US Suspects Iran Was Behind a Wave of Cyberattacks

SternisheFan writes in with this Times article about more trouble brewing between the U.S. and Iran. "American intelligence officials are increasingly convinced that Iran was the origin of a serious wave of network attacks that crippled computers across the Saudi oil industry and breached financial institutions in the United States, episodes that contributed to a warning last week from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a 'cyber-Pearl Harbor.' After Mr. Panetta's remarks on Thursday night, American officials described an emerging shadow war of attacks and counterattacks already under way between the United States and Iran in cyberspace. Among American officials, suspicion has focused on the 'cybercorps' that Iran's military created in 2011 — partly in response to American and Israeli cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz — though there is no hard evidence that the attacks were sanctioned by the Iranian government. The attacks emanating from Iran have inflicted only modest damage. Iran's cyberwarfare capabilities are considerably weaker than those in China and Russia, which intelligence officials believe are the sources of a significant number of probes, thefts of intellectual property and attacks on American companies and government agencies."

Comments

The Golden Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Re:The Golden Rule

[Taco Cowboy]

The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

The First Diamond Rule according to Uncle Sam: Always Blame Others.
The Second Diamond Rule according to Uncle Sam: See Rule #1

Re:The Golden Rule

[wonkey_monkey]

Unless one thinks one can get away with it.

Re:The Golden Rule

[tbid18]

The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

I thought the golden rule was that it's not gay if it's in a three-way.

Re:The Golden Rule

[jc42]

The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

I thought the golden rule was that it's not gay if it's in a three-way.

Nah; the Golden Rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules."

This is the real motto of both of the US's major political parties. And the Supreme Court has given the green light to those with the most gold; they can now anonymously "donate" as much as they like to any candidate they like.

Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuxnet - It's called blow back. USA and Israel attack a country through software and then get pissed when that country retaliates.

Re:Who started it?

[Billly Gates]

Iran attacked Comodo before Stuxnet was even discovered

Comodo DNS almost compromised

Re:Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

We act like typical bullies, we throw the first punch then when they fight back we burst into tears and claim to be the victim. If you can't take it don't dish it out.

Re:Who started it?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me. USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then? Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

Re:Who started it?

[Billly Gates]

For one the US is not assassinating ambassadors, has a hate to country X day, nor does it intend to wipe a country off a map, nor create pseudo terrorist armies who have no allegiance to the country their are in. Just there to attack a neighboring one and control a government against the will of its own people.

Re:Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954, and installed a bloody right wing dictator in an effort to control Iran's oil.

We stole their freedom so members of our parasitic upper class could profit. Iranians have every reason to hate the US, and every justification for _any_ level of retaliation.

Re:Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Iraq had (ahem....) WMD. Until they didn't. After hundreds of thousands of lives lost, NADA. The US and Israel start this shit and then get upset when they get payback. The Iraq "adventure" turned out to be another Vietnam. To me it's even simpler - The US and Israel will blame Iran for anything and everything these days. I wouldn't believe the US or Israel if they said the sky is blue on a clear day. What I am happy to see is that the US is spending all it's money on wars and war equipment while other countries invest in medical care, education, etc. The US isn't shooting its self in the foot, it's shooting its self in the head as corporations subdue the population. Cut the number of teachers and police and firemen, cut education in general, cut as many social programs as possible and give that money to the military and war materials producers and spy programs (which, of course, don't know shit as shown by the Iraq WMD crap). The US - All War, All the Time! Over 1/2 of all US federal taxes go to their war machine and war related activities. The US is going the way of Rome. And as the US dollar continues its decline into worthlessness, I watch and laugh.

Re:Who started it?

[shiftless]

Yet Israel isn't party to this treaty at all...and they already have 200+ nuclear weapon. Why aren't we invading and threatening THEM? Iran is the only one who needs to be invaded. Why? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or attacked a country?

Re:Who started it?

[artor3]

It would be even better if there were no nukes, but there are. The fact that the US developed and used nukes over half a century ago does not mean that everyone should have them. That's a childish way of thinking.

Re:Who started it?

[Acetylane_Rain]

So answer me this very simple question: Who decides who gets nuclear weapons?

Let me add to that: Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons? Even if we assume that all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth, none of these neighbors currently have nuclear weapons. Israel already has the best military force in the Middle East.

Re:Who started it?

[cold fjord]

Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")

My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)

The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.

Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me.

I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.

USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then?

That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.

Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:

Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas ?)
State Sponsors: Iran

Re:Who started it?

[Galestar]

The U.S. started it decades ago by propping up a dictator in Iran. If you are too lazy to read history, I suggest you go watch Argo. Hint #1: pay attention to *why* the Iranians took those hostages. Hint #2: Argo took place in 1980. Saying "Iran started it" based on their alleged actions in the past decade when this has been going on for over 3 decades is just plain silly.

It has not been demonstrated that they do actually have a covert weapons program. Iraq WoMD all over again. In addition, they are a sovereign country even if they were I would not begrudge them that. Several of their (hostile) neighbors have them, and the U.S. (also hostile) has enough nukes to decimate all life on earth... why should they not be allowed to pursue them? Stop crying foul over this bullshit.

Re:Who started it?

[rgbrenner]

If you want to go develop nuclear weapons, in theory, no one will stop you. (ie: Israel, South Africa, Libya)

If you sign the NPT, you have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology.

But you can't say, give me all of your nuclear technology... and then turn around and use it to develop weapons. You've lied.. you've committed fraud to every country and foreign scientist that assisted you.

And the consequences for that might result in war.

That's the way it is.. if you want nuclear weapons and peace, then don't go to the international community and commit fraud.

Re:Who started it?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Right. US "only" invaded Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and probably wants to also go in Syria and Iran. I wonder who's the most --censored--.

Re:Who started it?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

So answer me this very simple question: Who decides who gets nuclear weapons?

Certainly not USA alone.

Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?

I am not a president of USA, therefor I cannot answer this question of why it's fine that France, India, China, Russia, North Korea and Israel are allowed, but not Iran. But that's a very good question!

Re:Who started it?

[rgbrenner]

add to the countries that have nuclear weapons, but did not sign the NPT: Pakistan and India. Notice the international community didn't go to war to stop them either.

Iran's violation of the NPT is the ONLY issue here. If they really are developing weapons, then they've lied to their international partners -- they've committed fraud to force countries **that would have NEVER helped them** develop nuclear weapons.

Re:Who started it?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program.

No, that's wrong. It attacked the nuclear enrichment facility responsible for producing heavy water. If you didn't know, it's a different set of equipment to produce heavy water for nuclear weapon, the concentration in heavy water has to be an order of magnitude higher. And the equipment Stuxnet attacked (designed by Siemens) is known well enough so this makes no doubts.

If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.

That's really too bad that you got your facts wrong in the first place.

Re:Who started it?

[rgbrenner]

The countries themselves decided. There are two groups of countries:

1) Those who have refused to sign the NPT. These countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They include South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, and India. They receive NO assistance from the international community. They have to develop their entire nuclear program from scratch.

2) Countries that have signed the NPT. These countries have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology (reactors, medical devices, etc). These countries receive extensive support, training, etc in developing reactors, etc from the international community. They also agree not to give any of this technology to non-NPT countries.

The problem arises when a country signs the NPT, takes nuclear technology and support from the international community, and then after they have learned everything they can, they violate the NPT and develop weapons.

That country has committed fraud, and forced other countries **that would have NEVER assisted them** develop nuclear weapons.

And the consequence of that fraud is often war.

Re:Who started it?

[cold fjord]

Even if we assume that all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth, none of these neighbors currently have nuclear weapons. Israel already has the best military force in the Middle East.

Israel is a country of just under 8 million people on a sliver of land so small that at the shortest point it is only 20 miles across.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and they are taught the following according to the traditions of Islam and the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH):

Islam and antisemitism

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)

”This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[54]

Think about that, approximately 25% of the world's population is taught that at the end of days, all Jews will be, must be killed. And some of them are eager to bring about the end of days, such as the Iranians with their cult of the Hidden Imam. There are Muslims all over the world who will live and die without ever meeting a Jew, yet they will be steadfast in "knowing" Jews are "despicable", and "worthy of death". And don't forget that the "Islamic bomb" already exists, and sits upon Pakistani missiles - Pakistan, the explicitly Islamic nation carved out of India.

In the near term, Israel is surrounded by around 100,000,000 Arabs, many of whom would like to see Israel and the Jews gone. Many of them are oil rich states that can now, as opposed to 1947, afford to buy the best military hardware on the planet - things too expensive for the nations where they were created even.

Just to defend against the 12:1* odds of the Arabs they have to be the best, forever. How realistic is that? Now add in 1.5 billion Muslims from other regions? The odds are decidedly not in Israel's favor. Now add in major shifts in population in the area not favorable to Israel?

There are still Israelis living with direct memories of genocide directed against them, and they know a second is planned. Would you like to trade places?

We haven't even touched on European anti-semitism, which is on the rise again.

* 12:1 is being generous - Israel is only 75% Jewish, and many in Israel are exempt from the draft - both Jews and non-Jews.

Re:Who started it?

[FriendlyLurker]

That was the British because of BP owned the oil fields and the communist government stole them.

Not quite. From WP: "1953 Iranian coup d'état"

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979

With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[12] Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil.

History will be repeating itself, it appears...

Re:Who started it?

[cold fjord]

No, that's wrong. It attacked the nuclear enrichment facility responsible for producing heavy water. If you didn't know, it's a different set of equipment to produce heavy water for nuclear weapon, the concentration in heavy water has to be an order of magnitude higher.

Actually, it attacked centrifuges, necessary for enriching Uranium. The Iranians had been putting a lot more of them into operation to obtain both more Uranium, and more highly enriched Uranium. Funny, they turned down offers to get enriched Uranium from other nations. It is almost as if they had something to hide, such as exactly how much Uranium of what enrichment they were producing. The only reason they would be likely to do that would be if they intended to do something unauthorized, like build bombs. By the way, heavy water isn't actually used in nuclear weapons themselves, although tritium is used in boosted and thermal nuclear weapons.

The Stuxnet cyberweapon may have destroyed as many as 1,000 Iranian nuclear-fuel centrifuges – more than one-tenth of the Natanz uranium enrichment plant's capacity – in late 2009 and early 2010, according to a recent report by a nuclear arms-control watchdog group - - Stuxnet attack on Iran nuclear program came about a year ago, report says

--

That's really too bad that you got your facts wrong in the first place.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

Re:Who started it?

[Xest]

I guess it depends on what arbitrary definition you use for "starting it".

Iran has been funding, training, and arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to launch attacks in Israeli territory for a long time, and similar against US troops and interests in Iraq, and nowadays, Afghanistan.

But of course, US conflict Iran goes back many decades, which is the reason they do this shit, so deciding "who started it" at this point is probably a largely meaningless metric of whether it's right.

Despite this I agree, whether you start it or not, the act of continuing it means you can't complain when it, well, continues.

Re:Who started it?

[jkflying]

Sorry, but South Africa is a signatory of the NPT. They developed nuclear weapons in secrecy under Apartheid, but those were dismantled before signing the NPT in 1991.

Re:Who started it?

[Crypto Gnome]

Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

Erm, WE did.

And by We I mean "our glorious leaders, and representatives at the United Nations, when THEY SIT ON THEIR FAT ARSES AND DO NOTHING."

Re:Who started it?

[rgbrenner]

Yes, that is correct. I was listing examples of countries that have/had nuclear weapons that were developed without signing the NPT. I should have been clear that South africa is NOW a signatory.

Re:Who started it?

[artor3]

So answer me this very simple question: Who decides who gets nuclear weapons?

That's far from a simple question.

This isn't some video game where a developer can just set the rules. Ultimately, the answer to every "who decides?" question is "the group who has the military force to back up their decision". We humans aren't particularly comfortable with that knowledge, so we create all sorts of rules to hopefully resolve questions before they reach that level. But if you peel back all the layers of rules, you'll find that they ultimately rest on military force.

In this case, the applicable law is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran signed it, saying that they wouldn't develop nukes. In exchange, like all non-nuclear equipped signatories, they get two things:
1) Support for the development of peaceful nuclear tech
2) The promise that nuclear armed countries would work towards disarmament. The New START treaty between the US and Russia shows our continuing commitment towards this.

Iran certainly seems to be breaking this rule. And as I said before, all rules ultimately rest on military force. I'm glad Obama has been looking for alternatives that don't get people killed. But if that fails, the rule will be tested: "Does the rest of the world have the military force (and will to use it) needed to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes?" If not, then there is no rule at all.

Re:Who started it?

[Xest]

"Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power."

Sure, but we also don't know that they aren't working on nuclear weapons because they've repeatedly over the last decade failed to fulfil their obligations as an NPT signatory despite the IAEA having gone way further than it should have to in accomodating Iran's excuses, for example, by letting Iran selecting out IAEA inspectors from countries it believes are against it and would act as spies- it still refused entry to inspectors to sites and information about nuclear weapons development even when it had stacked the nationality of inspectors in it's favour.

