Iran has hit back hard now.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Alternative4u

 

Ugh.... The war mongering continues. Just because Paul Ryan says something doesn't make it true.

FACT CHECK: Slips in vice presidential debate

www.newsherald.com...

RYAN: "We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let's take a look at where we've gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material — to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They're racing toward a nuclear weapon. They're four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability."

THE FACTS: Ryan's claim is misleading. Iran isn't believed to have produced any of the highly enriched uranium needed to produce even one nuclear weapon, let alone five. That point isn't even disputed by Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored the world at the United Nations last month to create a "red line" at enrichment above 20 percent. Iran would have to enrich uranium at much higher levels to produce a weapon. There is intelligence suggesting that Iran has worked on weapon designs, but not that it has developed a delivery system for any potential nuclear warhead.

And I don't expect Debka.com to have fact check this or even post the truth because you don't really have to fact check this to know its BS. Just another propaganda mouth piece but the truth is Iran is up to 20% enrichment with recent announcements of wanting to increase to 60% for their dream of having nuclear submarines. To make a nuke you're gonna need around 90% enrichment and anyone who has been following the Iran nuke crisis should already know this. So Paul Ryan is just another politician running his mouth.

As far as cyber attacks, well, the whole world is engaged in it, Iran recently announcing their official hacking team, Iranian DataCoders Security Team. So anyone who connects classified/sensitive information to the internet is subject to hacking. No one is safe on the net, not without real encryption that is changed on a regulation basis. What is connected to the internet is things like power grids and any other civilian operation out there. Mess with that and real trouble can ensue.

edit on 13-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

Where do THE FACTS come from?
The same intel that the White House relied on when they decided to under arm our troops in Benghazi?

Don't you think it's better to take the "prepare for the worst but hope for the best" approach?
Obama and the media underestimated the enemy known as Romney during the first debate, this country cannot afford to underestimate the capabilities of Iran in this scenario.

Reagan once said, "trust but verify", that's what we need to do before we reach the point of no return.

Who built the internet and supplied the tech for computer infrastructure?

It was the West.

If Iran and China thinks it can safely launch a cyberwar using proxies, may they think again.

The West authorities are fully capable and ready to launch cyber attacks anytime, for we have the tech and brains to do so.

The only thing holding us back is because of the human suffering that will be caused to the innocent iranian and chinese people. We are a civilised free world.

BUT, if our own people had been hurt and harmed by their attacks, rest assured, NO mercy will be shown, the way they had NO mercy for us.

May cooler heads prevail. Real life is not a computer game. In computer games, avatars get re-spawned. In real life, those hurt and harmed DO NOT return, bringing pain and suffering to the living. May those officers and officials in China and Iran know the stakes well before they start.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I have a sudden desire to watch Battleship again because of that song
Rihanna is one sexy kitty cat with a gun

reply to post by SLAYER69


Might be right.

I do know "baiting" when I see it.






That didn't sound right........

reply to post by Alxandro


Huh?

Where do THE FACTS come from? The same intel that the White House relied on when they decided to under arm our troops in Benghazi?

What troops where? Surely you do not mean US troops so maybe you're talking about NATO arming the rebels? The same rebels who were also known terrorists from a little terrorist group the US CIA not only created but is all at once fighting against in our War on Terrorism and at the same time supporting when it fits the US strategy. There were no US troops at the embassy in Benghazi. The closest thing to a US troop there at the time of attacks were 2 ex USN SEALs. They died bravely fighting against the terrorists attack. The Libyan Gov't was supposed to provide security. After the attack the US sent 50 Marines to secure the embassy. Sad fact is there was plenty of good intel that the embassy would be attacked but much like 9/11/01 that intel was ignored. Why it was ignored is another thread altogether but I dunno why you're bringing up Libya in this thread.

So we should prepare for the worst because Romney s' VP lies about Iran (like soooo many politicians do)? It's really no secret that Iran not only doesn't have the capabilities to build a nuke but they abandoned said weapons project years ago but since you're scared of them we should prepare for the worst and do what exactly? Follow through with a preemptive strike with Israel? Start another war based on LIES? Or do you mean everyone should build their own nuclear fallout shelter just like in the Cold War era?

Either way, no thanks.

