Iran enriches uranium to 20% - Page 4

Because people don't like to be shaken from their currently comfortable perception of reality.

Who are the "war propagandists" exactly?

You don't know?!

I'll give you a hint: It's the same people who have worked to keep the American people in a constant state of fear so they will willingly acquiesce to various violations of their privacy and dignity...so they will willingly allow agents of the federal government take nearly nude photos of them and/or fondle their private parts all in the name of being "safe" and "secure".

It's those people.

No, really. Who exactly?

Are you playing dumb here?

Don't worry. You wouldn't know. You don't even know that you're already being easily manipulated in exactly the way we're discussing. You are the propagandists' perfect target. A pushover for the fear mongers. You've bought every line.

A must read article here by Juan Cole. The obvious point here, is that the western corporate media, in their quest for another war - which traditionally bring HUGE ratings - have ignored the commentary by Iran's top cleric Ali Khamenei.

Here it is, with Khamenei's comments highlighted.


It is very clear what is going on here.

Yes, it is. Folks like you are actually listening to a thing Iranians claim .

Woooahhhh. Wait a second! Hold the phone!

We are supposed to listen to them when they allegedly say they're going to "wipe Israel off the map." But we are not suppose to listen when they allegedly say they aren't going to?

LOL. And I bet he still doesn't realize the irony.

TFTFY


I think it is you who don't get the irony. There seems to be a collection of people out there who ignore every threat Iran makes, every obfuscation in which engages and every wack-a-doo theocratic statement its leaders make. At the same time, you relentlessly question the motives and statements of your own country. Somehow the the Iranians are only lying when they repeatedly threaten Israel and give the middle finger to the U.N. and IAEA, sponsor terrorism and promote the return of the Hidden Imam. But they are telling truth suddenly when they claim they are not a "first strike" nation and have no plans to build a nuclear weapon. Come on.

Don't misunderstand...I encourage legitimate criticism of and skepticism about our government. That being said, I don't think you're looking Iran in a balanced way. MJ, you are libertarian and want us to follow the non-aggression principle. tonton, you are not libertarian, but it seems you're at least where MJ is on the same principle. Your views on foreign policy are shaped through the general theory that if we leave certain nations alone and demilitarize in the Middle East, we'll promote security and stability for ourselves, and the region. To support that theory, it seems as if you're willing to ignore some very real concerns on Iran.

While I certainly don't want a war, I don't believe you are seeing Iran as the threat that it is. The real power of Iran's government rests in the mullahs. It is an oppressive theocracy. Many of those in power are religious zealots committed to facilitating the return of the Hidden Imam. In order for him to be revealed, Armageddon must occur. These leaders are also incredibly anti-semitic and anti-U.S. And they are the same people that have an advanced nuclear program in the middle of a desert full of oil. They are the same people that have refused transparency on that program. They are the same people that have repeatedly threatened Israel, questioned the holocaust, etc. They are the same people that, through their government, support terrorism worldwide. Iran is a rogue regime in the purest sense. While I do believe there are elements within our government that want a war (aren't there always), that doesn't mean the threat is false.

It would be more accurate to say *the government* of your own country. The actions of the *government* of America is a very long way displaced from the *country* of America, and what its people want...


It's the Israelis who have been making all the threatening moves. They have a record of attacking their neighbors.... even their closest ally, the US - remember the USS Liberty? When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uttered that famous mistranslated statement about "wiping Israel off the map", the original words he said referred to the "hardline Zionist" element within Israel's *government*, not the country of Israel itself. This mistranslation was seized upon and eagerly rebroadcast in the US, courtesy of MEMRI et al. A classic example of how myths are made.


How about their neighbor to the west.... which has done the same thing on 70+ occasions obver several decades with absolute impunity?


Name me an industrialized country on earth which doesn't...


All corporate religions have their wacky beliefs to manipulate the adherents....


And please inform us as to when in modern history has Iran done a first strike? It would be insane for them to hit out at Israel.... a country with up to 400 nukes (including thermonuclear devices) and a huge arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, whose two major allies (US and UK) regularly go to war just for recreational purposes and to benefit big business, nothing whatsoever to do with their own national security. And, to boot, need very little persuastion to start another war against Iran, with a first strike.... a nice convenient little false flag event blamed on Iranians would work wonders as well...

