The future of warfare! Very cool, yet very scary!

[BrianFromWA]

I see no reason to think the NY Times made this up, except political bias, of course. It's not surprising sources would not care to be named. I understand that the rule of thumb for responsible journalism (not radio/TV screech show hosts) in such cases is information confirmed by two independent sources.

I haven't seen someone say the NYT made it up. I specifically said

they're suggesting a joint act of war against Iran with a lot of "clues" and little "fact".

What "information" was confirmed by two sources? That someone grinned? And therefore the "chief of the mysteries" (who did this?) was solved with the answer of "US and Israel", even though elsewhere in the piece it brings up "several authors on several continents"? Please, enlighten me if you can. My "political bias" must be getting in the way.

But I will say a triumph of brain over brawn. John McCain sang and laughed about bombing Iran, some commentators called for a US invasion of Iran (and therfore involving the US in a third war that is not paid for), both of which would have cost thousands of civilian lives.

It's comic to me that the first thing you bring up in "involving the US in a third war" is the "thousands of civilian lives" lost in a country 10000 miles away, rather than the citizens you're sending into harm's way who happen to wear uniforms and flags on their shoulders. C'est la vie, I guess.

If this information is correct, the desired result was achieved with no bloodshed. Maybe that's why Brian wants to think it was made up. How could that antichristmuslimnazicommunistsocialistblacknationalistforeignerobama actually do something useful?

I don't quite understand where the personal attack comes from. Did I say it was made up? Do you have any idea how I feel about this? Or would you like to actually talk about what I said, rather than what you hear, process through the hate filter, and then spit back out?

 

[BrianFromWA]

They are provable facts that excellent sources (in government and military) told Times reporters. The mystery is who are the sources, not what are the facts. The piecing together of facts (Brian boldfaced the words "clues" and "appears") is coming from the sources, not the reporters. The sources are using those two words.

Let's deconstruct the article, shall we?

Paragraph One: "never acknowledged" facts about Dimona. Fine.
Paragraph 2-4: each statement comes with "experts say", or "according to experts", etc.
Paragraph 5: Pure speculation, not including any quotes or acknowledging any officials, sources, or experts (even going so far as to say "American and Israeli officials refuse to talk publicly"), the author speculates that the operations there are "are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program." No source, jlprk, for the suggestion.
Paragraph 6-7: statements from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Degan.
Paragraph 8 (in entirety): "The biggest single factor in putting time on the nuclear clock appears to be Stuxnet, the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed."
As I pointed out, I'm not sure the NYT knows about who has what cyberweapons deployed. Neither of these two statement fragments is substantiated or sourced.
Paragraph 9: experts describe it as "better than what they thought in 2009".
Paragraph 10 starts with the following: "Many mysteries remain, chief among them, exactly who constructed a computer worm that appears to have several authors on several continents." It then attempts to piece together "intriguing bits of evidence." I'm not disputing their evidence or sources.
Paragraph 14: "The attacks were not fully successful: Some parts of Iran’s operations ground to a halt, while others survived, according to the reports of international nuclear inspectors. Nor is it clear the attacks are over: Some experts who have examined the code believe it contains the seeds for yet more versions and assaults." So, to look at this objectively....It's not clear that the attacks are over, experts believe more versions and assaults are coming, yet their unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion is that the attacks were not fully successful? Really? What were the criteria for "full success"?

And so on. If I have to continue saying this, I thought that there was some good stuff in there, and I'm not saying that the conclusions are right or wrong, or even if I know if they're right or wrong. Yet in at least 4 places on the front page of the article they made conclusions (based off of "guesses and clues") that weren't substantiated, and the conclusions they drew were dangerous, at least to my opinion. Take from it what you will.

 

[PapaG]

This thread is a prime example of how rabid partisans can't see through their own personal perspective on a simple news article, and instead of acknowledging an article that is in part speculatory, accept it as fact and then assign a position to their "opponent".

People like crandc show me why political "debate" is at such a basement level. Instead of arguing merits, we get red herrings and strawmen that have nothing to do with the actual content of a post that isn't arguing policy, but rather factual accuracy.

 

[PapaG]

Yet in at least 4 places on the front page of the article they made conclusions (based off of "guesses and clues") that weren't substantiated, and the conclusions they drew were dangerous, at least to my opinion. Take from it what you will.

I'm not sure that the conclusions are even dangerous, considering a critical reading of the article shows the author certainly does not try hide some of the speculation and assumptions made.

What is dangerous to me is that a person could read that and think that it was 100% factual, without even bothering to read or research the article on their own. That is how propaganda works on the masses.