In Which The Telegraph Smears Tor

Been a long time since I talked about the Telegraph here.  But yesterday, I came across this particular piece of bullshit reporting from that 'journalistic' organisation, and felt compelled to say something.

That headline above, is frankly...a lie.  First off, Tor is a network, or a technology, not a browser, even if the browser download is the way in which most users will experience Tor these days.  The browser download, being a simplified bundle of the core Tor & proxying software with a modified version of Firefox.  Secondly, the study in question doesn't in any way speak to to the 'overwhelming use' of the Tor browser, but specifically to the use of the so-called Dark Web.  Back to the Telegraph...

There is an "overwhelming" amount of illicit and illegal content on the dark web, a new study shows.

That statement might seem self-evident. But the Tor browser - also known as the dark web or deep web - was created to protect the anonymity of vulnerable people online. It is a web browser just like Google Chrome or Internet Explorer, but it masks the identity of who is browsing and what they're looking at.

The Tor browser is perhaps known as 'the dark web or deep web' -- by fucking idiots !  The so-called 'dark web' is a fear-mongering slur utilised by the government for any services over the internet that in any way bypass conventional IP/HTTP routing, and thus implicitly threaten governmental control and surveillance thereof.  Tor is one of many services that can be used for such means, in this case, via the use of .onion addresses, that are only routeable via the Tor network.  It is not the only technology providing such hidden services, the hidden services are not the primary purpose of the Tor network, and in fact, the hidden services component was a much later addition to Tor.

Don't believe me, that the hidden services, the 'dark web' are not the primary purpose of the Tor network ?  Well, let's look at the study in question, shall we ?

The Tor architecture provides two services – anonymous browsing (property 3), and hosting of anonymous information exchanges (property 5) – through one piece of software, the so-called ‘Tor Browser’. Although distinct, both services employ roughly the same protocols and rely on the same distributed infrastructure. But that is where their mutual dependency ends. There is no technical requirement for anonymous browsing and anonymous hosting to be bundled. Indeed, browsing is overwhelmingly more popular than hosting. Most Tor users have never visited any hidden website at a *.onion address; hidden services account for around 3–6% of overall Tor traffic.²⁷ Most users instead use the software merely to browse the internet's conventional address space more securely or anonymously. An analogy illustrates the significance of anonymous browsing. Alice, who lives in a small town, wants to buy a pregnancy test, but doesn't want to be seen doing so by the shop owner, Bob, a friend of Alice's father. Rather than simply going to the store, Alice wears a mask, walks a detour, and pays in cash. Bob will not be able to identify her or trace her. Alice's privacy and anonymity are assured. Anonymous browsing is not part of the ‘dark web’; it is a legitimate and laudable service that Tor provides.

This is from the very study upon which the Telegraph's scary misleading headline is based.  It says right there that most users have never visited any .onion 'dark web' sites at all, and that hidden services account for around 3–6% of overall Tor traffic.  Three to fucking six percent !  Hell, I've been familiar with Tor since long before there was such a thing as a 'Tor Browser', and I don't think I've ever visited or had reason to visit any hidden 'dark web' sites via Tor myself.  Because...why the fuck would I ?  Tor's primary purpose is, and always has been, simply to provide a modicum of anonymity in browsing the Internet, and the vast majority of users are most likely using Tor in entirely legitimate ways, in entirely legitimate pursuits.

In fact, the US government has repeatedly promoted the use of Tor for such purposes as enabling dissidents and human rights-activists living in authoritarian regimes, to communicate freely, bypassing restrictive governmental policies and controls, to promote liberal Western-style values.  The US government continues to this very day to provide a vast amount of the funding for the Tor project, and to utilise the network itself, and the Tor software was originally in fact invented by the United States Naval Research Laboratory & DARPA.

That's right, this evil evil 'dark web' software, the users of which the Telegraph apparently wishes to smear, was created by, and continues to be funded by the government of the United States of America.

So, in case you're not familiar with how Tor works, and is used by, as noted above, the vast vast majority of its users, here are some illustrations from the EFF.

