backtop


Print 124 comment(s) - last by IranTech.. on Jun 14 at 3:07 PM


  (Source: Reuters)
Was attack by U.S. and Israel an act of war? Some think so

It was not a happy meeting for Barack Obama, President of the United States.  At a secret White House meeting with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, and other top officials, his advisors laid out that the Stuxnet worm had spiralled out of control.  According to members of the President's national security team interviewed by The New York Times he asked, "Should we shut this thing down?"

I. Mission Success? Stuxnet Set Back Iran, Despite Code Leak

But the U.S. didn't shut Stuxnet down.  The worm and its successors would go on to succeed in the core objective programmed into it by the U.S. and Israel -- to sabotage centrifruges originally produced by German equipment maker Siemens AG (ETR:SIE) by causing them to spin too fast and break.

But Iran eventually detected the worm, which had broken 1,000 of its 5,000 nuclear centrifuges at the Nanantz Plant, and quickly rooted it out, minimizing damage.  It also publicly called out the U.S. and Israel for the alleged sabotage attempt, though it reportedly lied, denying that its plants had been damaged.

The U.S. denied knowledge of the worm.  But privately, Obama administration and intelligence officials must have been panicking as the worm infected other Siemens equipment and spread, out of control, worldwide.  Ultimately the source code leaked, offering more implication of the U.S. and Israel, while putting a potentially dangerous cyber superweapon into that hands of rival nation states, terrorist, and malicious for-profit hackers.

Obama, tired
President Obama reportedly secretly authorized and planned the use of several worms to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. [Image Source: Associated Press]

But the allegation of U.S. involvement remained largely unproven.  But a new piece by David E. Sanger of The New York Times has startling vivid accounts of the U.S. true involvement and cites numerous confirmations from government officials that cyber saboteur was indeed crafted by U.S. intelligence and its Israeli counterparts.

II. "Olympic Games" Attacks Began With Bush

According to the articles, the Bush administration began the cyber-attacks on Iraq, code-naming them "Olympic Games".  When President Obama took over he opted to step up the attacks, specifically authorizing the virulent worm that would become known as Stuxnet.

Stuxnet worked remarkably well, but a programming error caused it to spread far outside the narrow trajectory its authors intended.  According to the article when asked whether the worm should be remotely terminated, President Obama decided against pulling plug as his advisors told him it might still be doing damage and that the Iranians might not know that much about it.

Instead they stepped up the program, with two new worm variants, targeting the uranium enrichment centrifuges.  While Iranian enrichment is reportedly ongoing after the worm was removed from the Nanantz Plant's system, the U.S. government is reportedly still targeting Iran with new cyberattacks.

Describes the NYT piece:

This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day.

Despite the embarassment of having their secret sabotage effort exposed, Obama administration officials reportedly expressed optimism about the results, saying it set the Iranian nuclear program back 18 months to 2 years.  Independent experts were less optimistic, stating the setback windows would likely be smaller.

Stuxnet
Stuxnet source code has been decompiled by Symantec and other researchers.  Versions of the source have even publicly leaked, making them available to hackers. [Image Source: Wired]

Symantec Corp. (SYMC) officials say it was no secret that Stuxnet was created by a nation state actor.  The worm was 50 times the size of a standard worm and equipped with unusual capabilities, like remote deletion.

III. Probing Iran's Dark Net

The U.S. had never before -- to anyone's knowledge -- carried out such a massive cyber-attack against a specific nation-state, which did damage that previously could only have been done by covert agents with bombs or chemical warfare devices.

So why did the Obama administration authorize this unprecedented measure, a measure some will likely say was an unauthorized act of war?  The President felt the nation had no other choice when it came to stopping Iran.  And he felt the effort must be kept secret from Congress and the public to avoid terrorist organizations from using it to justify digital counterattacks -- or that's what he told his staff, at least.

Former President George W. Bush reportedly had similar reasons for launching the program in the first place and keeping it secret.  He was reportedly well aware that his credibility was shot after falsely accusing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of developing nuclear weapons.  And his allies were opposed to steep sanctions against Iran, which could hurt their economies.

Iran recognized his vulnerability.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad led reporters on tours of his nuclear plant and enrichment facilities, trying to publicly claim he had nothing to hide.  But to the Bush administration it appeared that Iran's enrichment capacity was greatly outpacing its fuel needs, so the claims of peaceful infringement seemed highly dubious.  To them Iran was clearly using the publicity stunt as a means of obfuscating the fact that it was stockpiling enriched weapons game uranium for warheads, warheads that could be used to demolish Israel and potentially even be trained at U.S. cities.

Iran nuclear facilities
The attack on the centrifuges was preceded by a worm that mapped Iran's networks.  President Bush authorized these early attacks. [Image Source: CBS]

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency efforts to sabotage parts for the plant, including designing generators that would blow up had little effect.  And with Vice President Dick Cheney pushing the President for yet another decision, President Bush made the decision to explore cyberattacks, a program that would be completed by his successor.

The Bush administration effort start with the planting of a preliminary "beacon" worm that mapped networks and analyzed various devices and circuits, returning the data to the U.S. National Security Agency.  In order to convince Dick Cheney and Israel to lay off plans to physically attack Iran in a pre-emptive strike, President Bush authorized a next generation design dubbed "the bug", whose objective was serious sabotage.

IV. Crossing "the Rubicon"

That worm was developed in secret by the CIA, NSA and Israel’s Unit 8200.  Israel's hackers were reportedly criticals as they were more skilled than their U.S. counterparts and were armed with their nation's deep intelligence of the Nanantz facility.

The U.S. had already bought some of the aging centrifuges that Iran was using -- P-1s from former Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.  Iran had purchased llarge number of identical models on the black market from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief.

Using their small number of identical centrifuges, they carried out a successful test attack on the centrifuges, with systems set up to resemble those mapped by the "beacon".  Armed with the success, President Bush authorized a real attack on Iranian systems.

Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., remarked, "Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers.  This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction.  Somebody crossed the Rubicon."

CIA Floor
The C.I.A.'s former chief said the attack authorized by President Bush "crossed the Rubicon", opening a new era of warfare. [Image Source: Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty]

It took a while though for covert agents in Iran to spread "the bug" with USB drives.  Comments an official, "It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn’t think much about the thumb drive in their hand."

But in 2008 the first reports of success were reported.  A handful of centrifuges began to blank.  Mystified the Iranians believed they were "cursed" or possibly the result of parts sabotage.  Comment an official based on intercepted communications, "The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence."

While the program had not succeeded in large scale destruction of Iranian enrichment when President Bush left office, he urged his successor to preserve the program.  President Obama listened to his advice and did.

The new president was reportedly deeply involved receiving weekly updates and authorizing new attacks.  States one official, "From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision.  And it’s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule."

The first major setback to the program occurred in 2010 when a portion of code design to make the worm detect its new environment and prevent replication outside the Iranian target vectors failed.  Quickly the worm began to spread worldwide, and receive media attention.  Vice President Biden reportedly fumed blaming the Israelis for the bad code.  He is quoted by an unnamed official as saying, "It’s got to be the Israelis.  They went too far."

V. More Attacks Coming?

While the Obama efforts were almost solely "focused on one country", many administration officials have since called for attacks on other regions like North Korea and possibly China, pending the semi-success of "the bug" and its successors.  States one official, "We’ve considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with."

The real question is whether such attacks could lead to real-world retaliation and loss of life.  The U.S. government only recently admitted to developing cyber-weapons, but it also recently said that cyberattacks that caused physical destruction could be construed as acts of war and retaliated with "equivalent" real-world physical force.  The question is whether the U.S. might soon find itself on the flip side of the equation.

Computer worm
Officials say attacks against North Korea are being considered. [Image Source: TechTear]

Iran, with enrichment continuing despite the setbacks, has created its own military cyberunit, headed by Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali.  Gen. Jalali promised to fight Iran's enemies "cyberspace and Internet warfare".  But the unit, humorously dubbed the Passive Defense Organization has thus far not appeared to have committed any successful attacks on U.S. infrastructure.

Stuxnet is the first of two major embarassments for the Obama administration with regard to Iran.  In December of last year the Iranians succesfully downed a U.S. RQ-170 drone on a C.I.A. mission.  The Iranians have pledged to crack the minimally damaged drone's secrets, rejecting President Obama's demands to return the flier.

Gibson Neuromancer
A new era in warfare has begun. [Image Source: Interplay (cover art for Neuromancer game)]

In his seminal 1984 cyberpunk novel Neuromancer, William Gibson envisioned a world at war, in which internet offensives were used as preludes to physical attack.  Today, more than ever, as the U.S.'s secret attack of Iran is exposed that prediction appears remarkably prescient.

