backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Mar 13 at 3:44 PM

Source code could be adapted to break factories, power grids, the sewage system, and other critical utilities

For as much as the U.S. is maligned for being oft victimized by internet aggressors -- some of whom are mere high school age children -- the nation is believed to have conducted one very audacious and surprising effective (to an extent) cyber black ops in history.

I. StuxNet -- The U.S.'s Most Danger Cyber "Black Op"

In June 2010, security experts found a new type of worm -- the phrase commonly used to refer to a self-spreading malicious computer program.  They dubbed it "Stuxnet".

But unlike most worms, which try to accumulate a stockpile of infected machines for spamming, Bitcoin mining, or distributed denial of service purposes, Stuxnet was disinterested in doing anything malicious to most of the machines it was infecting.  Rather, it just wanted to spread, inching towards its true target -- Iran.

In fact, it was aimed at a very specific target in Iran -- the nation's secretive nuclear refining facilities.  And after infecting over 60,000 personal computers in Iran, it reached the facilities.

Iran nuclear facilities
The U.S. and Israeli reportedly used a computer virus to sabotage Iran's growing nuclear program -- a halfway successful effort that did wreak some havoc at Iran's processing facilities. [Image Source: CBS]

In the summer of 2010 it spun hundreds of centrifuges -- produced by German electronics giant Siemens -- to their breaking points.  It was a major setback for Iran's nuclear program.  Unsurprisingly Iran -- which insists that its nuclear program was intended for peaceful and not weapons-making purposes -- was quick to lash out at "Western spies" for the sabotage effort.

But details that have emerged since have proved that their is likely truth in those claims, as evidence points to the U.S. and Israeli jointly developing the malware, possibly with other allies.

II. Mission Success?  Or a Darker Reality?

Stuxnet seemed a very effective attack -- even if the eventual implication of U.S. and Israeli involvement was a public relation setback for the alleged authors.  But ultimately, it did not succeed in permanently destroying Iran's nuclear program.  Today the U.S. believes that Iran not only has nuclear power -- it is thought to be close to possessing one or more nuclear weapons.

Computer worm
The attack failed to stop Iran's nuclear efforts.  Worse yet, researchers fear the worm's source could be turned against its authors. [Image Source: TechTear]

And Iran -- the greatest tech power in the Middle East outside of Israel -- showed itself to be growing increasingly sophisticated in digital efforts, downing a U.S. unmanned drone in a recent high-profile embarrassment.  (President Obama requested the drone be returned, Iran mocked him by sending toy replicas.)

And aside from not truly achieving its intended long-term effect, the decision to release Stuxnet may have much more dire consequences.  The source code for the worm has recently been decompiled and is floating around on hacker sites, according to a new 60 Minutes report by CBS Corp. (CBS).

III. War 2.0: U.S. May See Its Own Source Code Turned Against it

In its primetime special, CBS reporters argue that releasing the worm may have been akin to Pandora of Greek mythology opening a box that let loose chaos and destruction into her world.  The report states that various groups ranging from independent malicious hackers to white hat security researchers to foreign intelligence agencies are all racing to adapt the highly virulent, highly successful worm for use in new attacks.

Such attacks could destroy machinery at sewage plants, electrical grid locations, traffic signals, or other applications.  Such critical infrastructure often is air-gapped, but is sensitive to connections during routine maintenance.  As the air-gapping (not having a physical internet connection to the outside world) gives a traditional sense of security, these types of devices may have less robust security mechanisms, and hence be more vulnerable to mechanical or electrical overdriving.




Only time will tell whether a Stuxnet variant will come back to bite the U.S.  But given the success of AnonymousLulzSec, and other hacker collectives in openly defying and attacking the U.S. government digitally, it's not infeasible to imagine such groups looking to cripple vital U.S. infrastructure in the near future.  Or alternatively, hostile nations like Iran or North Korea could return fire, using the U.S. and Israel's own code against them.

