uuf6429 at gmail
Jun 9, 2012, 5:25 AM
Post #2 of 5
Yes, let's just forget Iran would strike any country against its religious
Re: Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks
[In reply to]
views, especially Israel.
Then again, we can take Iran's word for it - they won't attack anyone ....
unless they really had to.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM, John Doe <jd731841953 [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Laurelai <laurelai [at] oneechan> wrote:
> > And that brings us back to what are we going to do about the US Gov
> > down in the same mud as the bad guys
> Good and bad are just points of view, mostly of whether YOU benefit or
> Ian Hayes <cthulhucalling [at] gmail> wrote:
> > There are those out there in power who only know the language of
> > brute, naked force....
> > The murder of civilans is certainly a terrible crime, but that and the
> > release of some malware that breaks centrifuges is certainly better
> > than other options.
> Pre-emption of potential, predicted or "foreseen" violence with violence
> does not justify the violence or make it right.
> The right option would be to respect their rights and leave them alone,
> but strategy game-theory playing americans won't allow that, as Iran is
> the weak kid on the block and the fatsos want him to give up his candy.
> Not that the fatso really needs the candy, it's more of a habit of
> USA hasn't delared war on Iran. Congress has not authorized acts of
> war against Iran, has it? -- If Obama has, he is acting as a rogue agent
> of USA, a terrorist - if you will, hell bent on killing civilians with his
> assassination lists, cyber weapons and drones. As such, he should be
> held liable for any damages, just like americans would hold any terrorist
> liable for attacking them with similar means and weapons.
> How would Obama feel if Iran sent a drone to bomb and kill his kids and
> family at a kindergarten, just because they thought he might be there?
> Would it not be just as justified a killing as his strikes have been?
> It might even pre-empt some of his drone bombings or cyber attacks in
> the future!
> Laurelai wrote:
> > I don't see how Iran developing nuclear power is a threat, I'm sorry to
> > me this just seems like more fear mongering.
> musntlive [at] gmail wrote:
> > And is this how you fail. There is no problem is in developing nuclear
> > POWER there is problem when you is weaponize it.
> Problem is not weapons either. It is game theoretic positioning.
> Bullies who let the weak and robbed get guns end up regretting it when
> the weak can defend themselves and can no longer be robbed and bullied.
> This is what bullies don't like. This is why americans and USA whine about
> Iran, because they bully Iran for it's oil and gas resources, - the candy.
> I think the major problem here is that USA, and indeed some americans,
> are unwilling to give others the same benefits and equal rights, which
> they enjoy themselves on the "free" markets of the world. To which they
> have agreed.
> Iran is a signator of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and as such has
> right to use and to develop nuclear power to peaceful purposes. Indeed,
> USA was
> the one supplying them with 18 fast breeder nuclear reactors not so very
> long ago.
> Iran should sue USA and Obama for terrorism on any international, civil and
> class action courts for damages to any cyber menaces they've been unleashed
> upon by Obama. There is no justification for their illegal attacks against
> If Obama has authorized these acts of war, then he should be held liable
> any civilian or corporate damages as well as charged with terrorism. I
> imagine that in these cases the damages run easily in the billions.
> This is the right solution for cyber terrorism. Take them to court!
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/