Computer worm hits Iranian nuclear facilities, biblical references

Started by Zeitgeist, September 30, 2010, 11:53:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Trieste

Try to keep discussions about the topic and the discussion, not the person who is making the posts, please.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Trieste on November 23, 2010, 07:09:28 AM
Try to keep discussions about the topic and the discussion, not the person who is making the posts, please.

Quote from: Ojokernegro on November 23, 2010, 12:14:14 AM
So you personally do not like Iran because to you it is a dangerous nations that is to stopped. I see. Do you mind if I ask you where you're from? Not a question you have to answer, I'll understand if you do mind.

Yeah I'm not sure of your point focusing on where it is I hail from. What difference would that make, what conclusion do you plan to draw from that irrelevant piece of information? If you wish to know, I've made no secret where it is I am from and if you're curious enough you can figure it out for yourself.

Perhaps you should take issue with my words rather than my geographical location.

Jude

It's kind of hard to deny that Iran is a dangerous nation.  I guess it's still an opinion ultimately, but it's well-grounded by fact.  They have nuclear ambitions, a despotic regime, unfriendly relations with Israel, and have been supplying insurgents in Iraq for some time now.

You can differ on the opinion of what to do about Iran, but I imagine it's kind of hard to pretend that the Iranian government is harmless or misunderstood.

Ojokernegro

Quote from: Trieste on November 23, 2010, 07:09:28 AM
Try to keep discussions about the topic and the discussion, not the person who is making the posts, please.

No worries I shall do so, I was really just curious. I particularly appreciate the "please" :) ...as I've been addressed to on worse terms by people other mods.

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on November 23, 2010, 08:02:15 AM
Yeah I'm not sure of your point focusing on where it is I hail from. What difference would that make, what conclusion do you plan to draw from that irrelevant piece of information? If you wish to know, I've made no secret where it is I am from and if you're curious enough you can figure it out for yourself.

Perhaps you should take issue with my words rather than my geographical location.

To be honest I completely forgot that people can expose their location on their profiles, so thank you very much for the subtle hint (I understand it was a rather seemingly out of context question). As for the relevance of that particular information, well, I personally found it somewhat relevant. Very often a person's view depends on where they are located. Not that there's anything wrong with your opinion mind you...and also no, I do not plan to "take issue" with your words nor your location, so no worries there mate.

Quote from: Jude on November 23, 2010, 08:34:24 AM
It's kind of hard to deny that Iran is a dangerous nation.  I guess it's still an opinion ultimately, but it's well-grounded by fact.  They have nuclear ambitions, a despotic regime, unfriendly relations with Israel, and have been supplying insurgents in Iraq for some time now.

You can differ on the opinion of what to do about Iran, but I imagine it's kind of hard to pretend that the Iranian government is harmless or misunderstood.

A dangerous nation...hmmm, a dangerous nation you say. Hmmm...yes...no doubt! Since all they care about is their own interests. I do see your point. Indeed you can label Iran a dangerous nation. Therefore, I'm gonna take a leap here...and state that all nations should aim to be dangerous, as power is freedom. Meaning that in this particular context, dangerous means: a threat to those it (Iran) shall step on to gain power. Which, according to Darwin's rule (which is pretty applicable when it concerns nations) it is only to be expected.

However, the point does remain, Iran is becoming dangerous...but so are (or even will be) all (or some) other countries.


Jude

Name one other country in the world that publicly calls for the annihilation of another country and possesses (or is trying to) nuclear weapons and I'll concede your point.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Ojokernegro on November 23, 2010, 05:49:33 PM
To be honest I completely forgot that people can expose their location on their profiles, so thank you very much for the subtle hint (I understand it was a rather seemingly out of context question). As for the relevance of that particular information, well, I personally found it somewhat relevant. Very often a person's view depends on where they are located. Not that there's anything wrong with your opinion mind you...and also no, I do not plan to "take issue" with your words nor your location, so no worries there mate.

Indeed. If I hailed from say, the Middle East, I might have even more reason to be concerned by the Iranian regime.

Oniya

Quote from: Jude on November 23, 2010, 06:21:04 PM
Name one other country in the world that publicly calls for the annihilation of another country and possesses (or is trying to) nuclear weapons and I'll concede your point.

There is North Korea, but I think they fall into the 'mad dog' level of dangerousness as well.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

Personally, I think Isreal is kinda crazy, too, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to actually say that without having to turn in my social security card.

