One router in Iran -- the one that happens to be used by Internet Traffic Report [internettr...report.com] -- is unreachable. As are dozens of single points on the internet in many states in the region.
A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran [onlinenewspapers.com] finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran [www.iran.ir] and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. [google.com] (And yes, I am aware that simply ending in.ir does not mean the site is necessarily physically in Iran, but you can easily verify [arin.net] that nearly all of them are.)
I know all of you are just itching to believe it's a US information operation (I love some of the articles..."a secret Pentagon strategy called 'information warfare'" -- uh, guys, I hate to break this to you, but it's not a secret) to cut Iran off from the internet in advance of the secret Iran invasion that Bush -- er, Cheney -- is oh-so-obviously planning.
No one ever said that one ship damaged all the cables. What was said was that a single ship probably cut two cables in a particular area off Egypt. But that has been called into doubt in that location. Unfortunately, it isn't clear exactly where some of the cables have been damaged, so simply because one area didn't have a ship doesn't mean it wasn't possible for it to be damaged elsewhere.
Even if someone is cutting the cables, as telecom and undersea cable experts believe is unlikely, it would be better to actually consider the facts of the situation, instead of feeing the conspiracy mill with garbage like "Iran is offline" when it clearly isn't? How about waiting until the cables are raised to see what kind of damage has been caused?
But if you want to believe one guy's blog post that "Iran is offline", which ends with:
this author actually dug a bit deeper and found a trail that leads from the owners of most of these internet cables all the way back to some very, very large companies in the U.S. and in the U.K. Which companies you ask? Who is behind this?
Well, that's the topic for my next post. You'll have to subscribe to my RSS feed and stay tuned for my findings. Don't worry, the wait will be short.
...then be my guest. How convenient! If we want to learn "which" big evil companies are behind what is obviously a US operation to cut Iran off from the internet, all we have to do is subscribe to his ad-laden blog!
Or, we could perhaps believe the facts, which is that Iran is not "offline", as I have illustrated above.
It seems that the premise to this story -- namely, that Iran is "offline" -- is patently incorrect. So, since that is untrue, what are the motivations of people who want to believe this is a prelude to war?
That lying about it somehow serves a greater purpose?
Oh, and by the way, for all you pushers of the Information Warfare theory, keep in mind that it runs both ways. I wouldn't be surprised before Iran picks up on the conspiracy stories and starts promoting that itself. What a great way to detract attention from its continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.
Omg... Get your tinfoil hat hating ass out of here. This is slashdot! Everything is a conspiracy! Iran is being slowly disconnected from the internet so that the US can bomb them and nobody will know! Because reporters couldn't ever tell us about it without the interwab!
Omg... Get your tinfoil hat hating ass out of here. This is slashdot! Everything is a conspiracy! Iran is being slowly disconnected from the internet so that the US can bomb them and nobody will know! Because reporters couldn't ever tell us about it without the interwab!
Sheesh.
Uhmm no, that's not why they would cut the lines. It's not to stop reporters from reporting (since they will only report what you want to hear), but it's mostly to stop Iranian people from crying for help or posting pictures
A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself.
Jeez, if this goes on Iran will be offline - it will be slashdotted. But maybe that was the plan all along...
No one ever said that one ship damaged all the cables.
True - Why limit it to one ship, when we have the whole US fleet to
choose from?
Look, I don't normally believe in conspiracy theories (they take too much
work to implement, and usually you can explain the same outcome by a lot
of people all acting out of simple greedy self-interest). But we've gone
how many decades with undersea cables only rarely taking damage,
and now we have five, which just happen to affect a region of the
world in which we hav
read a Sherlock Homes novel, or about the scientific method? Nevermind....
Well, as regards Sherlock, "sabotage" doesn't count as "impossible", thus
"improbably" doesn't particularly matter, now does it? As for Scientific
Method, by all means propose a simple objective way to test the two
available hypotheses... On which point, have you ever heard
of Occam's razor?