And FYI, Iran has had a nuclear program going since the 1950s. Granted, its been nn and off...but if they had been committed to building nuclear weapons, they would likely have done so a long time back, especially considering their long established ties to the Soviet Union/Russia. Pakistan managed to do just accomplish the same in rapid order, and nobody had a clue, until they tested one in 1995.


As long as it's not the Bush Administration.... or any authoritarian for that matter....


The "concerns" about Iran only started surfacing when the current pairs of wars in the middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq) were starting to wind down, after the neocons had milked everything they could out of the media induced paranoia, and the public were starting to (finally) see through the lies and propaganda. Now they're pulling the same stunts with Iran and the corporate media, as usual, are being their pathetic little knee-padded lapdogs.


Really? Thats a first!


Don't you mean.. "they way that the media is portraying it, and you are swallowing every piece of propaganda they can dream up"?


That it sure is. Crocodile tears for the Iranian people?


What's that got to do with the US? And what is new here? And since when have the US government started to not support "oppressive regimes", after a long track record of installing, cajoling, funding and mollycoddling dictators and thugs, by overturning democracies in many parts of the world?


No, they are more anti-Zionist, not anti-Jew. "Semitic", by the way, refers to a group of peoples from the Mid East, which includes a large group of Arab ethnicity from Ethiopia to Saudi Arabia, extending through Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and as far north as Southern Turkey.


After what happened in 1953, when the US toppled Iran's Western style parliamentary democracy and replaced it with a police state under a vicious dictator... who can blame them? After what happened in 1980, when the Reagan Administration armed and supported Saddam Hussein's 8- year war against Iran? ... etc? People in the mid east have a attention spans a lot longer than a few microseconds.....


Israel anyone? One rule for them, and another for Iran? Is that realistic? And where is the PROOF that they are making nuclear weapons?


Who is threatening whom? Reality, I mean....



That is the US threat facing Iran. Then in addition, there's Israel, and the United Kingdom - which does everything the US demands.... and various other members of the potential coalition of the coerced.


Has any other senior government figure in Iran questioned the holocaust, outside of their outlier wacky president.... who has far less political clout than what we in the US think of when we refer to "president"?


) The world has suddenly shrunk... By the way, ever heard of MEK.. a terrorist group responsible for bombings and shootings in Iran, listed by the US State Dept. as terrorist groups but who get covert support and funding from within the US?


Perhaps you and Tucker Carlson are on the same side here. Lets wipe 'em all out... a new Holocaust for the 2010s? An acceptable holocaust... a few million dead Persians is acceptable collateral damage, yes? (neocon talk).


There are elements within every government and military who want war... especially if the chickenhawk elements think they can get rich from it (as long as they don't have to fight on the front lines, of course). Iraq anyone? Vietnam?


But most wars are started on threats which either don't exist, have never existed, and failing that have been deliberately manufactured, or fabricated within the collective psyche and imagination of the public.

I think you might slightly nuts. Israel? The country that is surrounded by those that wish to push it into the sea?


Let's invade. No?


Moommmmm....heeeee's doing it toooooooo!


Yes, they do. Then again, the Catholic church doesn't have a nuclear program.


This is what you don't understand. We are not dealing with rational secularists like the Russians. We are not dealing with leaders who we merely have political disagreements. We are dealing with those who actually WANT Armageddon. And you want them to have nuclear weapons in the most unstable part of the world. Excellent.


You're just spitballing now. They have not had a credible nuclear program until recently...and you know it.


I am not responsible for what you choose to see and comprehend. I am only responsible for what I actually say and write. In that vein, I have been very critical of the Bush Administration at times, and equally critical of "authoritarian" policies. Remember, I am not a social conservative and I oppose the extended reach of government. Or don't remember...I don't really care.