Tor doesn't provide uncrackable security, certainly not for the likes of the NSA or other US govt. security agencies, and that much more certainly not when they have been involved in its creation and funding of its development from day one.  It simply obfuscates the path of traffic through a random series of nodes, making it difficult for a would-be adversary to monitor the traffic, without control of, and therefore the ability to monitor traffic through, all the nodes in question.  It isn't that inherently secure, even if you trust that the US government hasn't inserted its own backdoors into the system, and any one relying solely on Tor to run, say an international drug-smuggling operation, without detection, would be very stupid indeed.  Of course, the vast majority of users aren't doing anything of the sort.

Back to the Telegraph...

In the first study of its kind, researchers at King's College London found that 57 per cent of sites on Tor facilitate criminal activity, including drugs, illicit finance, and extreme pornography.

The findings are not unexpected - if anything that figure is lower than expected. Tor has been associated with child pornography, gun trading and murder long before now. 

"We expected something along these lines," said Thomas Rid, professor of Security Studies at King's College London and co-author of the study. "Previous studies have established that it's a pretty nasty place."  

Scary, scary fucking stuff indeed !  Child pornography, murder, drugs, extreme pornography !  Sounds pretty nasty huh ?

Did we mention that the 'dark web' sites in question were a product of a secondary (and not inherently illegitimate*) function of Tor, not even utilised by the vast majority of Tor users ?

Tor offers anonymous browsing to people across the world. Users in countries with strict censorship laws, like China or Iran, can use it to access mainstream sites - like Facebook - securely. Rid and Moore found that the vast majority of material on Tor was not just illegal in places like China or Iran, but in more liberal jurisdictions too.

Here, in the same fucking paragraph, the Telegraph conflates the anonymous browsing (such as use of fucking Facebook), which is the sole usage of the vast majority of users with the hosting of illegal materials on so-called 'dark web' sites.

The sites included marketplaces for drugs, fire arms and weapons, and explicit, illegal pornography. The study found a "near-absence" of Islamic extremist sites on Tor.

"Militants and extremists don't seem to find the Tor hidden services infrastructure very useful. So there are few jihadis and militants in the darknet," said Rid. "It's used for criminal services, fraud, extreme, illegal pornography, cyber attacks and computer crime."

Know why that is ?  Because, they're not fucking stupid !  Because they know full well, that if the US government wants to find them on an US-govt-designed and funded network of mild anonymity, it can, and will.  The US government could crush the Tor network any time it wanted to, but insofar as a) Tor isn't any meaningful threat to security-services, b) Dissidents in foreign competitor states utilise Tor, and c) Agents of the US govt. itself utilise Tor, it has no compelling reason to do so.

What the US government, and its proxy poodle in Westminster, would like to do, is utilise fearmongering rhetoric about 'terror' attacks, to convince the public, and technology-companies, that it is in the public interest that the privacy of Western citizens be intentionally compromised, via the dilution of encryption technology, and the building of government-accessible backdoors into common security software.  The sort of breathless hyperbole in which right-wing publications such as the Telegraph specialise is perfect for such a purpose.

Rid and Moore commend Tor for offering vulnerable people access to anonymous browsing. But they said Tor needs to work harder to encourage its community to build a safe and legitimate browsing experience.

Did they say that ?  I must have missed it...

"The developers made Tor for a different purpose - they wanted security, not crime. It's up to them to change the direction," said Rid. "It's up to them to have a sensible discussion about ways to reduce crime, to get more legitimate users in." 

Now here, I can only assume the quotation is the result of an interview (what, the Telegraph doing actual reporting...like actual journalists ?), as I don't see such language in the report.  Regardless, this is shit.  We've already established that the vast majority of usage is merely anonymous browsing (which is, in the authors' words, 'a legitimate and laudable service that Tor provides'), and how the hell can Tor's developers be held responsible for the content provided by the 'hidden services' on their network, without fundamentally compromising the relative anonymity that is the whole raison d'etre of the Tor network to begin with ?

Is the argument that as the functionality of hidden services could theoretically be used for ill purposes, that it should be removed ?  The same is true of the anonymous browsing functionality, innocent as the vast majority of usage may be/probably is.  The same is true of all technology.  Hell, in the US, special constitutional protections are given to the ownership of tools (i.e. guns, firearms), whose primary if not sole purpose is to murder living beings.  But the fact that a subset of the functionality of a mildly anonymising technology might be used for illicit purposes, that...that is a reason for ripping apart what little guarantee of privacy is currently available to us on the internet ?