Hypothesis 1: the same number of cables get cut in the past two weeks as in the entire 50 years previous to that.
Hypothesis 2: An organizat
Hypothesis 1: the same number of cables get cut in the past two weeks as in the entire 50 years previous to that.
The problem is that cable "cuts" (actual term = "disruptions of service") happen ALL THE TIME. There's nearly always a half-dozen or more ongoing major incidents. There's enough spare capacity on parallel and diverse cables so that most folks don't notice a change in service. It's when there are simultaneous cuts on several parallel cables that people really notice. As an example, the cable b
Hypothesis 3: Something is more likely to break when its older than when it is new
I know it may be difficult to see anything past your tinfoil hat, but really your two examples do not even come close to Occam's razor. In fact, they are so far off the bend that you begin to head in Tom Cruise terrain.
or maybe this one...
Hypothesis 4: Iran really is not offline - only a single router used for test.
I know that one is a bit of a stretch, but just try it out and I am sure that you may begin to see t
As for Scientific Method, by all means propose a simple objective way to test the two available hypotheses... On which point, have you ever heard of Occam's razor? Hypothesis 1: the same number of cables get cut in the past two weeks as in the entire 50 years previous to that. Hypothesis 2: An organization hostile to certain groups in the Middle East "accidentally" cut key cables to take those groups offline.
Hmm. Occam's razor. Sure I have a copy of that around here somewhere. Ah, yes, here it is...
Don't be too quick to blame the U.S. or Israel -- there's more than enough governments in the middle east that could possibly view the internet as "the bringer of the corrupting influence of the west." They might have cut the cables to limit access by their populations. Of course, in the past when these governments have performed acts of sabotage, they shout that they have done it so I don't know. I'm just glad my internets are still making it through the tubes okay, might actually get some work done oth
Thanks for the support, but I could have answered that question
before I ever posted (fortunately my karma can take the occasional
hit): Because I mentioned Israel.
If I had left that word out as the in-all-seriousness second most
likely source of (or partner in) this sabotage, I probably would have
made a +5. Most people, however, just can't grasp the idea that you
can hold the political state of Israel in utter contempt for
its actions, without expressing antisemitism.
STFU about how "Israel" got your post modded "troll". Your post got modded "troll" because those of us with brains and lives don't spend enough time posting and metamoderating on Slashdot to get mod points, so mods are stupid.
Never attribute to malice that which retardation adequately explains.
No, actually, you got moderated Troll because your post is full of accusations that are essentially groundless. In the entire thing, you have one interesting fact, which is that having five cables cut in quick succession is quite rare. (Do you know that? How often are cables actually cut? Is this actually a rare event?) If you had come on and said, "usually in the world, there are three or four cables cut each YEAR, and now we have five in a single month." You might have had something worth modding up.
People say Israel did it because people always say Israel did it. As a matter of fact, nobody seems to have checked if Israel itself lost any connectivity from these cables.
It was probably just some Islamic terror group that suddenly realized that if they cut off internet access and *didn't* immediately beat their chests they could have America or Israel blamed for attacking the Middle East somehow.
Ask Israel why they're spending billions of dollars building walls around their country, if they don't have problems with their neighbors -- oh wait! But they do! They settled in Muslim holy land "because the bible says so" (but never anyone dared to call Israel religious fanatics), they make friends with the largest powers, do some favors, some dirty jobs, and play the "we are the victims of the holocaust" card ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Meanwhile, crazy dictators rule the poor middle-east countries (Iran, Iraq,
Ask Israel why they're spending billions of dollars building walls around their country
Obviously racism, not the suicide bombers that think killing Israeli children is funny.
They settled in Muslim holy land
That sucks, but they're there now, raising kids, living life, and making a lot more with what they've got than their neighbors, I might add. Still think they should move? Well, the Native Americans would like a word with you. Oh, its different when we're talking about you, huh? If you're American, you're a hypocrite.