Honestly, apologists for Iran were using the excuse that even the IAEA said for a long time it couldn't confirm any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, but the IAEA's stance has been changing, and the reports have become ever more damning, to the point where even the IAEA has been saying that on the balance of probabilities it's like Iran does have at least some kind of nuclear weapons programme.

I get that people aren't keen on what the US has done in the world, especially the middle east since 9/11 and even before that, hell, I even agree with them. What I don't get are people who act as apologists for Iran purely to try and spite America and ratchet up their distaste of America. Just because the US has done a lot wrong, doesn't make Iran right by any measure, Iran has been carrying out proxy wars/attacks against nations like Israel, and even coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time now- just last week Hezbollah flew a drone into Israel to gain intel on Israeli military installations, where did that drone come from? who provided the kit and expertise for it's use? that's right, Iran. They've been oppressing the educated minorities in their society who dared to rise up and call for reform in an extremely brutal manner including torture and rape too so it's not like you can even frame Iran as some poor innocent little nation when you isolate your view of it from external, to internal politics and policies.

Honestly, I think it's silly to think Iran is a good nation, and I'm not convinced it's even sensible to believe Iran doesn't have at least some nuclear ambitions (hell, Syria did, and Iran is better resourced and has more reason to want them than Syria) else it could simply fulfil it's NPT obligations (like every other fucking nation on earth that's a signatory) and then there's no harm done is there? All their tech is bought/designed by Russia and the West anyway so any claims about how the IAEA only wants access to steal their nuclear secrets is completely stupid, it's theatre and nothing more.

What does remain in question is what to do about it? should we stop worrying and hope they'll be responsible with them, keep them out of the hands of groups like Hezbollah, and hope they merely use them for their own self-defence? But what if they don't? what if their already unstable regime falls? then what happens to them? It's these questions that really matter and I don't have the answer to them, no one does, that's the problem, but at very least, let's focus on the real questions and cut away the bullshit about how Iran must be an "okay" nation because it hates America. That's just silly, it's not, it's really not in the slightest a good nation, and it's actions are at least as deplorable as the US both in terms of external meddling, and internal stifling of dissenting political views.

Re:Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

25% of the world's population is being taught that trees can talk? Oh boy... We're in trouble.

Re:Who started it?

[DarkOx]

Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran. The new government was going to welch on the deal. It was clear and plain act of war. The actions taken in response were perfectly justified; unless you want to argue that nations should be freely allowed to ignore treaties with no retaliatory action from the counter party.

Re:Who started it?

[donscarletti]

We stole their freedom so members of our parasitic upper class could profit. Iranians have every reason to hate the US, and every justification for any level of retaliation.

Given retaliation in the field of war has historically meant the killing of civilians and war-rape, you should be careful with your hyperbole.

1954 was before the current leaders of the United States were born, I would say no retaliation is justifiable in any shape or form. I live in a country where it is fasionable to call for the death of all Japanese in retaliation for what happened Nanjing in the 1930s (truly a horrific event, even compared to what was happening in Europe at the time), but it's not healthy, it's not productive and it's not right. Byegones are bygones, if you're American, you may retaliate against yourself if you feel it is justified, but do not wish upon your largely innocent countrymen what the Revolutionary Guard would have done apon them.

Re:Who started it?

[1s44c]

Let me add to that: Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons? Even if we assume that all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth, none of these neighbors currently have nuclear weapons. Israel already has the best military force in the Middle East.

Don't assume that "all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth". The warmongering is political not religious, it just hides behind religion because that's a convenient way of manipulating people. Jordan for one gets on very well with Israel dispite Jordan being an Islamic country.

Israel is home to the third most holy site in Islam, the first most holy site to the Jewish, and most of the holy sites of Christianity. Anyone harming these sites would find most of the world has become their bitter enemy.

Re:Who started it?

[gtall]

Muslim hordes invaded Europe way back when. Then the Europeans came to America. So this was just payback. Come to it, the Egyptians invaded N. Africa and the Mid-East. The people became Muslims and we know where that led.

How far back does one go before the argument is specious? Is there a magic number of years, generations?

Re:Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran.

Ah yes, the scoundrel's last refuge - the law.

Morally what the UK and US governments did is evil. Pure, simple evil. They stole the democracy of a people for private profit. EVIL.

Re:Who started it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The British deals for rights to the oil in Iran had been repeatedly renegotiated, never mind that they were questionable to begin with. The British repeated failed to live up to ANY of the deals they made with the Iranian government. The British walked out on continuing negotiations in 1949, and the Iranians nationalized the oil company in '51.

Calling nationalization an act of war is insane. Overthrowing a government because of a commercial dispute is insane. Retaliation for economic treaty violations involves payment or trade concessions. Or do you think the government of Antigua should have been 'allowed' to overthrow the Bush Administration when the U.S. restricted online gambling in violation of the Marrakech agreement?

Re:Who started it?

[FriendlyLurker]

Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran. The new government was going to welch on the deal

Yeah, right. Who is Ignoring the facts now?:

In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with the Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran.

Any democratically elected government has the legal (and moral) right to roll back and change the terms of any abusive deal made by previous unelected rulers - even those made "only" half a century before by a dynasty than no longer "owned" Iran.

Re:Who started it?

[cold fjord]

Mod points: For when you just don't have a counter-argument and the facts are against you.

Re:Who started it?

[DevilM]

Those are all valid questions. Many of which are asked by American citizens. The problem with such questions is that they are moot. The world has provided no other way to deal with dictators, rouge nations, and terrorist. We are stuck with the whims of the president of the only country with the capabilities to handle all this.

We'd gladly stop sending troops into harms way and cut our defense spending if the rest of the world would take over.

Re:Who started it?

[ericartman]

I am an American Indian, what was that again?

Re:Who started it?

[AmiMoJo]

Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities.

Sure, but those things are also relevant to nuclear power and non-nuclear weapons. That is all he is saying there.

It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically

Yes, and your little cold war along with Israel's constantly "robust" language is sabotaging it at every turn.

My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong?

That would be my question to you. You actually illustrated the GP's point perfectly. The EU is trying to sort this out with diplomacy, the US is waging an active cyber war and Israel is busy assassinating Iranian citizens. Apparently the US and Israel feel they have the right to act that way.

The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers.

Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between (cold) warfare and acting within international law and the legal frameworks that exist?

I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited?

Unless those facilities were for civilian use, in which case they attacked a civilian target.

Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions

Fortunately Europe is not so dumb as to be totally reliant on Iran not to freeze to death. Seriously, how can you be dumb enough to believe that crap? Europe takes energy security very seriously and has already banned exports of most forms of energy from Iran.

Re:Who started it?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

What I don't get are people who act as apologists for Iran purely to try and spite America and ratchet up their distaste of America.

Each time I write about how a disaster has been the foreign affairs handing in USA, there's always someone to write a moronic sentence about how I could be disliking America. It's just like saying someone is a racist because he's complaining about Obama. I don't think that's a scheme that works.

Just because the US has done a lot wrong, doesn't make Iran right by any measure

Right. But what happened with the WMD in Iraq leaves everyone skeptic about Iran's case and USA's bullshit about it.

just last week Hezbollah flew a drone into Israel to gain intel on Israeli military installations, where did that drone come from? who provided the kit and expertise for it's use? that's right, Iran.

How this is or should be any of USA's concern? If what you say is truth, that's a problem between Palestine, Israel and Iran, and that's it.

[iran]They've been oppressing the educated minorities in their society who dared to rise up and call for reform in an extremely brutal manner including torture and rape too so it's not like you can even frame Iran as some poor innocent little nation when you isolate your view of it from external, to internal politics and policies.

That's quite right. But in USA there's guantanamo and torture as well, 3 million (more casual) prisoners, a lot of (open) political corruption, and 2 parties that are for the same extreme financial terrorism which destroyed the world economy. What is your point then? There's evil everywhere no?

Honestly, I think it's silly to think Iran is a good nation

I don't know how does, but certainly not me!

and I'm not convinced it's even sensible to believe Iran doesn't have at least some nuclear ambitions

Of course, because in their eyes it would bring balance on their side, considering that Israel has it. But that doesn't mean they actually run nuclear weapon facilities.

All their tech is bought/designed by Russia and the West anyway so any claims about how the IAEA only wants access to steal their nuclear secrets is completely stupid

Right, it's not like a computer virus could destroy the heavy water equipment... Seriously, why are you so much one sided that you don't see the obvious?

Re:Who started it?

[Sulphur]

Muslim hordes invaded Europe way back when. Then the Europeans came to America. So this was just payback. Come to it, the Egyptians invaded N. Africa and the Mid-East. The people became Muslims and we know where that led.

How far back does one go before the argument is specious? Is there a magic number of years, generations?

The Mummy did it.

Re:Who started it?

[ehack]

already have 200+ nuclear weapon

Really? Then you should have no problem showing a pic of just 1

You can look here:
http://www.vanunu.com/dimona/pix.html

Just make sure these pictures don't get to Iran or any other nasty country like, ummm Pakistan. Oh, wait we looked away while they were making theirs, right? And we also looked away while Ben Laden was fighting those nasty russkies. And we all know what came next :(

Re:Who started it?

[Xest]

"Each time I write about how a disaster has been the foreign affairs handing in USA, there's always someone to write a moronic sentence about how I could be disliking America. It's just like saying someone is a racist because he's complaining about Obama. I don't think that's a scheme that works."

Yes, apologies for that, much of what I said wasn't aimed specifically at you but people who do make such arguments. I recognise that in replying to you it probably game across that I was focussing entirely on you rather than making more general statements about people who believe the Iran/US thing is black and white.

"Right. But what happened with the WMD in Iraq leaves everyone skeptic about Iran's case and USA's bullshit about it."

I sympathise, but this isn't quite the same thing. The IAEA has been much more careful, and held of on making assumptions until it was sure it could make the statements it has. Also, they've been very accomodating of Iran's wishes, again, using my previous example of letting Iran pick and choose the inspectors that come allowing it to eliminate any it deems to be "spies" such as inspectors from the US or some European nations.

"How this is or should be any of USA's concern? If what you say is truth, that's a problem between Palestine, Israel and Iran, and that's it."

Agreed, but again this wasn't focussed towards your point about the US but towards people who have this stupid black white view that if Iran is right, the US is wrong and vice versa. Obviously that's not true - Iran is quite capable of doing wrong even when the US has nothing to do with it.

"What is your point then? There's evil everywhere no?"

Yes, exactly.

"Right, it's not like a computer virus could destroy the heavy water equipment... Seriously, why are you so much one sided that you don't see the obvious?"

But the IAEA inspectors aren't going to be allowed to go near any equipment unattended. That threat comes from people inside the nuclear programme who have been turned, not from fully attended nuclear inspections where Iran was not just allowed to control the inspection how it sees fit, but was also allowed to pick and choose the inspectors out of the IAEA's pool themselves.

Again, I apologise for not being a bit more clear about the fact I was talking about many of the Iran apologists here on Slashdot more generally rather than focussing on you specifically, I should've probably been a bit more clear about that.

Re:Who started it?

[scheme]

1) Those who have refused to sign the NPT. These countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They include South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, and India. They receive NO assistance from the international community. They have to develop their entire nuclear program from scratch.

Uh...The french gave the israelis the nuclear reactor at Dimona which was the source of the nuclear material the israelis used to get construct their nukes. The British also later gave them further assistance in getting the reactor running and in purifying and producing the components for a nuke.

India got nuclear reactors from Canada and apparently got nuclear technology from other NPT signatories as well.

Re:Who started it?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

I sympathise, but this isn't quite the same thing.

How can you be so sure that this time it wont be the same deception and all? I mean, remember the golf of Tonka, North Wood, WMD in Irak (I'm on purpose avoiding adding 9/11 in the list, for discussing the controversy will bring us no where)... The recent USA history is full of false flags. At least I see the same pattern of governmental communication, which rings the alarm bell. So this should absolutely not be an excuse to go on a war with Iran. Peace!

Re:Who started it?

[GoatCheez]

There is evidence (but not definitive proof). The evidence is why Iran is under heavy sanctions. Iran refuses to provide proof that the evidence is invalid (allowing inspectors to survey site purportedly used for nuclear testing for example). So, as it stands, the burden of proof is on Iran to refute the evidence of nuclear weapons testing.

Re:Who started it?

[Xest]

"How can you be so sure that this time it wont be the same deception and all?"

Well, I don't know how much you know about the history behind the Iraq WMD claims, or whether you're just parroting the usual tosh about this, but you are aware that both the IAEA and the UN agency setup to look for other WMDs such as chemical weapons actually stated they could find no evidence of such a programme in Iraq? In other words, these agencies were not used in the justification for going to war because they actually found in Iraq's favour. It was the US and Britain that persisted with this claim in the face of that that was used for justification for war. Hans Blix who was leading the investigation was critical of this fact at the time and even to this day.