Sources: CBS [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

easy to fix eh
By Pirks on 3/5/2012 5:57:48 PM , Rating: 5
just put macs everywhere where korea/iran may attack

coz macs DO NOT HAVE VIRUSES!!!

yours truly,

tony swash

:P




RE: easy to fix eh
By Argon18 on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: easy to fix eh
By ClownPuncher on 3/5/2012 6:47:04 PM , Rating: 5
They would be in no way safer for operating nuclear or grid facilities. You parents just can't be bothered to learn to use a firewall and MSE.


RE: easy to fix eh
By Pirks on 3/5/2012 6:47:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
there is no anti-virus software running, none whatsoever
Welcome to the real world, man ;)

"Apple has expanded a download warning feature in Mac OS X 10.5 to create rudimentary anti-malware detection in the new Snow Leopard operating system due out Friday, sources have confirmed.

Out of the box, Snow Leopard will be able to detect only two Trojan horses, although Apple will be able to push other signatures to users through the Mac operating system's Software Update service "

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137176/App...

Yeah, of course "it isn't needed", because Apple already has a built-in antivirus in OS X.

Happy thinking different! :P


RE: easy to fix eh
By Tony Swash on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: easy to fix eh
By Tony Swash on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: easy to fix eh
By Pirks on 3/5/2012 7:09:34 PM , Rating: 1
What? You don't like the inclusion of Apple antivirus in OS X? Why?

I thought you'd love it. Pretty strange reaction from you, Tony.


RE: easy to fix eh
By name99 on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: easy to fix eh
By StevoLincolnite on 3/5/2012 11:44:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
After dealing with virus after virus on my Parent's PC's, I switched them both to Mac's.


That's not the Machine or Operating systems fault. That is the users.

My Neighbors were notorious for getting viruses, Trojans and spyware.
A little bit of education and some decent protection... And they haven't had a single infection in the last few years.

If you are going to click on every single advert, download files which may be malicious or open emails from strangers... Then you are putting your system at risk.


RE: easy to fix eh
By TSS on 3/6/2012 9:17:55 AM , Rating: 5
How do you know they're running virus free if you don't have anti-virus on them?


RE: easy to fix eh
By Rukkian on 3/6/2012 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
Because they are on Macs, and he blindly prays at the alter of Jobs. Everything the great almighty (Jobs) says is completely true.


RE: easy to fix eh
By drycrust3 on 3/6/2012 6:31:29 AM , Rating: 3
It is arguable the Stuxnet virus used Windows because the writers suspected the computers controlling the centrifuges had Windows as their OS. If the writers suspected the centrifuges were controlled from Mac computers, or Linux computers, or BSD computers, or Unix, or whatever, then they would have written Stuxnet with that in mind.


RE: easy to fix eh
By quiksilvr on 3/6/2012 8:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
*blinks a few times*

...Pirks?


RE: easy to fix eh
By Morridin19 on 3/7/2012 8:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but Mac's dont run the software required to program and interface to PLC's or RTU's. At least not without having some sort of emulation or VM of windows.

What I am really interested in is if they can develop a generic virus that does target specific installations. Without prior knowledege of the program I find it highly unlikey anyone could develop a virus that does little more than fault the processor and temporarily shutdown any of these sites. Physical damage should be limited at most installations by either mechanical or electrical safeties that work independent of the PLC/RTU


The logic in the article is flawed!
By ZorkZork on 3/5/2012 8:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
So let's say that the US in the 1939 had decided not to build a nuclear device. Would that have stopped anyone else from developing one? Same thing with Stuxnet. Even if “someone” had not built Stuxnet, we would still see attacks like that developing in the future. I would much rather see a Stuxnet/assassination war like today, than a “real” war against Iran that will not solve the problem.

Of course “someone” went to a lot of trouble discovering weaknesses in the Siemens PLC system and that must have been pretty expensive. By reverse engineering the stuxnet virus, others would gain some of that knowledge for free. By now though, the PC systems that run the Siemens SCADA software should have been patched (there has been more than a year to do so) and then that knowledge will lose value.

