>Quite a few of the people quoted in the article are identified, seem to be in position to know what they're talking about and definitely exist.
The people identified in the article don't know anything. The people who are the basis for the allegation are unidentified.
>By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
No, I mean the sentence is written in such a way that it can't be falsified. That's perfectly reasonable in this case, especially since the article doesn't include anything that would qualify as actual proof.
He meant "weasel words" by my comments avoidance of just straight out saying "the US and Isreal are behind Stuxnet".
Which I didn't say because there isn't direct proof.
But there is still a very high probability given the only target was a very specific and obscure industrial hardware component, the unusual complexity of the virus (with its rare use of multiple zero-day vulnerabilities at once) and the fact that it couldn't be tested without access to equipment that is only accessible to governments and major corporations.
By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?