Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

S7UXnet t1_j4gne0y wrote

So this was my purpose :(

240

ramriot t1_j4g5wi4 wrote

I watched this documentary & although it gives a reasonable layman's guide to the events & technology around Stuxnet & other issues, due to factors perhaps beyond the makers control it give a far from comprehensive & sometimes factually incorrect account.

134

IDontTrustGod t1_j4gid4o wrote

Care to elaborate on any errors?

49

ramriot t1_j4gl0fi wrote

Not off the top of my head & I'm not rewatching & rereading my research paper collection after 20 years. Just know that no documentary can tell the whole story here.

But if you push me one aspect is, I don't believe they fully describe the original exploit in sufficient detail so a viewer can understand how it was specifically targetted for release inside an air-gapped network. Only later was it altered & indiscriminately released in a way that made it look like a broader infection.

Though had it not been misused after initial targetting we would most probably have never heard of it.

64

abitrolly t1_j4h796y wrote

I worked at the company that originally discovered it. Siemens SCADA software are run on Windows machines that are not connected to the Internet, and hence never patched. So any kind of malware that uses autorun exploits can get there. Knowing that, it is easy to target the machines. What is not that easy is to develop a fuzzer that once installed, will properly send disruptive commands, instead of just freezing PC.

35

charleswj t1_j4ht5go wrote

>not connected to the Internet, and hence never patched

These two things are not mutually exclusive and is almost criminal in a nuclear facility

19

80burritospersecond t1_j4imm1t wrote

It's also kinda poor design to have all your emergency stop smash buttons be nothing but PLC inputs when they should be independently cutting power to the prime movers in whatever system is being controlled.

7

Burdekin_Boy t1_j4jv36w wrote

Yeah Estops into PLCs should only really be for signal/logging. Stand-alone safety relays should be in use.

3

TheImmortalIronZak t1_j4jvgft wrote

Absolutely is not. Most intelligence departments, Department of justice, homeland etc all have some departments with air gapped machines for security reasons. They can never be “hacked” or the like due to that. And as for the Iranian governments uranium enrichment center the air gapped machine’s control all aspects of the enrichment process, the centrifuges, etc for the same reason.

0

charleswj t1_j4k0o72 wrote

>Absolutely is not. Most intelligence departments, Department of justice, homeland etc all have some departments with air gapped machines for security reasons.

This is actually not true except in some edge cases. Most of the "air gapped" networks are actually only logically separated. For example DOD's NIPR (often referred to as the "low side") is their version of what most companies have, the network most directly connected to the internet, as well as the DREN (for research and development). No classified data is allowed here.

But they also have other networks, sometimes referred to as the "high side" (i.e. SIPR, JWICS), where classified data (Secret and Top Secret, respectively) can be stored. It's a common misconception that these are air gapped, but they're actually more like a VPN on top of NIPR. Additionally, there are various "gateways" (i.e. DOTS, Cross Domain Enterprise Email Service) to allow limited communication and data transfer between low and high sides.

4

mrflib t1_j4hfb34 wrote

Fuzzer?

7

abitrolly t1_j4hk8md wrote

The program that generates bogus parameters for function calls. In that case values for Siemens controllers to set that will cause chaos in controlled hardware.

17

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hm680 wrote

This is really not a context in which you would normally use the term fuzzer. Stuxnet did not "fuzz" these PLCs, it performed a series of specific steps to identify its targets and cause them to break.

26

faux_glove t1_j4k1nxx wrote

What would a fuzzer do, then?

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4l9cr6 wrote

A fuzzer is a tool which automatically feeds semi-random data to another program in order to discover anomalous behaviours.

2

hamburglin t1_j4jnrce wrote

Thank you. Not sure what this guy has been smoking but he's got some type of imaginary cyber security world built in his head.

0

muerto1964 t1_j4j1omi wrote

The thing was genius. I think it had a total of 9(?) Zero day exploits! Most malware will only have 1 if they are very very lucky.

3

Why_Did_Bodie_Die t1_j4jpsi7 wrote

I know almost nothing about computers. I remember in the documentary they made this seem pretty significant. Can you tell me a little about what a zero day is and why it is so significant? Are they really hard to do/make/get? Maybe EILI5.

2

tygghb t1_j4k3xcu wrote

Software exploits that are "brand new" (ie. that the general public did not previously know about). Once an exploit is publically known about, the companies usually work quickly to patch them. They are therefore rare and highly sought after by bad actors.