Oniya

I'm sure there are more, but there's crazy like a loon, crazy like a fox, and stone cold crazy (with apologies to Queen).  Some of them pretend to be sane, and you can occasionally take them out to a nice summit meeting.  Others don't even bother.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Ojokernegro

Quote from: Jude on November 23, 2010, 06:21:04 PM
Name one other country in the world that publicly calls for the annihilation of another country and possesses (or is trying to) nuclear weapons and I'll concede your point.

Not many to be honest, if any. Perhaps this is where I should draw the line and understand that Iran is clearly a threat to the whole world? Is that what you would say Jude?

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on November 23, 2010, 06:36:58 PM
Indeed. If I hailed from say, the Middle East, I might have even more reason to be concerned by the Iranian regime.

Hahahah ^^ fair point. I'm gonna go along with this comment and say: "Especially if you were an Israeli".

Quote from: Trieste on November 23, 2010, 07:49:16 PM
Personally, I think Isreal is kinda crazy, too, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to actually say that without having to turn in my social security card.

Whatever you meant by "without having to turn in my social security card".

Quote from: Oniya on November 23, 2010, 07:53:23 PM
I'm sure there are more, but there's crazy like a loon, crazy like a fox, and stone cold crazy (with apologies to Queen).  Some of them pretend to be sane, and you can occasionally take them out to a nice summit meeting.  Others don't even bother.

I often wonder if it really comes down to being sane or not. After all these are governments we're talking about.

Jude

I don't think Iran is a threat to the whole world.  If they obtain nuclear weapons they could potentially be, but even then I don't see it being quite so clear cut.  There are a lot of good people in Iran, their populace is rather forward-thinking and want to be liberated from the despotic regime that currently has control over their daily lives.

If the opportunity to go back in time 10 years presented itself and America had the choice between attacking Iraq and liberating its people and attacking Iran and liberating its people, I personally would've chosen Iran.  Its citizens are far more progressive, they're ready for a true Democratic government and quite receptive to western overtures, unlike the leadership of Iran.  Sadly, that does not mean they don't have nuclear ambitions.

I've always gotten the impression that Iran as a whole wanted the bomb as a matter of pride and advancement.  They want to carry the atom bomb as a point of progress; they see nuclear weapons as a milestone towards become a sophisticated and successful civilization.  I think the west is largely to blame for that as we've set up such a dynamic.  Many states are taken seriously the moment they achieve nuclear aspirations -- for good reason -- but it sets up a dynamic where it's a natural part of the progression from third to first world.

I like Obama's nuclear arms policy because he's making strides in changing that thinking.  If the world embraces those concepts we will start to associate a higher degree of civility with advanced civilizations, not a higher degree of lethality.  In the mean time, Iran is a terribly confusing entity:  they are a nation of good people that want to move forward who are led by a dangerous regime that is on a course of opposition with the western world.

Ojokernegro

@ Jude: That would mean that you agree with Obama's desire to make the production of nuclear weapons obsolete, am I right? Meaning that in your view, a country should not spend money on nuclear technology (as I assume, nuclear weapons would result from exploring nuclear tech)...that is assuming that said countries will not need to own WMD in the future. Please tell me if I've misinterpreted you.

"If the opportunity to go back in time 10 years presented itself and America had the choice between attacking Iraq and liberating its people and attacking Iran and liberating its people, I personally would've chosen Iran.  Its citizens are far more progressive, they're ready for a true Democratic government and quite receptive to western overtures, unlike the leadership of Iran.  Sadly, that does not mean they don't have nuclear ambitions."

My question is: is it really that wrong to have nuclear ambitions? Regarding weapons that is. I never once thought that the Iranians decided to invest in nuclear weapons because of feeble things such as pride and advancement, au contraire, I always thought that they did it simply because a nation with WMD is a nation with power, and a nation with power has the ability to fight back if threatened. To put it in better terms, do you not think that countries without nuclear weapons feel somewhat vulnerable? Not knowing what the future shall bring them, they're forced to go along to those who are more powerful than they are out of fear. Is that fair?

Alsheriam

Wow, really? Are we really talking about direct intervention to bring about regime change in Iran?

As of now, the large demographic of young, progressive Iranians are indeed leaning towards the West, but the best way ever to turn them against the West is to frikin' invade and occupy them, and expect them to fall in love with you.

