News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by jonah on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @02:26PM (#11112445)
And the crazy thing is the other country doesn't even have to behave well or keep up its end of the bargain to maintain top-level status.
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by redthrowaway on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @02:40PM (#11112555)
Alliances are about geopolitics as much as how much we like countries' behaviour. Israel is an invaluable intelligence partner in the War on Terror and a natural ally against Iran. They're also the closest thing to a liberal democracy in the Middle East.

As long as the US continues to gain more from its alliance with Israel than it loses, the alliance will endure. No matter how much individual leaders may loathe each other.

Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by littletimmy on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @02:53PM (#11112662)
Not sure how this is true. What do you mean by "ally against Iran"? The US is Israel's ally against Iran, but what has the US against Iran if not for Israel? The entire point of contention between Iran and the US in today's world is Israel. Israel just expects us to fight for it.
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by samstave on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @03:04PM (#11112737)
I may be misinformed, but I believe the seed of the US' anti-Iran stance comes from Iran attempting to not allow exploitation of Iran by the British empire, our ally and mother, and then after, only because the country of Israel was born and we know their history with each other...

It's an empire-cock-blocking hate we have with Iran.

Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by throwaway27_35 on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @03:53PM (#11113046)
Israel was ruled by the British empire until 1948 but by 1956 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis) was friendly enough with Britain to side with them in a war. While I think your explanation is partially true, I think it is also an oversimplification. Why can some countries get over colonial interference, while others use it to justify everything they do?

This also begs the question what is Iran's main problem with Israel then? Israel wasn't involved in operation Ajax. Why is it the little Satan to America's great Satan?

Given their conduct in Syria, I find the "sympathy with the Palestinians" slightly hard to believe.

[dead]
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by dang on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @10:50PM (#11115134)
> Not even sure where to begin with this retarded comment

Creating a throwaway account so you can break HN's rules with impunity in a politically inflammatory thread is not ok.

Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, regardless of how strongly you feel about an issue.

Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by redthrowaway on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @12:32AM (#11115566)
The comment is this close to being constructive, too. Drop a couple of the words that your keyboard makes loud noises when you type and it'd be fine.
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by sydneysider on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @02:44PM (#11112587)
'War on Terror' - I like how you have capitalised this, I hope you don't actually believe it though?
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by delecti on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @02:50PM (#11112639)
You would capitalize Apple to refer to the company, even though it has nothing to do with fruit. In the same way, the War on Terror isn't necessarily an actual war on terror/terrorism.
Re:Unilateral Israeli changes to Stuxnet caused its exposure... by redthrowaway on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @02:48PM (#11112615)
It's a proper noun.