The going rate is about $100,000 each on the dark web. When a bad guy writes malware, they typically use one zero-day exploit, maybe even two.... but to have NINE or whatever Stuxnet had, is unheard of and was a tell-tale sign that the software was created by a nation-state since the average bad guy is not going to spend $900,000+ to write their malware.

2

so_futuristic t1_j4jrpzb wrote

software vulerabilities that are unknown but to the people exploiting then

1

muerto1964 t1_j4kufni wrote

A zero day exploit is an attack vector that nobody has ever seen before. No one has seen it and therefore we probably have little defense against it. 1 is rare. 9 in the same piece of malware is unheard of

1

hamburglin t1_j4jmx0p wrote

... autorun... exploits? (I'm going to pretend that's a term in the cyber security and forensics industry that actually makes sense to continue on here). In any context that has anything to do with being relevant about getting into air gapped networks? You sure you know what you're talking about?

You then reference the use of a fuzzer in a highly targeted attack? Wth? You think they're going in there and potentially bluescreening machines and trying "best guesses" at what they need to do to perform command and control operations? That would have already been known before deploying their malware and tools.

Safe to say even if you worked there then you still don't know what you're talking about.

1

ramriot t1_j4hj9kd wrote

I could be wrong but I'm guessing by the date that the development of the exploit predates the availability of modern fuzzing software.

−4

abitrolly t1_j4hkjjs wrote

Fuzzing is a method of putting unexpected stuff into function parameters. You can write a fuzzer yourself, like `for x in random(): call(x)`.

5

charleswj t1_j4hsj4b wrote

That's only part of it. It's purpose is to discover vulnerabilities. That's not what was happening there

5

Optimistic__Elephant t1_j4nvpoj wrote

What does this fuzzing accomplish? Is the idea to find an input that returns an error of some sort?

1

abitrolly t1_j5b6xmw wrote

Find the value that will bypass safety checks and destabilize connected hardware. Just sending random noize might not help, so the fuzzer could try to steadily increase some values or execute another logic that is known to be harmful for typical process control mechanisms. I called it fuzzer because I assume it doesn't know what is the real mechanism on the other end. If you have source code and schematic of the plant, you don't need to guess and can directly write targeted destructive code.

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4gnhkz wrote

>Though had it not been misused after initial targetting we would most probably have never heard of it.

How was Stuxnet “misused” after initial targeting? It was inert outside of the specific systems targeted.

8

OwlBeneficial2743 t1_j4hes8j wrote

I believe that others used one or more of the zero days in subsequent malware; Flame was one. I don’t think it’s been proven Flame wouldn’t exist without Stuxnet, but it’s likely.

5

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hgmur wrote

Flame was developed by people involved in developing Stuxnet, no surprise that they would share elements. There's little indication that Flame is "subsequent malware", everything we know indicates that they were developed at around the same time.

Stuxnet development started around 2005

Flame development started at least as early as 2006

In fact, there are strong indicators that the people who developed Flame provided guidance and technical assistance to the less sophisticated Stuxnet developers. It's difficult to imagine that the development of Flame would have hinged on Stuxnet in any way.

>I believe that others used one or more of the zero days in subsequent malware;

Such as?

9

ramriot t1_j4gpbr8 wrote

Specifically it would need to be to go unnoticed inside the Iranian facility's air-gapped network.

The supposition from evidence presented is that before it was ever seen in the wild it was introduced into possibly inadvertently via a single compromised thumb drive containing a required update to the windows Scada control programming software brought into the facility by a 3rd party engineer.

Later "public" appearances appear to be from proximal but unrelated sources & showed variations in code content that suggest a lower skilled operator had altered the original code.

4

CupResponsible797 t1_j4gqei2 wrote

It seems wholly unsurprising that malware targeting a specific airgapped network would also spread through other networks through whichever means are used to breach the airgap.

> Later "public" appearances appear to be from proximal but unrelated sources & showed variations in code content that suggest a lower skilled operator had altered the original code.

What modifications are you referring to? This documentary makes a vague claim that Israelis modified the spreading code to be more aggressive, but doesn’t really substantiate it.

The documentary certainly doesn’t claim that the changes made by the Israelis weren’t necessary for the operation to succeed.