But there's a bigger reason as to why your conspiracy theory doesn't really work, you seem to be basing it on some assumption that the US has a mechanism to control the IAEA. This simply cannot be possible, because the IAEA has been an important organisation in limiting nuclear proliferation, as this requires the organisation to be trusted by the various nuclear states it means it has to be representative of them. So how for example would the US manage to control the opinions of Chinese, and Russian inspectors? how would it even control the opinions of nations that are fairly independent in the world such as those from Brazil? Your theory doesn't make sense because there is simply no mechanism by which the US could control the world's inspectors, much less the whole organisation.

But this is precisely why the US and Britain failed to manipulate the IAEA and the UN monitoring agency for Iraq in the lead up to the 2003 war - because they simply cannot manipulate agencies whereby control is shared with their foes in the world.

As such, the fact the IAEA is making the claims it is about Iraq are much more potent - if they wouldn't even do it under US/UK pressure and intelligence agency meddling in the run up to 2003, what makes you think they could do it now where Iran has banned inspectors from nations it doesn't trust? Something that even Iraq didn't do:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11682871/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iran-bars-entry-nuclear-inspectors/#.UHwYEVF0qUk

Re:Who started it?

[jythie]

Ahm... the US ignores treaties all the time.. does that mean our government should be overthrown by everyone we piss off?

Genearlly countries retaliate through long term diplomacy.. not throwing a country into chaos and eraticating their democraticly elected government in favor of an easier to deal with repressive one.... well, unless one is a nuclear capable nation and the other is not since the US has done this OVER AND EXPLETIVE OVER.

One might note that Iran would be less interested in nukes if it wasn't so clear that it is one of the few ways to stop stuff like this.

Re:Who started it?

[jythie]

The law? I would love to see a contract that stated 'if we fail to hand over minearl rights secured via our previous government the signie has the right to have their buddies overthrow our government and place on in that is more ecnomicly advantagious'.

Re:Who started it?

[jythie]

Well, the current native americans took the continent from the previous wave, and many argue that america is being taken over by 'immigrants' as a current wave... so kinda seems to be a cycle everywhere ^_^

Re:Who started it?

[jythie]

That is how priviliage works.... you can see it all through our culture... failure for the lessers to know their place is equivelent to oppression for many. Freedom to do as you please, freedom from consequences....

Re:Who started it?

[smooth wombat]

Because Israel reneged on its signed declaration to the U.S. that it would, at any time the U.S. chose, open its nuclear facilities to inspection by U.S. authorities.

In fact, Israel did very nearly the same thing Iran is now being accused of, namely, hiding its covert nuclear weapons program. Several Israeli scientists have joked about how they hid their work from the few times they allowed U.S. inspectors in.

Yet oddly, I don't see the U.S. invading Israel because of its violations to a signed treaty/document.

Re:Who started it?

[WindBourne]

So many things wrong here.
1) USA does NOT have anywhere NEAR the number of nukes to destroy earth. In fact,even with the 3000 warheads of America and 5000 of Russia's and 3000 of Chinas, you still could not destroy the earth. Not once, let alone multiple times. Now, we can spread a lot more radiation, but that does not destroy earth. Heck as Chernobyl and nuke test sites has shown, it does not even destroy all life.
2) Lets assume that Iran really is doing just power. That requires enrichment of about 6%. Not a big deal, I grant you. But then they got caught running the centrifuges claiming that they were not doing this. Then when claiming that this was all that they had, USA then pointed out that they had another set of centrifuges buried 200' deep. Iran denied and then NNPT asked to see the area and Iran denied access. Upon being shown the evidence, then Iran admitted that they did have it, but that it was only for nuclear medicine (same thing that burma is doing :) ). Nuke medicine requires 20% enrichment. However, the amount of material that was KNOWN to be diverted, if made into nuclear medicine would provide the earth with 100% of its needs for the next 225 years. And that is on top of what Burma is making.
Note, that up until this point, I have backed Iran's right to own. But this alone is more then enough proof that Iran is in fact working on nukes.
3) If Iran is allowed to have a nuke, then it is not the west or even israel who is threatened. It is all of the arabs and sunni muslems that will be threatened. Saudi Arabia and OAE are now looking to buy reactors from Russia (USA will NOT sell them one). Do you really want all of the middle east to arm? Think carefully about that. Look at India and Pakistan. Owning nukes works when ALL sides do not believe that they can win a war (which is why I fear China since their military is now preaching that they CAN win a nuke war). It depends on MAD to keep ppl from firing. Sadly, it is now apparent that civilizations can be destroyed, but the earth will not be. As such, MAD is threatened by Iran's build up (along with China's military's massive build-up).

Re:Who started it?

[WindBourne]

First off, it is not known how many nukes Israel has. This is the first time that I have EVER heard anybody claim more than 6. 200+??? Please, do you have proof of that.

Secondly, Israel had these before NNPT started.

Thirdly, Israel did NOT sign the NNPT so we can not hold them to it.

Lastly, they have owned their about 50 years. They have not used it or sent it to other nations or terrorists. OTOH, Iran sends everything that they get to terrorists. And Iran currently backs a LARGE number of terrorists around the globe.

Re:Who started it?

[Lehk228]

We overthrew their government and the puppet Shah was the one who agreed to non-proliferation, Iran is entitled to seek nukes if they want them and would be foolish not to. Pakistan sheltered OBL and we went to war with Iraq instead, because saddam had oil and pakistan had nukes

Re:Who started it?

[firewrought]

Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran. The new government was going to welch on the deal. It was clear and plain act of war. The actions taken in response were perfectly justified; unless you want to argue that nations should be freely allowed to ignore treaties with no retaliatory action from the counter party.

I judge governments by whether they uphold civil liberties and democratic principles. Getting screwed on a business deal is not an excuse to abandon those principles.

Re:Who started it?

[shiftless]

Sorry, no, this is bullshit. Iran is being specifically targeted because they are specifically disliked by the fascists who rule America, for being non-conformists to our imperialist lust for control over their part of the world. Iran hasn't lied to anyone. Russia built their nuclear reactors under contract and Russia does not give a rats ass if Iran has nukes or not. Iranian's nuclear enrichment facilities and capabilities were entirely of their own development and are not at all dependent on any "trusting" partners.

Who the hell do you think you're talking about, anyway? This isn't Afghanistan, this is a Iran, a relatively modern and prosperous country, with thousands of years of history as the seat of empires. It may come as a shock to you to learn they are not ignorant savages, but in fact a highly educated, smart, and capable people. What, you think nukes technology is totally and completely beyond them if it weren't for us merciful Westerners to give them all our magic technology free, which they then BETRAYED by turning to EVIL SELF-DEFENSIVE purposes? LOL.

Re:Who started it?

[ThatsMyNick]

Canada supplied India with a research reactor and uranium in the 1954. NPT came to existence a decade and half later. And yes they received assistance from both Canada and USSR, but most of their nuclear research and development and test reactor construction has been post NPT, without the assistance of NPT signatories.

Re:Who started it?

[quenda]

If you sign the NPT, you have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology ... You've lied.. you've committed fraud to every country and foreign scientist that assisted you.

Then the US has lied and committed fraud. You cannot seriously believe the US has complied with their NPT obligations?
Its hard to argue straight-faced with Iran on that one: http://english.irib.ir/voj/news/nuclear/item/79030-iran-lambasts-us-non-compliance-with-npt-undertakings
Not to mention their further hypocracy with their support for Israel. The US could easily pressure Israel if it had the will, as good faith with the NPT would require.

Re:Who started it?

[tehcyder]

Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran. The new government was going to welch on the deal.

The new government was going to seize its own country's natural resources back from multi-national companies. Good for them. It happened all over the remains of the British Empire as we tried to extract ourselves.

Re:Who started it?

[tehcyder]

Calling nationalization an act of war is insane.

Not if you're a hardline right wing free market evangelist type.

Re:Who started it?

[tehcyder]

Since when did the US unilaterally get to decide on what counts as international law? The US and USSR had the NPT, who gave them the fucking right to impose it on anyone else?

Re:Who started it?

[bhiestand]

Your post is flawed in several ways. First, "____ started it!" is the most ridiculous line of reasoning I have ever heard in the discussion of international relations. If you really want to go to the first insult or some such, you'll have to go back thousands of years. All parties involved have plenty of reason to distrust each other, and emotions within certain groups run high. Additionally, we wouldn't be in the current situation if any single state actor had acted differently in history. Probably true for the last 100 years. So give the history a rest, will you?

It has not been demonstrated that they do actually have a covert weapons program.

So what? It *has* been demonstrated that they have a covert nuclear program that, among other things, drastically exceeds the enrichment capacity needed by a nuclear power program. They might be working on a weapon, or they might just be working on nuclear breakout capability. But it looks like we can be at least 99% confident now that they are working towards the ability to make weapons. They are also working on most (if not all) aspects related to nuclear weapons, particularly delivery. This troubles other states because a rapid breakout capability means Iran could develop a nuclear weapon faster than the international community could respond (strikes, invasion), hence Iran would have a credible nuclear deterrent. Many feel this would embolden Iran and make Iran more difficult to constrain/contain.

If the US had this much real evidence against Iraq, the invasion would not have been contentious. Iran 2012-UN bears little resemblance to Iraq 2002-US.

In addition, they are a sovereign country even if they were I would not begrudge them that. Several of their (hostile) neighbors have them, and the U.S. (also hostile) has enough nukes to decimate all life on earth... why should they not be allowed to pursue them? Stop crying foul over this bullshit.

Your logic is inconsistent. You are describing an anarchic system on Iran's side and a rule-based system for the US. You can't have both. If Iran is a sovereign nation that can "do what it wants", then the U.S. and its allies are also sovereign nations that can do what they want (attempt to stop Iran). If Iran is "allowed" to do anything according to any sort of international rules, then Iran must also be restricted by those rules.

Team US-Israel has the same "rights" as Iran. They can do anything they want, unless someone else prevents them, and are subject to the responses of other states. Iran feels it is in its best interest to develop nuclear weapons capability. US-Israel feel it is in their best interests to prevent this.

If you want fair, go play Tiddlywinks. Otherwise, quit "crying foul over this bullshit".

Re:Who started it?

[uninformedLuddite]

Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran

The only response to that is 'fuck off idiot'.

Re:Who started it?

[uninformedLuddite]

I heard that the native americans stole the land from white people.

Re:Who started it?

[davydagger]

we can surely critize Israel for non-signing.

And being complete hypocrits for having the very same clandestine nuclear program they accuse Iran of doing.

As far as supporting terror. Israel were the ones backing the recent Persian MEK attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists.

Pearl Harbor????

[davydagger]

"Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor." "

Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.

It looks we already attacked Iran with cyber weapons and this is retaliation.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[Anonymous Coward]

We were already at war with the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor via supporting China. It was a clandestine war, but as Shakespeare might say, a war by any other name would smell as rotten. As this article states, we were already moving chess pieces onto the Asian board before Pearl Harbor and who knows what really happened and the exact dates involved?

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

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[GPierce]

Actually FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking. This does not mean that the Japanese were the good guys. There were a lot of reasons why FDR wanted a war - some of them valid, but as barbaric as the Rape of Nanking was, these were not things that directly affected the US. Most US citizens were strongly against any kind of war.

Under Roosevelt, we seized Japanese bank accounts and placed a military blockade against oil shipments to Japan. We were shutting down their economy, and there is no way the Japanese were going to put up with this. There is no way that we were surprised - there had to be some kind of response.

Once the Japanese attacked, in view of the damage at Pearl Harbor, there was no way the US was going to admit their responsibility for provoking the attack, so for seventy or so years it's been "Pearl Harbor" sneak attack..

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[girlintraining]

Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.

The Japanese would disagree. The United States and its allies at the time were shipping arms and providing war-time loans to China and other countries Japan was at war with. The situation was such a problem for the Japanese that they invaded French Indochina in 1940 in an attempt to cut off the supplies of airplanes, machine tools, etc. from the United States into the region. The United States was also staging troops and equipment in the Philippines ahead of Pearl Harbor. The final straw for them was when the entire fleet was moved from San Diego to Hawaii, which to the Japanese looked like a clear sign the United States was planning on moving into the area, and thus restoring the supply lines to China. Making matters worse, after France fell the United States restricted oil shipments to Japan (amongst other countries), forcing the Japanese to attack european-controlled southeast Asia to secure oil (amongst other things).

Feeling backed into a corner, their military advisors decided that a pre-emptive strike on the fleet was the only way to prevent the United States from interfering with the war effort with its navy. So to say it was an unprovoked attack is stupid -- we'd recently cut off oil supplies, were supplying arms to their enemies, and had recently moved our entire navy to a staging area, with the clear aim of moving into the contested region. I hardly blame you though for believing it was unprovoked -- it's what all the (revised) history books tell us.

