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

Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#81

Post by philwelch »

justsee wrote: post #68
The_Fox wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your CounterPunch source seems to have quite an agenda. It goes on to claim that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at all- a claim that is not well supported by all the things we see Iran doing. Even if the article is correct, Ahmadinejad has said things like "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" and "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a…

> Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population? It's a simple fact to illustrate that Iran is not bent on destruction of the Jewish people. Cultivating that idea in the public mind is the aim of that mistranslation, because the false idea of a genocidal Iran garners more worldwide support for the Israeli Government. > That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel. The only people threatened in any serious…

> Iran...has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons.

There isn't a single time in history Israel has gone to war or engaged in military action except to address a direct threat to its own security. Aggressive? No. Hostile? Only when threatened, which Israel constantly has been.

Geographically, Iran is nowhere near Israel. Israel has no realistic way of projecting force as far as Iran, and no reason to initiate a nuclear strike.

> Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.

If that's the status quo, then it's in the interests of the world to keep it that way. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will be free to act with aggression against its neighbors, including Iraq, because the US will have no means to stop them.

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#82

Post by andrewfelix »

philwelch wrote: post #78
andrewfelix wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no subtlety to what Israel is doing. They aren't encouraging paranoia or planting evidence, they're literally killing the scientists involved. I don't care which side of the fence you sit on, assassinating scientists for a presumed 'greater good' is awful.

That's a disingenuous argument. If you're building nuclear weapons for a hostile government, you're as much a target as anyone else. It doesn't matter if you're a scientist or a solider.

Like I said below I don't think it's ever justifiable, and it goes both ways. There are thousands of good scientists working with the DoD. The US is technically at war. However I do not believe their scientists should be considered legitimate targets.

It's also debatable as to whether they're developing a nuclear weapon.

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#83

Post by barrkel »

berntb wrote: post #71
barrkel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What agenda do you think I have? That I want Iran to be nuclear armed? I do not; but I think the alternatives are worse (nuclear strikes on Iran, US invasion of Iran; I think a conventional strike on Iran would have a similar effect to the Israeli one on Iraq in 1981). Please tell me what you think my agenda is before discussing anything further. It's a pretty serious accusation.

I motivated that statement. You don't have anything to say about that, either? Edit: Sigh, the "answer" below just repeats the previous, it is still not touching what I wrote. AGAIN: 1. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) -- you just ignored it. 2. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with at least the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA. 3. This relig…

I think both of:

(a) that Iran would not be irrational. This is my considered opinion based on all I've read - Iranian politics seem subtle to me, with a tug of war between president, chief cleric and "Guardian Council" - a long, long way short of a despotic single point of failure.

and (b) if it was irrational, there's little we could do about it, unless the preemptive strike / invasion route is taken, and that level of US aggression would encourage even more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. The US would essentially be a huge armed bully roaming the neighbourhood threatening people not to get guns, and breaking into random houses searching for guns. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that that policy is eventually going to convince the neighbours to get some guns.

I think there's a range of options here; I tend towards de-escalation and looking at things with a cool head. There's far too much drum beating and propaganda pumping going on for my liking.

PS: I wish you would reply, rather than edit your comments after the fact. It makes things very hard to read.

1. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) -- you just ignored it.

I addressed it twice: firstly, that it does not apply (no single point of failure like a king, in this answer here), and secondly, it does not actually matter. By my score I "killed" your own argument twice!

2. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with at least the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA.

Sure. And your point is?

(My point is that when something is inevitable, talking about the bad consequences of it is pointless. It's going to happen. And bad consequences will happen too. Just is. But do you honestly think a US invasion of Iran would be a better outcome than a nuclear-armed Turkey? SA?)

3. This religious junta will almost certainly torture, rape and oppress the Iranian population as long as there is oil, without external intervention.

Lots of regimes oppress their populations far more than Iran does. How about starting with North Korea? Invasion, particularly as recent experience has shown, does not usually result in "saving" the population. Most countries in oppressive rule don't have the social infrastructure built up for a better system, and besides, particularly in the Middle East, they suffer from Dutch Disease. (This is actually your own earlier point, FWIW; I ignored it because it wasn't relevant, but it is relevant here to your apparent (yet cowardly silent!) advocation of intervention.)

I think you will just repeat your position while ignoring everything else. Hence, an agenda of some sort that you want to get out.

You're lucky I even saw what you wrote here, because you didn't actually reply to my comment.

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#84

Post by andrewfelix »

philwelch wrote: post #79
andrewfelix wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs justice when there are obscure and author-less articles floating around the internet to justify the killing of civilians? Remember this goes both ways. There are people who think American civilians assisting the occupation in Iraq are legitimate targets. I am not one of those people.

> American civilians assisting the occupation in Iraq That's a euphemism for "private military contractors", which is a euphemism for "mercenaries". Legitimate targets? As much as any, really.

No I meant the kind of people that refill vending machines at US camps.