Source: The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


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

How is it not an act of war?
By tayb on 6/1/2012 3:56:22 PM , Rating: 1
How is a virus that causes physical damage NOT an act of war? How is it any different, really, than dropping a bomb and damaging a facility? We sent a virus to a sovereign nation that physically damaged hundreds of centrifuges. If Iran sent this virus back to us would we consider it an act of war? Absolutely.

Our foreign policy is just appalling and pathetic. I can't believe we had the audacity to ask for our spying drone back. Iran has a right to hate us.




RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Solandri on 6/1/2012 5:21:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I can't believe we had the audacity to ask for our spying drone back. Iran has a right to hate us.

Actually, that's standard diplomatic policy. Military hardware still belongs to the original host country. After Cuban defectors flew MiGs to the U.S., the U.S. returned the MiGs to the USSR (in crates, after they'd been disassembled, photographed, and analyzed). The U.S. spy plane which landed in China was eventually returned to the U.S. (surprisingly in flyable condition, not in crates). Even military shipwrecks still belong to their host country (you cannot salvage them without permission from the country - that's why Spain still claims salvage rights over gold-laden 16th century galleons).

Obama's request for its return may have come across as arrogant and feeble, but it was actually a measured geopolitical gambit. By requesting its return in public, Obama forced Iran to also make its choice public. And Iran chose not to return it, thereby indicating to the rest of the world that they disregard established diplomatic protocols and standards. If they're not going to abide by this diplomatic standard, how can a country trust them in any other diplomatic negotiations?

What Iran should've done is disassemble it, photograph it, and make every detail about it available for sale or put on the Internet. Then return it to the U.S. That way they'd maximize the damage to the U.S. while still maintaining the respect of the international community. Instead they decided to keep it as a trophy to gloat over, at the cost of their reputation in international diplomacy.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By fredgiblet on 6/1/2012 5:48:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
surprisingly in flyable condition, not in crates


We're talking about China and a P-3, they probably already have complete schematics


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Bad-Karma on 6/1/2012 9:23:59 PM , Rating: 4
It wasn't just a "P-3 Orion". It was a EP-3 which is a highly classified reconnaissance bird. It is basically a scaled down version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint and RC-135 Combat Sent aircraft.

Nobody gives the crap a bout a 50 year old airframe being copied, especially one that we pretty much give to anyone who will take them from us. There are hundreds of them for sale just sitting out in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson. Many of them are almost new condition with very few hours on them.

What was so bad was all the highly classified Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems and computers in the mission section of the airframe that the Chinese got access of.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By lagomorpha on 6/2/2012 3:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What was so bad was all the highly classified Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems and computers in the mission section of the airframe that the Chinese got access of.


Would surprise me if the crew didn't destroy all of that with thermite the second they landed.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By mmatis on 6/3/2012 1:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
They did not have the capability to do that. They were able to destroy SOME of the equipment, but most of it was intact when the Red Chinese boarded the aircraft.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By HonourableSchoolboy on 6/3/2012 8:21:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They did not have the capability to do that. They were able to destroy SOME of the equipment, but most of it was intact when the Red Chinese boarded the aircraft.


There was reporting at the time that the crew were down to using aircraft fire axes and hammers!! Not a very effective plan under exigent circumstances.

As for the drone, the US controllers must have known something was wrong. We put remote destruction into test missiles for safety. Why not drones? Seems obvious given their role.


By johnsmith9875 on 6/11/2012 10:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
Spy satellites reported the chinese were going in/out of the captured PC, taking boxes out.

I suspect the "fire axes and hammers" story was just made up. It landed intact and the PLA immediately took control of the plane.

They also paraded our people in front of the cameras for propaganda purposes. Somebody remind me again why they're trading partners?


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Richard875yh5 on 6/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Skywalker123 on 6/2/2012 8:04:53 PM , Rating: 4
Not nearly as stupid as yours. We overthrew their govt and installed a puppet. We have backed terrorist groups to bomb their military and kill their scientists, now we cyber attack them. What's not to understand, moron?


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Richard875yh5 on 6/3/12, Rating: 0
By Skywalker123 on 6/3/2012 5:03:27 PM , Rating: 3
LoL you're the one who is blind, and you don't respond because you have no explanation, at least not one that would make sense.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By fredgiblet on 6/1/2012 5:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
If there was definitive evidence that the drone violated Iranian airspace I might agree, however I doubt that it did and that means that Iranians downed it without reason which could ALSO be considered an act of war.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By dark matter on 6/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Manch on 6/2/2012 11:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of countries spy on other countries using planes, drones, ships, etc, without actually violating the other countries airspace or territorial waters. Like the EP3 than was mentioned earlier, it doesnt need to actually fly into their territory in order to get the info it needs. They merely fly/sail along just outside the border and collect what ever electronic signals come their way.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2012 10:56:06 PM , Rating: 1
Just more proof of how much Obama is repairing the damage Bush did, and helping the world "love" us more!

So basically we have an illegal unsanctioned military action in Libya, now a completely unjustified sabotage job in Iran. Oh and let's not violating sovereign Pakistan to assassinate Bin Ladin.

And the Left calls Republicans "cowboys"? Was Congress even in the loop on all of this, you know, like the Constitution and War Powers act says they should be?

Can you imagine if a Republican administration did this crap? It would be a nuclear bomb in the media! Obama? Nah, nothing to see here folks. Move along.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Amedean on 6/2/2012 12:19:06 AM , Rating: 5
Most times I stumble on your threads they are filled with political extremism.

As a former war veteran I can say I would feel much better knowing that our government was considering all options wisely before putting our troop's lives in danger. Cyber penetration is cheap, effective and costs no soldiers lives for intended purposes. Thank the Lord in heaven Arlington Cemetery will not receive another influx of our young and dedicated soldiers.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By ekv on 6/2/2012 3:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
Is this your reply? or is this how you feel?

Ignoring double standards in media coverage. Ignoring the fact that the NYT has apparently blown another gov't secret, or worse, has divulged secret operations at the behest of the Obama political campaign. Ignoring all that, I too "would feel much better knowing that our government was considering all options wisely before putting our troop's lives in danger". But to suggest that is the case here is naive at best. Because now Iran knows who to target, rightly or otherwise. Do you suppose there is anything that'll stop Iran from getting The Bomb? O sure, U.N. sanctions will prevent that, won't they?

Having lost Iraq and, soon, Afghanistan, I'm sure Obama hasn't emboldened our enemies. Especially since Obama can just bow down before them, have a beer and read a book. Move along.

It seems to me leadership requires judging how many troops will be required up-front vs. how many will be required later if there is no action taken now.
/u


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By knutjb on 6/2/2012 6:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well said.

All Obama appears to care about is how he looks. Does the world like him? Those on the left, not all, think this and other actions should be in the media because we are the problem. Go to Iran (or Russia, China...) and try expressing those ideas and see how long it takes you to be silenced.

As we see in action flower power [still] doesn't work.

I have never trusted a leader who uses "me" and "I" for all that is perceived good and blames others for failures in their chain of command.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Amedean on 6/2/2012 9:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
If that were purely the case than he would not have sponsored health care reform. All politicians to a degree have to consider their image.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By ekv on 6/2/2012 4:00:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If that were purely the case than he would not have sponsored health care reform.
I presume you are attempting to bolster The Annointed Ones image, you know, Obama. Why? Because it needs it, you are easy to command and it's your job.

I'll further assume your "that" refers to "All Obama appears to care about is how he looks". Then you are assuming he knew there would be blow-back from shoving an undesired, unnecessary and unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act down our throats. But how can that be, when Pelosi put it best, "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."

If however you were referring to The-One who takes credit for everything good and nothing bad, then it really doesn't make sense. Especially since Kathleen Sebelius, bureaucrat-extraordinaire, is writing the rules behind closed doors w/o anybodies knowledge, except for her Democrat buddy's of course. And there you have Obama's legacy in a nut-shell.
quote:
All politicians to a degree have to consider their image.
There's a difference tween Politician-first and Citizen-first. Wouldn't you agree? I think there is more than enough evidence to make a reasonable conclusion as to what we have here. Preponderance, and all that. And in case you weren't paying attention, a Citizen-first approach would be to put the interests of the Republic before the interests of self. [My friend Gunny says he still teaches that in boot camp].


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Amedean on 6/3/2012 12:23:28 AM , Rating: 1
I imagine there is a correlation to your shouting and lack of attention from others.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By ekv on 6/4/2012 2:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
Shouting?

I'm perfectly logical. Yet you are offended by resolution.

You must be attuned to porkpie and popularity. You've nothing to say but you spend so many words....

I'll have to talk to Gunny about how to address yellow-belly scum-suckers, in a politically and statistically correct manner no less.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2012 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All Obama appears to care about is how he looks.


Exactly. He's the worst kind of politician, because EVERYTHING he does is for purely political reasons. He campaigned on a "transparent" Administration, but uses the office of the President to unilaterally make policy because a Congressional debate on such actions would be too visible. There might be a public backlash, and we just can't have that I guess. He could lose votes!!!


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By dark matter on 6/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Amedean on 6/2/2012 9:47:22 AM , Rating: 1
This is true.

I have been to Iraq twice not including my deployment in Afghanistan so understand that I reflect on this often as I have known personally 14 soldiers who have died.

The burden of war falls not on the old or rich man but on the young man. Iraq should not have happened as there was a better way than direct intervention.

I spent too many years risking my life and losing dear friends to prevent Iraqi citizens and foreign insurgents from murdering each other. Because the American people were overzealous and the previous government over willing, we exasperated the regions instability and cost this nation a lot of money and additional lives.

There was a better way as we have seen in the Arab Spring. A sustainable revolution for a better government has to have the face of that nation and not a foreign army or its people will not unify and swell with pride from their accomplishments.

Fundamentally to this article, it is wise to explore the shades of gray and use a host of tools at your disposal. I am sure there will be many pretenders of courage ranting of war and politics in this forum. Unless they have carried a rifle and headed to the front lines like I have, I would use plenty of salt while consuming their words because they are actors pretending to be characters in a play.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Richard875yh5 on 6/2/2012 4:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Another very dumb statement. After all the good things the USA has done for the world, you are stupid enough to make such a statement. Go back to your hole where you came from.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Skywalker123 on 6/2/2012 8:21:22 PM , Rating: 1
Another moronic statement.The job of being a flag waving, brainwashed,ignorant, superpatriot idiot who believes anything the government says has already been filled by Reclaimer. So go back to your Bible class and Nascar race


By mindless1 on 6/7/2012 8:25:05 PM , Rating: 3
When you get older, you will realize that insulting people not only does not win an argument, it also manages to offend more people than you intended to. Same goes for Richard8*


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By HonourableSchoolboy on 6/3/2012 9:57:16 PM , Rating: 4
De-coding your message:
quote:
Your country
= The US or UK,
quote:
acts of war
= anything you don't like, and
quote:
coffins for your soldiers
= your assumption that the US, UK, Canada, ANZAC's, and the other Brave NATO allies are unwilling to accept some loss of life in defense of one another, repel aggressive tyrants (Iraq for example), maintain some degree of world stability, and wherever possible defend for others basic human rights including some degree of personal freedom and state democracy.

Is that about right? My personal experience with all of the Allied nation's people in uniform and their remarkably brave Foreign Services is that your comment is rubbish.

We will never stop defending one another. Likewise we will do what we can to help those friendly to us, and defeat aggressive tyrants. We did it in 1939-45 and continue to this day. We will lay down our lives for each other and these basic ideas of stability, liberty and justice.

Thinking otherwise you will likely find yourself on the wrong side of history.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Paj on 6/6/2012 7:47:57 AM , Rating: 3
Oh dear.

Pretty much every single country in the world was opposed to the Invasion of Iraq. Not just opposition from the population, which was pretty much universal, but governments too.

The American response to this opposition was to rename fried potato snacks in the White House cafeteria.

If Iraq was truly about "defeating agressive tyrants" and "protecting stability, liberty and justice", where is the international response to incidents in Syria, Sudan, Chechnya, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia?

The reasons you mention are justifications given when something undesirable occurs in a strategically valuable location. Undesirable things occur all over the world, all the time. But most of these occur in places with little to no strategic value - so are ignored.


By inperfectdarkness on 6/11/2012 2:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
There IS some truth behind the necessity of rooting out tyranny wherever it appears.

That said, there are simply not enough resources available--within the nations determined to repel tyranny--to afford the luxury of stamping it out all over the world.

What is left is having to pick your battles; more often than not, that means you need to select enemies that present a tangible, viable threat of exporting tyranny to your own country. Afghanistan certainly fit that bill. Iraq--already known from the 80's and 90's to possess the willingness to use chemical weapons and/or ballistic missiles--also presented a viable threat.

I know the bleeding-hearts want an "all or nothing" approach to tyranny. But the fact is, doing nothing isn't acceptable if you want to continue to have freedom. And doing "all" isn't possible.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By TSS on 6/2/2012 9:50:35 AM , Rating: 1
So instead of putting just soldiers lives in danger, you're happy that they decided to put your loved ones in danger? Yknow, the very reason soldiers head into danger in the first place, so their loved ones don't have to?

An iranian nuclear missle will never reach the US. There would be actual bombs dropped on iran long before they could launch anything. And even a launched missle wouldn't make it past the countermeasures already in place. But an Iranian virus could ravage the entire US powergrid with very little protection put in place, since the US is notiriously bad at cyber defence. Depending on how far they are with their work and how threatened their president feels, that could happen sooner rather then later.

within half a year of no electricity you can bet the deathtoll is going to make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. And that's not a theoretical threat either, unlike iranian nuclear missles. That could actually happen.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Amedean on 6/3/2012 12:29:57 AM , Rating: 1
Listen fatty, get your ass in the field and put your life in danger before you patronize me about sacrifice!


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By TSS on 6/2/2012 9:50:35 AM , Rating: 1
So instead of putting just soldiers lives in danger, you're happy that they decided to put your loved ones in danger? Yknow, the very reason soldiers head into danger in the first place, so their loved ones don't have to?

An iranian nuclear missle will never reach the US. There would be actual bombs dropped on iran long before they could launch anything. And even a launched missle wouldn't make it past the countermeasures already in place. But an Iranian virus could ravage the entire US powergrid with very little protection put in place, since the US is notiriously bad at cyber defence. Depending on how far they are with their work and how threatened their president feels, that could happen sooner rather then later.

within half a year of no electricity you can bet the deathtoll is going to make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. And that's not a theoretical threat either, unlike iranian nuclear missles. That could actually happen.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2012 7:24:23 PM , Rating: 1
First off thank you for your service.

Secondly it's your job to "be in danger" so I don't have to be. If all it took was launching cyber attacks from thousands of miles away to eliminate threats and make the population safe, we wouldn't even NEED a military.

I assume you're familiar with military history. To believe we can commit an act of war using computers and escape a blood-price later is a fools folly.

If Obama and his advisers truly believed Iran was a big enough threat to commit an act of war against, but was too concerned with the political repercussions from a conventional and public military action with the support of the UN and our allies -not to mention Congress-, then that's all the proof you need. How righteous was this?

This isn't the 1960's anymore and Iran isn't a bunch of sheep herders. Obama could very well have awakened a sleeping lion. And I fear your dream of "no costs" in soldiers lives is but that, a dream.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Amedean on 6/3/2012 12:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
Look, you are a very patriotic citizen and I admire this but I am also concerned about exploitation. In our country this wellspring in patriotism is too often misdirected to political orthodoxy. General Colin Powell had a few good words in this link I hope you take time to listen to.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=16082

I spent 15 minutes to inform you the conversation of interest is at 40:16 to 43:55 in the audio. Please consider listening to this.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Noya on 6/2/2012 2:11:23 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Just more proof of how much Obama is repairing the damage Bush did, and helping the world "love" us more!


I've saw your...enthusiastic, one-sided posts for years. With unwavering support for everything Bush, Republican, military, big business, etc.

Are you really this brain dead? Do you honestly believe in the whole Democrat vs. Republican charade? That they're different sides of the same coin that is in the pocket of the ultra-rich? That the "system" is beyond broken and is on borrowed time.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Dorkyman on 6/4/2012 10:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, brother.

If you think the two parties are two sides of the same coin then that's some coin you've got. Life runs on money, sure, and donations keep the parties alive. But especially now the fundamental philosophical differences between the two parties couldn't be greater.

You sound like an Occupier. Good Luck with that.


By The Raven on 6/7/2012 6:29:13 PM , Rating: 1
He sounds like a tea partier too. FYI both parties are the same party of more gov't and less responsibility.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Paj on 6/6/2012 7:38:48 AM , Rating: 1
All of these pale in comparison to Iraq, which looks set to be one of history's greatest foreign policy mistakes.


By WinstonSmith on 6/2/2012 9:01:39 AM , Rating: 3
"How is a virus that causes physical damage NOT an act of war?"

It is as is directly supporting a group that even we list as a terrorist group (MEK) to murder people within Iran.

I'm no supporter of Mullahs in Iran or anywhere else, I'm just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in our foreign policy that every nation other than ours so easily recognizes. There are many more examples of this "do as I say, not as I do" and "it's OK for me to do this to you, but if you do it to me it's an illegal act of war which I will scream about" hypocrisy.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By ameriman on 6/2/2012 3:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Obama brutally, illegally, unconstitutionally, unneeded, unprovoked attacked Libya in violation of US and UN law.. and caused the deaths of over 100,000 Libyans.. human beings who would be alive today except for Obama's (illegal) orders..

Why isn't Obama's attack on a country of no threat to America or any other country an 'act of war'?


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/2/2012 8:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
UNSC 1973? You can argue against the justness of interventionism, but I don't think you can argue against the legality of this intervention. Nor can you blame all the deaths of Libyan civilians on Obama. After all, the fighting was well underway before the *UN approved* intervention began. Perhaps without the bolstering of the international community, the opposition forces would have collapsed and Qaddafi would have regained control without as many lives lost. I'm also not sure where you are getting your number of 100,000 dead. Even the most sensationalist numbers I've heard have been on the order of 25 or 30 thousand dead and around twice that wounded, with perhaps a tenth of those casualties originating before coalition involvement in mid-March.

While Obama's actions could be called an "act of war", in the sense that they were actions, and they were part of a war, they weren't an "act of war" in the traditionally used sense of the term, referring to acts which would provoke a war, because there was already a war going on, and we just, in essence, picked a side.


By hero_of_zero on 6/4/2012 10:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Heck even one of Libya "freedom fighters" the nato "supported" was in getmo,when he was released he went back to Afghanistan,then when to Libya and did requiting for bin ladin crew to fight Qaddafi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGYTb41TZg&feature...


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2012 10:47:36 PM , Rating: 3
The Constitution doesn't say a President can unilaterally go to war without Congress if the UN "approves" it. Sorry. There's absolutely NO way Libya was legal.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By Paj on 6/6/2012 8:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
Going to Iraq is fine though? So Congress is now the world parliament?


By foolsgambit11 on 6/10/2012 7:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
Belatedly, I'll get back to you on this point. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, which means he has the power to wage war. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, which is the political act of announcing the nation's official diplomatic status with respect to foreign powers. Since Congress controls the purse strings, if they do not approve of a military intervention, they can block funding - which means that not blocking funding amounts to tacit consent to the military action. Above and beyond that, Congress approved the U.N. Charter, which specifically authorizes the use of our military for enforcement of UNSC resolutions. So they have, in fact, delegated a portion of their power to declare war to the UNSC.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By topkill on 6/3/2012 10:46:47 PM , Rating: 1
Let me get this straight, Truman made a decision to nuke two Japanese cities and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, Nixon decided to carpet bomb an entire country with napalm, Bush invaded a country because he had delusions about WMDs and you want to bitch because Obama continued an existing plan to use a naughty little computer virus to help stop the Iranian nutjobs from getting nukes?

Grow the F up.


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By hero_of_zero on 6/4/2012 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
They wouldn't even have the ability to even enrich the uranium fuel if you good old yanks wouldn't of sold them to them through ge to start with


RE: How is it not an act of war?
By topkill on 6/6/2012 10:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm fairly certain all their centrifuge equipment is from Siemens out of Germany.


America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/2/12, Rating: 0
By Richard875yh5 on 6/2/2012 4:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an American and I say your country is what you accuse the USA. You are blind as a bat and full of hatred.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By knutjb on 6/2/2012 5:25:24 PM , Rating: 4
Iran the free! Funding Hamas and Hezbolah through Syria. Lets see what is happening over there with tremendous support from the benevolent Mulahs. Slaughtering of the Syrian civilian population with supplies from Iran and Russia. The funneling of weapons into Lebanon and West Bank to terrorize Isreal. Causing trouble in Saudi Arabia during the Haj because they don't see the Saudis as worthy. They Also play with North Korea, that bastion of freedom! The list goes on... Trouble in Bahrain...

All of this brought to you by President Jimmy Carter who thought he did the right thing by dropping the Shah cold turkey. Yes, the Shah was a genuine bad guy. Persistant pressure on him could have led to a better Iran. Nope, Jimmy cut him off and chaos ensued. Kind of like Lybia and Egypt with our current President. Hopefully Lybia and Egypt don't follow Irans lead, though I'm not holding my breath. Obama doesn't want his hands to get dirty, but wants the credit, even when credit shouldn't be taken.

Unfortunately what you don't see is we, the US, have to clean up others humanitarian messes. President Clinton screwed up in Somalia but got it right in Kosovo. The reality is Islamic nations kill more of their own than anyone else, then blame everyone else for the loss of life.

So do I want to see Iran with a nuke? I just wish this administration would learn how to keep secrets just that, secret.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/4/2012 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
So...
Anyone who agrees with you = "freedom fighter"
Anyone who disagrees with you = evil American lackey

I'll let you in on a secret: neither side is good. At most, you may be able to make arguments regarding who's worse.

Curious... what's your view on the suppression of the Iranian green movement? How about internet censorship? Also, what's your definition of "free"?


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/4/2012 5:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
From what I see, the government of Syria and many of the people of Syria are on two different sides in the conflict. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a conflict. Beyond that, the best I can do is trust news media for information (fortunately, American's are not limited to state mandated news sources). I'm fairly certain that neither of us has first hand knowledge of the conflict. So, it's difficult to be 100% certain what's going on.

However, it sounds like you believe Al-Qaeda is directly supported by the US President, but not the Iranian government, and that you are stating that American backed Al-Qaeda operatives that were responsible for 9/11 are now carrying on the a terrorist war against the Syrian government. Is that right? If you believe that despite logic and a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, nothing I can say will change your mind. I would be interested in hearing why you believe this, though.

As far as your ancestral hatred for all things European in origin... did you realize that for hundreds of years prior to "hundreds of years of being killed and robbed by America and its European ancestry" people from your section of the world were killing and pillaging across southern, eastern, and western Europe? Does that mean people with European ancestry are justified in perpetrating "crimes" upon people from south-west Asia? I certainly don't think so. Concentrating on things that happened hundreds of years ago is a common tactic to justify doing horrible things in the present. However, it's almost always nothing but an excuse.

Finally, your belief that the problems of your people are caused by evil foreigners* might feel good, but it's not going to help you improve yourself or your country. You are not your government: make sure you are forming your own opinions instead of just buying into those foisted upon you.

...Also want to say: thank you for taking the time to go back and forth with me. It's always interesting and eye opening to speak with people that have a significantly different point of view on things.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/5/2012 10:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
Not going to respond to everything. I, unfortunately, don't have that much time.
quote:
I suppose that the gist of your arguments is that Americans are human beings too.
Since American's are human beings, it seems that the gist of your argument is that they are not. Further, it almost seems that you are making the argument American's are pure evil. Both of which are disturbingly silly and essentially racist (interestingly, you seem to think it's bad when others are racist, but fine for you to engage in the same).

You also don't seem to understand that there can be a difference between the beliefs of a country's citizen and the official statements and actions of the country's government. I'll ascribe this to the fact that you live in a place where the government imprisons those who publicly disagree. Probably the safest thing for you to do.

Open your eyes. People are people no matter what country they live in. Pretending other people are monsters might make the world easier to "understand", but it's unlikely that you'll ever have an accurate view of what's going on with such a constrictive view.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/5/2012 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
My arguments about the gist of your arguments was to the effect that in effect they are irrelevant. Why should I care how you live in America and what you think of yourself. America's actions speak louder than the metaphorical thousand words. Where do those actions come from? Yeah, "were do they all come from?" You heavily boast about the freedom and democracy in America, and then go right ahead and say America's actions does not have anything to do with its people and anyone who says otherwise is a racist. So, which one is it? Are you a democracy and are free or not. Make up your mind quick.

In Iran people do not get arrested for protesting publicly. Again I will not even attempt to answer the propaganda induced illusions of the western world. I will only refer you to what you can see everyday on your way to work or school. Just look at the way the American police is armed. And their vehicles. Just look at what every lowly police officer in America carries with him and in his car and under the hood in the back of his car. It is a freaking military unit. Here in Iran the police does not carry a gun. Only superior officers in serious crime divisions are allowed to carry arms. Electric shock guns and pepper spray is unheard of in Iran. In UC Davis, the American police pepper sprayed a sitting protest by the students as if he is spraying his pet plant with cool water. Hundreds of people die every year, due to electric shock gun attacks by the police in America. America has about 3 million Americans incarcerated. We only have just over 150,000 in prison. Even as we speak there are more political prisoners in America than in Iran, with the difference that in Iran most of them are guilty of committing acts of treason and in America guilty of committing the sin of falling for and believing what is said in the American constitution. Do your research, and use the little real freedom you have got left, well.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By topkill on 6/5/2012 8:05:59 PM , Rating: 1
We ignore you like a little yapping dog until you piss on our foot one too many times then we're going to turn you into a giant fucking parking lot.

You took what was a great, fertile part of the world and deforested it and now you live on sand and camel shit. We are stupid enough to keep buying oil from your part of the world, but you underestimate our technology. One day soon we will come up with a substitute which is cheaper and easier and then (if we have not already decided to wipe you out) we will put a fence around your little god forsaken part of the world and laugh while you kill each other.

We'll even sell television rights...it will be the ultimate "reality TV" for our fall television lineup.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/6/2012 9:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
Ugh... stuff like this is why people hate Americans...


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By topkill on 6/6/2012 10:53:58 AM , Rating: 1
I'm actually one of those "liberals" that Reclaimer and company piss all over here 99% of the time.

But sitting here listening to this little piss-ant spew his vile shit...I see why we get sick of it and want to just nuke the frigging place. If you want to let him stab you and keep smiling and telling him "that's not nice", good for you.

I'm not that patient and sweet.



RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/6/2012 9:58:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You heavily boast about the freedom and democracy in America
I don't think I was boasting, but I do enjoy the freedoms we have here.
quote:
and then go right ahead and say America's actions does not have anything to do with its people
I don't think I said this. I think I said something to the effect that any given action is unlikely to be reflection of the will of all the people in America. In fact, fairly often, a given action is not a reflection of even what the majority of the people want. The
government is not the people. In your zeal to show love and devotion for your own regime, you don't seem to get that. Honestly, you may not be allowed to admit it, but I'm sure it works this way in Iran, too (that is, not everyone always agrees with what the government does).
quote:
and anyone who says otherwise is a racist.
Didn't say that either. I was saying that you are racist for calling American's evil for the sin of being American's. However, I think the proper term for you would actually be "bigot" - for you to be racist America would have to be a single racial group.

And yes, I think the number of people in jail in America is a serious problem. However... I've never heard of anyone being jailed for being "guilty of committing the sin of falling for and believing what is said in the American constitution" (that actually made me laugh). I think a big part of the problem and a reason why many of those people are in jail is our ludicrous "war on drugs". Honestly, I have no idea how accurate your numbers for Iranian prisons are, and don't really care all that much. I'm not really certain why you think that bringing up specific instances of where the US government doesn't do very well is relevant. That the US isn't perfect is not news to me (I live here), and you trying to convince me that Iran is perfect just makes you sound crazy.

How about this: in a show of solidarity for the Iranian people and an expression of online freedom in our respective countries, I'll say something I dislike about my country's leader and then you do the same. I'll start:

I think Obama panders to the electorate and has done a poor job completing the goals he initially set out to complete when elected. Further I think he has done an extremely poor job increasing transparency in government.

OK, now you go. Please list some of the negative things about Ali Khamenei and/or the Iranian government:


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/6/2012 12:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
I say America is a terrorist nation, and you say that Iranians do not enjoy the freedom and democracy that Americans do. Is it not boasting about your freedom and democracy. According to you, only 56 percent of America invaded Iraq and killed over a million people. Only %52 of America is killing Afghans and Pakistani children and women. Only %52 percent of America tried to cause a human tragedy by attacking Iranian Uranium enrichment facilities. Only some %60 of America twice attacked Japan with nuclear weapons. Only %60 of America killed two million Vietnamese. Only 1% pepper sprays the 99%. But America keeps repeating the same thing. The majority of votes in America makes doing the same thing possible. That stands for nation. If you are looking for absolute of absolutes then you are the bigot.

There is no 100% agreement on anything. But when a nation shows a consistent character then that nation can be framed in certain terms. America as a nation and its ancestry have been quite consistent in a certain kind of behavior.

Now for your bet. First, you should know that you are cheating in a certain way, even if you do not mean to. Given your claims, I will have to keep on posting on this thread forever, otherwise you can claim that you were right, and I have been apprehended by the state police. The moderator can also help you, if he is so inclined by banning me from the site.

Second, what you give as criticism of your government is not even criticism. I am sorry but as far as criticisms go it is even more laughable than the general knowledge that topkill has exhibited.

Ok, here:

I think Ahmadinejad panders to the electorate and has done a poor job completing the goals he initially set out to complete when elected. Further I think he has done an extremely poor job increasing transparency in government.

Here you can shout that in Ahmadinejad's ears and no one dares to touch you.

But let's not take it any further. Not because Iran is not free, but because I can also ask you to really show your freedom. Testing freedom, or put another way, taking liberties with freedom is never a good idea. What is important is how people feel. We feel free. That is enough.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/6/2012 3:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Stating simple facts isn't boasting.
quote:
If you are looking for absolute of absolutes then you are the bigot.
Strangely, the only absolutes I've spoken of are the need to avoid absolutes. :) I think you just called yourself a bigot... I'm not really sure where your numbers came from or what you're trying to say with them. Are you trying to make some sort of point through exaggeration? If so, I'm not certain what the point is...

I also fail to understand why you discount my criticism. Those are important issues that concern me. The transparency thing is especially important to me for two reasons:
1) Transparency in government (I believe) leads to an increase in accountability and a corresponding decrease in corruption.
2) This was a specific issue that Obama campaigned upon, that I felt was a laudable, yet attainable, goal.
The fact that my complaints don't meet your standards of what counts as valid criticism doesn't matter to me at all. However, I'm curious, what would I have to say for it to be actual criticism? If speaking about specific failures isn't criticism, I'm not sure what you would would consider it to be...

Also, restating what I said hardly counts as actual criticism. Although, it is interesting that those things could be said about your political leaders and nearly any political leader at any point in history and be true. Further, why do you care if I think you have been apprehended by the secret police? It's very interesting that you even brought that up, and used it as a possible excuse to stop the conversation. Truthfully, I would feel bad if you got apprehended. Is there a good chance of that happening?
quote:
What is important is how people feel. We feel free. That is enough.
What's funny about this is you've been spending quite a bit of time explaining to me how what I think and feel doesn't matter because of my nationality (i.e AMERICA IS EEEEEEEVIL).


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/7/2012 4:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you feel free that is good and fine. But what interests me or actually beginning to interest me is what you think of what freedom is. You dare me to say something critical of our government and our leaders, claiming that Iranians are not free to do so and when I say we will not be punished for doing so, you say that the idea of being punished for speaking freely, for example being arrested, is completely new to you. What was it then that you were talking about in the first place?

I don't know if I am right, but it strikes me that you really do not have any idea of the consequences of for example voting, or asserting an opinion. You hold other people to their words, yet completely let yourself off the hook when it comes to your own words. According to you, it is not important what your leaders, that the majority of the members of your society have voted for, do at all. Your elected leaders, one after another, end up as bona fide criminals and you take no responsibility for electing them. That trait also runs through your statements regarding freedom in Iran. You bet that I cannot say something critical of my government and when I say that I can do it and not be punished you come back and say why should you be punished for saying something critical of your government. It is as if your idea of political freedom and a free society is not the way that society is structured and what laws govern that society, and how people practice their freedom but what each person is. A free person or a not free person living in a vacuum. I suppose there is some truth in that, but only some truth. It becomes whole when the people also take responsibility for the consequences of practicing their freedom. You say that we will not elect those leaders again. Fine, but then again that is part of the idea. After all the elected is acting on your behalf. You just cannot compensate for not electing him again, not to mention that America keeps electing the same kind of politician over and over again.

The figures I gave are what I recall about the voter turnout in presidential elections in America. They are not exact but close. If a representative democracy cannot stand and take the responsibility for the actions of its elected representatives then there is something deeply wrong with that nation or at least the idea of represntative democracy. What I think the salvation of the idea of representative democracy is that that nation, in this case America, is taking responsibility for the actions of its leaders by electing the leaders that without exception act in the same way. There are voices of dissent but the history of America has recorded them as nothing but white noise in the symphony of murder, rape, theft, tinged with the most repulsive narcissism any nation has been cursed with in the history of humanity. The net effect, the sum or whatever you want to call it, of what makes up America is a terrorist nation.

Finally, I find your criticism of the Obama government laughable not because it is not a potentially valid criticism, but because it appeared as though you were crossing some kind of red line, and challenging me to do as well.

It is really hard to ask you to say something that gets you in trouble and I don't want that to happen either. It is more about word followed by action. For example in the 2000 presidential elections in America, there were serious doubts about the election results. Suppose that Al Gore had not finally accepted and congratulated George W. Bush on winning the presidential elections, and suppose that he had marched his followers onto the streets asking for each and every ballot box to be reopened and recounted. I am not saying that the American laws would allow him to make such a request or not, but it is entirely possible to imagine that he would consider it as his natural right and the rights of the people who had voted for him. Would you consider as justified a harsh response from the state if you as a believer of Al Gore's ideas had become part of a movement that would try to paralyze the day to day working of the society and actively try to overthrow the George W. Bush presidency and the laws and the constitution that allows him to claim the presidency according to the final official results of the election? Would you consider a harsh response from the state as an act against your freedom?


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By mindless1 on 6/7/2012 8:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
You wrote: "If a representative democracy cannot stand and take the responsibility for the actions of its elected representatives then there is something deeply wrong with that nation or at least the idea of represntative democracy."

There is something wrong with IDEALIZING that a representative democracy would be perfect, making no errors.

There can never be the perfect form of government. A US citizen can choose who to vote for but must pick the best choice when none of the candidates necessarily represent 100% of what the voter wants - but at least the voter can pick one.

Just because US citizens elect someone into office, that does not make those who voted for that person responsible for any action that INDIVIDUAL chooses to make.

It is time to stop thinking about innocent citizens of either nation being to blame for what a small number of individual leaders do wrong.

Tell us this: If you marry a woman and she later commits murder, are you to blame for the person she murdered? No, in a just world you are not. If we elect an official without knowing what the person will do in a certain situation, we are not responsible for that action.

Ultimately the US is acting the way it does because the world needs one nation to rally behind and keep world order. Remember why this all started, that it is in the best interests of the entire world that no further nations develop nuclear weapons. Do note that in no recent wars has the US used the nuclear weapons it has, they are only kept in an attempt to continue to be a global police force.

Perhaps the US should not be so arrogant as to be a global police force, but if they did not, it is fairly clear that many smaller nations would be constantly at war. By being even more of a global police force there would be fewer war related deaths.

Those being policed over will always feel resentment if they are prevented from doing what they want to, but do you concede that even your own country's police force is needed? The same is true of a global police force. Some country needs to do it.

Would you prefer that Iran be the global police force? If Iran can do a good job at it, I am in favor of it, but I do not feel Iran can do a good job at it.

Gone are the days when a country is an island isolated from the rest of the world. Today it is not the US but the world that decides policy. Fingers point at the US only because we are a larger and more powerful nation than allies but it is still the majority will of the world that overall, the US actions are the best alternative the world has.

Regarding "freedom", that is only an illusion, only a relative level of rights when contrasted with other nations. As a US citizen I was not in favor of sending computer viruses but does it matter? No. I had no say in it and no idea it would happen, no reason at all to believe who I voted for would cause it.

It is the same lame argument as always, "us" versus "them" instead of focusing on individual choice, and world majority. Sub-dividing smaller groups is an arbitrary and self-defeating idea that only came to be because in the past centuries, travel and communication was much more difficult.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/8/2012 6:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is idealizing anything. South Africa was an apartheid regime, until it changed. Nazi Germany was what it was until it was defeated. And America is what it is and what it has always been. Nobody would even dream of calling Nazi Germany a peaceful, democratic nation where human rights were respected because there were actually people there who were opposed to Nazis, not to even mention those who were ignorant of its actions. The same with Apartheid South Africa.

America elected that criminal George W. Bush to office for a second time, while he was in the middle of destroying two countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people. What innocence you are talking about? You would be more justified in saying that Americans do not deserve the idea of democracy, not an idealized one, but even a trivial construction of it. I mean Americans are not refugees just staying in America for food and shelter. You claim policemanship of the world and blissful ignorance and innocence at the same time.

Which brings us to the idea that this world need policing and the police should be the most powerful nation in the world. First of all, a country that is running a fifteen trillion dollar and increasing by the second debt should be put under some sort of universal chapter 11. Second, America has never been the police of the world. It took over colonial duties from the bankrupt British and the rest of Europe and painted it as policing duty. What kind of police is it, that only its own illegal interests is the its sole mandate? What kind of police is America where it is only interested in overthrowing governments and recruiting every terrorist element in the world to carry out its despicable deeds. America has operated more coups in South America than there are countries there. And you go on with your, "we didn't know", "we are just enjoying the food here" thing. America has the largest number of universities in the world. It has the largest number of newspapers and media grown by orders of magnitude after the advent of world wide web. More books are published in America than the rest of the world combined. America has the most extensive television networks in the world. Who attends those universities? Who reads those newspapers? Who read those books? Who watches that television? Who visits those web sites? Ghosts? Or is it that the more you read and the more you learn the more ignorant and the more innocent you become?

Given the level of education and information that is available to Americans and given the consistency and increase in criminal behavior of America, there will be no way around the fact that America is driven by knowledge and full intent not ignorance.

We do not seek or want nuclear weapons. That is the official position of the government of Iran. America has twice used nuclear weapons on an absolutely defeated enemy. Up to this day the official position of the American nation is not of repentance but of belligerence. It is argued by America that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan has saved the lives of many American soldiers. That is the most vicious argument that can be put forward for using nuclear weapons. America has moved over a thousand nuclear warheads to the Persian Gulf region. Given that history and this madness, we still refuse to be drawn in the game that America likes to play on us. We stand up for our rights but will not succumb to the level that America has.

And no, we do not want to police the world. The idea of a world police is illegal to begin with. Your marriage analogy is very wrong to begin with too. To the best of my knowledge neither in America nor Iran nor anywhere I know of, marriage is not about taking the custody of the woman and hence the responsibility for the woman's actions.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/8/2012 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
You were idealizing what a representative democracy should be and making the case that America is "teh worst country everz" because the US does not meet your idealized standards. Basically, you're holding the US government and it's citizens to a different standard than your country or the rest of the world. And then you top it off by comparing the US to the Nazi's. Yeah. That's not even worth a response. It does show you either know very little about the US or WWII, though.

Do yourself a favor and re-evaluate your beliefs. You're not helping anyone except for those in power above you who would like you to believe the nonsense you are spouting because it helps ensure that they remain where they are.


By mindless1 on 6/8/2012 12:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
So basically, you're just jealous.

With all the things that Americans have, what they do not have is crystal balls to predict the future of what someone elected will do in secret.

RIGHT NOW the Iranian government is doing things you don't know about, and some of these things you may not approve of. It seems quite a lot like you have a double standard of blaming someone else for your own situation, do you expect to change your government's operations by posting a lot on the internet on a computer/tech website forum?

It seems your efforts and arguments are wasted. Think on that, an argument is madness if it has no hope of effecting change. There is a right place and time for everything.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/8/2012 12:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that I think I have very little influence over certain things (because I do have very little influence over them) is completely different from whether or not I think those things are important.

Pragmatically, freedom generally means whatever the person saying they are "free" would like it to mean (this appears to be your definition). The definition that I use is that I'm "free" to do what I would like as long as my actions will have minimal negative impact on other people. I will admit that's a fairly generic definition and leave's much up to interpretation.

I brought that up about the free speech thing becaue I didn't think you would say anything negative, and you basically didn't. You just mocked my statement instead.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp on how elections work. In regards to voting and elections in America (and any other nation that I know of) you need to understand that it's impossible to vote on a single issue, but that's what most American's do. As there are often only two possible choices in a given election it's impossible to vote for a candidate that an individual agrees with on all issues. Couple this with the fact that most American's are much more concerned with domestic issues, and you can (hopefully) see why foreign policy is not something that is necessarily the "will of the people". For instance, most American's are not directly affected by what's happening in Iraq. So, they would elect a candidate who they agree with on healthcare or something regardless of what they plan to do with the military.

As far as your third paragraph: you have a very simplistic view of how a nation state works. That's all. Calling American history a "symphony of murder, rape, theft, etc." would be insulting if it wasn't a perfect illustration of your willful ignorance and hatred. It shows you have little understanding of history (or at least you've been learned from biased sources - as we all have to some degree) and a very strong bias against the US. Only someone very ignorant would believe their government is perfect (looking at you here), but it works well enough for the people of the United States. So, I don't see it changing drastically any time soon. Also, Iranian history, as the non-idealized histories of most countries tend to be, is full of murder, rape, theft, and other horrors.

"Crossing a red line", nope. I can say just about whatever I want. I was trying to say something that was actually meaningful rather than call him a big poopy head or whatever you feel would be adequately insulting.

There was a close election and a candidate that didn't want to admit he lost, or (less likely) a candidate who didn't lose and failed to prove it in the courts. It sounds like you're saying that an appropriate reaction for someone on Gore's "side" would be to go into "active" rebellion and start engaging in illegal activities with the expectation that they should not be punished? That sounds crazy. What I would do would depend on the details of the situation, and in that situation, I did nothing because I felt as though it was handled appropriately.

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the US. It's interesting to hear them and I will be happy to continue to clear them up for you.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/10/2012 3:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
nafhan,

You do not respond to the points made about America and keep analyzing my character and my "misconceptions". For you it is all about a person's "character", not what he says or does. I am not surprised about that at all, and given the general climate that the American mind is cultivated in. The same with:

mindless1

where he digs deep in his intellectual arsenal and finds that I am jealous of America, because I have said that America has the means to be the most educated, intellectually developed nation in the world and instead it keeps producing the most stupid, ignorant, loud know nothings in the world. What is there to be jealous of, I don't know. Still mindlessl just keep shooting in the dark.

Your assertion that I do not know about how voting works or what a democracy is and so forth, is just another hypocrisy that every American is augmented with. To Americans, it is America that knows best and nobody has the right to have any idea about democracy and what it is. As far as I am concerned that is just fine. I have lived in America for many years and have talked to more Americans than I can remember and can say with good confidence that I have seen more of America than most Americans, including you. Money does wonders in America. On the other hand, I get the feeling that you and mindless1 have trouble even locating Iran on the map. Even if you do, there are still many demonstrations of that Americanness by American senators (the single issue, know-nothing-else politicians as you like to have them) and representatives all over the web and print media.

We are now at the point in the conversation that we find ourselves repeating what has been repeated before. So, I suggest that perhaps this dialogue has run its course. We can go on if you like to do so, but it will be not be any more rewarding than it already has been.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/10/2012 11:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
IranTech, you seem to have a misconception that I'm not aware of the issues you speak of, and you also seem to think that bringing up issues I'm already aware of is going to persuade me to believe something along the lines of "America is evil".

Further, you're not making the assertion that what a person does is important. You're making the assertion that what a person's nation or culture does is important and what the person does is irrelevant. In this case, you're making the assertion that all Americans are evil because they are Americans. I obviously disagree with you about that, even though I do believe that what a person does is important - and never stated otherwise.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/11/2012 3:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Again you try to distort the point that America is a terrorist nation. I have tried to make it clear to you that whatever each American is, the net sum, the result, is a nation that keeps killing people all over the world for the sole purpose of advancing its own illegal, inhumane interests. I say, "nation", you keep saying there are good people who disagree with American policy in America and so you can not call it a nation. What kind of argument is that? Now you want 300 million seats at the UN? What else do you want? The American nation keeps glorifying the "achievements" of American atrocities around the world and when you are reminded that criminal acts are nothing to be proud of jump around in shock saying what nation are you talking about? What America are you talking about? America is a collection of hundreds of millions of people. How can you call all of them criminals? Nobody is naming any individual. It is the American nation we are talking about, and no matter how many good or bad people there are in that population, the net result is what it is; a terrorist, militarized nation that is surviving only by threatening and killing other people around the world. You have to remember that mine is a view from outside. From outside, there is no other way of considering America. You are locked into your device. America is a device and you are locked into it. A grizzly idea, even to me, but that is how it fits into the general scheme of things. What a tragedy.

As I said, we are repeating what has been repeated before up thread. You will do yourself a favor if you read them again. Of course I will be happy to repeat them for you if you like.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/11/2012 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
I can see you are happy to repeat the same things over and over, because you keep doing it... You've also made it clear that you are unwilling to consider anything I say, and that you will continue believing lies and propagating hatred towards people you know essentially nothing about. Being judgmental is much easier the less you understand, though. So, I guess that kind of makes sense...

I'm glad that I've known other people from Iran, otherwise I'd probably have a very negative view of people from your homeland.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/12/2012 4:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
I will have to conclude that you accept everything that I have said about America, except that not every American is evil. Just as I said, not every German was evil, but Nazi Germany was Nazi Germany. The same way, America is a terrorist, warmongering nation with enough destruction and innocent blood spilled in its path that no person of sound mind can deny its intrinsic character of murder and ignorance. Interestingly, you are not denying it either. You are just saying that not every American is evil. So what. What matters, and what every Iranian or any free nation should keep in mind is that America is a terrorist nation. It cannot be trusted, and that it should be checked, in the strictest of terms.

You do not even have an idea of who is American and who is not, and still manage to count for every American. How you do that? The "Iranians" you talk to are actually Americans. The same way that Henry Kissinger or Zulmay Khalilzad are Americans. Of course not as powerful, but just the same. They have accepted to be part of the terrorist nation that is America. They love America. You can count on that. And so can we.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/12/2012 5:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
So Iranians who are not hateful bigots are actually Americans? Wow.
quote:
You do not even have an idea of who is American and who is not
Really? I'd say American's are people with American citizenship. Your definition of "American" is unclear, but seems to include "Iranians who don't hate America".

What you're doing is applying simplistic labels to an entire nation. All that does is validate your simplistic worldview (basically, good guys vs. bad guys with no possibility of a grey area). Politicians love this kind of thinking.

I'm not arguing with you on specific points for a few reasons:
1) I don't believe America is perfect. You seem stuck on proving to me that it has problems that I already know about.
2) The best lies are half true. You're listing (some) real problems, and then going from there to... crazy. Almost every single one of your arguments follows the format "This happens in America, because: AMERICA IS EVIL".
3) I'm disagreeing with your conclusions, your logic, and your reasoning; not your facts, but you're only interested in having me disprove the facts. I don't need to disprove your facts for your conclusions to be untrue (and/or unrealistically simple).

Finally, "intrinsic character", really? It really just sounds like you're coming up with another way to say "America is evil" rather than having any real meaning behind this statement.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/13/2012 2:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
Henry Kissinger and Zulmay Khalilzad are not American citizens? I still think they are. Check your facts. Anyway, I don't know what else becoming part of a nation means these days in America. Then of course there are many ways by which America advertises itself.

You claim to be a democracy, and the ones you elect to the office keep committing crimes of unbelievable proportions, and you happily keep benefiting from those crimes. Your problem is that you want to have it both ways. In fact you want to have it every kind of way. Sorry, but that will not work. People like you can draw on various augmentations that the system of crime has enhanced them with, but it will have no effect whatsoever on the outside. You cannot have everything. Everything is not yours.

Sorry for trying to tell you about the things that you already knew about. As such there is noting left to say. I still believe that America is a terrorist nation. What I am taking away from this conversation is new light on how America has become a terrorist nation.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By nafhan on 6/13/2012 7:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
First paragraph: you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. So, I'll ignore that...

Second paragraph: "America is full of evil criminals", etc. "Everything is not yours." Unsubstantiated nonsense (i.e. your opinion) followed by a statement that I'm not sure anyone other than you believes. I don't believe that "everything is mine" and I don't know of anyone who does.

Third paragraph: You have some new revelation about how evil America is. I think this is unlikely and you're just trying to upset me :)

However, I wouldn't want to leave you with just another bullet point for you list of reasons why America is evil! Here you go: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Tips on critical thinking and questioning "why" you believe what you do. I think it will help you a lot more than sitting in your basement coming up with new reasons for why America is so evil (especially the critical thinking part...).


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/14/2012 2:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!

At least you are suggesting tin-foil hats and so forth. You are a good person. It is a tragedy that that you are part of a terrorist nation. I am sure there is a lot more like you in there. Great tragedy!


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/14/2012 3:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
That should be, "At least you are not suggesting ..."


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By inperfectdarkness on 6/11/2012 2:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
i think i've found the most brainwashed, government-sponsored astroturfer on the entire internet.


RE: America is a terrorist nation
By IranTech on 6/14/2012 2:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
I just looked up the meaning of "astroturfer" and assure you that that is not the case.

On the other hand, maybe you are suggesting that anybody who is not working for the American government must be working for another government. Given the way Americans are and the way they think and behave that may be what you mean after all.

Again I assure you that I am neither working for the American government nor any other government.


Cyber War is fine...
By aurareturn on 6/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Cyber War is fine...
By bobdelt on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Cyber War is fine...
By sviola on 6/1/2012 3:53:06 PM , Rating: 5
Well, weapon manufacturers and infrastructure companies that will rebuild the losing country disagree with.


RE: Cyber War is fine...
By inighthawki on 6/1/2012 2:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
Can you explain your theory?


RE: Cyber War is fine...
By hero_of_zero on 6/5/2012 2:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
If a nation has no dept example Libya.Controlled their own resources like oil (1.6 million barrels a day).You start a war inside the nation and get shit blown up it costs the nation massive amount of cash to fix it and if the leader can't be "controlled" by the nation(s) that has interest in the said nation will blow it all the hell like Iraq/Libya/.Or like Iran through proxy (iraq/iran war).The said nation will blow all it saved cash if the leader doesn't get killed ie Saddam and Iraq all through the 90's.Therefor they might have to borrow from the usa controlled world bank and well.Then the threats kick in ie let my little Exxon,bp or chevron etc in and well will drill your oil for pennies on the dollar and we will call it even .But it be never even till the nation is totally worthless of profits.Plus mr leader you will live like a king and your family.Well if the leader don't bow down to the great west and it corps they get killed and there family will get killed and then a puppet will be put in the place of the said nation as the "great" leader.
Like a saying i heard in a doc i had watched.If there blood in the streets there is profits to be made.


RE: Cyber War is fine...
By nafhan on 6/1/2012 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Cyber war" and "real war"... what's the difference? I'll tell you: the vector and perception, and that's it. If this same damage had been done with C4 instead of a computer worm, it would be no more or less real.

The only thing making it less of a reason to go to war are perceptions like yours (i.e. somehow "cyber" attacks on infrastructure are somehow less real), and, honestly, even though I think you're wrong, I hope most people think the way you do! It will not be good if we go to war with Iran (even if we "win" like we did in Iraq/Afghanistan).


Most interesting part about this
By nafhan on 6/1/2012 5:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Is that we actually admitted that "yes we did it". Generally, the policy regarding CIA/NSA/intel/spy stuff seems to be "no" or "no comment" - regardless of how damning the evidence appears to be. I really have no idea what to make of the fact that the US government is admitting to this. Very interesting.




Got game?
By MegaHustler on 6/1/2012 5:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
stockpiling enriched weapons game uranium for warheads


I get a sudden urge to play Nuclear War on my Amiga emulator!




Troll article (again)
By highlander2107 on 6/1/2012 9:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
You guys just got trolled. This author writes anything that will bash Obama. It's getting laughable. If this author said it, I'd take it with a grain of salt.




Hawk
By Uncle on 6/2/2012 2:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Never fails now, each Pres that wants to get re-elected has to look like their hawkish for the right wing vote. So my prediction is that some country or group will feel the wrath of the USA Obama Overlords. If your not tough on terrorists as their now called, you are not worthy to be Pres of the USA.




Iran
By Richard875yh5 on 6/2/2012 4:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why would the writer start out saying the USA and Israel created this worm and after reading more, the writer says there is no proof it. Hey, if there no proof of it, don't start false stories.




It is new
By Jaybus on 6/4/2012 1:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it is a new, or at least different, development. In the past, it has almost always been the US that was the victim of cyber attacks. I guess the US finally decided that two could play that game.




Obama - cybercriminal?
By jack.fx on 6/4/2012 3:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
In civilized countries, people who are responsible for creating and distribution of computer virus, if caught, have to pay damages the virus caused and they also get a few years of jail time. I wonder, is USA civilized country?




Doomed to Fail
By Burticus on 6/7/2012 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why would Obama continue any covert operation as dumb as this that had Dubya's stamp of approval all over it? That alone should have led this thing being shoved into a shredder and the remains burned.




Retaliation and Suppression
By KuhnKat on 6/8/2012 11:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
Love all the propagandized, deluded fools posting on this.

Iran has been contributing to both military and terrorist activity against Israel since at least 1947 and continues supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

Iran kidnapped our citizens in the 70's, assisted Al Qaeda, contributed money, weapons, and manpower to attack and kill our soldiers in Iraq and other areas.

Yeah, Stuxnet could be considered an act of war. An act of RETALIATORY WAR!!! Considering how much saber rattling Iran has done in Israel's and the US'es direction it can also be considered a reasonable suppression of the military capabilities of a warmongering medieval country attempting to gain modern weapons to create a conflagration to bring back the hiddeen Imam.

Try reading up on Shiite theology and what the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ahmadinejahd and the other whack jobs actually believe!!!




Who wrote this?
By integr8d on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: Who wrote this?
By leviathan05 on 6/1/2012 3:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just glad they made sure to include the comedic stylings of Joe Biden in there.


RE: Who wrote this?
By ClownPuncher on 6/1/2012 3:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
I want to see how well he can beat box.


RE: Who wrote this?
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/1/2012 3:16:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It seems like it came from three people. Factually and grammatically a mess.
Care to point said errors out so I can fix them, rather than just ambiguously complaining?

And I did not speculate. I directly sourced and recounted the argument to carry out the operation that the NYT's sources said Obama made (see the NYT piece, if you don't believe me).

As for the legality/Constitutionality of this op, the Intelligence Act of 1947 (the bill that created the CIA) authorized covert foreign operations, with intelligence agencies reporting directly to the president.

This was a bloodless foreign operation narrowly within those parameters. And according to the report, it prevented a promised preemptive missile strike from Israel, which would almost certainly have cost life.

If you think that was so terrible, you need to begin by repealing the Intelligence Act of 1947, or challenging its Constitutionality in court, because Congress has authorized covert ops for over half a century.

The escape of Stuxnet in 2010 was embarrassing, surely, but no worse than the U-2 crash of 1960 or countless other intelligence blunders.

I'd say given the situation, this effort was much more civil and less severe than past operations (e.g. the numerous South American and Central American black ops such as Operations Mongoose and Bay of Pigs invasion)


RE: Who wrote this?
By Shawn on 6/1/2012 3:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
centrifuge not centerfruge


RE: Who wrote this?
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/1/2012 3:58:16 PM , Rating: 3
fixed!


RE: Who wrote this?
By Shawn on 6/1/2012 5:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
err... still spelled wrong.


RE: Who wrote this?
By kfonda on 6/1/2012 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 3
Not that I agree with the original poster, but here is an error that scares the hell out of me.

quote:
President Biden reportedly fumed blaming the Israelis for the bad code. He is quoted by an unnamed official as saying, "It’s got to be the Israelis. They went too far."


I sometimes believe that Obama picked Joe Biden just to ensure his own safety. :-)


RE: Who wrote this?
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/1/2012 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think there's a "Vice" in front of it, unless someone else ninja edited it... but yes, that would scare me too.


RE: Who wrote this?
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/1/2012 4:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, doh! I see it now... had been edited to President Obama... yes, that should have been Vice President Biden.


RE: Who wrote this?
By DiscoWade on 6/1/2012 6:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
That is what I tell "birthers" all the time. If Obama is not president, then Joe Biden is. Do you REALLY want Joe Biden to be president?


RE: Who wrote this?
By johnsmith9875 on 6/11/2012 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
I like Biden, he doesn't mince words. Too many politicians seem to have backgrounds in used auto sales.


RE: Who wrote this?
By Kalleria on 6/1/2012 5:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But a new piece by David E. Sanger of The New York Times has startling vivid accounts of the U.S.'s true involvement


quote:
According to the article when asked whether the worm should be remotely terminated, President Obama decided against pulling the plug as his


quote:
obfuscating the fact that it was stockpiling enriched weapons grade uranium for warheads,
I might even say weapons-grade, but you don't seem to spell your two word adjectives like that.

quote:
The Bush administration effort started with the planting of a preliminary "beacon" worm that mapped networks


quote:
Iran had purchased a llarge number of identical models on the black market from Abdul Qadeer Khan
I didn't fix that misspelling on purpose.

quote:
Mystified the Iranians believed they were "cursed" or possibly the result of parts sabotage. Comment an official based on intercepted communications, "The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence."
This section is just hard to understand and has incorrect grammar. "the Iranians believed they were.... the result of parts sabotage" doesn't work grammatically. Also the next sentence should probably say "Based on intercepted communications, an official commented, 'The thinking was that...'"

Overall I think the piece has a lot of good information, it's just very hard to read with the grammatical errors and a serious lack of commas. Some sentences are so long that the idea is lost once you get to the end. Complex sentences are okay (assuming the dailytech is read by mostly educated people), but it's best if you utilize commas to help them flow better. I had to read some paragraphs three or four times to get the point.


SOS, DD
By Beenthere on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: SOS, DD
By cruisin3style on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: SOS, DD
By knutjb on 6/2/2012 6:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
Reality check:
It was the Clinton Adminastration who brought Haliburton into the position it held. They were the only company that had the ability or willingness to do what the government wanted. They only became the bad guy in the media once Cheney ran for office. Look up the articles yourself.

BTW Cheney donated all of his millions in severance to charity when he left Haliburton.

What was that you said...bah bahh


RE: SOS, DD
By ritualm on 6/1/2012 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
D. Beenthere doesn't know what the hell he's talking about


RE: SOS, DD
By Etsp on 6/1/2012 3:24:01 PM , Rating: 3
It looks like you read this part:
quote:
According to the articles, the Bush administration began the cyber-attacks on Iraq, code-naming them "Olympic Games".
But didn't quite make it past the "." to read the next part before coming to conclusions:
quote:
When President Obama took over he opted to step up the attacks, specifically authorizing the viruelent worm that would become known as Stuxnet.


RE: SOS, DD
By mcnabney on 6/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: SOS, DD
By Sazabi19 on 6/1/2012 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, that's exactly what a conservative would say about a liberal. Please try not to generalize us all into 1 stupid group, some of us do think. Trust any "news" with a grain of salt, even the stuff they say on camera, I've seen where they cut up what someone said so bad that they turned the whole thing around. Unless you are there don't be blind and just follow it as fact.


RE: SOS, DD
By Skywalker123 on 6/2/12, Rating: 0
USA! uSA! USA!
By anandtech02148 on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: USA! uSA! USA!
By Ammohunt on 6/1/2012 10:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hell is full of Radical religious zealots.


RE: USA! uSA! USA!
By dark matter on 6/2/2012 4:08:36 AM , Rating: 1
Go and count all the Jewish bankers, and media mougals in America.

They basically bankroll the politicians.

Thus keeping their illegal land grab and settlement and subjugation of a people going with the threat of American military intervention.

But of course they like to play the racism card if you dare to point out they, the Jewish state, are complete hypocrites.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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