4 ms·

In October, Microsoft officially blamed North Korea[1], as did the UK government[2], neither of whom is trying to lay the groundwork for war. [1] http://www.it

In October, Microsoft officially blamed North Korea[1], as did the UK government[2], neither of whom is trying to lay the groundwork for war. [1] http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-13/hacking-threat-is-as-serious-as-terrorism-says-microsoft-boss http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-13/hacking-threat-is-as-seri... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/uk-north-korea-behind-wannacry-cyber-attack-that-crippled-nhs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/uk-north-korea-behind-wannac...

jacquesm 9y ago
In the run-up to the Iraq war there was this group of UN weapons inspectors that had concluded based on the available evidence that Saddam did not have WMD. That did not stop the UK from going ahead with their bit in the Gulf War. If a war is to be had evidence doesn't really matter. It could be fabricated far easier than you could have real evidence, history has quite a few examples. Given the current political climate in the UK I would not put it past them to start making stuff up, a distraction from internal strife is always a good reason to start a war. Microsoft - I hope - is another matter. The reason why - at least, to me - there is little point to either the UK or the US wanting to start a war with NK is that unlike Iraq NK actually has a good chance of inflicting massive damage on an ally. Plus the lottery ticket of Kim being able to lob a nuke halfway across the globe and make it stick even if attacked might be another item that gives pause to the powers that be. So, whether NK is behind these attacks or not is absent very solid proof an open question, whether or not the government is laying the grounds for war hardly matters, those are not necessarily connected, though they could be it would be a first to go to a shooting war with a nation state over a cyber attack.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  The one point that might matter is if one thinks about how the US switched to being all rah rah after we went to war against Iraq for WMD as you describe and some pretty tenuous claims to a connection with terrorism. It does not seem to be outside the realm of possibility that it would not be beneath an unpopular government to use that as a motivation to make itself unassailable ( as in we're at war, it's unpatriotic to not support the flag/troops.) A lot of evidence points to the official US entry into the shooting war in Vietnam after what appeared to be totally fictional attacks on the US Navy - because the president did not want to appear to be weak. The other thing is the act of congress enabling the President to authorize force after 9/11 is almost unconditional if he/she just says terrorism. We should have rescinded that after Osama bin Ladin was killed.
- wybiral 9y ago
  There are a number of conspiracy theories floating around regarding the reasoning behind the war in Iraq and the role that US, UK, and Iran all played.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    "Kelly believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained some biological weapons after the end of inspections.[7] After the end of the ground war, he was invited to join the inspection team attempting to find any trace of weapons of mass destruction programmes and was apparently enthusiastic about resuming his work there. He made two attempted trips to Iraq. The first was on 19 May 2003 when he was prevented from entering Iraq from Kuwait because he did not have the proper documents. The second trip was from 5 June 2003 to 11 June 2003 when Kelly went to view and photograph two alleged mobile weapons laboratories as a part of a third inspection team. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer, which, on 15 June 2003, quoted "a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq." The expert said: They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons. It was confirmed in the Hutton Inquiry that Kelly was the source of this quote." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) See also: the 45 minute claim.
  - guelo 9y ago
    The weapons inspectors repeatedly said there were no weapons. At the time it was pretty obvious that Bush had already made the decision and the weapon inspectors were an obstacle for getting the war on.
  - Iv 9y ago
