chill · 2012-06-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, considering no one at Gitmo is a Prisoner of War, then I guess it didn't happen.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
51. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by LifesABeach · 2012-06-01 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  As for me, some personal thoughts seem to keep bubbliing up.
  
  As to who made the Stuxnet virus is still a good question. It's a nasty virus, but an impressive design.
  
  Given a dirty deed, the first suspect is usually the one who benefits most. So who has benefitted from this event?
  
  V.P.Joe Biden is a good person; but when someone says V.P.Joe Biden was involved, I try not to grin to mockingly.
52. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Quila · 2012-06-01 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Funny about how the UK gets a pass, when it was their idea to overthrow the government and install the Shaw in order to protect their oil interests.
53. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by chill · 2012-06-01 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Refresh my memory. Did the United States formally annex Afghanistan and declare it a State? That is what Iraq did with Kuwait and since you're comparing the two it is only fair to list the details.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
54. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-01 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  So nothing changes.
  Outdated Nascar analogy: You don't put any random driver/nation (not your enemy) into the wall, because he will do the same to you later. You always put Dale Sr./Iran (already going to do anything in his power to fuck you over) into the wall, because he will do the same to you in any case.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
55. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-01 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  He mouthed off and volunteered to be the example 'Arab' (yes I know, blah blah) state after 9/11.
  You saw how Kadafi acted? It didn't really help him in the long run, but his he rolled over on his back and peed all over himself submitting after 9/11. He understood that someone was going to catch an ass whipping and didn't want it to be him.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
56. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas.
  
  I have some news for you - the production of heroin in Afghanistan is at all-times high under USA. Now, what could that mean?
57. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by flyingsquid · 2012-06-01 03:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Given that, it absolutely has to be authorized from the big O himself. Specifically, the content of the article is from a book http://www.randomhouse.com/book/202541/confront-and-conceal-by-david-e-sanger
  This entire fucking reveal is nothing but a campaign stunt by Obama. What sort of ratfucking moron admits to intelligence ops just for a campaign boost. Oh wait, it's the chicago politician in the white house.
  I think you're being a bit of a troll here, but I actually agree with your take on things. The level of detail in the article is really striking, and suggests that the author talked to people who were closely involved in the decision-making process. To release this kind of information about a classified intelligence project without authorization would be a serious breach of security, if not treason. Given that the Obama Administration hasn't made a huge deal about this article, or gone on a witch-hunt looking for the leaker, it seems safe to say that this story was released with the blessing of the White House, and that this was done for political purposes.
  As for the political angle, I can think of two possibilities. One is that taking credit for this (the article goes out of the way to minimize the role of the Israelis) is a way of showing off U.S. power and threatening Iran and other nations who pursue W.M.D. They're saying, "it doesn't matter how clever you are in burying your program, we can still shut it down". That threat could come in handy in future negotiations with Iran and North Korea.
  The other angle, as you note, is the election year angle. The article goes out of the way to emphasize Obama's role here. The key line here is "'From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,' a senior administration official said". Biden is depicted as "fuming", while the president is cool and collected and making tough calls. It paints a very flattering picture, which is hardly surprising given that it's a bunch of Obama Administration guys speaking to a New York Times reporter. However, as the article describes it, the program was actually begun during the Bush Administration and was well underway by the time Obama took office. All Obama did was continue with Bush's program, but it sounds like he's trying to take a lot of the credit, which doesn't quite seem fair. I think Bush was a disaster as a President. But still, you can't have it both ways, and claim that you inherited a bad economy from Bush, but then turn around and take credit for a program that he started and put into action.
58. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by phantomfive · 2012-06-01 03:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The logical followup from Iran is to step up actions, unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.
  This is only a logical followup if Iran thinks they can win. And that's not a war the Iranian regime will survive, because Israel has second-strike capability.
  
  The logical followup from Iran is to harden their defenses, which is what they have been doing.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
59. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by synapse7 · 2012-06-01 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  So which wars were declared with an act of congress?
60. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-01 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Could be either. They both have the motive and the capability. So does the UK. And France, Germany, Japan, China... actually, almost the entire developed world. Iran isn't exactly popular on the world stage.
61. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-01 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  They probably regard the UK as another US state.
62. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-01 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  There's also the sneaky option:
  1. Order troops out there to fight.
  2. Accuse anyone who questions this of 'abandoning the troops.'
  3. Watch congress give approval retroactively.
63. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by dkleinsc · 2012-06-01 04:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, you don't understand the rules: It's not an act of war when we do it to them, only when they do it to us.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
64. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by phantomfive · 2012-06-01 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Chicago politics are really corrupt, do you realize that? It's not just mayor Daley, whose son was later mayor as well. There's a lot of corruption going on in Illinois, the majority of their recent governors are in jail. Obama learned politics as a political organizer, and later as a senator. He chose advisers from there. Why would he NOT learn the political tricks of the area?
  
  Not everyone in Dallas is a jackass, but they are more likely to favor secession, for example. Not every politician in Chicago is corrupt, but they are more likely to be. (Although some might say 'corrupt politician' is a tautology).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
65. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Bob9113 · 2012-06-01 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.
  Iran is not seriously considering attacking Tel Aviv. Not now, not any time in the near future. They know exactly what would happen if they attacked Israel. The only possible exception is if they think we are about to attack (in the conventional, air assault and invasion sense, not limited cyberwar) and they are going to get wiped out anyway. They may do some things that seem irrational from our Western perspective, but they are not stupid. They know that starting a shooting war with Israel would be suicide.
  Take a minute to really reflect on your hypothesis: What has Iran done -- not talked about, not nationalist tough guy rhetoric, I'm talking real military action -- that suggests they are irrational enough to attack Tel Aviv under the clear and present threat of getting twice what we gave Saddam?
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
66. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by DragonDru · 2012-06-01 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't we "win" some of those. At least the last 3 in your list.
  
  --
  20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
67. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by dkleinsc · 2012-06-01 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas.
  The key natural resource for the last 20 years in Afghanistan has been the prospect of oil and natural gas pipelines running from Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean. And waddaya know, as soon as the Karzai government backed by the US was in power, there were new agreements signed regarding oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.
  And Iraq is probably also about oil, as well, since the Project for a New American Century (membership including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) explicitly advocated the US taking control of all the major oil supplies in the world as a way of controlling everything else that was going on in the world.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
68. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by baffled · 2012-06-01 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody can just "make" money. It's taken/received from someone else. The US government takes on debt to dish out money to defense contractors during war. Those debts are then slowly repaid, with compounding interest. Repaid with monies taken from US taxpayers.
  Now, how the amount of available funds on the planet grows as the population and inflation grow over time, beats me..
69. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by DragonDru · 2012-06-01 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States War of 1812, Mexian-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II. Others were authorized by Congress, the UN, and of course we had some undeclaired wars.
  
  --
  20 characters max for the password? How will I use my favorite poems as passwords?
70. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by OrangeTide · 2012-06-01 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?"
  1. we have the bombs, so we get to make the rules.
  2. it is believed that widely available nuclear weapons in the hands of despots will result in them being used against civilian again.
  3. being a superpower is a relative thing, if everyone has the same capabilities then you're no longer a superpower.
  I realize 1 and 3 aren't nice, but I assume they enter into the equation. 2 is why your average American voters tends to support our government's attempts to limit access to nuclear weapons.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
71. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  Look at the destruction and fallout caused the only time nuclear weapons were used. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used.
72. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Arker · 2012-06-01 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  They dont deny facilities exist, and were attacked, and were damaged.
  Only that the facilities in question have anything to do with *weapons* - the claim is that they are pursuing only civilian nuclear power/radioactive medicines and the like, which the NPT says they have a right to do.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
73. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  They've wanted that for a long time, even before this happened. But they know that if something like that does happen, they're all going to end up like Saddam.
74. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't get what the fuck this statement is supposed to mean, or why people think it's so god damned "insightful". It's almost like you people expect nothing to ever change, or for relationships to never sour. Back in colonial times, relations between the colonies and England were fairly good. Then they started to sour, and ultimately ended up with the American Revolution. And then relations warmed up again, to the point where we are two of the closest allies.
75. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't attribute that solely to this. I would attribute this more to the fact that Republicans hate anyone who doesn't toe their party line with a fiery passion.
76. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by SomePgmr · 2012-06-01 04:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As someone that's lived in the area his whole life, we all know, and sadly accept, that our politicians are degenerate criminals. The political history of the city and state are an ongoing joke for a reason... we've earned it. I couldn't even guess how many are currently in prison or have done time.
  Also, when you say Mayor Daley, most of us think of the more recent Richard M. Daley, who is very much alive and avoided prison (though many of his people didn't).
  You can start here and just keep reading down, though there are fun bits before it too...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Daley#Daley_orders_demolition_of_Meigs_Field
77. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-06-01 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  and we would never work with Israel or fund or arm them against a mutual enemy not us really.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
78. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Jedi+Alec · 2012-06-01 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  Grandparent either misread or misquoted.
  The US has a law on the books that when a US soldier is held in the Hague to be tried at the International Court, the US has a right to go and get him.
  linky
  Nothing special, just one of those typical little USian acts of "fuck the rest of the world, USA, USA!" that inexplicably causes some people to despise the US.
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
79. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by JazzLad · 2012-06-01 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  And if the next Democratic president were from, say, Toledo, then I'm sure suddenly being from the Toledo would be a tremendous mark against him.
  If Carty Finkbeiner is ever president, I will work actively for the Texas Secede movement.
  