Also, “someone” went to a lot of trouble understanding the PLC programs that Iran uses in their centrifuge project. That must have been very very expensive both financially and in terms of human assets. That knowledge will be of little use now to anyone as Iran most likely will have changed their systems.

I guess the lessons learned from this is that if you have devices that runs software that in any way can be updated, then you should make sure that you system is up to date from a security standpoint.




RE: The logic in the article is flawed!
By name99 on 3/5/2012 10:36:32 PM , Rating: 3
"So let's say that the US in the 1939 had decided not to build a nuclear device. Would that have stopped anyone else from developing one?"

Quite possibly --- at least for many years.
Every physicist associated with the project said that the only real secret of the fission bomb was that it was possible. As soon as you knew it was possible, then it was worth pouring money into the project; but before that point few countries would have poured money (and a HUGE amount of money) into a project of uncertain outcome.

The relevance to stuxnet is left to the reader.


By Ringold on 3/6/2012 12:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
For quite a little while, we were the only ones with it, but we know now after the fact that Germans and Russians were simultaneously pursuing it. A little naive in my view to think our slowing down would've slowed them down significantly as well. Everyone pursuing it knew it was the instant 'win' button. It was very well suspected it'd work in the scientific community long before it was actually done in the real world.


By Strunf on 3/6/2012 7:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think so... the nuclear bomb is just one practical application of nuclear physics, the potential of nuclear fission/fusion was seen years before the US even started its nuclear program, chances are it wouldn't take that many years for the Russians to make their first nuclear bomb.


RE: The logic in the article is flawed!
By TSS on 3/6/2012 9:35:01 AM , Rating: 3
...yeah the atom bomb was a little bit different, specially since you have a crazy guy who would've dropped it very first chance he got, without a world full of missiles to stop him.

Here's a better movie about stuxnet, that's been around longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0pi4J8auQ

Yknow the problem of stuxnet isn't as much that it wouldn't have been created eventually. It is because it was made, and used, with internet and digital thinking still in it's infancy.

By the time we got the atom bomb, we've already had thousands of years of war, and it still nearly destroyed us. Now we've got something that can shut down the entire infrastructure of an entire country. Drop a fusion bomb on new york, and new york dissapears. Drop a stuxnet on new york that takes out powerplants, and the entire USA dissapears. While most people can't even resist clicking on a flashing cat that tells them they've won. This INCLUDES people who decide the fate of entire nations.

Just as an example, a better analogy would be like the US used an atom bomb, along with the plans and materials so the enemy can build their own, while their own defence consists of slingshots. Only this atom bomb can be dropped by anybody, anywhere, at any time. Even an individual.

While of course there are defences now against stuxnet specifically, that doesn't mean the defence against that paticular technology has gotten any better.

What has gotten much worse though are the cyber wars. Since stuxnet was released the cyber wars in the background have escalated. "Anonymous" taking down government websites? Really? The highschool i had an internship with back in 2005 ran entirely on windows, and even they had both spam and ddos protection. You *couldn't* take down anything. The server would simply refuse to patch you through.

We're fast approaching a war we've never seen before. One where people are going to die and not a single shot will be fired. Let's just hope nobody decides to actually pick up a gun or it'll only get much, much worse.


RE: The logic in the article is flawed!
By bh192012 on 3/6/2012 12:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think people give too much credit to the dangers of hackers. Mainly things like
quote:
Drop a stuxnet on new york that takes out powerplants, and the entire USA dissapears.
Hacking is a very specific endeavour. Like real viruses, they will hit specific systems. Hackers can jack up specific users, specific systems etc. It would be incredibly difficult to somehow hit ALL elcectrical grids in the US. They're not all based on the same software etc. At best they could take out sections at a time.


By Rukkian on 3/6/2012 1:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
Until skynet comes online and takes over all systems!