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#85

Post by philwelch »

seclorum wrote: post #76
wolf550e wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ostensibly, Iran's theocracy wants to eliminate the State of Israel (not the land itself, duh) because it's a non-Muslim occupier of Muslim land. That is what they say, and it is inline with their religious texts. Israel has never threatened to nuke anyone. It has stated that it is preparing for a potential MAD situation, but that's not a threat - it's a defensive move. Israel does not state that Iran has no right to…

>I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. 300+ Israeli nuclear weapons, undeclared, and Israel not a signing member of the NPT pact. This is more than an existential threat - its a real threat of destruction. Why else would the Zionists invest so heavily in these weapons? I think that Israeli Nuclear Weapons are quite a valid t…

Israel has 300+ nuclear weapons in order to dissuade their unneighborly neighbors from making a third attempt to push them into the sea. They exist, essentially, and literally, to prevent anyone from finishing the Holocaust. Which is not an argument that has much traction with Mr. Ahmedinejad, the esteemed host of international Holocaust denial conferences, or with his similarly inclined sympathizers.

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#86

Post by 18pfsmt »

philwelch wrote: post #81
justsee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population? It's a simple fact to illustrate that Iran is not bent on destruction of the Jewish people. Cultivating that idea in the public mind is the aim of that mistranslation, because the false idea of a genocidal Iran garners more worldwide support for the Israeli Government. > That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel. The only people threatened in any serious…

> Iran...has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons. There isn't a single time in history Israel has gone to war or engaged in military action except to address a direct threat to its own security. Aggressive? No. Hostile? Only when threatened, which Israel constantly has been. Geographically, Iran is nowhere near Israel. Israel has no realistic way of projecting…

>because the US will have no means to stop them.

I'm not one to get into political arguments, but we (the US) have ~1,000 nukes and could turn the entire country into a piece of glass.

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#88

Post by justsee »

tkahn6 wrote: post #70
justsee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population? It's a simple fact to illustrate that Iran is not bent on destruction of the Jewish people. Cultivating that idea in the public mind is the aim of that mistranslation, because the false idea of a genocidal Iran garners more worldwide support for the Israeli Government. > That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel. The only people threatened in any serious…

> Iran's military posture is defensive Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians and Saudi-backed militias and NATO soldiers. Iran sends weapons and money to Hamas in Gaza. Iran funds and sends weapons to Hezbollah, a paramilitary and political organization that has metastasized in Lebanon, accused of assassinating the Lebanese president. Iran sends weapons and money to Bashar Al-Assa…

> Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians...

Yes it does, as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Agency's statement on Iran's military power (from 2010)[1]. However I simply said Iran's military posture is defensive, which it is:

"Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel." and "This reflects its defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities"

A more recent analysis from the US military (from 2012)[2] also concludes: "However, it is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack".

The actual military analysis is very clear that Iran is not a military threat, but the narrative for public consumption is that Iran is a major threat. That's the difference between reality and public relations.

> Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?

What apologist rhetoric? I specifically condemn the regime in an earlier comment. It is certainly possible to point out facts (such as "Iran's military posture is defensive") without condoning or supporting the Iranian regime. It seems where I type "Iran's military posture is defensive", you read "Iran is a good actor", which is a very different sentiment (and one I don't hold!).

> I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.

What sugar-coating? I've simply observed in this thread that the Iranian regime is not genocidal, and has a defensive military posture. I've also said the current regime is certainly terrible. It appears you think that striving to understand the geopolitical reality rather than buying in to the pr story immediately makes someone a 'left' Iranian regime sympathiser, which is rather odd (and untrue).

In terms of Iranian strategies and ambitions, it's really worth looking at the military context Iran is operating within[3]. The "Iranian Threat" is not an existential threat to Israel or the world (which is how it is portrayed in the media), but simply a threat to US interests in the region. Iran naturally wants to enhance and assert its regional influence, which obviously conflicts with US regional ambitions.

The reality is a war with Iran would be a war of aggression for territorial gain and subjugation[4], but to make the action palatable to the public it needs to be perceived as a war of self-defense. As much as I despise the Iranian regime, I agree with the statements at the Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

[1] http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/testimonies/2010-04-13.htm... [2] http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/testimonies/2012-02-16.htm... [3] http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4ee6562eecad04150d0... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Re: Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick

#89

Post by philwelch »

18pfsmt wrote: post #86
philwelch wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran...has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons. There isn't a single time in history Israel has gone to war or engaged in military action except to address a direct threat to its own security. Aggressive? No. Hostile? Only when threatened, which Israel constantly has been. Geographically, Iran is nowhere near Israel. Israel has no realistic way of projecting…

>because the US will have no means to stop them. I'm not one to get into political arguments, but we (the US) have ~1,000 nukes and could turn the entire country into a piece of glass.

Yes, but it doesn't matter because Iran will detect those nukes in midair and lash out in retaliation before they land.
Post reply on HN