  --
  "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
80. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by tolydude · 2012-06-01 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  From Starship Troopers written by Robert A. Heinlein (1959):
  "The historians can't seem to settle whether to call this one "The Third Space War" (or the "Fourth"), or whether "The First Interstellar War" fits it better. We just call it "The Bug War" if we call it anything, which we usually don't and in any case the historians date the beginning of "war" after the time I joined my first outfit and ship. Everything up to then and still later were "incidents," "patrols," or "police actions." However, you are just as dead if you buy the farm in an "incident" as you are if you buy it in a declared war."
  P.S. the book is nothing like like movie
81. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Hatta · 2012-06-01 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's when the insurrection starts. I'd rather be killed fighting oppression that kill for oppression.
  Drafts are barbaric. Any country that can't convince its citizens to fight for its existence of their own free will simply doesn't deserve to continue to exist.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
82. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Shatrat · 2012-06-01 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  We did win 1812 in the end. The British stopped raiding our merchant ships and messing with us in general. Burning the white house is only a major setback if you live in the white house.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
83. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how do you think that Iran can step up their actions against the U.S. and Israel without starting an actual shooting war? From the Iran side they have been at war with the U.S. and Israel since the day the current government took power in 1979.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
84. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know, but I bet most people who referred to Mayor Richard Daley today would be referring to Richard M. Daley, who left the office of mayor of Chicago at the end of last year. Considering that he was the mayor of Chicago since 1989, it is not surprising that nobody can name anyone else as mayor of Chicago. Especially when you consider that his father was mayor of Chicago from 1955-1976. They are the two longest serving mayors in the history of Chicago.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
85. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by eam · 2012-06-01 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why not, everyone else does. ...kidding, I'm kidding...
86. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by mmaniaci · 2012-06-01 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  The moment my draft notice comes in, I'd be in Canada or Mexico or Anywhere-But-the-US. I'd also be a staunch anti-American activist wherever I ended up. The draft is barbaric, as is war.
87. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, we are not at war with Iran, but they are at war with us and have been since 1979. What part of "The U.S. is the Great Satan (Adversary)" don't you understand?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
88. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by flyingsquid · 2012-06-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  How does admitting to Stuxnet change anything? Check out the history of Stuxnet on Wikipedia- Stuxnet escaped into the wild and started running free on the internet in June 2010. People noticed it, took it apart, and put the story together from there. It became apparent that it was an extremely sophisticated piece of malware put together by a nation-state to attack industrial equipment, and meanwhile Iran's centrifuges were blowing up... so by September 2010 it was already being reported in the media that (a) Stuxnet was designed to attack the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and (b) that the only people with both the means and motives to do so were the Israelis and the Americans. Analyses of the software suggested two different countries worked together, so by 2011 the consensus was that Stuxnet was a joint American-Israeli operation, and a year ago, Iran actually came out and accused the U.S. and Israel of being behind Stuxnet. And the U.S. has never denied responsibility, either.
  Anyway, from reading the article it's clear the guy has talked to Obama administration people, and had the administration's help in producing this book. So he clearly does have the real scoop- or at least, he's got the version that the Obama administration would like him to have.
89. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  No the invasion of Afghanistan was a war since it was authorized by Congress.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
90. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by TheCarp · 2012-06-01 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, I was thinking maybe it was whistleblowers.
  Which is exactly what we need.... there is no way I want these people instigating more unneeded wars. The fact that they are engaging in some of the worst acts of cyberterrorism that we have seen is very telling.
  Makes me glad I didn't vote for the warmonger in chief, but sad that there is not now, nor has there been, any good alternatives.
  All this BS with Iran is not needed, and its all over the stupid Christian Isreal lobby. All over, what all indications show, is a peaceful nuclear program aimed at producing power.
  I am no fan of the Iranian regieme but, they are hardly any worst than many of "our allies".
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
91. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Asmodae · 2012-06-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  There's a problem with a volunteer military. It ends up being mostly poor folks who need the jobs. Incidentally, it's a heck of a lot easier for people/politicians to cheer on a war when it's not their own kids they're sending to die. You want wars to be as rare as their supposed to be? You need to have a draft and make sure military service is a prerequisite for politics and politicians kids. At least then the consequences for this shit might actually be real for them.
92. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by edmicman · 2012-06-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  were from, say, Toledo, then I'm sure suddenly being from the Toledo would be a tremendous mark against him
  Well, yeah. Being from pretty much anywhere in Ohio is a mark against in my book. I mean come on, it's *Ohio*.
93. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  point 2. There is ONLY nation that has ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population, Can you guess who?
94. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-06-01 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  The level of detail in the article is really striking, and suggests that the author talked to people who were closely involved in the decision-making process.
  
  On the other hand, "The Lord of the Rings" also has a lot of detail...
  
  All Obama did was continue with Bush's program, but it sounds like he's trying to take a lot of the credit, ... but then turn around and take credit for a program that he [Bush] started and put into action.
  It depends on how successful the program was before and after. Certainly most Missions were far from Accomplished even by the end of the Bush administration and *may* be/have been even more effective/productive during the Obama administration. Some of this may be due to things outside either President's control. For example, drone attacks are more abundant and effective now, but that's due to the increased maturity of the technology as well as the increased use and experience of the operators.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
95. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by ImprovOmega · 2012-06-01 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  It sounds silly on the surface, but really the broader goal is to keep the rest of the world sufficiently destabilized so that no one nation or group of nations can gain the kind of power that could pose a threat to the U.S. Ergo, when big, bad Russia was absorbing nearby nation-states we stepped in to Afghanistan in the 1980's to put a stop to that. When Afghanistan started looking like a rallying point for Islamic unification against the United States in the 2000's, we stepped in there to stop any such thought from forming.
  
  We probably would have done something about the E.U. if it wasn't such a completely doomed cluster from the beginning.
96. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Darth+Snowshoe · 2012-06-01 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  My point is that, if someone thinks the President has done something corrupt, they should definitely point that out. But being a Chicago politician itself is not a crime. Everybody has to be from somewhere. Just discounting entire regions of the country based on identity politics is divisive, it's unhelpful, and it's just lazy thinking.
97. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Pogie · 2012-06-01 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just to correct one thing:
  CTA (chicago transit authority) platforms do have displays which show when the next train will arrive. On newly renovated platforms, it's on an LCD display, on older platforms it's displayed on a simple digital text bar. However, in both cases, the displays rotate through the next arrival and other information (including ads on the LCD's), so it's easy to miss the info you're looking for.
98. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  How did the president get such a screaming deal on his Chicago house? Funny how the person that sold it to him at $400k under market needed influence just then.
  Seriously, this is all already out there. It's already been called racist and not answered, so don't bother.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
99. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by GreyyGuy · 2012-06-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  So only Obama, Biden, and Panetta knew about this? What about Bush and Cheney? Or the group in the defense department that presented the idea? Or the group that developed it, and is continuing to update it? Or the equivalent of the groups above in Israel?
  It may not be "official" in that it has been oval office seal on it, but there are far more than three people that could give the reporter all the details.
100. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't get what the fuck this statement is supposed to mean, or why people think it's so god damned "insightful".
  In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are only three countries in the world; at any time, Oceania is at war with one of the other two. Which country Oceania is at war with changes, but following the change, citizens are expected to believe that no change actually occurred -- if Oceania is at war with Eastasia, it was always at war with Eastasia; if that changes to being at war with Eurasia, then Oceania was always at war with Eurasia. At one point in the novel, a speaker changes from one country to another mid-sentence, and the public is expected to accept it without question.
  
  The point is that the US media will speak about a nation that is hostile to the US as if there was never any other situation. Sadam Hussein was always our enemy; the fact that he was our ally within most adults' lifetimes is irrelevant and people are expected to simply forget that fact. Now it is Iran's turn to be our enemy; they were always our enemy, if the mainstream media is to be believed. As Gore Vidal put it, "We live in the United States of Amnesia."
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
101. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-06-01 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  They may do some things that seem irrational from our Western perspective, but they are not stupid. They know that starting a shooting war with Israel would be suicide.
  The calculation you have to make is "What's the minimum number of people in Iran are required to launch the suicidal act?", then "How many people are currently, really, in charge?" Even if the people of Iran wouldn't launch a suicidal attack, it's at least plausible that the few people that could, would. Then, there's the accidental aspect. If Iran doesn't verifiably have nuclear weapons, then a missle heading south will cause some grief, but it won't start WWIII. If on the other hand, Iran is know to have many deployed nukes, and a missile is headed to Tel Aviv, there's no time to determine if it will actually get to the city, or if it's armed. Israeli officials will have to make a decision right away.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
102. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-06-01 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Which brings up a interesting question: can a cyberwar escalate to a real war? If so, what would provoke that transition?
  Launch of nuclear weapons? See Colossus: The Forbin Project http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/, Wargames http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/, and others.
  
  Realistically speaking, any action that results in death or large scale destruction will result in real war.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
103. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Hatta · 2012-06-01 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  There's a problem with a volunteer military. It ends up being mostly poor folks who need the jobs.
  Then make it your mission to eliminate poverty. If you do that, I guarantee you you will have no shortage of willing volunteers to fight for your country.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
104. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by oreiasecaman · 2012-06-01 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  US (Big S, Big Satan)
  US is Big S indeed...
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
105. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-06-01 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  When I give someone goods in exchange for a promise of dollars latter, virtual money is created. When they pay the debt, to me the virtual money changes to real money.
  
  The supply of real money goes up when goverments print more. Suddenly everyone's real money is devauled by a bit, but as more virtual money is created, the real money regains value.
  