Tor's example will no doubt be used in the encryption debate that is circulating around the snoopers' charter, according to Rid and Moore. 

"Tor's ugly example should loom large in technology debates," Rid and Moore conclude. "The line between utopia and dystopia can be disturbingly thin."

This is just...WTF ?  Wait, why am I still quoting the fucking Telegraph ?

The other quandary is how to deal with darknets. Hidden services have already damaged Tor, and trust in the internet as a whole. To save Tor – and certainly to save Tor's reputation – it may be necessary to kill hidden services, at least in their present form. Were the Tor Project to discontinue hidden services voluntarily, perhaps to improve the reputation of Tor browsing, other darknets would become more popular. But these Tor alternatives would lack something precious: a large user base. In today's anonymisation networks, the security of a single user is a direct function of the number of overall users. Small darknets are easier to attack, and easier to de-anonymise. The Tor founders, though exceedingly idealistic in other ways, clearly appreciate this reality: a better reputation leads to better security.⁸⁵ They therefore understand that the popularity of Tor browsing is making the bundled-in, and predominantly illicit, hidden services more secure than they could be on their own. Darknets are not illegal in free countries and they probably should not be. Yet these widely abused platforms – in sharp contrast to the wider public-key infrastructure – are and should be fair game for the most aggressive intelligence and law-enforcement techniques, as well as for invasive academic research. Indeed, having such clearly cordoned-off, free-fire zones is perhaps even useful for the state, because, conversely, a bad reputation leads to bad security. Either way, Tor's ugly example should loom large in technology debates. Refusing to confront tough, inevitable political choices is simply irresponsible. The line between utopia and dystopia can be disturbingly thin.

Less oblique, less misleading, less blatantly crass government-propaganda.  Still crap.

But, now I'm getting into the realm of disputing the report's findings & conclusions, which wasn't where I started, with the Telegraph's blatantly misleading headline.  So, let's step back a bit...

See those results above, from Google News ?  The bottom three accurately characterise the report's findings, and the subject thereof.  Only the one at the top from the Telegraph manages, unintentionally or not, to completely conflate the lesser functionality of 'hidden services' with the wholly legitimate purpose of 'anonymous browsing', and to smear the vast majority of Tor users as a result.  Fuck, I hate the Telegraph...


* Imagine say Iranian or Chinese dissidents, wanting to not merely communicate freely over Tor, without detection of government authorities, but also wanting to provide a stable hosting source of shared documentation within their groups.

Ted Rall: Nuke 'Em All!

It is so very depressing watching Americans especially, but Westerners generally collectively freak-out over ISIS & the infinitesimal chance that they might be killed in a terrorist-attack.  Many of whom were around on the 11th September 2001, did see how we rushed then to surrender our hard-fought freedoms and abandon our liberal values, should have learned from that awful experience.

Last time I held out any smidgen of hope that we had learned, and that the post-9/11 madness had finally subsided, was with the election to the US presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.  I was quickly disabused of that quaint notion.  And almost eight years later, we've still learned...nothing.

Well I say, we.  Donald J Trump learned.   Our political leaders learned.  Learned how easy it is to cow the masses with the simple suggestion of fear.  Be afraid.  Be VERY AFRAID !!!

Sky News on our (absurdly hopeful) 2° Future

Just in time for the talks in Paris* and as the last hopes of our keeping temperature-increase under 2 degrees Celsius evaporate, here's a nice video from Sky News illustrating what, at this point, our most optimistic future might look like due to our greedy shortsighted stupidity.

This video, released in the last 24 hours or so, on our 2° future was accompanied by scarier videos illustrating 3° & 4° respectively.  For some reason, Sky has since chosen to set the accompanying videos to 'Private' status on YouTube.

To be generous to Sky, maybe these videos were just released prematurely by accident, and will be re-released shortly.  Maybe.**

The remaining video is instructive.****  But we're missing the progression that the video-makers clearly intended with just the one.  Also, each video ended with an encouragement to share said content via social media.  Kinda hard to do that Sky when you disappear the videos with no warning, and no explanation.



* Which due to our ever currently convenient obsession with 'The War on Terror'*** are to occur under a 'State of Emergency' with protests conveniently banned.

** That, or representatives of Murdoch's buddies in the fossil-fuel-industries got wind of what one of his media-outlets was putting out, and convinced Sky of the benefits of a little self-censorship ?

*** Many of the roots of which can be directly tied back to our dependence upon fossil-fuels, and support of the backwards regimes who control much of the supply thereof.

**** Myself, I think there's an argument that some of the millennials and younger may have an excuse (living under Western corporate media & the likes of GOP-compromised educational systems) for not understanding just how dire the threat is.  But, really, if you're over thirty or so and need any further convincing, then at this point I can't put it down to any better than, at most generous, wilful ignorance.


Update: This vid. on 5° change may be a replacement for the other two videos I mentioned.

The Sky is Falling !!!

Okay, so the 22 Minutes piece isn't exactly high art, but you get the point perhaps.  Just fourteen years ago, we watched terrorists crash jet-airliners into and bring down skyscrapers in Manhattan, with thousands dead.  Watched people throwing themselves from windows to escape the smoke & flames.  It hurt.  It shocked.  It scarred us.  And we reacted in panic, rushing through new security-powers, turning ourselves into cattle in our airports, starting two wars, one of which hasn't quite ended even today, and the other of which helped birth ISIS.

We endured those attacks, far greater and more traumatic than those in Paris, and some of us at least, had mind to later regret our initial hasty rush to act, our temptation to give in to the demands of politicians who promised to keep us safe.  Our stupid willingness to give the terrorists exactly what they fucking wanted.  To be terrified into undermining that which makes Western society great, and waging what they could easily portray as a war on the Muslim world.

And now here we are again, having seemingly learned nothing in the years since.  We have even worse politicians calling for more extreme action, demanding that we surrender what remains of our civil liberties in the name of security.  We have the same incessant drumbeat for MOAR WAR.  And we have an even more lunatic bunch of fanatical crazies trying to goad us into the clash of civilisations they so desperately desire.

We overreacted then, and we're on the verge of overreacting now.  Calm the fuck down people, for all our sakes.

Schrank: Justice Delayed

9/12

So, another '9/11' has passed us by with no major drama, that I noticed anyway, and no major terrorist-attacks, bar of course those that are now routine across parts of the Islamic world thanks in large part to the destabilising efforts and warmongering of lunatic politicians in the West.  Whatever.

I've always held that the twelfth of September, not the eleventh, should be a national day of mourning and remembrance for the United States.  Not so much for the day itself, or any specific events thereof, but as a general symbolic signifier of all the insanity that proceeded from America's reaction to the traumatic events of the day before.  The Patriot Act.  The War in Iraq.  Extraordinary Rendition.  Illegal (for some of which retroactive amnesty was had to be later granted) spying on Americans.  Secret intelligence-deals with European countries.  The constant fearmongering.  The indefinite detainment in Guantanamo Bay of civilians without trial, often on the basis of mere hearsay; of individuals, many of whom were later found to be completely innocent.  The torture of inmates in prisons in Iraq.  The extrajudicial executions by drone.  The 'Axis of Evil' rhetoric and subsequent toxification of what had been thawing relations with Iran.  'Homeland Security.'  'Enemy Combatants.'  'With us or against us.'  'Old Europe.'  'Freedom Fries.'  The trillions of dollars wasted.  The Dead.  The Displaced.  The countries utterly demolished.  The encouragement and inspiration given to a whole new generation of would-be jihadis and extremists.  The rise of ISIS.

I was as horrified as anyone to see those towers fall.  To see the smoke rising from the Pentagon.  To think of the last moments of Flight 93.  To imagine what it would be like to be driven to jump from the windows of a fucking skyscraper, out of desperation to avoid the smoke and the flames.  Bodies falling from the sky on live television.

Today, I feel almost nothing when I think of '9/11.'  A numbness perhaps.  A cold emptiness ?  But mostly, nothing.  It happened.  It was horrible.  What came after, what was done in the name of that tragedy, that outrage, was infinitely worse.  And is with us still.  And in the name of the so-called 'War on Terror' that by definition can never end, perhaps with us always.