10

MagnetsCarlsbrain t1_j4gsrx9 wrote

I haven't seen the doc but I've read Countdown to Zero Day and I'm not sure I agree (or maybe I'm misunderstanding). The worm was designed to spread as aggressively as possible, but to remain imperceptible on any system except for the target system.

While they probably planted it in close proximity to the target, they had to know that it was going to spread throughout the world. I don't think that was the result of taking it a step too far, rather it was a result of the core strategy.

9

duffmanhb t1_j4i5jof wrote

That's interesting. I had no idea that it was recoded and rereleased into the wild. Could it have been Israel? It definitely doesn't sound like something the US would do. Maybe Iran after discovering it tried to repurpose it?

I was always under the impression that it got out because the original attack vector was via a USB with some boss's naked wife on their, incentivizing him to bring it into the office... Then they also brought it out

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4l9n0h wrote

>I had no idea that it was recoded and rereleased into the wild. Could it have been Israel? It definitely doesn't sound like something the US would do. Maybe Iran after discovering it tried to repurpose it?

This didn't actually happen. At best there was some disagreement between the responsible nations about how aggressive the spreading functionality should be.

1

qazedctgbujmplm t1_j4iblwj wrote

All of what you said was in the doc. The NSA even blames the Israelis for fucking it up.

5

Admiral_Minell t1_j4ieecf wrote

Yeah agreed, mentioned by the anonymous NSA person, the private firm guys talk about finding version history, and someone even claims to quote Biden.

1

MissionarysDownfall t1_j4jio4f wrote

They absolutely did describe both those things. The weird graphic woman even swore about the Israelis f-big everything up by being overly aggressive.

3

danderskoff t1_j4jisth wrote

I believe I heard somewhere it got into the facility from USB drives that were dropped in the parking lot near employee cars

1

ramriot t1_j4jkwt9 wrote

That scenario sounds pretty preposterous. Remember this was a remote secure compound. Where one key feature of their security is the air-gapped network.

Does it sound at all possible for someone to first wander onto the Natanz facility, second drop things around people's cars, & then third have those people with access to the centrifuge hall & who know how important the sanctity of the internal network is to just insert a random thumb drive?

That said it was likely a usb drive, but one designed to pass stringent inspection that came from a trusted source & was needed to update internal software.

1

danderskoff t1_j4kocjk wrote

Anything is possible with 3-letter USA agencies. Also, people are pretty stupid sometimes with USB drives. Sometimes they dont understand that you can compromise a system by doing that and I know theres more to the story than just dumping random USB drives. We talked about this in college but that's really the only points I remember

1

lariojaalta890 t1_j4gomzs wrote

Countdwon to Zero Day is a great book that takes a deep dive into the event and those that preceded and followed. Highly recommended reading if you’re interested.

44

persfinthrowa t1_j4gpogs wrote

Yeah let me just hop on a random documentary and say trust me bro this was factually incorrect and barely elaborate. Good stuff.

35

ColdPorridge t1_j4hg8uv wrote

I trust the top comment is reasonable in saying it’s impossible off a documentarian to know the full story. This is a highly classified operation of aggression from one nation state to another.

There is so much that will never be revealed, it’s naive to think someone, even the most skilled investigative journalists, could “do their research” and get the full story. There are likely still state-sponsored espionage efforts trying to fully understand how Stuxnet happened and if there exist similar capabilities or plans against other infrastructure.

If you’ve never worked with classified information it’s easy to think that everything known by the government just eventually becomes public, but SCI programs like this maybe only have a dozen people or less in the world who understand the whole picture, and a few dozen or hundred more who only know part of it.

9

ramriot t1_j4gwnsb wrote

It's easy to scoff from a position of ignorance, go read the rest of thread & wikipedia & all contemporary sources before you shitpost next time.

−22

saluksic t1_j4imujk wrote

This was a virus designed to break Iranian centrifuges. The headline makes it seem like a) it wasn’t designed to be present in other systems, and b) it broke other systems. Neither of these is true. It was designed to spread indiscriminately, so as to reach the air-gapped centrifuges eventually. It did that. It was designed to only affect Iranian centrifuges. It did that, too. You either think attacking only Iranian centrifuges used for making weapons in nefarious or you don’t. If you think damaging Iran’s weapons program was bad, then you think stuxnet was bad; otherwise it was good/benign.

7

ramriot t1_j4j9wr8 wrote

My opinion is immaterial here, the evidence & timing thereof though suggests a very different scenario to what a surface description would suggest.