While the young Iranians do want a change in the way they are governed, it's best that it's left up to them. Effective political change has always been brought about whenever the locals are the main actors. The way the Brits handled their former colonies in Southeast Asia: how they waged an effective counter-insurgency campaign against ethnic Chinese communist insurgents in the jungles of Malaya and patiently negotiated with the locals for independence by proving that they're capable of self-government attests to that. Like any citizens of any other country, Iranians are quite fiercely proud and loyal of their own country, and the last thing they need is occupation by a foreign power.
A/A

Zeitgeist

There is a big difference between stymieing and destabilizing the regime, and actually aiding the population, in part by ensuring the lines of communication remain open (what I'm suggesting), and occupying the country. No, that would be stupid and like you say would only fire up the youth's nationalist pride. Last thing we want to do is to give the Iranian leadership something to point at and say Ah hah! See, they are the Great Satan! We told you...

Subterfuge, cyber warfare, propaganda. Yes. Overt military action? No.

Unless of course they do something really stupid like pop off a nuclear tipped missile. Then turn the country into a parking lot, and airport for our bombers.

Alsheriam

Subterfuge, cyberwarfare, propaganda? Those are interesting routes to consider, and I reckon that somewhere out there they've already been considered or already have things like this in place. But knowing Israel which acts like USA's spoilt, petulant brat who gets to have a new Mercedes Benz from Daddy for not snorting cocaine for two months, they might end up undermining the whole thing by acting on their own by god knows how: another bungled assassination attempt by the Mossad or some airstrike from out of the blue.
A/A

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Alsheriam on November 24, 2010, 03:54:59 PM
Subterfuge, cyberwarfare, propaganda? Those are interesting routes to consider, and I reckon that somewhere out there they've already been considered or already have things like this in place. But knowing Israel which acts like USA's spoilt, petulant brat who gets to have a new Mercedes Benz from Daddy for not snorting cocaine for two months, they might end up undermining the whole thing by acting on their own by god knows how: another bungled assassination attempt by the Mossad or some airstrike from out of the blue.

Well I understand how you feel about it, and our relationship with Israel, Iran and the Middle East as a whole. I would only say that I think its a bit more nuanced than perhaps some like to think. In fact, the United States, as a country and government, has itself in the large picture been something of a Johnny Come Lately to the Middle East. Europe has a far more storied and troubled history in that region than the US. It was largely the Italians, French and British who drew up the arbitrary borders we see now, not the US. I wouldn't say we are blameless by any means, just not at the level of the countries that came before.

Anyhow, I'm getting off track.

Alsheriam

Yeah, the former European colonial powers screwed up, but it's been exacerbated ever since with all that crackpot religiosity. America has become something of a theocracy when people can forget about being elected if they weren't Christian or Jewish. For all the talk about freedom of religion, somehow the notion that a sitting US president could be a Muslim could be such a heinous offence. And because of this Judeo-Christian myth that the Jews deserve to occupy Israel at all human and moral costs, it's not just sad to see Israel behaving like a cocaine-snorting teen who'd never grow up because of his helicopter parent in the US who'd veto every single discussion about Israel in the UN, now, negotiations on the two-state solution which has been talked to death about has that new complication in Israel's armed forces.

Why? Because there's been an increasingly large proportion of Zionist soldiers who've been taught in pre-enlistment academies with that Zionist propaganda, come out of those schools with a sense of mission and choose to mix with the general population of enlistees, even though there's the option to join the religious-only companies. This way, the Zionists will get to implicitly control more of the military that way. Now that the IDF has so many religious soldiers, some have already publicly put up banners declaring that they'd never want to partake in the evacuation of Jews from the West Bank settlements, and to make things even worse, there's a significant proportion of these Zionists who serve as commanders. While it's one thing to have an individual enlisted man to refuse orders to evacuate the settlers, it's another to have officers to refuse to comply with such orders.

Keeping that potential of rebellion in the military in mind, it's giving the Israelis another reason to refuse to budge in the ongoing negotiations.
A/A

Jude

As is, I would not support military intervention in Iran, just as I didn't in Iraq.  I don't believe interventionist, preemptive strikes unless there's a clear and present danger which can be demonstrated convincingly.  I was simply saying that if I had to choose between Iraq and Iran back in 2000whatever, I would've gone for Iran.  They're clearly a much more insidious threat.

Zakharra

 That's kind of a little anti-Israel rant there isn't it?  Part of the reason for Israel's military stance is..oh I don't know..  because EVERY neighboring country has tried to repeatedly wipe it out.  Using religion as one of their tools to rally support for their cause.

The leadership of Iran is calling for the actove and open destruction of Israel.  The president of that nation has pretty much said that he will find a way to  remove the nation from the face of the earth. So calling Iran (the leadership) a dangerous regime is accurate.

Israel has messed up, but as far as I know, they have never started any wars. They were always attacked first.

Zeitgeist

Let's make sure we stay on topic here. Not that I haven't strayed myself. Thanks.

