Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Government Security Your Rights Online

China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? 142

Posted by samzenpus
from the most-favored-DoS-nation dept.
theodp writes "While Wikileaks itself is under a DoS attack, details about the US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks are starting to come out via the mainstream media. Among the most newsworthy, reports Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld, is one set which deals with the massive computer attack on Google and other companies which was first revealed last January. According to the NY Times, some of the new leaked cables point directly at China's Politburo for instigating the original attacks, which should shed some more light on why the White House and State Department backed Google so vociferously at the time. Developing, as Drudge likes to say."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack?

Comments Filter:
  • headline? (Score:1, Insightful)

    Hrm... an alternate headline might be: "Is the United States behind the DDoS attack on WikiLeaks?"
    • Re:headline? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by peragrin (659227) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @04:35PM (#34368052)

      So the USA suppresses information that china's government engaged in illegal hacking, and the USA is behind the DDOS attack on wikileaks. Why can't China be behind it after a US agent tells a chinese agent what is happening.

      I know because China is good and the USA is bad.

      • What? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Benfea (1365845)
        Didn't anyone tell you that you're only supposed to use that "blame America first" language when a Republican is in the White House? If you don't rescind your statement, I'm gonna tell all your freeper friends that you're an Obama supporter. :P
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by russotto (537200)

      Hrm... an alternate headline might be: "Is the United States behind the DDoS attack on WikiLeaks?"

      Naa, the US prefers the personal touch of hired goons. Either that or redirects to seizeddomains.com.

      • by Splab (574204)

        I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

        • Re:headline? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 28, 2010 @04:50PM (#34368204)

          I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

          He is smart enough not to leak Russian secrets.

        • I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

          Well, I gotta hand it to the guy for having some serious huevos. It's almost like they're all afraid to bump him off. Maybe they think he'll come back to haunt them by releasing his own death warrant on Wikileaks.

        • Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @05:18PM (#34368466)
          I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.

          The fact that he is still alive raises some questions, for me. WHY is he still alive if what he had to leak was as important as has been said? Was the information not as significant as we have been told? Is the CIA really off their game, and not capable of clandestine actions anymore?

          The US government knows what Assange knows, they say him divulging it will endanger security, yet they don't stop him? Is he a necessary demon, needed for the future of their security theater? Something about this saga just doesn't add up.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The US government has a known leaker who's talented at personally discrediting himself and deals primarily in proof of widely-known information that's humiliating (sometimes for our rivals rather than us, see this story!) but of low operational value. He also leaks to the public rather than foreign security services, and gives them a month or two for preemptive damage control.

            I'm sure he's not exactly in great graces, but the terrible PR of him coming down with a sudden case of the dead would quite possibly

            • The Leaker might not be a U.S. government employee, or even citizen. It might be a fifteen year old kid with a botnet that happened to get a few lucky strikes and upload stuff from a bunch of Pentagon and State Department hard drives.
              • by jeff4747 (256583)

                No, the leaker is this guy [wikipedia.org].

                What the OP was saying is that Assange is a useful tool, in that what he publishes isn't that harmful, yet. Plus he gives them months to work on damage control before publishing.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            You can ask the same question of Fidel Castro.

            ---
            "Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine, renounced his citizenship, defected to the Soviet union, married a soviet wife, came back to the USA with state department blessing ,and shot the president all during the hight of the cold war without any assistance from any outside agency whatsoever."
            -U.S. Government publication

            • Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Splab (574204) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @06:15PM (#34368940)

              That would be an act of war.

              Killing a citizen is just espionage and will get you in a big of hot water.

              • Historically, war has been waged for much smaller stuff. In the event war is initiated, it's all a matter of looking back to figure out "who started it"? Wikileaks could soon be playing a much larger part than it ever wanted too, including being a target of special ops.

                It's no longer child's play. I hope they realize this.

              • That would be an act of war.

                Yeah, Cuba is so going to jump on it and invade the USA - it's the only thing they've been waiting for!

          • Assassination of Julian Assange wouldn't accomplish anything. He's just the messenger.
            • Re:assassination (Score:5, Insightful)

              by bsDaemon (87307) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @08:39PM (#34370152)

              No, killing him would make him the message, and that would be worth something.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by nahdude812 (88157) *

                Killing him would make him a martyr, and would likely create more supporters of the WikiLeaks organization, including other people now willing to be a figurehead, but probably better capable of hiding themselves (such as the owners of botnets which possess tremendous capacity to hide their origin).

