|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Titus wrote: |
| ...to treat Iranian citizens when they get cancer. |
Awwww lets hear it for titus.
Treating cancer. yeah that was it. Building a massive nuclear program is the first step in tackling cancer don't you know.
Back to reality. Iran has always been entirely open about their intentions.
| Quote: |
Dec 14th 2001 IRAN'S RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL
TEHRAN 14 Dec 2001. (IPS) One of Iran�s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-849286 |
| Quote: |
Iran charged over Argentina bomb
The blast was the worst terror attack in Argentina's history
The Iranian government and Lebanese militia group Hezbollah have been formally charged over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.
Argentine prosecutors are calling for the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others.
Chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused the Iranian authorities of directing Hezbollah to carry out the attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6085768.stm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
I head that Saddam fellow has some yellocake from Niger though. I read it in the NYT. |
But Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/04/wowie_zahawie.html
| Quote: |
Wowie Zahawie
Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
By Christopher Hitchens|Posted Monday, April 10, 2006, at 4:43 PM ET
Slate.com
In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency�Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect�was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)
At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq's interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between "secular" Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception�an Iraqi "window" into the world of open diplomacy�namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam's ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and G�tterd�mmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.)
In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.
If the above was all that was known, it would surely be universally agreed that no responsible American administration could have overlooked such an amazingly sinister pattern. Given the past Iraqi record of surreptitious dealing, cheating of inspectors, concealment of sites and caches, and declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen," one could scarcely operate on the presumption of innocence.
However, the waters have since become muddied, to say the least. For a start, someone produced a fake document, dated July 6, 2000, which purports to show Zahawie's signature and diplomatic seal on an actual agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger. Almost everything was wrong with this crude forgery�it had important dates scrambled, and it misstated the offices of Niger politicians. In consequence, IAEA Chairman Mohammed ElBaradei later reported to the U.N. Security Council that the papers alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been demonstrated to be fraudulent.
But this doesn't alter the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above. The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade "in Africa." It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached. What motive could there be for a forgery that could be instantly detected upon cursory examination?
There seem to be only three possibilities here. Either a) American intelligence concocted the note; b) someone in Italy did so in the hope of gain; or c) it was the product of disinformation, intended to protect Niger and discredit any attention paid to the actual, real-time Zahawie visit. The CIA is certainly incompetent enough to have fouled up this badly. (I like Edward Luttwak's formulation in the March 22 Times Literary Supplement, where he writes that "there have been only two kinds of CIA secret operations: the ones that are widely known to have failed�usually because of almost unbelievably crude errors�and the ones that are not yet widely known to have failed.") Still, it almost passes belief that any American agency would fake a document that purportedly proved far more than the administration had asked and then get every important name and date wrapped round the axle. Forgery for gain is easy to understand, especially when it is borne in mind that nobody wastes time counterfeiting a bankrupt currency. Forgery for disinformation, if that is what it was, appears at least to have worked. Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap.
According to the London Sunday Times of April 9, the truth appears to be some combination of b) and c). A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was�follow me closely here�that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.
Zahawie's name and IAEA connection were never mentioned by ElBaradei in his report to the United Nations, and his past career has never surfaced in print. Looking up the press of the time causes one's jaw to slump in sheer astonishment. Here, typically, is a Time magazine "exclusive" about Zahawie, written by Hassan Fattah on Oct. 1, 2003:
The veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name. In a rare interview with Time, al-Zahawie outlined how forgery and circumstantial evidence was used to talk up Iraq's nuclear weapons threat, and leave him holding the smoking gun.
A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: "Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all." Well, sorry for the inconvenience of the questions, then, my old IAEA and NPT "veteran" (whose nuclear qualifications go unmentioned in the Time article). Instead, we are told that Zahawie visited Niger and other West African countries to encourage them to break the embargo on flights to Baghdad, as they had broken the sanctions on Qaddafi's Libya. A bit of a lowly mission, one might think, for one of the Iraqi regime's most senior and specialized envoys.
The Duelfer Report also cites "a second contact between Iraq and Niger," which occurred in 2001, when a Niger minister visited Baghdad "to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems." According to the deposition of Ja'far Diya' Ja'far (the head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program), these negotiations involved no offer of uranium ore but only "cash in exchange for petroleum." West Africa is awash in petroleum, and Niger is poor in cash. Iraq in 2001 was cash-rich through the oil-for-food racket, but you may if you wish choose to believe that a near-bankrupt African delegation from a uranium-based country traveled across a continent and a half with nothing on its mind but shopping for oil.
Interagency feuding has ruined the Bush administration's capacity to make its case in public, and a high-level preference for deniable leaking has further compounded the problem. But please read my first three paragraphs again and tell me if the original story still seems innocuous to you. |
By the way RJR/ Reggie/ Titus your sources are a joke. Gareth porter is a Khmer Rouge apologist.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/deniers.html
| Quote: |
North Vietnam/Viet Cong
* Gareth Porter, The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam뭩 Land Reform Reconsidered [PDF]
The key bloodbath-denial work, relying on official communist propaganda sources.
Robert F. Turner, Expert Punctures o Bloodbath� Myth: Gareth Porter Refuted [PDF]
Point-by-point refutation of Porterthesis. Porter could barely speak the language he accused others of mistranslating!
Hoang Van Chi, Reply to Gareth Porter [PDF]
An early historian of the land reform rebuts the charge that he was a CIA propagandist.
-- War Crimes Deniers
* Gareth Porter, The 1968 hue Massacre� [PDF]
* Edward Herman and Gareth Porter, The Myth of the Hue Massacre [PDF]
Porter and Herman denied the Viet Cong massacre of thousands in the South Vietnamese city of Hue - even though the perpetrators repeatedly admitted their responsibility.
Robert F. Turner, The Fonda Fallacies
Robert J. Caldwell, She뭩 Still Hanoi Jane
On Jane Fonda뭩 conduct during the Vietn |
| Quote: |
| In 1976-77, continuing his challenge to the bloodbath argument, Gareth Porter rejected early accounts of the mass killings by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. With George Hildebrand he wrote a book, Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, which documented the deaths from starvation of thousands of people in Phnom Penh in the last months of the war in Cambodia and argued that there was a legitimate basis for sending most of the population of Phnom Penh -- much of which had been refugees from rural areas -- back to rural areas. Critics have argued that the book's sources included official statements from Khmer Rouge media about the availability of food in rural areas. Testifying before Congress in May 1977, Gareth Porter said that "the notion that the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea adopted a policy of physically eliminating whole classes of people" was "a myth fostered primarily by the authors of a Readers Digest book."[10] Congressman Stephen J. Solarz compared Gareth Porter to those who denied the murder of 6 million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. Gareth Porter rejected this comparison and cited reporting by reputable news outlets in support of this position... |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Porter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still no solid evidence for the yellow cakes myth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Whether one believes Iran is close to a bomb, doesn't have one or whatever, the point is that there is no reason to attack or bomb Iran. Even if they have or are close to having a nuke. If that's the case they will NOT use it. |
Why do you think Iran is a rational actor? |
The chairman of the joint chiefs has stated iran is rational. Defer to him. |
Right. So what is rational about them pursuing nukes? Protests have begun again, this time about the currency and poor economcy. It's clear the cause.
How can the regime rationally view the program as a way to ensure its stability? That once it gets nukes, the US, Israel et al will reduce their cyber attacks and other forms of espionage? That it will take the threat of Israel or the US from attacking Iran totally off the table? Would there even be that threat if not for this program??