Mr. Panetta is making the same mistake we made 80 years ago: Backing our enemies into a corner. Well, what happens when you back any animal (or person!) into a corner? They attack, of course. And the United States has a long tradition of setting traps just like this -- using economic manipulation and supplies to tip the balance of conflicts while claiming it's not involved... and then using the inevitable military response by its enemies as an excuse to enter said conflict.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[Mabhatter]

The Japanese also attacked our main base in the Philippines (taken from the Spanish-American war) at the same time hoping to knock us out of the game in the Pacific. They figured we'd take our ball home and go pick on Germany... One of the big Oops! Of the war. It was a calculated risk to "poke the bear" to keep our noses our of their business in the Pacific... It backfired.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[TubeSteak]

"Provoked" and "sneak attack" do not have to be mutually exclusive.

But good luck trying to correct the historical record.
Most Americans learn a very abbreviated version of history during their formative years.
That version doesn't include 99% of the shitty things our country has done.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[Anonymous Coward]

Except your entire argument boils down to "ignore the fact that Japan was the hostile invader of China way back in 193*" (depending on which historian you ask).

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[Anonymous Coward]

Already attacked Iran with overt interference in their internal politics, then after the US puppet failed, punitive economic sanctions, then effective blockade of trade, then cyber attack and threats of invasion comparable to Iraq. Iran's response to such extreme provocation has been very mild.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a grip, asshat. What would happen if any country attacked the US? Meanwhile, the US had been the aggressor for many, many years, and has attacked many countries which did nothing to the US. If you come and burn down my house, don't be surprised if I burn down yours.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[artor3]

Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[mattr]

I learned this on a homestay program I was on when I was much younger, I went to a school called Haberdashers' Askes in Watford outside London for a month and lived with a kind family.
One thing that remains engraved in my mind decades later, besides the epiphany of salt and vinegar crisps, was how history taught in England about what we call the Revolutionary War (which they call the American War of Independence) focused on their dashing generals, battles, etc. whereas U.S. education focused on ours. Sounds obvious and not so different as I explain it now, but at the time I remember being dumfounded when we were talking about the same event but it sounded like we were talking about different worlds. I think they were mystified about reenactments and famous sites in the U.S. Come to think about it, a global course of standardized education based on a wikipedia of facts such as can be objectively determined (quite difficult in the context of Japan-China relations I know) and translations of talented writers of history who try not to grind any axes, might be a good step towards preventing a significant number of deaths. Any takers?

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[oji-sama]

Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?

Hint: He did not say it was okay, he stated that it wasn't unprovoked.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[girlintraining]

Except your entire argument boils down to "ignore the fact that Japan was the hostile invader of China way back in 193*" (depending on which historian you ask).

It doesn't matter if Japan was the aggressor or not; We were not allies with China at the time. We had no treaty obligations to satisfy as a result of any action Japan took during the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted his war, and so he squeezed Japan until they lashed out and dragged us into a global conflict that cost millions of lives. And later, we dropped the only two nuclear bombs ever used in a war on civilian targets. FDR ensured he got himself in the history books, and he didn't give a fuck how many people he had to turn into carbon scorch marks to do it. There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[phantomfive]

Most US citizens were strongly against any kind of war.

No they weren't, go read a history book sometime. You've been drinking the conspiracy coolaid.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[sFurbo]

I completely agree with most of your post, and thank you for writing it, it is insightful and interesting. However:

There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.

I would say that murdering 6.000.000 prisoners of war, performing human vivisections, testing biological weapons, using chemical weapons, torturing prisoners, killing prisoners for human consumption and keeping sex slaves (source) stacks up pretty good against the US behavior, while admitting that that is a pretty low standard to beat, and that the US might not have beaten it by much.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[artor3]

Here is what he said, to refresh your memory:

Mr. Panetta is making the same mistake we made 80 years ago: Backing our enemies into a corner. Well, what happens when you back any animal (or person!) into a corner? They attack, of course. And the United States has a long tradition of setting traps just like this -- using economic manipulation and supplies to tip the balance of conflicts while claiming it's not involved... and then using the inevitable military response by its enemies as an excuse to enter said conflict.

He is claiming, in no uncertain terms, that the US is at fault for Pearl Harbor. That they created an "inevitable military response" so that they would have an "excuse" to go to war. So if the US declares war, we're evil. If we try to use non-violent methods, we're creating an "inevitable military response", and we're at fault there too. The only morally okay solution is, apparently, for the US to roll over and die whenever anyone asks nicely.

I wonder if that works in the other direction? Let's say the US decides to invade Canada. The EU, shocked by this, stations fleets nearby, embargoes the US, and provides the Canadians with supplies. Would you guys claim that the US is backed into a corner and has no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war against the EU?

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[oji-sama]

While I do understand your point, and partially(!) agree with you, I was answering to

"Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?

which seems to make two invalid assumptions.

The only morally okay solution is, apparently, for the US to roll over and die whenever anyone asks nicely.

Personally (and I hope relevantly), I wonder what kind of results we would have ended up with the whole Iraq thing if the UN WMD inspectors had been allowed to finish their job.

I wonder if that works in the other direction? Let's say the US decides to invade Canada. The EU, shocked by this, stations fleets nearby, embargoes the US, and provides the Canadians with supplies. Would you guys claim that the US is backed into a corner and has no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war against the EU?

No, but it wouldn't be a complete surprise. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the "inevitable military response" was rather inevitable considering that the Japan seems to have been quite militarily aggressive at that time. And no, that is not okay. I don't know (or perhaps remember) enough about the politics and communications between the US and Japan at that time, to have an educated opinion on whether or not Japan was baited to attack.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[WindBourne]

What he means by that is that we lost much of our navy that day. The attack on us was devastating by a military perspective. He is saying lets not allow a nation to destroy our infrastructure in one attack, which right now, is possible.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[davydagger]

I agree, even at the college level the amount of time spent on Post WW2 America is disasterous.

Never once have I seen a good discussion on the 1980s.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[davydagger]

no. quite the opposite.

I was saying we wouldn't be in a cyber arms race and face cyber attacks if we hadn't previously attacked the same countries now attacking us.

Instead of attacking other countries with, and investigating new cyber weapons, we should be investing more in defense and secure infastructure, to make being attacked harder.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[BBF_BBF]

Except your entire argument boils down to "ignore the fact that Japan was the hostile invader of China way back in 193*" (depending on which historian you ask).

It doesn't matter if Japan was the aggressor or not; We were not allies with China at the time. We had no treaty obligations to satisfy as a result of any action Japan took during the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted his war, and so he squeezed Japan until they lashed out and dragged us into a global conflict that cost millions of lives. And later, we dropped the only two nuclear bombs ever used in a war on civilian targets. FDR ensured he got himself in the history books, and he didn't give a fuck how many people he had to turn into carbon scorch marks to do it. There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.

girlintraining,

Would the world be a better place if the US and other allies didn't apply sanctions to Japan, and allowed Japan to completely take over China and then given time to consolidate their holdings to prepare for war in 1949 instead of 1941?... Look at the war machine Japan created with just their holdings in Manchuria for 1941... what could they do if they were given more time and resources to prepare for war? The Japanese did not create their war machines because of the *sanctions*, the sanctions were put upon them because Japan was creating *war machines*.

Oh, or did you think that *appeasing* Japan by giving them China would *solve* the problem? The Japanese would just say, "yeah, China's good enough, let's dismantle our war machines cause China's all we want, there's no reason to expand any more, there's no reason we would want to take over Indochina, India, Eastern Russia, etc, etc."

Of course WWII showed that they wanted to take over those areas as well... purely for self preservation, of course. ;)

Your argument is fatally flawed by making the assumption that giving China to Japan would stop their expansionistic agenda and would not eventually cause a conflict with the US, or their Russian allies (at the time they were allies.)

Better to back a feral cat against a wall than a mountain lion.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[girlintraining]

This isn't an argument. The first casualty of war is the truth. I am not going to try to defend whether Japan's or America's actions were justified, nor engage in some hypothetical "what if" discussion about what would have happened if certain actions were or were not taken.

All I'm saying is war is a messy affair, and nobody has the moral highground in WWII, or for that matter, most any other war. You can't just claim it's "fatally flawed" because you disagree with it... you weren't there and neither was I. Nobody can predict what would have happened. For all we know, China could just as easily have become a utopia owned by Japan, and people would dance in the streets and send us supercarriers full of flowers.

My point is Japan felt provoked and they had good reasons to. That's it. That's all I'm prepared to discuss here. I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion of the whole goddamned world war, or whether we were justified or not. They felt provoked. End. Of. Commentary.

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[airdweller]

"FDR ensured he got himself in the history books, and he didn't give a fuck how many people he had to turn into carbon scorch marks to do it. "
Seriously? Do you even know when FDR died?

Re:Pearl Harbor????

[Shred303]

Explain how a US oil embargo equates to a military blockade? Your implying we surrounded their island country with ships and didn't allow any oil to enter.

So?

[cheater512]

This might be a problem if the US wasn't doing it in return.

If you are actively trying to sabotage someone else's infrastructure, you have to expect them to do it back.
I'd put money on who started it.

I have no sympathy for the US in this regard..

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You already fell for it.

The US doesn't want sympathy, they want you to think Iran is actually a threat to anyone or anything. Expect lots of news about Iran did this bad thing and Iran is horrible in this way for quite some time. They want you to say 'So?' like it is common knowledge that Iran does all sorts of evils. They are setting it up to be 'Liberated'.

Re:So?

[jamstar7]

This might be a problem if the US wasn't doing it in return.

If you are actively trying to sabotage someone else's infrastructure, you have to expect them to do it back. I'd put money on who started it.

I have no sympathy for the US in this regard..

Thing is, this is getting reported like it was something Iran was doing out of the blue. Nobody's saying anything about the US's cyberattacks on Iran in an attempt to shut down their nuclear program, irregardless of whether it was a weapons development project like the US claims it is, or if it really was a peaceful power reactor program. It's looking to me like this is becoming a severe case of 'Look what you made me do NOW' just before the US sends in the drones, cruise missiles and tanks. I feel Yet Another Desert War coming on...

Re:So?

[Troggie87]

I suspect this isn't complaining about what happened, but rather part of a long process of turning public sentiment in the United States in favor of war with Iran. Not that war will certainly happen, but the political establishment has decided that if Iran doesn't capitulate on the nuclear issue soon (6 months to a year, from the sounds of it) a war is inevitable. In their minds, a war might as well happen before the bomb rather than after it, as Iran will almost certainly try its luck against Israel at some point anyway (being Israel is a major hurdle to Iran's regional ambitions).

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this is a blatant effort to goad Iran into doing something stupid (like a largely pointless "cyber attack") just to manufacture a justification to allow immediate intervention. After all, without the justification the public can always grumble that there wasn't enough effort put into diplomacy, and since any attack to stop nuclear weapons production is going to be preemptive there really isn't a way to play that concern down other than having an ulterior reason for an attack. Trying to find a reason afterwards if you are wrong (like in Iraq, where WMD's were replaces with "well, Saddam was a crappy person anyway!") doesn't typically work well.

Re:So?

[Mabhatter]

We attacked their program... Attached to their infrastructure... First. Forcing then to clean it up put their anti-hackers ahead of our corporate security.... It's not like the govt told ITS OWN interests about the flaws!!!

Laughingly, by forcing them to deal with Suxnet, we opened the box that ALL control systems are vulnerable to that type of attack... It's VERY common hardware not designed or intended to deal with the "Internet". I'd venture 90% of the places that use these control systems don't even KNOW what was going on. Of course most places in the US are "immune" because manufacturing and power companies are still backward enough they haven't connected their systems to anything. Thanks to SOX the majority of companies that might have considered hooking every toaster to the Internet have manufacturing networks in non-secured, but non-connected sub networks.

Re:So?

[cheater512]

Sabotaging nuclear power plant == sabotaging nuclear power plant

I'm curious to see if they can cause a melt down - Iran that is.
It would be wonderfully ironic. A tiny persecuted country humiliating a super power with a big ego.

Re:So?

[Billly Gates]

Mod up!

In no way did the US or Israel try to damage Iranian infrastructure. All they were doing was trying to slow down Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Re:So?

[TubeSteak]

I feel Yet Another Desert War coming on...

Probably because you don't know anything about Iran except that they have a nuclear weapons program and have used aggressive language towards Israel.

If you attack Iran, you will not just be fighting within the Iranian borders.
Iranian funded groups will lash out, in all directions, at once.
People smarter than us know and understand this, which is why Iran has been managed with sanctions and computer viruses.

You cannot plan to attack Iran without committing to a general war across the Middle East.
The USA does not have the resources to do this and I doubt Poland (or our other NATO buddies) have any interest in being dragged into the sandbox again.