By TSS on 3/7/2012 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
Do you even know what a PLC is? I do, i worked with the damn things on my IT education. I never could understand why.

Because they are mainly used in traffic lights. Our end assignment was programming traffic lights for a 4 way intersection.

So i already know stuxnet could theoretically disable just about every traffic light everywhere. As long as it's hooked up to a central monitoring system or something.

But, as the real use of stuxnet showed, those things are used everywhere. Even all the way to nuclear centrifuges.

Unlike a atom bomb though, once it's built it doesn't require more materials or knowledge to build another. When you fire it, it doesn't blow up - it can be used again and again. Your enemy can pick it apart much more easily then it took you to build it.

I'm giving hackers exactly the right amount of credit. Stuxnet wasn't made by hackers. It was made by a professional contractor. Hackers *can't* make something as sophisticated as that.

It's not dangerous because it'll take alot of effort to program in a new target. It's dangerous because somebody just pulled the trigger on a really, really big gun. And now others will take up arms.....


By ZorkZork on 3/6/2012 4:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
The video you link to is too superficial and doesn’t touch the real difficulties. So how do you think they were able to hit those specific centrifuges? Guesswork? There must have been an intelligence operation to understand the exact setup of the Iranian hardware and copies of the software. This involves people on the ground or additional viruses. How you do you find 20 zero day vulnerabilities? This is not something you just find on the internet. You must search the specific systems for these vulnerabilities. This must have been a very expensive operation and writing the software was just a small part of it. There has been a massive intelligence operation before the first line of code was thought of.

Unless all powerplants use the same hardware and same software, a total attack would be very difficult. And if they use the same hardware and software, then defending them properly is a lot cheaper (economy of scale).

Unless you have loads of money and sufficient intelligence resources, then your best chance for a large scale attack is denial of service. On the other hand, the Chinese, Russian, North Korean, Iranian, Pakistani, Indian, Brazilian, French, Canadian (fill in your own nemesis) governments have vast resources available. For them a small scale attack (like Stuxnet) would be feasible. A larger scale attack would be very difficult, as you most likely would need people on the ground trying to understand the setup of each power plant. And then such an attack becomes much easier to discover and stop.


Stop spreading untruths
By svenkesd on 3/6/2012 11:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Today the U.S. believes that Iran not only has nuclear power -- it is thought to be close to possessing one or more nuclear weapons."


Not True. There is no evidence they are producing a weapon according to our own (US) intelligence.

According to your own link, there is fear that they may create a weapon but there is no evidence . Only baseless speculation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast...




You lost me at 60 minutes
By overlandpark4me on 3/11/2012 2:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
60 minutes used to be a reputable news show. Now it is a political show aimed out hurting who they don't like. TMZ has more accurate reporting than these tools..




Wrong and wrong ..
By Peter898 on 3/7/2012 11:21:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Today the U.S. believes that Iran not only has nuclear power -- it is thought to be close to possessing one or more nuclear weapons.


1 : 'Believes' ??
So, those evil Iranians are denying they have nuclear powerplants or what ??

2 : Your source for the belief that Iran has nukes is ..
Benjamin Netanyahu ?? Are you out of your minds ??

quote:
US Intelligence Director James Clapper testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee that it was the opinion of America's 16 spy agencies that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons program.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12012/us-ad...


Please keep warmongering politician-propaganda off our tech-site, Thank You ..




Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By michael67 on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By EnzoFX on 3/5/2012 6:34:55 PM , Rating: 3
...Defending the U.S' right to police the world, is that really the angle to go with here? Yes that is aside from whether or not this should have been done. And leftist attacks?... Geez, some people lol. I don't see how his comment adheres either party. Regardless, I think the key difference is that cyber attacks have proven to be something that even the U.S. has (repeatedly) been susceptible too.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By derricker on 3/5/2012 10:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The right to keep nuclear weapons out of crazy people's hands who have a history of terrorizing and threatening their neighbors?


Yeah yeah, you're right, when will US start invading Israel?


