Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For all the Iranian apolgist....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The IAEA has the task of oversight of Iranian compliance with the treaty.

    Should be accessible here:
    iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran
    "Verification and Monitoring in Iran"

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Rutger View Post
      Since compliance seems to be a (the) deal breaker, please provide cold hard evidence which part(s) of the deal Iran didn't comply with.
      And please make that generally recognized evidence, not a handful of opinions from the media.

      https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...inf-2016-1.pdf
      The initial claim was that Iran was in compliance. Cold hard evidence hasn't been provided yet, only an opinion and now a redirect.
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post

        The initial claim was that Iran was in compliance. Cold hard evidence hasn't been provided yet, only an opinion and now a redirect.
        The evidence comes from the inspectors responsible for monitoring the deal. This is why he posted the link in the end.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          The evidence comes from the inspectors responsible for monitoring the deal. This is why he posted the link in the end.
          Who did such a great job inspecting Iraq's programs when Saddam was running things there...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            Who did such a great job inspecting Iraq's programs when Saddam was running things there...
            Saddam for some time was refusing to give access to the inspectors. This was not the case with the Iranians

            .

            Still, if you forget who was the chief inspector, and what he was saying, I will remind you

            https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/.../18_blix.shtml

            U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq
            ...


            Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #51
              To those apologist that claim Iran has been truthful:

              In an April 2018 press conference, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disclosed that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency had conducted a raid on a warehouse in Iran the previous January, removing a half-ton of files cataloguing Tehran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.1 The covert archive contained a wealth of new information that contradicts longstanding assumptions about Iran’s nuclear program. While a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate judged “with high confidence” that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003,2 the archive shows that the program continued, albeit in a more circumscribed and diffuse manner.

              Specifically, the archive identifies additional nuclear facilities, equipment, and activities previously unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN body tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and verifying its key nuclear-related commitments. Israeli officials estimate that the Jewish state seized only 20 to 50 percent of the archive’s contents, suggesting that the IAEA’s knowledge base likely has additional gaps.

              The IAEA harbors an obligation to remedy these gaps by securing prompt access to the facilities, equipment, and materials described in the archive. This responsibility stems directly from the IAEA’s legal mandate, as established by the multiple non-proliferation agreements that Iran has concluded. A careful review of these accords shows that the IAEA has no pretext for inaction or delay. Further investigation of Iran’s nuclear program remains necessary to ensure that no covert nuclear activity persists today.

              This report assesses that the IAEA, despite its clear duty, has not demonstrably satisfied its mandate. In the years since the finalization of the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the IAEA has provided insufficient transparency and clarity about its inspections in Iran. This opacity raises questions about the diligence of the IAEA’s investigations – particularly its probe of sites, equipment, and activities documented in the archive.

              The agency’s approach also invites criticism that political considerations have interfered with its obligation to serve as an objective, technical body. In fact, the actions and public statements of IAEA leaders convey a hesitation to scrutinize key Iranian activities that potentially violate the JCPOA, lest the resulting evidence undermine the accord’s viability.


              https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/08...s-vs-protocol/
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                To those apologist that claim Iran has been truthful:

                In an April 2018 press conference, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disclosed that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency had conducted a raid on a warehouse in Iran the previous January, removing a half-ton of files cataloguing Tehran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.1 The covert archive contained a wealth of new information that contradicts longstanding assumptions about Iran’s nuclear program. While a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate judged “with high confidence” that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003,2 the archive shows that the program continued, albeit in a more circumscribed and diffuse manner.

                Specifically, the archive identifies additional nuclear facilities, equipment, and activities previously unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN body tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and verifying its key nuclear-related commitments. Israeli officials estimate that the Jewish state seized only 20 to 50 percent of the archive’s contents, suggesting that the IAEA’s knowledge base likely has additional gaps.

                The IAEA harbors an obligation to remedy these gaps by securing prompt access to the facilities, equipment, and materials described in the archive. This responsibility stems directly from the IAEA’s legal mandate, as established by the multiple non-proliferation agreements that Iran has concluded. A careful review of these accords shows that the IAEA has no pretext for inaction or delay. Further investigation of Iran’s nuclear program remains necessary to ensure that no covert nuclear activity persists today.

                This report assesses that the IAEA, despite its clear duty, has not demonstrably satisfied its mandate. In the years since the finalization of the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the IAEA has provided insufficient transparency and clarity about its inspections in Iran. This opacity raises questions about the diligence of the IAEA’s investigations – particularly its probe of sites, equipment, and activities documented in the archive.

                The agency’s approach also invites criticism that political considerations have interfered with its obligation to serve as an objective, technical body. In fact, the actions and public statements of IAEA leaders convey a hesitation to scrutinize key Iranian activities that potentially violate the JCPOA, lest the resulting evidence undermine the accord’s viability.


                https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/08...s-vs-protocol/

                Nobody made such claim.

                The claim was that the inspections by UN did not reveal that Iranians were violating the Obama agreement.
                And April 2018 is after Trump became president and went forward with canceling the deal.
                And sorry, but Mossad's claims cannot be used as a basis of a serious discussion.

                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post
                  The claim was that the inspections by UN did not reveal that Iranians were violating the Obama agreement.
                  Come back after you have read the article and the links within the article.

                  I give you permission to try again.

                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                    Come back after you have read the article and the links within the article.

                    I give you permission to try again.
                    Come back when you bring evidence from international organizations.
                    There have been think tanks in the US and Israel pushing arguments for bombing Iran for decades. Finding one which uses Mossad's statements says a lot about their bias.

                    If one does not want to use the critical thinking skills to evaluate the sources and their claims he does the same thing Hans Blix said about the neocons of the Bush administration when they were uncritically using BS evidence provided by people who wanted to push their own agenda to argue that Iraq was evading the UN inspections and that it had to be bombed and invaded.

                    Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged
                    Last edited by pamak; 14 Jan 20, 21:18.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      So, you answer that number 4 post (mine) is that of an Iranian apologist and now you tell me that I attack other members?

                      Look yourself in the mirror!

                      You made the OP about me and you revealed your cards with your comment.

                      I can read very well...and others can read too!

                      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...29#post5165329
                      Not about you only, but about all Iranian apologist, you still avoid the question, the people of Iran are demanding a change. Do you stand with them or the Iranian government ?
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                        Not about you only, but about all Iranian apologist, you still avoid the question, the people of Iran are demanding a change. Do you stand with them or the Iranian government ?
                        So, your answer is that you did not make this OP just about me only! Nice...

                        I have been clear where I stand. It is NOT my problem to bring democracy in every part of the world.


                        This mens that I am all for Iranian students doing what they can to change their government as much as I am for the Kurds doing the best they can to change the Syrian government and the HK students change the Chinese government and the Turkish people change their government and so on. Such stance does NOT mean that I ever argued that the US troops should start new wars in these regions or stage the troops there indefinitely.

                        If I want the US to start bomb somebody, I would choose Turkey based on the fact that I am Greek and Turkey is a much more serious threat for m relatives there than Iran. Notice by the way, that I did NOT say that the US has to kill Erdogan or bomb Turkey when the students there were also protesting against Erdogan!
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          Come back when you bring evidence from international organizations.
                          The problem that this Iranian apology can't get around is that those were Iranian files stolen by Mossad. Not statements.

                          I'll say again; Iranian files.


                          Try again.
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                            The problem that this Iranian apology can't get around is that those were Iranian files stolen by Mossad. Not statements.

                            I'll say again; Iranian files.


                            Try again.
                            The problem with those that do not use critical thinking skills is that this is what Mossad says.
                            Meanwhile, Mossad could give anything it supposedly found to international organizations and let them decide if the finding are legitimate and if any Iranian misbehavior actually took place when Obama was in power and not after Trump broke the deal.

                            I would expect fro people in a history forum to actually learn something from history and recall how the American findings which supposedly "proved" that the Iraqis were not upfront were not accepted at face value from Hans Blix whose thoughts I posted in previous posts. But of course I ask too much...


                            Last edited by pamak; 15 Jan 20, 00:01.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              The problem with those that do not use critical thinking skills is that this is what Mossad says.
                              You nailed that one. The problem with Iranian apologist is that they lack critical thinking. The evidence wasn't hearsay or second hand knowledge....it was hard drives stolen from the Iranians.

                              Use some critical thinking....and.....try again
                              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                                You nailed that one. The problem with Iranian apologist is that they lack critical thinking. The evidence wasn't hearsay or second hand knowledge....it was hard drives stolen from the Iranians.

                                Use some critical thinking....and.....try again

                                So you talk about critical thinking skills when you accept this MOSSAD claim at face value and after I even reminded you that the Iraqi expatriets were lying to present false information to convince the US to bomb Iraq.
                                Or when Powell was evaluating findings in from of the whole world in the UN as WMDs while in fact they were not or when the US was arriving at the wrong conclusions that supposedly Saddam was trying to hide WMDs because some chemical weapons were unaccounted while Hans Blix was warning them that this lack of accounting could very well be explained in different ways and did not necessarily mean that Saddam was hiding any stockpiles.

                                Nice critical thinking chief...

                                .

                                p.s. I will talk in your own language since you are a religious person and you are maybe more familiar with what I will bring as an example:
                                Reading the same information from the same book, the Catholics have concluded that Jesus used bread and wine in the Last Supper while the Protestants believe that he gave bread and grape juice. And this difference in the interpretation of the information is about the holiest sacrament in Christianity and not about some secondary detail. Think about it...
                                Last edited by pamak; 15 Jan 20, 01:14.
                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X