CNN 'very disappointed' at being banned from Iran (http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/01/16/afx2453094.html)
WASHINGTON (AFX) - American cable news chain CNN said it was 'very disappointed' over its being banned from Iran for having misquoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad due to what the company called an error in translation.
CNN misquote ! No . no , no , NO !!!
How can such an understatement be applied to this organisation when CNN just gives us LIE's upon more LIE's . The news propaganda machine that gave us the LIE that Iraq was months away having nuclear a bomb (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/02/iraq.usa.nuclear.reut/) and the other LIE about Iraq's chemical weapons labs (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/) has simply been caught out telling another LIE and this excuse of an error in translation is another LIE .
President Ahmadinejad said that Iran has the right to nuclear energy, and that 'a nation that has civilization does not need nuclear weapons' and 'our nation does not need them'.
What Ahmadinejad said in the above statement is clear and precise .
'Due to an error in translation, CNN incorrectly quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Saturday speech as saying that Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons,'
How the hell could the translator been this far off the mark is beyond me ?
I say here CNN was caught out here deliberately misconstruing his words to appear as belligerent statements .
This proves CNN is a culpable component and willing participant of the American policy of criminal aggression .
Iran acted correctly and decisively , CNN must not be banned but also dismantled for the sake of truth .

CRAP NEWS NETWORK

Agreed, another strike for big media. The Presidents real quote is actually quite eloquent, even if it is a bold faces LIE. Come on, how anyone can believe that Iran doesn't want nukes is beyond me. Any country, given the resources and secrecy, wants nukes. :rolleyes:

How the hell could the translator been this far off the mark is beyond me ?
I say here CNN was caught out here deliberately misconstruing his words to appear as belligerent statements .

yes it does prove a few things
one it (cnn) needs more fact checking

althought it doesn't prove it, could the translator been paid to lie? or lied deliberatly?

Walnut calm down, dont go all nutty on us, look walnut cnn just cut through the double talk & bullshit & said what us non-walnuts already know, that iran is after nukes, hell they turned down the russians offer, for enriched uranium which would have made it harder for them developing nukes, the reason you give was because of the gas delivery problems in russia, how pathetic mr walnut, enriched uranium is not like a pint of milk that you get delivered every day, and it is not delivered through pipes in the ukraine, so walnut the only reason they want to make it themselves is to develop nukes, I AM SURE, EVEN A WALNUT LIKE YOU CAN SEE THAT.

>
Signed by Sir Vincent
Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace,
fellow posters you need not address me using my full title here, Sir vince will do fine here.

CNN must not be banned but also dismantled for the sake of truth .


That's kind of funny actually. Mostly because I think you probably really believe it.

Do you know it is really common for people involved in protest kinds of things to get really dramatic and carried away? I think it is because they cannot believe how obvious the things are that happens, and nobody cares or believes it. These people think that if they act more dramatically, the listeners will understand the how the issue being talked about really is important.

It doesn't work. Some people just do not care. If they world was going to blow up tomorrow, they do not care. If you tell them criminals control things and are coming to get them, these people throw their hands in the air and say "oh well". If they don't actually chase you away for bothering them.

In the meantime, the protestor person becomes more and more dramatic, stressing themselves out in the process. At some point the drama crosses the line into foolishness or even ill health. I had been reading this one writer for a year or two. He started to get really dramatic and starting to sound foolish. I recommended he take a vacation. He replied to me in that same dramatic way that he disagreed.

What was interesting is that a month or two later, I stopped seeing his writing. I wondered what happened. Then a few months later I saw his articles again. They had a more normal and sedate tone about them. I think he either went on vacation, or maybe his editor told him he would not print anymore dramatic articles until he calmed down a little.

Honestly. When you call for the dismantling of CNN, you have crossed the line from concerned citizen to one of those people who are losing touch with reality. Come on. CNN would not be dismantled if it turned out they were a front for a child pornography ring. They are a part of USA culture. They make too much money. They can basically do anything they please. Like most other corporations.

Save your credibility for asking for reasonable changes to what is going on. Or reasonble comments and suggestions. Things will still probably not change. People will listen to you and think about it if you are calm and reasonable instead of saying things like CNN must be dismantled.

yeah... thats a pretty bad translation.

but... they do have a right to nuclear weapons...

the only problem is.. their GOVT opennly calls for the destruction of another nation...

that it be wiped off the map.

thats the only problem with them making bombs..

that THEY opennly express a desire to use them.

-MT

Quarkmoon:

Come on, how anyone can believe that Iran doesn't want nukes is beyond me.

I'd have to agree. Iran is now surrounded by enemies... it never hurts to have a few nukes to scare them off! :D

Come on, how anyone can believe that Iran doesn't want nukes is beyond me. Any country, given the resources and secrecy, wants nukes. :rolleyes:
I really believe Iran should have nukes , and I believe Iran should be the only country in the mideast to have them . Yet you cannot prove that Iran wants nukes , you have already admitted that on another thread to me .
althought it doesn't prove it, could the translator been paid to lie? or lied deliberatly?
If that was the case wouldnt CNN be making that claim , in fact the translator wrote and spoke those exact words , and was a CNN employee and CNN has defended him .
Honestly. When you call for the dismantling of CNN, you have crossed the line from concerned citizen to one of those people who are losing touch with reality. Come on. CNN would not be dismantled if it turned out they were a front for a child pornography ring. They are a part of USA culture. They make too much money. They can basically do anything they please. Like most other corporations.
Who are you ? Where are you from ?
the only problem is.. their GOVT opennly calls for the destruction of another nation...

that it be wiped off the map.
With good reason , seeing Israel thraetened airstrikes on Iran last year .
thats the only problem with them making bombs..

that THEY opennly express a desire to use them.

-MT
Did Iran say they were going to nuke Israel ? Where has Iran expressed any desire to use such a weapon ? In fact read what the President said and see why CNN deliberately misquoted it .
I'd have to agree. Iran is now surrounded by enemies... it never hurts to have a few nukes to scare them off! :D
Agreed :D

I really believe Iran should have nukes , and I believe Iran should be the only country in the mideast to have them . Yet you cannot prove that Iran wants nukes , you have already admitted that on another thread to me .

Brian Foley
Resisting reality (1,177 rants)



Walnut if iran does not want nukes, why are they insisting on uranium enrichment themselves, the russians have offered it for free, you dont make statements like wiping israel off the map, without having the weapon to back it up, iran is like the taleban, there leaders are twisted beyond belief, we dont have to listen to american propaganda on this, everytime the iranian president opens his mouth he is calling for the death of israel, they have financed the entire palestine terroist operation for decades, they are currently behind all the unrest in iraq,

i believe iran should have nukes too, hundreds of them, but they should be dropped by american b52 bombers.

>
Signed by Sir Vincent
Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace,
fellow posters you need not address me using my full title here, Sir vince will do fine here.

Signed by Sir Vincent
Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace,
fellow posters you need not address me using my full title here, Sir vince will do fine here.
so, what was you knighted for??

so, what was you knighted for, helping little old ladies across the street?
what a vain ass.


I would also like to know. I don't think it's quite that easy to be knighted.

Who are you ? Where are you from ?

judgeing by some of his other posts on other threads
i have concluded he is from mars.
some of happehs qoutes i like are:
"anus is very tight. which corresponds to a tight brain"
"masturbation is the leading cause of death due to aids"
and the best of all is
"what i say is powerfull"

so, what was you knighted for??
I was knighted for my outstanding service to my Queen & country, & outstanding service to the British Empire as a goodwill Ambassador overseas.
I am to modest to give more details.

>
Signed by Sir Vincent
Knighted by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace,
fellow posters you need not address me using my full title here, Sir vince will do fine here.

Tom Jones was recently knighted.....
about time!!
are you Tom Jones?

I was knighted for my outstanding service to my Queen & country, & outstanding service to the British Empire as a goodwill Ambassador overseas.

yeah, well that's your tale i'll set on mine

Wow, "Brian". It seems even the Saudis were fooled into thinking Iran had been expressing "nuclear belligerence":

<b>Iran nuclear bid 'fault of West' </b>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615832.stm
"Prince Saud told the BBC that the West was partly responsible for the current stand-off with Iran over its nuclear policy because, he said, it had helped Israel develop its own nuclear arsenal.
But when asked how Saudi Arabia would respond if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, he ruled out joining the nuclear arms race.
He said nuclear weapons benefited no-one and that if Iran were ever to use them against Israel, it would end up killing Palestinians."

Ahh - presumably that's his only reason for not supporting the use of nuclear weapons on Israel. Gotcha.

But, seriously, Iran is well known for its rational, objective perspective on everything from nukes, to, oh, I don't know, the Holocaust, let's say:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1687381,00.html

"In a provocative move, Iran also announced plans yesterday to convene a "scientific" conference to examine the evidence supporting the Holocaust. The news comes weeks after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked a global outcry by describing the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a "myth"."

But, surely, other articles also indicate that Iran's President never, ever rattled the nuclear sabre, right? (same article):

"Iran had a "cheap means" of achieving its nuclear "rights", Mr Ahmadinejad said."

Oh. Well, look, there surely aren't any <i>other</i> examples of Ahmadinejad (this desperate, hanging-on-by-a-thin-islamic-thread President threatening dire consequences (including wanting to start a little world chaos to get the old 12th Imam out of his deep slumber - McFly? Hello?) unless they're allowed to have a nuclear program, are there?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686652,00.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5259
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17741194%255E1702,00.html
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1069729.php/Irans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051208/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_ahmadinejad_dc_1
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4398

Nah. None, obviously. That darn CNN! Its ranks must be <i>packed</i> with filthy infidels - I mean, <i>others</i>.
(http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=65841&d=24&m=6&y=2005)

Geoff

News organizations make mistakes all the time, as long as they print a retraction, It doesn't seem like that big a deal.