By Ringold on 3/5/2012 10:30:37 PM , Rating: 5
Let me get some popcorn and put this on my TV in the living room, then explain the thought process of how Israel and the Revolutionary Guard and Supreme Ayatollah are all morally, ethically and historically equivalent.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By dark matter on 3/6/12, Rating: 0
By bjorn47 on 3/6/2012 3:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
At least two, China (popular targets include the uigur muslim minority settlements) and the US.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Paj on 3/6/2012 7:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not, but it's pretty obvious that the only two countries that Iran refuses to deal with internationally would have the motivations and expertise required to conduct such a task.

Big fan of the irony of

quote:
The right to keep nuclear weapons out of crazy people's hands who have a history of terrorizing and threatening their neighbors?


coming from someone living in the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in wartime.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Steve1981 on 3/6/2012 12:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
coming from someone living in the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in wartime.


What of it? From a historical standpoint, the US did precisely what it had to do to bring the war to a swift and decisive end. The Japanese had the opportunity to surrender under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. They refused, in spite of the fact that Tokyo had already been badly firebombed, their fleets and air power were largely destroyed, etc. The Japanese got exactly what they were told they would get if they refused surrender. I'm sure if you ask the Chinese, they'd tell you the Japanese got exactly what they deserved as well.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Peter898 on 3/7/2012 11:33:57 AM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight :
You seriously believe it's OK to murder 100.000's of civilians and level entire cities, because 'they got what they deserved' ??
My God you are one bloodthirsty little war-lover, aren't you.
I truly hope YOUR country never gets what A LOT of people think you deserve ...


By Steve1981 on 3/7/2012 12:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seriously believe it's OK to murder 100.000's of civilians and level entire cities, because 'they got what they deserved' ??


I didn't say that; I only mention that the Chinese at the time, who had suffered massively under the brutality of the Japanese, were unlikely to have shed any tears for the Japanese who died as a result of the bombings.

However, it is my opinion that the bombings were in fact justified. Let us recall that it was the Japanese who brought war in the first place, not the US or the Allies. Even in the face of certain defeat, it was the Japanese who refused the terms of surrender offered by the Allied powers at Potsdam.

Realistically, once attacked, the US/Allied powers had one objective: to end the war as quickly and decisively as possible. And by 1945, it wasn't enough to just defeat Hitler's armies and Japan's fleets. Hitler and Japan's fanatical leadership absolutely had to be removed from power and held accountable for their atrocities. To that end, the Allies demanded surrender under the terms of Potsdam. The Japanese refused, believing they had a chance to potentially repulse an Allied invasion and end the war on slightly more favorable terms. The atomic bombs ended that belief rather dramatically, and achieved the objective of ending the war quickly and decisively.

quote:
My God you are one bloodthirsty little war-lover, aren't you.


I don't love war, quite the opposite; however, I understand its very bitter realities.

quote:
War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By JediJeb on 3/6/2012 6:14:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
coming from someone living in the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in wartime.


The thing is there was quite a bit of reluctance to even use those weapons and even after their use the ones who made the decision had many regrets even though it gave the US a positive outcome in the war. Do you think Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have a reluctance to use or a regret after the use of nuclear weapons on Isreal? There is a big difference in throwing a knockout punch to end a fight and throwing a sucker punch to start one.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Peter898 on 3/7/2012 11:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
You are totally missing the point of having nukes :
NOT to use them .
Do YOU seriously think any country would survive nuking
Israel ?
The only reason the US got away with using nukes was because nobody else had them .
If you ever did it again .... Well, I think you can imagine !


By Steve1981 on 3/7/2012 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are totally missing the point of having nukes : NOT to use them .


The primary mission of the US nuclear arsenal today is one of deterrence. This was not the case during WWII, with the world's major powers locked in total war.

quote:
The only reason the US got away with using nukes was because nobody else had them .