We need a name for the day perhaps.  Something to match the Orwellian monstrosity of naming the 11th 'Patriot Day.'  Something to memorialise the moment that the United States collectively lost its shit.  Abandoned perhaps forever the values that had made it the greatest beacon of liberal values in the world for over two-hundred years.  Shit, something, if nothing else, to remind us that there was a time when we weren't always at war.  When we didn't routinely give away our liberties without question and without protest in the name of 'security.'

We have a whole generation coming into voting-age who have never known anything else.  For whom the police-state and the endless war of the post-9/11 era is 'normal.'  Well, for my own part, fuck that.  No, it will never be normal.  It will never be right.

Tradition, Tradition, Tradition for Us; Austerity for Ye

So, the Houses of Parliament, are crumbling, and in order to save the British taxpayers a few billion (not to mention several decades) on the repairs, an independent committee has suggested, that either both Houses, or Commons & Lords in turns should temporarily relocate...

...which has inevitably brought about/renewed the question: Why couldn't parliament be relocated...permanently.


But ministers don't want to consider even a temporary move, of course.

Leader of the House Mr Grayling said he was "not warm" to the idea of relocating."My very clear view is this building is an important part of our national heritage and our democracy, and it must remain as such," he said during Business Questions in the Commons.

Can't have change now, can we ?  National heritage !

There must be no “self-indulgent” reforms to parliamentary procedures as part of the expected refurbishment plan for the Palace of Westminster, Sir Alan Duncan has said.

The Conservative former minister told the Times: “What would be catastrophic is if self-indulgent people who know little about parliament say ‘let’s have electronic voting’ or ‘let’s have a semi-circular chamber’. I’m absolutely with Churchill after the place was bombed who said ‘let’s keep the traditions’. The institution is bigger than anybody in it.”

 A report and accompanying statement from the House of Commons Commission will be published tomorrow laying out the options to renovate Parliament.

Tradition is the all-important thing in British government isn't it ?  I mean, sure, there have been some changes over the centuries, but only ever incremental change, and nothing too recent, because, well of the importance of tradition.

---

The function of highest court of appeal now performed by the recently-created 'Supreme Court' traditionally rested with the House of Lords.  But you changed that in 2005.

Membership in the House of Lords was traditionally via hereditary peerage, but, in your desire to further weaken the House and increase the power of the Commons and the Prime Minister, you reformed that in 1999, and brought in mostly political appointees for the Lords.*

The traditional right to Habeas corpus is many centuries old, but you did away with that in the name of 'Terror' back in 2005.

The tradition of fixed-term elections has been around less than four years, dating to the Act in 2011.

The traditional central rule of Scotland from Westminster dates back to 1707, and that of Wales to the 1500's, but you re-established the Scottish parliament and established a National Assembly for Wales in 1998.

---

And these are just some of the changes that come to me off the top of my head.


And for a lot of people, the traditions of the Houses look, frankly, silly, embarrassing even.  See for example the row over the SNP clapping, versus the traditional braying and shouting and jeering.  Never mind how the British people see the daily antics in Parliament, how do you think it looks to people in other countries ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-speech-snp-told-clapping-5772809

And as for the actual buildings themselves, they only date back to the 1840's, which is nothing in the context of British history.  The fact of which wouldn't hurt their repurposing as a tourist-attraction, given the gothic design, and the common assumption that they are far older.

And frankly, I don't see any more reason for Parliament necessarily having to be based in London, than the BBC, large parts of which have been banished to other regions of the country, especially Manchester.  Television Centre is arguably as iconic as the Houses of Parliament (albeit rather newer and a little less well known, especially outside the UK), but you sold that in 2012.  At least you held on to Broadcasting House...

And you keep talking about the fact that the other regions of England, including in the North, are under-represented.  What better way to do something about that than relocating Parliament to Birmingham or Manchester ?  It'll also help with Gideon's notion of a 'Northern Powerhouse'.