"we are the victims of the holocaust" card ALL THE FUCKING TIME
No they don't. That's just some shit the idiot who wrote that Protocols of the Elders of Zion made
Overrated, for all those times when you're just too stupid to post a reply. I know it's lame to whine about moderation, but if I'm wrong, please correct me. Modding overrated just proves that I'm correct, and someone who doesn't like it can't counter my points.
no, I'm not american. And, of course, you missed my point. A crazy muslim extremist killing civilians, even if UNOFFICIALLY supported by the country, is one thing. A state backed by the world's powerful nations, killing civilians with guns and missiles is very different. They don't try to get along with their neighbors. They say they have the Mossad and one of the most powerful armies, and they need to go and kill innocent people? Why don't they go and kill the Hamas leaders if they're so good? Oh yes, beca
Apologies for the hypocrite accusations, then. I happen to agree with what you say in this post, Israel could exercise lot more tact in their military operations (killing civilians is both morally wrong [and that's an understatement] and tactically erroneous [because, even if you are struck first, you've become 'the bad guy' in the minds of the other nation's common people]), and they could (and should) try harder to establish peace. It's the common people, on both sides, who should be protected, and atta
But we've gone how many decades with undersea cables only rarely taking damage
Not very many decades. Here in east-ish Asia we depend on transpacific cables quite a bit. At least once a year, and sometimes more, some cable will take a hit, causing congestion on the alternate routes and making net access sucky for days or weeks.
But definitely centidecades go by without incident.
I had read about this yesterday on Reddit, but even taking that into account - all these incidents combined in this short a timespan makes for one hell of an interesting coincidence. Even a sci-fi / fantasy fan like me has to feel their suspension of disbelief getting stretched. I have to say, I'm beginning to wonder the same thing as Bruce:
I hadn't considered that angle. Maybe its the first step of the aliens plans to disable the internet prior to invasion, they're checking response time on repairs, its a great tactical move.
Is it "they" or is it "them"? How come your are so sure it is "they" and not "them". My bets are on the "them", not the "theys". Before you go off telling everyone it is "They", you had better get all your facts straight.
Oh, and by mentioning "they", you've just popped up on the RADAR of both "They" and "Them". Nice going! And, in case you were wondering, I'm already being watched. I got nothing to hide.
But here's the problem: the implication here -- namely, the "US is trying to stop the Iranian Oil Bourse to protect the fragile dollar" theory vs the "US is secretly planning to invade Iran" theory -- falls apart of the expected action doesn't occur.
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it? Iran doesn't need undersea cable connectivity t
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it?
Not at all. It simply means that the action failed to do what it was meant to do. As any programmer will tell you, not working does not preclude the intention of the designer for it to work.
Underling: "President Bush, Iran still isn't offline!" Bush: "Dammit, Osama, what the fuck am I paying you for?" Bin Laden: "Sorry Sir, I'll get right on it" Elvis: "And get it right this time!"
The big problem with your debunking of tinfoil-hat theories is that it doesn't account for 5 cables (FIVE!!! --- let that incredible number soak into your skull for a bit) being cut within the space of a few days. It is statistically unlikely for a single cable to go down. No surprise there, as these cables cost dozens of millions apiece so they're engineered for permanence. Two in the same week is unheard of, unless there's an underwater earthquake. It doesn't take a PhD in statistics to understand that
Very good point. Just thought I'd point out, however, that Iran still has some communications backbone that runs over satellite, so being able to reach major Iranian servers from outside doesn't *neccessarily* mean they have any functioning cables, although I'd be impressed if this were the case, because that means there's been some pretty impossibly quick re-routing going on, depending on their topology anyway.
If it turns out they are going through satellite, and that suddenly falls out of the sky, then I'm
I'm getting way too little lag chatting with my buddy for it to be bouncing off a satellite... they've got to have some kind of terrestrial links still. Not to mention he's just got a home connection, nothing like ISP level connectivity.
