Iran Concedes, and Congress Thanks Them With Spit in the Eye.

reply to post by Beefcake

---

Howdy, my verdict is still out regarding Iran, and things Ahmadinejad has said. There have been many articles in the alternative blogosphere which use correct translation, and Ahmadinejad said something entirely different than reported by the MSM. Also, many many words spoken by Ahmadinejad are drastically taken out of context.

Heck, I would be considered insane should People in another country read what I wrote; should it be taken out of context. I might even be convicted as a criminal elsewhere based off of out of context words I've spoken. Same thing goes for there.

Now, where I can see smelling a fowl global NWO colluded effort is that Ahmadinejad speaks PERFECT English.....PERFECT

reply to post by Phage

---

Phage These articles highlight what the head of the IAEA has stated to the public. He is the IAEA.

IAEA denies it has proof Iran close to making bomb
www.ynetnews.com...


and also here.

Iran not after nuclear weapons, says IAEA chief
www.presstv.ir...



How's it all equate??? Well, Israel has openly said they don't like the man mentioned above. I believe the replacement is from Japan. Either way though it casts "Reasonable Doubt". At this point should the new head of the IAEA come in, and scream murder, then the masses will believe it, but to anyone sane, it should show subversion. Also, the man above is the current head, his word is LAW regarding the IAEA. Iran isn't doing anything wrong

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

---

The report I linked was from the Director General (ElBaradei). In the report he is says that to prove that they do not have a nuclear weapons program, they need to implement the Additional Protocol and taking care of the "outstanding issues". Apparently Iran is not interested doing these things.

But ElBaradei saying "there is no concrete proof" and saying he "hopes" they don't have a program, is very comforting...for some.

reply to post by Phage

---

Iran is complying with the NNPT, and the IAEA. They have been in many negotiations where the US, and Israel have backed out, but tried to hold Iran to the issue. Not quite cosher imo.

I would have to ask what are You view points of Dimona in Israel?

reply to post by Phage

---

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences.

Explanation: Sorry Phage.... I'm totally surprised that you would agree with, support or promote anybody who wants to try and prove a negetive RE:" to prove that they do not"!

Argument from Ignorance. [wiki]

The IAEA can only prove that they are making nuclear weapons ...not the other way around!

Personal Disclosure:

reply to post by Phage

---

I present Dimona

YouTube Link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

also I am going to edit this in a minute with another thread.

here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2-10-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

[edit on 2-10-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

reply to post by OmegaLogos

---

Ack. You're right. Sorry, in order to

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

---

A red herring, but that's not unusual 'round these parts.

I think nuclear weapons suck. I think the fewer there are the better. I think the fewer new players the better. I think Israel's "secret" program is marginally less scary and certainly less destabilizing than Iran's would be.

reply to post by Phage

---

Phage, Your an intelligent Person. Israel cannot enforce a policy upon someone else should they not play by the rules either. It cannot be do as I say, not as I do.

that is not democracy, or freedom, but dictate, as in a dictatorship.

It would be a travesty to attack Iran without making Israel abide by the same law they are using against Iran. That is fair.

What this is causing is a nuclear arms race by all other countries watching this unfold. Saudi Arabia, amongst others now are seeking nukes. It is easy enough to watch North Korea be left alone because of what they possess.

It is simply a matter of all parties being fair. The repercussions of this should war in sue, will be very bad.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

---

Who said anything about an attack? An attack on Iran by Israel or anyone else at this stage would be uncalled for. Just as the US invasion of Iraq was uncalled for. But using the word "fair" in relation to international nuclear policy is absurd. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. That's not "fair". India and Pakistan each have nuclear weapons. So that is "fair"? See how preposterous the idea is?

Ok, the UN should "force" Israel and Pakistan and India and everyone else to give up the weapons they have. That would be "fair" don't you think?


[edit on 10/3/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

---

Fair is enforcing the same laws across the board. Israel is strongly pushing for actions based off of guidelines they themselves blatantly don't follow.

I would have to look it up, but the other nuclear powers You mentioned are amongst the very few who refuse to play by the IAEA NNPT.

It's not right, but they aren't lobbying Congress for a war, or I should say a "preemptive strike" for "security".

What I "think" I just read in Your thread is that **all** parties should be held equally accountable? I agree with that a 100%

The incursions into Pakistan are where Peoples focus should be. Pakistan is becoming unstable due to these, and they absolutely have nukes.

Phage, I know You wanna windsurf, and have a wonderful life; as do I. I think most all common folk around the World want the same thing.

Does it not disturb You that Albert Pike laid the ground work out for the very situation we are teetering on now; so many years ago?

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

---

I honestly don't know why everybody is surprised. This is from one of my earlier threads.

Obamas 9/11 gift to the world? PEACE.

If we aint careful peace may break out...

U.S. Accepts Offer From Tehran for Broad Talks

AND....

US ready for N Korea direct talks

reply to post by Phage

---

Disclaimer: As above!

Explanation: Ah-Ha! There's the rub you see because they can't provide "credible assurance" in the area of nuclear weapons [not including the info and access that the IAEA wants] due to the fact that they can easily and with their current resources, can and possible already have made/make a [several?] very large [1/2 metric ton critical mass required + rest of bomb etc], inefficient and very dirty uranium235 enriched to just below 20%, simple gun type of nuclear device as used by the USA on Hiroshima during WW2. And I'm not even entering the realms of unknown unknowns such as whether Aliens or Allah have secretly supplied them them some magical nuke! This simple dirty nuke scenerio that I have presented is remarkably robust under the scrutiny of Occam's razor, but maybe mines blunt so please feel free to hack away with yours!

Personal Disclosure: Anyway..who sets up the standard measure of credible assurance, how accurate is it and who gets to apply it when and where? Also would Israel pass this measure?

P.S. To answer my own last Question, I would have to say that would be a big no and I offer this wiki evidence as proof!

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

"Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—have declined to sign the treaty. India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israel has a long-standing policy of deliberate ambiguity (see List of countries with nuclear weapons). These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid." [from source. Note bold is my edit and emphasis only]

"On September 18, 2009 the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities," which passed by a narrow margin of 49-45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."" [also from same source]

antiwar.com article.

Nuclear weapons and Israel.

reply to post by OmegaLogos

---

Yeah. Shine the NNPT. The more in the club the better I say!

reply to post by Phage

---

Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: And I have to respectfully disagree with you. The nuke genie is already out of the bottle and as those three sovereign countries make a very robust case when it comes to the ethics [fairness] factor being unreasonable. This is further backed up by some info from the IAEA's own website and out of the mouth of its current chief!

iaea.org [source]

"ABDALLA: What about your recent visit to Israel?

ELBARADEI: First of all, I should like to point out that there is a lot of confusion about the IAEA’s authority with regard to Israel. The Agency has no inspection authority in Israel, except with regard to a small research reactor. As is the case with India, Pakistan and the five nuclear States, we have no legal authority to perform inspections in Israel. I agree that the Israeli military nuclear programme is a cause of great concern in the Middle East and in the world as a whole. For over thirty years, Israel has been urged to join the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We must understand, however, that the nuclear non-proliferation regime is a voluntary regime. Israel, India and Pakistan have not acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As Director General and as an international civil servant, my authority with regard to these States is basically moral and political, rather than legal."

Personal Disclosure: Its no good the USA,UK,France [EU?] and Israel beating up on Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran over ethical grounds when they themselves don't meet the same standards that they want applied! This hypocrisy is blatant and I as a citizen of a country [Australia] that has these hypocites as allies will no longer tolerate such an affront to one of my countries most important cultural tenets, which is give everybody a "FAIR GO!". I'm even more disgusted with myself as a citizen of a country that has previously and currently supports such an idealogical cognitive dissonance both globally with its allies, and locally by fooling ourselves that "She'll be right mate! Nobody will notice!".

P.S. Seems to me our pathos overwhelmed our ethos, whilst our logos was eerily AWOL! Nuke war appears pathetic in comparison!

Edited buggy emoticon.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by OmegaLogos

---

The NPT concerns only those nations which have signed it. The USA, UK, France, and yes, Russia abide by the conditions of the treaty. Yes, they had nukes at the time and still do but none of the other participants (including Australia) do. The non-nuked members (most of them anyway) understand the importance of limiting and reducing the number of atomic weapons on the planet and are working toward that end (along with those who do possess them).

The IAEA and the UN have no authority over those countries which have not signed the NPT and can do nothing about their activities. But Iran signed the treaty in 1970. They are bound by it until such time they they withdraw from it (as North Korea did). But they aren't ready to withdraw yet. The treaty facilitates the development of peaceful use of atomic energy, they like that part. It means they can make deals like the one they made with Russia. They don't like other parts, the parts that interfere with weapons research and development.
Their obligations under the treaty are clear. They are ignoring them.

"Fairness" is not the issue. "Fairness" in nuclear warfare is a meaningless word.

What are we to believe when the IAEA is contradicting themselves? Very interesting.



Source



[edit on 3-10-2009 by lucentenigma]

A pattern is emerging I am afraid.

On 2nd Oct' there was only one single news source stating
but surprisingly it not published anywhere in MSM. It's astoinishing MSM is not covering this important aspect.

I could only find a link from Russian news source posted on You Tube.
www.youtube.com...
I am not aware how to embed the viedo thus the link.

And I saw this important piece of information is missing on this thread Dated 3rd Oct:

Iran's nuclear programme in spotlight as IAEA chief El-Baradei arrives in Tehran

And just few hours ago this news emerged from Israel and is allover the MSM.
Dated 4th Oct

Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...

This is a direct provocation by Israel in my view now to Russia and Iran. After Iran agreed to let Russia and France enrich uranium for it, Israel has now come up with a list of Russian scientist who are suppossedly helping Iran build nuclear warheads. Thus, Israel is indirectly accusing Russia of helping Iran make nuclear warheads and suggesting Russia shouldn't enrich uranium for Iran.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by December_Rain]

There's a Ben Franklin quote - "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, in a republic, the sheep has a gun." Someone on this site has something like it on their signature.