Not directing these questions towards you, I'm just trying to get an idea of the Iranian government's perspective. I'm certainly not an advocate of attacking Iran, but I do wonder what the regime is thinking and what it would do with the nukes. |
Look at what's happening all around them. First Iraq then Afghanistan, not to mention what happened in Libya. Then you also have to remember that we supplied and supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I think that the threat of a U.S. attack against them was real before the program came online, and looking at the leverage countries like North Korea and Pakistan have due to their weapons, it seems fairly rational to me. |
+10 points to Gryffindor.
Iran is surrounded by American military basis
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/10/1044031/-Map-of-US-Bases-Surrounding-The-Iranian-Threat
Their neighbors on either side of them has been invaded by America. How many Iranian bases are on America's or Israel's border?
A nuke is a guarantee that they will never be invaded.
Someone explain how they are irrational to pursue a bomb again?
Again, I'd rather they don't have it or pursue having one but I can see the logic in it if they are. Also, again, on what basis are some saying they will be using it?
Fact is Iran, demographically, has one of the youngest populations, ethnically diverse including thousands of Jews. The populace is very moderate and far more moderate than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. North Korea is far more unstable and isn't going to use their bomb. Pakistan has far, far more fundamentalist and Islamists and both Pakistan and North Korea are far more likelty to use a bomb that Iran ever will. A large number of the populace wants better relations with America.
There is NO reason to believe they will arbitrarily bomb anyone. Their fear is being invaded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iran really needs to secure a nuke if it wants to be free of bullying. It is amazing to me that they still haven't got one. Their government is really incompetent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unibrow
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the region. It has invaded, annexed, and colonized every one of it's neighbors. Israel will be faced with a choice of becoming a complete apartheid state complete with bantustans or a secular state with rights for all of it's citizens. It seems that it would rather have the former and dehumanize the Palestinians even further. Gaza is already the world's largest open air prison. It won't be long until the West Bank has the noose fully around it's neck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unibrow wrote: |
| Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the region. |
FYi Syria has killed over 30.000 of its own, innocent civilians- using eg heaving bombardment and helicopter gunships- in the past 18 months.
Troll much? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Unibrow wrote: |
| Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the region. |
FYi Syria has killed over 30.000 of its own, innocent civilians- using eg heaving bombardment and helicopter gunships- in the past 18 months. |
Is it terrorism though, or civil war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
Is it terrorism though, or civil war? |
I was reacting to unibrow's absurd comments generally.
But if you want to stick on this point, perhaps you'd better start by defining what is a "terrorist state".
| Unibrow wrote: |
| It seems that it would rather have the former and dehumanize the Palestinians even further |
Imagine if Israel was doing the same as what Syria is doing now. The muslim world would be up in outrage. Instead, they sit quietly and let Assad commit mass genocide. You don't seem to care, either.
You're trying to make out Israel is far worse than its enemies.
There is ZERO chance you win this game but feel free to try.
| Quote: |
Survey: Saddam killed 61,000 in Baghdad
Associated Press ^ | 12/08/03 | NIKO PRICE
Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population � 6.39 million � and average household size � 6.9 people � to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036417/posts |
| Quote: |
Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran'
By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent12:00AM GMT 04 Feb 2001
CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre - a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals.
Gruesome details are contained in the memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, one of the founders of the Islamic regime. He was once considered Khomeini's anointed successor, but was deposed for his outspokenness, and is now under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.
Published privately last month after attempts by the regime to suppress it, the revelations have prompted demands from Iranian exiles for those involved to be tried for crimes against humanity. The most damning of the letters and documents published in the book is Khomeini's fatwa decree calling for all Mojahedin (as opponents of the Iranian regime are known) to be killed.
Issued shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in July 1988 and an incursion into western Iran by the Iranian resistance, the fatwa reads: "It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution
."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.html |
How Israel's enemies treat their minority groups.
http://theoccupation.info/images/NYTimes_1948_Jews_in_Arab.jpg
Let everyone know if you need more. Call in all your pals at counterpunch , Stormfront.org or antiwar.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unibrow wrote: |
| Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the region. It has invaded, annexed, and colonized every one of it's neighbors. Israel will be faced with a choice of becoming a complete apartheid state complete with bantustans or a secular state with rights for all of it's citizens. It seems that it would rather have the former and dehumanize the Palestinians even further. Gaza is already the world's largest open air prison. It won't be long until the West Bank has the noose fully around it's neck. |
How do you explain the fact that Israel has half a million Arabs who are full citizens, part of the legislature through their own party? Where is the apartheid?
I think its obvious Israel shouldn't be doing some things. The same can be said of any nation.
Without getting into how the nation was founded, the fact is they have been invaded by their "neighbors" in 3 major wars since WWII. America would have reacted worse than Israel in my opinion to their naighbors.
I can understand the their paranoia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Imagine if Israel was doing the same as what Syria is doing now. |
You win on this point. Israel does just enough to make sure they keep them alive so nobody gets upset about any deaths.
| Quote: |
Israeli military forced to reveal that Israel calculated the amount of calories Palestinians would need to avoid malnutrition.
An Israeli human rights organization, Gisha, sued in Israeli courts to force the release of a planning document for �putting the Palestinians on a diet� without risking the bad press of mass starvation, and the courts concurred.
Planning for keeping people on the edge is nearly as bad as planning actually to starve them. A prudent person would know that a blockade is a blunt enough instrument, with shipments up and down in a given week, that such a policy would from time to time produce real misery. |
http://www.alternet.org/world/israeli-government-consciously-planned-keep-palestinians-diet-controlling-their-food-supply |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Unibrow wrote: |
| Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the region. |
FYi Syria has killed over 30.000 of its own, innocent civilians- using eg heaving bombardment and helicopter gunships- in the past 18 months. |
Is it terrorism though, or civil war? |
Maybe not for the killing of 30,000 civilians (which is clearly a civil war), but the Syrian government is responsible for terrorism in Beirut.
| Quote: |
| "The message from Damascus today is anywhere you are, if you are against the regime from Lebanon, we will come and get you. ... No matter what you try to do, we will keep on assassinating the Lebanese," said Hariri, who blames the 2005 assassination of his father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, on the Assad government. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unibrow
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Unibrow wrote: |
| It seems that it would rather have the former and dehumanize the Palestinians even further |
Imagine if Israel was doing the same as what Syria is doing now. The muslim world would be up in outrage. Instead, they sit quietly and let Assad commit mass genocide. You don't seem to care, either.
Let everyone know if you need more. Call in all your pals at counterpunch , Stormfront.org or antiwar.com |
Israel wants war with Iran over their nuclear program. However, Israel has not signed the NPT, has refused weapons inspectors access to their military sites, and has over 100 nuclear warheads. Iran has fought one war since the state of Israel was founded, a defensive war against Iraq in which thousands were killed and maimed by chemical weapons (weapons supplied by the US, UK, and France, among others)
Since it's foundation, Israel has been at war with nearly every one of it's neighbors. Israel has invaded Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. Israel illegally occupies territory in Syria and Lebanon, not to mention Palestine. They have turned Gaza into the worlds largest open air prison. Israel uses 80% of Palestinian water. In fact, radical settlers have even attacked the IDF! When a Palestinian throws rocks at an IDF soldier, Israel responds with tanks and artillery. When a settler attacks an IDF soldier, they do not even go to jail.
Israel jails conscientious objectors who refuse to join the IDF. Jewish extremists spit on, throw garbage on, and abuse Palestinians on a daily basis in occupied East Jerusalem. They restrict Palestian access to their own farms, communities, and families while Israelis cruise by on special Israeli only roads. Before criticizing other countries, Israel should look itself in the mirror. When you're comparing yourself to Assad's Syria and Saddam's Iraq to prove your superiority, something is very wrong. You can call your hasbara friends to your defense, but it will do nothing to diminish the fact that Israel is the most agressive and warlike country in the Middle East. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
