It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK based Company [INSULTEC] supplies Iran Gov with Nuclear Reator materials [Wikileaks]

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
What amuses me is that people think there are sides at all.


And also.... there were plenty of American banks funding Nazi's..... fuel in Nazi planes....

The list of this kind of "deception" or "playing both sides" is as long as all of our arms put together.

We're all being played.




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

This is most disturbing to find out that the UK Government are allowing a company in there country to manufacture materials and smuggle them to Iran in that could possibly be used in a Nuclear Reactor!

I thought the UK were trying to stop and prevent such things from happening?

Why would the UK Government be allowing this to happen?

They are more or less helping Iran to manufacture a nuclear reactor. Or, should I say, its quite possible that they are helping them.


I really don't understand - why would you expect the Government to know about this? Do you think they are aware of every item which is exported from the UK? It says quite clearly in the article I read that false labels were used on the items, which means all the paperwork would have included that same false description. And as I said, the items themselves may never have been in UK or sent from UK, it could have been a subsidiary in another country.

I'm certainly no supporter of these corrupt governments, and no offense meant, but your logic seems pretty naive here.

What I would find very suspicious is if there is now no investigation into this company and its activities.


edit on 29-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


That is the thing mate, no matter what, the UK is to blame for allowing it to happen, weather or not they knew about it or not. It happened in their country, and they should be held accountable.

That is what the court would say.

Imagine if the roles were reversed:
Say: You are the CEO of a company and an employee secretly makes illegal substances in your warehouse and the cops raid the place. Weather or not you knew about it, you will still go to jail, be fined or held responsible because its your business and that is the way the courts would see it. The finger would be pointed at you the CEO and you would be held liable for prosecution.

Many innocent people in the UK have been jailed for such things (the bosses of companies and normal people etc), so I can not see why the government can not be treated in the same way for being careless in domestic security.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv
reply to post by wcitizen
 


That is the thing mate, no matter what, the UK is to blame for allowing it to happen, weather or not they knew about it or not. It happened in their country, and they should be held accountable.



That's like saying the Government is accountable for every crime committed in UK, which is clearly unreasonable.

As long as UK authorities issued the correct information to companies regarding restrictions on trading with Iran, and as long as required overseeing was carried out, if the company then committed a crime the UK Government isn't responsible.




That is what the court would say.



I doubt very much that that's what the Court would say, in fact I believe it is very foolish to ever believe one can know what a Court will say in most cases.




Imagine if the roles were reversed:
Say: You are the CEO of a company and an employee secretly makes illegal substances in your warehouse and the cops raid the place. Weather or not you knew about it, you will still go to jail, be fined or held responsible because its your business and that is the way the courts would see it.
The finger would be pointed at you the CEO and you would be held liable for prosecution.


That statement is waaayyy oversimplistic, naive and inaccurate. Unless there is negligeance, collusion, lack of adequate supervision and security checks, the Court would not hold the CEO guilty of a crime. One of the key words in the judicial system is 'reasonable', and they would look at whether a given CEO could reasonably have been expected to be aware of a situation or not.

If a minor commits a crime, is the parent jailed too?

If a UK citizen carries out a terrorist activity in another country, is the PM put in jail or held responsible? No.



Many innocent people in the UK have been jailed for such things (the bosses of companies and normal people etc), so I can not see why the government can not be treated in the same way for being careless in domestic security.


Really? Can you point me to some specific cases?


edit on 29-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
That's like saying the Government is accountable for every crime committed in UK, which is clearly unreasonable.


Maybe not if it is classified as material that could be used to make Nuclear Reactors, or WMD's.


Originally posted by wcitizen
As long as UK authorities issued the correct information to companies regarding restrictions on trading with Iran, and as long as required overseeing was carried out, if the company then committed a crime the UK Government isn't responsible.


It did not stop them though, and the crime was made under their governance.


Originally posted by wcitizen
I doubt very much that that's what the Court would say, in fact I believe it is very foolish to ever believe one can know what a Court will say in most cases.


Not foolish, but with modern Tyrannical laws; anything is possible.



That statement is waaayyy oversimplistic, naive and inaccurate. Unless there is negligeance, collusion, lack of adequate supervision and security checks, the Court would not hold the CEO guilty of a crime. One of the key words in the judicial system is 'reasonable', and they would look at whether a given CEO could reasonably have been expected to be aware of a situation or not.


But that is the problem, there was a lack of security checks and supervision.


Originally posted by wcitizen
If a minor commits a crime, is the parent jailed too?


Bad example.


Originally posted by wcitizen
If a UK citizen carries out a terrorist activity in another country, is the PM put in jail or held responsible? No.

No, agreed. Though they would get bad press about it and told to tighten their security to prevent such things ever occurring again; which I would like to see. I want justice because if a manufacturer composed of criminal Indians in mainland England were making nuclear reactor parts and there were to be an accident to occur it would be catastrophic.


Originally posted by wcitizen
Really? Can you point me to some specific cases?


No problem: Gilford Four and Maguire Seven
edit on 29/11/2010 by the_denv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by the_denv
 


Well I'd like to know who is the Psychic, as this cable is dated 2019...


NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 3/7/2019
TAGS: ETTC ETRD ENRG UE UK TU AJ IR


So is this a joke like the last thread you made???????



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


That's not the date....what last thread?
You do know that someone was lurking these forums with the same avatar as me posing as me and he got banned for it yesterday. Maybe that was him? User: "anonymousanonymous".



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by the_denv
 


lol, did someone really do that?? That's pretty lame..