Imagine if you will that you are a pair of nation states about to pay real money to devise a way of suspiciously attaching Iran's enrichment program. One very important factor in that is that you keep your technique secret so that should it be needed again later, say with North Korea it can be deployed successfully.

Thus when what is now called Stuxnet was first developed around 2005 it was only as pernicious as needed while being very careful to leave no traces. It's introduction to the Iranian Scada control network in summer of 2007 was reported to have been via an Iranian mole working for the Dutch intelligence organisation or via another operative under that person's control.

Now fast forward to 3 years later in 2010 when code snippets start surfacing from a virus that seem to have payloads targetting Scada control systems. The source zone of this infection appears to stem from Iran and communicating networks. The theory is that it was an inadvertent spread from an Iranian engineer who against orders took a computer previously part of the air-gapped network hone & connected it to the internet.

Within a year of public identification there were many variants of this virus, perhaps reverse engineered from samples & used by others to create further Havok.

By hey, don't trust me it's all here.

2

tibearius1123 t1_j4jgox6 wrote

It did break other computers. That’s how it was discovered.

2

geovurst t1_j4idije wrote

Darknet Diaries podcast has an episode on this topic. The episode is titled Ep 29: Stuxnet.

I can highly recommend it.

I have been listening to it on Spotify but I believe it's on Apple Podcasts too.

30

Ducky602 t1_j4kr1o2 wrote

I can confirm that it's on Apple Podcasts.

3

JiraSuxx2 t1_j4h0rz6 wrote

This is one of my all time favorite docus. It shows how far governments go.

Edit: corrected spelling.

24

my7bizzos t1_j4iveb0 wrote

You would probably enjoy the new frontline pegasus one then.

3

Terpsmcfee t1_j4jbf5w wrote

Great film, have seen at least twice.

Should be a cautionary tale for our digital age. A tool we created to cause major mischief to the Iranian nuclear program, comes back on us in the future!

Although we used the software to an effective result, we more or less published it’s code and other actors have appropriated this worm and will use as they see fit.

3

Neuro_88 t1_j4h81xi wrote

This is a great documentary!

2

jaceapoc t1_j4ikmjd wrote

I wish Alex Gibney would keep on making documentaries like this one... His recent stuff has been meh, imo... He's good at making these investigative docus, he should focus on that genre instead of biographies that nobody really cares about I think...

2

gdubh t1_j4gjef6 wrote

Forthcies

1

chitownadmin t1_j4itekq wrote

This is such an awesome documentary.

1

doublewhopperjr t1_j4jb3kl wrote

The CIA now has some form of Olympics Zeus in all of Iran just waiting to cripple them

0

TheImmortalIronZak t1_j4juz8i wrote

Yeah dude/dudette, Stuxnet was absolutely insane!! It was straight out of a spy novel or something. The NSA/CIA broke their backs trying to find a way to hit the Iranian process plant, then their wishes were granted due to finding a propaganda video of the plant along with high res footage of their control system on monitors as well as noticing a piece of hardware that controlled the timing. 2 days later they had a full report detailing all the running programs as well as testing to trigger the piece of hardware that controlled the on/off times. Even with the Iranian plant having air gapped systems (when your main cpu isn’t connected to the internet to maintain strict security), all they had to do was send a small ass bug all around the world which would eventually make its way to Iran & then would attack other systems until it told the “auto stop hardware” instead of running for 20 minutes at 1700 rpm it would run for 45 minutes at 3500 rpm which would literally explode all of their centrifuges which ruined whatever uranium was being processed as well as making all the machines completely useless.

Ps the goddamn IDF has always been so damn jumpy & rush everything which causes 💩 to go down. Again, goddamn that was an absolutely intense documentary.

−1

Missing_Trillions OP t1_j4ftk2v wrote

Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Documentaries.

Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping
communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.

News War (2007) - Traces the recent history of American journalism, from the Nixon administration’s attacks on the media to the post-Watergate popularity of the press, to the new challenges presented by the war on terror and other evolving global forces. — Part 1 of 3 [00:54:27]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/newswar/

−18

WNKYN31817 t1_j4gedc1 wrote

My son named our home wifi Stuxnet. It gives would-be hackers pause.

−29

ihaveacrushonmercy t1_j4j3uau wrote

Now this is gangster... On the downside though, your son may have a criminal mind. But used with moral he can accomplish great things in life.

