Ed Ofama... On Iran

[Virus]

Because the independent El Baradei got shafted and the American lackey Yukiya Amano was installed, Wikileaks released cables that showed he was installed by America for America. who's first act was to simply take years of work by El Baradei, evidence that had been looked at and dismissed, and simply regurgitated. Internally, people within the IAEA are very, very sceptical of the report.



The Hersh interview starts about 2.5 mins in.

Seymour Hersh believes the Iraq war was a plot to convert the population to Christianity.

 

[Pardalis]

Seymour Hersh believes the Iraq war was a plot to convert the population to Christianity.

Iraq is the worst place for Christians to be these days, after Egypt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html
http://www.aina.org/news/20080107163014.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203710704577053221510203422.html

Doesn't quite fit the conspiracy theory.

 

[SezMe]

Seymour Hersh believes the Iraq war was a plot to convert the population to Christianity.

Non sequitor. Even if Hersh was wrong on Iraq that does not automatically disqualify his opinion on Iran.

 

[bigjelmapro]

That is certainly not an argument I have made. Would you like to fram your interrogation in less ambiguous terms and actually make you argument rather than just hinting at it?

You picked the time frame of the 1980's, which involved these certain issues. If you can't back up these claims, then don't make them in the first place. Then again, you've already moved the timeframe thanks to me.

Yes.

Evidence?

Emphasis of the current Iranian regime against predominantly the US and not the aforementioned countries.

The Soviets don't exist any.more. I'm pretty sure Iran repaired the relations with Russia. And France, as far as I understand there is great animosity towards France for their vocal support in limiting the Iranian nuclear programme.

Soviets still did exist in the 1980's and before. Don't see how that's even relevant. The Kremlin is still where it was before, during and after the failure of communism.

The Russian's motd is normally weapons sales to mend ties. Except in Iran, this included shipping nuclear reactor parts and low-grade fuel by the train load. Miraculously, the decades-worth of fuel Russia sent Iran is still not being used, almost a decade later.

Unfortunately, Russia is looking elsewhere to make up for the Iranian sales losses: Russia to offset loss of Iran arms sales with Iraqi, Afghan deals

Not included there, are the expedited sales of missile systems to their dear friends, the Baathists in Syria.

As for France, evidence for this still great animosity?

And this 'limiting' of Iran's nuclear program, what do you mean by that? Weaponizing?

What does Iran being "nothing like the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh" have to do with them likely holding America responsible for Operation Ajax?

Where did I say it did?

FYI, you're missing Britain (MI6) in that sentence since they were part of this operation as well.

Fact of the matter is, the current Iranian regime is contradicting itself by committing similar and worse actions throughout the region that it holds such disdain towards the US for doing.

Lastly, if you actually read into the details behind Operation Ajax and how it was carried out, it seems extraordinarily innocuous compared to Iranian involvement in places like Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, using its proxies to blow up entire street corners against political opponents the regime doesn't like...

And regarding that NYT article about 'possible military dimensions' of the Iranian nuclear program, I've seen the same questions regarding the continuation of these dimensions and the details behind them over several years of IAEA reports, throughout ElBaradei career. These have still not been answered to my knowledge.

 

[angrysoba]

Because the independent El Baradei got shafted and the American lackey Yukiya Amano was installed, Wikileaks released cables that showed he was installed by America for America. who's first act was to simply take years of work by El Baradei, evidence that had been looked at and dismissed, and simply regurgitated. Internally, people within the IAEA are very, very sceptical of the report.



The Hersh interview starts about 2.5 mins in.

Why do you call Yukiya Amano an "American lackey"?