Zakharra

 *nods* I will, I just felt I had to point out a few things to him after that rant about Israel.

Alsheriam

Quote from: Zakharra on November 25, 2010, 10:24:49 AM
That's kind of a little anti-Israel rant there isn't it?  Part of the reason for Israel's military stance is..oh I don't know..  because EVERY neighboring country has tried to repeatedly wipe it out.  Using religion as one of their tools to rally support for their cause.

The leadership of Iran is calling for the actove and open destruction of Israel.  The president of that nation has pretty much said that he will find a way to  remove the nation from the face of the earth. So calling Iran (the leadership) a dangerous regime is accurate.

Israel has messed up, but as far as I know, they have never started any wars. They were always attacked first.

I live in a tiny country in southeast Asia (Singapore) where we were surrounded by Muslim-dominant nations in Malaysia to the north, and Indonesia in the south. We were independent after Malaysia (which we used to be a part of) kicked us out during the 60s and expected us to wither and come back crawling and begging to them to rejoin the federation, because our politicians were parading that really heinous idea of racial and religious equality. To top things off, they tried various insidious things to weaken and blackmail us - their government has threatened to cut off our water supply at least several dozen times until we became self-sufficient in water through technology and gave them the finger. Indonesia sent commandos to our shores and carried out terrorist bombings around the island during the very early days of Malaysia, when we were still in that federation.

So, yeah, I reckon I might have a bit of an idea of how it feels like to know that my country was pretty much put in the same position of being surrounded by a bevy of Islamic-dominant nations who didn't like the idea of the formation and existence of a new and small nation. Just like Israel, every male citizen goes for conscription (women don't go because of that Asian-ingrained sexism and how they're supposed to be the mothers, etc) as a big fuck-off if those two clowns entertained any similar thoughts in this day and age.

And the difference? We don't need religion as a rallying cause. In a country like ours', we already learnt that fixating over something as primitive and silly as religion on a national level is disruptive and foolish. People are free to partake in their own spiritual silliness as long as that silliness does not seek to tear apart the fabric of the nation. Just as well, we don't need to break international law and demand a superpower sitting at the UN Security Council to cover for us for those violations with religiously-motivated unconditional vetoes. On top of that, we didn't explicitly support a publicly racist regime in apartheid South Africa.

What we did was to play along with the rules and prosper with it, so that the neighboring countries get to see that, wonder why the heck they haven't been doing it and also play along with those rules. Today, it can be safely said that Indonesia likes us a lot more than their Muslim brethren in Malaysia, and Malaysia frikin' hates Indonesia's guts. That's the result of playing with the rules over the past few decades. Blatantly doing stuff in direct violation of international law will only motivate the neighbors to do the same thing - Israel in my view, deserves the same international oversight and liability just like any other country. They don't deserve special privileges just because some religions said so.

My core point of contention here is that religiosity is just silly, needless, and backfires all too easily. It's one thing to fire up an entire army to kill or defend the land because some intangible 'God' said so, but it's another when it's too far gone, and this 'God' ends up telling them to refuse orders from one's commanders. That kind of nonsense is potentially gonna happen in the IDF if the Middle East peace process goes through and the IDF has to be ordered to evacuate the settlements as part of the deal.
A/A

Vekseid

Fun fact:

For the first three or four months of existence, Elliquiy was more popular in Singapore than it was in the United States.

Zakharra

This is going slightly off tangent again, but..

  Alsheriam, that's all well and good, but you are missing the point. The muslin nations regard the land Israel sits on as theirs. If they conquered it, they own it forever. Israel is a jewish nation and religion is a very strong component in the nation's make up. Unlike Singapore. There are very strong cultural ties with ancient Israel and the religion gives a strong sense nationhood and purpose. Plus the muslim nations around Israel have proven with physical force that they will act militarily to try and wipe out Israel. Iran is currently the worst and a lot of people believe that if they do get their nuke (you have to be naive to believer they are not trying for a nuclear weapon with their current president and clerical council in charge*), they will use it as a club on the nations around them or worse, slip it to a terrorist group like Hezbollah that would use it.

So Israel has had to use many means to survive. The computer worm that hit Iran might be their's or someone else's. Either way, they are the ones to get the blame.


* this is personal opinion.


Jude

The scariest part is slipping the nuke to terrorists.  That basically amounts to an untraceable operation with ultimate plausible deniability.  The only reason we haven't had nuclear war occur thus far is because countries are accountable for what they do with their weapons to other nuclear armed countries; strip that away and you have absolute global anarchy.  This is why Iran is so dangerous.