Israel and US fingered for Stuxnet attack on Iran The US and Israel jointly developed the infamous Stuxnet worm before using the sophisticated malware to sabotage key components of Iran's controversial nuclear program, according to an investigation by the New York Times. Stuxnet selectively infects industrial control (SCADA) systems from Siemens, establishing a backdoor that …
Israel can only pray that the rest of its enemies are as fools as those arab shills calming israel is terrorism and apartheid with ages old anti-jewish propaganda, while israel is developing super computer viruses and who knows what else.
I have recently seen a couple of studies checking the correlation between origin,religion and israel-hate, and guess what were the results ~93% of those who had 'critical opinion' on israel(it being apartheid state etc) were from arab origin and 91% were muslim.
So same you didn't need to discover America to know israel has something to do with stuxnet, you dont need Columbus to know that israel haters are ARAB shills.
The only way one can confuse an argument against the makey-uppy, racist, ethnic-cleansing nation-state of Israel as anti-Jewish propaganda is if one maliciously conflates the existence of the state of Israel with the existence of Jews - a magical sleight-of hand, if it weren't so totally transparent and vile - and hadn't cost so many their lives, land and livelihoods .
Interesting how any criticism of the Israeli state policy, or Zionist policy, is trumpeted as anti-Semitism. I thought the Palestinians were Semitic, so are not Israel and Zionists in general actually betraying an anti-Semitic bias?
I only ask the question - (waiting for flame - where's the fire extinguisher icon?)
All these problems started when the UN decided to create a new state right on top of Palestine, smack bang in the middle east. None of it neighbours wanted it then or now.
How about the UN moving the whole state of Israel? The US love them, They could occupy one of the states in the middle, one that you never hear of, Nebraska maybe? Ok you might get a few refugees and a few bulldozed homes, oh maybe the odd f16 strike if anyone complains, but who cares.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the beliefs that are largely unique to Iran, i.e. that they hope to "quicken the coming of the apocalypse in order to hasten the return of the Mahdi, the prophesied future redeemer of Islam".
There might be many evil regimes in this world but surely you can't allow one that wants to start an apocalypse to have nuclear weapons.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hojjatieh
"quicken the coming of the apocalypse in order to hasten the return of the Mahdi, the prophesied future redeemer of Islam"
It may come as a surprise to you but the official Soviet ideology called for world-wide violent revolution to overthrow the yoke of capitalism and convert every country to one true communist way of life where there will be no exploited and exploiters, no money, no trade, no rich and poor divide.
Sometime. Eventually. In the far away future.
For the more practical immediate future, though, the Politbureau members and the Party elite enjoyed the spoils of the capitalist industry and preferred to keep their personal money in Western banks, which they were in no rush to destroy.
I believe Israel is also awaiting the arrival of a Messiah. There are those actively expecting the birth of a red heifer without blemish as a sign of his/her imminence. (Must the Messiah be a man, in this Harriet Harentity century?)
(Sorry, I have to explain: If we say HarMAN, that's sexist, and contrary to that persons stated beliefs. However,. if we say HarPERSON then we are being speceisist; if we say HarBEING we are being livingist or sentientist. The only truly neutral word we can use is entity, as that which exists.)
(On a totally different note, why do Muslims use a Latin word to describe non-Muslims? Surely this is totally against the very sentiment being propounded?)
I don't have a problem with anyone waiting for a Messiah.
I have a problem with people who think that starting an apocalyptic war is a good idea and with those same people having nuclear weapons. Means, motive and opportunity.
Such beliefs cannot be compatible with owning devices that could cause an "apocalypse", surely.
These appear to be the beliefs of Ayatollah Yazdi who was a mentor to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Set up
1. Form two teams, number of players is inconsequential for the purposes of the game.
2. Each team shall then be installed in underground bunkers.
3. Each player has a number of options:-
(1) "Nuke 'em all"
(2) "Nuke 'em all (I didn't vote, it's not my fault)"
(3) "Let's do this with tanks instead"
(4) "I don't want to play any more, can I go home"
Playing the Game
4. Each player on each team MUST vote for one of the above options in each round.
5. At the end of each voting round any player selecting option 4, for the second time, is excused from the game (does not apply to team leaders).
6. After each round the option with the lowest number of votes is removed.
7. Voting continues until one option receives 90% of the votes. This is the winning option.
Winning the game
8. Once both teams return a winning option proceed as follows:-
Option 4 - release all team members
Options 1,2 & 3 - detonates nuclear devices in their own bunker
So pick your team and go outside and play, leaving the rest of us free from angry rhetoric, propaganda, politics, religion and childish "but so and so did X first" finger pointing.
Im shocked that seemingly educated people who read theregister harbour such racist views.
Israel is such a small country but has the balls to act when needed. A mad person such as the Iranian president shouldnt have neclear capabilities. They dont need it for power reasons.
And for those who dont know, Israel was given back to the Israelis by the previous owners (the British) after the war, just as Hong Kong was given back by us in 2002.
The palestinion people arnt welcomed in any other surrounding arab state by their own kind. Israel lets them work and live there.
It's the old "if you don't agree with Israel you must be anti-semitic or racist".
What a load of crap.
Also, some facts :
1) Hong Kong was subject to a legally binding land lease, unlike Palestine.
2) Hong Kong was given back to China when the lease expired in 1997, not 2002.
The UN recommended the creation of a Jewish state along side one for Palestinians from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Which various European powers had been administrating since its collapse. It wasn't like the UN carved a chunk out of a viable Arab state and handed it over.
That said, they (the UN) never followed through with their partition plan to finalize the plan and establish borders. Both sides had resorted to violence up to this point to acquire or defend territory. But the Arabs ended up losing more land than they would have had they come to the negotiating table. And the new state of Israel defines it's creation based upon the territory gained at the outcome of that war in 1948, not the peaceful UN initiative of 1947. And its been war or violence ever since.
Recent leaks of State Department documents tend to indicate that moderates on both sides of the conflict as well as public sentiment supports a peaceful solution. But neither side dares anger their own lunatic fringes. Lest anyone forget, the Palestinians are not the only ones with such a fringe. The closest we've come to a solution, worked by Rabin and Arafat ended up with Rabin getting assassinated by an Israeli extremist. And the response of Israel's political machine was to kowtow to their fringe elements rather then sending in tanks to clean them out (like the US did in Waco, Texas). This wasn't seen as a hopeful sign by the Palestinians, along with the subsequent election of Sharon (the Butcher of Beirut).
Neither side is willing to stomp out its own crackpot fringe, so they all get what they deserve. If Iran builds a bomb, let them use it. Soon to be followed by smoking craters in Tehran and Mecca. As long as they all have short range missiles, its their problem.
Option #1
Choose a side, give it lots of billions of dosh. Watch the other sides make contacts and gain lots of billions of dosh. Invest more heavily still and watch the harm, hurt and horror continue for decades, centuries or millennia.
Option #2
Be equally pleasant to all parties and when the strife has ended be pleasant to the winning party, commiserate with the losing party and hope that all will be magnanimous in defeat or (not exclusive or) victory.
Why fund further misfortune by the misfortunate on the equally misfortunate just in order to maintain European borders (UK & France?) set up a long while ago and amended more recently still?
Option #3
Let then sort it out in either UN, courts of international authority, blood letting and spilling whatever they choose really knowing that we will be understanding in the aftermath.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