[quote]

The "concerns" about Iran only started surfacing when the current pairs of wars in the middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq) were starting to wind down, after the neocons had milked everything they could out of the media induced paranoia, and the public were starting to (finally) see through the lies and propaganda. Now they're pulling the same stunts with Iran and the corporate media, as usual, are being their pathetic little knee-padded lapdogs.

[quote]

You have a real gift for storytelling.


And being kind of a "b."


Yes, sammi. Because you have access to better information than I do. You pay for the Non-Brainwashed, Non-Corporate Lemming Package as you access TEH INTERNETS.


If anyone here is shedding croc tears, it's you...just as you do for all those the U.S. has liberated from oppressive regimes.


Are you for real?


If you want to start a thread on specific U.S. actions elsewhere, do that. I plan to focus on this topic.


"Condescending," by the way, is what you're doing right now. Anti-semitism is widely used with regards to Jews, not the broader region.


We don't have a time machine that allows us to undo those actions. We have to deal with reality as we now find it. The reality is that a bunch of religious zealots running a rogue nation are pursuing a nuclear program and giving the finger to the entire Western world. They are doing so in the middle of a desert loaded with oil, and in the most unstable region of the world. That's where we are. Citing our past mistakes doesn't change that.


Yes, it's realistic and entirely appropriate. The reason is that Israel is not the moral equivalent of Iran. This is the point that no anti-Israeli person grasps, including you.


I've never claimed there was proof. Right now we have strong suspicion and circumstantial evidence. The problem is that other factors I've mentioned (their anti-Israeli, anti-Western views, terrorism, religious fanaticism, etc.) and international misbehavior may cause either the U.S. or Israel to feel they need to act before there is hard evidence.


Yes, sammi. We've all seen the map from Lewrockwell, a self-described anti-war, anti-state website. There are many U.S. military bases near, say, Canada. Are we threatening them, too?


You've attempted to set me up for failure on that one, because no matter evidence I produce, you'll disqualify it as "mistranslated" or "not from senior government official. The reality is it doesn't matter. Their President has done so. If Barack Obama went on an anti-white tirade, would you be asking for another "senior officials" who said similar things?

By the way, does the foreign minister and President's involvement in a Holocaust Denial Conference count? Yeah, I think it does.


Yes, I know about the MEK. That's a wholly separate issue with many caveats, and I think you know it.


Uncalled for. I am getting a little sick of being accused of being a war monger.


We agree there.


Oh boy. I better just let that go.


Of course. Can't wait to read more about this.

The "wipe Israel off the map" comment is a popular myth, started by an Iranian exile correspondent (Nazila Fathi) in 2005... but the comment was not actually made by Ahmadinejad himself, but the former Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini years prior.... Ahmadinejad was quoting him.

That is not where the inconsistency ends. The original comment was calling for the 'end of the Zionist regime"... a very different proposition. Even the fücking Washington Post, as pro-Israeli as it gets, tried to set the record a little bit more straight(ish)... even from their own, terminally biased perspective.

As we all know, people tend to believe what they *want* to believe, and what is repeated often enough, regardless of accuracy. And when goaded by propaganda from the mouths of clowns like Obama and Bachmann, with the lapdog corporate media whores groveling around on their wellworn kneepads... its hardly a wonder that the public accept a heap of streaming fly-infested horse manure as "fact".

Yeah, this really annoys me. The people who spout these endless lies are the warmongers. The West is full of them.

He said he agreed with the comment that the Zionist regime should be wiped off the map. Another translation says that it will (or should) disappear from the pages of time. Either way you look at it, it's an exceptionally aggressive statement. If someone says he'd agree that the U.S. government should be wiped off the map...what would you say?

This is just more of giving Iran every possible benefit of the doubt. Nuke program? No problem..it's peaceful! Threatening statements? No problem...they were misinterpreted! Terrorism? No problem...everyone does it! Violating U.N. mandates? Israel does that too! Threatening to close the Straights? Well duh...we're the ones threatening them!

Really, you should hear yourselves.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure". Thomas Jefferson.


There's a difference. One one hand, rumors and allegations of Iran researching a nuclear weapon, with no proof, causes us to freak out.