Re:So?

[Billly Gates]

Which is why they shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. The fact is they control Syria and Lebanon and even have an army of Hezbollah and the people in these countries suffer.

The trolls are out in force tonight and modding anyone who disagrees with them down faster than you can say goatse. A nuclear Hezbollah bombing Israel, nuclear Syria bombing its civilians and Iran nuclear bombing Saudi citizens rather than trying to gun down their ambassador in DC could be a very frightening situation than anyone imagined.

   

Re:So?

[Billly Gates]

How in the fuck would you know? You obviously are easily swayed by US and Israel propaganda. Iran isn't suicidal. They have no intention of attacking any country, last of which would be Israel (with it's 200+ nuclear bombs) and/or the US (with thousands of nuclear bombs). Poor, poor US and Israel. A little country like Iran has their panties all in an uproar. The US wants the oil, and Israel wants to keep the land which was stolen for them in 1947-48.

Right here. FYI technically that is an act of war.

Re:So?

[shiftless]

Complete hogwash. I won't even bother responding to your post on a point by point basis, as it's clear you don't even have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. For example your statement of a "puppet government" in Syria. Syria has been ruled by the same family of dictators for a long, long time, and they are not puppets by any stretch of the word. You clearly really don't have the first clue about the Middle East or about Iran. It's sad as fuck how the U.S. is about to jump into WW3 with both feet because of cheering morons like yourself. This one is going to get really ugly.

Re:So?

[Xest]

So are you saying Iran isn't a bad nation?

Are you pretending that Neda Agha-Soltan, an innocent civilian wasn't shot dead by her own governments militia trying to put down protests?

Are you pretending that Iranian revolutionary guards haven't actually been arrested in Kenya? Afghanistan?

Are you pretending it didn't really detonate a bomb in Argentina?

Are you pretending that just last week Hezbollah didn't really admit to launching and piloting an Iranian drone over Israel proper?

Are you pretending that Iran hasn't admitted to sending troops, and weapons to Syria to help put down protesters? That Syrian rebels haven't really captured Iranian revolution guards that were fighting with the Syrians?

Are you pretending that Iran didn't in the past, and hasn't threatened to again shut down one of the world's major ocean oil-supply routes?

People say "So?" like it's common knowledge that Iran does all sorts of evils because it does, and often even admits to it, and because unlike you, they aren't a conspiracy theory nut that believes that somehow, the US propaganda campaign against Iran is so strong that they've even managed to get Iran's leadership themselves to admit to many of the evils people bitch at them about.

Honestly, I don't really like America nowadays much either, but fuck me, you've got to be a complete ignorant idiot to think Iran is somehow some innocent little harmless nation that's no threat to anyone and has never done any wrong.

Re:So?

[AlterEager]

What's your problem with this one?

Are you pretending that just last week Hezbollah didn't really admit to launching and piloting an Iranian drone over Israel proper?

US flies drones over Iran - no problem.

Iran flies drones over Israel - they are bad people.

Why?

Re:So?

[AlterEager]

Which is why they shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. The fact is they control Syria

Nonsense.

and Lebanon

Even more nonsense.

A nuclear Hezbollah bombing Israel,

paranoid fantasy. You don't bomb countries that can bomb you back.

nuclear Syria bombing its civilians

If Bashar wanted to use WMD's on his own territory he'd be a lot more likely to use his huge stock of chemical weapons - less mess to clean up afterwards,

and Iran nuclear bombing Saudi citizens rather than trying to gun down their ambassador in DC could be a very frightening situation than anyone imagined.

Big on imagination aren't you.

Re:So?

[Xest]

Who said there was no problem about the US flying drones over Iran? That seems to be something you've injected into the conversation of your own will, it's certainly something I've never said, nor believed I think any violation of someone's airspace, especially militarily is a big deal.

Or are you one of those people who can only think in black and white and hence nonsensically believes that any criticism of Iran is inherently support for the US? If so then I can't really help you if you're not capable of rational discussion, for those of us who are, it is perfectly possible to criticise both Iran AND the US and the US doing wrong, doesn't somehow make Iran right, just as Iran doing wrong, doesn't make the US right. It does however make Iran wrong to do what it has done and make it a worthy target of criticism though, just as the US is when it does wrong.

Re:So?

[AlterEager]

Ok, I must say I missed your criticism of the US. (Yes, it's there in the last paragraph, I have no excuse. sorry).

Re:So?

[Billly Gates]

Talk to any intelligence officer? I think you understand why the US and Europe do not want an armed nuclear Iran. The slashdotters here such as yourself are truly ignorant and do not know what you are talking about.

Re:So?

[AlterEager]

Oh, I understand why people might not want a nuclear armed Iran.

I just don't think any informed person is basing that opinion on paranoid fantasies like yours,

I mean, seriously? A nuclear armed state giving its weapons to another country, let alone a non-state actor like Hezbollah. You must be joking.

And the idea that Bashar would use nukes inside his own country? It's just silly.

Re:So?

[AlterEager]

Oh, sorry, forgot this:

Talk to any intelligence officer?

I'd expect any intelligence officer to tell me what he was told to tell me, no more and no less. It may or may not have any connection to the truth.

Interesting....

[Cute and Cuddly]

On one hand, there is claims that Iran could not have taken remote control of the drone a few month ago because they do not have sofisticated technology. On the other hand, they are advanced enough to mount a serios wave of cyber attacks. Is someone trying to build a case for an invasion like in the case of the (Still not found) Iranian weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding in his palaces?

So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?

[fustakrakich]

... There's no turning back now, this means war!

Re:So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?

[cold fjord]

Nobody is going to confuse Iran with the "Free" part of Freedonia.

Attributation

[girlintraining]

Is this like how when they catch a guy breaking into someone's home, they charge him with breaking into every other home in the neighborhood too? Suspicion isn't evidence. It isn't proof. And guess what, there probably won't ever be any proof. Everything about "cyber" warfare (please, god, can we get a better name?) is centered around deception. But if we're going to play the "I have in my hands the names of members of congress known to be in the communist party" rhetoric game... Well, Stuxnet did recently come up from behind them and ruin a lot of very expensive equipment... which many people suspect Israel and the United States to have jointly produced. Are we going to sit here and cry about how two sovereign powers ganged up on a third and then (whine! boo hoo! oh noes!) the third decided to give the other two a bloody nose right back?

Propaganda. That's all this is. Rumors, hints, allegations, and nothing of any substance. Whoopde-fuckin-do. Neither side can be believed -- all the players are lying, cheating bastards when it suits their own political purposes. Hell, everytime some terrorist blows himself up in a public square, dozens of groups come forward to claim responsibility... and governments are no different. Publicity whoring is nothing new...

Re:Attributation

[girlintraining]

What? There would be no reasonable suspicion that the guy broke into every other home in the neighborhood. So no, it isn't like that.

One of the goals of a police interog--er, interview is to get a confession out of a person. The Innocence Project regularly comes across cases where DNA evidence proves their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt but the person had confessed anyway. There have been numerous high profile cases where the police would interview people who were mentally ill, and convince them to confess to a whole string of unsolved crimes when there wasn't just a lack of reasonable suspicion, but a total lack of any evidence whatsoever to link them to the crime. Something like 86% of cases never even make it to trial because of confessions.

So yes, the police will throw down a bunch of trumped-up charges and hope for a confession when they don't have a shred of evidence; It happens every day. My point is that governments will claim responsibility for something they didn't do, because it looks good politically. Iran in the not too distant past claimed to have shot down a US drone. The truth was it malfunctioned, crashed, and the following day the neighbors found the wreckage and that was the first they'd heard of it. Didn't even know there was a bird in the air; Weren't looking for it, and certainly didn't shoot it down. But admitting that is a lot less glamorous than detailing how their crack team of military geniuses shot down state of the art enemy tech.

Re:Attributation

[GPierce]

The original idea was badly stated and your response was clueless. When the police catch a burglar, on of the things they do is to take every open case in their file cabinet and blame it on the guy they caught. It improves their solved case average even if there is no way the guy is to blame for the other stuff.

Yeah right

[Sean]

And they have weapons of mass destruction just like Iraq

Re:Yeah right

[cold fjord]

Pretty much, yes. They have chemical weapons and missiles, and are trying for nuclear. They also threaten their neighbors, and Europe. (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas?)

Iran’s Chemical Weapon Program

In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”

As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead. A 1990 U.S. Department of Defense reconstruction of the Halabja incident reportedly concluded that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja. Iran allegedly attacked the town with cyanide gas bombs and artillery, and Iraqi forces allegedly used a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, the Defense Department study estimated that Iranian forces used more than 50 chemical bombs and artillery shells during the offensive. The Pentagon analysis of the Halabja incident is corroborated by a 1990 report co-written by Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In his report, Pelletiere stated that there was “no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.” Because “blood agents were allegedly responsible forthe killing of Kurds at Halabjah,” Pelletiere concluded that “the Iranians perpetrated this attack.” . . .

In an assessment of Iran’s chemical weapon development released in November 2004, the CIA concluded that Iran “may have already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and possible nerve agents—and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them.” Earlier assessments put Iran’s stockpile of chemical agents at anywhere from several hundred to several thousand metric tons. In March 2001, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was “the holder of the largest chemical weapons stockpile” in his area of responsibility.

In September 2000, the CIA assessed that Iran’s chemical weapon program still relied upon external suppliers for technology, equipment and precursor chemicals, but that Tehran was “rapidly approaching self-sufficiency and could become a supplier of CW-related materials to other nations.” Since then, the CIA has reported that Iran was seeking “production technology, training and expertise” that could help it “achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents.”

One of the most recent assessments of Iran’s chemical weapon capabilities was revealed in a February 2005 report by the German news agency ddp, citing findings by Germany’s Customs Office of Criminal Investigations (ZKA). The ZKA reportedly believes that Iran has secretly carried out chemical weapon research and development in small, well-guarded unive

Re:Yeah right

[cold fjord]

You are badly misinformed, on more than one subject.

Allow me to draw you attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program. In it you will see that Iran has carried out a number of weapons related activities, and that there are serious open questions. An earlier report referenced here found seven categories of activity aimed at nuclear weapons production, and rather damning ones at that. And if you can trouble yourself to read, the UN Secretary General is urging Iran to come clean.

Neither the US nor Israel want war with Iran as it would be both an enormous waste of resources, and a dangerous development for the world, including the economy. But the US, Israel, Europe, and most of Iran's neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran even less than war.

You are also wrong about the coup. It was a counter-coup that restored the Shaw to power - that would be the Shaw that was the lawful head of government in Iran prior to the coup that pushed him out and the counter-coup that restored him to power. So, your point there is also nonsense, particularly in light of the ambitions of the radical Shia who formed Iran's government.

And I'll throw in a bonus since you get so much else wrong: State Sponsors: Iran

Re:Yeah right

[cold fjord]

In short, you didn't bother to read the thread, since I don't rely to my own post.

Maybe . . .

[fizzer06]

The government has consitently displayed a flagrant disregard for the truth.

Why should we believe them now?

No certainty on attacks,but certainty on downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight...it's impossible to say with certainty who's behind the attacks...but it is possible to say with certainty who downloaded a song or movie?...seems like the government is acknowledging that an IP address doesn't equal a person (or even nation for that matter).

I know it's an over simplification...call it hyperbole to make a point.

Sounds Legit.

[wadeal]

Because "American Intelligence Officials" are always reliable. They've never lied about anything ever before.

sensationalism

[phantomfive]

The source is an "unnamed official." The evidence presented is this:

The virus that hit Aramco is called Shamoon and spread through computers linked over a network to erase files on about 30,000 computers by overwriting them. Mr. Panetta, while not directly attributing the strike to Iran in his speech, called it "probably the most destructive attack that the private sector has seen to date."

Until the attack on Aramco, most of the cybersabotage coming out of Iran appeared to be what the industry calls "denial of service" attacks

This is hyperbole. Assuming the company had backups, it was definitely not the most destructive attack that the private sector has seen. It hasn't impacted their operations (oil deliveries are still being made on time). Pretty sure this one was worse, and that there were even worse ones.

I don't doubt that Iranians have the computer skills to hack into computers, but Leon Panetta is trying to play the fear card during an election to try to get his agenda passed. He isn't trying to represent the situation honestly.

This is just taste of what's to come

[WOOFYGOOFY]

In a related Slashdot story yesterday we have this quote:

'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.

Really? Isn't that why DARPA created the internet in the first place, so our communication and command and control systems could survive a nuclear attack that we failed to prevent?

So I guess we already DO accept the notion that prevention is going to fail and the worst possible thing may happen sooner or later.

So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.

How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks. This is doable and should be done.