Ohh, sure looks like a date to me..What else could it be??



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

This is most disturbing to find out that the UK Government are allowing a company in there country to manufacture materials and smuggle them to Iran in that could possibly be used in a Nuclear Reactor!

I thought the UK were trying to stop and prevent such things from happening?

Why would the UK Government be allowing this to happen?

They are more or less helping Iran to manufacture a nuclear reactor. Or, should I say, its quite possible that they are helping them.


(S) A well-connected Iranian businessman who owns a
Baku-based oil services company told Baku Iran watcher that a
company called "INSULTEC," owned by UK citizens of Indian
origin, has secretly provided cladding, thermal insulation,
and ancillary equipment to the government of Iran in a
variety of shipments via Turkey and the U.A.E. According to
the Baku source, whose company operates in Russia,
Kazakhstan, and the U.A.E. as well as Azerbaijan, the
materials allegedly sent by INSULTEC in falsely labeled
containers were of type that could be used in nuclear reactor
construction. Citing old Iran and Dubai based business
friends allegedly familiar with the issue, the source said
that INSULTEC has maintained a sanctions-evading relationship
with Iranian government companies for some time. Source said
that the company was officially headquartered in the U.K.,
and has offices in Germany, the USA, and elsewhere, its
manufacturing base and the bulk of its staff are in India.


cablegate.__._
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 28/11/2010 by the_denv because: (no reason given)


Or, maybe Iran just wants a nuclear reactor for power...many other countries have it so why not Iran?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by the_denv
 


lol, did someone really do that?? That's pretty lame..

Ohh, sure looks like a date to me..What else could it be??


Yeah, I was totally shocked. Got U2U'd by a member yesterday about it, I did not even see the guy before, he couldnt get the avatar correctly sized though, he had the cheek to ask in the forums too: (He got banned at the last page) Link

It might be a TAG, or reference ID, the cable is talking in a past tence, so it happened.


Originally posted by remrem
Or, maybe Iran just wants a nuclear reactor for power...many other countries have it so why not Iran?


Could be, but its a hotzone at the moment, when desperate times require desperate measures they could make it into a WMD.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv


It did not stop them though, and the crime was made under their governance.


That does NOT make them criminally responsible, as you alleged.




Not foolish, but with modern Tyrannical laws; anything is possible.

Yes, foolish. You stated as fact that the Court would make a certain decision, I maintain that is very foolish



But that is the problem, there was a lack of security checks and supervision.


How do you know that?



Bad example

No, the example is 100% relevant.



No, agreed. Though they would get bad press about it and told to tighten their security to prevent such things ever occurring again; which I would like to see. I want justice because if a manufacturer composed of criminal Indians in mainland England were making nuclear reactor parts and there were to be an accident to occur it would be catastrophic.



They MAY get some bad press, depending on the circumstances, but that's beside the point. You asserted emphatically that the Government would be legally held responsible for the nuclear parts sent from a UK company. I replied that such a statement was completely inaccurate - and this proves it was.






edit on 30-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
They MAY get some bad press, depending on the circumstances, but that's beside the point. You asserted emphatically that the Government would be legally held responsible for the nuclear parts sent from a UK company. I replied that such a statement was completely inaccurate - and this proves it was.



You don't get it do you?

If you read my original statement I said "They should be held accountable".

Your very argumentative, all I am doing is trying to have a conversation.

Your statement proves as much as my statement, all it is; is an opinion; so you can not prove anything.

edit on 30/11/2010 by the_denv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

Originally posted by wcitizen
They MAY get some bad press, depending on the circumstances, but that's beside the point. You asserted emphatically that the Government would be legally held responsible for the nuclear parts sent from a UK company. I replied that such a statement was completely inaccurate - and this proves it was.



You don't get it do you?

If you read my original statement I said "They should be held accountable".

Your very argumentative, all I am doing is trying to have a conversation.

Your statement proves as much as my statement, all it is; is an opinion; so you can not prove anything.

edit on 30/11/2010 by the_denv because: (no reason given)


No, I do get it. You said things which were just not accurate - about the Government being criminally responsible.

Me too, I'm having a conversation - you are the one who is arguing, trying to get out of the fact that your statement was plain wrong. If you just had the grace to acknowledge it wasn't true - the converstation could have moved on or not.

Pot and kettle come to mind.

I don't defend what the company has done - at all. But to make those kind of untrue statements doesn't help the conversation at all.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Funny I was going to include Pot and Kettle in my last post.

I am not arguing, I made the thread and I am merely replying.

So, this happens in the UK and you don't think someone of legal stature in the government should be told "Heh, why didn't you know about this? Why wasn't I informed about this and how the hell did it make it past customs"? That is what an official would have said behind closed doors to the person who would be in charge of overseeing businesses that manufacture objects of that nature.


edit on 30/11/2010 by the_denv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Funny I was going to include Pot and Kettle in my last post.

I am not arguing, I made the thread and I am merely replying.

So, this happens in the UK and you don't think someone of legal stature in the government should be told "Heh, why didn't you know about this? Why wasn't I informed about this and how the hell did it make it past customs"? That is what an official would have said behind closed doors to the person who would be in charge of overseeing businesses that manufacture objects of that nature.


edit on 30/11/2010 by the_denv because: (no reason given)


Well, ok then - I could say the same thing - I was merely replying...just that you see that as argumentative!

The comment you now make, and the ones you made earlier are quite different. You said the UK Government would be criminally liable...that is what I said I was incorrect, and I explained why.

Will questions be asked? I certainly hope so - but I already said that in an earlier post.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join