• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says

Do you even understand what Dunlap said?

Yes, he said, "it doesn’t necessarily rise to a casus belli". That is not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?
 
Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?

He applied the facts to the law and rendered an opinion, that is his purpose as an attorney. Should he have placed a value judgment such as an endorsement or rejection on the issue his opinion would have been attenuated by his bias.
 
He applied the facts to the law and rendered an opinion, that is his purpose as an attorney. Should he have placed a value judgment such as an endorsement or rejection on the issue his opinion would have been attenuated by his bias.


:lamo.....................
 
If this attack of questionable legal status leads to retaliation that results in deaths, I would say it is not so harmless.

Are you suggesting that a conventional attack, and the aforementioned retaliation, with death and destruction in both instances, is better?

And I really don't understand this notion about the "legality" of attacking another country. Making war is a crime. Always. But if you win, then no one is around to punish you for it. Rebelling against England was a crime. Invading Poland was a crime. Destroying the WTC was a crime. Invading Iraq was a crime. This was a crime, too. The only difference lies in who won the conflict. It's only a crime if you lose. So, why does the "legality" of this act make a difference? The only reason why this would a crime and shooting and bombing people wouldn't be is because mass murder of innocent civilians is the traditional way to make war. It's relatively safe for those in power, while these cyber attacks are a wild card that could threaten the powerful, and not just kill the children of regular people.

So again, why should this be illegal and bombing a hospital legal?
 
Are you suggesting that a conventional attack, and the aforementioned retaliation, with death and destruction in both instances, is better?

And I really don't understand this notion about the "legality" of attacking another country. Making war is a crime. Always. But if you win, then no one is around to punish you for it. Rebelling against England was a crime. Invading Poland was a crime. Destroying the WTC was a crime. Invading Iraq was a crime. This was a crime, too. The only difference lies in who won the conflict. It's only a crime if you lose. So, why does the "legality" of this act make a difference? The only reason why this would a crime and shooting and bombing people wouldn't be is because mass murder of innocent civilians is the traditional way to make war. It's relatively safe for those in power, while these cyber attacks are a wild card that could threaten the powerful, and not just kill the children of regular people.

So again, why should this be illegal and bombing a hospital legal?


No, I am suggesting that we should not attack others (in any manner) that are of no threat to us.
 
By leaking the origin of the Stuxnet cyberattack, President Obama's Administration has invited an Iranian cyberwarfare counterattack on the United States.
 
By leaking the origin of the Stuxnet cyberattack, President Obama's Administration has invited an Iranian cyberwarfare counterattack on the United States.


My God! what is the problem with the Obama administration? Do they have to leak everything? :roll:

It's a very dangerous and stupid game they play.
 
^^^

The FBI is investigating who leaked the information.

"The FBI has opened an investigation into who disclosed information about a classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities, according to two people familiar with the probe. The investigation follows publication last week of details of the cyber-sabotage program, including the use of a computer worm called Stuxnet, which Iran has acknowledged it found in its computers.
The Central Intelligence Agency ran the operation in conjunction with Idaho National Laboratory, the Israeli government and other U.S. agencies, according to people familiar with the efforts. The covert effort also includes drone surveillance and cyberspying on Iranian scientists, the people said."

FBI Probes Leaks About Cyberattacks by U.S. - WSJ.com
 
Did America's Cyber Attack on Iran Make Us More Vulnerable?

"After years of downplaying offensive U.S. cyber capabilities and fretting about Chinese cyber weapons, a major assumption has been turned on its head: America has now conceded that it conducted the most sophisticated state-sponsored cyber attack in the history of civilization."

"Both China and Russia have gone on the record saying that they would view an operation like Olympic Games--a military-led cyber attack against another country--as an aggressive act. (The National Security Agency is a defense intelligence agency; the Central Intelligence Agency, which is not, almost certainly played a role in introducing the weapon into the Iranian centrifuge processing system.)"

"In the end, the U.S. officials who approved Olympic Games decided that America's national security interests demanded an action that, if revealed, might hinder its long-term interests. Our enemies in the cybersphere will help determine whether it was worth it.".

