That’s interesting, I’d never heard of this. Would you have any recommended literature or links to the full story? (I’m trying to ask for a cite without Asking For A Cite, because I don’t doubt you’re right but it’s a fascinating subject.)
Siberian pipeline explosion. The entry itself gives a decent summary but the cites offered will get you into the stream for further reading.
Kinda brings to mind the Klingon moon of Praxis.
Perhaps I’m alone in this, but I get a little pissed off every time Israel gets uppity like this and commits international computer crimes against Iran’s civilian nuclear program. :rolleyes:
Seriously…if it weren’t for the U.S. & most of the Eurozone’s penchant for looking the other way whenever Israel acts like a pint-size bully, what would the diplomatic reaction have been? Intentionally releasing a dangerous computer worm against another sovereign nation is practically an act of war – not to mention the risk of other industries, inside and outside the Middle East, becoming infected with the worm.
Iran hates Israel, that’s a given. But Israel has the entire developed world to back them up, especially America (fuck yeah!) so Iran ain’t gonna do shit – at least, not until their populace becomes so enraged that they decide to elect a crazy person into the seat of power.
No one, including the Obama administration, believes that Iran is only interested in civilian nuclear power. You’re parroting the lame spin of the Iranian regime.
An act of war? You mean like arming Hezbollah, which shells Israel regularly and has committed acts of war against Israel? You mean surreptitiously attempting to ship arms to the Palestinians to use against Israelis?
Iran has been fomenting violence in the Middle East for decades. The heads of its governments have repeatedly declared their intention to destroy Israel as soon as they have the means to do so. Iran is a repressive theocracy. And yet, you see the Israelis as the bad guys - the people who have the only real western style democracy in the region.
But you’d like the west to stop giving Israel that support.
And what do you mean, as soon as the populace becomes so enraged that they elect a crazy person? This is wrong on several levels: For one, Iran isn’t a democracy. It’s a theocracy with weak democratic trappings. Second, they have already put a crazy person into the seat of power. Third, the Iranian people are most enraged at their own government.
Fair enough – but it’s my rather non-humble opinion that Iran’s very concerned about defending itself against neighboring nuclear powers (Israel, Russia, Pakistan) who ARE fully supported by the West. We’re not talking about some isolated rogue state or totalitarian regime lead by a psychopathic madman – Iran’s main concern is to survive economically, hence its recent OPEC-style alliance with Qatar & Russia.
Oh man, let’s not even start comparing atrocities which the Israelis & its neighbors have committed against each other…the blood flows in both directions. :rolleyes:
Naturally, Iran hates Israel for squatting on land which was exclusively Islamic since Mohammed’s day, but I doubt very much they will do anything about it until Israel loses full support from the USA & its allies. And when, exactly, does anyone expect that to happen?
Iran’s not perfect, but they’re far less repressive than, say, Saudi Arabia. As for Israel’s level of democracy – well, I can’t comment on that except to quote some of my friends from that region, who tell me these freedoms generally apply only to those of the Jewish faith. (Stuff like how difficult it is to obtain a business license if you’re a gentile, etc.)
You shouldn’t rely solely on mass media to tell the story, especially one as polarizing as Israel vs. the rest of the world.
From what I’ve read, the best guess is that they were all in it together - Israel, the US, and certain European nations as well.
So if there was an “act of war” it does not appear to be Israel’s alone, by any means. Again, assuming it wasn’t China all along.
The whole ‘oh but Israel’s always getting away with this’ is more than a bit absurd, if the attack was a concerted effort - let alone by some third party. I suppose it is possible that Israel did it on its own, but the betting is heavily against it.
The fear is that the peculiar mix of theocratic powers exercised in Iran will allow exactly that - crazy people near the centre of power. Such as should not by any means be armed with nukes.
You know, I am more with fuzzpickles than the European, American and Israeli governments. The reason why is the logic behind why we are giving Iran such a hard time over this.
The posts of Sam Stone and Malthus have that ring of “Saddam Hussein the madman with WMDs he might give to terrorists like Al Qaeda”. In fact it is exactly the same. I think everyone is completely full of shit. I think the playbook is the same as the one that got us into the 2nd Gulf War. I have personally had enough of the war mongers and freaks that see a country like Iran as a threat. They aren’t, at least not to me. I am against any activities by my government to harm Iranian scientists and engineers to exacerbate the conflict between the USA and Iran.
Also, citing Iranian activities against Israel is not a justification for assaulting their nuclear program, weapons or not. The chances of them using a nuke on Israel are nil. The chances of their behavior toward Israel showing any significant change if they develop a nuke is also nil; there is no logic that progresses from having a nuke --> Hezbollah suddenly armed with something other than rockets that doesn’t invoke myths and bogeymen. Let Israel (and Saudi Arabia - home of the 9/11) defend themselves; let’s wait until a more rational ally in the region starts shitting their pants, like Turkey.
Go play Risk or a video game if you need to kill something.
I’m sure we are all comforted by your certainty.
I will feel free to reinterpret that as other than fairy tales, you have nothing.
Feel free.
Other than simply calling “everyone” “completely full of shit”, you haven’t brought anything.
Other than some confirmation of US and Israeli involvement, there’s nothing new about this situation. Israel still has good reason to worry about an attack from Iran, and a nuclear bomb wouldn’t be the logical first strike anyway. My specific fear is that this incident has strengthened Iranian nationalism instead of revolution. If it has kept Israel from igniting the powder keg, it has it its good points too. I don’t think any of us can base these opinions on a detailed intelligence assessment though.
There is the problem of starting the hot e-war though. The next country that kills people using electronic sabotage will say that the US and Israel started it.
I think that e-sabotage is simply a fact of life. My guess is that plenty of it is happening already, but we just haven’t heard about it.
Other than the direct comparison to the last unjustified war we got into. Or the fact that the same people who beat the war drum in 2002 are beating it now. Or the fact that Russia, China, Turkey, Brazil, and a lot of European countries seem to be unworried about these developments. Or the fact that if they actually develop a nuke it will sit in Iran and be about as useful as the Soviet Space Shuttle.
Your facts are that they have big gnashing teeth and are out to get us using their terrorist ninjas with nukes sown into their scrotum.
Can’t argue with that.
But we now have confirmed deaths attributed to it.
Again, I suspect that this sort of thing has been happening for some time; it was inevitable that, eventually, one or another incident would make the news.
In short, I don’t believe that this was the first or only such incident - simply the first we’ve heard about.
It isn’t this, to my mind, that will start a trend. It is more that the trend was more or less inevitable once the technology existed to facilitate it. The incidents that make the news are like the tip of the iceburg.
I don’t like this action because of conservative reasons, the unintended consequences. But there are basic reasons to worry about Iran. Brazil isn’t a likely target for Iran, and I think your assumptions about Turkey, Russua and China are naive. Just because some countries aren’t being reactionary doesn’t mean they aren’t concerned.
Of course they are concerned and they are not actively supporting Iran’s behavior. I think that is a great model for our policy. We (the US) are not a likely target for Iranian nuclear technology unless they actually develop it and we threaten to invade. The countries most threatened by Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are under no greater peril with or without a nuclear weapon. Beyond a strong apathy for Iran’s defenses we should not be pushing the conflict with sanctions and e-warfare.
We should be concerned in order to uphold the treaties signed by Iran or just to know what they have, but this path of economic sanctions and reactionary behavior is over-reaching and doing nothing for change in Iran.
Well we’re mostly in agreement. I just think there’s a significance to the first publicly acknowledged (or preceived) case. We don’t have to hasten the inevitable.