3

Rockhard_Stallman t1_j4joj5m wrote

I would say it makes you stand out more. Not that anyone is going to believe it really is, but someone that knows about Stuxnet likely has cooler stuff to poke around on than the person with SSID “Netgear781” or “Grandma”.

1

kerbaal t1_j4gilcl wrote

As an American citizen, I would support prosecuting everyone involved under our criminal hacking laws. This was a crime.

−46

CupResponsible797 t1_j4gnnqs wrote

Why do you think this was a crime? And more importantly, why do you think this was wrong? Would the world have been a better place without Stuxnet and the setbacks it caused for the Iranian nuclear program?

32

ChulaK t1_j4h3ifr wrote

>Would the world have been a better place without Stuxnet

Considering the code is now out in the open, is being reverse engineered, and now being repurposed for other attacks? There's already been other "strains" of Stuxnet, such as Duqu, so much so that it was nearly identical.

If the gun is the great equalizer because men, women, and children can use it to attack or defend regardless of physical strength, then this virus is also an equalizer. A much poorer nation now has the ability to attack or defend regardless of strength and numbers of their military war machines.

Sure it was used to hamper Iran's nuclear program, but in doing so we released an equally deadly weapon that can bring down entire nations. So I guess pick your poison?

Releasing Stuxnet was pretty much giving everyone a "nuclear weapon." There's no longer a nuclear deterrence but a viral deterrence. Launching cyber attacks assures mutual destruction.

−4

CupResponsible797 t1_j4h6xui wrote

>Considering the code is now out in the open, is being reverse engineered, and now being repurposed for other attacks?

It's 2023, Stuxnet has been out in the wild since at least the 2010. What other attacks materialized from Stuxnet being reverse engineered?

Duqu isn't a Stuxnet "strain", it's an entirely separate piece of malware developed by some of the people involved in the creation of Stuxnet.

> If the gun is the great equalizer because men, women, and children can use it to attack or defend regardless of physical strength, then this virus is also an equalizer.

Not really, the exploits get fixed as soon as they become public knowledge. Stuxnet had already been fired, and the exploits burned. All that was left was a spent cartridge.

>Releasing Stuxnet was pretty much giving everyone a "nuclear weapon." There's no longer a nuclear deterrence but a viral deterrence. Launching cyber attacks assures mutual destruction.

This is a weird take. The "dangerous" parts of Stuxnet became irrelevant as soon as it's existence became public knowledge, Microsoft issued patches and Stuxnet was rapidly reduced to nothing but a curiosity.

How do you "patch" nuclear weapons?

Stuxnet isn't the nuke-like capability here, it's the team of people sitting in Fort Meade ensuring a steady supply of 0days.

15

Carbon_60 t1_j4hvgv3 wrote

Tell me you don't understand how malware and patches work without telling me

8

ClemDev t1_j4jfo2n wrote

If it’s out in the open, they wouldn’t need to reverse engineer it. You speak a lot for someone who says nothing of value.

5

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hl9zo wrote

>And more importantly, why do you think this was wrong?

Because a crime is still a crime. You can't kill a murderer just because it would make the world maybe a better place.

Actually, backwards nutters in the US (and Iran haha) still believe in the death penalty so

−5

hawkxp71 t1_j4j56c4 wrote

Sure you can. Armies kill each other all the time.

Yes it's an act of war, but it is not criminal under us code.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4katqn wrote

And war is the very foundation of the US, so everything is good

2

hawkxp71 t1_j4kdl52 wrote

Why are you excusing the Dutch, German, British and Israeli foundations?

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kfzta wrote

I don't even know what you are trying to say at this point

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hmduv wrote

>Because a crime is still a crime. You can't kill a murderer just because it would make the world maybe a better place.

Yes, but from a legal point of view, this simply wasn't a crime.

It's pointless to debate that, so the more interesting debate to be had is whether or not it was the right thing to do.

0

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hn3yy wrote

>so the more interesting debate to be had is whether or not it was the right thing to do.

Yea just like killing a murderer would be...if you're morally bankrupt

0

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hni0f wrote

So, what you're saying is that only a morally bankrupt person would argue that Stuxnet was the right thing to do?

3

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hoon8 wrote

Look, you grew up thinking dropping an atom bomb on Japan and marching into Iraq on false pretences was warranted and necessary. I don't think we need to have this conversation.

−4

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hp2t0 wrote

I grew up in Eastern Europe you imbecile.