It doesn't hurt to be sure. On the other hand, the bombings haven't exactly been widely condemned by the international community either.

quote:
If you ever did it again .... Well, I think you can imagine !


Depends on the circumstances.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By sld on 3/7/2012 3:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be ridiculous. Japan had imperialistic ambitions. Iran wants to annihilate Israel, a country they insist on labelling as the Zionist State.

Both Japan and Iran must be stopped.


By Paj on 3/7/2012 7:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
And Israel has no imperialistic ambitions at all!


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Wulf145 on 3/6/2012 7:39:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The right to keep nuclear weapons out of crazy people's hands who have a history of terrorizing and threatening their neighbors?


The last time Persia (nowadays Iran) terrorized or was agressive against a Neigbour was in the 18th Century.

Since then it was always Iran that has been attacked.

I'll jump on the 'Lets-Bomb-Iran' bandwagon as soon as there is proof that they aktulay have a Military Nuclear Program, as of today the IAEO has stated that all nuclear material is present and accounted for. Heck, even the CIA is saying that they don't believe that they have a Military Nuclear Program.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Ringold on 3/6/2012 10:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. I mean, peaceful countries always bury their facilities deep inside mountains like at Fordow, right? It probably helps keep down on air-conditioning costs! That must be it.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Wulf145 on 3/6/2012 11:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ad peaceful country - Can you give me an example of Persia/Iran having been the aggressor in a military conflict since 1900? Or, how do you define a peaceful country?

I would accept your argument if all, or even most, facilities were deep underground – they are not. As far as I am concerned when designing a facility to house and process nuclear materials having it underground could be construed as being safety conscious, if something goes wrong the radioactive materials are already contained.


By Ringold on 3/6/2012 4:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
If safety were the only concern, then the rock itself would be enough. Why the several meters of concrete and rebar? The only possible thing that is needed to protect against is repeated assault by bunker-busting missiles.

And you're right, suspected locations where work on triggers and neutron reflectors are above ground, but the centrifuges are all being moved to Fordow.

And if their intent is peaceful, why not let inspectors in at Fordow with free reign? Indeed, why was Fordow until just recently a secret? How many other peaceful but secret facilities do they have?


By ZorkZork on 3/6/2012 4:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
Talk to the people in Israel who have to live with attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas are Iran's proxy warriors. While the people of Iran may be peaceful (like most people) their government isn't.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Ringold on 3/6/2012 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
And I guess funding terrorism doesn't count as aggression in your world?


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Wulf145 on 3/6/12, Rating: 0
By Ringold on 3/6/2012 4:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
Turkey has proxy terrorist groups? The UAE does? Qatar? Kuwait? The new Iraq?

And Iran looks "wimpy" on the terrorism front? Did you miss the part where they sent tons of missiles to Hezbollah to rain down on Israeli cities, forcing Israel to develop tech like the Iron Dome?

And since when did crazies start suggesting ANY state-sponsored terrorism is acceptable? How can you possibly defend that?


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By derricker on 3/7/2012 8:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
You sure you are not talking about US?? I mean, it's history of seeding terror across the globe is unmatched. It even dropped a nuclear bomb on an already defeated country which had already made clear it's intentions of surrendering.

Your double moral standard truly is disgusting.


By Steve1981 on 3/7/2012 9:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It even dropped a nuclear bomb on an already defeated country which had already made clear it's intentions of surrendering.


Sorry, but they didn't have any intention of surrendering, at least not on terms the Allies were willing to accept.

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


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2012 7:34:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The last time Persia (nowadays Iran) terrorized or was agressive against a Neigbour was in the 18th Century.


Umm this is 100% absolutely false. Are you serious? So the Arab-Israeli war, where Iran and 3 other countries attacked Israel in 1948 was in the 18th Century? What about Israel being attacked in 1973 on a Jewish holiday? Since then there's been never ending aggression. Both sides have their reasons, but let's be clear, if you support Iran in this conflict you're clearly on the side of bigots and racists. Israel's only crime is being a home for Jews.