  The whole thing collapses when everyone's faith in their virtual money simultaneously falls. Then any extra real money printed by the government devalues everyone else's real money by more than a bit, and inflation sets in.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
106. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Fned · 2012-06-01 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  ...to overthrow the government and install the Shaw...
  Damn that UK, and their interconsonental meddling...
107. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by fluffy99 · 2012-06-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, except these aren't nuclear weapons production facilities, supposedly. It is uranium enrichment for peaceful nuclear power.
  If this "admission" were to be taken seriously I would expect Iran to be mighty pissed about it and want something worth millions (tens of millions?) to happen to the US, somewhere, somehow.
  Actual intentions aside, Iran is still a very long way off from producing materials suitable for a nuclear bomb. The best they can do is 20% purity, you need around 90% pure materials for a nuclear explosive device. What they can produce right now is suitable for medical isotopes, possible reactors (are they actually building any plants?) or dirty bombs (conventional explosive to spread radioactive materials).
  The goal of Stuxnet wasn't to cause damage, so much as to screw with the centrifuges speeds to prevent them from working efficiency and reduce the quality of the materials they generated. Brilliant ploy and implementation if you ask me, but I also happen to consider it an act of sabotage bordering on an act of war. If Iran shut down our power plants with a virus, we'd certainly consider it an act of war.
108. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by bengoerz · 2012-06-01 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Europe is truly unholy: Switzerland, Sweden, Spain...
109. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Darth+Snowshoe · 2012-06-01 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's what you've got? 'He got a good price on a house'?
  I'm sorry, I shouldn't pursue this but I can't help myself. Obama is president of the United States. Presidential-level corruption isn't "He got a great price on a house". You're not even using your imagination.
  Presidential-level corruption could be something like "He started a war that killed or displaced hundreds of thousands of people in a foreign country, lying in the face of the American people, while trashing the credibility of the entire intelligence community, and with the explicit intent of enriching all his cronies in the military contracting business", for instance. Or "He undermined the rule of law, disregarded habeus corpus, violated the privacy rights of millions, reinstated torture as a means of statecraft, disappeared dissidents to third-world prisons, imprisoned thousands of people for years on end who were never charged, had no court date or means of calling for redress. Just to show his own father who was the tougher man." Etc. See, that would be some Presidential-grade corruption there.
  Some of those things I mentioned might even be valid criticisms of Obama, since he seems satisfied to allow the continuation of Bush-era policies with regard to the war on terror, electronic privacy, homeland security etc. But I can't believe that getting even a $400k pop on a house is going to have much influence. That's just someone trying to suck up. Next you're going to be telling me he's parking in handicapped spaces.
  Think bigger. Obama had a fund raiser last month where his re-election campaign gathered up $15M over the course of dinner. If you're looking at corruption, look at the Citizens United decision and the filthy circus it's made of the election process for both parties. That would be a start.
110. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by ScentCone · 2012-06-01 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Would someone please explain it to me why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?
  You're confusing "other countries" with "Iran" and "North Korea." You'll notice that the US isn't expressing the same level of concern about, say, France, the UK, India, Russia, China, etc. Because those are places that don't dedicate themselves - as a matter of national policy and continually stated rhetoric - to the destruction of other countries. Of handing/selling weapons to terrorists dedicated to stamping out or preventing the formation of even the appearance of representative government. The mullahs running Iran aren't the British parliment, and that country's ruling culture is deliberately murderous - towards people in other countries, as well as to its own citizens when they dare to speak up about the problem. Nukes in Iran is a bad thing. Nukes in, say, Britain, isn't.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
111. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Johann+Lau · 2012-06-01 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  "trying to sell a book", yeah, that's really shady. if someone, who is "trying to sell a book", is criticizing people who are successfully selling death, slavery and stupidity, it's pretty clear who's the crook. writing books is the career choice for greedy scumfucks, after all.
112. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Johann+Lau · 2012-06-01 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's quite the nuts strawman. You really believe a single word of what you just wrote?
  America has been threatening to ruin and run other's people shit since before TNT was invented, much less the nukes. So yeah, by your logic.... no wait, that wasn't logic at all, that was just a plain, cheap lie.
113. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by C18H27NO3+ · 2012-06-01 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Which brings up a interesting question: can a cyberwar escalate to a real war? If so, what would provoke that transition?
  Losing?
114. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by gay358 · 2012-06-01 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  If this is war, Iran has right to retaliate. Has USA thought how expensive it would be, if Iran sends a worm or virus that bricks large percentage of computers in USA by reflashing hard drives, BIOSes, GPUs, corrupting data on hard drives etc and at the same time does massive DDOS against banks, net shops, stock markets etc using botnet?
115. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Johann+Lau · 2012-06-01 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the destruction and fallout caused the only time nuclear weapons were used. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used.
  Yeah yeah, you just write that. But let's actually LOOK at the one time nukes were used -- it was when only one party had nukes. So your second sentence is upside down?
  It's kinda like when a man beats his wife -- the wife going to a gym and learning some kickboxing, will NOT "double the chance of domestic violence happening", and only someone with bad intentions or Stockholm Syndrom would say otherwise.
  And no, I'm not saying this example can be just transferred to nukes, heh. But your conclusion is still bullshit sophistry and I resent it.
  The less consequences someone has to fear for brutalizing others, the more likely is they'll do it. "Consequences" can even include simply having a bad conscience -- where that is not a given, baaaad things will happen. America has largely been constrained from within, but constrained it has been, make no fucking mistake, and don't dream yourself better or even different that the Nazis or the Soviet Union or China; any difference between the USA and those countries has been fought for, people actually died for that (and no, I don't mean the racket that is war, either, soldiers never have and never will die for shit), and now it's being pissed down the drain. That's were we are at. /rant
116. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Bob9113 · 2012-06-01 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  it's at least plausible that the few people that could, would.
  Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence that Iran has ever officially sanctioned an invasion of undisputed Israeli territory since we have made it clear that we will destroy them if they do. Show me the evidence that Iran has ever officially sanctioned any military action that would result in a full-scale military response from us. Show me the evidence that they do not understand what our eleven carrier strike groups are capable of. Show me the evidence that your fears are well-founded, instead of simply chanting them.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
117. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by interkin3tic · 2012-06-01 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, fortunately it just means we're hypocrites. And we already knew that.
118. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Jonner · 2012-06-01 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Iranians already sound pretty paranoid and this may be enough to push them over the edge.
119. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by SplashMyBandit · 2012-06-01 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  It gets even worse. If this is indeed to be proven bullshit the loons around the world will still repeat it as if it was truth. The number of web pages repeating the fallacy completely dominate the page with the retraction. Hence it becomes a 'truth' that 'everyone knows' and modifies people's behaviour (eg. the loony fringe).
  Here is a case study to prove my point. After years of sustained rocket attacks from Gaza on Southern Israel the Israelis launched Operation Cast Lead to stop the menace. The Israeli Army went in and stopped the attacks (for a while). The Palestinians shrieked that the Israelis had hit a school with artillery (ignoring the fact that their own fighters had targeted civilian infrastructure for *years* with the deliberate aim of killing Israeli civilians; and the Palestinians placed military installations in civilians areas so if hit they could claim propaganda victories). The UN repeated this claim. Then this claim was placed in Richard Goldstone's report claiming that the Israelis had committed war crimes. However, it turned out that this was all bunk (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/richard-goldstone-continues-his-recantation/2011/11/01/gIQApEKecM_blog.html and references therein). There were three real instances where Israeli soldiers broke their military law and these were investigated, prosecuted and dealt with (stealing an ATM bank card; using a boy to check for bombs; and I can't recall the third instance). Little mention was made of the Palestinian war crimes (since the Gaza locals went, "Huh?" when pressed for information) - that is: aiming rockets at Israeli civilians; locating military installations amongst civilian housing; storing rockets in schools etc.
  My point here is the following: Richard Goldstone's report contained lies (he was played by the Hamas propaganda organs) that Goldstone himself has subsequently recanted as false. Reasonable people who only know about the lies form opinions that the Israelis are bad and war criminals based on this information. The reality is that the Palestinians were conducting the war crimes and the Israelis took great pains to fight as ethically as they could (investigating and prosecuting their own soldiers), but this information is not known my most ordinary folks. If ordinary and reasonable people knew this then they wouldn't condemn Israel on this count (settlements, I think we can all agree, are bad - but that is another matter).
  This is what makes putting out sensationalist lies so dangerous and why this guy 'reporting' hearsay to promote his book is so bad.
120. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Jonner · 2012-06-01 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war.
  
  You're absolutely right. All the claims that the US is a warlike country are false because we haven't been at war since 1945. Pay no attention to the police actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
121. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by interkin3tic · 2012-06-01 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ravenshrike wasn't making nearly as broad a statement as "everyone from chicago is corrupt." He's just saying Obama and a few others are a specific breed of corrupt politician.
  
  Ravenshrike also appears to either be trolling or suffering from delusions, and either way it would probably be in everyone's interests if he weren't allowed to vote, but at least he wasn't making such a broad stereotype.
122. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by baffled · 2012-06-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  But the government doesn't simply print money. The money has to be placed into circulation somehow. There's not some magical teller window at the Federal Reserve Bank where I can request heaps of cash for free.
  I know the Fed loans cash to banks, but at extremely low rates - the Discount rate I believe. So banks have access to really cheap loans, and they make money with higher-interest loans to everyone else. I think the Fed has rules that a bank can only receive Discount loans if they have some huge amount of money in some way - paper or liquid assets, I'm not sure. And I believe the Fed's website says any interest earned by them goes back into the Treasury. I don't know what happens when these banks default on their loans - or if they can. This is all over my pay grade, not my trade, etc.
  I wonder what's to stop any large/rich organization from fronting as a bank just to get access to cheap cash? Like wall street gamblers, venture capitalists, drug cartels, axis of evil states, etc.
  Then there's government bonds, personal and corporate taxes, tariffs, etc. Regardless of all the flows of money, the US government is dishing out loads of cash to banks just in interest from our massive debt. Wonder why we never hear about the public pushing Congress to pass some kind of mandate to force at least a balanced budget, if not a surplus to start widdling down the national debt? The media conglomerates only seem to report on Marijuana, Marriage, or some other crap that is supposedly more important in the mind of the average American. Forget separation between church and state, we need to be concerned with a separation between the media and the voting public.
123. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by doom · 2012-06-01 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  So the US is at war with North Korea then? Bush Jr. called them a member of the "Axis of Evil".
  Please work on the "sticks & stones" vs. name-calling distinction. Thanks.
124. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  I did not say that the U.S. is at war with Iran. I said that Iran is at war with the U.S.. There is a difference between calling someone evil and saying that someone is the "Great Adversary"....You do know what an adversary is don't you?
  In addition, if you look at Iran's actions it is clear that they are waging war against the U.S. in much the same way that the U.S. waged war against the Soviet Union.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
125. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-01 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, you asked for Chicago corruption. IIRC he was a city councilman at the time, of course his price has gone up sense then.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
126. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Phrogman · 2012-06-01 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  New Analogy: There's this tough thug in the neighborhood. He has a LOT of guns. He has used them to kill a LOT of people he disagreed with. Oh, sure, he claims to have a morale imperative to keep the neighborhood safe, but every time he uses his guns there is usually something in it for him too - stuff he can pick up cheap and give to his friends or keep for himself. Oh, many of his friends have a few guns too, but they are all his friends so there is no conflict over the fact that they are all armed - and are the only people who are armed.
  Now along comes someone new who decides they want a gun. True, the new arrival is a raving lunatic who is a bully that claims he wants to murder the local Jewish kid - so most people don't feel comfortable with him having a gun either, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest bully locally is still armed to the teeth and the only one who has ever actually fired a gun at someone and killed them.
  I am not comfortable with Iran developing Nuclear Weapons, I am not comfortable with North Korea developing them either. I am not comfortable with the major superpowers like the US, Russia or China having them either. I just know that the bullies in charge are not going to let anyone new into the club, and they aren't going to get rid of their weapons either.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
127. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-06-01 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Which is completely unconstitutional and displays profound ignorance about the constitution.
  
  Only the House of Representatives can impeach a president. Them and only them.
128. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by citylivin · 2012-06-01 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  So because america got to the gun first, they now get to dictate who else can have a gun? And enforce this dictation with sanctions and if necessary all out wars.
  That is tyranny on a global scale. Iran also does not claim to want the bomb. They claim to want nuclear power. All the sanctions and all that are basically punishing pre-crime, with the side effect of forcing them to be reliant on oil, CNG and coal. You can see how they might be upset with that, as you would be, being persecuted before committing a crime.
  Ontop of that american rhetoric about iran is just as vitriolic if not more so. Your two countries are more alike than either would care to admit.
  
  --
  As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
129. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by fnj · 2012-06-01 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  What has Iran done -- not talked about, not nationalist tough guy rhetoric, I'm talking real military action -- that suggests they are irrational enough to attack Tel Aviv under the clear and present threat of getting twice what we gave Saddam?
  OK, I'll bite. How about financing proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to conduct terrorist attacks against Israel? They are pretty brazen about this. See for example here. So yeah, they have been attacking Israel for a long time and getting away with very light consequences.
130. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I know what the fucking phrase is in reference to. I'm saying it has no fucking relevance to these events. Your example of the US media is not accurate.
131. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by sixtyeight · 2012-06-01 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Which is completely unconstitutional and displays profound ignorance about the constitution.
  Only the House of Representatives can impeach a president. Them and only them.
  From the bill (and the linked page):
  
  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
  
  --
  The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
132. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by khallow · 2012-06-01 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  So what? "Made possible" means shit.
  
  To the contrary, "made possible" means your country gets invaded and you get booted from power. This will provide considerable disincentive to future governments to play that sort of game with the US.
133. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by demachina · 2012-06-01 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, China is one of Iran's allies, so is Russia. India is on reasonably good terms with them as well. After spending 10 years and a trillion dollars the U.S. turned Iraq in to an Iranian ally too. They aren't really short of powerful friends and having lots of oil buys friends.
  China is banking on getting Iran's oil when the EU stops buying it this summer, India probably is too. Sanctioning oil seldom ever works except to enrich people who trade in sanctioned oil, its a very fungible commodity so its almost impossible to embargo. It helped make Marc Rich very rich.
  
  --
  @de_machina
134. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-06-01 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  That does nothing to change the fact that the Senate cannot impeach the President, only the House can , no matter the reason.
135. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by khallow · 2012-06-01 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  And can you guess why that has never been repeated since?
136. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Cigarra · 2012-06-01 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. US's invasion of Iraq was the criminal one.
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
137. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by sixtyeight · 2012-06-01 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  That does nothing to change the fact that the Senate cannot impeach the President, only the House can , no matter the reason.
  I don't understand the relevance of your point. The bill is moving to the House for resolution.
  
  --
  The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
138. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Rich0 · 2012-06-01 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  The US blew up an oil refinery in Russia during the cold war using tactics like this. While that might be considered an act of war, nobody really would have considered the US and USSR "at war" at the time.
139. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Rich0 · 2012-06-01 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the average US voter is more willing to trust the US government with this technology than anybody else. Hence the current US policy. Most other industrialized nations are inclined to agree, so they generally support it too. Obviously Iran doesn't, and this is just one more reason why they're a pariah...
140. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by Rich0 · 2012-06-01 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  The US did something similar to a huge USSR oil refinery back in the 80s. The mess that made makes this incident look like a few broken motors. The USSR never went to war over it, though I'm sure they knew what happened.
  Keep in mind that war has a HUGE cost. As much as you might posture for the masses, nobody with half a brain enters into it lightly. I'd be more concerned with dictators than with most since that premise doesn't always apply. Still, the Iranians must have figured that the damage to their complex is nothing compared to what they'd face if they actually started a shooting war.
  In a shooting war with the US there are a few fairly certain conclusions:
  1. The US would spend a LOT of money.
  2. On both sides lots of people would die. Almost certainly the toll would be much higher in Iran.
  3. The current regime in Iran is unlikely to be left standing, or anything bearing a resemblance to it.
  Some other possibilities include:
  4. Lots of dead people in nearby countries (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afganistan, etc).
  5. Loss of international support for the US.
  6. Political damage for parties running the US government at the time.
  7. Terrorist attacks in the US. These actually would be likely to reduce #5, and could make #6 either better or worse.
  Overall I think we can be confident that the US can handle the bill far better than the Iranians.
141. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by blagooly · 2012-06-01 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  "meeting that consisted of 3 people, president Obama, vice president Biden, and (At the time) CIA director Leon Panetta."... Next paragraph Mr. Obama asked “Should we shut this thing down? according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room." So Mr Panetta did not necessarily sneak out of the room with the info in his shorts. That was the other guy.********* But how would they "shut it down"? Besides issuing a press release, perhaps tell Siri, "Stuxnet Off!" ? Once this stuff is released, isn't control lost? There is an app for that.************ This is unconventional at best, sign of despeartion. But he has kept faith with the WoT, to my surprise. Unfortunately, nobdy seems to care.************ OT non question, what happened to the war protesters?
142. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the whole idea is that they're stealing the money from the taxpayer. From THEIR standpoint they're making money; they're getting more of the nation's wealth, giving them control over more aspects of your life.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
143. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-06-03 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's not guaranteed to work, and a politician would be risking his skin doing that. And they're so famous for taking big risks with their own skin ...
  Besides, it's not even necessary. If the NSA gave evidence that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in 6 months, congress would approve war. And frakly, so would I and any other sane American. The alternative is ending the oil era on Iran's terms, and will start a nuclear war in the middle of the region supplying 70% of the world's energy. The alternative is letting every economy crash to 1900 levels, and causing mass casualties worldwide the next winter.
144. Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-06-03 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  It only takes an act of congress to land troops on foreign soil with the intention of taking over territorial control. Everything else the president can do (outside of US national borders) ... but congress can impeach him for it.
  So there's no sneaky law violation going on here. It's just that what everybody knew 4 years ago is now in plain sight, Obama's far more of a warmonger than Bush, and does exactly what you'd expect a populist with declining popularity to do : start wars. He's much worse than Bush, Obama will start wars for his own personal electoral good, and presumably for other even more banal reasons. Bush at least believed he was doing the right thing, even if we did not agree on what exactly the right thing was.
Please don't stop by Rooked_One · 2012-06-01 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

giving me reasons to think both the dummycrats and retardlicans are on the same side.

ps - we aren't allow on their side.
We have always been at war with Eastarabia! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 00:53 · Score: 5, Funny

We have always been at war with Iran, citizen.
We have always been at war with Afghanistan. Even in the 1980s, when Saint Reagan gave vast funds to our allies, the Russians, to defeat Osama Bin Laden.
1. Re:We have always been at war with Eastarabia! by No2Gates · 2012-06-01 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, we used to be best buddies with Iran back when the Shah was in power. Now, not so much....
  
  --
  Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
2. Re:We have always been at war with Eastarabia! by cellocgw · 2012-06-01 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  And a great sound was heard in The Force, as though a million /.-ers had typed "whoooosh" at once.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
3. Re:We have always been at war with Eastarabia! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  WHOOOSH!
4. Re:We have always been at war with Eastarabia! by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Both wrong. We gave money to other people to screw with the USSR. Osama arrived on the scene late, and although he played no real role, claimed credit for defeating the Soviets. Osama was not affiliated with any of the groups that the U.S. gave money to (although the Pakistani government may have funneled some U.S. money to them, but the Pakistani government has been playing both sides of the fence since day one).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
5. Re:We have always been at war with Eastarabia! by Fned · 2012-06-01 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  "whooooosh" is oldspeak, brother.
  It's "doubleplus-highfast" now.
Sophisticated by SJHillman · 2012-06-01 00:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Rather than ordering more sophisticated attacks, why not just order more effective attacks?
1. Re:Sophisticated by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-01 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if you are trolling but that's sort of the same thing as saying a CEO shouldn't look to make decisions to clarify the company's strategy but he should make decisions to ensure the company only uses successful strategies.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Sophisticated by FurtiveGlancer · 2012-06-01 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Rather than ordering more sophisticated attacks, why not just order more effective attacks?
  Military grade refinement capable centrifuges failed (hardware damage) due to stuxnet. I'd call that effective.
  
  --
  Invenio via vel creo
3. Re:Sophisticated by VortexCortex · 2012-06-01 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Rather than ordering more sophisticated attacks, why not just order more effective attacks?
  By ordering more sophisticated attacks, they're ensuring that our enemies will also create more sophisticated cyber defences and attacks of their own... The hope is that this process will accelerate exponentially in sophistication resulting not only in Sentient Machine Intelligence, but prior to this, also The Year of Desktop Linux!
Not news by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-01 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Not news by Dragon+Bait · 2012-06-01 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"
  Yeah, but neither one really cares about freedom, capitalism, or free markets except when thumping their chests and running for office. Both are run by Mrs. Grundy who thinks she knows how to live your life better than you do.
2. Re:Not news by royallthefourth · 2012-06-01 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh actually they are run by investors
3. Re:Not news by harks · 2012-06-01 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you give the average investor the choice between a) freedom, capitalism, and free markets, and b) higher profits through having the law favor his investments, he will choose B every time.
First thoughts by Chrondeath · 2012-06-01 01:01 · Score: 1

First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?

Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.
hypocrisy by joe545 · 2012-06-01 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

With one hand, attack the nuclear computer systems of another country and with the other hand, demand extradition and decades of imprisonment for those who break into your systems to have a look around.
1. Re:hypocrisy by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-01 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  America represents all that is good, remember? Any attack on America, no matter how insignificant, is an attack on good and is therefore evil.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's correct. The sentiment is rare since this site is filled with anti-American hatred. Those who post here should have it come up during clearance investigations, just like a foreign contact would.
3. Re:hypocrisy by Nidi62 · 2012-06-01 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You do realize pretty much every country both commits espionage and has laws against espionage against itself, right?
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
4. Re:hypocrisy by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Espionage is not an act of war. Sabotage is.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
5. Re:hypocrisy by Nidi62 · 2012-06-01 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  The GP didn't mention sabotage. He mentioned breaking in and looking around. That is pretty much the definition of espionage.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
6. Re:hypocrisy by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-01 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  The article is about sabotage.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
7. Re:hypocrisy by ClioCJS · 2012-06-01 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  And the GP's comment comes in the larger context of this article and its discussion, which is sabotage.
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
8. Re:hypocrisy by gl4ss · 2012-06-01 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  well... in history there's cases of a foreign nation exploding bombs via agents destroying industrial property on american soil and that wasn't enough for them to declare war, because it was so good for business to sell to both sides of the FUCKING WORLD WAR! (it took even further action to do anything about it).
  there's no consistency there, only hypocrisy.
  and I'd say that there's just about around 8 countries which commit espionage via national institutions, of which maybe 4 get anything done. if some companies do it in more countries that's another matter. and the value in the few big powers committing it can be severely questioned as well. is somalia committing espionage? I really doubt finding out where the refugee camps are in neighboring countries counts as espionage. or maybe iran commits "espionage" by simply importing dell's without usa authorization.
  biggest fails of american government is that should some foreign state actually decide and manage to assassinate the president of the usa then in historical context, when looked back 200 years from now, that would be a totally fine course of action - because the standard rule of engagement for usa for some time now has been to "cut off the head of the snake" when it's committing "police action", that is to try to kill the enemy leader by any means they can as quick as they can.
  they should just declare war to iran, would make things so much simpler. that wouldn't require them to start battles, but at least they should be up-front about them considering iranian targets free game for things illegal to do to other targets. that would have kept them from going to the hole of being legit targets for hacking.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
9. Re:hypocrisy by tqk · 2012-06-01 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  you fool, he is joking.
  You fool, the AC is not.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
10. Re:hypocrisy by chill · 2012-06-01 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is an act of war unless war is actually declared subsequent to that. Unless you're considering terms like "Cold War", the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" to be real "war".
  The U.S. and Soviets did this for decades and no hot war ever broke out. Sabotage, assassination, espionage, territorial incursion and the whole ball of wax.
  Yes, the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a "cold" war -- and have been since 1979.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
11. Re:hypocrisy by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-01 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is an act of war unless war is actually declared subsequent to that.
  No. There is a clear definition what is and what isn't an act of war, and it is consistently used when countries have to deal with each other. What is a war in the opinion of some US government officials has nothing to do with it.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
12. Re:hypocrisy by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-01 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  The U.S. and Soviets did this for decades and no hot war ever broke out. Sabotage, assassination, espionage, territorial incursion and the whole ball of wax.
  "Cold War" did not involve sabotage, killing of government officials or members of the military.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.
1. Re:Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" by thedonger · 2012-06-01 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  *cough* election year *cough*
  
  --
  Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
2. Re:Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" by kilfarsnar · 2012-06-01 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.
  Thank you for providing an example of how people should interpret the news. Many still think the news is there to inform them, when in actuality it is there to tell them what to think. "Why would somebody want this story public?" is always the right question to ask when dealing with any spokesperson or press agent, corporate or government.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
3. Re:Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" by Tablizer · 2012-06-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that there were too many accidental clues in the code that pointed to us and the "izzies". The press kept probing these clues and after a while the State Dept. had to admit it.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Depends on what you mean by war by Uniquitous · 2012-06-01 01:12 · Score: 1