The question becomes, how many providers are left with a connections to the area? If it is 1(or 1 has a majority of the remaining bandwidth), I see a party much more motivated to cut the cables than the US government would ever be.
A quick browse round the website that supposedly shows Iran to be completely offline, also (at the moment) shows Germany, Florida and Colombia to be offline too. What conspiracy theory can be used to link these disparate regions?
I had no idea until now (I've never even seen a.ir URL before), but one of the images [www.iran.ir] on the Iranian government's Web site features the GNU and Linux mascots. Clicking on that link brings you to http://it.iran.ir/ [it.iran.ir] which features instructions on how to add Iran's CentOS mirror to your yum repos. I think this article would've been much more interesting if it had featured the government of Iran's involvement in the free software community. For one, it would have been true. A government that distributes a free
Okay, Mr Smartguy, fine. What criteria would you use to authorize suspicion? Obviously FIVE coincidences aren't enough. Perhaps FIFTY is a better mark? FIVE HUNDRED? What? What's the mark that makes you think 'something is funky', etc? You may be correct, and the caution caused by us 'alarmists' that believe a mere FIVE coincidences is hinky could all be in vain.
I fear, however, that by the time we are finished waiting for you to control this conversation the worst of it will be long-since over.
Thank you for posting this, the churn around this cable cutting stuff is reaching epic proportions and it's good to see someone trying to keep an even keel.
Even if someone is cutting the cables, as telecom and undersea cable experts believe is unlikely,
Having those cables cut (and I use the term generically in this case, not in reference to a deliberate act) is relatively uncommon compared to what we've seen in the last few days. Five major lines cut in the last few days, in the Middle East, specifically disrupting states our current administration dislikes, is just too convenient to be coincidence.
Sure, if it were scuba divers, one would be at danger of narco
Its obvious that the real cause are mutant fish that are eating the cables. The mutations, of course, were caused by the leakage of petroleum into the sea over several years in that region.
"What a great way to detract attention from its continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing." What exactly is this defiance that you speak of? I though your own intelligence agency concluded that Iran stopped their nuke program in 2003?
Is this some kind of news lag you experience in the states? Like still believing Bin Laden and Saddam were working together years after they were proven not to?
Or still believing WMD would be found in Iraq months or even years
And, good sir, regardless of how eloquent your arguments, they could be a well-placed stratagem element in a campaign whose purpose is to play part in creating a larger advantage
Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:5, Insightful)
One router in Iran -- the one that happens to be used by Internet Traffic Report [internettr...report.com] -- is unreachable. As are dozens of single points on the internet in many states in the region.
A quick perusal of, e.g., newspaper web sites in Iran [onlinenewspapers.com] finds every one I have tried working fine, including all state-run media. As is the web site of the Government of Iran [www.iran.ir] and numerous other government and press web sites physically located in Iran. See for yourself. [google.com] (And yes, I am aware that simply ending in
I know all of you are just itching to believe it's a US information operation (I love some of the articles..."a secret Pentagon strategy called 'information warfare'" -- uh, guys, I hate to break this to you, but it's not a secret) to cut Iran off from the internet in advance of the secret Iran invasion that Bush -- er, Cheney -- is oh-so-obviously planning.
No one ever said that one ship damaged all the cables. What was said was that a single ship probably cut two cables in a particular area off Egypt. But that has been called into doubt in that location. Unfortunately, it isn't clear exactly where some of the cables have been damaged, so simply because one area didn't have a ship doesn't mean it wasn't possible for it to be damaged elsewhere.
Even if someone is cutting the cables, as telecom and undersea cable experts believe is unlikely, it would be better to actually consider the facts of the situation, instead of feeing the conspiracy mill with garbage like "Iran is offline" when it clearly isn't? How about waiting until the cables are raised to see what kind of damage has been caused?