In fact, I'm not sure there are any good arguments against relocating Parliament, whether simply to a newer more modern facility more 'fit for purpose' (to use a horrible hackneyed phrase so beloved of British MP's) or to also move the body out of London altogether.  Other than...it's tradition.

Good arguments, that is, as opposed to the self-interest of politicians, who might be inconvenienced by having to move, and who might feel their status diminished by having to work out of Birmingham or Leeds say.  Forcing BBC staff to relocate to Manchester, no problem.  Allowing British jobs to be outsourced to the likes of India, who cares ?  But MP's, Never !  How dare we suggest that they not be allowed to continue to shout and bray in the traditional chamber with 'its magic quality' ?  How dare we deny them their taxpayer-funded second homes in desirable London postcodes ?.  How dare we threaten bringing them into the twenty-first century, one where so many jobs have done away with physical offices and desks altogether ?


In the end, they won't move.  Not permanently at any rate.  And refurbishing the creaky old Victorian edifice will probably cost a lot more than seven billion pounds.  But the more we can have these sorts of conversations the better; and the more chance there may be for some actual change, and change that benefits the people, rather than just the powers that be at that.


* And note that as a result of this, and David Cameron's attempts to stuff the House with so many new peers, that it is now so physically overcrowded that it 'risks the House being unable to do its job'.

** Yes, I am well aware that most of the (fairly radical & questionable) constitutional changes mentioned above happened under Tony Blair's watch.  And ?

*** When I say 'you'  or 'your' above, I am referring to Parliament generally, not specifically to Mister Grayling or Sir Duncan, or even to that fascist fuck Blair.

**** Oh, and 'forty years' !!!  WTF ?!

Welcome to 2002

No shit.

The United States overreacted to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, according to the incoming vice–chancellor of the University of Oxford.

The panic that ensued following the September 11 attacks played a part in the US launching the so-called War on Terror.

As did the opportunity for a massive power-grab by the government, the chance to undermine constitutionally established civil-liberties, a massive financial opportunity for the defence and security-industries, and draft-dodgers George W Bush & Dickface getting a chance to play at Soldier in the Middle-East.  But much props for 'so-called' -- Far too many use that ridiculous term unquestioningly.

Louise Richardson, an expert in terrorism, said the US’ response was a symptom of the fact that such attacks are a “new experience” for the country.

Aftermath of Bombing by Anarchists of Wall Street, 16 Sep. 1920

Hmm.  But maybe you meant skyscrapers being downed by jet-airliners, which happens all the time in the UK.

Speaking at a higher education conference in London, the principal of the University of St Andrews went on to argue that the UK is more resilient when it comes to terrorist attacks, due to the troubles in Northern Ireland.

What the fuck does that mean ?  'More resilient' ?  Because there wasn't a collective freakout and a rush to undermine even further British civil-liberties ?   Because there wasn't a massive expenditure on the so-called 'War on Terror' in the UK, which has worked hand-in-glove with the US, including enabling mass-spying on the population on behalf of the American security-services, participation in extraordinary rendition, and partnership in the insane war in Iraq ?

Exploring the psychological impact of terrorism, she went on to argue that random attacks have such an impact on the public because “if nobody is chosen, nobody is safe”, the Daily Mail reported.

Professor Richardson went on to tell the audience, according to The Times: “Central to any terrorism campaign should be a resilient population and, I have to say, the British population in the course of the Troubles and violence in Northern Ireland proved really quite resilient.

Again, what the fuck does that mean ?  How is it measured ?  Is it that there weren't mass-suicides by despondent Brits ?  That the public didn't respond by rioting en-masse in the largest cities ?  Or is it just projection of a facile stereotype of the British stiff upper lip & 'blitz-spirit' ?  'Keep Calm and Carry On', and all that...

...An internationally respected scholar and author of the study 'What Terrorist Want: Understanding the Enemy Containing the Threat', Professor Richardson often advises policy makers on the topics of terrorism and security.

They want you to be afraid and make stupid decisions.  They want you to over-react and over-spend.  They want you to make all the insane choices that were made by the United States and the United Kingdom, likely aided by 'advisers' & 'experts' at the time.  And despite the passage of time, no we haven't learned, and yes, we are still overreacting.

