Netherlands played crucial role in infecting Iran with the Stuxnet virus | Hacker News Reader

Netherlands played crucial role in infecting Iran with the Stuxnet virus

volkskrant.nl

41 pointsarianvanp27 comments

Did you by accident remove the entire article from the front page instead of just this sub-discussion? It's a very interesting and relevant article. I'd prefer this sub-discussion to be nuked instead of the entire submission

That's because of a separate issue, which is that the article is not in English. That's not out of disrespect for the Dutch or the Dutch language (quite the opposite) but it is the convention of the site.

If I remember correctly, in the past I saw German articles being popular and discussed on HN (and even as a Dutchman I found it weird, so nothing against keeping a common language, I'm just curious). Was the policy on this changed at some point?

No, it's always been this way. But we miss some cases, because we don't come close to seeing everything on HN.

Thanks for the clarification! I see now an English version has been posted with quite a lively discussion :)

Back when liberal democracies were still united against tyrannical theocratic authoritarian regimes. Seems like it's been forever ago.

It's almost an alien concept in modern day isn't it.

All it took was one idiot. It's interesting how positive effect on society rarely emanates from single individuals but negative effect examples we have aplenty.

There is something fundamental at work here: destruction and creation are not symmetrical in the amount of effort and knowledge they require.

Who was that idiot exactly, Truman? Taylor? Monroe?

The USA has a long history of supporting repressive, violent dictatorships around the world. Maybe it's better excluded from the list of liberal democracies, I don't know.

No one truly does it alone

Absolutely a valid observation, every idiot needs a large multitude of enablers. But those never seem to be in short supply. Come to think of it, neither are the idiots.

They still are. But the US is getting a bit tired of doing all the work for the rest of the West.

Did you read the article? It's literally a great example of how the US (and Israel) needed to collaborate with 3 other countries to successfully pull off this mission. Not "doing all the work"

I think the comment's referring to the very large global backlash the US is receiving right now regarding being more strict with Iran from a nuclear perspective.

I think people are more obsessed with hating all of Trump's policies rather than actually understanding the situation with Iran. I would highly doubt that if the same situation occurred today, that the US would have the same sort of support against Iran, for better or worse.

Bingo. Things like stuxnet are exceptions that prove the rule.

The US has been largely alone in dealing with China and the Middle East. We’ve been alone fighting the worlds autocratic regimes lately. Where we have support we’ve had to push for it.

What has the US done to promote freedom? Nothing.

In China? They've setup trade restrictions. No effects on freedom.

In the Middle East? They've helped bomb ISIS, but they're merely supporting local anti-ISIS militias (think YPG/FSA) who do the real work/fight.

Worth noting: just like CIA armed then chased Ben Laden, US military intervention in Syria armed many many religious conservative militias in 2011, because they were afraid of an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist insurrection (which was and still is happening in Rojava). Many of these reactionary militias have since then joined ISIS.

Also worth noting: the US are a big supporter of Erdogan's Turkey, one of the most genocidal regimes in the region, and a key supplier to ISIS. Way more dangerous than the conservative republic of Iran, to any neutral observer.

So yeah, try to "deal with" your own country. There's plenty to fix on your side without pretending to worry about other people.

Same goes for my people (the french) who keep destroying/colonizing other countries (Libya, Mali, Guyane..) pretending they care about the population.

Truth is as much of a tyrant Qaddafi was, his violent overthrow by NATO directly caused the return of slavery for millions of black people in Libya. That's what happens when you bring guns to someone else's table to "deal with" their problems you have no idea/interest about.

The same people opposing US imperialism now were already denouncing Stuxnet for what it is back then.

Trump has changed only one thing: he's saying aloud (and proudly) what previous presidents did behind the people's backs.

Let the US government destroy their nukes, dismantle their army. Then they can start giving lessons about peace. Iran is much less of a danger to the world than the USA are.

Without the US (and the UK), Iran would still be a democracy and the situation would look very different.

As far as I'm concerned, the US is dealing with a mess of their own making. As they should. And I don't have to like the way they're going about it either.

When was that?

Not so long ago the same agency warned the US about the Russian hackers that were active during the presidential campaign. Does that count?

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/hackers-aivd-le...

I think especially on the digital front, we've been more 'united' than ever. For better or for worse

You forgot one minor detail, the tyrannical theocratic authoritarian regime they created.

Update: Before you downvote please read the history of Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

We have never been "united" against autocracies. There's no such point in history.

On the contrary, we've cheerfully supported autocracies, as long as they mostly play ball with our commercial and political priorities.

That's not to excuse the US's current batshit Iran policy, in which we've managed to successfully isolate ourselves diplomatically and gained more or less nothing in exchange.

> as long as they mostly play ball with our commercial and political priorities.

our?

Liberal democracies' generally.

Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well, we have a theocracy in Iran because 'a liberal democracy' did not like the democratic government that was developing in Iran. That nascent democratic government wanted to spend the natural resources of its country in a way that benefited their own, rather then corporations of the other democracy.

> tyrannical theocratic authoritarian regimes.

Yes, the authoritarian regime that bans women from having equal rights and access to basic medical services or control over reproductive rights. The authoritarian regime that continues to enslave, murder and in general treats part of the population as subhuman based on their skin color. The authoritarian regime that has a track record of financing terrorism, of enabling corporations to create banana republics, of creating false flag attacks, invading other countries willy nilly, of dropping atomic bombs on other nations, of testing nuclear weapons on tribal populations. I hope we can have regime change in that tyrannical place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com