If by war you mean "destruction of property" then yes, I suppose you could say we're at war. But then you'd be using such an overly broad definition of "war" as to make the term useless.
1. Re:Depends on what you mean by war by h4rr4r · 2012-06-01 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  I believe he means that certain actions are considered "acts of war" meaning we just handed Iran a reason to say we are already at war with them.
  Normally destruction of a governments property is considered an act of war. This would meet the first requirement in the UN charter for a legal war. Iran can now attack the USA stating that it is defending itself against further attacks. In reality they will not, they are just being used to make the Israelis and a subset of the American population happy.
  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli.
well at least we now know by circletimessquare · 2012-06-01 01:12 · Score: 1

who wrote stuxnet

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Unnamed Sources? by Post-O-Matron · 2012-06-01 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".
Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?
1. Re:Unnamed Sources? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".
  Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?
  The NYTimes is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. Re:Unnamed Sources? by DerekLyons · 2012-06-01 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?
  This is Slashdot. We don't need evidence if the story confirms our prejudices.
3. Re:Unnamed Sources? by Will.Woodhull · 2012-06-01 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  No evidence, no. Leaking evidence would be both unnecessary and foolhardy.
  The story does fit the pattern though. Stuxnet causes damage, the Iranians begin to develop an effective defense against it, and then all kinds of stories emerge about how big, bad, and really subtle stuxnet is. Forcing the Iranians to counter a larger possible threat than what stuxnet probably first seemed to be. Flamer causes damage, directly to the Iranian Oil Ministry, and the Iranians begin to develop an effective defense against it, then stories begin to emerge about how massive, multi-pronged, and difficult to eradicate Flamer might be. Now, just as Iran announces that it has an adequate defense against Flamer, we get this NYT that suggests all kinds of other nasties might already be in Iranian computer systems. Messing around with this and that, maybe screwing up the inventories of spare parts for war machines... Who knows what.
  There must now be some Iranian hardliners who are thinking that maybe the country needs to put its resources into developing its very own super-hardened operating system and getting rid of all these foreign OSs with all their attendant risks. From a USA and Israeli POV, that would not be a bad thing. It has cost $$billions to develop the Microsoft and Apple ecosystems, and Linux has grown with gifts that would also be worth $$billions, if its ecosystem was based on a market economy rather than a gift exchange model. If Iran was to pour $$billions into making its own little software ecosystem, it would be much less of a threat to the rest of the world.
  
  --
  Will
4. Re:Unnamed Sources? by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-01 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  lol
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
5. Re:Unnamed Sources? by Walterk · 2012-06-01 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  This is Slashdot. We don't need evidence if the story confirms our prejudices.
  [citation needed]
  
  --
  
  "If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
6. Re:Unnamed Sources? by Necroman · 2012-06-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  This was the same thought that came into my head as I was reading this as it was plastered all over the internet. Sure, it makes some huge claims (that many of us already suspected), but there isn't any direct proof. This tells a good story that seems to fit with the facts we know, but doesn't seem to go any further in offering proof that certain governments were involved.
  
  --
  Its not what it is, its something else.
7. Re:Unnamed Sources? by FurtiveGlancer · 2012-06-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  The NYTimes is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  Absolutely. A terrible reputation is still a reputation.
  
  --
  Invenio via vel creo
8. Re:Unnamed Sources? by sgt_doom · 2012-06-01 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sanger is one of those "pre-financed" writers (like Sorkin, Javers, Harris, David Wise, etc., etc.) who print what they are told --- they simply repeat the disinformation and misinformation. Remember who owns HarperCollins?
9. Re:Unnamed Sources? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-06-01 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  The NYTimes is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  
  Forty-nine years after its editorial mocking Goddard, on July 17, 1969 — the day after the launch of Apollo 11 — The New York Times published a short item under the headline "A Correction." The three-paragraph statement summarized its 1920 editorial, and concluded: Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error
  So, yes they do follow up and correct their mistakes.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Why This Misconception of Obama? by eldavojohn · 2012-06-01 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?
Well, let's see ... would Obama be the kind of person to do this? His track record so far:

Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Now considering all that, um, I think ordering a speed up of cyberattacks on Iran where no one dies might be something he does on a whim over coffee on a given morning.

Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.
That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by DroolTwist · 2012-06-01 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Peace through superior firepower.
2. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by iserlohn · 2012-06-01 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In a way you are right - perception trumps reality. However, Obama's also chose his targets well. Unlike Bush which steamrolled his way into a bad situation with Iraq, Obama actually put some thought into the exit scenarios before pushing ahead with his agenda covertly. That contributes to the efficacy in these relatively low-key operations.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
3. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-06-01 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  Code Pink has continued its protests and movement activities, targeting both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama administration officials, over the continued wars and insufficient domestic spending.
4. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by h4rr4r · 2012-06-01 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Or they have different opinons on different wars?
  Being fought in different ways.
5. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by jythie · 2012-06-01 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  They still seem pretty active to me.... not sure where you are getting the idea that they are now silent.
6. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Fosterocalypse · 2012-06-01 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable? I was thinking the same thing throughout the entire article. Especially since it is all spreading saying it is confirmed that the US is behind it. I was also wondering how the reporter got the exact quotes of Obama and Biden ....If this was so classified how is this person getting "Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.” "
7. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Nidi62 · 2012-06-01 02:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. .
  Now, I am admittedly not an Obama fan, never have been. But I have a hard time calling the al-Awlaki incident an assassination. The man declared war on the US and was leadership in an organization actively targeting and fighting the US. Now, to make a comparison, back during World War II Germany tried to get a lot of Germans living abroad to come back to Germany. Some of these were people living and born in the United States, and some of them joined the German military. You cannot call it an assassination if they were killed fighting the US. To me what happened with al-Awlaki is no different. This is among one of the few things he's done that I can support and get behind.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
8. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Jiro · 2012-06-01 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because the media, who are biased in favor of Obama, aren't giving them the free publicity that they used to get when they were going up against Bush.
9. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by jythie · 2012-06-01 02:23 · Score: 2
  
  It could also be argued that the conservative media is not interested in reporting on them since it breaks with the 'Obama is an anti-military liberal' if anti-military groups are protesting him.
  
  Come to think of it, most of the press such groups got was via conservative media....
10. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-06-01 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Code Pink has continued its protests and movement activities, targeting both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama administration officials,
  Just out of curiosity, have they targeted Mr. Obama himself?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
11. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Jiro · 2012-06-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie.
  At this point, I wouldn't say Obama is like a peace loving hippie. Obama is a typical corrupt politician who happened to choose the left wing as the group he'd get cozy with to advance in politics and get elected. So he publicly supports all sorts of left-wing causes and groups, and gives them what they want because it's political patronage. Stuxnet was created in secret; what they don't know about they won't complain about, and since he doesn't actually care about their cause, it didn't prevent him from supporting it.
  As for his other military adventures, he probably is aware that those acts are better for getting elected than the loss of leftist support is for not getting elected, which is the bottom line. And not many leftists would reject him for killing Osama anyway.
  He's also done a bunch of other non-peacenik things, even where the peaceniks are right: he's supported warrantless wiretapping (to the point where the Supreme Court actually asked the administration if they were going to change their position now that Obama was in office and they said no).
12. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by operagost · 2012-06-01 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that they aren't being covered in the mainstream media?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
13. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Mashiki · 2012-06-01 03:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Of course not. Just like Van Jones and the large variety of environmental groups looked the other way on Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill. Hell the guy was even bold enough to come right out and say it. They're just hypocrites, so no big shock.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
14. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-01 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, maybe it's those biased liberal bastards hiding them. Or they've been doing it for years and it's no longer news.
  
  NEWS AT 11: Woman protesters still speaking out against Afghanistan conflict that started 11 years ago, have painted new signs.
15. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by h4rr4r · 2012-06-01 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I guess they can't.
  So they would have even opposed WW2?
16. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by phantomfive · 2012-06-01 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Saying "Bush was incompetent" is not the same as saying "Obama is creating peace in the world."
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
17. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie
  No, they don't. The only people who say this are those who only say it so they can bitch and moan about how he's not living up to that standard that they are making up themselves. Much of what he's done, especially the drone stuff in Pakistan, is all stuff he said he was going to do when he was campaigning.
18. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that Fox News isn't reporting on them kinda disproves your theory.
19. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Hatta · 2012-06-01 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...
  What, you think Obama voters are aware enough to look at his track record? Try discussing the above with an Obama supporter. It's all "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" with that crowd. If they even bother to mount a defense, they'll blame Congress, ignoring that Obama is Commander in Chief and completely in charge of the DOD and DOJ.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
20. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  "The man declared war on the US and was leadership in an organization actively targeting and fighting the US."
  According to whose evidence?
21. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by gtall · 2012-06-01 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Obama on national TV in 2009, right after the inaugural: Hello American People. George Bush left me a clandestine cybercampaign to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and touching off a nuclear arms race in the MidEast. I am going to expand this clandestine cybercampaign in the hopes we won't have to use kinetic weapons to stop Iran. We expect to cause their centrifuges to explode, they'll never know what hit them....bwahahahahahaha!!!
  Iran, right after Obama's TV speech: We are announcing increased security to prevent the U.S. from destroying our Sacred Centrifuges.
  Yep, let Obama do everything in the open so he cannot be accused of being "corrupt". What kind of bunny world do you live in?
22. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by sgt_doom · 2012-06-01 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie.
  You watch a lot of FoxFiction, right? ? ? You head is permanently affixed up your ....
  Seriously, are you the last douchetard left who is unaware of Obama's 100% neocon administration? Perhaps you truly believe the sock puppet in the Oval Office is running things? That there hasn't been a perfect neocon continuum since at least Reagan, probably since Nixon, really?
23. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-06-01 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, particularly around NDAA issues and drone attacks.
24. Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? by Mitreya · 2012-06-01 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  To me what happened with al-Awlaki is no different. This is among one of the few things he's done that I can support and get behind.
  I could argue with you, but there is so much more to point out... Can you also get behind the assassination of al-Awlaki's 16-year old son?
  We are so much past debating one difficult ethical dilemma now (was it ok to kill Osama? Was it ok to kill al-Awlaki?). We are up to, is it ok to kill dozens of people some of whom had been declared "terrorists" by an internal White House review.
Where are all the naysayers by crazyjj · 2012-06-01 01:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

