You are likely one of the few who thinks so.
Iran wants to continue enrichment way beyond what is needed for peaceful purposes and have turned down any offers that would have completely provided them what they need for peaceful purposes.
Ostriches.
Iran has expanded sensitive nuclear work: U.N. agency
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
Iran wants to continue enrichment way beyond what is needed for peaceful purposes and have turned down any offers that would have completely provided them what they need for peaceful purposes.
Ostriches.
Hey hey now basketcase what have you got against ostriches?You are likely one of the few who thinks so.
Iran wants to continue enrichment way beyond what is needed for peaceful purposes and have turned down any offers that would have completely provided them what they need for peaceful purposes.
Ostriches.
Am I the only one that thinks the U.S. is completely out of control and it will be good for world peace if Iran does get nukes? The U.S. has pissed me off lately with this whole copyright issue and forcing other countries to spy on their citizens and I think Iran having nukes should make them think twice to throw their wait around. Can you tell I fucking hate bullies?
You haven't thought this one through. No matter how bad you think the US is, I can guarantee you that Iran is worse, in EVERY way. Where do you want to start? Sponsoring terrorists? Shooting their own citizens dead in the street? Torturing people to death? Covering up mass killings? Denying people their fundamental rights? Iran is one of the world's nastiest dictatorships. I don't think you've thought this one through--you've let your hatred of the US blind you to the reality that countries like Iran are just vicious.Am I the only one that thinks the U.S. is completely out of control and it will be good for world peace if Iran does get nukes?
You want to embrace all that because you don't like the US approach to copyright law? No you are probably not alone--there are probably some other people out there who think equally stupid things.
Really? Bullying people over copyrights is your issue? How about issuing fatwas calling for the murder of authors whose books you don't like. Does that count as being a worse bully than US copyright law?!!
Just read an interesting article that makes the case that AIPAC is really an arm of Mossad and pushing for legislation that will take the US to war with Iran. AIPAC is pushing for legislation that will define the 'capability for nuclear weapons' to be the threshold of attack. Basically pushing the same poop that Fuji has been trying push lately, that even though Iran isn't building a bomb, if it develops the capability to build one, that's reason enough to attack.
The article is worth a read, goes through AIPAC's long history, since '49, of espionage and pushing for Israel's way.
I'm not a conspiracy theory nut in the least, but you'd think that AIPAC wouldn't want to be quite so blatant in their spying and trying to bend the will of the US to Israel's. Its all so blatant that you can't even categorize it, you just have to shudder at the implications.
The article is worth a read, goes through AIPAC's long history, since '49, of espionage and pushing for Israel's way.
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/02/27/the-mossad-has-long-given-marching-orders-to-aipac/AIPAC continues to use many of the indirect public relations tactics pioneered by Kenen, albeit much less skillfully. A 2004 attempt to funnel purloined U.S. classified intelligence to The Washington Post in order to portray Iran as engaged in “total war” against the United States backfired, leading to Espionage Act indictments against AIPAC employees and an embarrassing defamation suit currently in the D.C. Court of Appeals. A former AIPAC public relations director’s stealth attempt to have vocal think-tank critics of the Israel lobby fired also fizzled due to broad exposure of the plot on the Internet. Today the constant reverberations of AIPAC’s drumbeat for war emanating from mainstream broadcast and print media increasingly hit an obstacle course of debunking and outright ridicule on the Internet. The Freedom of Information Act continues to put a steady stream of documents into the public record revealing how — just as in its formative IOI phase — AIPAC continues to function more as an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mossad than a legitimate charity.
Though they tried, U.S. counter-intelligence and law enforcement officials failed to counteract or properly regulate AIPAC’s stealth foreign agency during the Cold War. Today the lobby’s pursuit of Israeli interests threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into war and burn the delicate tendrils of global economic recovery. Evidence of the Israeli government directing AIPAC today is self-evident as Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu crank AIPAC’s handles to winch themselves uninvited into U.S. election-year politics. It only remains to be seen whether sufficient numbers of concerned Americans will angrily rise from the sidelines to confront AIPAC before its foreign principals maneuver America into a disastrous war for Israel.