I should say, just to avoid any confusion, that I also am very skeptical these days of US/UK or Israeli accusations of WMD in the possession of official state enemies. While I don't want to believe the governments of those countries out of hand, I do find it *interesting* that such things as Stuxnet have been deployed and I have noticed that certain Iranian nuclear scientists have met with sticky ends and I have noticed that there have been a lot of explosions going off here and there in Iran. It would appear to me that if these latter incidents are not all accidents and bits of circumstantial evidence then someone really believes Iran is making its way to nuclear weapons-capacity. So why should you think that Yukiya Amano is behaving in bad faith and is some kind of "lackey"? Do you think he's being paid to believe such stuff?

 

[IDB87]

So? There is no evidence that any of the material is being diverted to a weapons programme and the level of enrichment is far too low for weapons grade anyway.

I think you don't know what Heavy Water is used for. It also seems like you're mixing up plutonium and uranium. It is also strange to say that the uranium grade is too low - that's not what people are saying. They're saying that Iran has the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

Let's read what the IAEA actually says.

Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these. Since
2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.

Summary

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities
relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.

Sooooo...that's that I guess. Take it or leave it.

We just need Iran to do what it has been doing for the past decade which is comply with the IAEA.

What they have been doing?

Half the Arab world sees America as a terrorist group and a military aggressor but they still manage to have stable and productive diplomatic relations.

Thank you for at least admitting your contradiction. Iran is in fact an active aggressor it its neighbors affairs, where you claimed they are not The idea that we can't have open dialogue with them wasn't the point I was highlighting.

I think that the Saudi's don't do **** without being told to by their masters in Washington.

Hmm. I would think it was the other way around.

But why do you think that?

 

[Pardalis]

Non sequitor. Even if Hersh was wrong on Iraq that does not automatically disqualify his opinion on Iran.

Actually it's an ad hominem. It doesn't invalidate his opinion on Iran, but it greatly reduces his credibility.

 

[SezMe]

Actually it's an ad hominem. It doesn't invalidate his opinion on Iran, but it greatly reduces his credibility.

Actually, it's a Non sequitor. I was uncertain myself so looked it up before posting. That nit aside, I agree with his credibility being diminished.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's not the topic, Darth Rotor writes much better than that.

Muchas gracias.

you missed the OP, then.
pity.
it was a nice piece,too.
profane spoonerisms berating america's politicians for their war-like stance towards iran.
that is the topic.

Not quite. It's a complaint, fueled in part by a PWD moment, that Iran acquiring nukes is in some way as big a problem as is being claimed. I'd rather they didn't, and just used nukes for power not weapons, but I am pretty sure they want to join the big nuke club ... even though it brings with it major headaches, problems, and risks.

Iran getting nukes is a move in a large stakes chess match, which is I think aimed at neutralizing, in deterrent form, the Israeli nuclear capability, and making America more cautious in its moves in the Mid East. Also to wave their dicks at the Saudis, or their private parts at the Saudi's aunties.

Sorry to say, but Iran has pursued proxy warfare long before the US's involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter. The only leverage I see Iran would have with nuclear arms is another threat of escalating this proxy warfare in a number of ME countries with the use of non-conventional means (apart from the chemical variants already used by their proxies, ie chlorine bombs) and that Iran could now threaten nuclear retaliatory measures if NATO and/or coalition troops were to act on Iran's already abundant acts of perfidy/war throughout the region.

I disagree with you. I believe Iran's aim at a deterrent is to neutralize Israeli nuclear capability in the region as it affects them. The Iranian support for Syria, Hezbollah, dungheads in Bosnia, and numerous others I am more than familiar with, thanks.

I like how you added Israel in there. Curious as to what goals you're referring to here. On top of these supposed US goals.

Israel's nuclear deterrent/capability protects Israel.
This is a good thing.
I believe that Iranian policy makers would like similar protection.

What do you think has been occurring with the numerous sanctions? As for the motivations for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, refer to the previous ontop of this ficitional threat to Iran by Israel's ambiguous nuclear deterrent which has supposedly existed since the 1960's.

If you don't believe Israel possesses nuclear weapons capability, I can't help you.