Originally posted by Alternative4u
It looks like the attacks on Iran are not going to be a one way thing, see the link below, and hold on tight guys.

www.debka.com...

Oh great, more BS from Debka.

Interesting how they assert that this was Iran, when Hezbollah have already claimed responsibility for the drone.

Why do people insist on sharing "news" from these fantasist bloggers as though it's fact? We've debunked Debka thousands of times. Nothing published on there has ever been proven to have ANY validity.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by murch
PS just on a happy note, anyone noticed the up-rise in reactor shut-downs lately. LOL.

Now that's a possibility but also note that the vast majority of US Nuclear plants are starting to show their age.

Yes, there are a lot of older reactors. Peach Bottom just relined their taurus and did a number of other upgrades on their #2 reactor. It will be running again soon. This is to be expected as plants age and new technologies (retrofittable components) and materials come available.They will be doing another overhaul next year during the early fall as fall is a low usage period.
This trend will continue.

Iran has had a nuclear program since the early 90's and lets be honest the Iranians have working nuclear power stations. It doesn't take much to go from there to nuclear weapons.

The question for me is have they build one or any? I don't think anyone truly knows the answer to that. Would they use them on another country. I have some doubts they would. But fact reminds "muslims" do not fear death in the same way we do in the west.

The United States build a nuclear device in 1945 when their was limited knowledge of how nuclear power actually worked. Iranians have well educated scientists, if their goal was a nuclear weapon ,they probably have a few build already in stock.

The US is vulnerable to cyber threats of course, but I find it hard to believe that they are just sitting around doing nothing about it. I would expect that the reason the US has not adequately responded is quite intentional. An attack reveals a weakness that the US can plan to defend against. To actively stop the threat encourages an evolution of cyber threats requiring an evolution of defenses.

By not responding with all it's capabilities the US is concealing it's cards for when all out war ensues, while getting to survey incoming threats, learning about the enemy.

A confident enemy accustomed to success may find it's attacks largely useless when it counts most. It may find itself the victim of massive heretofore unseen counter attacks by the US.

The same goes for China's attacks on our satellites with no known response from the US. I'll bet a shiny silver dollar that on the opening day of a war with China it would find itself with no satellites under it's control, with severely depreciated cyber capabilities, and possibly even practical removal from the web. Why does the US not act to protect it's assets? Because to do so would reveal US capabilities and make them less effective.

It is well known that by the late 1980s the US abandoned all anti-satellite weapons programs in favor of electronic warfare. Not a word has been spoken of these capabilities ever since. I would not be surprised if the US has the capability to gain control of enemy satellites and deny their use by the enemy, while at the same time denying the enemy not from cyber attack per say, but from significant use of the internet itself.

I simply find it hard to believe that up to $600 billion a year has been spent on defense for all these years without the US (the country that pioneered internet for military use) pursuing this major future weapon vigorously. It is the very foundation of US military doctrine to employ the latest technology in warfare.

Iran hits back hard!Lol,with a small computer virus?You must have been in a coma during Shock and Awe.

Panetta's warning reflects US fears of Iran cyberattack; analysts say the capability is there

Panetta's unusually strong comments Thursday came as former U.S. government officials and cybersecurity experts said the U.S. believes Iranian-based hackers were responsible for cyberattacks that devastated computer systems of Persian Gulf oil and gas companies.

www.foxnews.com...

Sorry I can't contribute more I have to run.

reply to post by SLAYER69


There's a good possibility of that Slayer and guess who the "victims" would be? - Our financial institutions, of course. Who would need a massive influx of credit from the Fed to restore consumer confidence and cover pending payments. Without it people won't get their pensions, their paychecks or pay their mortgages.
It was the financial sector that literally got hit on 9/11 (Marsh McClennan & the Naval accounting office), so I would expect the same again.
People are more scared of a shaky economy that anything else.

My guess: the US govt gets to kill two birds with one stone by letting an Iran "cyberattack" take place


1.) Attack/Invasion of Iran will have a huge increase in public approval


B.) The US gets to restrict and regulate internet use in the name of "National Security."

reply to post by SLAYER69

You are right! This is a report designed to get money for Pet Programs that we do not need. Anyone who believes that the United States does not have a Cyber Defense System in place that is BEYOND CAPABLE...is fooling themselves.