Dick Still Alive; Still a Dick

The more time passes since he left office, the more respect I have for George W Bush.  Seems like on some level at least he's aware what an incompetent fuckup he was, and how irresponsible it was giving over control of so much of his administration to recalcitrant Nixon/Ford-era assholes the likes of Rumsfeld & Cheney.

The latter fuckers...not so much.  I'm not going to quote or in any way reference the shit that occasioned this particular post, any more than otherwise, in regards to the shit that falls out of this particular asshole's mouth on a regular basis.  Suffice it to say that the day had a 'y' in it, and that this heart-dead motherfucker still lives and gets to shoot off his mouth with vile sewage while thousands of innocents remain dead, and millions or billions more may yet die before their time if this bloodthirsty lunatic gets his way.

Bibi's Completely Innocent and Reasonable Speech before Congress about the evils of Gargamel

If it weren't for that insane 'Axis of Evil' bullshit from the Bush administration (Thanks David Frum !), we might have had a peace deal with Iran over a decade ago.  Now, fresh after starting to normalise relations with Cuba (MANY decades overdue), Obama is working on a deal with Iran.  And inevitably, as with any of the president's initiatives, the Republicans are doing their damnest to blow things up, their latest effort involving bringing Binyamin Netanyahu, a man who has spent the last decade or more trying to trick the US into waging war against Iran on Likud's Israel's behalf to speak before Congress, behind the White House's back, and on the verge of Israeli elections.  Because, domestic issues, schmostestic issues, look look EXISTENTIAL THREAT, NUCLEAR TERROR, EVIL, RADICAL, MUST DESTROY NOW, and WIMPY PACIFICST, MUSLIM TRAITOR, SECRET ISLAMIST, NEW WORLD ORDER, NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, BLACKITY BLACK BLACK BLACK....no, no wait, forget we said that last bit.

Now, the manner of Netanyahu's appearance does suggest a certain desparation, and one might wonder what is behind the same.  Could it be that Bibi is sincere in the suggestion that we are in a once-in-a-lifetime last-minute existential crisis with Iran, completely unlike the dozens of other times he has suggested exactly the same over the decades ?  Well, maybe.

And Iran, they're the bad guys, aren't they ?  I mean ask anyone...like er, Saddam, er...I know, I know...like the leader of that country in southern America called, what is it again...Las Malvinas...no, no....ah, yeah, Argentina, but...no, she doesn't want to talk about that for some reason.  Damn Iranians, starting wars all the time, except all the times they're...er, not starting wars, and giving money to terrorists, like...er our bestest ever buddies in <dynasty-name-redacted> Arabia...

So what does Iran really want ?  To nuke Israel and ensure its own immediate annihilation, including that of all its ruling classes ?  Well, er...maybe...  To have, but not necessarily use, a nuclear weapon, and possibly still invite...its own immediate annihilation, including that of all its ruling classes ?  Well, er...maybe...  To have the plausible threat of one day in the not unforsee-able future being able to, in response to an external threat rapidly develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent against a country (by which I mean the US, duh) that has treated it as if it were an existential enemy for decades ?  Ding-ding-ding, I think we have a winner.  And prizes go to those of you who guessed the bleeding fucking obvious.  One might reasonably assume that Iran wants peace and prosperity, both of which are threatened by the ongoing sanctions.  It also, as the inheritor of a once-great empire, presumably wants a certain degree of respect and authority in its own backyard, a want that is completely unreasonable from the point of view of the country that promoted the Monroe Doctrine in the 1800's.  Basically, the Iranians want the same thing as virtually every people on the planet: a chance at a decent life without living under constant imminent threat of having a bomb dropped on one's head.  What radical assholes, huh ?

One more thing: this is a country that gave us in the Bush-era puppet-leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a perfect foil for George W Bush, a ranting anti-Israeli lunatic, and a prime gift to Iran-haters like Bibi, but has since elected the relatively moderate Hassan Rouhani.  Opportunities to deal with possibly reasonable players often don't come that often in reactionary states and we throw away those opportunities (*cough*Khatami, *cough*Medvedev) at our peril.  And had Reagan rejected the (perhaps looking back now far too generous) appeals of Gorbachev back in the eighties ?...  Well, we'll never know, will we ?