The news propaganda machine that gave us the LIE that Iraq was months away having nuclear a bomb
No, if you read the article, you will see that they were reporting the words of: "a former Iraqi nuclear physicist who defected...". It is not a lie to report what someone said.


Some thing about the mobile labs. In fact, they presented some doubts about the "labs":

On March 7, Blix told the U.N. Security Council, "Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

They were simply reporting what Brig. Gen. Benjamin Freakley said about finding some buried containers, which could have been propaganda, but that is for the reader to judge.


You might want to read things a little more critically.

I really believe Iran should have nukes , and I believe Iran should be the only country in the mideast to have them .

do Ahmadinjad pay you? i can't find any other reasonable explanation for what you've just said. so please
explain your words, make it clear for me why should Iran be the only (?!) nation in the middle east to have nuclear weapon.

israel has nukes, and is probably just as dangerous if not moreso than iran.
they (israel) actually activated nuclear warheads in the sixties, and threatened to use them on egypt and other nations. the only thing that saved the middle east from a nuclear holocaust was the u.s. intervening at the last moment.

that being said, i dont think ANYONE should have nukes, not just iran.

Wow, "Brian". It seems even the Saudis were fooled into thinking Iran had been expressing "nuclear belligerence":
So you have proof Iran has a nuclear weapon programme could I see it ?
Ahh - presumably that's his only reason for not supporting the use of nuclear weapons on Israel. Gotcha.
Where has he said Iran would use Atomic weapons on Israel ?
But, seriously, Iran is well known for its rational, objective perspective on everything from nukes, to, oh, I don't know, the Holocaust, let's say:
Fuck the Holocaust it happened in the 20th century , and why should a European event concern an Asian ? Afterall the Asian holocaust visted on the Armenians has been deemed a myth by Western historians .
But, surely, other articles also indicate that Iran's President never, ever rattled the nuclear sabre, right? (same article):
"Iran had a "cheap means" of achieving its nuclear "rights", Mr Ahmadinejad said."
Hmmm " nuclear "rights" " not nuclear weapons .
Oh. Well, look, there surely aren't any <i>other</i> examples of Ahmadinejad (this desperate, hanging-on-by-a-thin-islamic-thread President threatening dire consequences (including wanting to start a little world chaos to get the old 12th Imam out of his deep slumber - McFly? Hello?) unless they're allowed to have a nuclear program, are there?
Ok lets study your links and see where Ahmadinejad has threatened the use or implied the construction of Atomic weapons .
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686652,00.html
“He added that Iran was a 'civilised nation' that did not need such weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a wholly peaceful attempt to generate electricity.”
Not here , in fact all your link reveals is that Ahmadinejad said peaceful use .
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5259
“In the near future, full nuclear energy for peaceful purposes will be at our disposal”
Again the word peaceful by Ahmadinejad is used .
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17741194%255E1702,00.html
“He has also said Israel was a "tumour" that should be "wiped off the map",”
After Israel last year 3 times on unprovoked occasions thraetened to attack peaceful Iran , I say Ahmadinejad words are reasonable .
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1069729.php/Irans
Ahmadinejad said last Wednesday that there should be no doubts whatsoever that the government will not retreat one inch from realising the legitimate right of the Iranian nation to have nuclear technology.
Precisely Ahmadinejad says the Iranians have every right to procure power from atomic energy it is their right .
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml
Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi'ite Muslims' "hidden" 12th Imam.
As opposed to Israels waiting for the messiah to come and annihilate the gentile nations (Translation : unclean) . Whats more serious ?
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4398
“Even if our [nuclear] file is taken to the [United Nations] Security Council we will come through it. We want nuclear energy and we must pay the price”, Jalali said.
The operative word again is energy not weapons .
Nah. None, obviously. That darn CNN! Its ranks must be <i>packed</i> with filthy infidels - I mean, <i>others</i>.
(http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=65841&d=24&m=6&y=2005)

Geoff
And unclean Gentiles ?

Im sorry Geoff your rambling post , which I gave the courtesy of a thorough research was inconclusive and in no way proves in the slightest that Iran is prosecuting the policy of the attainment of Atomic weapons .

Quarkmoon:

I'd have to agree. Iran is now surrounded by enemies... it never hurts to have a few nukes to scare them off! :D

Not true, they are still safe via the Turkmenistan border, Caspian Sea and Azerbijan border...

News organizations make mistakes all the time, as long as they print a retraction, It doesn't seem like that big a deal.
Thats some mistake , it could of ignited an attack , and CNN only retracted it after they were banned from Iran . CNN was caught out , again , LIEing
No, if you read the article, you will see that they were reporting the words of: "a former Iraqi nuclear physicist who defected...". It is not a lie to report what someone said.
No , CNN would of know this cretan was a stooge , instead they went ahead and printed his bile and dished it up to the public as holy writ truth . Has CNN by any chance retracted any of its stories now proven LIEs since the end of the Iraq war ?
You might want to read things a little more critically.
No you should read a little more smarter and stop being so gullible as to believe that CNN and other news outfits are genuine in their media presentations , especially after the LIEs told about Iraq .

How would you like it if Pat Robertson had a NUKE :mad:
:D

israel has nukes, and is probably just as dangerous if not moreso than iran.
.
dangerous to who? (and don't tell me the middle east bullshit, name the countries).
as much as i know, israel's attack on other nations was only as an act of self-defence. this includes the attack made on egypt, lebanon... and who knows, maybe Iran in the future.


they (israel) actually activated nuclear warheads in the sixties, and threatened to use them on egypt and other nations. the only thing that saved the middle east from a nuclear holocaust was the u.s. intervening at the last moment.
.
please give me the exact year. in '67 there was a war in the middle east, are you talking about the six-days war?

1. land grabs do not count as self defense.
2. they are dangerous to everyone that disagrees with their policies.
3. look it up yourself. im studying for a class right now.

revision to #2 of the above post:
2. they (israel) are dangerous to anyone who dares publicly condemn israeli policy.

1. land grabs do not count as self defense.
.
"land grabs"? there is a thing we call 'war'. in wars you win/lose territories.
israel did not provoke any, it fought for its own survival on each war and won. also, returned many of the lands which it occupied during the war back to the arab nations. its policy was something like "we'll give you back your lands, and you'll give us peace", that's
exactly the way it happened.


2. they are dangerous to everyone that disagrees with their policies.

for example.. ?? many nations disagree with the actions israel is taking against
the palestinians, including the US, yet they do not consider israel as a threat.
correct me if im wrong.

3. look it up yourself. im studying for a class right now.
i did, i think you should study more about it.

read a damn history book, aaa.

israel has a history of aggression toward everyone around them, on a constant basis.
even in the last month, they have been threatening to airstrike iranian nuclear plant sites. the israelis have no solid evidence (at least none that they have made public) that iran is building a weapon.
in my book, thats called unprovoked aggression.

and dont give me the iranian president's comments as a reason for violence. he never directly threatened anyone with them, unlike israel.

Hello Brian,

Why, of <i>course</i> you're right. Iran would never, ever possess weapons-grade uranium or anything...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

"At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. "

Well, at least they'd never have advanced centrifuges for making nuclear weapons...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

"In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors."

All right, well, look, at least surely there's no <b>overlap</b> between the civilian and military use cycles - right?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm

"Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. "

(elapsed total search time: 14 seconds)

Hmm.

Brian, I regret to say that I found your meandering post more than a little suspect, as is your atrocious grammar. I believe you stated elsewhere that you were an Australian - unfortunately for your believability, you would almost literally have to be the stupidest Australian in the world to have such little grasp of nuance, diction and spelling. My suspicion is that you are a citizen of a very different country, in a very different timezone, by the tenor of your voice (reflecting a linguistic mindset with which I am much familiar by now) and the timing of your posts.

Thankyou for your postings, Brian <b>al</b>-Foley, although I regret to say that they were not terribly helpful to your...cause.

Still, I hope the weather in Iran is condusive to a pleasant day's mosque-going.

Sincerely,

Geoff

Small re-update for something that "Brian" glossed over:

Iran nuclear bid 'fault of West'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615832.stm
"Prince Saud told the BBC that the West was partly responsible for the current stand-off with Iran over its nuclear policy because, he said, it had helped Israel develop its own nuclear arsenal.
But when asked how Saudi Arabia would respond if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, he ruled out joining the nuclear arms race.
He said nuclear weapons benefited no-one and that if Iran were ever to use them against Israel, it would end up killing Palestinians."

So the Saudis were fooled too? My my. But surely they, as fellow muslims, can see that Iran's President said that the nukes were only for peaceful purposes? Or do they just know the smell of bullsh*t when they smell it?

Al-Foley, since you're probably being paid by Iran, you must have proof that Iran has <b>no</b> weapons programme, since you insist that I must present my evidence that it does. Theoretically, since you're far closer to the issue than I am, you must have some secret documentation I lack. Could you post it please, in the original Persian or Arabic?

Thanks so much,

Geoff

israel has a history of aggression toward everyone around them, on a constant basis.


And, more originally and persistently, everyone else <i>around</i> them has a history of aggression towards them, including the inception of the violence. I don't imagine your course will cover <i>that</i>, of course - but it remains the truth, such behaviours being codified in the Quran. I suggest you read history books yourself - and broadly, too. Not just what they give you for required readings.