This is fundamentally the problem of modern society; it's what brought down the Twin Towers . We make something like a plane and never see it as a guided missile filled with explosive jet fuel. We build huge skyscrapers piling people on top of people and don't permit ourselves to think too much that this same arrangement of people represents a force multiplier to a determined enemy. Just an easy example from recent history; other possibilities abound.The more technologically advanced we become the more highly leveraged weapons we accidentally deliver into the hands of religionists and other madmen.

There has to be a paradigm shift in ALL our thinking about the things, the structures of civil society upon which we depend, and not just in the thinking in intelligence circles because we need to vote "yes", even "hell yes" for the taxes which pay to make these things not just work, but secure.

We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch or less concerned with security, but because we are not keeping up with ourselves technologically, in a certain sense.

The best passive defence is .......

[Turminder Xuss]

Somehow you just know investigations of Iran's Passive Defence Organization are gonna run into its evil twin, the Passive Aggressive Organization: "No, it's fine ! I'm sure your suspicions are founded on solid evidence. We'll get right onto it. Take a ticket and wait for your number".

Fair enough proposition...

[mevets]

However, each side believes their national infrastructure was sabotaged, and that they sabotaged the others weapons program.

Both suffer from their respective militaries being infused into their very fabric, thus valid targets are practically moot.

Re:Fair enough proposition...

[sumdumass]

So Iran released something indicating they thought they were on military networks? Or do you have some special insight into Iran's operations?

I actually think this has more to do with politics in the US more then actual threat to the US. Think about it, Biden said republicans would start war with Iran in the debates the other day, Ryan said that was false. Obama and Biden have been floating that war mongering bit around for a while now and all the sudden near an election (less then 4 weeks out) Iran is "attacking" our infrastructure.

Re:Fair enough proposition...

[mevets]

I agree that the propaganda is in full swing, I was pointing out the futility of differentiating between infrastructure and military targets. I wish it was otherwise.

Re:This is just taste of what's to come

[guisar]

Do you REALLY believe the modern, current government of the us or any country is the right, proper, and most capable place for "securing" anything? Do you believe a centralized, procedurized and standardized approach to security is the most effective one?

I would argue the breaches, not the protections are mainly due to government action and inaction. The government should protect public sytems- eg those owned by the federal and state governments and critical to its operation. The private concerns should do the same for theres. Like other aspects of modern warfare, a decentralized method of planning, offense and defense is the best strategy (IMHO).

Now Osama Bin Laden is dead

[dutchwhizzman]

Now Osama Bin Laden is Dead and the cold war with Russia is over, they need a new enemy. Without an enemy, people might actually look at the state of the economy, freedom and other inconvenient things. So what if the Iranians have spawned a bunch of script kiddies? Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked massive attack at the whole of the only part of the USA's army that could threaten a country at once. These are pin pricks compared to that. I call cry wolf for the sake of distraction and black ops budget justification.

Re:Now Osama Bin Laden is dead

[bussdriver]

Pearl Harbor was totally provoked. Learn your history. Amazing how the old propaganda still lingers. FDR was provoking as much as he could because we NEEDED to get into WW2. When you mess with a nation's oil supply that is an actionable provocation Americans today should understand...

Re:Now Osama Bin Laden is dead

[Mitreya]

Now Osama Bin Laden is Dead and the cold war with Russia is over, they need a new enemy. Without an enemy, people might actually look at the state of the economy, freedom and other inconvenient things.

I don't know what you mean
It's hard to even count in how many places US is waging a war now. So these are not even our enemies?

Afganistan, Pakisant, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, ...

Re:Now Osama Bin Laden is dead

[Crypto Gnome]

Now Osama Bin Laden is Dead and the cold war with Russia is over, they need a new enemy.

With all the savaging privacy and public rights have taken (in the US as much as elsewhere) I'd be inclined to say that The People have become the true Enemy Of The State.

Re:This is just taste of what's to come

[Mabhatter]

To be fair, we DID consider public safety in building the towers... Of 50k people in those buildings, the VAST majority were able to evacuate because we had proper building codes and evacuation plans in place.

As far as Internet security, SOX has forced companies to separate financial data from manufacturing data... Meaning the vast majority of susceptible systems are off the Internet, or behind firewalls...

In both cases, yes, damage can still be done... With the towers it was an act of war. With the Internet most companies would take a deliberate attack... There are 1000 other things that network admins have to worry about when dealing with power systems... From idiots with power tools to newbie employees... Super hacker ninjas trying to break software that's "glued shut" 99.99% of the time just isn't on the list.

You can spend all your time and sanity looking to build a perfect safe system, or spend a moderate amount of time building practical ways to recover quickly. When you are in the middle of parties committing acts of war, you have bigger problems.

I live in out-state Michigan and it wasn't that long ago you could ASSUME to have 2-3 days of power outage in winter. Forget TV, Cellphones and Internet... We're talking heat and light. People are too hung upon their 99.9% efficiencies, they forget we used to CLOSE whole cities for holiday and everybody got along just fine for a few days.

Then USA is Japan

[GPLHost-Thomas]

If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

Re:Then USA is Japan

[1s44c]

If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

The first widely reported strike. Stuxnet was only discovered by accident.

The US has way more money to sink into researching and launching cyber attacks than Iran does, it's likely the US has been cyber-attacking everyone for some years now. Microsoft and the companies that hand over their SCADA information will have been their best friend.

Re:Then USA is Japan

[twistedcubic]

No, he's a C++ programmer, so he was just being object-oriented: everything in Slashdot is a derived instance of the First Post.

Gah

[lightknight]

I want off this planet, immediately. I can't...I can't facepalm hard enough when I hear shit like this.

Morons weaponizing the internet. It's the idiot kid who needs to prove he's a hard ass to everyone else in the sandbox.

Re:Gah

[Aryden]

The thing I worry about the most is not the U.S. govt using things like this to provoke us into war, it's what they try to do with our freedoms and the internet to "keep us safe" from everyone else. They'd turn "Think of the children" into "Think of our national security" and we'd be right fucked.

Re:Gah

[phantomfive]

The 'internet' has been weaponized since people were using dialup....

Re:Gah

[lightknight]

*shrouds himself in shadows* Then perhaps someone needs to place a phone call to one of the gentlemen at the CIA with a morally casual stance towards crime fighting and nation building, and offer him (& friends) a hefty sum of untraceable monies to fix the problem?

Leave the gate open, blame the horse for bolting..

[felixrising]

Sure, we can run around getting mad because someone exploited a hole.. or we can stop building systems with holes that can be exploited... As a systems engineer I believe the contractual obligation to provide systems and software which is fit for purpose and fit for use should not lie with the users of said software, but with the producers. There is an aspect of mismanagement/misconfiguration but really, we are applying patches ALL THE TIME! If our level of trust in border protection (i.e. the border between internal network and Internet) is so low, then maybe a redesign is required that separates these two areas so we stop getting exploited in the first place. Our weighting of security vs convenience is way too far towards the convenience side, and we're depending on sloppy coding and configuration and getting caught out far too often and then blaming the attackers.

cyber war is just a figure of speech

[0111 1110]

Cyber war is like the war on drugs. Like the war on terror. Like all of the other 'wars' that are not wars at all. If this is Iran's idea of war then I say bring it on. It was idiotic of us to start this shit in the first place. When someone in Iran wants to buy something they go to a store. Disabling their internets would just slightly invonvenience them. For us it would be more than just a slight inconvenience. It would be a serious inconvenience.

If the new idea of "war" is not to kill anyone, but instead to just disable some web sites well that's a new world order that I can back enthusiastically. Maybe the world will be civilized enough some day to fight wars completely in cyber-space through special video games approved by both sides.

The idea of a cyber Pearl Harbor is one of the most idiotic things I've heard in a while. What these idiots don't seem to understand is that 'information super highway' is just a figure of speech. There is no actual highway or anything.

"We won't succeed in preventing a cyber attack through improved defenses alone," Mr. Panetta said. "If we detect an imminent threat of attack that will cause significant, physical destruction in the United States or kill American citizens, we need to have the option to take action against those who would attack us to defend this nation when directed by the president. For these kinds of scenarios, the department has developed that capability to conduct effective operations to counter threats to our national interests in cyberspace."

This statement is so clearly insane that I don't even know what to say in response except it's not the Iranians that scare me. It's my own fucking idiotic shit-for-brains government. I can just imagine these violent idiots starting a war based on some random Iranian dude taking down some e-commerce sites. Ooh, Americans are not able to complete their Amazon orders for a few hours. Boohoo. Let's go to war.

Re:cyber war is just a figure of speech

[morgauxo]

Well... once we don't have power grids, factories, etc.. controlled by crappy internet connected un-patched, non-firewalled windows boxes I will entirely agree with you. That's probably going to require actually getting harmed by something before that will happen though. I just hope it's something temporary like shutting down part of the power grid (in a way that it can be turned back on easily) and not something with longer term consequences like a release of material from a nuke plant that finally causes these things to be secured.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This is just taste of what's to come

[TubeSteak]

So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.

How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks.

Oh fuck. The smart grid.
The smart grid was designed by individuals who either "focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them"
OR bootstrapped their "smart" on top of stupid old systems that no one ever imagined would require security,
OR they were just to fucking cheap to bake security into their plans from day 0.

This is doable and should be done.

It's doable if the government is willing to pay private companies to rip out their old infrastructure and put in some brand new Made-In-China technology.
It will not be done if private businesses can't write it off on their taxes or find some way to have the general public subsidize it for them.

How nice of you to notice

[shiftless]

How perceptive. Now observe as I do the same.

I'm glad this article came up on Slashdot cause Lord knows Facebook is tired of my political commentary, and in the middle of the night too so maybe somebody will actually see my comment, and understand when I say this accusation IS COMPLETE HORSESHIT.

Iran did not launch any fucking "cyber attack." This is nothing more than a convenient excuse drummed up by the U.S. to help justify an invasion. They have been searching high and low for a good excuse for some time. Now the stage is set. When some massive cyberattack hits the U.S. (not really causing any real damage of course, at least not to anything seriously critically important) guess who will be blamed? Why, it must have been Iran! Leon Panetta with his far-rearching vision and insight pointed out not 6 months ago this might happen! Quick, to arms!

Re:How nice of you to notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick! Invade Iraq^Hn! Weapons of Mass^H^H^H^HCyberspace Destruction found by US Intelligence Services! Bring out Colin Powell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHillary Clinton! ...?Hey does anyone know how to make those red lines in MSWord go away? Ah don't worry about it. I'll publish this now.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[Anonymous Coward]

> Lord knows Facebook is tired of my political commentary

it's not just them, we all are.

> and in the middle of the night too so maybe somebody will actually see my comment

go to bed. you'll be happier in the morning.

oblig. xkcd is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[1s44c]

Iran did not launch any fucking "cyber attack." This is nothing more than a convenient excuse drummed up by the U.S. to help justify an invasion. They have been searching high and low for a good excuse for some time.

It's unclear if Iran did or didn't lauch any cyber attacks. However it's clear that Iran has been blamed for countless things since the Iraq invasion. Iran also has the world's third biggest oil reserves, oil reserves that the US is strong arming the world into not buying right now.

I'm with your theory. The US is trying to justify an invasion in order to take Iranian oil. However the US can't justify a full scale invasion with a few computer hacks, they will keep blaming Iran for everything and anything until they stumble onto something big enough to justify an invasion.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[Savage-Rabbit]

It's unclear if Iran did or didn't lauch any cyber attacks. However it's clear that Iran has been blamed for countless things since the Iraq invasion. Iran also has the world's third biggest oil reserves, oil reserves that the US is strong arming the world into not buying right now.

I'm with your theory. The US is trying to justify an invasion in order to take Iranian oil. However the US can't justify a full scale invasion with a few computer hacks, they will keep blaming Iran for everything and anything until they stumble onto something big enough to justify an invasion.

Never mind pretexts, the US cannot afford to pay for a full scale invasion of Iran, never mind the resulting 15-20 year occupation and bloody counter-insurgency (except perhaps in the warped minds of Fox News commentators and "Bibi" Netanyahu's wet dreams).

Re:How nice of you to notice

[1s44c]

Never mind pretexts, the US cannot afford to pay for a full scale invasion of Iran, never mind the resulting 15-20 year occupation and bloody counter-insurgency (except perhaps in the warped minds of Fox News commentators and "Bibi" Netanyahu's wet dreams).

The US could not afford freeing Kuwait, invading Iraq, or invading Afghanistan. It did these things anyway.

All that oil must be very tempting to a country that has become utterly dependant on oil. It might just pay for the invasion and occupation whilst cutting off one of China's sources of fuel.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[jimbolauski]

How perceptive. Now observe as I do the same.

I'm glad this article came up on Slashdot cause Lord knows Facebook is tired of my political commentary, and in the middle of the night too so maybe somebody will actually see my comment, and understand when I say this accusation IS COMPLETE HORSESHIT.