    I realized recently that a lot of people writing about it today were not necessarily old enough to follow politics yet at the time of the events. No, the WMD claim by the US was not an honest mistake, it was a purposeful lie to be used as an excuse for war. Here is a speech by GWB on Iraq in 2002: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq The claim was that Iraq threatened USA. At the time, everybody knew this was a lie. Iraq did not have capable missiles to reach US territory and claims that it had a secret nuclear program were extremely dubious. Remember : the fear was nuclear ICBM, this is what was hammered in the media. They fell back to chemical weapons, but if the US plans to invade every country with a stock of chemical weapons, good fucking luck! Colin Powell, presenting the threats to the UN council, put forward a nuclear threat. He used as proofs, documents that were fake. "Obvious fake" as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency would call them: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ What he said about it: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." These were not mistakes, these were lies: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell... Iraq was (correctly it appears, in hindsight) fearing an invasion so it was worried that opening up to foreign inspectors would lead to espionage to prepare the invading forces. In the end, as a last hope to preserve peace, it allowed inspectors in a mission, led by Hans Blix. Here is how he described the cooperation of Iraqi forces: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with Unmovic in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." > If I believed any conspiracy as far as Iraq goes US disregarded that and still decided to invade. No one had a single doubt that this was about oil. Iraq is a clear case of a conspiracy. This is actually a very good counter-point to conspiracy theorists: When a government tries to lie about something, it is really obvious, and it still works.
crdoconnor 9y ago
Or it could be that the Tories/NHS are trying to scrape some egg off their face for being so fucking stupid and cheap as to keep running XP. The general public is a bit more forgiving when you're taken down by a nation state rather than a bunch of criminals preying on a deliberately unlocked door. Microsoft, probably being mildly cognizant that you don't win new contracts by accusing lucrative customers of rank fucking idiocy especially when it's true, will naturally play along with the conspiracy theory, especially since the chances of strong evidence pointing to the actual culprits coming to light are so low.
LV-426 9y ago
> In October, Microsoft officially blamed North Korea, I can see why Microsoft would want to deflect attention from its own failings to the bogeyman of the week, but I'm not sure what qualifies a private business to "officially" pronounce on weighty geopolitical matters that could result in WWIII. When Microsoft falsely blamed Intel for Microsoft Surface failures[1], or falsely marked a non-Microsoft web browser as malware and removed it from thousands of PCs[2], at least the lives of millions of people weren't at stake. A nation state would collapse long before it reached the point of being so broke it had to rely on - FFS - a Bitcoin ransomware attack to survive. I can't believe I'm actually having to type such an obvious thing, but apparently some people think otherwise. What's North Korea's back up plan for economic survival, a chain letter? It's a sorry world when people give the time of day to such transparently obvious and nonsensical propaganda, intended to suck us into yet another bloodbath, just because NK isn't a nice place to live. > as did the UK government, neither of whom is trying to lay the groundwork for war. Assuming that wasn't as a joke: the UK has been a lapdog of the USA (aka "Special Relationship"[3]) if not since WWII, certainly since the 1980s, when British people themselves openly referred to their country, even in popular chart songs[4][5], as the 51st State. Of course the UK lacks the status and relevance in Washington DC of a real US state, and is simply treated (and behaves accordingly) like a reserve branch of US armed forces, supporting wars that serve US interests, including the one where at least 20% of North Korean human beings were exterminated by the US military. [1] https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft-surface/132832/heres-microsoft-saying-internally-surface-quality-reliability https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft-surface/132832/her... [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-falsely-labels-chrome-as-malware/ https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-falsely-labels-chrome-as... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-us-uk-joke-special-relationship-officials-mocked-britain-jeremy-shapiro-a7994876.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-us-uk-j... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmup_vQvBGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmup_vQvBGk [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a75Ez48alDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a75Ez48alDE