"Unprovoked aggression" - given that Iran now threatens to destroy Israel, how exactly is that "unprovoked"? If I tell you I'm going to hit you in the face, are you justified in stopping me from doing so? Isn't the onus on me not to say that, if I don't want to be hit myself? "Unprovoked" though certainly describes '67, Yom Kippur, and even '48. Or maybe you could give me a point when the Israelis launched an aggressive war in the Middle East?

and dont give me the iranian president's comments as a reason for violence. he never directly threatened anyone with them, unlike israel.

Without going into the history of Iranian comments regarding Israel (I believe the current Ayatollah has had more than his share of unbelievably evil commentary, for example), the Iranian President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map".

Did you think he meant to do this with an aggressive janitorial campaign? Does he just believe that Tel Aviv could do with some remodelling? Does he perhaps have some underlying interest in cartography?

Do tell.

Geoff

first off, i was not referring to a class on the subject. i simply cannot dedicate hours of googling on this subject, due to rigorous class schedules.

there was never a direct threat toward israel made by the iranian president. i DO believe in every nation's right to pursue whatever technology they like, however. i am not an "iran" sympathizer, nor do i sympathize with israel in this situation.

i sympathize with HISTORY on the subject. i recall that israel actually activated nuclear weapons, and threatened to use them on several of their neighbors if the usa didnt intervene, in the sixties, however.

that alone tells me that iran should have the right to say whatever they want toward israel. however, they NEVER threatened israel. i find it incredibly distressing when i come to a forum for "intelligent conversation", and i find someone like brian foley (whom i think is a nutjob) being demonized for having beliefs contrary to the typical western "israel can do no wrong" viewpoint.

all parties involved in this political fiasco are incredibly childish, cant you folks see this?

there leaders are twisted beyond belief

They can't be worse than George Bush!

Hello Brian,

Why, of <i>course</i> you're right. Iran would never, ever possess weapons-grade uranium or anything...
Again lets look at your sources , for starters they are all 3+ years old , meaning they are outdated .
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

"At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. "
If you care to update your sources to August 23, 2005 you will see this has been debunked .
No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html)
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
Further more .
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions,"
And IAEA which your source quotes also backed it up , and the centrifuges were legally imported from Pakistan with US knowledge .
U.N. Agency Findings Back Up Iran Claim (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5222707,00.html)
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - U.N. nuclear agency tests have concluded that traces of highly enriched uranium on centrifuge parts were from imported equipment - rather than from any enrichment activities by Iran, a senior Western diplomat said Saturday.
Well, at least they'd never have advanced centrifuges for making nuclear weapons...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

"In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors."
And as for your centrifuges .
IAEA: No proof of secret Iran plan (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/01/iran.nuclear/)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.N. atomic watchdog agency says weapons inspectors have not uncovered evidence to support accusations that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program.
All right, well, look, at least surely there's no <b>overlap</b> between the civilian and military use cycles - right?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm

"Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. "
Thats a lecture of a man giving his opinion , and that quote in no way incriminates nor proves Iran is actively proceeding with an atomic weapons programme . For Christ sake cant you provide a simple current source which verifies your claim the Iran is actively pursuing an Atomic weapons programme .
Hmm.

Brian, I regret to say that I found your meandering post more than a little suspect, as is your atrocious grammar.
What atrocious grammar , could you give me a example of this .
I believe you stated elsewhere that you were an Australian - unfortunately for your believability, you would almost literally have to be the stupidest Australian in the world to have such little grasp of nuance, diction and spelling.
I cant see any problem with my spelling and grasp of the English language here .
My suspicion is that you are a citizen of a very different country, in a very different timezone,
My post times on sciforums coincides with those of mountainhare and JamesR who both reside in Australia , and I at the same time that Im on here I msn with mountainhare who resides in Melbourne . Dont believe me ask them .
by the tenor of your voice (reflecting a linguistic mindset with which I am much familiar by now) and the timing of your posts.
Oh , I see , please let me guess , your mindset says I must be an Iranian posing as a white Australian ;) . Shit I take that as a compliment , as far as I am concerned Iranians are stand up people they kick arse . As long as you dont call me an Israeli squatter Im happy .
Thankyou for your postings, Brian <b>al</b>-Foley, although I regret to say that they were not terribly helpful to your...cause.
In other words your answers to my arguments have fallen flat and you still cant prove Iran is proceeding with an atomic weapons programme .
Still, I hope the weather in Iran is condusive to a pleasant day's mosque-going.
Nah , fuck no , Im off to the pub , I have my own religion , drink beer , get drunk sleep it off :)

Small re-update for something that "Brian" glossed over:
No I didnt gloss over it , I ignored it because it was glaringly obvious what the article says .
if Iran acquired nuclear weapons
Got it ! The word is IF

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Got IT !
Again nothing that PROVES Iran has an atomic weapons programme !

Brian, that's the kind of post I like to see. Stick to that and drop the conspiracy theories! ;)

there was never a direct threat toward israel made by the iranian president.

So "Israel should be wiped off the map" does not constitute a direct threat? He doesn't really mean it? If he had the power to do it, he <i>wouldn't</i> do it?

Seriously?

I agree wholeheartedly that al-Foley is a nutjob, though.

i sympathize with HISTORY on the subject. i recall that israel actually activated nuclear weapons, and threatened to use them on several of their neighbors if the usa didnt intervene, in the sixties, however.

I'm not sure I've heard this one before. I'd like a link, though. Why wouldn't the Israelis have just threatened those nations more directly? Why go through the US?

Leaf

:m:

Geoff

Gee, I was so shocked to see that some of my sources were outdated. I imagine Iran is <i>much</i> further along in their planning by now. Thanks for pointing that out. Here's some quite new ones. See, if you'd updated your sources to 30 August 2006, you'd see that the Iranians are building away on several fissile sites (funny how close that word is to "missile", no?) and that their program has the potential for military application.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

In fact, they don't appear to have enough raw material for a civilian program, but they do have enough for a military one. Did they think perhaps that Allah was going to supply the rest of the uranium?

Thats a lecture of a man giving his opinion , and that quote in no way incriminates nor proves Iran is actively proceeding with an atomic weapons programme . For Christ sake cant you provide a simple current source which verifies your claim the Iran is actively pursuing an Atomic weapons programme .

Because the program can be masked within a civilian one. Simple, really. And why exactly have they "spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack" if their program is unabashedly peaceful? What do they have to risk? I'm a little suspicious, if you'll excuse me.

What atrocious grammar , could you give me a example of this .

There's one right there. Look above. See it?

Oh , I see , please let me guess , your mindset says I must be an Iranian posing as a white Australian ;) . Shit I take that as a compliment , as far as I am concerned Iranians are stand up people they kick arse . As long as you dont call me an Israeli squatter Im happy .

However you squat, I do doubt you're Israeli. But don't feel bad about it. Actually I know several Iranians - all Zoroastarians - and they don't feel that Iranian society "kicks arse". Rather, they seem to feel that at times it kicked their arse, which is why they left. If you imagine I have a problem with the Iranian people, you're praying towards the wrong stone.

In other words your answers to my arguments have fallen flat and you still cant prove Iran is proceeding with an atomic weapons programme .

And you can't prove they're not. Nuclear development permits the construction of nuclear weapons. Rhetoric in this case is thus the determinant factor - and I advise you that the Iranian government's rhetoric has been remarkably unpleasant towards Israel - and every other non-islamic country, and a few that are islamic - for some time. So their likelihood of developing such weapons is high. Their likelihood of wanting to do so is astronomical - or else why has the "response [to the Russian offer of enriched uranium] been mixed, with some officials saying the enrichment must be done at home"?? Why do they need to enrich their own uranium? To divert a little?

Off to the pub are you? Jolly good. As for me - why, I'm off to the Iranian embassy, to protest my ex-government's actions and demand a peaceful stance towards the peace-loving Israeli nation.

Geoff

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Got IT !
Again nothing that PROVES Iran has an atomic weapons programme !

Al-Foley, please - tone down your language. Relax. You seem very angry. Didn't get any Ramadan scarves this year? Take it easy.

Now to deal with your, er, "argument": no proof after all, is there? :(

Why, just as there's no real PROOF Israel has any nukes - is there? Just estimates, interpretations, really. Why, for a long time it wasn't even suspected! And that's all we have, really - suspicions, interpretations. Maybe they don't have any - or maybe they only wanted a nuclear program to produce energy. That must be it. I mean, have they ever admitted they have nukes? Why, of course not! Have they ever actually threatened anyone with nukes? Course not! We certainly can't verify such a thing, can we? Or have you got a link proving it?

And they wouldn't lie publically about such a thing, I'm sure. Because we know if the Iranians wouldn't lie, the Israelis wouldn't, right? 'Course not. People are people, after all.

;)

Proof's a funny thing, eh? Goes best in a Ramadan pudding. At about 100%.

It's funny, but I have a hard time believing anyone who goes on with the kind of conspiracy noise for so long, then tries to switch tracks and have a debate with evidence n' such.

Geoff

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI12Ak02.html

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php

comprehensive list and articles on israel's nuke program, and their willingness to threaten everyone (even the soviets) with them.

satisfied?

Gee, I was so shocked to see that some of my sources were outdated. I imagine Iran is <i>much</i> further along in their planning by now. Thanks for pointing that out. Here's some quite new ones. See, if you'd updated your sources to 30 August 2006, you'd see that the Iranians are building away on several fissile sites (funny how close that word is to "missile", no?) and that their program has the potential for military application.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm
Are you on another astral plane from the rest of us ?
Lets again look at your source .
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT.
Here your source clearly shows Iranian co-operation with IAEA
Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.
Does not , could be , might not very conclusive is it , again I am waiting for conclusive proof that Iran is actively prosecuting an Atomic weapon programme .
If Iran did acquire atomic bombs
Hey theres that word again IF .
Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's).
And not one shred of proof for these insinuations offered by your source just assumptions .
Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's
Ah , right , Iran has bought atomic weapons from another country . Im sorry I even took the time to read such a load of shit .
Off to the pub are you? Jolly good. As for me - why, I'm off to the Iranian embassy, to protest my ex-government's actions and demand a peaceful stance towards the peace-loving Israeli nation.
Yep , your an Israeli .

