|
|
|
|
|
|
by jonnybgood
1805 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.