When Stuxnet came out, every time someone posted that it was likely the creation of Israel and/or the U.S., they were greeted by a surprising number of deniers who were trying to claim it was Russia or Saudi Arabia, or maybe that Iran *themselves* created it, etc. Of course, this was insane. But there seem to be a LOT of people out there who have their head buried in the sand when it comes to U.S./Israeli intelligence activities in Iran. I bet even now if I were to say that Mossad had assassinated all those Iranian nuclear scientists, there would be several idiots who would jump up and claim it was someone else, or that Iran had just staged the assassinations.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Where are all the naysayers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The people you talk about are probably on the payroll, we had some forums once and every time we got a little anti American or anti Isreal two posters would always pop up and defend them. It seemed it was their only posts ever. Now eventually me and a friend did some research and found out there are large numbers of people employed to just give Isreal and the USA good press on the net.
2. Re:Where are all the naysayers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I've seen this too. There was a guy on a forum I was on who literally would never post ANYTHING unless a thread some how mentioned Israel, then he would go in and call everyone racist and talk about how Israel is the greatest gift to Freedom in history blah blah blah. And there was no way he was just a generic troll because he never posted in other threads even threads with really trollabe topics. Only Israel.
3. Re:Where are all the naysayers by poity · 2012-06-01 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt they were claiming it was Russia or SA with the same conviction as those claiming it was the USA. From what I remember, those people were pointing out that absent any proof one could just as easily believe another country did it since Iran has no true friends around the world, and that even its allies like Russia have reasons to fear an Iran with nuclear weapons.
  I remember in those threads I tended to point out the inconsistency of the aggregate /. mind in raising "occam's razor" in some threads while dismissing it in others.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
4. Re:Where are all the naysayers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  a) just because someone is only interested in posting pro-Israel content doesn't mean they are on the payroll.
  b) also, it doesn't mean they aren't
  My blog started getting a lot of non-browser hits about 4 yrs ago - some were "abusive" to my bandwidth, so I looked up where they were from - besides Baidu (who does not honor robots.txt), there were lots and lots of "brand awareness" crawlers and oddly named crawlers from cities in Maryland and Northern Virginia. I decided to block them at the firewall, completely. Baidu was blocked in the reverse proxy, since they had entirely too many subnets and were over 50% of my total traffic, but only sent 1 or 2 redirects a month. At the time, Google was 5% of the traffic but 98% of the redirects for anyone interested. Those stats have changed a little, I'm seeing more bing redirect, but still almost nothing compared to google.
  Those crawlers from the DC area were interested in political content, not my complaints about Canonical, Microsoft, Oracle or Redhat. They didn't seem to care at all about virtualization, which is the primary reason for my little blog with 85% of the content.
  I believe in the US Constitution and most amendments, though I would add more protections for privacy from our and other governments across the board.
  Meddling in other countries without either their people or government asking is bad, provided they don't intend to harm others outside their borders. I must just be naive about the ways that governments interact with each other.
5. Re:Where are all the naysayers by ducomputergeek · 2012-06-01 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  And why can't it be both Israel as well the regime? Some, and I'd even say most of the assassinations over the past decade, have been the work of Israel. But there are one or two cases where the targets happened to be supporters of the Green Movement that makes one have to sit back and say "hmmmm." Specifically I'm thinking of the assassination of Professor Ali Mohammad.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
6. Re:Where are all the naysayers by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't remember people claiming it was Russia or Saudi Arabia. I remember people claiming that there were several other equally probable countries that might be behind it besides the U.S. or Israel (with a few saying that they personally thought it was one or another of those other countries).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
7. Re:Where are all the naysayers by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-06-01 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there was a story a week or so back whose author claimed that Iran was responsible for those assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. It was at least as reliably sourced as this story.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
8. Re:Where are all the naysayers by sgt_doom · 2012-06-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Valid points --- no disagreement from my end, speaking of which:
  
  Reality Chronicles
  
  Before you can understand their Great Game, you must understand their Grand Design.
  The Corporation
  The oldest corporation, of Anglo-Dutch origin, is also the longest enduring corporation in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps the world, predating the Norman Conquest of 1066, officially the City of London Corporation (“The City”), owner of property in the financial districts of Wall Street, Hong Kong, Sydney and Dubai.
  The City and the City Cash. (City Cash may well be the longest continuing financial fund in history, going back at least eight centuries.)
  Globalization
  The process whereby the Transnational Capitalist Class colonizes the planet. It’s really that simple.
  Ultra-Leverage
  Securitization and resecuritizations take place on Wall Street (although usually legally recorded in Delaware), then they are transferred to The City, or London, for further leveraging through their process of rehypothecation.
  The Corporation, Globalization and Ultra-Leverage.
  Their Grand Design, their Great Game.
  In economic warfare, sides must be chosen.
  Of course, there is the human factor; there have been mistakes.
  Hitler, Stalin and Mao veered off course.
  Nixon was supposed to have been elected president originally in 1960, not 1968, but a crafty criminal mastermind named Joe Kennedy altered that.
  Inexorably though, their power and wealth and extreme criminal ways too often succeed.
  Sides must be chosen.
  (Parochial-minded and egocentric types who have never read foreign news, news and publications outside their mother countries, won't be aware of the international scope of things, the obvious patterns.They won't be familiar with the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Taxpayer Union, and a host of other global associations which serve as the guiding templates to national and local associations.)
9. Re:Where are all the naysayers by plover · 2012-06-01 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because this story fits so well with the facts we've already heard. There is the video of the Israeli general's retirement party where he acknowledged they were celebrating his victory with Stuxnet. There are the claims that the U.S. had the leftover Libyan centrifuges, that they couldn't get them to work so they shared some with the U.K., and when they didn't get them working either so they gave them to Israel who figured out how to both make them work and how to sabotage them. There are the estimates by Langner who posited that the complexity of Stuxnet meant a very well-funded, extremely talented group of developers. There is the evidence of the two Chinese frequency controller factories, both of whom had their private keys stolen, presumably by physical break-ins to the plants by spies.
  And there are the facts of the worm's behavior. Its first incarnation was only to perform reconnaissance. It wasn't weaponized until the components found themselves in precisely the configuration of the Natanz centrifuges. It would cause no damage to any kind of facility other than Natanz (or Busheshr). It was precisely stealthy. All these suggest great expense in creating a very specifically targeted weapon, as opposed to a randomly opportunistic criminal or vandal.
  Now, if someone were to look at all these other facts and wanted to spin a tale that weaved in threads of Obama and the U.S., then this story would be an almost perfect fit. But any other explanation right now would strain credulity. This story looks far more more like corroborating evidence than an attempt to divert attention away from any other players that have been mentioned before, such as China, the mob, Estonian hackers, or even from Iran staging an attack trying to gain international sympathy.
  I think the time for nay-saying is over.
  
  --
  John
Re:Why would anyone ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:16 · Score: 3, Informative

They didn't. Agents infiltrated the facility, in person, in order to introduce the software.
Then, it escaped, because, allegedly, some unwitting Iranian scientist at the facility inadvertently infected his own laptop, while they were attempting to debug the centrifuges. He then brought the laptop home, as the story goes, and connected the infected laptop to the internet, using his personal residential internet connection.
Obama is a reader by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:16 · Score: 1

I'm sure he's read this book
"Gutsy" Move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:20 · Score: 5, Funny

I can see a campaign commercial now.
Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.
1. Re:"Gutsy" Move by Dragon+Bait · 2012-06-01 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  I can see a campaign commercial now.
  Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.
  USB key? I thought it was a Mac Book Pro ....
2. Re:"Gutsy" Move by Datamonstar · 2012-06-01 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  But first he stopped to log into Facebook and holla at one of his shawties.
  
  --
  The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Re:Olympic Games? by camperdave · 2012-06-01 01:21 · Score: 1

The US is bankrupt (some would say "in more ways than one"), so they could sue, but they wouldn't get anything.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I am ashamed to be an american by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
Every single thing that we complain about Iran being is our fucking fault and now we blatantly continue with our evil foreign policy.
Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.
1. Re:I am ashamed to be an american by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 02:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It is a great wiki article, thanks for the refresher ;-)
  Half way down is an interesting quote that brings this back to the original topic:
  "The action was publicized within Iran by the CIA and in the United States by The New York Times.
2. Re:I am ashamed to be an american by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  I assume if your are that 'ashamed' then you are actively doing something about it. That is not something you have to live with.
  There are a number of things that I am not proud to say is happening in this country. But at no point would I say I was ashamed. This is just me but I am still proud of this country. Now I realize time will tell if I can still continue to say that.
  To be honest if I ever got to the point where I was really ashamed; that what we have become overshadows all our historical high points; that no reasonable act on my part would change my feelings; then at that point I would leave.
3. Re:I am ashamed to be an american by Princeofcups · 2012-06-01 03:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
  Every single thing that we complain about Iran being is our fucking fault and now we blatantly continue with our evil foreign policy.
  Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.
  Someone should post that link every time someone spews "Islam is evil. They hate us for our freedoms."
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
4. Re:I am ashamed to be an american by tqk · 2012-06-01 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.
  I think your citizenry still largely stand for those things. Your government hasn't for quite some time.
  It's interesting that in Ajax, it was Britain that was peed off and wanted to change things, and the US went along. Now, the UK is considered the US' lapdog.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Why would anyone ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.
Less concerned about war, more about retaliation by adosch · 2012-06-01 01:23 · Score: 2

I'm less concerned about going to 'troops-on-the-ground' war with Iran than I am having this Stuxnet-a-la-Flame end back up in the United States lap that cripples some of our infrastructure. Obama has cracked the egg on remote warfare with this cyber-terrorism code slingers and the uber ramp up of drone usage from the end of the Bush era.
FTFA, our officials should have a good check on the premise that cyber warfare's shock value of implementation is very unexciting. It's different when you have physical assets to move around the globe vs. telling a someone to sling code and infiltrate an infrstructure such as an Iranian nuclear facility. You don't see the benefits or out-of-controllness in chunks, it's all or nothing once it's in place.
Re:Oh great by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-01 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every time you go to use the word "muzzie" like that, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and run the sentence through your head before you say it.
Does it still sound like a clever thing to say?
Bad news for USA and Israel by sl4shd0rk · 2012-06-01 01:27 · Score: 1

Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway. If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option. Nice job derps.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by unixisc · 2012-06-01 01:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In retaliation, Iranian agents have infiltrated Microsoft, Canonical and GNOME and designed the next generation of user interfaces like Metro, Unity and GNOME3, so that Western Computer users will stop using computers, and attempts to sabotage their computers will be minimized. Imagine Pentagon officials having to struggle w/ GNOME3. Imagine Israeli cybercrime experts having to do this on Unity.
2. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by Nidi62 · 2012-06-01 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  The best spy any state can have in the US is our own media. They don't even have to pay them.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway.
  As you say, they probably had it in mind anyway.
  
