Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman says that while the former US president's remark on Russian immigrants in Israel is 'regrettable,' it is overly-simplistic not racist
Nonsense... and this is why we can not count on the ADL. Clinton and his wife have a history of ethnic cleansing against Jews in Judea and Samaria. The context is clear. Racism is always too simple. He is complaining that the Israeli state is growing. Shame on Bill Clinton and shame on the ADL for enabling our enemies again.
Bill Clinton managed to offend Israeli politicians across the board with his comments at the Clinton Global Initiative this week disparaging Russian immigrants to Israel.
Top Israeli officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Soviet dissident turned Israeli parliamentarian Natan Sharansky, reacted with disappointment Wednesday to comments by former President Bill Clinton casting Israel's Russian immigrant population as an obstacle to the Middle East peace process. Sharansky even accused Clinton of inappropriately trafficking in ethnic stereotypes about Israelis.
"If the reports of President Clinton's comments are accurate, I am particularly disappointed by the president's casual use of inappropriate stereotypes about Israelis, dividing their views on peace based on ethnic origins. I must add that these are uncharacteristic comments from a man who has always been a sensitive and thoughtful listener and conversation partner," said Sharansky, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
...
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also reacted strongly Wednesday, calling Clinton's comments "distressing," according to the Israeli news wire Ynet.
"As a friend of Israel, Clinton should know that the immigrants from the former Soviet Union have contributed and are making a great contribution to the advancement, development and strengthening of the IDF and the State of Israel. Only a strong Israel can establish solid and safe peace," Netanyahu reportedly said.
Sharansky also denied that he participated in a conversation with Clinton years ago where he used his Russian identity as a reason to oppose a land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians.
...
Yisrael Beitenu, an Israeli political party whose supporters are made up of mostly Russian immigrants, called Clinton's comments "crude generalizations." Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver, one of the leaders of the party, said that nobody should attempt to divide Israeli groups in such a way.
"The immigrants of Russia contributed to the development of the state of Israel in every field, including science, culture, sports, economy and defense. This year, the entire country is celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Russian aliyah. This shows that the Israeli people are united," the Jerusalem Post reported her saying.
Not all Israeli leaders were upset. Coalition Chairman and Russian immigrant Zeev Elken praised Clinton's remarks. "I am proud of former President Clinton's distinctions. He made the right distinction that the Russian speakers and settlers have been carrying the Zionism banner in the State of Israel in recent years," he told Ynet.
I guess that calling 'settlers' an 'obstacle to peace' is okay for most people, even in Israel. But at least Zev Elkin (Likud) acknowledges that they're Zionists.
It's a few minutes before eight in the morning on Tuesday, and the 30 or so journalists who have assembled to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the conference room of a midtown Manhattan hotel are gorging themselves on lox and bagels and wondering whether the buffet is some kind of sly catering joke. A prominent TV personality seated next to me is approached by an Iranian film crew wanting to know her thoughts about their president. She says something cringingly obsequious about how gracious he is for making himself available to the media.
Columnist Bret Stephens broke bread this week with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
I suppose she's simply trying to be polite, and perhaps taking care not to say anything that could cause trouble for her or her colleagues down the road. But it dawns on me that the exchange also captures the central dynamic of the meeting. We get access to Ahmadinejad—and the feeling of self-importance that goes with that. In exchange, we pay him court.
The first question goes to an editor from Fortune magazine, who wants to know how the Iranian economy is doing. Ahmadinejad devotes a good 10 minutes to extolling Iran's economic strengths—industrial exports have "tripled"; investment in infrastructure is way up; the service sector is thriving; agriculture has experienced "a gradual but consistent pattern of growth."
All of this is, of course, a lie, which is why the regime no longer allows its Central Bank to publish economic statistics. And yet it is a flawlessly delivered lie, spoken in the kind of modulated tone you would expect from an IMF technocrat. As a matter of performance, it's masterful. And while none of us in the audience believes a word of Ahmadinejad's answer, we believe him the way we believe Al Pacino when he inhabits a role. We believe his self-belief. And we wonder whether he believes it, too.
Next question: the nuclear talks. "There is a good chance that talks will resume in the near future." Suddenly he has slipped back into an objective reality. Sure enough, word comes down the following day that the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have "reaffirmed our commitment to continued and active engagement" with Iran, in the words of the EU's Catherine Ashton. The U.S. is a party to that statement.
Somebody asks about the status of opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, both of whose offices were raided this month. Ahmadinejad flatly denies this, and once again we make a seamless transition back to the realm of the perfect lie, perfectly told.