But if you want to believe one guy's blog post that "Iran is offline", which ends with:
Or, we could perhaps consider that "[m]ost telecommunications experts and cable operators say that sabotage seems unlikely." [iht.com]
Or, we could perhaps believe the facts, which is that Iran is not "offline", as I have illustrated above.
It seems that the premise to this story -- namely, that Iran is "offline" -- is patently incorrect. So, since that is untrue, what are the motivations of people who want to believe this is a prelude to war?
That lying about it somehow serves a greater purpose?
Oh, and by the way, for all you pushers of the Information Warfare theory, keep in mind that it runs both ways. I wouldn't be surprised before Iran picks up on the conspiracy stories and starts promoting that itself. What a great way to detract attention from its continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.
Re:Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:5, Funny)
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmm no, that's not why they would cut the lines. It's not to stop reporters from reporting (since they will only report what you want to hear), but it's mostly to stop Iranian people from crying for help or posting pictures
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
True - Why limit it to one ship, when we have the whole US fleet to choose from?
Look, I don't normally believe in conspiracy theories (they take too much work to implement, and usually you can explain the same outcome by a lot of people all acting out of simple greedy self-interest). But we've gone how many decades with undersea cables only rarely taking damage, and now we have five, which just happen to affect a region of the world in which we hav
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as regards Sherlock, "sabotage" doesn't count as "impossible", thus "improbably" doesn't particularly matter, now does it? As for Scientific Method, by all means propose a simple objective way to test the two available hypotheses... On which point, have you ever heard of Occam's razor?
Hypothesis 1: the same number of cables get cut in the past two weeks as in the entire 50 years previous to that.
Hypothesis 2: An organizat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that cable "cuts" (actual term = "disruptions of service") happen ALL THE TIME. There's nearly always a half-dozen or more ongoing major incidents. There's enough spare capacity on parallel and diverse cables so that most folks don't notice a change in service. It's when there are simultaneous cuts on several parallel cables that people really notice. As an example, the cable b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hypothesis 3: Something is more likely to break when its older than when it is new
I know it may be difficult to see anything past your tinfoil hat, but really your two examples do not even come close to Occam's razor. In fact, they are so far off the bend that you begin to head in Tom Cruise terrain.
or maybe this one...
Hypothesis 4: Iran really is not offline - only a single router used for test.
I know that one is a bit of a stretch, but just try it out and I am sure that you may begin to see t
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothesis 1: the same number of cables get cut in the past two weeks as in the entire 50 years previous to that.
Hypothesis 2: An organization hostile to certain groups in the Middle East "accidentally" cut key cables to take those groups offline.
Hmm. Occam's razor. Sure I have a copy of that around here somewhere. Ah, yes, here it is...
entia no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For the clueless mods "Troll" != I disagree
On the other hand it could be that Taco gave the CIA some mod points... *Puts on tinfoil hat*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the support, but I could have answered that question before I ever posted (fortunately my karma can take the occasional hit): Because I mentioned Israel.
If I had left that word out as the in-all-seriousness second most likely source of (or partner in) this sabotage, I probably would have made a +5. Most people, however, just can't grasp the idea that you can hold the political state of Israel in utter contempt for its actions, without expressing antisemitism.
Re: (Score:1)
Never attribute to malice that which retardation adequately explains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:5, Informative)
And India, who is on pretty decent terms with Israel...I mean Israel wants the data lines cut why?
I'd give more respect to aliens planning an Independence Day attack credence than some of the bologne on Slashdot comments at the moment.
Re: (Score:1)
It was probably just some Islamic terror group that suddenly realized that if they cut off internet access and *didn't* immediately beat their chests they could have America or Israel blamed for attacking the Middle East somehow.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Meanwhile, crazy dictators rule the poor middle-east countries (Iran, Iraq,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ask Israel why they're spending billions of dollars building walls around their country
Obviously racism, not the suicide bombers that think killing Israeli children is funny.
They settled in Muslim holy land
That sucks, but they're there now, raising kids, living life, and making a lot more with what they've got than their neighbors, I might add. Still think they should move? Well, the Native Americans would like a word with you. Oh, its different when we're talking about you, huh? If you're American, you're a hypocrite.
"we are the victims of the holocaust" card ALL THE FUCKING TIME
No they don't. That's just some shit the idiot who wrote that Protocols of the Elders of Zion made
Re: (Score:2)
I win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not very many decades. Here in east-ish Asia we depend on transpacific cables quite a bit. At least once a year, and sometimes more, some cable will take a hit, causing congestion on the alternate routes and making net access sucky for days or weeks.
But definitely centidecades go by without incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They vs Them (Score:2)
Oh, and by mentioning "they", you've just popped up on the RADAR of both "They" and "Them". Nice going! And, in case you were wondering, I'm already being watched. I got nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
"Them are watching you." isn't a correct sentence, so I vote for "They".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But here's the problem: the implication here -- namely, the "US is trying to stop the Iranian Oil Bourse to protect the fragile dollar" theory vs the "US is secretly planning to invade Iran" theory -- falls apart of the expected action doesn't occur.
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it? Iran doesn't need undersea cable connectivity t
Not offline yet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Bang bang, the first six are for you
Bang bang, the seventh is for me"
Bang, bang Gavrilo Princip... and you know how that ended up
Re: (Score:1)
If the Iranian Oil Bourse opens this week or next as planned, then the theory that this was designed to "stop" that is incorrect, isn't it?
Not at all. It simply means that the action failed to do what it was meant to do. As any programmer will tell you, not working does not preclude the intention of the designer for it to work.
Re:Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:5, Funny)
Meanwhile, at the NWO headquarters:
Underling: "President Bush, Iran still isn't offline!"
Bush: "Dammit, Osama, what the fuck am I paying you for?"
Bin Laden: "Sorry Sir, I'll get right on it"
Elvis: "And get it right this time!"
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Statistically, tinfoil hat *IS* required (Score:1, Insightful)
It is statistically unlikely for a single cable to go down. No surprise there, as these cables cost dozens of millions apiece so they're engineered for permanence. Two in the same week is unheard of, unless there's an underwater earthquake. It doesn't take a PhD in statistics to understand that
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought I'd point out, however, that Iran still has some communications backbone that runs over satellite, so being able to reach major Iranian servers from outside doesn't *neccessarily* mean they have any functioning cables, although I'd be impressed if this were the case, because that means there's been some pretty impossibly quick re-routing going on, depending on their topology anyway.
If it turns out they are going through satellite, and that suddenly falls out of the sky, then I'm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:5, Funny)
Iran Supports (and Distributes!) GNU/Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be correct, and the caution caused by us 'alarmists' that believe a mere FIVE coincidences is hinky could all be in vain.
I fear, however, that by the time we are finished waiting for you to control this conversation the worst of it will be long-since over.
People
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should we verify from our Overlords that it exists as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for posting this, the churn around this cable cutting stuff is reaching epic proportions and it's good to see someone trying to keep an even keel.
Re: (Score:2)
Having those cables cut (and I use the term generically in this case, not in reference to a deliberate act) is relatively uncommon compared to what we've seen in the last few days. Five major lines cut in the last few days, in the Middle East, specifically disrupting states our current administration dislikes, is just too convenient to be coincidence.
Sure, if it were scuba divers, one would be at danger of narco
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, all their sites are hosted on GoDaddy...
Re: (Score:1)
Hello? Listen to your own CIA? (Score:2)
What exactly is this defiance that you speak of? I though your own intelligence agency concluded that Iran stopped their nuke program in 2003?
Is this some kind of news lag you experience in the states? Like still believing Bin Laden and Saddam were working together years after they were proven not to?
Or still believing WMD would be found in Iraq months or even years
Re: (Score:2)