![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I need a facepalm icon for this.
Apr. 18th, 2006 10:32 pmSo while various Administration talking heads are assuring everyone that Sy Hersh's article about using the nuclear option in Iran is bunk, King George just says right out that it's still a valid option. I bet at least some part of the foreign affairs office did a collective facepalm over that.
I mean, let's be honest. It's the whole Iraq buildup all over again; I'm sure if I dug out a timeline from that I could predict with some accuracy when the airstrikes are supposed to start (barring, one hopes, a sudden airdrop of tact, reason and sanity on 1600 Penn. Ave.)
I mean, let's be honest. It's the whole Iraq buildup all over again; I'm sure if I dug out a timeline from that I could predict with some accuracy when the airstrikes are supposed to start (barring, one hopes, a sudden airdrop of tact, reason and sanity on 1600 Penn. Ave.)
Just seen on Irish Times Breaking News: "Iran leader vows to fight till death if US attacks". News should be easy for the next few months:
grep -i iraq last-two-years-of-news.txt | sed -e 's/q$/n/gi' -e 's/qi/ian/gi'
US President George W Bush said this evening the idea that he was preparing to strike Iran over its nuclear programme was 'ridiculous' (link)But he quickly added that all options are open.
Gearing up to lean on Iran. What intrigues me here is the disconnect between the headline and the opening paragraph - the headline suggests a UN-led initiative, while the opening paragraph suggests the US is second-guessing the IAEA.
free your 'net and your, uh, whatever
Sep. 2nd, 2003 09:29 amSo apparently the US is funding Anonymizer to provide proxying for Iran and China, so that dissidents can access stuff blocked by the incumbent regime's proxies. This is to be applauded, but I have a few issues with it:
Firstly, Anonymizer say that they change the IP address of the proxy in response to evidence that the government bitkeepers are filtering it. Er. What if they filter by hostname instead? I'm assuming, of course, that the users have to connect to it by hostname; otherwise, every time they change the IP address, all these dissidents are going to have to find out the new address and reconfigure.
Secondly, Anonymizer say that they're advertising this in Iran via mass mailings to addresses provided by human rights organizations. That's, er, spam. It's beneficial spam, I guess, but it's still spam.
Thirdly, Anonymizer is being funded by USgov? How much access does USgov get to Anonymizer's records, then? I had an account with Anonymizer for a year, but I'd think twice before signing up again.
Fourthly, there's a certain irony here; after all, this is a "free your internet" cry coming from the same country that attempted to apply broad internet censorship starting with the CDA in 1996, and continues to do so with such choice pieces of literature as COPA and the various proposed anti-P2P legislation. In fact, they're blocking access to pornography through this proxy because, "There's a limit to what taxpayers should pay for". So what else gets blocked?
Food for thought.
Firstly, Anonymizer say that they change the IP address of the proxy in response to evidence that the government bitkeepers are filtering it. Er. What if they filter by hostname instead? I'm assuming, of course, that the users have to connect to it by hostname; otherwise, every time they change the IP address, all these dissidents are going to have to find out the new address and reconfigure.
Secondly, Anonymizer say that they're advertising this in Iran via mass mailings to addresses provided by human rights organizations. That's, er, spam. It's beneficial spam, I guess, but it's still spam.
Thirdly, Anonymizer is being funded by USgov? How much access does USgov get to Anonymizer's records, then? I had an account with Anonymizer for a year, but I'd think twice before signing up again.
Fourthly, there's a certain irony here; after all, this is a "free your internet" cry coming from the same country that attempted to apply broad internet censorship starting with the CDA in 1996, and continues to do so with such choice pieces of literature as COPA and the various proposed anti-P2P legislation. In fact, they're blocking access to pornography through this proxy because, "There's a limit to what taxpayers should pay for". So what else gets blocked?
Food for thought.
not that I'm skeptical or anything
Jun. 16th, 2003 12:20 pmSo suddenly there are "popular uprisings against the government" in Iran. Coincidental, eh? It's pretty much common knowledge that Kostunica's overthrow of Milosevic was hugely but covertly supported from interested parties outside the country. How much of what's going on in Iran is being generated internally, and how much is Balkans, Episode II?
