> Essentially if an administration comes with an agenda to start a new war, they put the right people inside the State Department and then those guys just need to comb for anything (validated or not) to find "informants" to make the case for cyber attack. Followed by making the case in media that cyber attack is military attack and it requires military retaliation.
This will bypass the entire US intelligence system to validate the source of threat. It just needs one person to claim they were involve in cyber attack against US and it was sponsored by the government of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or any other country we want to go after.
That’s a very oversimplified odd narrative. Unlike Iraq and mysterious nuclear related material objects, cyber attacks are happening. And it’s quite evident US is lacking in this area. The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces that are substantiated not only by the US intelligence system but also by non-government entities.
Well sure, and just like in Iraq WMDs did actually exist at some point - the US sold some to Iraq - they were just destroyed.
The thing with cyberattacks is that they are even easier to misattribute. All it takes is for some country to use another countries tool, and then you've got actual evidence you can easily twist. That's how it works nowadays, you start with a kernel of truth or evidence, like the aluminium tubes in Iraq, and exaggerate wildly what suits your narrative. And it works, even to those that can know better.
My assertion was imprecise - the chemical weapons and the equipment to make them was technically bought from Italy Germany and the UK, but the US arranged for their sale to Iraq to go through and have advice to Iraq on how and where to use them.
I mean it's pretty commonly accepted at this point that Iraq was a US proxy for waging war in the middle east (similar to the mujihadeen against the russians)..I don't think it's too much of a stretch to arrive at the conclusion that the USA facilitated the sale of weapons of mass destruction (anthrax) to Iraq.
Even HN has torn a few of the analyses apart, e.g. when the auditors looked at Bezos' phone and claimed that a file from MBS might be malicious, HN called them out on the claims that it couldn't be decrypted:
Given that their entire analysis hinged on this one file being a malicious executable that couldn't be decrypted, well... suffice it to say I'm quite mistrustful of these things, especially when politics is involved.
That’s a very oversimplified odd narrative. Unlike Iraq and mysterious nuclear related material objects, cyber attacks are happening. And it’s quite evident US is lacking in this area. The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces that are substantiated not only by the US intelligence system but also by non-government entities.