                Killing Assange would not halt the flow of information. WikiLeaks is a hydra, cut off its head, and two more will grow in its place. Killing him would likely increase the flow of information, and would legitimiz

          • Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Dan East (318230) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @06:46PM (#34369108) Homepage Journal

            Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be? If this happened to any of several dozen other countries Assange would be dead already, and there is no doubt that he would be dead if the CIA were ordered to make it so.

            Actually, I'm surprised some other country hasn't had him killed just to place blame on the US.

            • Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by jandersen (462034) on Monday November 29, 2010 @04:01AM (#34372404)

              Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?

              Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?

              America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.

          • by rbarreira (836272)

            What good would it be for them to kill him?

            Would it stop people from leaking and divulging information? No.

            Would it make people stop caring about the leaks? No, on the contrary.

            You also don't know what kind of "dead man switches" Wikileaks may have implemented. Perhaps a barrage of damaging classified information could come out at once. Maybe something that really shouldn't / won't be revealed like the locations of CIA agents, etc.

            • If Assange were assassinated it would raise the stakes of leaks pretty substantially. I suspect it might cause at least some whistle-blowers to think twice.

              Ultimately, if everyone's guess as to who leaked the documents is true, Wikileaks got very lucky in being in the right place at the right time. They probably won't get such a mother lode again any time soon.

        • They need to find some to give him a code red

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by duffbeer703 (177751)

          Since Assange claims to be in regular contact with the US government and leaks lots of stuff of questionable value, there's a good chance that he's a total fraud. Supposedly this was all leaked by that army PFC... so the data have been sat on for months.

          If you read magazines like the Economist or Foreign Affairs, you've already read paraphrased summaries of all of this stuff. My guess is that these leaks contain misinformation to misdirect folks like the Chinese who have already hacked State Department netw

      • Troll mods (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @06:57PM (#34369194) Homepage Journal
        I suspect I might disagree with a more detailed explanation of your viewpoint, but I vehemently disagree with the anonymous use of mod points to beat you down with a Troll mod, simply because the moderator disagrees with you.
    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Can't get much more paranoid then that. Yep, the US is behind the evils of the entire world.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        To be perfectly honest, if you look at the flow of money and the financing and who has placed particular political groups in strategic positions of power around the globe, the mathematical conclusion is that, yes, the United States _is_ behind a good portion of the world's grief.

        If, however, you do not like that option then you are free to conduct your own research and determine who is providing the United States with financial authority and pulling their strings to direct how that money is dispersed. Vici

    • Unlikely. The US government arn't complete idiots (At least not all of the time) and must be well aware that Wikileaks has backups all over the world, including I imagine quite a few that arn't publicly known. With their paranoia, they probably have volunteers sitting on backups with instructions to send them to every paper they can if anything happens. A DoS isn't going to do anything more than delay the release by an hour or two at most. It may be another government, or it could be some well-meaning patri
      • I know. I was trying to be funny, but I forgot the last line of the post, which should have been:

        *ducks*

        The U.S. government is very unlikely to be behind a DDoS attack of the wikileaks web site. These types of attacks typically reveal the political leanings of some 15 year old botmaster who happens to p0wn fifty or a hundred thousand unsuspecting zombie home PCs with cable internet access.
  • I forgot to *duck*.
  • Well I guess then that the earlier mentioned possibility that CIA is behind WikiLeaks also could be true. It is extremely wild theory but these days nothing about how the U.S. government and it's intelligence agencies work couldn't surprise me.
    • by Tranzistors (1180307) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @04:51PM (#34368224)

      There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sepodati (746220)

        And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?

        • And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?

          1. mind the "more or less". Fine, I should have said "evidence" instead;
          2. OP is making a point (as brief as it is), that conformation to suspicions are pointless. I am saying, that the more evidence the better. Because, you know, a lot of people don't believe all the crap that is said on the internet, and internal US intelligence is a nice second opinion.
          • by Sepodati (746220)

            I understand what you're saying, but this is just another data point. This isn't "US Intelligence", it's Ambassador Bob saying Mr. Chu said "blah, blah, blah". Be careful how much weight you assign to individual data points.

  • Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JakFrost (139885) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @04:45PM (#34368140)

    I think that hardly anyone is surprised that China's Politburo (a group of 24 people who oversee the Communist Party of China) was behind the hacking of the Chinese Google office computers. You can see the seriousness of the issue after reading Google's response to the hacking and their threat to pull out of China all together and also after reading the Department of the State's involvement in this issue. The Department of the State, and someone as high up as Hillary Clinton, getting involved in this issue shows how important this single hacking event was, and not just because Google is everyone's the current favorite company.