I'm not a conspiracy theory nut in the least, but you'd think that AIPAC wouldn't want to be quite so blatant in their spying and trying to bend the will of the US to Israel's. Its all so blatant that you can't even categorize it, you just have to shudder at the implications.
Just for fun I thought I'd do even a bare bones, quick check on a couple of facts on the opinion piece posted above.
And of course there are multiple wikipedia pages confirming most of those allegations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_J._Rosen
I mean, even the wiki page on AIPAC itself has this to say:
And of course there are multiple wikipedia pages confirming most of those allegations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_J._Rosen
I mean, even the wiki page on AIPAC itself has this to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AipacThe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, play /ˈeɪpæk/ ay-pak) is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. The current President of AIPAC is Lee Rosenberg from Chicago, Illinois.[3]
Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby,"[3] AIPAC is a mass-membership, American organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."[4] It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the United States Congress with its power and influence. There is some disagreement as to where AIPAC's agenda lies ideologically. Some critics on the political left allege that AIPAC holds views that are politically conservative in their nature,[citation needed] while AIPAC's membership has also been described as "overwhelmingly Democratic" by conservatives.[5] AIPAC describes itself as a bipartisan organization,[6] and bills it lobbies for in Congress are always jointly sponsored by both a Democrat and Republican.[citation needed]
In 2005, a Pentagon analyst pled guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. Both staffers were later fired by AIPAC.[7] In 2009 all charges against the former AIPAC employees were dropped.[8]
In 1984 the FBI investigated after Israeli Minister of Economics Dan Halpern passed US government classified documents to AIPAC outlining commercial trade information on major US industries lobbying against the US-Israel Free Trade Area.[9] No charges were ever filed.[10]
I can't wait until the day when grog actually checks his own 'facts' instead of us having to repeatedly expose him.Just for fun I thought I'd do even a bare bones, quick check on a couple of facts ...
You can't for a minute think that anybody takes you seriously anymore can you?Just for fun I thought I'd do even a bare bones, quick check on a couple of facts on the opinion piece posted above.
And of course there are multiple wikipedia pages confirming most of those allegations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_J._Rosen
I mean, even the wiki page on AIPAC itself has this to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac
I know its crazy and radical to go linking to articles on wikipedia, but sometimes you've got to just follow your nose.You can't for a minute think that anybody takes you seriously anymore can you?
What is crazy and radical is suggesting Iran is complying with inspections (flat out lie), suggesting that Hitler can be a symbol of peace, and that a piece of legislation that helps veterans is racist.I know its crazy and radical to go linking to articles on wikipedia, but sometimes you've got to just follow your nose.
Your signal to noise ratio is a disgrace.
I should have been more clear, Iran is working with the IAEA to comply with inspections. My apologies for that one.What is crazy and radical is suggesting Iran is complying with inspections (flat out lie), suggesting that Hitler can be a symbol of peace, and that a piece of legislation that helps veterans is racist.
Your signal to noise ratio is a disgrace.
However, you are off your rockers in the other two complaints.
The IAEA says we gave them a list of 65 requests and they refused them all.I should have been more clear, Iran is working with the IAEA to comply with inspections. My apologies for that one.
However, you are off your rockers in the other two complaints.
I guess some nutbar who thinks Iran's cowardly stalling is "working with"...but then again you think the Russell Tribunal is actually a tribunal.
Linking to articles on wikipedia and lying about what they say...I know its crazy and radical to go linking to articles on wikipedia, but sometimes you've got to just follow your nose.
Actually on topic (and ignoring grog's usual attempts to blame Israel for everything),
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-...ctivities-at-iran-site-say-diplomats-1.415580UN nuclear watchdog sees signs of 'activities' at Iran site, say diplomats
Western officials say IAEA believes there may ongoing activities at Parchin facility, which add urgency to why the UN nuclear watchdog wants to go there.