Brian, that's the kind of post I like to see.
Yeah I know , factual , conclusive and concise .
Stick to that and drop the conspiracy theories! ;)
And now if only you would learn .
Quarkmoon:
For such a well-publicised event, your conspiracy theories seem a little far fetched.
Quarkmoon:
I think the conspiracy theory is a little hard to believe. But then again, I find most flimsy conspiracy theories hard to believe...
Still hurts :)

Yeah I know , factual , conclusive and concise .

And now if only you would learn .


Still hurts :)


Touche good sir. Although I confine my conspiracy theories into one thread. :D

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI12Ak02.html

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php

comprehensive list and articles on israel's nuke program, and their willingness to threaten everyone (even the soviets) with them.

satisfied?

Well, no.

I checked the references. It doesn't say anywhere that Israel threatened anyone regarding this supposed nuclear stockpile of theirs. It says at one point that they felt threatened, and once that France threatened them, but never that they threatened anyone. I wouldn't count Israeli plotting of Soviet cities as a threat. In fact, conversely, the Soviets threatened the Israelis (and moreso if we count the above as a threat):

"Soviet Premier Bulganin and President Khrushchev issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai."

"Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev threatened, on 24 October, to airlift Soviet airborne troops to reinforce the Egyptians cut off on the eastern side of the Suez Canal and put seven Soviet airborne divisions on alert.[69] Recent evidence indicates that the Soviets sent nuclear missile submarines also.[70] Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine claimed that the two Soviet SCUD brigades deployed in Egypt each had a nuclear warhead. American satellite photos seemed to confirm this. The U.S. passed to Israel images of trucks, of the type used to transport nuclear warheads, parked near the launchers.[71] President Nixon's response was to bring the U.S. to worldwide nuclear alert the next day, whereupon Israel went to nuclear alert a third time.[72]"

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

Now, if one wants to say that the Israelis used their nukes for political blackmail of the US - well, first it has to be proven they have any. And, to use the "Al-Foley Defence" (AFD), it would seem that these articles must be some kind of cruel trick or propaganda spread to harm the peaceful Israeli people. After all, from those very articles we both can see that the Israelis stated several times that their nuclear program was entirely peaceful, and that they state they are not using their nuclear program to create nuclear weapons:

"Israel in return would assure France that they had no intention to make nuclear weapons."

"With the official announcement of 1960, that Israel had a reactor for "peaceful purposes", the relation between the U.S. and Israel was strained over the issue. In public, the U.S. accepted Israel's "peaceful purposes", but exerted pressure privately. "

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php

So, obviously, any country that assures they would never make nuclear weapons should be believed. No?

So if - IF - the Israelis had any nuclear weapons, let's see what reasons the authors of those articles opine they might - MIGHT - have for doing so:

"The primary reason for Israel's nuclear weapons program was to protect the small state's survival from more powerful Middle Eastern states. Ernst David Bergmann, the first chairman of the IAEC, argued that Israel needed to become nuclear-armed in order to ensure "that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter"....As seen from the examples of the 1967 and 1973 wars, Israel's nuclear-weapons program was designed as a last-recourse military option. "
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI12Ak02.html

Now, wait - who are they talking about? What "more powerful states"? "Last-recourse"? That means non-offensive, right?

Seriously, guys.

Geoff

Are you on another astral plane from the rest of us ?


No, merely on a higher one than you. Al-Foley, I tell you that you have eaten the platter and missed the meat; verily, your obstinance is suprising.

Here your source clearly shows Iranian co-operation with IAEA

"Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT."

Great Rasulallah! This is information from the 1970's! (Wasn't Iran under the American bootheel then? Hard to recall.) The earliest of it comes from three years ago! Al-Foley, please try to update your links and impressions. This isn't the 1970's any more, you know.

But wait, there's more:

"Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's)."

Ahhhh. So NOW Iran is trying to develop nuclear technology in a way that allows it to build such weapons rapidly at need while still seeming to adhere to the NPT, is that right? Well that sounds reasonable - no?

Does not , could be , might not very conclusive is it , again I am waiting for conclusive proof that Iran is actively prosecuting an Atomic weapon programme .

And I am waiting for conclusive proof that they really don't mean to make nuclear weapons, or even of their peaceful intent towards Israel, or the US, the Western world, non-muslims, apostates, women, religious minorities, homosexuals and so forth. You know - human rights. Think we'll be waiting a while on that one; maybe another 700 years.

Or just two years, when they actually build a nuke.

But, if proof's your concern, then there should be no problem at all for Iran to be completely and utterly open for IAEA inspections. No need to disperse production sites. Just be open and honest. Right? :rolleyes:

"IF" is also a Rudyard Kipling poem. He had some troubling ideas, though.

There's a lot of "IF"s in the Iranian argument for why they should have them, too:

IF they aren't just lying about their intentions
IF they don't suddenly change their minds and fire off nukes at Israel and the West in general
IF there isn't another coup that decides to build/use nukes
IF some idiot Ayatollah/Imam doesn't call on the rulers of Iran to "send fire out of the skies" onto the Jews and raise the 12th Imam from the dead
IF there isn't an accident in a country a liiiittle prone to unfriendly Acts of God

And there's not one shred of proof for the strictly peaceful use of this technology offered by your assumptions.

In short, if I have evidence of potential, you have less even than that, since all the evidence to-date indicates that Iran does not have peace at heart.

Ah , right , Iran has bought atomic weapons from another country . Im sorry I even took the time to read such a load of shit .

No doubt, especially when you knew I'd be writing back in. Silly monkey. You should have brought your truths, if ye were truthful! ;)

Yep , your an Israeli .

Funny: it almost sounds like you mean that as an insult. But don't think I take it personally, or as other than a compliment. I remember this Sunni guy on another site who started out all his ranting responses to my reasoned logic with "Filthy Nazi Jew". That's mild by comparison. But me, I'm not Israeli.

Now off to mosque with me!

Leaf

:m:

Geoff

its obvious you didnt read any of the material i posted as reference.

talk to me when you have, dont waste my time.

I did. Now show me where it said the Israelis threatened anyone in those articles.

I'm trying to be nice here, but don't waste <i>my</i> time.

Geoff

No, merely on a higher one than you.
Ill say you are .
Al-Foley, I tell you that you have eaten the platter and missed the meat; verily, your obstinance is suprising.
And once again you have missed the pork sandwich .
Great Rasulallah! This is information from the 1970's! (Wasn't Iran under the American bootheel then? Hard to recall.) The earliest of it comes from three years ago! Al-Foley, please try to update your links and impressions. This isn't the 1970's any more, you know.
Thats a quote from your own link you clown , having a hard time keeping track are you ?
But wait, there's more:
Dont bother I dont think you are aware of what your babbling about .
And I am waiting for conclusive proof that they really don't mean to make nuclear weapons,
Okay one last time .
IAEA confirms peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities: chief negotiator 06/11/2005 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/11/content_3073327.htm)
TEHRAN, June 11 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said on Saturday that the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.
and
Russian Atomic Energy Minister: Iran Has No Technology to Produce A-Bomb (http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2002/12/28/60899.html)
"The production of an atomic bomb requires a complex of plants with high-tech equipment, while Iran has nothing of the kind," Rumyantsev said.

or even of their peaceful intent towards Israel,
Why should Iran show any intent to Israel especially after has thraetened Iran with airstrikes .
or the US,
The US and Iran have both stressed they wany better ties with each other , its Israel which is upsetting the cart for America .
Or just two years, when they actually build a nuke.
Proof please .
But, if proof's your concern, then there should be no problem at all for Iran to be completely and utterly open for IAEA inspections. No need to disperse production sites. Just be open and honest. Right? :rolleyes:
They have allowed IAEA inspections for many years , why should it carry on especially after the IAEA has given a clean bill of health to the Iranian programme .
IF they aren't just lying about their intentions
No adequate and reliable proof has been put forward to suggest otherwise just Americas suspicions .
IF they don't suddenly change their minds and fire off nukes at Israel and the West in general
I wish Iran would hit Israel , but Iran has not threatened the West .
IF there isn't another coup that decides to build/use nukes
Iran is satble there wont be another coup .
IF some idiot Ayatollah/Imam doesn't call on the rulers of Iran to "send fire out of the skies" onto the Jews and raise the 12th Imam from the dead
Isnt that what the Jews did to the Palestinians ?
IF there isn't an accident in a country a liiiittle prone to unfriendly Acts of God
Ypu the chosen people and the divine real estate given to them by God , and the nuclear arsenal to use against the gentiles ?
And there's not one shred of proof for the strictly peaceful use of this technology offered by your assumptions.
And one more time again .
IAEA confirms peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities: chief negotiator 06/11/2005 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/11/content_3073327.htm)
TEHRAN, June 11 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said on Saturday that the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.
In short, if I have evidence of potential, you have less even than that, since all the evidence to-date indicates that Iran does not have peace at heart.
You have Jack shit , and I have news for you Jack has left town .
Funny: it almost sounds like you mean that as an insult.
No you are an Israeli .

I did. Now show me where it said the Israelis threatened anyone in those articles.

I'm trying to be nice here, but don't waste <i>my</i> time.