Iran did not launch any fucking "cyber attack." This is nothing more than a convenient excuse drummed up by the U.S. to help justify an invasion. They have been searching high and low for a good excuse for some time. Now the stage is set. When some massive cyberattack hits the U.S. (not really causing any real damage of course, at least not to anything seriously critically important) guess who will be blamed? Why, it must have been Iran! Leon Panetta with his far-rearching vision and insight pointed out not 6 months ago this might happen! Quick, to arms!

That is the dumbest thing I have read in a while. If the US wanted to invade Iran we would have done so all ready, the whole building nuclear weapons is more then enough reason to invade but yet we have not. Which is a bigger threat an unstable regime with a nuke or government sponsored script kiddies? The US all ready has guidelines for responses to to cyber attacks and unless infrastructure is destroyed an invasion is off the table.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[Savage-Rabbit]

Never mind pretexts, the US cannot afford to pay for a full scale invasion of Iran, never mind the resulting 15-20 year occupation and bloody counter-insurgency (except perhaps in the warped minds of Fox News commentators and "Bibi" Netanyahu's wet dreams).

The US could not afford freeing Kuwait, invading Iraq, or invading Afghanistan. It did these things anyway.

All that oil must be very tempting to a country that has become utterly dependant on oil. It might just pay for the invasion and occupation whilst cutting off one of China's sources of fuel.

Back then the west was riding on an unsustainable economic boom and the US national debt was not 16 trillion dollars. Tempting as it may be to assume that oil will pay for the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and the much anticipated invasion of Iran, we have yet to see Iraqi oil pay off the invasion and 10 year occupation of that country. It's not as if the USA can declare Iraq a province, appoint a governor and tax the place till it bleeds, this is not the 2nd century BC. Afghanistan will never be anything but a money pit and occupying Iran for a decade or more (which the Iraq experience has shown is necessary) will be even more painful than Iraq has been. Another thing to consider is that if the USA invades and occupies Iran it will have one ally in that endeavour, Israel, and they would be a liability not an asset. Even the Brits would sit out a 20 year insurgency in Iran.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[shiftless]

That is the dumbest thing I have read in a while. If the US wanted to invade Iran we would have done so all ready,

That's exactly the problem. The U.S. people by and large do not want to invade Iran. This fearmongering by Panetta and his ilk is one part of the establishment's attempt to change that.

the whole building nuclear weapons is more then enough reason to invade

Is it really? Now that is the stupidest thing I've read in this thread. Look at how colored your perception is by the establishment propaganda you absorb. No sane person, or person with expertise on this who doesn't have an agenda to push, thinks Iran is actually building a nuke. Although, if I were in their shoes.....I damn sure would be! The craziest thing is you idea that it's the U.S.'s job to police the world and decides who gets to have a nuke. Israel has 200+ nukes; why are they allowed to have them and Iran isn't? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or attacked a country, or even threatened to?

Re:How nice of you to notice

[ex0duz]

Well, there's always profit to be made in war, and when there's a will(money to be made), there's a way. I'm sure Leon Panetta and his buddies will profit, same way Cheney and Co did, even if it bankrupts the country. The same response as you replied to.. so what? It will still happen if certain people want it to. Just do another 9/11, and no one will question anything. They already have the playbook, and they keep using it over and over, but nothing ever changes. That's why he's been saying all this shit. It profits him personally to say it. These CIA guys don't just say things for no reason. It might not be a GOOD reason(for the U S of A), but i'm guessing it's good for those in power. They can say anything these days(intelligence), and no one can refute it. It's been that way since what, before even the cold war, since ww2? perhaps even before that they were already 'running rampant' and unchecked.. Stuxnet, 9/11, worldwide assassinations, setting up puppet govs, coup de tats, propping and supporting political parties in otherwise legitimate democracies, etc etc.

You guys might think i'm paranoid or you might even be more paranoid, but we're probably not even paranoid enough when it comes to these guys. Imagine google at it's worse, then times it by 1000 and you have these guys. Oh, and add a healthy dose of physical force too. And times that by 1000 too. My x1000 estimate is also probably conservative, but yeah. You probably get the picture by now ;)

Hello Mr Panetta. I 3 you, your team, and your Mossad buddies. Or whichever intelligence agency is reading this. I am very fond of intelligence and information :)

Re:How nice of you to notice

[ex0duz]

Which is a bigger threat an unstable regime with a nuke or government sponsored script kiddies?

You are right. Israel should be given more attention. But the right kind of attention.. Bibi even brought a picture of a cartoon style bomb to the UN! And they are also currently trying to get the US into another pre-emptive war that the US doesn't want any part of.. or at least Obama/Democrats. Or at least i hope. On the other hand, someone let me know when Iran actually gets a 'nuke. And then continually threatens pre-emptive wars against it's neighbours, occupies another country illegally, and oppresses millions and steals more land by the day.

Certainly the majority of the US aren't as gullible anymore as they were about Iraq and WMD's. How fast people forget..

Re:How nice of you to notice

[jimbolauski]

That is the dumbest thing I have read in a while. If the US wanted to invade Iran we would have done so all ready,

That's exactly the problem. The U.S. people by and large do not want to invade Iran. This fearmongering by Panetta and his ilk is one part of the establishment's attempt to change that.

the whole building nuclear weapons is more then enough reason to invade

Is it really? Now that is the stupidest thing I've read in this thread. Look at how colored your perception is by the establishment propaganda you absorb. No sane person, or person with expertise on this who doesn't have an agenda to push, thinks Iran is actually building a nuke. Although, if I were in their shoes.....I damn sure would be! The craziest thing is you idea that it's the U.S.'s job to police the world and decides who gets to have a nuke. Israel has 200+ nukes; why are they allowed to have them and Iran isn't? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or attacked a country, or even threatened to?

Ahmadinejad said

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

That sounds like a threat to me.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[jimbolauski]

I'll get a little off topic here but who's has a right to the land depends on when you decide that ownership begins Arabs invaded the area in 600AD and did not control it the whole time the Jews have been a part of that land pretty consistently for 3,000 years, even after many invasions in the land. If anyone can claim the land they can make the best case.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[shiftless]

That sounds like a threat to me.

That's because a threat is what you want to hear.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[ex0duz]

Well, it's always been who has force decides who owns anything. And that is US. It has the physical force to be able to stop regimes, or replace them. It can also do it economically, which is also force, but in a different manner('soft' force). It can also do this(with Israel). It also has international law, which it tries to pretend to respect. But if they themselves don't uphold it or respect it, then the whole thing just fails, and the US fails as a 'leader'. It has to rely only on hard force rather than soft force, since it won't have money anymore to do what it used to do.. it also doesn't have the reputation anymore either since it lost it's credibility and is continuing to do so(ie by ignoring UN and international law, along with Israel).

I don't know who was the first one to claim 'ownership', and i don't think it matters. Right now we have the US who has force, ad we have international law. Those are the two important things. A discussion on who claimed ownership rights from 2000 years ago, or which God/Prophet came first or which is real or whic is Gods true prophet/son is also not of interest to me, and i don't think it should matter. There are more important things to discuss, like the current treatment of the Palestinians and Palestine by Israel.

That they are calling Iran 'bad' and in defiance of international law and saying they worry about Iran starting wars and having a nuke is like the pot calling the kettle black.. except i don't think Iran is even as bad as Israel atm. They mght fuck their own people over, but they aren't fucking their direct neighbours over as badly as Israel is doing to Palestine(and the rest of the region). As well as the US, who is by proxy Israels 'boss'(since the US pays them/gives them aid and also military tech/training/equipment and also supports them in the UN.. it gives the line "me against the world" a whole new meaning). If they both want, they should just both go to some Island, and both have a 'proxy' war. And leave the Palestinians alone already. Bibi and his ilk wanna start a war? Ok, but they are to be frontline troops, the first ones in. THE ONLY ONES in. No leaders/commanders, no air force, no bombs, no guns. NOTHING. Just swords, so everyone who has one is also shouting to everyone that he is ready to die as well as kill. No collateral damage, no damage to infrastructure. Just people who want war on both sides, and they all kill each other. The winner is the people of Palestine, and Iran/Israel since all the war mongers will be dead on either side. If there are survivors, then send them to now free Palestine. Put them in jail for crimes against humanity.

Anyway, my rant went on a bit too long and a bit too off topic and sounds a bit too trollish. Heh. Oh well, what can you do. FREE PALESTINE!

Re:How nice of you to notice

[ex0duz]

Also, the Israeli's/Jew's can CLAIM it, but it doesn't mean anything. Not everyone accepts their history, or cares. That's like saying native american indians, or native Australian Aboriginals etc should claim US/Australia and we should care..

No, power talks. But then you should say it like it is. You're ruthless warmongers who take by force, and who go against international law.. Not some historical claim, because that's just bullshit. See above example.

Jews also DON'T NEED IT. They are oppressing Palestinians for nothing but selfish reasons. For religion, god, love? Please. It's tantamount to starting a war over nothing, starting a war over religion(ie bullshit). You'd think they would have learned lessons from their own history. Ie Germany and WW2..

Re:How nice of you to notice

[tehcyder]

That sounds like a threat to me.

If I send a postcard saying I will storm the US embassy in London armed with a carrot and a piece of cardboard shaped like a penis, that is a threat, but I doubt that the Marines on guard will need to shoot me dead to contain the peril somehow.

The chances of Iran or any other Middle Eastern country defeating Israel in a war are pretty much zero. When you add in Israel's nukes, they are actually zero.

Re:How nice of you to notice

[davydagger]

and before the Jews had it, it was known as cannan, and the jews took it by force from the cananites.

And before the muslims conquered it, the Romans "reaquested it" from the Jewish kings, who stood as their allies for 1-2 generations before assuming power. Like Romans nominally do/did.

It was Roman turf when Jesus was around.

Then the roman empire when christian, and it was christian land. Then the Roman empire split, and it was West Roman/Byzantine turf.

Then when that fell I think somewhere around 1150, it was muslim ottoman turf.

until they were beaten by the brits in ww1, and it was brittish turf. Then the Brits gave some of it to the zionists.

So who really has a "legitimate" claim, that isn't backed by conquest?

Go find any surviving cananites and get back to me.

there are differences of ideological opinion

[circletimessquare]

which is fine, this is life

but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[girlintraining]

but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons

Well, every country can benefit from nuclear power. Most also don't want to be dependent on another country to keep fuel in those reactors, either. Especially when the countries that they'd be depending on have a long history of military aggression and refuse to participate in the Geneva Conventions, and have withdrawn from dozens of international treaties, while demanding other countries turn over their own citizens, who will upon deportation face indefinite imprisonment ahead of a mock trial, if one is even given. The people who currently control nuclear fuel simply can't be trusted not to leverage that access for their own political ends.

And nuclear weapons are attractive for a great number of reasons, not the least of which is, once you're a nuclear power, the aforementioned countries can't bully you around anymore. Iran probably wouldn't be developing a nuclear weapons program with such furvor if it wasn't under constant threat of attack... and whose enemies on all of its borders were receiving large shipments of state of the art weapons from other nuclear powers.

Do I think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Hell no. But do I understand why they want them? Absolutely. The United States' chief diplomat right now is a Predator drone in the region. You can't blame them for wanting to defend themselves -- and given the prohibitively-high cost of developing a military capable of providing adequate defense against its enemies, a nuclear weapons program is the only logical choice.

Whatever I may think of their ideology, religious beliefs, etc., as a country, I can step away from that and recognize that they are a sovereign nation with clear and present threats to its continued existance and way of life. If we were really the humanitarians we tell our children we are in school, we'd spend less time hitting them with the stick and more offering them the carrot. Iran's nuclear weapons program is ambitious and costly, especially for the citizens who's quality of life is already marginal. The only reason a country in such a situation would put forth the resources to fund a nuclear weapons program is out of desperation. They're scared... and they have good reason to be.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[circletimessquare]

i don't really understand the opinions in this thread, like yours, that never seem to take into account the ideology that the regime in tehran represents. in 2009, iranians tried to communicate to the regime and the world what they thought of it, and were brutally suppressed.

there's this fake shallow attitude where because the usa is hated, enemies of the usa must be championed. it's a tribal mentality where it has to be either "us" or "them" to side with. but actual principles would guide you to have antipathy to iran AND the usa. it is entirely possible to hate washington dc and tehran at the same time, often for the same reasons

nobody proves anything except the fact they falsely think contrarianism is somehow equivalent to intelligence when they give the regime in tehran a contrived benefit of the doubt. the usa commits plenty of crimes in this world. i repeat: the usa commits plenty of crimes in this world. but letting genuinely worse players slide in the name of shallow contrarianism doesn't prove much except your own lack of awareness of what actually plays out on the world stage and in iran. justice, fairness, a human conscience should be your primary concern when formulating your opinions. if these concepts were, you'd be denouncing tehran just as much if not moreso than washington dc. but so many chattering fools seem guided by the stupid notion that antipathy to washington dc means you have to let tehran off lightly

in the name of the iranian people, speak out against tehran. it doesn't mean you are a friend of washington dc. only dull tribal thinking makes you think it does

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[rtb61]

Yet the US constantly talks about bombing the Iranian people because of a dispute with the Iranian government, chief of which seems to be the desire of the Iranian government to trade oil in currencies other than the US dollar. Bahrain with the direct support of Saudi Arabia and indirect support of the US government treated it's population far worse with hardly a whisper in US main stream press and complete silence from the US government.