jacquesm 9y ago

In the run-up to the Iraq war there was this group of UN weapons inspectors that had concluded based on the available evidence that Saddam did not have WMD. That did not stop the UK from going ahead with their bit in the Gulf War. If a war is to be had evidence doesn't really matter. It could be fabricated far easier than you could have real evidence, history has quite a few examples. Given the current political climate in the UK I would not put it past them to start making stuff up, a distraction from internal strife is always a good reason to start a war. Microsoft - I hope - is another matter. The reason why - at least, to me - there is little point to either the UK or the US wanting to start a war with NK is that unlike Iraq NK actually has a good chance of inflicting massive damage on an ally. Plus the lottery ticket of Kim being able to lob a nuke halfway across the globe and make it stick even if attacked might be another item that gives pause to the powers that be. So, whether NK is behind these attacks or not is absent very solid proof an open question, whether or not the government is laying the grounds for war hardly matters, those are not necessarily connected, though they could be it would be a first to go to a shooting war with a nation state over a cyber attack.

stevenwoo 9y ago
The one point that might matter is if one thinks about how the US switched to being all rah rah after we went to war against Iraq for WMD as you describe and some pretty tenuous claims to a connection with terrorism. It does not seem to be outside the realm of possibility that it would not be beneath an unpopular government to use that as a motivation to make itself unassailable ( as in we're at war, it's unpatriotic to not support the flag/troops.) A lot of evidence points to the official US entry into the shooting war in Vietnam after what appeared to be totally fictional attacks on the US Navy - because the president did not want to appear to be weak. The other thing is the act of congress enabling the President to authorize force after 9/11 is almost unconditional if he/she just says terrorism. We should have rescinded that after Osama bin Ladin was killed.
wybiral 9y ago
There are a number of conspiracy theories floating around regarding the reasoning behind the war in Iraq and the role that US, UK, and Iran all played.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  "Kelly believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained some biological weapons after the end of inspections.[7] After the end of the ground war, he was invited to join the inspection team attempting to find any trace of weapons of mass destruction programmes and was apparently enthusiastic about resuming his work there. He made two attempted trips to Iraq. The first was on 19 May 2003 when he was prevented from entering Iraq from Kuwait because he did not have the proper documents. The second trip was from 5 June 2003 to 11 June 2003 when Kelly went to view and photograph two alleged mobile weapons laboratories as a part of a third inspection team. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer, which, on 15 June 2003, quoted "a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq." The expert said: They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons. It was confirmed in the Hutton Inquiry that Kelly was the source of this quote." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) See also: the 45 minute claim.
- guelo 9y ago
  The weapons inspectors repeatedly said there were no weapons. At the time it was pretty obvious that Bush had already made the decision and the weapon inspectors were an obstacle for getting the war on.
- Iv 9y ago
  I realized recently that a lot of people writing about it today were not necessarily old enough to follow politics yet at the time of the events. No, the WMD claim by the US was not an honest mistake, it was a purposeful lie to be used as an excuse for war. Here is a speech by GWB on Iraq in 2002: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq The claim was that Iraq threatened USA. At the time, everybody knew this was a lie. Iraq did not have capable missiles to reach US territory and claims that it had a secret nuclear program were extremely dubious. Remember : the fear was nuclear ICBM, this is what was hammered in the media. They fell back to chemical weapons, but if the US plans to invade every country with a stock of chemical weapons, good fucking luck! Colin Powell, presenting the threats to the UN council, put forward a nuclear threat. He used as proofs, documents that were fake. "Obvious fake" as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency would call them: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ What he said about it: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." These were not mistakes, these were lies: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell... Iraq was (correctly it appears, in hindsight) fearing an invasion so it was worried that opening up to foreign inspectors would lead to espionage to prepare the invading forces. In the end, as a last hope to preserve peace, it allowed inspectors in a mission, led by Hans Blix. Here is how he described the cooperation of Iraqi forces: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with Unmovic in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." > If I believed any conspiracy as far as Iraq goes US disregarded that and still decided to invade. No one had a single doubt that this was about oil. Iraq is a clear case of a conspiracy. This is actually a very good counter-point to conspiracy theorists: When a government tries to lie about something, it is really obvious, and it still works.

crdoconnor 9y ago

Or it could be that the Tories/NHS are trying to scrape some egg off their face for being so fucking stupid and cheap as to keep running XP. The general public is a bit more forgiving when you're taken down by a nation state rather than a bunch of criminals preying on a deliberately unlocked door. Microsoft, probably being mildly cognizant that you don't win new contracts by accusing lucrative customers of rank fucking idiocy especially when it's true, will naturally play along with the conspiracy theory, especially since the chances of strong evidence pointing to the actual culprits coming to light are so low.

LV-426 9y ago

> In October, Microsoft officially blamed North Korea, I can see why Microsoft would want to deflect attention from its own failings to the bogeyman of the week, but I'm not sure what qualifies a private business to "officially" pronounce on weighty geopolitical matters that could result in WWIII. When Microsoft falsely blamed Intel for Microsoft Surface failures[1], or falsely marked a non-Microsoft web browser as malware and removed it from thousands of PCs[2], at least the lives of millions of people weren't at stake. A nation state would collapse long before it reached the point of being so broke it had to rely on - FFS - a Bitcoin ransomware attack to survive. I can't believe I'm actually having to type such an obvious thing, but apparently some people think otherwise. What's North Korea's back up plan for economic survival, a chain letter? It's a sorry world when people give the time of day to such transparently obvious and nonsensical propaganda, intended to suck us into yet another bloodbath, just because NK isn't a nice place to live. > as did the UK government, neither of whom is trying to lay the groundwork for war. Assuming that wasn't as a joke: the UK has been a lapdog of the USA (aka "Special Relationship"[3]) if not since WWII, certainly since the 1980s, when British people themselves openly referred to their country, even in popular chart songs[4][5], as the 51st State. Of course the UK lacks the status and relevance in Washington DC of a real US state, and is simply treated (and behaves accordingly) like a reserve branch of US armed forces, supporting wars that serve US interests, including the one where at least 20% of North Korean human beings were exterminated by the US military. [1] https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft-surface/132832/heres-microsoft-saying-internally-surface-quality-reliability https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft-surface/132832/her... [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-falsely-labels-chrome-as-malware/ https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-falsely-labels-chrome-as... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-us-uk-joke-special-relationship-officials-mocked-britain-jeremy-shapiro-a7994876.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-us-uk-j... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmup_vQvBGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmup_vQvBGk [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a75Ez48alDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a75Ez48alDE