    US asks China to explain Google hacking claims [guardian.co.uk]

    Bobbie Johnson in San Francisco
    guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 08.19 GMT

    Hillary Clinton calls on Beijing to answer 'serious concerns' over internet security
    Google pulls out of China: what the bloggers are saying

    The US government is investigating allegations of a Chinese hacking attack on Google amid what Washington called "serious concerns" over internet security.

    The strike, which the company said was aimed at uncovering information linked to political dissidents in the country, led Google to announce last night that it would no longer censor its search engine in China.

    The move could result in Google being forced to pull out of China four years after it controversially announced its intention to launch a censored version of google.cn, the local version of its search engine.

    Faced with a conflict between one of America's most powerful companies and the Chinese government, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, called on Beijing to discuss the situation.

  • by thesandbender (911391) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @04:45PM (#34368148)
    The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them. If they're behind the DDoS the goal probably isn't blacking out WikiLeaks... just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).

    It makes sense for a few reasons:

    1. The Chinese government has already proven they're not above this.
    2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
    3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.

    There's also a good chance it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by martas (1439879)

      it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.

      Uh huh, and what exactly are you basing this on? Not saying it's not true, but I've seen this opinion on /. pretty much every time there's a wikileaks related article, and I'm just trying to figure out what I missed ('cause I don't recall any incident that'd justify such an opinion about Assange).

      • I'll freely admit this is a WAG (Wild Ass Guess).
      • by StikyPad (445176)

        If you watch any of his interviews (twice on the Colbert Report, for example), it's pretty clear that he revels in the attention. He oozes more smug than a coffee shop full of Macbook Pro users who think the J in WWJD stands for Jobs, which is, incidentally, enough smug to power Wikileaks for 3-4 years.

        I say this agreeing completely with the philosophy of Wikileaks. It would be nice to have a more affable face on the organization, but nothing's perfect.

        • by martas (1439879)
          OK, you get +5 most awesome analogies. That being said, I just watched one of the Colbert interviews, and I didn't get the same impression as obviously you did. It was the interview about the apache attack, and Colbert did raise a very good question -- that they called the [edited] video "collateral murder" to essentially manipulate public opinion for maximum outrage, hence turning Wikileaks into an editorial, rather than a pure journalistic outlet. That I agree with, and it is perhaps a regrettable aspect
          • by StikyPad (445176)

            I concede that your distinction may be valid, but WikiLeaks isn't exactly hurting for attention in the first place. I admit I'm a cynic, but it seems to me that the only agenda served by Assange doing a talk-show is that of satisfying a personal desire for publicity and/or validation. Now you may be right that he's of the mind that drawing (more) attention to the issue at any price is worthwhile, but I think it's far easier to argue against a personal desire for attention when one avoids attention in the

            • by martas (1439879)
              Hm, that's a good point (about him getting personally dragged into the issue as a result of public appearances). I think you're absolutely right about that, and if he had shunned the spotlight like that Jones lady, who knows if he'd ever "raped" anyone... Still, if I had to guess, I'd say that his interviews were intended to bring visibility to wikileaks, not himself. And note that while you and I have known about wikileaks for a long time, that's probably not true about the general public. He might've thou
    • Attention wh0re? (Score:3, Interesting)

      Everyone seems to dislike Assange's approach to public relations. But then again, how many people know/knew Anna Politkovskaya? Assange seems to be quite the media's darling and whatever, but that might be essential for his own safety.
      • by thesandbender (911391) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @05:36PM (#34368620)
        I don't take issue with him being in the lime light... but he purposefully stretches it out. He doesn't just release information... he announces the release ahead of time so he can create a sensation. If they were really concerned about access to the information and not publicity the would "soft release" to trusted groups on BitTorrent a few days/weeks before they announced it. That way the data is well seeded and a DDoS would be very difficult. That's why I'm accusing them of attention wh0ring... there are very easy ways of preventing this DDoS and they are smart enough to know that.
        • by grcumb (781340) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @07:18PM (#34369396) Homepage Journal

          I don't take issue with him being in the lime light... but he purposefully stretches it out.

          I think this tactic is known as 'running cover'. Assange knows that someone has to be the focal point for the ogranisation, to make contact with media reps and various others in order to ensure the responsible dissemination of the data. Doing so allows a great many others to work quietly, undisturbed in the background. Say what you like about his motivation, he's chosen that role. I'd argue that, as someone who believes more in daylight than shadows, he's using the spotlight to keep himself out of harm's way.

          he announces the release ahead of time so he can create a sensation

          Sure. This actually is one of the largest leaks of information in modern history. It's sensational in its very essence. Given that wikileaks' reason for being is to disseminate leaked information as effectively as possible, advance press is perfectly understandable.

          If they were really concerned about access to the information and not publicity the would "soft release" to trusted groups on BitTorrent a few days/weeks before they announced it.

          Great idea. How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable media organisations in the Western world? How about giving them months of prep time, so they could conduct analysis. How about -shocking, I know- even telling the affected agencies what was about to be released and offering them the opportunity to assist in the redaction process? That's exactly what they did.

          Now, there's no way a government could be seen to be negotiating with them, so this might be seen as grandstanding, but who knows what contacts might have been made behind the scenes? (Well, wikileaks, of course, but... you get what I'm saying.)

          That way the data is well seeded and a DDoS would be very difficult. That's why I'm accusing them of attention wh0ring... there are very easy ways of preventing this DDoS and they are smart enough to know that.

          Indeed they are. And indeed they have.

          You can characterise what they do as attention-whoring if you like. The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible on the data they're releasing. If you suffer from this process, you won't be glad about it. I can accept that.

          I have friends who were directly affected by information divulged to wikileaks some years ago. While I'm still angry at those who so cynically used wikileaks to release context-free data that wrongly created some very nasty implications, I don't blame wikileaks for releasing the information. That's just what they do.

          In fact, I'd rather see wikileaks do it than others. While they're occasionally guilty of editorialising about their data, at least they release all of it, providing others with the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Most media organisations do not do this. They run with what they think will lead, and leave the rest by the roadside.

          I don't always like the results of what wikileaks does, but at least they are exactly what the claim to be.

          • I see your point... however:
            "How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable meia organisations in the Western world."
            That's not exactly what they did. They withheld information from all sources so they would have a "bombshell" to deliver.
            And, again, they didn't have to announce they had this information before release.
            "The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible..."
            That's not their stated mission... it's to release this information to as many people as pos
            • by grcumb (781340)

              The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible..."

              That's not their stated mission... it's to release this information to as many people as possible. There is a *huge* difference.

              I can see the distinction you're drawing; it's quite a fascinating one.

              It would be really interesting, actually, to consider what other tactics and methods could achieve the same strategy (i.e. run a generic whistle-blower service).

              It would certainly elevate the debate about the nature of wikileaks, something wh

            • by grcumb (781340)

              "How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable meia organisations in the Western world."

              That's not exactly what they did. They withheld information from all sources so they would have a "bombshell" to deliver.

              I don't know where you're getting that. In the last three dumps, Wikileaks has followed the same pattern: Share the data with a limited number of news agencies, one each in multiple countries. Here's how the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] described this round:

              The electronic archive of embassy dispatches

    • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @06:11PM (#34368892) Homepage Journal

      The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them.

      the only difference in between the us government and chinese government, is how they approach the concept of 'doing anything' to stop distribution of negative information.

      one does it directly, by arresting or killing those who distribute it, the other does it through underhanded, but improvable means.

      Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]

    • by eloki (29152)

      I feel a little surprised that China wouldn't have already had Wikileaks blocked.

    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @09:33PM (#34370608)
      1. No country is above this. Most of Slashdot readers have even dabbled in this as some point or another.
      2. No they don't. And they're right. It's only a matter of time before the US government figures out a way to crush wikileaks in a way that makes no one else ever try it again.
      3. Plenty 12 year olds have the capability of launching a DDoS attack. The US wouldn't be tipping any hand. And, just because they are under a DDoS attack doesn't mean that's all that's going on. This may very well be a symptom or a diversion of something else entirely.

      Yes, wikileaks is DDoSing their own site for attention. On the day they probobly got more hits than any other site on the internet they feel the need to DDoS themselves so no one can read what their publishing, so they can get more attention... even though they already have every News organization and Political party on earth staring directly at them. You're brilliant.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mana Mana (16072)

      Wikileaks is China's friend. The PRC loves it, it does their work for them. The west's secrets are handed to them, what's easier. It does double duty besmirching the USAs reputation to their own Chinese people; no Chinese bureaucrats needed. Gravy all over.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dbIII (701233)
        From your low number you should be an adult but your behaviour indicates otherwise. There is no point at all pretending that the world is as simple as a sandpit game other than that of attempting to mislead others.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LS (57954)

      just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).

      You misunderstand the purpose of the GFW, and overestimate its level of sophistication

      2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.

      No, but they can slow it down until they've assess the content and created a narrative to counter the negative aspects.

      3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.

      And this is the least convincing of your statements. Do you think anyone, let alone the US gov, would execute a DDoS without covering their tracks? A DDoS can be executed by a child without getting caught. You don't think the US is also capable? jeez

  • wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by omar.sahal (687649) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @04:50PM (#34368206) Homepage Journal
    For such an embarrassment these leaks do go some way to promoting the US world view, or is that just editing from the media outlets. Examples such as many middle eastern counties (Saudi, Jordan and Egypt etc) urging US to bomb Iran, as well as the links below
    Iraq document leaks show US forces found WMD after invasion - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ [wired.com]
    Wikileaked documents normalise Iraq civilian death toll at 'massive' 66,000
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by krou (1027572)

      John Young of Cyprome has claimed [cryptome.org] for some time that Wikileaks is a CIA front, almost right from the start.

      Sure, everyone's paranoid when it comes to the world of intelligence, but still, it is an interesting thought. Selective "leaking" to Wikileaks, which disseminates it to key media outlets ... that would be a fantastic propaganda tool.

      • Conspiracy theories are fun but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Some day we'll find that Assange was a CIA agent all along, but of course that will be a leak too.

      • by dbIII (701233)
        For one thing they are capable of keeping a web server running so that rules out being organised by the CIA :)
        Selective leaking to friendly media has already happened many times without needing wikileaks - Valerie Plume etc.
    • by vadim_t (324782)

      Promoting the US view? According to that article they found a few remnants. It's hard to get exact numbers out of that article with wikileaks being DoSed, but I don't think that some rusty artillery shells (it strikes me as a very bad idea to try to fire a round that's leaking) and the 10 rounds amount to anything significant and justify the war.

    • Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lakitu (136170) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @06:12PM (#34368904)

      Are you really surprised that diplomatic cables between US diplomats express a "US world view"?

      • by usul294 (1163169)
        While the diplomats are (if they are doing their job) working to benefit the US, if they are doing their jobs competently, the information disclosed in working communications should represent their perception of reality more so than publicly disclosed information, which would obviously be said in a way to make the US look good. Hopefully the diplomats have a fairly accurate perception of reality.
      • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Sunday November 28, 2010 @07:20PM (#34369432) Homepage Journal
        Obviously you're not reading the discussion in which you've elected to participate, let alone source materials and fine articles. If you had, you would know that the surprises are the support for the "U.S. world view" coming from surprising sources, like other countries in the middle east, who agree that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a very serious threat to world security.
        • I'm honestly not that surprised that the Saudis are freaked out about Iran. Any way you look at it from the Saudi point of view, Iran is a scary place. If it carves out a chunk of southern Iraq, it represents a serious threat to Saudi territorial integrity. If Iran gets into a nuclear exchange with Israel, well, that represents a pretty huge threat to the Saudis too. Hell, maybe the Saudis are freaked that the military junta that is actually running Iran right now may represent a very direct threat to t

      • If those cables include replies from Saudi Arabians urging a strike on Iran, yeah, that is pretty surprising.

        • by Lakitu (136170)

          That's not very surprising at all, and it has been reported in the media over the last year or so. Searching quickly found a Jun 12, 2010 article in the Times (now behind a paywall) titled "Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites".

    • I can't believe this! George Bush was right all along and the media suppressed the story! Only a massive, international socialist conspiracy could explain this!!!!!!!11!!1!oneone

      Yeah, the blister agents were discovered and reported by the media. The chemicals had so degraded in potency that Saddam would have had to get American troops to agree to have it rubbed on them, and even then in most cases they would have had a nasty rash. If that's your justification for starting a war that resulted in hundreds of

  • cyber war? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by monkyyy (1901940)

    is that 3 ddos attacks going at once?
    at this rate the whole idea of a cyberwar is much less idiotic?

  • This is the most surprised I have been all year!

    Sure, it's nice to have reliable confirmation, but still, this was kind of an obvious one.

  • Civ Game (Score:2, Funny)

    by InfiniteZero (587028)

    Is it me or does the world look more and more like some kid's Civ game from another dimension? A word of wisdom to the Chinese: hack Google all you want, just don't get too ambitious and start building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri, and doom us all to the endgame.

  • Perhaps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jandersen (462034) on Monday November 29, 2010 @04:16AM (#34372454)

    Was "China" (ie somebody in China) behind the attack on Google? Perhaps; all governments at some level do this kind of things.

    But I don't think this is anything like the main story to extract from this leak; which is much more about what American government and diplomats think, privately, about everybody else. Very revealing stuff, I think, which confirms what we all have had our suspicions about.

    In their defence I'll say that what you think in private is often much less refined than what you end up saying or doing, so perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harshly.

That does not compute.

Working...