 

[Mark6]

FWIW, here are my tips for a country (Iran say) getting nukes without too much hassle:

1) Do not promise that a nearby country, which has been attacked several times, will vanish from the pages of history
2) Do not host holocaust denial summits
3) Do not sponsor terrorism
4) Just generally try and be polite, well behaved and non-confrontational for a decade or so.

If a country (say, Iran) follow(ed) the above steps then they would not be the subject of the same attention that the Iranian regime are getting now.

India immediately comes to mind.

It followed all of the above steps and got nukes without too much hassle.

 

[Virus]

Prove.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I disagree with you. I believe Iran's aim at a deterrent is to neutralize Israeli nuclear capability in the region as it affects them. The Iranian support for Syria, Hezbollah, dungheads in Bosnia, and numerous others I am more than familiar with, thanks.

You disagree and somehow the better part of a century of Israel's nuclear ambiguity suddenly initiates Iran's nuclear program making excessive amount of enriched uranium for its yet to be online nuclear reactors and production of nuclear warheads?

Israel's nuclear deterrent/capability protects Israel.
This is a good thing.
I believe that Iranian policy makers would like similar protection.

Protection against imaginary threats like what? Invasion of a swarm of locusts? You think the Iranian regime is this retardedly slow? Nothing has really changed in Israel, perhaps you can explain what has changed in Iran to pursue such activities. Outside of Israel, there's no argument to support Iran's nuclear ambitions.

If you don't believe Israel possesses nuclear weapons capability, I can't help you.

Where did I say that I doubt Israel possesses nuclear weapons? I'm merely going with the flow of ambiguity. Get with it.

 

[bit_pattern]

4) Just generally try and be polite, well behaved and non-confrontational for a decade or so.

Hilarious. Which Middle East state is the one overtly threatening a regional competitor with violence? Hint: it ain't Iran.

 

[Virus]

Hilarious. Which Middle East state is the one overtly threatening a regional competitor with violence? Hint: it ain't Iran.

Hint: Is.

 

[WildCat]

Hilarious. Which Middle East state is the one overtly threatening a regional competitor with violence? Hint: it ain't Iran.

 

[bikerdruid]

Prove.

prove what?
it would be tough for you to be more ambiguous.

 

[Virus]

The statements in the post above that one.

I'm especially interested in these Holocaust denial summits the Indian government supposedly holds.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You disagree and somehow the better part of a century of Israel's nuclear ambiguity suddenly initiates Iran's nuclear program making excessive amount of enriched uranium for its yet to be online nuclear reactors and production of nuclear warheads?

No, it didn't initiate it, but it certainly makes for motivation not to give up on it, given the nuclear program in general seems to have dated back to the Shah's days. Uh, not even a nice try, amigo.

Protection against imaginary threats like what? Invasion of a swarm of locusts? You think the Iranian regime is this retardedly slow?

That is for the Iranian politicos to determine.

Nothing has really changed in Israel, perhaps you can explain what has changed in Iran to pursue such activities. Outside of Israel, there's no argument to support Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Odd, there are two powers to the east of them who ARE already nuclear. Iran wants to be a power.

There is some reason to believe that being a nuclear power makes you more influential. Are you familiar with a nation called France?

There may be some (paranoid) leadership in Iran who think Nukes would deter American operations contra Iran's moves in the region.

Where did I say that I doubt Israel possesses nuclear weapons? I'm merely going with the flow of ambiguity. Get with it.

Did I say that you said that?

If you are going to play that arsewards game, I'll join right in.

 

[Virus]

Anti-Semitism from the Iranian regime.

 

[Mark6]

The statements in the post above that one.

I'm especially interested in these Holocaust denial summits the Indian government supposedly holds.

You misread my post. My point was India DID follow all of Giz's "tips":

1) Did not promise that a nearby country, which has been attacked several times, will vanish from the pages of history
2) Did not host holocaust denial summits
3) Did not sponsor terrorism
4) Generally was polite, well behaved and non-confrontational

And got nuclear weapons without much hassle.