5 ms·
Blackout Hits Iran Nuclear Site in What Appears to Be Israeli Sabotage
- rq1 6y ago> “nuclear terrorism” Why is it between quotes?
- rangibaby 6y agoBecause it is a quote
- anonu 6y ago"Nuclear terrorism" also implies you're committing acts of terror with nuclear weapons - which is not the case.
- rq1 6y agoWell, attacking a nuclear plant is considered everywhere as "nuclear terrorism".
- ars 6y agoNever mind the nuclear part, it's not terrorism either. Terrorism implies a civilian target. A military facility for producing nuclear weapons is definitely not a civilian target.
- rq1 6y agoYou should just accept your ambivalence and hypocrisy. It’s really hard to be on the bad side against such an awful theocracy, but you made it, congrats.
- ars 6y agoI'm confused, how am I on the bad side against Iran? Iran falsely claimed something as Nuclear Terrorism, when it's neither of those things - that would put me on the good side against them, not the bad.
- ALittleLight 6y agoI think most people would assume nuclear terrorism involved nuclear or radioactive weapons, not an attack on a nuclear power plant.
- witherk 6y agoIs it? I would have assumed that use of nuclear weapon would be needed for nuclear terrorism. The idea of 'nuclear terrorism' puts a very different picture in my head than this. If someone dropped a nuclear bomb 'Equation Group' of the NSA would you call that a 'cyber terrorism'.
- frostburg 6y agoIt's apparently a quote, but besides that it would also not conform to most people's definition of nuclear terrorism (which would presumably involve nuclear weapons or dispersing radioactive material etc.).
- anonu 6y agoSo the original story, which is currently still linked to on the HN front page, was that the blackout was a cyberattack. However, now its being reported that it is very clearly a kinetic explosion - with fingers pointing at Israel.
- fortran77 6y agoWhy is the NY Times accusing Israel, or any external party, without any evidence? Israel didn't take responsibility, and they're basing their whole story on an unnamed source.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoThe evidence is the officials the Times spoke with, who are anonymous to us but not to the Times. You don’t have to agree that this is sufficient, but it’s considerably more evidence than spewing random facts.
- bopbeepboop 6y agoIt’s only more evidence if you trust the NYT. Given that a NY Supreme Court ruling called some NYT “deceptive” and “misinformation”, the NYT presenting purely reputation based evidence is a negative to some readers.
- fotta 6y ago> ... Israel publicly declined to confirm or deny any responsibility. But American and Israeli intelligence officials said there had been an Israeli role.
- fortran77 6y agoAnd who are these alleged officials? That was my point.
- fotta 6y agoAssuming that the sources are trustworthy, and I trust the NYT in their due diligence on this, what incentive is there for the sources to lie about an admission of responsibility? Personally I don’t see one. If it was the opposite I might be more skeptical.
- celticninja 6y agoIn general these sources are known employees of these agencies whom the journalist knows and can vouch for. However the idea is they would never give up their name. These same people may sometimes be quoted directly but we don't know. So the journalist believes the source that's why it is printed. If it turned out to be demonstrably incorrect then next time you don't trust the journalist and the journalist doesn't trust the source. Remember this is a 2 way street. The intelligence agencies want everyone to know it was them, but they can't go claiming credit in public,so you get an unnamed source.
- someperson 6y agoSee also, the Stuxnet US/Israel cyber attack against Iran's Natanz nuclear facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
- sn_master 6y agoFool me twice..
- voidfunc 6y agoIran should embrace the reality that regardless of whatever diplomatic agreements they reach with the rest of the world Israel is simply never going to let them have nuclear weapons.
- emilsedgh 6y agoI don't think Iran really wants nuclear weapons. It's just the only leverage they have. Source: Iranian Jew.
- Zhenya 6y agoLeverage into sanctions and political sidelining? Great strategy.
- emilsedgh 6y agoWell, Iran gave up on all nuclear facilities after JCPOA. Yet, the Trump administrations doubled down on sanctions. The country is now miserable. At that point the only leverage they have is to bring back nuclear activities because without it you're left with absolutely no leverage.