Geoff
Time was back in 1973 During the Yom Kippur war, as Israel faced defeat Israel equipped their fighters with nuclear warheads. Golda Meier said to US President Richard Nixon over the phone that " America either airlift pilots and jets to save Israel or they would launch a nuclear attack on Syria and Egypt and others (http://teotwawki23.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_teotwawki23_archive.html) Nixon caved in and airlifted supplies, this in turn resulted in the oil crisis and the deep recession of 1974.
Israel is a very dangerous country .
Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. New York: Random House (http://www.namebase.org/sources/PZ.html)
The title of Hersh's book comes from Israel's notion that once they have the Bomb, they are in a position to bring it all down on everyone if ever they feel cornered. It's the ultimate in Israeli security as a nation- state, if not for the security of humankind. Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift supplies during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and they passed U.S. secrets collected by Jonathan Pollard to the USSR when it served their interests. The Bomb has been a hidden factor in U.S.- Israeli relations ever since the Eisenhower administration, but this is the first book to deal with Israeli relations from this perspective.
Nuclear disarmament must begin with Israel first .

Thanks for agreeing that I'm more developed than you. Also, I'm on a higher astral plane. Woo hoo!

Very good, al-Foley: the quote is indeed from my source. Now if you can explain <i>why</i> that matters particularly...

As for the "high-tech plants", Israel didn't have them either to begin with. And then they did. Funny how things change, eh? =)

For the rest of the comments...hmm, not much there. Please provide proof of the following statements, however:

"The US and Iran have both stressed they wany better ties with each other , its Israel which is upsetting the cart for America ."

"Iran is [stable] there wont be another coup ."

"No you are an Israeli ."

"Isnt that what the Jews did to the Palestinians ?" [send fire out of the sky]

"You have Jack shit , and I have news for you Jack has left town ."

Thanks.

So, really, really bad grammar and syntax aside, you don't seem to understand several of my points: that "accident" refers to Iran, scene of several angry outbursts by God. I'd like you to point out where the Israelis threatened the "gentiles" with their arsenal, however. =) "Gentiles", LOL. Nor am I Israeli.

If Israel did have nuclear weapons, though, your description fits their intended use perfectly: defense against aggression from the surrounding countries - in fact, during an attack by them in which war was not even properly declared, as I recall. Not as a declaration against ethnics whom they did not approve of based on the more genocidal bits of the Quran.

But I imagine such distinctions are lost on you, as you float down the Tigris. Disarmament must begin with the nations around Israel - then they'll have no need to be so dangerous, or for their nuclear arsenal.

If it even exists, of course. =)

Geoff

In this thread, Brian is arguing that there is no proof of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Yet he just posted another thread about why they would have those ambitions.

I think we are wasting our time here, gents.

i agree, and not just on brian foley.

Now, now, Devil. I'm merely using the honoured al-Foley's arguments back on him. His arguments is that Iran <i>cannot</i> have a nuclear weapons programme because they <i>say</i> they'll never develop one, then surely he cannot object to my arguing that the Israeli arsenal doesn't even exist - because they <i>say</i> it doesn't.

Of course, the justification for the Israeli arsenal is quite clear: the religious implications alone of being overrun by the neighbouring states is apocalyptic, horrifying. It would make the Holocaust look like a stubbed toe. I have no doubt whatever - nor should any thinking person - that the full measures of the Quran and Hadiths would be carried out on every Jewish person therein. Dhimmitude would be a <i>best</i> case scenario, not the repulsive, oppressive horror it actually is.

I have raised the issue also of al-Foley's citizenship. His syntax, grammar, and his accusation that I must be Jewish or Israeli strikes me as very reminiscent of someone originally from the Middle East. I obviously have no objection to <i>any</i> ethnic group, but honesty is better than falsehood for the sake of da'wa. No Aussie could <i>possibly</i> write so poorly. I may be wrong, but his threads strike me a being from a troll here to spread antagonism towards Israel and the supremacism of other, less democratic Middle Eastern states.

Al-Foley is a mere provocateur.

And I, therefore, a provocateur of provocateurs.

*****

G'day!

Geoff

For the rest of the comments...hmm, not much there. Please provide proof of the following statements, however:

"The US and Iran have both stressed they wany better ties with each other , its Israel which is upsetting the cart for America ."
Iran, U.S. flirt with better ties (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4387637/)
Old enemies become new neighbors
Iran received its first direct American aid in 25 years; congressional leaders recently proposed a friendly visit to Iran; and Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has become a regular in Washington political circles. Officials here say the parliamentary elections last month, though heavily stacked in the favor of the mullahs, were designed to hijack the agenda of popular reformers like Yousefian, who had called for diplomatic relations with the United States.
Iran open to ties with US (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-31-iran_x.htm)
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's top national security official said Monday his government wants better relations with the United States
"Iran is [stable] there wont be another coup ."
The same goverment has been in power since 1979 , there are demonstrations in the street , no mass groups of dissenters , no guerillas fighting in the mountains . The Iranian govwerment is stable enough to proceed with talks with the EU , Russia and China and these nations are actively courting this goverment . Where has there been a call by the west to remove this goverment from power ?
"No you are an Israeli ."
Your English is to text book as if you learned it from an English class this leads me to assume you are not white and coupled with your vigorous defence of Israel I can only conclude you are in fact an Israeli .
"Isnt that what the Jews did to the Palestinians ?" [send fire out of the sky]
No , steal their country and evict the indigenous Palestinians by force into ghettos and oppress them .
"You have Jack shit , and I have news for you Jack has left town ."
Another indication that English is not your first language , that is a common English phrase yet you do not understand its meaning .
Thanks.
My pleasure .
I'd like you to point out where the Israelis threatened the "gentiles" with their arsenal, however. =) "Gentiles", LOL.
Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. New York: Random House (http://www.namebase.org/sources/PZ.html)
The title of Hersh's book comes from Israel's notion that once they have the Bomb, they are in a position to bring it all down on everyone if ever they feel cornered. It's the ultimate in Israeli security as a nation- state, if not for the security of humankind. Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift supplies during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and they passed U.S. secrets collected by Jonathan Pollard to the USSR when it served their interests. The Bomb has been a hidden factor in U.S.- Israeli relations ever since the Eisenhower administration, but this is the first book to deal with Israeli relations from this perspective.
Nor am I Israeli.
Yes you are .
But I imagine such distinctions are lost on you, as you float down the Tigris. Disarmament must begin with the nations around Israel - then they'll have no need to be so dangerous, or for their nuclear arsenal.
No Israel must be disarmed as everyone knows they are the biggest thraet and they cannot be trusted .
EU poll: Israel 'biggest threat' to world peace (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35383)
Over half of Europeans think Israel poses the "biggest threat to world peace," according to a controversial poll commissioned by the European Commission.
The poll found 59 percent of Europeans believe Israel represents the biggest obstacle to Mideast and world peace.
And true to form Israel is now causing more trouble with Iran .
Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran's nuke goals (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050929-114709-2065r.htm)
The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.
See that Israel starts the trouble and gets America to attack Iran .

Happy hannukah
Yours sincerly
Brian Foley :)

I think we are wasting our time here, gents.
Wasting whose time ? You arent even involved in the debate ! This thread is about CNN being thrown out of Iran and Geoff entered the nuclear slant into the debate and Im just carrying it on from there as it progresses .And besides who the Fuck are you ? The site admin or something .
i agree, and not just on brian foley.
Who cares what you think ? You are a non-entity on sciforums .

Too easy. This argument be the shizzat. And not in a good way.

The same goverment has been in power since 1979 , there are demonstrations in the street , no mass groups of dissenters , no guerillas fighting in the mountains . The Iranian govwerment is stable enough to proceed with talks with the EU , Russia and China and these nations are actively courting this goverment . Where has there been a call by the west to remove this goverment from power ?

Zippy, it's run by a paranoid religious lunatic with a pathological hatred of Jews - actually, any non-muslims - women and homosexuals. Connect the dots, if you can.

And why would "a call by the west to remove this goverment from power" necessarily mean that it wasn't stable? Is that your litmus test here? Actually, haven't Western powers already put the DaVinci slap-down on Iran for this entire nuke issue? Isn't that kind of your general bitch from the get-go? Which point are you trying to argue here?

Your English is to text book as if you learned it from an English class this leads me to assume you are not white and coupled with your vigorous defence of Israel I can only conclude you are in fact an Israeli .

So...my English is too "textbook". Therefore you must assume I'm not white...oooook, leaving that dubious claim aside, you say I'm an Israeli. But I'm not white; ergo, I must be a black Israeli. A Somalian refugee, perhaps? Or a Sudanese escapee? Maybe I'm one of the "lost tribes" who found his way home. Long walk out there, you know. It be hot in the desert.

You know what they say about assumptions, I assume?

OK, OK, I admit it - I'm merely a poor country muslim who finally realized the bankrupcy of his religio-cultural construction and left it for the glory of Judaic theology. Happy now?

Frankly, I am not an Israeli, and I have no idea which arse you pulled the "not white" conclusion out of. (Perhaps the 12th imam knows. Toss a letter down his well and see if he spits anything back up. There seems to be some kind of receptive delay at the present. All quills are currently busy but the Hidden Imam will be with you shortly.)

No , steal their country and evict the indigenous Palestinians by force into ghettos and oppress them .

No, the Palestinians left of their own accord after rumours started circulating that they were going to be massacred. Hardly likely, even given the Arab response to peaceful Jewish immigration including terrorism and open warfare by surrounding states.

Another indication that English is not your first language , that is a common English phrase yet you do not understand its meaning .

I'm terribly sorry, but we simply don't invoke "Jack" down in the ghetto. I'm sure my misfamiliarity with your colloquial rankles. Deepest apologies.

I'm sorry, can't really let that one by - how exactly do you figure I'd never heard of "Jack"? :rolleyes: By the by - and this is equally amusing - the phrase used in the manner in which you invoke it would properly be:

"You know Jack and shit - and Jack left town."