But yes indeed, it is an utter waste of time to attempt to have a reasonable conversation with the likes of you.

What a wonderful world it would be if you got your way and everybody had nuclear weapons.

9

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hqxtd wrote

If nuclear weapons are so bad why doesn't the US give up theirs?

0

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4hu9kq wrote

Ah, the old “I don’t wanna bicker about me being wrong so I’m goin got change the arguement” arguement.

7

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hvdcg wrote

The guy isn't from EE, check his profile lol

0

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hxx9t wrote

Where do you think I am from? My comment history makes it pretty clear that I live in the UK, the way I write should make it more than obvious that I'm not a native English speaker.

Anyway, I'm a UA/RO dual national.

3

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4i0xzf wrote

This guy paints a picture of the US dropping nukes as a bad thing. Numbers alone suggest that’s incorrect, 2 million Japanese died in WW2, the whole world lost 3% of people. Scores of people. If the US hadn’t dropped the bombs untold numbers of people would have died. The US didn’t roar into WW2 they were pulled in after trying to stay out. This guys a fuckin idiot.

3

CupResponsible797 t1_j4i2k55 wrote

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but there exists a strong counterpoint to this.

Many argue that Japan did not capitulate because of the nukes, Japan capitulated because Soviet Union entered the war.

3

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4i45ie wrote

Oh man, I agree a web diagram could go in a thousand directions but we only know what happened because of what happened.

2

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4hxlty wrote

I couldn’t care less where either of you are from. You’re argument is garbage.

2

charleswj t1_j4huibz wrote

"I believe guns are bad. Therefore, even though there's someone pointing theirs at me right now, I will immediately disarm."

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hvav3 wrote

Now think through the same argument from a non US perspective, you'd be surprised how foolish you look

2

Carbon_60 t1_j4hvsvx wrote

Total outside perspective here. No bone in the comment thread.

You look like the foolish one.

And I won't be replying to whatever foolish response you have.

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hykd2 wrote

I think most people can agree that fewer people with nukes is better than more people with nukes.

More people with nukes means more nuke usage, everyone having nukes means rather frequent nuke usage.

I personally would strongly prefer to live in a world without nukes. I can't have that, so I'll be happy with the less maximalist goal of nobody using nukes. The most realistic way to achieve that is for less people to have nukes.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hzyvs wrote

So the US should give up theirs, right?

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4i05x9 wrote

In an ideal world, of course.

But in the end, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good thing that US is working against nuclear proliferation.

2

charleswj t1_j4kermt wrote

Yes, and let Russia and the UK and France and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea keep theirs because they'll surely disarm right after us

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kfy1k wrote

So as long as all of those don't give them up Iran shouldn't either. Right?

0

charleswj t1_j4kg73a wrote

Feel free to play your false equivalence game by yourself

1

Carbon_60 t1_j4hw2o4 wrote

Is a German really throwing rocks?

Glass houses and such

3

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hy5wr wrote

The only nation to own up to it's past in an upstanding way? Yea that would be us

2

PhillipLlerenas t1_j4j6xjq wrote

Germans did a masterful work of protecting its Nazis for decades after World War II.

And when you did bring them to trial you were amazing at giving them 3-5 years in prison for murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Sit down.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kax9q wrote

How's all that prosecution of US war crimes in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq coming along?

1

PhillipLlerenas t1_j4kvkgu wrote

Let’s ask Walter (Ernst) Burmeister, SS man who operated gas vans at Chelmno extermination camp and helped kill 152,000 Jews and was sentenced to a leisurely 3 and a half years in prison by a German court in Bonn:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chełmno_trials

Or SS-Unterscharführer Gustav Münzberger, gas chamber operator at Treblinka, who helped murder 800,000 Jews and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Don’t worry tho….he served six years and was released on good behavior in 1971:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Münzberger

If I was a mass murdering anti semite I know exactly where in the planet I’d like to be after the war.

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4lcln9 wrote

As well as you'd expect any war crimes prosecutions to go. The laws of war are not very strict to begin with, gathering evidence tends to be extremely challenging. Even locating known witnesses in such countries for interviews is a tremendously difficult task.

There have been more than a hundred people court-martialed in the US over war crimes during the conflicts you mention.

Some of the famous cases that come to mind were almost certainly not war crimes. Perhaps they should be, but according to the laws of war, they weren't.