Now CNN's Fareed Zakaria asks Ahmadinejad whether he would accept whatever deal Palestinians might strike with Israel in the current negotiations.
The question is meant as a trap—if he says no, he is potentially contradicting the Palestinians; if yes, he might have to recognize Israel's right to exist. Ahmadinejad's answer showcases his rhetorical gifts. He says he has no trouble deferring to the wishes of Palestinians; he merely wishes they be represented by the people they actually elected, meaning Hamas. In a stroke, he has put himself on the side of democracy and exposed the central fallacy of the current peace process, which is that a majority of Palestinians want to co-exist with a Jewish state called Israel.
A little later, under questioning about Iran's obstruction of U.N. nuclear inspectors, he points out that the "Zionist regime" operates under no U.N. nuclear strictures. Which makes for a powerful argument the moment you accept the premises of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
By this point the questioning has become a little more testy. Ahmadinejad remains unflappable, even bemused. But there's also an undercurrent of menace in his answers, as if he knows he owes his audience the frisson of danger that is his trademark. In response to a question about a prospective Israeli airstrike, he says "the Zionist regime is a very small entity on the map and doesn't really factor into our decisions." As for a U.S. attack, he warns that "war is not just bombing someplace. When the war starts, it knows no limits."
In the New York Times's account of the breakfast, reporter Neil MacFarquhar—who asked an opaque question about Cyrus the Great and was roundly mocked for it by Ahmadinejad—described the president's remarks as "standard talking points" plus "a little fresh bluster." Perhaps I haven't achieved the appropriate degree of jadedness, but my own impression of Ahmadinejad was that he was easily the smartest guy in the room. He mocked us in a way we scarcely had the wit to recognize. We belittle him at our peril.
Strange, isn’t it? If Obama can believe that his domestic opponents are bitter haters who want to hold onto their guns and religion, why can’t he comprehend that this is true for a long list of countries and radical movements abroad?
...“Men, women and children have been murdered by extremists from Casablanca to London; from Jalalabad to Jakarta.”
Note that three of the four places listed are in Muslim-majority countries, disguising the fact that most of these attacks were Islamists trying to kill Westerners. Obama should want to win over governments in Muslim majority countries but he goes a step further, making Muslims as the victims rather than focusing on building a broad international coalition.
For that purpose, Obama should have listed more places. It would have been smart of him to mention Russia, India, and China. These are important powers whose support Obama needs. He might have remembered the Asian victims like Thailand and the Philippines. A mention of Israel would have been decent.
just one of the man screwy claims Obama made. He also said by next year there would be a state of Palestine. Does he intend to use the military as Samantha Powers said she would recommend? One wonders how that will happen since Fayyad refuses to recognize a "Two State" solution... which frankly is a silly term since there already are three states in the former British Mandate of Palestine.
After years in the spotlight and two years in the White House a media outlet is finally reporting on Barack Obama’s Muslim youth.
Malik Obama, older Muslim brother to Barack Obama, holds an undated picture of Barak, left, and himself, middle, and an unidentified friend in his shop in eastern Kenya. (Karel Prinsloo, AP)
AS a schoolboy in Jakarta, Barack Obama attended Muslim prayer sessions with his classmates against the wishes of his mother.
The US President’s former grade three teacher said that Mr Obama – who was known as “Barry” when he attended the Menteng One school in Jakarta – studied the Koran and went to classes on Islam, despite the objections of Anne Dunham, a Roman Catholic.
The teacher’s recollections will add to speculation about Mr Obama’s links to Islam during his much-anticipated visit to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, as part of his ten-day tour of Asia.
His middle name, Hussein, and the fact that his stepfather was a Muslim, have combined to perpetuate rumours about Mr Obama’s religious leanings. The number of Americans who think that he is a Muslim has grown since his inauguration to one in five.
Mr Obama moved to Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, when he was 6, and lived there for four years. In his memoirs he recalled his time in the country as the “bounty of a young man’s life” and there is affection and pride among Indonesians for the boy who ended up as President of the United States.
The teacher, Effendi, who taught at Menteng One for 29 years, remembers Mr Obama as a “fat, curly-haired, curious boy”. The school had an international mix of pupils, including Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims. Mr Obama attended classes on Islam while the Christians attended classes on Christianity, said Effendi. Barry, he said, was alone among the pupils in that he insisted on attending both.
“His mother did not like him learning Islam, although his father was a Muslim. Sometimes she came to the school; she was angry with the religious teacher and said ‘Why did you teach him the Koran?’” said Effendi.
“But he kept going to the classes because he was interested in Islam. He would also join the other pupils for Muslim prayers.”
Both Barack Obama’s father and step-father were Muslim.
More of Islam's talisman values. It is believed that the person is endowed with special powers when it is worn right!
Kick-boxers in Malaysia’s Kelantan state are bemoaning rules imposed by its Islamist government that require them to don a T-shirt while banning shorts, tattoos and talismans as part of a policy to instil Muslim values, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, the country’s largest opposition party, which governs the state in north-eastern Malaysia came out with the conditions three months ago for kick-boxing, or tomoi as it is known in the state.
Kelantan Tomoi Boxing Association president Ramli Ibrahim told The Star that organizers of competitions have been informed about the new rules but he was sceptical about their chances of being obeyed.
“The feedback I got was that the organizers will find it very difficult to get the boxers to cover up their ’aurat,’” he was quoted as saying. Aurat refers to the body parts that should be covered up, according to Islam, which for men means the area between the navel and knees.
“But this matter can be resolved if organizers understand what it takes to keep the sport alive,” he added.
Kelantan government sports official Mohamed Ridza Mohamed Zain was reported as saying Sunday that the state wanted to instil Islamic values in sports. He said that was why the government was tightening up regulations in all sports, including tomoi, to ensure they conform to the Islamic policy championed by the state.
Another condition is that all competitions must have at least three teams with Kelantanese fighters and one team from Thailand.
Kick-boxing was introduced to Kelantan from neighbouring Thailand, where talismans and tattoos are common in the sport.
Fareed Zakaria lied. Israel is not in conflict with any International Laws concerning Nuclear Bombs. To not even mention this is why you know this news programs is biased.
After months of sending conflicting signals about whether Russia would fulfill a controversial contract to supply advanced S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Iran, the Kremlin has ordered a halt to all sales of sophisticated Russian weaponry to the Islamic Republic.
A decree signed by President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday bans the supply of battle tanks, armored vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, warplanes, military helicopters, ships, and missiles – including S-300 air defense systems – to Iran as part of measures to bring Russia into compliance with tough sanctions agreed by the UN Security Council in June.
Iran has purchased more than $5 billion in Russian weaponry over the past decade, including Tor-M1 short-range antiaircraft missiles, warplanes, submarines, and armored vehicles.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said unspecified defense cooperation with Iran would continue, despite the end of major arms sales. "There are other directions," he told journalists.
The ban on weapons sales has been praised by the US and Israel, but was angrily denounced by Iran, which has felt increasingly alienated over the past year by Mr. Medvedev's Westward foreign policy drift.
"We think Russia should show it has an independent stance in choosing its relations with other countries as well as on international issues," Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said on state-run TV. "They have not done it so far."
The deal to supply five batteries of long-range S-300 air-defense missiles, which are similar to the US Patriot system, worth almost $1 billion was signed in 2007, and had been the subject of rumor, controversy, and diplomatic shenanigans until now.
There has also been considerable debate inside Russia, with many conservative politicians arguing that Moscow's global credibility as an arms merchant and its influence with long-time economic partner Iran would suffer if the contract were canceled.
But the Kremlin appears to have made a carefully calibrated compromise by deciding last month to complete the long-stalled Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran as a friendly gesture to Iran, while quietly deciding to shelve the missile deal.
"We do not have any illusions about the character of the Iranian regime at all," Mikhail Margelov, who heads the security committee of the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament, told journalists at the time.
"That is why, if we cooperate with Iran in the field of nuclear energy, as we do by completing Bushehr, we do so because this is the only legal mechanism to keep them cooperating with the international institutions," he said.
A law professor at the University of Chicago, where President Barack Obama once taught, is sorry he ever complained about the president’s tax policies.
Todd Henderson last week wrote on a blog about the effect the expiring Bush tax cuts would have on his family. He said his family, whose household income is north of $250,000, could not afford higher taxes. His wife is a doctor at the University of Chicago Hospitals.
“A quick look at our family budget, which I will happily share with the White House, will show him that like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t,” Henderson wrote on the blog “Truth on the Market.”
He then went on to disclose some personal details about his family’s finances. He paid $100,000 in federal and state taxes last year and $15,000 property taxes. He has a big mortgage, more than $250,000 in student loans, two cars, a nanny and a lawn service.
He concluded by inviting the president to his house, which is two blocks from the Obamas, and to “judge for himself whether the Hendersons are as rich as he thinks.”
His complaints caused quite a stir in the blogosphere, as commenters attacked Henderson as whiny rich guy who doesn’t know how he good he has it in today’s economy. His blog post went viral, inviting commentary from a California professor who called Henderson’s position on taxes an “amazing pasticcio of mendacity, ignorance, and small-minded cupidity.”
The subject of the rich angry about the expiring tax cuts even spurred an essay by Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner and New York Times columnist, published on Sunday.
But the hostility came as a shock to Henderson, who on Monday deleted his original post. In apologizing for removing the post, he wrote, “The electronic lynch mob that has attacked and harassed me — you should see the emails sent to me personally! — has made my family feel threatened and insecure.” He revealed that his wife did not approve of his post and disagrees “vehemently” with his opinion.
His original post still lives on the Internet. Other bloggers quickly found a Google cache of Henderson’s original post and wrote up their own items about it. On Tuesday, Henderson wrote that he will no longer be posting on the blog.
Henderson declined to talk to the Tribune about the controversy.
Crocodiles eat fish, birds, mammals and occasionally smaller crocodiles. via en.wikipedia.org
pitch fork mob against a man who comes from the same educational community as Obama. I caught this post being spread by a well known Palestinian activist.
they must have a problem in the sewage system in Chicago:
Did these racist 3-year-olds committed a crime against multiculturalism by calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree or something?
(Daily Mail) Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged ‘racist’ language, it was claimed last night.
Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Race Relations Act 2000.
More than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said.
Writing in Prospect magazine, she said: ‘The more we seek to measure racism, the more it seems to grow.
‘Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave.
‘Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety.’
The Act compelled 43,000 public authorities, including schools and churches, ‘to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups’. Details of the incidents are logged on databases.
Teachers are allowed to report racism even if the alleged ‘victim’ was not offended or if the child does not understand what they were saying.
Freedom of Information replies obtained by civil liberties group the Manifesto Club show that between 2002 and 2009, 280,000 incidents have been reported.
Contrary to reports last week, Congress (Representatives Howard Berman (D-Cal), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) and Nita Lowey (D-NY) is still holding up US military aid to Lebanon.
U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said Wednesday that the Pentagon was working closely with Congressmen to resolve their concerns over military assistance to Lebanon.
"We are working closely with members of the U.S. Congress to resolve the concerns they have over military assistance to Lebanon," said Flournoy following talks with Premier Saad Hariri at the Grand Serail.
She reiterated U.S. commitment to Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity and the full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701.
"We remain determined to work with the Lebanese government to extend its authority over all of Lebanon, and to advance political and economic reforms that benefit the people of Lebanon," she said.
Flournoy said this commitment includes U.S. support to the Lebanese army to help the Lebanese government exercise its sovereignty and authority over all of its territory.
This is nonsense. The Lebanese government is controlled by Hezbullah and unfortunately only a civil war will stand a chance of removing that control. The Lebanese army, under the watchful eyes of UNIFIL, has allowed the reconstitution of Hezbullahland in southern Lebanon. Worst of all, the Lebanese army is now under the control of Hezbullah.
US military aid to Lebanon ought to be withheld. Lebanon is on the wrong side.
(UK) Abrahim Ghait is something of a celebrity amongst Muslims. In fact so much of a superstar is Abraahim that the UK Arabic Society invited him over to the Uk from his native Libya so he could preach at a number of mosques during Ramadan. The problem for the UK Arabic Society was that Mr Ghait was arrested for flashing his nether regions to women and little girls during Ramadan and for doing so, he was jailed for 6 weeks.
Well instead of admitting that inviting Mr Ghait may have been a big mistake. The UK Arabic Society is playing the victim card by saying that;
"There was no way the imam would have committed the acts, and that it would destroy his future and reputation.and believed Ghait had only pleaded guilty in the hope that he would get a non-custodial sentence, which would have allowed him to go home to Libya where he had urgent business."
Right
His defence came out with:
Ghait had been through a huge culture shock in coming to the UK, and that he was from a very isolated background in the Libyan desert and didn't really know much about the world and that he had extremely bad piles and was due to have surgery at home.
What is with religious people presuming that a so called holy-man cannot be found guilty of human desires and vices. Which may explain why Mr El Haddad (head of the UK Arabic society )finished off bitching by saying:
"The situation is unacceptable and I don't believe he did it.He only pleaded guilty because he wasn't expecting to go to prison, and because of the pressure on him to go back home quickly.There is no way that he would have done something like this. Do you think that a leader of a church would harm its community? It was a park, in the middle of the town, in the middle of the day.He was here leading people in prayer, it was in Ramadan when he was fasting, and he is not supposed to even look at a woman.He is a world-famous imam of a mosque in Libya and has spent 15 years learning the Koran .It is destroying the future of a key person. It is crazy, and I just can't believe it."
Russian technicians work at Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran
On August 5, I reported on the strong evidence that Iran had become the target of a state-sponsored cyber attack.
At that point it was already understood that the Stuxnet computer worm was almost certainly targeting Iran since that was the location of 60% of the computer systems affected. Moreover, since the worm targets Siemens SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) management systems that control energy utilities, and since its design strongly suggested that it had been created for sabotage, it seemed likely that the specific target was Iran’s nuclear program. A German team of industrial cyber security experts who have analyzed the way the worm operates now claim that it may have been designed to attack the newly operational Bushehr nuclear reactor.
Ralph Langner envisages that the highly sophisticated attack would have required a preparation team that included “intel, covert ops, exploit writers, process engineers, control system engineers, product specialists, military liaison.”
The Christian Science Monitor reports:
Since reverse engineering chunks of Stuxnet’s massive code, senior US cyber security experts confirm what Mr. Langner, the German researcher, told the Monitor: Stuxnet is essentially a precision, military-grade cyber missile deployed early last year to seek out and destroy one real-world target of high importance — a target still unknown.
“Stuxnet is a 100-percent-directed cyber attack aimed at destroying an industrial process in the physical world,” says Langner, who last week became the first to publicly detail Stuxnet’s destructive purpose and its authors’ malicious intent. “This is not about espionage, as some have said. This is a 100 percent sabotage attack.”
On his website, Langner lays out the Stuxnet code he has dissected. He shows step by step how Stuxnet operates as a guided cyber missile. Three top US industrial control system security experts, each of whom has also independently reverse-engineered portions of Stuxnet, confirmed his findings to the Monitor.
“His technical analysis is good,” says a senior US researcher who has analyzed Stuxnet, who asked for anonymity because he is not allowed to speak to the press. “We’re also tearing [Stuxnet] apart and are seeing some of the same things.”
Other experts who have not themselves reverse-engineered Stuxnet but are familiar with the findings of those who have concur with Langner’s analysis.
“What we’re seeing with Stuxnet is the first view of something new that doesn’t need outside guidance by a human – but can still take control of your infrastructure,” says Michael Assante, former chief of industrial control systems cyber security research at the US Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. “This is the first direct example of weaponized software, highly customized and designed to find a particular target.”
“I’d agree with the classification of this as a weapon,” Jonathan Pollet, CEO of Red Tiger Security and an industrial control system security expert, says in an e-mail.
Langner’s research, outlined on his website Monday, reveals a key step in the Stuxnet attack that other researchers agree illustrates its destructive purpose. That step, which Langner calls “fingerprinting,” qualifies Stuxnet as a targeted weapon, he says.
Langner zeroes in on Stuxnet’s ability to “fingerprint” the computer system it infiltrates to determine whether it is the precise machine the attack-ware is looking to destroy. If not, it leaves the industrial computer alone. It is this digital fingerprinting of the control systems that shows Stuxnet to be not spyware, but rather attackware meant to destroy, Langner says.
Langer speculates that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant may have been the Stuxnet target. He also writes: “The forensics that we are getting will ultimately point clearly to the attacked process — and to the attackers. The attackers must know this. My conclusion is, they don’t care. They don’t fear going to jail.”
If Bushehr was indeed the target, it may have presented itself first and foremost as a target of opportunity. From the point of view of governments with an interest in sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program, Bushehr would not be the most attractive target, but access provided to Russian contractors may have made it the easiest target.
Last September, Reuters reported: “Israel has been developing ‘cyber-war’ capabilities that could disrupt Iranian industrial and military control systems.”
So let’s assume that using Stuxnet, Israel has indeed launched the world’s first precision, military-grade cyber missile. What are the implications?
1. Iran has been served notice that not only its nuclear facilities but its whole industrial infrastructure is vulnerable to attack. As Trevor Butterworth noted: “By demonstrating how Iran could so very easily experience a Chernobyl-like catastrophe, or the entire destruction of its conventional energy grid, the first round of the ‘war’ may have already been won.”
2. The perception that it has both developed capabilities and shown its willingness to engage in cyberwarfare, will serve Israel as a strategic asset even if it never admits to having launched Stuxnet.
3. When it comes to cyberwarfare, Israel ranks as a major global power. It’s own tiny infrastructure makes it much less vulnerable to attack than is the sprawling infrastructure of the United States. It’s highly developed military IT industry means that it not only has great domestic human resources but that Israeli IT specialists, through research and employment, have the best possible access to most of the leading development facilities and vendors around the world.
4. As a cyber arms race takes off, we should not imagine that it will be like other arms races where power resides more in capabilities than in the use of those capabilities. “Whereas nuclear weapons have been used twice in human history, cyber weapons are employed daily and there is therefore an existential need to create some form of regulatory system that allows more than implicit deterrence,” says Robert Fry.
5. If AQ Khan demonstrated the ease with which a nuclear proliferation network can operate, the fact that the raw material upon which cyberwarfare is based is arguably the most easily transferable object on the planet — computer code — means that in certain ways the era of cyberwarfare may prove to be more dangerous than the nuclear era.
6. In the strategic landscape of cyberwarfare the most dangerous player may turn out to be a small but highly developed fortress-state that feels threatened by much of the rest of the world; that neither trusts nor is trusted by any of its allies; that sees its own stability enhanced by regional instability; that has seen its own economic fortunes rise while the global economy suffers; and that views with contempt the notion of an international community.
Paul Woodward says it like a Computer Virii Vs. Iran is a bad thing? Also... Israel is not the only people in the world that want Iran's Nuclear advancement to move offline. There are myriads of states that fear Iran. I probably shouldn't be posting this in that this site is beyond bias... but I was amused by the story.
Langner's analysis also shows, step by step, what happens after Stuxnet finds its target. Once Stuxnet identifies the critical function running on a programmable logic controller, or PLC, made by Siemens, the giant industrial controls company, the malware takes control. One of the last codes Stuxnet sends is an enigmatic “DEADF007.” Then the fireworks begin, although the precise function being overridden is not known, Langner says. It may be that the maximum safety setting for RPMs on a turbine is overridden, or that lubrication is shut off, or some other vital function shut down. Whatever it is, Stuxnet overrides it, Langner’s analysis shows.
"After the original code [on the PLC] is no longer executed, we can expect that something will blow up soon," Langner writes in his analysis. "Something big."
For those worried about a future cyber attack that takes control of critical computerized infrastructure – in a nuclear power plant, for instance – Stuxnet is a big, loud warning shot across the bow, especially for the utility industry and government overseers of the US power grid.
"The implications of Stuxnet are very large, a lot larger than some thought at first," says Mr. Assante, who until recently was security chief for the North American Electric Reliability Corp. "Stuxnet is a directed attack. It's the type of threat we've been worried about for a long time. It means we have to move more quickly with our defenses – much more quickly."
Has Stuxnet already hit its target?
It might be too late for Stuxnet's target, Langner says. He suggests it has already been hit – and destroyed or heavily damaged. But Stuxnet reveals no overt clues within its code to what it is after.
A geographical distribution of computers hit by Stuxnet, which Microsoft produced in July, found Iran to be the apparent epicenter of the Stuxnet infections. That suggests that any enemy of Iran with advanced cyber war capability might be involved, Langner says. The US is acknowledged to have that ability, and Israel is also reported to have a formidable offensive cyber-war-fighting capability.
Could Stuxnet's target be Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, a facility much of the world condemns as a nuclear weapons threat?
Langner is quick to note that his views on Stuxnet's target is speculation based on suggestive threads he has seen in the media. Still, he suspects that the Bushehr plant may already have been wrecked by Stuxnet. Bushehr's expected startup in late August has been delayed, he notes, for unknown reasons. (One Iranian official blamed the delay on hot weather.)
But if Stuxnet is so targeted, why did it spread to all those countries? Stuxnet might have been spread by the USB memory sticks used by a Russian contractor while building the Bushehr nuclear plant, Langner offers. The same contractor has jobs in several countries where the attackware has been uncovered.
"This will all eventually come out and Stuxnet's target will be known," Langner says. "If Bushehr wasn't the target and it starts up in a few months, well, I was wrong. But somewhere out there, Stuxnet has found its target. We can be fairly certain of that."
Photoshop thanks to Counter Jihad via 
A German team of industrial cyber security experts who have analyzed the way the worm operates now claim that it may have been designed to attack the newly operational Bushehr nuclear reactor.