Remember the MISSILE GAP? The Russians admitted that they only had a few ICBM's in existence at the time the U.S. Congress was having Closed Door Meetings over this Bulls#!% Missile Gap that NEVER EXISTED!

Iran is only a concern because of where it is located...that being Iran boarders the Persian Gulf.
Split Infinity

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Yea... well... seriously you're not questioning chinese hackers are you? If you are... are you out of your mind? The "west" as you call it has no defense against the chinese cyber-warfare guys. Zero. Nada. Zilch. If "taking over the world" was a hacking contest like the 2600 used to do, the chinese would have the world hacked by supper. Plus... considering how many they are, if they wanted to drown us after, all they had to do was to take a piss at the same time.

Seriously, dont underestimate china. You shouldnt underestimate anyone, but seriously... if you have to, just make sure its not china.

Originally posted by Hawking
My guess: the US govt gets to kill two birds with one stone by letting an Iran "cyberattack" take place


1.) Attack/Invasion of Iran will have a huge increase in public approval


B.) The US gets to restrict and regulate internet use in the name of "National Security."

"invasion of Iran"? Really? ok... time for morbid laugh thinking about the massive amount of lives wasted on that endeavor. You think Iran is Iraq? You think Teheran has anything to do with Baghdad?

I sure hope that "invading iran" is NOT an option being considered cause if it is... its a suicide mission for hundreds of thousands... prolly millions actually. If someone told me tomorrow to prepare for an invasion to Iran I'd tell them to f* off and rather be court martialed - any brig in the world would be safer than that stupid suicidal idea. I can do a lot of things but suicide is not on my list, thanks but no thanks.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

The U.S. will either deal with a New Democratic Iranian Government to make a deal that gives a New Iran Billions of Dollars in Aid...in return for dismantling of the Iranian Nuclear Program...or if the Old Guard is not overthrown by the Iranian Pro-Democracy Movement...and the Old Guard attempts to Close the Strait of Hormuz...the U.S. will have no choice but to Destroy the Iranian Military as well as Air Drop into Iran Thousands of U.S. Special Forces and Rangers to seize all Iranian Nuclear Sites.

This would be in conjunction with the Iranian Military STANDING DOWN and supporting the Democratic Iranian Movement. On Going talks that are secret and being held between the U.S. and Iranian Military's will determine this STAND DOWN as the Iranian Military has no desire to fight a WAR with the U.S. Military.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by Hawking
My guess: the US govt gets to kill two birds with one stone by letting an Iran "cyberattack" take place


1.) Attack/Invasion of Iran will have a huge increase in public approval


B.) The US gets to restrict and regulate internet use in the name of "National Security."

"invasion of Iran"? Really? ok... time for morbid laugh thinking about the massive amount of lives wasted on that endeavor. You think Iran is Iraq? You think Teheran has anything to do with Baghdad?

I sure hope that "invading iran" is NOT an option being considered cause if it is... its a suicide mission for hundreds of thousands... prolly millions actually. If someone told me tomorrow to prepare for an invasion to Iran I'd tell them to f* off and rather be court martialed - any brig in the world would be safer than that stupid suicidal idea. I can do a lot of things but suicide is not on my list, thanks but no thanks.

edit on 14-10-2012 by FraternitasSaturni because: (no reason given)

Since when does the US military base its decisions on how many lives may be lost? War is a battle for resources and power and everything we've seen in the media about Iran for the past year suggests that an "extended confrontation" is in the cards in the near future.

I don't support any war on any soil, but guess what, Americans don't vote on whether or not to go to war. Hell, we hardly vote for our presidents.

Hit back hard?

It was an RC PLANE!

stealth drone.. what a load of crap!

It didn't stay up that long because it evaded radar... its because it flew low, slow and was difficult to intercept or locate.

Id be surprised if it can even carry a mortar!

This is all suspicous and in some way laughable. The US and Israel have been engagin in cyber warfare against Iran for sometime. They have designed viruses to specifically target Iranian nuclear technology and have inflicted damage against Iran by doing so, yet they claim that this may be the first cyber "pearl harbour" committed against the US. Wouldn't that simply be a response to ongoing cyber attacks? So hasn't the United States committed the first cyber "pearl harbour".

Moreover, is the fact that Panetta is labeling it as a potential "pearl harbour" incident suggesting that the United States will declare some sort of war in response?