On the other hand, what would be the most likely US reaction in the eventuality of Israel nuking an Iranian city? They would weasel and fabricate any excuse or justification for it, democrat and republican.

You know it, I know it and we all know it.

Iran's ambition is understandable, with Pakistan, India and Israel having nukes, and with the US-nukes in Turkey and US-military-bases all around.

I guess what Iran wants is to create a sort of ambiguity, like Israel did, where it's not clear if they have nukes or not. To achieve that they want to master all the nuclear technology, so that even if they don't build the nukes, they could quickly and easily if the situation requires it. That's why the enrichment is so important.

My opinion on that topic is that if Iran would really want to build nukes, they have as a souvereign nation every right to do so. Sure there's the non-proliferation-act that Iran signed during the shah-regime's time, but as a souvereign nation it can quit the non-proliferation-act with a notice of 90 days or in case of general war even without notice:


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

So, Iran's strategy is probably to build a completely functional civilian nuclear program including enrichment and fuel-rod-production etc., so that if the need arises it can quickly build nukes after it then quit the non-proliferation act.

Like I said, it's understandable and clearly in Iran's vital strategic interest to do so.

That sent a stronger message to SDW666, than I feel obliged to. Thanks.

Is that really necessary?

Name-calling is the bailiwick of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Daniel Pipes, et al.

BTW, I was banned for a week here in PO a few years ago, not for name-calling but for reacting too harshly against an ad hominem. Amazing. Recall "Applenut"?

Hands, always resist namecalling.... Don't join them in the 5th grade!

That may well be. But first, don't pretend this is exclusively the domain of the right. But, more importantly, we can make the world a better place by refraining from it even when others engage in it.

Right, sammi...just rumors and allegations. You know very well there is more than that.


You don't know that at all. You suspect it, because you're anti-Israel in the extreme.



Who is them?

We believe whatever we want to.....

Perhaps the paraphrase of the biblical quote (Matthew) is appropriate here, as regards the paranoia against Iran, on the part of the US authorities. "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?" (Not that Iran is exactly a friend)...


Oh come on. No matter what Israel does, the US government either approves (or in extreme cases of culpability, ignores). For an example of the latter, the Israeli Air Force attacked, without provocation, a US ship in international waters. which posed no threat, was displaying a large US flag and numerals clearly visible from the air, was known to the attackers to be American. 34 US sailors were killed and 160 were injured. President Johnson accepted without question, the patently absurd excuse from the Israeli military, of "mistaken identity". The attack was not a single bomb blast, like the USS Cole.... it went on for hour after hour, with wave after wave of shellings and torpedos.

Imagine if a similar attack on a US ship had been conducted by..... Iran, for example. Yes, we all know what the response would be.

I am not 'anti-Israel', as you always conclude. I am against duplicity, rank injustice, and the constant presence of bad apples within the government of Israel, who inhabit positions in office with the most executive clout.

I am against the same in any other country as well... but what's the point in speaking out to join a chorus which is singing so loud they can be heard 100 miles from the church?


People who, when they have no argument, or lose the argument.. resort to namecalling. Both sides do it. "Nut job" or "conspiracy theorist" are consistent favorites....

sammi, you look ridiculous when you quote the bible. You look even more ridiculous when you say there is "no evidence" Iran plans to build a nuclear weapon. There is evidence. It's simply circumstantial at this point.


Obviously. Israel is still an ally. So is Canada. If a similar incident occurred with that nation, the response would probably be much the same. And if it was North Korea, Venezuela or even Russia...the response would obviously be different.


Except when they take place in a Muslim country run by religious fanatics.


Oh. Got it now.


Yes, such as...The United States and any of its allies.


The point is not to be seen as either incredibly anti-Israel, or at least not intellectually dishonest.


What if the term fits? Over the years you have presented all sorts of conspiracy theories. I'm predicting a Moon Landing thread next.

Is that because, in your opinion, the Bible can only be quoted by people who label themselves as "Christian"?


Is circumstantial evidence enough to secure a conviction?


Strange kind of ally, when they attack one of our own military ships, without provocation, in international waters. By that standard, then al Qaeda is an ally as well. Actually, it looks increasingly so... judging by their partnership with NATO in both Libya and Syria....


The best way of eliminating our enemies is to befriend them. Trouble is, the war machine starts bleating.


Religious fanatics are not just found in Middle Eastern governments. (no names )


I know where I stand on Israel. She has the right to exist, as does every other nation, but not the right to flout international laws or treaties.


Ever heard of the pot and the kettle? Just a few paragraphs above, you quote a conspiracy theory, the one about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. There was another major conspiracy theory that the previous administration sprayed around the world, involving "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. You may recall it. The action, taken by the previous administration was based on a conspiracy theory, with zero evidence, and it cost the United States almost 1.2 $Trillion, the lives of 4600 of our troops, between 100,000 and 1.5 million Iraqis, and and destruction in that country on a scale that has never been calculated. I guess certain conspiracy theories are fine by you, but others are verboten. The same parameters involving Iran's alleged nuclear program are characteristic of every conspiracy theory... populated by unknowns and circumstantial - but not hard - evidence.

Name me *one* CTI have alleged I have asked a lot of questions on a number of controversies, but there is a huge difference between asking a question and making an allegation. You do, I presume, have the comprehension to know the difference, I hope. But hey, this is America, we have the right and *duty* to ask questions of our government; we the taxpayers pay their wages.

We also have the right to allege conspiracies when evidence points that way... theres nothing weird, wacky or otherworldly about it... the huge majority of major crimes involve more than one person (by definition a conspiracy). And, if our government is unable or unwilling to have dialog with the people on *any subject*, then we have lost our republic.

Yes. Otherwise it's just pure intellectual dishonesty. You don't believe what you post.


Sometimes it is. Of course, that's why matters of war and peace aren't decided in U.S. courtroom.


Yes, the incident is just that simple.


That is wishful thinking.


True, though you don't seem to concerned about the ones in the ME.


I don't think you DO believe Israel has a right to exist, not from everything you've posted in the past.


That is not a "conspiracy theory." It was the judgement of all major intelligence agencies that Iraq had WMD. A conspiracy theory would be that everyone was lying from top to bottom, or that martians transported down and removed the WMD.


Right. Just "questions."


Watching you defend yourself on what has been your M.O. here for a decade is quite amusing.

Ok, we'll keep our hands off your bibles when you keep your hands off science and the real world. Deal? I'll shake on that right now.

You have a real world? Is that the one in which the people with your views killed millions? Is that the one in which science enables mass genocide?

Yup..typical BR. Paint your opponent as a religious extremist (you know full well I'm not) while stating he doesn't embrace science.

What people with our views killed millions? What are our views, trumpy, tell us.

Using scripture to point out the hypocrisy of people who use scripture to argue is a perfectly valid thing for anyone to do. Just because you can't defend yourself, you say it's off limits.

Utopians.


The point is that it is ridiculous to hold him to a set of moral values you don't believe, follow or to which you yourself hold. By what standard do you judge him? Should someone judge a hypocrite as worse than someone who aspires to nothing or the lowest common denominator?

You're like the adulterer who declares the who had a flirty lunch with his co-worker is some sort of asshole and you can call him that because you'd have banged her and thus are being consistent while labeling him a hypocrite.

OK, that's a good one. Well done.

I disagree. You're claiming that something in which you don't believe and likely don't fully understand proves someone else is a hypocrite. As for me, I don't generally back my arguments with scripture. In fact, I can't recall ever doing so.


I can defend myself, and do. Also, I don't know that it's "off limits." It's just that it looks utterly ridiculous when someone like BR or sammi use the bible to argue against the actions of Christians.

To what Christians were you referring?

Does it matter?

Well, it was you who brought this up, saying that "It's just that it looks utterly ridiculous when someone like BR or sammi use the bible to argue against the actions of Christians." when making a biblical quote. The bible is freely available for anyone to quote.

Which Christians did you mean?

I'm not trying to dance around it, but I honestly don't see why it matters. The point is that if you don't actually believe what the bible says (or at least understand what it means) you really can't quote it in a debate. It just looks ridiculous.