  If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option.
  They haven't been caught. Unnamed sources have implicated them; thats not "getting caught" for diplomatic purposes.
  Frankly, nobody wants nukes in Iran except Iran. The rest of the world is quietly applauding the delays that Stuxnet caused.
  The only thing that's making higher-ups in security circles nervous is the growing awareness that computer systems are apparently fair game for attacks. Some of them feel that US and/or Israeli intervention in Iran by way of targeted malware represents a sort of watershed, even though China (and very likely Russia, North Korea, and the USA) has been conducting state-sponsored hacking for years before Stuxnet. Nobody cares about Iran; it's the broader implications of cyber cold wars that people are worried about.
4. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by fredrated · 2012-06-01 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  You are so right.
  Having been forced to give up Win XP and move to windos 7, I look forward to plunging an ice pick through my eye and into my brain.
5. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by kilfarsnar · 2012-06-01 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway. If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option. Nice job derps.
  Iran already had reason enough. We've been fucking with them for a while now. But they won't, because on the world stage right and wrong are just quaint sentimentalities. It's all about power, and the US still has more than Iran does. Having "justifiable reasons" only matters when one is trying to convince the public to support a given agenda.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
6. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by Alex+Belits · 2012-06-01 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Actually everyone but US, Israel and Saudi Arabia wants Iran to have nuclear weapons as soon as possible -- then US will shut up about Iran forever.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
7. Re:Bad news for USA and Israel by fnj · 2012-06-01 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that Microsoft can deliberately drop support for the older Windows operating system, forcing users to migrate to newer, vastly inferior Windows operating systems. And since their shit is proprietary, no one can "adopt" redevelopment of the abandonware they don't want any more.
  But with open source systems, the codebase for Gnome2 can't be made to disappear just because the original developers have developed collective insanity and moved on to the execrable Gnome3. In fact, Gnome2 has indeed been adopted by a new set of developers. Or people can just use a perfectly good replacement. Because with open source systems you're not locked into an official One Way of doing things.
Re:Why would anyone ..... by crazyjj · 2012-06-01 01:28 · Score: 1, Informative

Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet?
They didn't. Stuxnet was apparently brought into the system physically on the infected flash drives of some Russian contractors working on it.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Why would anyone ..... by buchner.johannes · 2012-06-01 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet? I'm going to assume by now that Iran has figured out that the US is trying to sabotage their equipment. You would think that Iran would take any sensitive equipment offline and avoid applying any patches from foreign sources.

Have you been sleeping during the past coverage of Stuxnet, and the analysis by researchers? Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:Why would anyone ..... by Dragon+Bait · 2012-06-01 01:50 · Score: 2

Then, it escaped, because, allegedly, some unwitting Iranian scientist at the facility inadvertently infected his own laptop, while they were attempting to debug the centrifuges. He then brought the laptop home, as the story goes, and connected the infected laptop to the internet, using his personal residential internet connection.
...

Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.
And just goes to show that even if you have the best security policies in place, some bozo is going to know better than the retards running the IT department and just do things his way.
Here is why the US government spends so much... by 3seas · 2012-06-01 01:51 · Score: 1

... of the tax payers funding on warfare technology.
When you screw others enough it simply wouldn't be intelligent to not expect retaliation and when you can use tax payer funding without their knowledgeable consent...
This is about Banking and about getting everyone on the same abusive and controlling banking system.
Money is an abstract representation of value and honestly only intended to ease trade... but its instead become a produce in and of itself in order to manipulate and control economies around the world (yet disconnected from the real value it is supposed to represent). So any country resisting this with their own economic system is a threat to the banksters and their church and government cohorts. (the countries of Vatican City, London sq mile and Washington District of Columbia).
Someone selling book + NY Times = Non-Story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only fact I see in all this is: The USA has not officially taken responsibility for an international incident.
This story is by someone making sensationalist claims to sell a book, and the NY Times is helping promote it.
As usual, the NY Times reporter relies on anonymous sources. No one knows how reliable they are. No one knows who they are.
The NY Times and their anonymous sources are known to be wrong, like the WMD in Iraq. So we trust them now?
The NY Times is known to make up news, such as Jason Blair. Can anything they say about Stuxnet be independently verified as being correct? No?
1. Re:Someone selling book + NY Times = Non-Story by cdrguru · 2012-06-01 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Good that you have the sense to filter out the hype and see through to the underlying BS.
  Now, are you sure the folks in Iran have the same abilities? Or, might they just believe this 100%?
  Stuxnet cost them time and likely tens of millions of dollars. I would expect them to present the bill soon.
The U.S. government is corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any government that holds secret wars is extremely corrupt. That taxpayer pays for tinkering that almost always causes more trouble, giving the secret agencies more work and more demands on the taxpayers.
1. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So, every major government in human history. Got it.
2. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by Korin43 · 2012-06-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
3. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Idealism and naïveté is a #1 world problem that too many citizens like yourself suck down in gallons.
  Your government is not there to ask you or any of its taxpaying populace permission for actions you may not agree with. That's what elected officials (and those they appoint) are for numbnuts – to make decisions for you (so go vote). Sometimes those decisions are ugly. Grow up and get real.
4. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by luis_a_espinal · 2012-06-01 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  Any government that holds secret wars is extremely corrupt. That taxpayer pays for tinkering that almost always causes more trouble, giving the secret agencies more work and more demands on the taxpayers.
  Yeah, damned the government for keeping the actual date and location of D-Day as a state secret </stupid>
5. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by swillden · 2012-06-01 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Any government that holds secret wars is extremely corrupt. That taxpayer pays for tinkering that almost always causes more trouble, giving the secret agencies more work and more demands on the taxpayers.
  Yeah, damned the government for keeping the actual date and location of D-Day as a state secret </stupid>
  Operational security in a declared war is completely different from a secret war.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
6. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by fnj · 2012-06-01 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, damned the government for keeping the actual date and location of D-Day as a state secret </stupid>
  Operational security during during a declared war is hardly the same thing as carrying on clandestine hostilities without declaring war. But I hardly think you're so stupid you don't know that.
7. Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. by rtb61 · 2012-06-01 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Especially on weapons that can easily and readily be 'EDITED' and turned around and used against the citizens unknowingly funding it. The really stupid bit is no defence can be created against those weapons and distributed to the public because the supposed 'enemy' becomes aware of them and can access them. Of course this means playing, how to put it politely, playing fuckwit's blind man's bluffs with the bugs that you find hoping some other governments or criminal haven't found them and are going to exploit them.
  You really have to look at the whole picture to see how blindingly stupid it well and truly is, what kind myopic morons indulge in it and the shallow thinking, brain dead, idiotic buffoons who authorise it. Not being a lover of M$ but in the case of stuxnet the US government apparently authorised an attack on the commercial viability of the software in terms of security that likely cost them billions in lost sales, really fucking bright. So for any foreign country that gets burnt by a commercial bug or security fault, don't ever keep it a secret, publicly advertise it as loudly as possible and right royally screw over the commercial software company that produced the software, which logically will come from the same country that is choosing to exploit it, instant public revenge many times more costly than the attack.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Oh great by Nidi62 · 2012-06-01 01:59 · Score: 1

Jews can be just as fanatic as some Muslims can. The same with Christians, Atheists, and Hindus. They can all also be just as tolerant as the other, too. Don't blame the religion for the actions of a person, blame the individual.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
In love with the unaccountable power of technology by anti-pop-frustration · 2012-06-01 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Got to love how Obama went from "Blackberry Candidate" to "Cyber Sabotage & Drone 'Secret Kill List' President". He's clearly in love with the unaccountable power that technology offers.

It's sickening to see how everyone in the US political establishment (Democrats, Republicans ie. all "respectable" people) cheer when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad. And boy do they love how "clean" and "efficient" those are. Hey, no Americans were hurt, the public loves to hear about the military killing bad guys and since these are conducted in remote areas, the US government doesn't even have to deal with the bad PR of "weeping widows" videos. It's all good! Who needs to seek Congress approval for declaring war, when technology allows you to wage a permanent and global secret war?

It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.

Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes? They are breeding generations of new enemies. The next time terrorists successfully blow up Americans or Americans allies, ask yourself: how would you react if people from your home town/area/country were droned in the night by a foreign power?

And if you were Iranian and you heard that the US is actively trying to sabotage your country's nuclear program, wouldn't that increase your support for the Iranian government and its policy to get nuclear technology, even when you actually loath Ahmadinejad and his authoritarian regime?
Re:Oh great by kilfarsnar · 2012-06-01 02:02 · Score: 1

Those muzzies are so stupid they'll probably not realise it is a codeword and bomb the Olympics for infecting their computers
Muzzies? Is that what we're calling them now? What happened to rag-head, towel-head, Haji, and sand nigger? Camel Jockey? I just can't keep up with the bigoted slurs.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The questions is: why is Sanger allowed to publish by stiebing.ja · 2012-06-01 02:08 · Score: 1

What does the U.S. administration think they will win of it when the book is published ritgh now? Thats the question.
If they would not like it to be published now the book would not be published ever - or am I too unrealistic?

Or does Mr. Sander just qualify to be the next one being accused of rape of some poor lower class girl? As this seems to be the only modern answer to denigrate someone so that every normal person is indignant.

--
I lag
Re:Why would anyone ..... by Datamonstar · 2012-06-01 02:15 · Score: 1

We've been preaching for years that physical access is an end game situation. Nothing new, and no I do not think this will help drive the point home any more thoroughly. Leaders (of both the political and corporate variety) will go on believing themselves safe because of elaborate and seemingly secure security implementations that fail because they gave data center keys to the janitor.

--
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Perspective by Elliott+in+NJ · 2012-06-01 02:17 · Score: 1

Don't do as I do, do as I say do.
No, I *am* your father. by tepples · 2012-06-01 02:58 · Score: 1

Obama single handily Killed Osama
In the same way that Darth Vader killed Luke Skywalker's father in The Empire Strikes Back. O[bs]ama was just tired of leading a double life, so he retired his multiple personality.
(just kidding)
1. Re:No, I *am* your father. by mcmonkey · 2012-06-01 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Obama single handily Killed Osama
  In the same way that Darth Vader killed Luke Skywalker's father in The Empire Strikes Back. O[bs]ama was just tired of leading a double life, so he retired his multiple personality.
  (just kidding)
  I think Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious is a better analogy. There wasn't a time where Vader and Anakin were fighting for opposite sides, unlike the period of time Palpatine/Sidious was the leader for both sides of the Clone Wars.
Re:Why would anyone ..... by mikael · 2012-06-01 03:00 · Score: 1

According to Kaspersky research, Stuxnet and Duqu would spread by USB mmory stick. A logical decision if there are computers on an isolated internal network. A not so good idea if someone uses a USB stick or just a single server as a data airlock.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Why would anyone ..... by tqk · 2012-06-01 03:05 · Score: 2

Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks.
"Okay Microsoft, we'll let you off on the antitrust shit if you'll make sure we can compromise anybody's computer."
"How about if we enable something stupid like autorun?"
"Won't that mean any computer will be vulnerable to anyone plugging in a USB key?"
"Yes."
"Do it."

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Subtle sarcasm by Quila · 2012-06-01 03:55 · Score: 1

I almost thought you meant that seriously
Re:Oh great by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-01 03:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, and don't forget that the only successful terrorist attacks in country were carried out by Christian fanatics.
Your loaded word by Quila · 2012-06-01 04:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad
They are not assassinations. As you note, this is a war. Killing enemies during a war, by whatever means, is not an assassination. We targeted Yamamoto during WWII, shot down his plane. Assassination? No, not called that.

Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes?
Yes, we're taking out a lot of their guys. If this pisses off their supporters, or if they're fond of using human shields, then too bad. Shooting down Yamamoto really pissed off the Japanese too.
1. Re:Your loaded word by anti-pop-frustration · 2012-06-01 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  They are not assassinations. As you note, this is a war.
  Remind me: when did the US declared war to Yemen? Did Congress vote on any of this? Calling it "war on terror" does not actually make it a war in the eyes of international law. Also: if you accept the concept of "global war against terrorism", how do determine when that was is over? Will the war continue until the US sign a peace treaty with the Concept of Terrorism?
  
