Reply With Quote
"44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications,"
And if it was completely certain that Iran was making nukes, the IAEA wouldn't have went back, now would they?
I'll be happy to answer specific questions should they arise.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=62
"44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications,"
And if it was completely certain that Iran was making nukes, the IAEA wouldn't have went back, now would they?
i can see iran bombing american bases in the gulf, but to actually fight or bring the war to american soil? no....they can keep on dreaming, they dont even have a large enough navy or some form of transportation to carry their forces across the ocean to carry out such attack....
lol last nights UN council meeting in regards to the syria fiasco, good job on russia and china veto whatever the west wanted......htf can u justify a ethnic group or small population of minorities against a whole, to overthrow a govt? lmao those idiots are a fail.....
Some of the activities in the annex do have civilian applications. Your point?
They returned at Irans behest. Presumably Iran is interested in having the UN sanctions lifted.
It's foolish to assume that they're not, that's my point. The IAEA is just making an assumption that they're making a bomb, that doesn't mean that they are.
Well couldn't you also say Iran is allowing them back to just prove that they're program is peaceful?
This is intersting btw it claims the IAEA is biased.
israel also sayin iran has a bomb that can travel 10,000km, are they misguiding USA on the capabilities of irans bomb traveling that distance to their recent space programs launchin stupid into orbit is different then launchin a bomb 10000km with direct accuracy to land in america...
if iran does have a nuke, dont really see them using it on israel, it will also come at the expense of palestine...since iran has no beef with palestine, but for the greater goal will they?
israels population 7.8m...iran 78m...yeh good luck
Last edited by TDMVPDPOY; 02-05-2012 at 08:25 AM.
and hillary is going there to mediate the whole b4 iran can react, the yids are smart as and they ain't never ending up on the losing side tbh
israel has 300 nukes....what is the purpose of having so much nukes if you aint going to use it
if theres a war in the ME, whats turkeys stance? since they are considered the 2nd strongest country in that ME region whose ties with the coalition has been soured over the last 2 years
And we stated as much in the report........thanks for rehashing that self-evident bit of information.
You didn't read the report. There's plenty of hard evidence. The entire annex deals with this. You also omitted part of point 44 (which I decided to give you a pass on), but will call you out on now.
Your quote:
The actual passage:
You left out the portion in red. While I'm sure this was simply an oversight on your part, it does change the context somewhat no?
Good catch. That's exactly what they're doing. I hope they are able to conclusively demonstrate the peaceful intent behind running thousands of centrifuges around the clock and enriching their uranium stockpiles to weapons grade.
I fail to see whats so interesting about an Iranian television network that considers the IAEA biased. Enlighten us please.
It's all conjecture, where's the hard line evidence?
Again I ask for the concrete evidence, it's mainly just assumption, if they were mainly sure that Iran was making an atomic weapon, they wouldn't have returned & Iran wouldn't allow them back.
The guy who is giving the criticism Hisham Jaber who is the director of the Middle East Center for Public relations & studies, so he in all likely hood has a unbiased view, he's also Lebanese who's also educated in the U.S & France. So come up with something better then an Iranian newtork being biased.
WC is an idiot, but he is right about Press TV.
Don't trust a word they way. I still remember how they aired that "confession" from this Newsweek dude, even though they they knew the guy was tortured and forced to say whatever they wanted, so he could leave Iran. When confronted, they said the Newsweek dude in question was a M16 agent.
First I'd like to thank you for once again not reading the report. smh
The relevant passages are outlined in the link my OP. If you don't understand the implications of running thousands of centrifuges night and day, enriching uranium past 10%, and investigating miniaturized detonators, perhaps you should just say so. There's no shame in that, it's technical stuff.
Secondly, I've already pointed out that Iran asked for the inspectors to return. I also pointed out a likely cause for Irans willingness to do so. Why would or should we ignore a gesture on Irans part which suggests that they are willing to talk vs going ahead with building a weapon?
The guy who is giving the criticism Hisham Jaber who is the director of the Middle East Center for Public relations & studies, so he in all likely hood has a unbiased view, he's also Lebanese who's also educated in the U.S & France. So come up with something better then an Iranian newtork being biased.
The director of the Middle East Center for Public relations couldn't possibly have a biased agenda.He's also Lebansese? Educated in the US and France? Well that clinches things now doesn't it?
obama aids in some way and keeps the pro-Israeli crowd pacified through the 2012 election cycle. obama wins in 2012.
Why can't America just admit what a lot of people think about America and say that they love Jews and hate Palestinians and pretty much Muslims in general?
America is butt buddies with Israel because of money and they don't want to be anti-semitic.
Well, I disagree with your assessment, but to each his own.
I don't dislike Muslims. I dislike the militant ones who want to destroy anyone who isn't Muslim.
i dunno what money israel has paid back to america all these years, besides taking 3billion in foreign aid money from american each year....
Israel will start World War III.
They are worried they are going to be attacked so they attack first.
They know big brother USA will back them up if they get into trouble so they go around starting fights.
The nuclear program is NOT the issue. It is the fact that Iran is not a little to the imperialists, along with its strategic value/location that is why Iran is deemed a "bad guy" by the Zionists and Americans.
WMD's in Iraq, terrorism in Afghanistan. it's all bull reasons to go to war, and yet people fall for it over and over again.
Anyway, Israel would be stupid to attack Iran. They would gain nothing and lose a lot, and probably lose a lot of credibility in the international community. Iran does not have a strong air force but has a slew of effective missiles, guerilla tactics, influence on oil prices, etc that would create headaches.
USA/Israel are actually confused about the Iran issue.
ppl aint going to war to fight for whatever bull our govts try to feed the ppl....
ppl goto war cause they need the money to bring the bread home...if that wasnt a last resort they be doing something else...
the yids be feared as now knowing iran been making nukes and are bout to get it done very soonly, therefore they know they need to bomb the out of iran b4 getting bombed on their own asses. Israel have the military power to defeat ANY country in the middle east and if other arab countries don't join the war & fight against the yids, Iran are ED, not saying the fact the yids will have US on their side as always
how many nukes do you think israel is going to drop b4 iranians stop fighting???
i doubt the international community will allow israel to use more then 1
How did Israel get so many Nukes in the first place?
With the help from big brother the USA.
LOL who's talking about nukes?
Israel has about twice as many planes that Iran, not to mention theirs are probably 5-10 years more advanced.
I'm pretty sure Israel could neutralize Iran's air force and defenses in about 2 weeks.
Probably less than 2 weeks. Much less, for if Israel attacks first, is a matter of hours.
But Israel would have no backers, no way to control Iran, nor to occupy it, even if only for a short while. They'd lose the little support they have, even in the US. No arab nation nor arab faction would help Israel, and the region would go back to the '60.
And Israel can't use nukes. If they do, they'd get the pariah treatment, like North Korea and Myanmar.
Best it could happen, for the rest of the world, is for Iran and Israel to kill each other in nuclear fire, but it won't happen.
israel can take out most of the utilities and infrastructure in iran,
but the majority of the fighting will be troops on the ground, thats where they are going to lose...
this war will only bring the terrorists and martyrs all over the middle east to one location and fight israel and the zionists...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions