US Suspects Iran Was Behind a Wave of Cyberattacks 292
A reader 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."
The Golden Rule (Score:5, Insightful)
The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Then USA is Japan (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No, the USA is the USSR (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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, nuc
How nice of you to notice (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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
Who started it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who started it? (Score:4, Informative)
Iran attacked Comodo before Stuxnet was even discovered
Comodo DNS almost compromised [comodo.com]
Re:Who started it? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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" [wikipedia.org]
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...
Total bullshit ... (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean IRAN was going to take back what the British had previously stolen from them, their own oil. link [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who started it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? [wikipedia.org]:
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 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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, whet
Re:Who started it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
there are differences of ideological opinion (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 devi
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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 appli
Re: (Score:3)
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 [guardian.co.uk] 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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 bom
Re:Who started it? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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 ac
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Who started it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Pearl Harbor???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.
It looks we already attacked Iran with cyber weapons and this is retaliation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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???? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pearl Harbor???? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Troll)
Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?
Re:Pearl Harbor???? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org]) 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: (Score:3)
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 sanct
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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. [wikimedia.org]
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Fair enough proposition... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 "att
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh? (Score:2)
... There's no turning back now, this means war!
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is going to confuse Iran with the "Free" part of Freedonia.
Attributation (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 wha
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
And they have weapons of mass destruction just like Iraq
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much, yes. They have chemical weapons and missiles, and are trying for nuclear. They also threaten their neighbors, and Europe [israelnationalnews.com]. (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 [copts.co.uk]?)
Iran’s Chemical Weapon Program [iranwatch.org]
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 university laboratories. The ZKA further alleges that Iran probably possesses sulfur mustard, tabun, and prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide), and may possess sarin and VX.
More info: WMD Programs [iranwatch.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [guardian.co.uk] 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 [nytimes.com] 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 Gen [haaretz.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In short, you didn't bother to read the thread, since I don't rely to my own post.
No certainty on attacks,but certainty on downloads (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Sounds Legit. (Score:2)
sensationalism (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org], 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
This is just taste of what's to come (Score:5, Insightful)
'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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Intern
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Now Osama Bin Laden is dead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Gah (Score:3)
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.
I hate to break it to you (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
cyber war is just a figure of speech (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
US intelligence increasingly convinced? (Score:4)
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.