I cite the work of Bruce "Square-Jaw" Campbell in "Army of Darkness" (1993) in support of my syntax. Collary support for my interpretation can be found in "Rowdy" Roddy Piper's "They Live" (1988), although - to be frank - the latter work relates more to the whole "bubble gum-ass" literary complex.

Yes you are . [Israeli]

No I'm not. (Isn't this fun? LOL)

No Israel must be disarmed as everyone knows they are the biggest thraet and they cannot be trusted . And true to form Israel is now causing more trouble with Iran .

Er, whatever "thraet" you might think Israel is, they've never started any of the wars that engulfed your Arab brethren and which seem to trouble you so greatly. (Or in Australian I suppose that would be "graetly". James?) Whichever side of the world you're on, Israel is always a safer bet than anywhere in the ummah.

See that Israel starts the trouble and gets America to attack Iran .

No, they're using diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran getting nuclear capability, since they don't need a slightly-more-rabid-Pakistan within missile range of their homeland. If Iran gets attacked, frankly, it's their own fault for their rhetoric and their aggressive outlook. Or do you think states shouldn't be taken seriously when they express a want for the obliteration of others?

Happy Hannukah to you too, al-Foley. =) I had no idea you were Jewish!

Say: do you know what a "pommie" is?

"Gentile Ben-Geoff"

Wasting whose time ? You arent even involved in the debate ! This thread is about CNN being thrown out of Iran and Geoff entered the nuclear slant into the debate and Im just carrying it on from there as it progresses .And besides who the Fuck are you ? The site admin or something . Who cares what you think ? You are a non-entity on sciforums .

Ah - I care what he thinks, al-Foley. Devil's allowed opinions just as a misanthropic git posing as an Australian on an electronic forum is. He is (or was) involved in the debate and has every right to be. And as for the nuclear slant - you started that one, not me. How do you not get that?

Moreover, the fact that was directing his comment at me and not you, and the fact that you didn't get that...well. I don't think I need say much more.

Gentile Geoff
Devil's Advocate

So...my English is too "textbook". Therefore you must assume I'm not white...oooook, leaving that dubious claim aside, you say I'm an Israeli. But I'm not white; ergo, I must be a black Israeli. A Somalian refugee, perhaps? Or a Sudanese escapee? Maybe I'm one of the "lost tribes" who found his way home.
Im sorry you dont strike me as a white person , you sound Jewish , your writing comes off as forced like you learnt English in a classroom . You speak exactly like those Lebanese , Israelis and other Middle Easterners living in Australia .
No, they're using diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran getting nuclear capability, since they don't need a slightly-more-rabid-Pakistan within missile range of their homeland. If Iran gets attacked, frankly, it's their own fault for their rhetoric and their aggressive outlook. Or do you think states shouldn't be taken seriously when they express a want for the obliteration of others?
Anyway lets get back to what was asked of you back on page 1 of this thread , a task you seem to be avoiding .
So you have proof Iran has a nuclear weapon programme could I see it ?
Say: do you know what a "pommie" is?
An Englishmen .
Lox ? does that ring any bells ;)

you sound Jewish

What? How does one "sound Jewish"? It's a religion, sir.

That's a nazi-like attitude, thinking Jewish people are somehow different from everyone else.

Hee hee - an English<B>MEN</B>? Funnily enough, now there's a group of me. Are you suuuuuure you're Australian?

What was "asked of me back on page 1"? I don't recall any questions directed my way there. Although you do seem very interested to know if I'm Jewish. Why is that?

I think the answer to your general question is that almost no state that claims not to have interest in developing nuclear weapons can really be believed, or at least not a state of Iran's character. It's not wise that a state with a core belief in the suppression of minority religions, the oppression of women, the murder of homosexuals and the destruction of Jews be allowed to develop nuclear power, since the jump to nuclear weapons is so easily accomplished. I imagine that answers all your questions. Human rights first, nuclear destructive technology after, thanks.

Israel, of course, has also denied having nuclear intentions. So, by your standards, clearly they don't have any, now do they?

A very merry stone-throwing stampede to you.

Gentile Geoff

What? How does one "sound Jewish"? It's a religion, sir.
I should say his defence of Israel is a dead give away , if you compare him with kiwi who followed me here from another forum , who is himself an Israeli I pick up that same tone of language .

I should say his defence of Israel is a dead give away , if you compare him with kiwi who followed me here from another forum , who is himself an Israeli I pick up that same tone of language .

Israeli's are not automatically Jewish. Again, I'm trying to stress that it is a religion, not a seperate ethnic group.

Israeli's are not automatically Jewish. Again, I'm trying to stress that it is a religion, not a seperate ethnic group.
According to the Jews they are a race ! To me they are a religion , anyway so what .

Well, it seems to me Geoff is avoiding the issue and is instead just arguing with you. If this were an official debate, it would have been called off 2 pages ago. Instead of addressing the issues you raise that are backed up by some evidence, he is instead responding to your opinions. Admittedly your opinions are radical and just plain ignorant, but you still bring up valid points. I would say Geoff is losing this one.

Well, it seems to me Geoff is avoiding the issue and is instead just arguing with you. If this were an official debate, it would have been called off 2 pages ago. Instead of addressing the issues you raise that are backed up by some evidence, he is instead responding to your opinions. Admittedly your opinions are radical and just plain ignorant, but you still bring up valid points. I would say Geoff is losing this one.
Hey look just because I dont buy into your Iranian A-Bomb doesnt give you the right to call my stance ignorant . And as for radical I dont see where this comes in I have on the other thread where I argued with you put up 4 sources the IAEA , The EU , Russia and an American scientific team which all said Iran was not developing an A-Bomb . Saying that Iran has an Atomic Weapons programme especially in light of the LIEs told about Iraqs elusive WMD programme by the same administration I would say that is a radical stance .

"Ignorant" was the wrong choice of words. I would say your opinions are radical and you stretch your facts in order to make conclusions that a very small number of people, such as other radicals, would support.

There, a little more politically correct. ;)

I should say his defence of Israel is a dead give away , if you compare him with kiwi who followed me here from another forum , who is himself an Israeli I pick up that same tone of language .

So those who support Israel's right to exist must therefore be Israeli?

My, what a tiny world you must live in.

Geoff

Well, it seems to me Geoff is avoiding the issue and is instead just arguing with you. If this were an official debate, it would have been called off 2 pages ago. Instead of addressing the issues you raise that are backed up by some evidence, he is instead responding to your opinions. Admittedly your opinions are radical and just plain ignorant, but you still bring up valid points. I would say Geoff is losing this one.

Regrettably, I would disagree.

Al-Foley's premise is that Iran won't develop nuclear weapons because they say that they won't.

My point is that another Middle Eastern country said precisely the same thing some time ago, and they still went ahead and developed them anyway.

So how exactly are Iranian denials that they intend to use their program militarily reasonable to accept? I fail to see your confusion on this issue.

Frankly, his views in this matter are guided by his hatred of all things Jewish. This is key to understanding his support for nuclear technology for Iran - he's already admitted that he hopes Iran attacks Israel. From the distance between them, I can only presume they won't be firing soccer balls at Tel Aviv, but I leave you to your own conclusions on that one.

So there are ulterior motives for Iran's seemingly most reasonable defender. Have you others to offer?

Geoff

Al-Foley's premise is that Iran won't develop nuclear weapons because they say that they won't.

My point is that another Middle Eastern country said precisely the same thing some time ago, and they still went ahead and developed them anyway.

So how exactly are Iranian denials that they intend to use their program militarily reasonable to accept? I fail to see your confusion on this issue.

I agree, however he has provided evidence backed by all the related and necessary agencies that show Iran does not currently have any nuclear weapons program. Those same agencies have also corraborated Iran's explainations of certain discrepencies such as the uranium traces on centrifuges.

I have no doubt Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons (what country in the Middle East wouldn't?) but even I can realize I have absolutely no evidence for that claim except common sense, while the evidence against it is quite substantial.

Who cares what you think ? You are a non-entity on sciforums .

excuse me? this comes from the guy that thrives on spewing anti-jewish propoganda with EVERY post.

you offer nothing to this forum except radical, racist bullshit.
go back where you came from. i have been a member of this forum for years. who are you to say i am a non-entity just because i disagree with every single thing you say? oh, thats right....you are the almighty brian foley, and we should heed your omniscient jew-bashing opinions.
fuck you, maniac. every single thing we say or do in this world will affect everyone around you. keep that in your hate-spewing mind, ass.

I agree, however he has provided evidence backed by all the related and necessary agencies that show Iran does not currently have any nuclear weapons program. Those same agencies have also corraborated Iran's explainations of certain discrepencies such as the uranium traces on centrifuges.

I have no doubt Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons (what country in the Middle East wouldn't?) but even I can realize I have absolutely no evidence for that claim except common sense, while the evidence against it is quite substantial.

The past discrepancies may be explained, but not present or future Iranian intentions. That is more than enough to deny Iran nuclear energy.

Simply put, one would be a fool to trust them.

Geoff

one would also be a fool to trust the usa as well, if the past is any indicator of present intentions.

we have a long history of propping regimes up, and then not supporting (or toppling in the most extreme cases) them in their time of need.

True.

Then again, the US isn't led by a religiously blinded madman...

Well - at least he doesn't hate Jews, anyway.

No, but seriously you can see the contrast in comparison. I'll take Bushmania over "kill the Jews and homosexuals and Christians" Ayatollism any day.

Geoff

dont you think it is kind of the same thing, geoff?