Please purge your mind of whatever bullcrap you picked up in public school or MSNBC and educate yourself on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_...

" Before the adoption by the United Nations of Resolution 181 in November 1947 and the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948, several Arab countries adopted discriminatory measures against their local Jewish populations. The status of Jewish citizens in Arab states worsened dramatically during the 1948 Israeli-Arab conflict. Major anti-Jewish riots erupted throughout the Arab World in December 1947, and Jewish communities were hit particularly hard in Syria and Aden, with hundreds of dead and injured "

" Over 700,000 Jews emigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1952, with approximately 285,000 of them from Arab countries. "

" On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt staged a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. The Israeli military were caught off guard and unprepared, and took about three days to fully mobilize.[49][50] The Yom Kippur War accommodated indirect confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union. When Israel had turned the tide of war, the USSR threatened military intervention. The United States, wary of nuclear war, secured a ceasefire on October 25 "

Israel has quite literally been fighting for their survival, outnumbered, against multiple foes in a decades long struggle! Their very way of life, and the only Jewish population in the Middle East, is constantly being threatened. I don't know where you people get this idea that they are the aggressors in this. Can you not tell right from wrong?

quote:
Since then it was always Iran that has been attacked.


Proved false. And I only touched the tip of the iceberg. It took a whole 2 minutes to disprove this claim. It seems like you just blurted stuff out without knowing the facts. This is called ignorance.

quote:
I'll jump on the 'Lets-Bomb-Iran' bandwagon


Where have I suggested anything of the sort in this discussion? I'm NOT talking about that.


By Steve1981 on 3/7/2012 8:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the Arab-Israeli war, where Iran and 3 other countries attacked Israel in 1948...What about Israel being attacked in 1973 on a Jewish holiday?


I'm not aware of any significant Iranian involvement in either incident. In fact, in the entire article on the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the only mention of Iran is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Isr...

quote:
The British Mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish leadership led by Ben-Gurion declared independence on 14 May (because 15 May was a Shabbat). The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the United States, Iran, the Soviet Union, and many other countries.


For the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the only mention is:

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

quote:
The Egyptian Navy managed to enforce a blockade at Bab-el-Mandeb. Eighteen million tons of oil had been transported yearly from Iran to Israel through the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb.


and

quote:
According to Admiral Ze'ev Almog, the Israeli Navy escorted tankers from the Gulf to Eilat throughout the war, and Israeli tankers sailing from Iran were directed to bypass the Red Sea.


Given the geography of the Middle East and the fact that the religious hard liners didn't come into power until the Iranian Revolution much later, I'd be curious to see what evidence there is to the contrary.


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By chris2618 on 3/5/2012 6:43:27 PM , Rating: 5
"the country that outright said they WOULD use them against neighbors multiple times? Those guys?"

By neighbor i am guessing you mean that one that has an unknown number of nuclear weapons, that hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation and also seems to be a bit of unknown when it comes to chemical weapons.

Also i think the point michael67 was making is you don't allow you enemy access to your own weapons


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By bobsmith1492 on 3/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By Ringold on 3/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By wordsworm on 3/5/2012 11:50:33 PM , Rating: 1
You got that half right. You can't use logic.

Mainstream media is right wing. Right wingers blame Jews for killing Jesus.

What's problematic with Israel is that it was right wing Germany that had committed the atrocity against Jews. Those Jews then went to Israel and put Palestinians in concentration camps. Ironic, isn't it? Sometimes one must wonder if the Nazis and German-Jews had more in common than is polite to point out. Israel should have been formed out of a piece of Germany since it was the German Nazis who committed the atrocities in the first place, not the Palestinians. That's something that Iran has pointed out.

The reason that leftists say that Israel shouldn't retaliate against the right wing Muslim countries, like Lebanon, was to prevent the widening of the conflict. In other words, it's better for western nations to take on Israel's enemies rather than Israel itself. At least, that's the idea.