  Two US citizens (that weren't anywhere near a combat zone) have been killed by drone strikes - with no judicial oversight, simply because the president said so:
  "The strike marked the first known time that the US had deliberately targeted US citizens in a drone attack.".
  
  Doesn't that bother you in any way? Who does Obama need to kill in order for you to realize this is a dramatic power grab?
  
  If this pisses off their supporters
  The problem is that killing civilian turns people that had no animosity towards Amercia into "terrorist supporters". How hard an idea is this to grasp?
2. Re:Your loaded word by Quila · 2012-06-01 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Did Congress vote on any of this?
  
  Too easy. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, September 14, 2001.
  And don't go down the dumb path of "It didn't say declaration of war." That is irrelevant. What matters is the constitutional separation of powers, and that Congress authorizes the military actions taken by the President. That can take whatever form Congress wishes.
  
  "The strike marked the first known time that the US had deliberately targeted US citizens in a drone attack.".
  Who cares? It won't be the first time a US citizen on side of the enemy was killed in military action. Hint: It doesn't do good for your longevity to fight on the side of the enemy.
  
  Who does Obama need to kill in order for you to realize this is a dramatic power grab
  What part of authorized by Congress did you miss? It can't be a power GRAB if the power was given. If Congress doesn't like predators specifically, then funding the program is a very strange way to show it.
  
  The problem is that killing civilian turns people that had no animosity towards Amercia into "terrorist supporters". How hard an idea is this to grasp?
  News flash: Muslims like to use human shields. I guess we're supposed to never attack when they're doing that, so we're stuck not fighting at all.
3. Re:Your loaded word by anti-pop-frustration · 2012-06-02 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Too easy. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, September 14, 2001.
  AUMF only authorized force “against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the 9/11 attack and those nations which harbored them.
  
  Problem is The US is now going after groups didn’t even exist at the time of the attack. The intent of AUMF was to go after the people involved in 9/11 (a legitimate goal no ones disputes). But AUMF is now interpreted to mean: "The US government reserve the right to strike anyone it determines an enemy, with no limitation of time or place". In other words AUMF interpreted this way is essentially a carte blanche for global and endless war. Is that really what you're arguing for?
  
  Who cares? It won't be the first time a US citizen on side of the enemy was killed in military action.
  Citation needed? Also, in the Yemen case, the individuals were nowhere near a battlefield. There was no "military action" other than drones flying by. I'd be really curious if you can find any prior example of US citizens killed outside of military action on direct order from the executive branch.
  
  But anyway, according to you all the US government needs to do to legally kill a US citizen (without any trial or any form of judicial process) is to declare them "an enemy". Better hope you won't be declared one... hard to argue Habeas corpus, Fifth Amendment and fundamental rights with a done missile.
4. Re:Your loaded word by Quila · 2012-06-02 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  The US government reserve the right to strike anyone it determines an enemy, with no limitation of time or place
  Al Qaeda is an organization that planned, authorized, committed and aided the 9/11 attack. Any member is clearly fair game. Any organization that aided Al Qaeda, its members are also fair game.
  
  Citation needed?
  One, many German-Americans went back to fight for the fatherland. This somewhat equates to Alwaki, who never had allegiance to the United States, only an American by accident of birth location, but to Yemen. Other than that, several Americans are known to have defected to the German side and some were of course killed in action. A list of just the SS people is here. Quite simple: You fight for the enemy, you are fair game in any location and by any means, be it a bullet or a Hellfire missile.
  
  Also, in the Yemen case, the individuals were nowhere near a battlefield.
  Neither was Yamamoto. This entire thing is considered a military action against Al Qaeda and its allies. Members of Al Qaeda are not considered to be civilians any more than a member of the WWII Wehrmacht could be considered a German civilian.
  
  all the US government needs to do to legally kill a US citizen (without any trial or any form of judicial process) is to declare them "an enemy".
  
  It helps if that person is an active and valuable member of an organization bent on destroying us. I agree a trial could have been appropriate if he had turned himself in, but he didn't although he was given a chance. He preferred to hide out in Yemen under protection of his tribe and continue his work for Al Qaeda. I don't believe an arrest warrant and Dog the Bounty Hunter is appropriate for this case, or likely to be effective.
  Or if he prefers Geneva Convention (to which we are NOT bound in this case) and prisoner of war status, he would simply be detained until the end of hostilities, which means he rots in prison since I don't think Al Qaeda will stop any time soon.
Re:Oh great by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-01 04:09 · Score: 1

All religions have their moderates and their fanatics. Numbers vary wildly, both percentage-wise and as absolutes.
you can still lose a police action by OrangeTide · 2012-06-01 04:31 · Score: 1

I think both sides lost in your examples.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re:Why would anyone ..... by FurtiveGlancer · 2012-06-01 04:37 · Score: 1

Have you been sleeping during the past coverage of Stuxnet, and the analysis by researchers? Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks. (emphasis added)
See, we have learned something valuable from the Chinese!

--
Invenio via vel creo
Act of War by Cito · 2012-06-01 04:46 · Score: 1

This should be an act of war then.
And if we had a real news media instead of propaganda systerm operated by project mockingbird perhaps the American people would be informed that it's not terrorists but it's our own government trying to provoke a country into war.
we are firing the first shots, and I wish and pray Iran would find a way to drop a tactical nuke directly on top of Washington DC
1. Re:Act of War by geoffrobinson · 2012-06-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  And when Iran sent terrorists into Iraq? Or took over our embasssy? Or blew up Jewish or Israeli buildings in places all over the world?
  Were any of those acts of war?
  
  --
  Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
This is so wrong... by Larry_Dillon · 2012-06-01 04:46 · Score: 1

These cyber-attacks are an act of war (or at least they would be if another country used similar tactics against the US).
Waging warfare is supposed to take an act of congress.

--
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Re:Oh great by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:50 · Score: 1

Given much of Israel's actions during their occupation of Palestine, you can't really say that.
Re:Oh great by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:51 · Score: 1

That's why you need my new app, which will deliver you a new list of bigoted terms every week. You'll never be without a degrading name again!
Re:Why would anyone ..... by s73v3r · 2012-06-01 04:53 · Score: 1

While amusing, I would imagine that the US (and probably most other major world governments) have access to people talented enough to pull stuff like this off even if Microsoft wasn't cooperating.
The sickest part by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-06-01 05:25 · Score: 1

The sickest part of all this illegal and indefensible crap Obama has done is the reason why. It's not that he believes in any of it ideologically, but does it merely to insulate him from GOP charges of *not* doing all this crap they would also do but with great passion. Citation: his vote as US Senator giving AT&T a free pass for illegally wiretapping US cititzens - just so he couldn't be called 'soft on terrerists'.

While I'm (less and less) glad he won, given the rerrifying alternative, he really doesn't stand for anything except winning.
Re:Speaking of whiny bitch by xevioso · 2012-06-01 05:27 · Score: 1

You must be a European, using a term like "arsehole".
Olympic flame by Cyko_01 · 2012-06-01 05:42 · Score: 1

C'mon - "olympic games"?! "flame(r)"?! - if that doesn't give it away I don't know what will. These two worms were clearly created by the same people!
Declaration vs act of war by Zinho · 2012-06-01 05:47 · Score: 1

It may take congressional authorization to declare war, but as Commander in Chief the President of the U.S. is fully capable of ordering his troops to commit acts of war. Our recent air attacks on Libya are an excellent example; using Air Force and Navy assets to engage the military of a sovereign nation is a clear act of aggression, and would certainly constitute casus belli for them to declare war on us.
As far as I know there is no set procedure for how to handle violations of either Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution or the War Powers Resolution. The clearest recourse Congress has for checking presidential power is to bring the President up on articles of impeachment, throwing him out of office. That's a pretty big club, and one that you don't swing lightly.
So what really happens? U.S. presidents do as they see fit, and give Congress a "waddaya gunna dewabboutit?" glare when it gets feisty.

--
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
What will history say? by SealBeater · 2012-06-01 05:51 · Score: 1

And years from now, if the United States wins this World war that has already begun, we will teach our children, that they started it first.

--
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Now just one minute here . . . by sgt_doom · 2012-06-01 05:52 · Score: 1

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7089/7315110298_4d6eb1c07d_z.jpg

special thanx to Wm. Banzai
One moment please . . . by sgt_doom · 2012-06-01 05:55 · Score: 1

. . .

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7089/7315110298_4d6eb1c07d_z.jpg
Re:Olympic Games? by plover · 2012-06-01 06:21 · Score: 1

When are the IOC going to sue them for trademark infringement like they do everyone else..?
Maybe it was the IOC that outed them. By monitoring every computer on the planet for use of the phrase "Olympic games", perhaps they caught the details of the plan, then leaked it to the press.
Actually, I think this could work out to our great advantage. It's perfectly legal here to report the news. If the news includes the trademarked and protected all-rights-revered IP of the IOC, Inc., well that's just too bad for them.
It also is a strategically brilliant name. You can't google for "Olympic Games" and hope to find anything but millions of hits on torches and athletes and lawsuits.

--
John
moron by SuperDre · 2012-06-01 07:03 · Score: 1

this is just blatantly declaring war on iran.. The worst thing is, the UN is doing nothing against this illegal behaviour.. If Iran did this against the US, the US would retaliate with a big invasion.. So here we see the US again as an agressor.. I'm not for Iran having nuclear capabilities, but as long as other countries do have them (especially the US) ANY other country has the right to go ahead and create them too..
Re:In love with the unaccountable power of technol by Jonner · 2012-06-01 08:24 · Score: 1

It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.
That did apply to the US until about 1950 since Congress took its job of deciding when to go to war seriously. The US was very reluctant to get involved in WWI and WWII and had to ramp up production of all kinds of war materials to be effective. From 1945 on, the US has maintained the ability to fight another world war continuously. No one should be surprised that the temptation to misuse that power has often proved too much for Presidents.
Re:Oh great by Chrisq · 2012-06-01 20:27 · Score: 1

Those muzzies are so stupid they'll probably not realise it is a codeword and bomb the Olympics for infecting their computers
Muzzies? Is that what we're calling them now? What happened to rag-head, towel-head, Haji, and sand nigger? Camel Jockey? I just can't keep up with the bigoted slurs.
Of all of those only Haji is an acceptable term. The rest are racist, and don't get to the heart of the problem, Islam. There have been white, black and brown Islamic terrorists - just as there are good people of all colours. read the Qur'an and you will see why this hate-filled religion urges them to rape, kill, and subdue non-Muslims
Now we know... by vovkav · 2012-06-01 21:06 · Score: 1

Now we know, It was not the russians ;)
Praise be Obama by HArchH · 2012-06-02 07:10 · Score: 1

What a complete incompetent he is.
Irony alert by vik · 2012-06-02 21:19 · Score: 1

But, uh, didn't the US invade their old buddy Iraq for 2 reasons: their oil, and they wanted better access to the Gulf? Count the military bases in the area, and follow the oil money. Oh, and remember the WMDs that weren't.