Kind of, Devil. On first glance I say it looks like it, or at least it appears to have the same trends: religious overtones, moral majority, conservative outlook on rights etc. It seems the same.

But the US is limited in its prosecution of its own laws by the House, the Senate, the Judiciary. It's limited by Congressional Oversight. It's limited, in fact, by the democratic system itself - and, sadly corrupt as it often is, it still beats a real religious oligarchy where 16 year old girls get hung for mouthing off to judges and where homosexuals are not ostracized societally but stoned to death or tossed off buildings, and where women's rights are shackled by dogmatic religious systems. The Christians have a few advantages over that latter 'Abrahamic' religion: they have a golden rule, and a prophet that spoke only peace, whatever his followers have decided to make of his work (assuming he existed), and the capacity to reject elements of thei 'big picture' developed by over 2000 years of (admittedly) fratricine violence, conflict and general bitching. Christianity has had a Renaissance. Any given islamic society never has - and, it seems, can't. The Quran is meant to be the literal word of Allah, given directly to Mohammed, not "the word of God as written down by someone observing the actions of Jesus" (i.e. Luke, Mark, etc., the NT in general). If you reject any part of it, you have to reject the whole. Maybe that will change. Probably not. For, as the Quran itself says: "If we erase one sura (verse), do we not bring a better in its place?" or somesuch.

That to me is the difference, and any Western society should be aware of it. And the individuals of that society should be aware, too, of how that darkness wants to spread to here and everywhere else. "Islam was meant to be dominant, not to be dominated," says the head of the Council of Islamic American Relations (CAIR) in the United States, because "Allah can have no partners" - and he means it: for you, for me, and everyone else.

So, has the Bush admin changed things? Of course: Homeland Security and so forth indicates a sea change in individual rights legislation, although to be honest it's still kind of a fart in a windstorm for the majority population. But the system itself seems intact to me, certainly beyond reasonable comparison with the nutbars of Tehran and Riyadh. If our societal concern is really the protection of human rights, then lets do as the Christians say and pull out planks before going after specks. Specks can't hurt me. Planks can.

Peace,

Geoff

"bush-mania" however....has been trying and succeeding in having those congressional oversights rendered impotent. he has no real leash, politically.
we can agree on that similarity between dubbya and the ayatollah, cant we?

excuse me? this comes from the guy that thrives on spewing anti-jewish propoganda with EVERY post.

you offer nothing to this forum except radical, racist bullshit.
Every post ? Of the 180+ threads I have authored 17 have been about Israel sounds like you have a paranoid fixation on me .
go back where you came from. i have been a member of this forum for years.
Years ! Try 14 months according to you profile and a most unremarkable and mundane period of posting from you .
who are you to say i am a non-entity just because i disagree with every single thing you say?
Its true , and I have every right to say it you afterall are the poster who initiated this slander . You are a non-entity in the time you have been here according to your profile you have authoured 13 posts all about religion . I only became aware of you about a week or so ago , since that time you have been crawling up my Arse . You dont interest me , I find you a bland individual with a equally bland outlook .
oh, thats right....you are the almighty brian foley, and we should heed your omniscient jew-bashing opinions.
fuck you, maniac. every single thing we say or do in this world will affect everyone around you. keep that in your hate-spewing mind, ass.
Your just another a religious nutcase who has fixiated himself on his new target .

heh. ok dude.
i am a student of history. i have learned 4 foreign languages in the last 2 years, and am currently a major in middle eastern studies at the university of gent in belgium.

tell me i know nothing, and belittle my contributions to the forum. doesnt bother me any, if you need a little sugar in your tea.

and every single thread i have seen that starts with your name ends with "israel is bad, mmmmkay?"

get some new material, dolt.
also, if you think i am a religious nutcase that is so far beneath you, why do you insist on replying to me? i was just fine without you in my world, and im sure the rest of humanity is too.

and as a side note, please dont respond to me. your efforts will be ignored, racist.
you are so out of touch with the events and people you speak about, that honestly you shouldnt even reasonably have an opinion on what is apparently your favorite subject.
ive been studying it for well over a decade, and quite frankly..you know nothing of the arab people or the jewish people. it is just another bandwagon for you to ride.

also, i have started threads in MULTIPLE subforums.
good job researching someone. now i know how valid your thread research is.
also, what makes you think that this is the first screen name i have had on this board?
assumptions assumptions.
good job on your pompous rant though. gotta congratulate you on that one.

also, if you think i am a religious nutcase that is so far beneath you, why do you insist on replying to me?
You delibeartely sought me out , to insult me and I am just defending myself .
i was just fine without you in my world, and im sure the rest of humanity is too.
Then why bring me into your world .
and as a side note, please dont respond to me. your efforts will be ignored, racist.
In other words now that you have admitted you are Jewish , your fucked as we all now know why you are so biased . And a Zionist who belives he is a "Chosen people" calling me racist , go fuck yourself with a Ham roll .
ive been studying it for well over a decade, and quite frankly..you know nothing of the arab people or the jewish people. it is just another bandwagon for you to ride.
Whats to know about them ? Im of European ancestry what do I care , I only comment on political events , as far as I am concerned you can take Islam and Judaism , the Holy land and Mecca and shove them into the South Pole both cultures are backward stagnant cesspools .

and some folks worry about the possibility of a one World Government!

This is the moment where a mod would come in handy. :m:

Y
In other words now that you have admitted you are Jewish , your fucked as we all now know why you are so biased . And a Zionist who belives he is a "Chosen people" calling me racist , go fuck yourself with a Ham roll .


No wonder you were banned before.

You give people with legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli World Domination a bad name.

lol...ok ok... apparently you cant read, brian foley.
I SAID THAT I OPPOSE JEWISH EXPANSION.
why am i even trying to explain myself to you?
:m:

"bush-mania" however....has been trying and succeeding in having those congressional oversights rendered impotent. he has no real leash, politically.
we can agree on that similarity between dubbya and the ayatollah, cant we?

Hmmm...well, I suppose there's the motion to unshackle limitation in about every government. I guess if it gets in the way of what the administration sees as its goals, then said administration would try to get around it. Levering out Congressional oversight is a bad thing - but at the same time, there's still a couple of other bodies to limit the Republic. It's similar, yeah, I'd say that - but you still have to ask yourself why they're doing it - Bush, to hunt terrorists (which, although socialist, I'm down with) and the Ayatollah, to hunt homosexuals and Jews. But trying to change the rules in indeed dangerous.

Best,

Gentile Geoff

Oh - as for Foley - why exactly are you such a racist, anyway?

Back to your fallout shelter with you.

Geoff

No wonder you were banned before.

You give people with legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli World Domination a bad name.
A Pedophile Jew Baiter who is convinced Jews rule the Earth and have an evil plan of world domination of 6 billion people through the nation of Israel of 5 million people .
lol...ok ok... apparently you cant read, brian foley.
I SAID THAT I OPPOSE JEWISH EXPANSION.
why am i even trying to explain myself to you?
:m:
A Jewish religious nutcase who masquerades as a Christian who floods the religious forum with his daylight threads with an obsession for Mormons . And is convinced Brian Foley is flooding these forums with threads that contain insidious subliminal anti-Jew anti-Isarel messages .
Oh - as for Foley - why exactly are you such a racist, anyway?

Back to your fallout shelter with you.

Geoff
And a fruitcake who is convinced I am an Arab living in Iran and who accuses me of being paid by the Iranian President to post!

And all 3 find a common ground Ok , Right….Its time I left this insane thorazine fueled carousel ride .

Bye bye.

Don't let the big steel door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Geoff

Actually, speaking as we of giant asses - Brian al-Foley, did you see this report? Just out today in the Telly.

Can you say: oopsie?

G-man Geoff

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/22/wiran22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/22/ixnewstop.html

Iran extends nuclear plant in secret
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 22/01/2006)

<B>Iran has secretly extended the uranium enrichment plant at the centre of the international controversy over its resumption of banned nuclear research earlier this month, satellite imagery has revealed.</B>

Seven buildings have been erected around the concealed centrifuges which Western governments fear will be used to manufacture weapons-grade uranium at the Natanz site, 200 miles south of Teheran.

The discovery has heightened fears that Iran is stepping up the pace of its suspected weapons programme, in breach of international agreements, since it <B>removed International Atomic Energy Authority seals on nuclear equipment at the site 10 days ago.</B>

(wanna link? here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VNOM2P1PTPHLLQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2006/01/11/wiran11.xml)

<B>Western intelligence agencies are focusing on alarming similarities in satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear sites</B>, which the regime claims are for civilian purposes, and atomic facilities in Pakistan used to make the raw materials for nuclear weapons, as they try to identify the purpose of the Natanz construction spree.

<B>The building work took place unannounced during a 16-month pause in research and development at the site, while Iran engaged the West in protracted talks over its professed desire to develop nuclear power.</B> The existence of the Natanz site was kept secret until it was exposed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002. Iran started to move funds out of the European banks on Friday to avoid possible financial sanctions after its scientists resumed work. The showdown has contributed to soaring world oil prices and a slump on Wall Street stock markets.

The Sunday Telegraph has seen recent United States intelligence analysis of satellite photographs of nuclear sites in Iran and Pakistan that <B>strengthens fears that the Islamic regime is secretly developing atomic weapons under the guise of a supposedly peaceful power programme.</B> "Iran's facilities are scaled exactly like another state's facilities that were designed to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons," the US report concluded, using the phrase "another state" to refer to Pakistan for diplomatic reasons.

The intelligence briefing also studies Iran's heavy water plant and reactor at Araq and its ballistic missile programme and compares them with Pakistan's facilities. <B>The world learnt that Islamabad had built nuclear weapons only when it conducted first tests in 1998.</B>

John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent Washington defence research consultancy that specialises in analysing satellite images, told this newspaper: <B>"These pictures indicate that Iran is replicating every major step that Pakistan took in its atomic bomb programme."</B>

Both US intelligence and Mr Pike's independent analysis highlight the Araq site, where Iran claims it is processing heavy water for a medical isotope programme. <B>It bears a striking resemblance to Pakistan's site at Khushab.</B>

<B>Heavy water production reactors can be designed to covert uranium into weapons-grade plutonium without the need for further enrichment. </B>Pakistan, India, Israel North Korea, Russia and the US are all believed to have used them for this purpose.

The US intelligence assessment concludes that Iran could produce enough plutonium each year at Araq for up to three nuclear bombs.

In other parallels, Iran's scientists are conducting their latest round of research using Pakistani-designed centrifuges at Natanz. <B>The two countries are also both developing similar ballistic missiles, able to carry nuclear warheads.</B>

Evidence of new building at Natanz has further fuelled concerns about Iran's intentions. <B>"It is surprising to see how much construction work has taken place," said Mr Pike. "The Iranians have been very busy even while the seals were in place."</B>

The Iranians kept the existence of the Natanz and Araq sites secret until 2002 when IAEA inspectors confirmed opposition claims that Iran had been conducting a nuclear programme for 18 years. Teheran is widely believed to have received help during this time from A Q Khan, the maverick scientist who developed Pakistan's bomb and sold his know-how to rogue states around the world. The two countries have denied any official co-operation.


The US intelligence report that draws the parallels between the Iranian and Pakistani sites also <B>concludes that while Iran's uranium reserves are not enough for its claimed goal of nuclear energy independence, they are large enough for atomic bomb production</B>.

British, French and German diplomats from the so-called EU3 negotiating team, backed by Washington, are this weekend discussing with Russian and Chinese counterparts the contents of a draft resolution on Iran before an emergency IAEA meeting next month. Russia and China are unwilling to back early calls for sanctions.

A Jewish religious nutcase who masquerades as a Christian who floods the religious forum with his daylight threads with an obsession for Mormons . And is convinced Brian Foley is flooding these forums with threads that contain insidious subliminal anti-Jew anti-Isarel messages .

i masquerade as a christian? im obsessed with mormons? really? thats extremely interesting, considering the fact i am in the middle of a conversation with a christian right now about the invalidity of his beliefs.
and no, you arent subliminal at all. just annoying and over-opinionated.
And all 3 find a common ground Ok , Right….Its time I left this insane thorazine fueled carousel ride .

why wouldnt we find common ground in our distaste for your particular brand of idiocy? you talk about me being fixated on you, but you took the time to look up my profile and scream (inaccurately i might add) about what was in it. sounds like someone is fixated, but it sure isnt me.
make sure you get some sleep tonight, brian foley. im guessing that THAT is the only thing that could cause your paranoid delusions to surface the way they do.
dont forget to go fuck yourself.

Actually, speaking as we of giant asses - Brian al-Foley, did you see this report? Just out today in the Telly.
Oh great you have actual proof that Iran is prosecuting an Atomic Weapons programme ! Lets study your link .
The discovery has heightened fears that Iran is stepping up the pace of its suspected weapons programme,
“ Suspected weapons programme “ thats not definite .
(wanna link? here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VNOM2P1PTPHLLQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2006/01/11/wiran11.xml) Yeah read it you clown , this article says it wasn’t based on intel but IAEA reports , which I remind as I have already provided the IAEA has already said Iran was clean and no proof of any atomic weapons programme .
He said Iran was given every chance to avoid a confrontation. Seeking to avoid any parallel with Iraq, the Foreign Secretary said western concerns were not based on intelligence, but on IAEA reports.
Hardly an indictment .
The Sunday Telegraph has seen recent United States intelligence analysis of satellite photographs of nuclear sites in Iran and Pakistan that <B>strengthens fears that the Islamic regime is secretly developing atomic weapons
Yes the ever inconclusive “ strengthens fears “ .
The US intelligence assessment concludes that Iran could produce enough plutonium each year at Araq for up to three nuclear bombs.
The same discredited US intel which gave us the much publiciced Iraqi A-Bomb .
Teheran is widely believed to have received help during this time from A Q Khan, the maverick scientist who developed Pakistan's bomb and sold his know-how to rogue states around the world.
OK “widely believed ” Isn’t this type of evidence called “ hear say ” why hasn’t US intel provided absolute proof of this assertion rather than put forward suspicions .
The US intelligence report that draws the parallels between the Iranian and Pakistani sites also <B>concludes that while Iran's uranium reserves are not enough for its claimed goal of nuclear energy independence, they are large enough for atomic bomb production</B>.
Oh right another half truth crossed with a half assed calculation and offered up as a smoking gun , this is nothing more than a spurious campaign at manufacturing a primie facie case against Iran .
Can you say: oopsie?
Can you write on a blackboard 1000 times
Iran is building a power station .

Yep, all I see in that news article is "fears". Nothing concrete.

Keep in mind, I still believe Iran to be trying to develop nukes. They'd be stupid not to. However, that still does not mean they are. Look where suspicions went with Iraq.

It doesn't matter whether they're building a nuke or not though because we're gonna invade em regardless so they can't switch their oil trades to the euro come March. Oil being linked to the dollar is the only thing that keeps the U.S. dollar existant. And since Iran knows we're gonna pull another Iraq on them (since we invaded Iraq for doing the same currency change), they're doing all they can to prepare themselves for the inevitable war.

It's a fight for the survival of the U.S., and terrorism/nukes/etc was a created excuse to allow us to do this without pissing off the world more than we already have. If only there were a bit more honesty about the reasoning behind all this, there would be more support. Heck, I'd be behind our leaders and Saudi Arabia 100% (our main dollar/oil partner who has much investments in the U.S. which is why the 9/11 hijackers were from there), but since they're playing coy, I'm not.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

- N

Fears are fears enough. A paranoid nation with a fascistic faith and a hatred for all things dissimilar to itself is embarking on a quest for nuclear power. No one can rationally deny that they won't seek nuclear weapons as soon as they reasonably can, or that their system is as well adapted - and perhaps better - for nuclear weapons technology. (Foley refutes this possibility, which I why I say "rationally deny".) Whether they're invaded over oil or not, nuclear tech for Iran is a bad, dangerous idea. Ask yourself: are you more or less happy knowing that the lunatics in charge of North Korea have them?

I'd like to be able to agree with al-Foley that this is all "hearsay". Regrettably, it's not. The Iranian nuclear option is very much open, and they doubtless intend to keep it that way. They are mimicking the system of "another country" with which they have close ties (for obvious reasons) which used their system to create nuclear weapons at the earliest opportunity.

For Foley, proof of intent would only come when the Iranians produced a bomb. It's dubious any reasonable evidence would be acceptable to him, buried in his skewed reasoning. And even then he'd just cheer and pray for the destruction of Israel.

Geoff

Yep, all I see in that news article is "fears". Nothing concrete.
And yet the sheeple still get led by the nose .
Keep in mind, I still believe Iran to be trying to develop nukes. They'd be stupid not to. However, that still does not mean they are. Look where suspicions went with Iraq.
Its a catch 22 situation for Iran , either way tey cant win if they develop an A-*Bomb they get attacked if they arent developing an A-Bomb they get attacked , you have to ask yourself North Korea which actually has the bomb and is part of the Axis of Terror is treated as if they dont exist .
It doesn't matter whether they're building a nuke or not though because we're gonna invade em regardless so they can't switch their oil trades to the euro come March. Oil being linked to the dollar is the only thing that keeps the U.S. dollar existant. And since Iran knows we're gonna pull another Iraq on them (since we invaded Iraq for doing the same currency change), they're doing all they can to prepare themselves for the inevitable war.
Losing the lucrative distribution rights to miseast oil would take $1 trillion in pure profit out of the American economy and having the oil traded in the euro means America wont have the option of being the worlds currency and to print money at will , in effect losing its interest free loan ride .
It's a fight for the survival of the U.S., and terrorism/nukes/etc was a created excuse to allow us to do this without pissing off the world more than we already have. If only there were a bit more honesty about the reasoning behind all this, there would be more support. Heck, I'd be behind our leaders and Saudi Arabia 100% (our main dollar/oil partner who has much investments in the U.S. which is why the 9/11 hijackers were from there), but since they're playing coy, I'm not.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

- N
The fact why Iran is important is that if the EU manages to get a foothold into Iran and control the distribution of Iranian oil into Europe and elsewhere they in effect outflank US oil interests in Saudi Arabia . Thats why there is US troops in Iraq waiting for this event to happen , even if Iran actually presents a Bomb America still wont attack , it will only attack when US interests are imperiled by EU encroachemnt . A classic imperial rift .

Fears are fears enough.
This is from todays news do you see the tell all phrase there ?
Iran’s Nuclear Issue Becomes a Hornet’s Nest (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=76743&d=24&m=1&y=2006)
The US, Israel and Europe suspect the Iranian government of hiding a weapons program, but they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.
" NO PROOF TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS "

And gee - it's an <b>OPINION</b> piece from "Arab News". So it's not actually "news", but rather an <b>OPINION PIECE</b>. Now, I thought you didn't approve of people just giving their opinions on this issue. You said that individual opinions were bad. So which is it? Are they only all right when they agree with you?

Of course, not once do they bring up the dual capacity issue, or the critical mass issue, or the Pakistan-site mimicking issue.

So: No bias there, I imagine.

LOL

Geoff

BTW: The NKs are being ignored because they're being placated and since they haven't rattled the nuclear sabre in a while. That's why. Understand?

A paranoid nation with a fascistic faith and a hatre