1

Carbon_60 t1_j4hz9lr wrote

Did your collective remorse undie multi millions of people? I'm glad you're sad about it but your still being an asshat

Your country perpetrated the 2 worst wars the planet has ever seen and your like "Iraq! Hiroshima/Nagasaki!" No one would have died via atomic bomb in ww2 if you guys hadn't started it

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4i0d06 wrote

The mental reasoning of a 14 year old at work, fascinating

1

Carbon_60 t1_j4i0stf wrote

Ahhh yes. The pillar of a good argument right here.

3

ClemDev t1_j4jg5i0 wrote

Well you do also have the worst past and we had to beat your ass back into your box twice so it would be hard to try and deny it. Germany still acts like a puppy that shit on the couch in world politics. You’re all scared to catch your own reflection in the mirror.

−1

kerbaal t1_j4gtozw wrote

It was unauthorized access to computer devices, it was intentional destruction.

Iran owns their land, they own their uranium, they have every right to develop nuclear power. I really do think its the height of arrogance that we should be screwing with them when us screwing with them created the regime that has existed for the past 45 years.

−17

CupResponsible797 t1_j4guo06 wrote

In the same vein you presumably believe that the US should refrain from all foreign intelligence activities, right? This seems like a horribly naïve take.

> It was unauthorized access to computer devices, it was intentional destruction.

DoD is obviously not bound by these laws, otherwise just about everything they do would be criminal.

Keep in mind that the alternative to Stuxnet was a pre-emptive strike by Israel, the US worked hard to avoid that.

12

UsecMyNuts t1_j4h3ujw wrote

>it was unauthorised access to computer devices

In an attempt to stop a terrorist state getting nuclear weapons.

Im sure your cat videos and micro dick pics are much more important than nuclear attacks.

5

kerbaal t1_j4k8m40 wrote

> In an attempt to stop a terrorist state getting nuclear weapons.

also known as refining their own ore for nuclear power. I have seen no evidence other than the claims of mealy mouthed politicians that they had a weapons program at that time.

2

DarthPutler t1_j4gt7xx wrote

Because Iran is entitled to nukes as much as Israel, a literal apartheid state, is

−20

CupResponsible797 t1_j4gtxo4 wrote

Because Israel unfortunately has nuclear weapons, the US should not seek to prevent other states from getting them? How do you imagine that policy leading to a positive outcome?

In the end everybody would have nuclear weapons, leading to at least semi-regular use.

3

Fatal_Taco t1_j4ha4aj wrote

Good luck trying to bring literal above-the-law state actors of Israel and the US to court....

2

kerbaal t1_j4k8vj7 wrote

I don't expect it to happen; concepts of justice like that everyone is equal under the law and that the law exists to restrict the government as much as it does us are not popular with people who only want us to be a country of laws when its convenient for them.

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4lad9r wrote

> concepts of [...] and that the law exists to restrict the government as much as it does us

Such concept has literally never existed. Sovereign immunity on the other hand is an ages-old legal concept.

You're veering deep into sovereign citizen loony territory by even suggesting this.

1

kerbaal t1_j4mgctx wrote

> Such concept has literally never existed

Sure if you ignore the concept of rule of law or the very common phrase "nation of laws, not a nation of men".

> Sovereign immunity on the other hand is an ages-old legal concept.

And one that deserves to be nothing more than a footnote in the history of bad ideas that only ever served the people in power to the detriment of the people that they were supposed to be serving.

> You're veering deep into sovereign citizen loony territory by even suggesting this.

Not even close; I am veering into the concept of government as a public service, for the people and by the people. The whole point of a constitution is that government authority shouldn't be absolute ever again.

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4mizvh wrote

>Sure if you ignore the concept of rule of law or the very common phrase "nation of laws, not a nation of men".

Those do not mean what you think they mean.

These concepts are generally understood to mean that all members of society are considered equally subject to legal codes and processes, but the state is explicitly not a member of society.

>And one that deserves to be nothing more than a footnote in the history of bad ideas that only ever served the people in power to the detriment of the people that they were supposed to be serving.

There's a reason it has survived everywhere in the world for thousands of years, sovereign immunity is simply necessary for states to conduct their duties.

1

Raudskeggr t1_j4ht8k3 wrote

Whatever. Anything that keeps nuclear weapons out of the hands of the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism is a net positive to me.

2

kerbaal t1_j4k8j39 wrote

We already have nuclear weapons in the US.

0