National - Marc Ambinder - Did America's Cyber Attack on Iran Make Us More Vulnerable? - The Atlantic
 
No, I am suggesting that we should not attack others (in any manner) that are of no threat to us.

Obama disagrees with you, so you better not vote for him. So you agree you'll be voting for Romney, who is guilty of no such thing.
 
Yes, he said, "it doesn’t necessarily rise to a casus belli". That is not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?

In other words, it doesn't support Iranian retaliation.
 
Ollie North.

Which resulted in Congressional Hearings and a verdict against North which subsequently got overturned on a technicality. You probably forgot that.
 
My God! what is the problem with the Obama administration? Do they have to leak everything? :roll:

It's a very dangerous and stupid game they play.

Two reactions to this. First, is there any hard proof that they leaked it, or is that speculation? Second, if it was leaked intentionally, there may well have been a pretty good reason for it. Governments leak stuff like this all the time for a variety of reasons.
 
one of my fears is that this will set off a chain of events that results in an attack on the US. every militaristic nation in the world probably has stuxnet now, and most have probably made used it to make their own weapon.

that's the problem with game changing weapons : it's only a matter of time until your "enemy" gets one.

i'd prefer we use more of our innovative power to address energy and the economy. want to disarm Iran? stop buying oil.

How does that 'disarm' Iran?
 
Stuxnet also Bush's fault. Originally activated under the code name Olympic Games.

That's right... and now McCain is raving and accusing Obama.

FBI Probes Leaks About Cyberattacks by U.S. - WSJ.com

The reports on the Iran cyberattacks said the operation, called Olympic Games, began in the Bush administration and accelerated under Mr. Obama.

The New York Times account attributed some information to officials who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Mr. Sanger, in an appearance on CBS News's "Face the Nation" program Sunday, suggested that deliberate White House leaking "wasn't my experience."

He added: "I spent a year working the story from the bottom up, and then went to the administration and told them what I had. Then they had to make some decisions about how much they wanted to talk about it…I'm sure the political side of the White House probably likes reading about the president acting with drones and cyber and so forth. National-security side has got very mixed emotions about it because these are classified programs."

A spokesman for New York Times Co. declined to comment, and Mr. Sanger said he stood by his comments from Sunday.
 
Obama disagrees with you, so you better not vote for him. So you agree you'll be voting for Romney, who is guilty of no such thing.

LOL! Romney thinks the president is not being tough enough with Iran and thought our war on Iraq was a good thing.

So thanks, but no thanks!
 
By leaking the origin of the Stuxnet cyberattack, President Obama's Administration has invited an Iranian cyberwarfare counterattack on the United States.

I'm sure the Iranian intelligence agency already knew the origin. I seriously doubt that on June 1st someone went running into the President or Supreme Leader's room telling them the breaking news. Though they were informed of the article, surely, both men already knew who was responsible. No way they didn't.
 
Obama disagrees with you, so you better not vote for him. So you agree you'll be voting for Romney, who is guilty of no such thing.

Both men are committed to Israel, which is a driving force behind this War. Romney would be more aggressive right now if he had the authority to do so. He has spoken about Iran for several years now. He is a supporter of a non-nuclear Iranian state - so is Obama. However, it's an election year. I do believe his hesitation to support immediate Israeli anti-Iranian missions has hurt him. We'll have to wait and see what he does with HR 4133.
 
Two reactions to this. First, is there any hard proof that they leaked it, or is that speculation? Second, if it was leaked intentionally, there may well have been a pretty good reason for it. Governments leak stuff like this all the time for a variety of reasons.


I know, there are many questions ... but why, why is it that the Obama Administrations has this pattern?

Why this pattern of disclosures of classified information by the Obama administration?

Can they not put a sock in their mouths? Just asking!
 
LOL! Romney thinks the president is not being tough enough with Iran and thought our war on Iraq was a good thing.

So thanks, but no thanks!

Come on, Obama is so last term anyway. :lol:
 
Come on, Obama is so last term anyway. :lol:


that's right .... good bye Obama good bye Michelle bye bye daughters ... so long good luck

Hello Romney .... let's the voting begin.
 
Back
Top Bottom