The US government can not call up 'The People' in any way, upon any issue. The US government is quite content to homicidally kill as many people as necessary guilty or innocent, whether in the name of justice or just as examples, to torture the guilty or even innocent as lab rats and, to abandon all principles of justice in the pursuit of corporate profits. Only in PR and advertising campaigns is the US the champion of democracy and justice, in reality it's all 'SHOW ME THE MONEY'.

No different in this case. Iran attacking the US (just in case that doesn't work they'll through in Russia and China to the mix, ohh ahh), cyber Pearl Harbour, oh my God they are going to kill us all, it's all crap and bullshit, it's all 'SHOW ME THE MONEY'. The military industrial complex has discovered another route to the tax payer's wallet, billions are up for grabs and it is working every angle to get them.

The question is would the military industrial complex via it's non-military holdings purposefully connect those holdings to the internet with lax security so that they will be destructively attacked. Have a hospitals prescription opened up to the internet for hacking so that people will die and they can say see we told you so. Pointlessly hook up power system to the internet so that some script kiddie can bring down all power in a major city for days, so they can say, we told you so. Hook up traffic control so that as many people as possible and or get injured will die in traffic so that they can scream over the media controlled channels 'SEE YOU SHOULD HAVE PAID US MORE, MORE, MORE'. Right now multi-national corporations and the psychopaths running them are a far greater threat than Iran. If the US military is desperate to fire missiles from drones they would likely be far better off targeting corporate board rooms than some mud hut in the desert.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[cyberchondriac]

Yet the US constantly talks about bombing the Iranian people because of a dispute with the Iranian government

Valid Citation? I haven't heard or read any calls to "bomb the Iranian people". For that matter, I haven't heard any specific calls from the US to bomb anything.. they're still working with sanctions.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[rtb61]

Any representative of government is a part of that government. They all pass the laws, every congressmen and every senator, represent the US government, everything that comes out of their mouths, everything they write, us coming from the US government. The one way politi-speak endorsed by the executive branch where every other government around the world and it's people are held liable for every word spoken by any elected politcian but in the US the ill thought words of Congressman and Senators are routinely ignored. Now duck and weave with propaganda.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[circletimessquare]

no. just vote

and get very angry at people who don't vote, for whatever contrived, lame reason they have

nonvoting assholes are why the government we have is not a close representation of the people

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[circletimessquare]

i hate the influence of corporations and the rich, turning my democracy into a plutocracy

however, i also understand that the venom coming out of tehran is real and significant, and so do the iranian people (2009? hello?)

in other words, it is possible to hate the plutocracy, and the theocracy, at the same time! you don't have to choose. really

it is a lame, contrived effort so many people undergo where they have to, for some incredibly lame reason i do not understand, choose one enemy of the people and excuse the other or minimize the threat from the other

why?!

now mod me down again slashdot groupthink. even though i am 100% correct. tribal groupthink is the source of the problem i am talking about

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[rtb61]

Then why don't you campaign to make voting compulsory. Those who fail to uphold democracy with the simplest act of voting should be penalised.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[circletimessquare]

doesn't work

brazil has compulsory voting. what happens is people vote for joke candidates or Bart Simpson

you can't force people to care

you can only say to them the simple fact that because they don't care is the source of our problems. and hope they grow the fuck up

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[rtb61]

It does work, see, they get out and vote. If they are unhappy with the candidates provided expect them to vote for nobody or vote for joke candidates. You can't force people to care but you can certainly teach them and getting to democracy class, the electoral booth and seeing all the other people that care is a big step in that direction.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[tehcyder]

doesn't work

brazil has compulsory voting. what happens is people vote for joke candidates or Bart Simpson

So what? At least they have to get off their arses and go to the polling station. I'd have thought that most people would then think "I might as well make a sensible decision now I'm here", but if they don't that's their problem.

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[davydagger]

"Yet the US constantly talks about bombing the Iranian people"

lets be fair here, even the worst of them are planning targeting raids on uranium and nuclear facilties only, common Iranians, no.

Some US politicians constantly talk about bombing Iran because of netanyahoo

Re:there are differences of ideological opinion

[rtb61]

Oh yes oh wise fuck wit because blowing up uranium and nuclear facilities will cause no problems for the common population. By what fucking right do the holders of hundreds of nuclear weapons in the case of Israel and tens of fucking thousands of nuclear weapons in the case of the US, claim other countries are not entitled to them. Especially when the US claimed the right to first strike any country in the world with nuclear for what ever reason it deemed appropriate. That first strike crap basically blew any chance the US had of claiming good guy status, not to mention, illegal detention and, torture.

I hate to break it to you

[circletimessquare]

but this has been the human condition since day one, and will be the human condition long after you are gone, with any conceivable permutation on technology you can think of

and yet we were still able to create civilization and all the benefits of that and we still possess all the good qualities you hold dear

FTFY

[shiftless]

In no way did the US or Israel try to damage Iranian infrastructure. All they were doing was trying to slow down Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

FTFY.

Of course, US and Israel and Europe also aren't trying to reduce Iran's population to starvation and destroy their economy....no no no....those oil sanctions are targeted at the oil industry. The fact that people will soon be starving, rioting, looting, etc is merely an inconsequential side effect, right?

Re:No certainty on attacks,but certainty on downlo

[Mitreya]

So let me get this straight...it's impossible to say with certainty who's behind the attacks...but it is possible to say with certainty who downloaded a song or movie?.

Of course it's impossible to say who's behind the attacks. Even if you could pinpoint the source with absolute certaintly, there is no way to tell that a country had sanctioned it. That's the best kind of attacks - you can blame a cyber-attack on anyone you want!

And, unlike with "weapons of mass destruction", you can't ever disprove it, no matter what you do.

Re:This is just taste of what's to come

[Crypto Gnome]

We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch...

With all the shenanigans that politicians get up to yet you can still say that with a straight face?

Some days I think a retarded and crippled monkey would do better (and no that's not an obscure reference to GWB).

No, the USA is the USSR

[cold fjord]

Then USA is Japan . . . If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

On the contrary, Stuxnet wasn't "Pearl Harbor", it was Kursk, where the US is the Russians and Iran is the Germans. Specifically Stuxnet is the counter-preparation fire to delay, disorganize, and confuse them, but it won't ultimately stop them. Stopping them would take wise leaders, and Iran has fanatics. Pearl Harbor was a strike on a nation at peace with the attacker, and the counter-preparation fire at Kursk was a strike against an adversary at war that is preparing a deadly move - in Iran's case, nuclear weapons. Iran considers itself at war with the United States and Israel, and will probably extend that to Europe. Why do you think missile defenses provided by the US are going into Europe? Hint: It isn't to defend against an American attack. It is related to the fact that Iran has been observed redesigning their long range Shahab 3 missile warheads, replacing the conventional shape with a spherical nuclear payload.

Fire Support at the Battle of Kursk

Just after 0200 on 5 July 1943, Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov received the call he had been waiting for. It was General Pukhov, commander of the Thirteenth Army, reporting that he had captured a German sapper. After some "persuasion,” the sapper stated that the anticipated German offensive against the Kursk salient would commence at 0300, less than an hour away. There was no time to lose. Without hesitation, Zhukov turned to Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the Central Front, and ordered the artillery counter-preparation to begin immediately.1

At 0220, 10 minutes before German preparatory fires were to begin, the Central Front’s command post trembled as more than 600 Soviet howitzers, Katyushas2 and mortars opened fire on known and templated German artillery positions. This counter-preparation lasted for only 30 minutes but had a devastating impact on unsuspecting German forces preparing to attack. German artillery was unable to return fire in any organized manner until 0445, delaying the attack until 0530—two and one half-hours behind schedule.3

US intelligence increasingly convinced?

[dgharmon]

"American intelligence officials are increasingly convinced that Iran was the origin of a serious wave of network attacks that crippled computers across the Saudi oil industry and breached financial institutions in the United States"

Assuming such attacks took place then it would have consisted of phishing attacks against unsecured Windows desktops and there's no evidence it came from Iran. It isn't beyond the bounds of probability that US intelligence fakes cyber-attacks and then blamed Iran.

Total bullshit ...

[dgharmon]

"Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran

You mean IRAN was going to take back what the British had previously stolen from them, their own oil. link

Iran? Iraq?

[Anarchy24]

It sounds like they are doing with Iran what they did with Iraq: big on talk, short on facts. Israel and the United States are looking for any and every reason to launch an attack on Iran to at least give it some guise of legitimacy. They argue that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off an arms race in the region... Israel has nukes, Pakistan has them, and so does India. Foreign policy experts and even the US State Department agree that Iran is a 'rational actor', and they know that if they launch any nuclear attack, they themselves will be vaporized. What a nuclear-armed Iran WOULD do, is negate the Israeli threat in the region. Frankly they have no reason NOT to want a nuke. It will probably lead to some measure of peace and stability in the region, the first in quite a long time.

The Bad guys vs the Bad guys

[morgauxo]

"t Iran was the origin of a serious wave of network attacks that crippled computers across the Saudi oil industry and breached financial institutions in the United States"

It's the batshit insane bad guys attacking the greedy sociopaths! So long as this doesn't turn into an actual war I don't know who to root for. Let's go get some popcorn.

Re:You never said that it was a problem

[Xest]

It was a counter-response, I wasn't seeking to post a balancing essay on the current status of global geopolitics, merely expose the fact that the person I was responding to was clearly full of shit.

What I stated means exactly what it means, that the person I was responding to was full of shit, nothing more, nothing less. If you then take from that something I simply never said, such as some assumption that I'm standing up for America, then that's your problem for being so partisan and ignorant. God only knows I've been modded troll and flamebait enough times by American nationalists for calling out their nation's idiocy when it's deserved.

Honestly, if you keep reading from people's posts something that is not there nor even implied (the fact I pointed out my distaste for America nowdays would be clue enough for any half-intelligent person) then you're bound to keep coming up with such absurd nonsense that doesn't reflect my position at all, but again, that's really your problem, as you're the one that looks a fool for coming up with something that wasn't there and hence got it completely wrong.

Re:Mod Parent UP

[Billly Gates]

All the posts here show Iran as the innocent victim and anyone saying Iran has bad intentions to be paranoid delusions made up by wacko neocons out of touch with reality. ... the parent can also add assassinating the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia the US to the list which are technically acts of war. Iran is a very dangerous nation with arms and tentacles everywhere through puppet governments in Lebanon, Syria, and Hezbollah. I could see Iran using them easily to start WWW3 in the middle east and with nuclear weapons would threaten everyone over there.

The Cold War

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Was TWO "Evil Empires" - holding each other mostly in check.

Now, one is free to rampage.

The "bread and circuses" of consumerism and democratic tautologies keep the sheep calm down on the farm.

Re:The Cold War

[davydagger]

"Was TWO "Evil Empires" - holding each other mostly in check."

bullshit. it was this that empowered a petty bunch of dictators in the third world to gain power, knowing that embracing one side with rhetoric, would give them funding, support, and greater legitimacy, and that blinders put on by paranoia would smooth any rough edges.

Incorrect news again

[flyerbri]

God here, just poppin in to say this aint Iran. This is my program that is intercepting communications stopping the world war 3 currently in progress.

I am after all master of smoke and mirrors as well....

I'll quit working in mysterious ways if you quit your finger pointing.

AS for my hint to you on this one... Remember, E=MC^2... Welll, take that equation and prove matter exists...

EMPIRE

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

'..a form of political organisation in which the social elements that rule in the dominant state...create networks of allied elites in regions abroad who accept subordination in international affairs in return for the security of their position in their own administrative unit.'

-- Charles Maier

Protocols of the elders of Iran

[tehcyder]

They might just as well publish a fake book "proving" that Iran is about to conquer/destroy the whole world. I have no love for the Iranian Mullahcracy but the ramping up of hysteria against them is pathetic, and ominously reminiscent of the lead up to Gulf War 2, with the US/UK governments lying about how The Enemy are just minutes away from destroying western civilization.

Neither Iraq nor Iran were/are any military threat to the West. Even Israel is pretty safe unless you want to believe that Iran would commit national suicide by taking them on.

Be afraid, be very afraid

[Shred303]

Be very afraid of this statement: "Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta stated that the United States was at risk of a 'cyber-Pearl Harbor.' " Watch, because very soon they will be making the case that the only way to keep the internet 'safe' is to hand the controls over to the government. This is a clear power grab. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion