Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

jpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#131

Post by 13thLetter »

guelo wrote: post #117
Sanddancer wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conventional weapons. While Israel doesn't officially have nuclear weapons, it's a pretty open secret that they have a few dozen. By allowing Israel to posture with conventional weapons, the US is keeping Israel from going nuclear to solve problems. A nuclear strike in that region would be...problematic to say the least.

Seems like the conventional policy when faced with a militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons is to ostracize them in the international community and impose severe sanctions. Not give them as much advanced weaponry as possible.

"militaristic regime hell bent on using nuclear weapons"

If Israel was "hell bent on using nuclear weapons" why haven't they used their nuclear weapons? You are so choked with hatred you can't even assemble a consistent argument. You need to step back and think about things for a while. Ask yourself why you hate so much, and who put this poison in your head, and why they did it.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#132

Post by 13thLetter »

jqm wrote: post #90
chx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the relationship. One, there are civilians, extremely rich civilians who are sending more than a pretty penny to Israel. Two, the US government is essentially bribing the Israel government to stay put and not kill everyone around them. I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Did you know, for example, that Israel has unmanned ground vehicles https://en.wikipe…

Grabbing a bit of Syria would hardly have been worth the propaganda disaster though. The world wouldn't have reacted very favorably... particularly the Muslim world. And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best inte…

What do you mean by "for the moment at least"?

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#133

Post by ufmace »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #128
chx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the relationship. One, there are civilians, extremely rich civilians who are sending more than a pretty penny to Israel. Two, the US government is essentially bribing the Israel government to stay put and not kill everyone around them. I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Did you know, for example, that Israel has unmanned ground vehicles https://en.wikipe…

I believe most people vastly underestimate the military might of Israel. Certainly Israel has been very formidable against weak armies such as those of Egypt. However, I don't think Israel's brief 2006 war against Hezbollah went all that well. Very little achieved at considerable cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War My impression was that the average Israeli soldier involved was like: "fuck this, what…

Every indication is that their army was and is quite formidable in a conventional fight. Particularly against relatively poorly-led and organized but large and well-equipped armies like the arab armies of the 60s-70s. Counter-insurgency is a whole different ballgame, though, as many nations have discovered the hard way. Israel can almost sorta kinda do it well sometimes.

It's worth noting that Hezbollah is quite terrible at counter-insurgency too, and they know it, which is why they've never made any attempt to take control of the rest of Lebanon outside the Shia area they control in the south.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#134

Post by dang »

JohnD19 wrote: post #129
dang wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments critical of Israel are one thing (plenty of those in this thread), anti-semitic slurs are another. This is hardly a hard call. Also the 'masters' here are the users flagging the latter, quite rightly.

So I guess when you say that Israel occupies territories illegally according to UN while exercising extreme force prohibiting Palestians of their right to live, is considered an "anti-semitic" comment. No, you can't stand criticism while your being full of smugness and self-righteousness. Am I being antisemitic when I say that 25% of the Israel defence budget is paid by the Americans?. Do you follow Congress rulings…

I understand your passions on the issue, but HN is really not the place for this.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#135

Post by jqm »

13thLetter wrote: post #132
jqm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grabbing a bit of Syria would hardly have been worth the propaganda disaster though. The world wouldn't have reacted very favorably... particularly the Muslim world. And yes, Israel has some extremely good technology. But they also have some pretty fierce enemies. See their incursion into Southern Lebanon a few years back for instance. They also don't have that large of a population. It probably is in their best inte…

What do you mean by "for the moment at least"?

Circumstances may change and at that time it may be in Israel's best interest to appear expansionist. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it will probably help keep the peace if they aren't.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#136

Post by 13thLetter »

jqm wrote: post #135
13thLetter wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "for the moment at least"?

Circumstances may change and at that time it may be in Israel's best interest to appear expansionist. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it will probably help keep the peace if they aren't.

So just like every other country in the world, then.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#137

Post by jqm »

13thLetter wrote: post #136
jqm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circumstances may change and at that time it may be in Israel's best interest to appear expansionist. But for now and for the foreseeable future, it will probably help keep the peace if they aren't.

So just like every other country in the world, then.

Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so.

Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your previous posts. It seems you may be looking for an anti-Semite under every rock. Well... next rock. I'm just pointing out practical reality. I don't have an axe to grind with Israel existing.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#138

Post by 13thLetter »

jqm wrote: post #137
13thLetter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just like every other country in the world, then.

Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so. Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your…

I won't deny that I'm fairly sensitive on the matter, given that anti-Semitism is not just acceptable but a major electoral winner these days -- as long as one applies a coat of "anti-Zionist" paint on top, one is good to go with the vilest conspiracy theories and blood libels, as we've seen right here in this comments section.

What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Israel's interests to be expansionist. That's obviously true, one could say that about any country, of course, but... well, in the end that's probably on me being oversensitive, and it was uncalled for to go after it.

Re: Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure, angering US

#139

Post by jqm »

13thLetter wrote: post #138
jqm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there would be generally less tensions with many other countries acting in an expansionist manner than with Israel doing so. Given the history short (modern) history of Israel and the religious animosity of the neighbors etc. it would be certain to inflame more hostility internationally than Rawanda taking a piece of Burndi for instance. But I'm sure you are already aware of all this. I went back and read your…

I won't deny that I'm fairly sensitive on the matter, given that anti-Semitism is not just acceptable but a major electoral winner these days -- as long as one applies a coat of "anti-Zionist" paint on top, one is good to go with the vilest conspiracy theories and blood libels, as we've seen right here in this comments section. What made me raise an eyebrow was the bit about how if things changed, it might be in Isra…

No worries. I actually think it might be better for the locals if (a more enlightened and less hard-line) Israel governed a bit more of the Mideast but this is a political impossibility right now and certainly better left unsaid. I should have left that bit off... it didn't have anywhere to go but towards irritating somebody. I'll take blame on that.
Post reply on HN