By runutz on 3/6/2012 12:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
So your argument is that LEFT WINGERS are Christians since (presumed all) Right wingers blame Jews for killing Jesus?

"Do not adjust your monitor. we have control of transmission"


By Ringold on 3/6/2012 12:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those Jews then went to Israel and put Palestinians in concentration camps.


Minus, you know, the gas chambers. At any rate, that bit of history has to be water under the bridge, or like the Hatfields & McCoys or whatever, you can battle back and forth like cavemen until the end of history. The facts are that Israel is there, it's not going anywhere, and it'd be wrong to ask for the children of the holocaust to pay for the sins of their fathers anyway. There's many Palestinians still living inside Israel to boot. That history has to eventually be buried for civilized people to move on sounds logical to me, apparently not to you. Maybe America should commit mass suicide by marching in to the sea and return all 50 states to the native Americans?

quote:
In other words, it's better for western nations to take on Israel's enemies rather than Israel itself. At least, that's the idea.


I don't use logic, and yet you make that laughable case. Or, at least you pretend its valid. As I pointed out, the UN was worse than useless in the Lebanon case. Missiles would still be raining down on Israeli cities if left up to the UN to resolve the issue. Israel understands people like you on the left have no balls so it's up to them to defend themselves against their hostile neighbors. Which is exactly why they've told us recently that, no, they will not give the US 24 hours warning prior to a strike on Iran, as they know we'd probably undermine, outright try to block, or leak the intel. I don't see where I'm being illogical, based on the facts of recent history.

Not that Israel is without some blame; it really, really needs to reign in those extremists building all their settlements.

And who the hell is out whining about Jews killing Jesus asides from whats-his-drunk-ass-face face? Mel Gibson was it?


RE: Here starts the cyber (hot) coldwar
By JediJeb on 3/6/2012 6:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Israel should have been formed out of a piece of Germany since it was the German Nazis who committed the atrocities in the first place, not the Palestinians. That's something that Iran has pointed out.


Hmmm, and just why were the Jews living in Germany in the first place? Oh, because they were driven from their homeland of several thousand years by Rome, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians(Iran) ect all during the last 2000 years. Then when they return they are called invaders.

Of course I won't say that many other western countries are not to blame because just before WW2 when they tried to leave Germany we all turned them away and sent them back to be slaughtered by Hitler.

Ask yourselves this, if you were forced out of your house for years, then returned and found someone else was living there even though you still owned it, would you just walk away or stand up and fight to get back what was yours? The same thing works on a national scale just like it does on a personal level. I guess those opposed to Israel existing where it does also think that Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, Hungary and the other countries of the former Soviet Block should bow down and again submit to control from Russia. Israel has as much right to exist as Ukraine does, but you are always going to have places where different cultures and governments collide on what they believe they each have a right to and who should and should not be allowed to exist.


By wordsworm on 3/13/2012 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Jews and Palestinians lived together on that land and fought to free their land from the British conquerors. Then, suddenly, with the huge influx of German-Russian-European Jewish population, Palestinians were essentially shoved into camps and left there. Don't forget that the OT has an account of the Jews being driven out of Egypt and into Israel. So, there were Palestinians already living there when they got there. I'm not against Jews living with Palestinians. If Canada had volunteered a chunk of Canada for those Jews to come and live in, I think it would have been great. Consider that some of the greatest minds of the 20th century were Jewish Germans: many doctors and scientists and artists come from that population.


By chris2618 on 3/6/2012 3:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
And of course chemical weapons are the way to do that.


By BZDTemp on 3/6/2012 4:39:16 AM , Rating: 1
Would that be the same country that has been holding people in camps for decades and is permanently occupying another country while importing people from Russia to live in settlements on occupied land?

The country that is refusing UN to put in peacekeepers, isn't beyond using even gunships and fighter jets in occupied areas routinely killing civilians and even using white phosphorus bombs?

What Israel is doing isn't defense it's government run terror and it needs to stop.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki