[personZ]

But you don't have to see proof, and it is no one's burden to convince you. The US is not trying to prosecute North Korea in court. This isn't an amendments issue. And despite the ridiculous recurring claims, the US is not using this as a context of war.

"NK which wants to be included in the investigation"

It is incredible that people are actually falling for this. North Korea said "let us in on the investigation or we will attack you". Who is going to say yes to this, even if one were so naive as to think the request were truthful (which it most certainly is not). It amazingly achieved its goal, however.

[classicsnoot]

If this 'event' is used as a pretext for a field test/shakedown of the growing cyber arsenals[sic], i bet we are going to wish we asked for more proof.

It's going to suck if the internet becomes a state sponsored battleground. gods know we fight enough on the grounds of personal preference and loose affiliation.

[NietTim]

Why do you decided if I need to see proof? The US is not yet trying to prosecute NK. Of course the US won't prosecute NK for hacking some servers, but it is actively swaying the general opinion on NK. (Not that it was that good anyway)

If anything this is a reason for the US to increase spending by the NSA and make a nation wide firewall. takes off tinfoil hat

[ssmoot]

The US shouldn't attempt to convince their citizens of anything before attacking another country?

I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK. At least to me that seems a very reasonable interpretation of the fuzzy political language of: "we'll have a response at a time, place and method of our choosing".

I don't dispute that NK comes off loopy. Or that a joint investigation seems unlikely. That doesn't automatically follow that the FBI report is faultless though.

[personZ]

I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK.

He said absolutely no such thing, and it is rather incredible if people think this. The US has warned that they will respond, which will end up being a complaint in the UN.

Just to be clear, North Korea regularly warns the US of nuclear annihilation, imminent attacks, and so on...and people think the thing that will put the US over the top is a minor Sony hack?

[throwaway751822]

North Korea has a history of only threatening violence, but the United States has the history of following through. The last time the US said it would respond "at a time and place of its choosing", I believe it decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, did it not?

[ssmoot]

What honest person interprets "response" as anything but "attack"? Seriously?

I didn't mean to imply that there'd be a body count attached to the "response" BTW. That's (hopefully) far-fetched. But an attack in the same way that hacking some computers and releasing some embarrassing information is an "attack"? Absolutely.

Isn't that the entire point of the quote? (And yes, I reproduced Obama's words pretty faithfully I believe. They were playing on repeat on the radio.)

I mean, if you don't think "response" means "attack" in a gimmicky "cyber-warfare" way, what does it mean? A strongly worded letter?

If I run over my neighbor's cat, and he says to me: "I'll respond all right. At a time, place and method of my choosing." Any rational person would have to interpret that as an explicit threat of an impending attack.

Just because politically it may be weaseled out of does not mean it's in any way ambiguous in delivery or intended reception to Joe the Plumber.