Sure they did, but there are reasons. Parchin, for example, by the letter of the NPT is exempt from inspection, since it isn't a nuclear facility. (though Iran did already let them inspect it in 2005).The IAEA says we gave them a list of 65 requests and they refused them all.
I guess some nutbar who thinks Iran's cowardly stalling is "working with"...but then again you think the Russell Tribunal is actually a tribunal.
Here's a more reasonable and knowledgeable article on the matter:
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/23/iran-holds-up-access-to-parchin-for-better-iaea-deal/The IAEA statement Wednesday emphasized the fact that the mission to Tehran had been denied permission to visit the site at Parchin. That prompted Associated Press correspondent in Vienna George Jahn to call Iran’s refusal to agree to an IAEA visit to Parchin “stonewalling” and evidence of “hard-line resistance” to international pressure on its nuclear program.
International Herald Tribune blogger Harvey Morris wrote that Iran’s strategy was to “play for time.”
But access to Parchin was discussed as part of broader negotiations on what the IAEA statement called a “document facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues” in regard to “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program. The negotiations were focused on what cooperation the IAEA is demanding and what the agency is ready to offer in return for that cooperation.
Judging from past negotiations between Iran and the IAEA, Iran is ready to offer access to Parchin as well as other sites requested by the agency as part of an agreement under which the IAEA would stop accusing Iran of carrying out covert nuclear weapons experiments.
The IAEA’s position in the negotiations was revealed by the AP’s Jahn, who reported that the agency mission had hoped to get Iranian agreement to meetings with “scientists suspected of working on the alleged weapons program” and to “inspect documents related to nuclear weapons work.”
The September 2008 IAEA report said the agency had “proposed discussions with Iranian experts on the contents of the engineering reports (on the Shahab-3 missile) examining in detail modeling studies….”
Iran has rejected such demands as threatening its legitimate national security interests, in violation of the IAEA statute.
The scientists that the agency is demanding to see are publicly known officials of Iran’s military research institutions. Even before Israel had begun assassinating Iranian scientists, Iran had made it clear it will not give the IAEA physical access to any individual scientists.
The IAEA wants to visit a specific site at Parchin because of information from an unnamed member state, cited in its November 2011 report, that Iran had “constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments” — tests of nuclear weapons designs without the use of fissile material.
The report said the construction had been carried out at Parchin military complex in 2000 and that the IAEA had satellite imagery that was “consistent with” that information, meaning only that there were structures that could have housed such a vessel at Parchin in 2000.
The previous history of IAEA inspections at Parchin make it clear, however, that Iran knew it had nothing to hide at Parchin after 2000.
In 2004, John Bolton, the point man in the George W. Bush administration on Iran, who coordinated closely with Israel, charged that satellite imagery showed a bunker at Parchin appropriate for large-scale explosives tests such as those needed to detonate a bomb that would use a neutron trigger.
Bolton put heavy pressure on the IAEA to carry out an investigation at Parchin. A few months later, Tehran agreed to allow the agency to select any five buildings and their surroundings to investigate freely.
That gave U.S. and Israeli intelligence, as well as IAEA experts, an opportunity for which they would not have dreamed of asking: they could scan satellite imagery of the entire Parchin complex for anything that could possibly suggest work on a nuclear weapon, including a containment vessel for hydrodynamic testing, and demand to inspect that building and the grounds around it at their leisure.
In January 2005, an IAEA team visited Parchin and investigated the five areas they had chosen, taking environmental samples, but found nothing suspicious. In November 2005, Iran allowed the IAEA to do the same thing all over again on five more buildings of its own choice.
The Iranian military and nuclear establishment would never have agreed to such terms for IAEA inspection missions at Parchin — not once but twice — if they had been concealing a hydrodynamic test facility at the base.
Other information suggests that no such vessel ever existed at Parchin. The November report claimed the IAEA had obtained information on the dimensions of the containment vessel from the publication of a foreign expert identified as someone who worked “in the nuclear weapons program of the country of his origin.”
That was a reference to Vlachyslav Danilenko, a Ukrainian scientist who has acknowledged having lectured in Iran on theoretical physics and having helped the country build a cylinder for production of nano-diamonds, which was his research specialty. However, Danilenko has firmly denied ever having done any work related to nuclear weapons.
The claim that the dimensions of the putative bomb-test chamber at Parchin could be gleaned from a publication by Danilenko is implausible.
The report said the bomb-containment chamber at Parchin was “designed to contain the detonation of 70 kilograms of high explosives.” Danilenko’s patented 1992 design for a cylinder for nano-diamond production, however, was built to contain only 10 kg of explosives.
Former IAEA weapons inspector and nuclear weapons expert Robert Kelley has pointed out, moreover, that a container for only 70 kg of explosives could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design.
The negotiations on a “framework” for Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA recall the negotiation of a “work program” in August 2007 aimed at resolving a series of issues on which the IAEA Safeguards Department suspected links to nuclear weapons. The issues included experiments involving the extraction of polonium-210, plutonium experiments, and possible military control of the Gchine uranium mine.
In previous years, Iran had failed to provide sufficient information to overcome those suspicions. But after the negotiation of the “work program,” Iran began to move with dispatch to provide documentation aimed at clearing up the six remaining issues.
The IAEA acknowledged that all six of the issues had been effectively resolved in two reports in late 2007 and early 2008.
The reason for the dramatic change in cooperation was simple: the IAEA had pledged that, in return for Iran’s resolving the six issues, “the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner.” That was seen as a significant step toward finally getting a clean bill of health from the agency.
But the IAEA instead then began focusing its questioning entirely on the purported Iranian documents of unknown origin and doubtful authenticity which the IAEA called the “alleged studies.”
Who is Gareth Porter and why should he be considered either "reasonable" or "knowledgeable"?
Antiwar.com? Really? Why not start quoting Iranian state media again?
Plainly your opinion of a source is not based on any merits of the source, but just on whether it produces trash you agree with. Antiwar.com is not a reasonable or knowledgeable source!
Antiwar.com? Really? Why not start quoting Iranian state media again?
Plainly your opinion of a source is not based on any merits of the source, but just on whether it produces trash you agree with. Antiwar.com is not a reasonable or knowledgeable source!
You are such a fool.Sure they did, but there are reasons. Parchin, for example, by the letter of the NPT is exempt from inspection, since it isn't a nuclear facility. (though Iran did already let them inspect it in 2005).
Here's a more reasonable and knowledgeable article on the matter:
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/23/iran-holds-up-access-to-parchin-for-better-iaea-deal/
As usual your source is crap, an inspection 7 years ago is a safeguard against nothing, and you just ignore 64 out of 65 refusals.
No wonder Iran is under the gun. It might have people as stupid as you setting policy.
Nobody is buying this childish propaganda smokescreen.
That 7 year old inspection is quite relevant.As usual your source is crap, an inspection 7 years ago is a safeguard against nothing, and you just ignore 64 out of 65 refusals.
Remember that the 'info' that made them want to look there came from the rehashed 'laptop of death' which was supplied by 'another country' in 2000. The request to search Parchin is based on 12 year old information and worse then that, information that had been acted on 7 years ago, when a search was agreed to and carried out.
Here, take a look at the words of Robert Kelley, ex-IAEA inspector:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK22Ak02.htmlBut former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley has denounced the agency's claims about such a containment chamber as "highly misleading".
Kelley, a nuclear engineer who was the IAEA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq and is now a senior research fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Real News Network that a cylindrical chamber designed to contain 70 kg of explosives, as claimed by the IAEA, could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim.
"There are far more explosives in that bomb than could be contained by this container," Kelley said, referring to the simulated explosion of a nuclear weapon in a hydrodynamic experiment.
Kelley also observed that hydrodynamic testing would not have been done in a container inside a building in any case. "You have to be crazy to do hydrodynamic explosives in a container," he said. "There's no reason to do it. They're done outdoors on firing tables."
Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons program. "We've been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it's not important at all," Kelley said.
The IAEA report and unnamed "diplomats" implied that a "former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist", identified in the media as Danilenko, had helped build the alleged containment vessel at Parchin.
But their claims conflict with one another as well as with readily documented facts about Danilenko's work in Iran.
The IAEA report does not deny that Danilenko - a Ukrainian who worked in a Soviet-era research institute that was identified mainly with nuclear weapons - was actually a specialist on nanodiamonds. The report nevertheless implies a link between Danilenko and the purported explosives chamber at Parchin by citing a publication by Danilenko as a source for the dimensions of the alleged explosives chamber.
The Associated Press reported on November 11 that unnamed diplomats suggested Volodymyr Padalko, a partner of Danilenko in a nanodiamond business who was described as Danilenko's son-in-law, had contradicted Danilenko's firm denial of involvement in building a containment vessel for weapons testing. The diplomats claimed Padalko had told IAEA investigators that Danilenko had helped build "a large steel chamber to contain the force of the blast set off by such explosives testing".
But that claim appears to be an effort to confuse Danilenko's well-established work on an explosives chamber for nanodiamond synthesis with a chamber for weapons testing, such as the IAEA now claims was built at Parchin.
One of the unnamed diplomats described the steel chamber at Parchin as "the size of a double decker bus" and thus "much too large" for nanodiamonds.
But the IAEA report itself made exactly the opposite argument, suggesting that the purported steel chamber at Parchin was based on the design in a published paper by Danilenko.
The report said the alleged explosives chamber was designed to contain "up to 70 kg of high explosives" which it claims would be "suitable" for testing what it calls a "multipoint initiation system" for a nuclear weapon.
But a 2008 slide show on systems for nanodiamond synthesis posted on the Internet by the US-based nanotechnology company NanoBlox shows that the last patented containment chamber built by Danilenko and patented in 1992, with a total volume of 100 cubic meters, was designed for the use of just 10 kg of explosives.
An unnamed member state had given the IAEA a purported Iranian document in 2008 describing a 2003 test of what the agency interpreted to be a possible "high explosive implosion system for a nuclear weapon".
David Albright, director of a Washington think-tank that frequently passes on information from IAEA officials to the news media, told this writer in 2009 that the member state in question was "probably Israel". Although the process of making "detonation nanodiamonds" uses explosives in a containment chamber, the chamber would bear little resemblance to one used for testing a nuclear bomb's initiation system.
The production of diamonds does not require the same high degree of precision in simultaneous explosions as the initiator for a nuclear device. And unlike the explosives used in a multipoint initiation system, the explosives used for making synthetic nanodiamonds must be under water in a closed pool, as Danilenko noted in a 2010 PowerPoint presentation.
Having endorsed the IAEA's claims, Albright concedes in a November 13 article that the IAEA report "did not provide [sic] Danilenko's involvement, if any, in this chamber."
In an interview with Radio Free Europe on Friday, Danilenko denied that he has any expertise in nuclear weapons, saying, "I understand absolutely nothing in nuclear physics." He also denied that he participated in "modeling warheads" at the research institute in Russia where he worked for three decades.
Danilenko further denied doing any work in Iran that did not relate to "dynamic detonation synthesis of diamonds" and said he has "strong doubts" that Iran had a nuclear weapons program during those years.
Albright and three co-authors published an account of Danilenko's work in Iran this week seeking to give credibility to the IAEA suggestion that he worked on the containment chamber for a nuclear weapons program.
The Albright article, published on the website of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Danilenko approached the Iranian Embassy in 1995 offering his expertise on detonation diamonds, and later signed a contract with Syed Abbas Shahmoradi who responded to Danilenko's query.
Albright identifies Shahmoradi as the "head of Iran's secret nuclear sector involved in the development of nuclear weapons", merely because Shahmoradi later headed the Physics Research Center, which the IAEA argues has led Iran's nuclear weapons research.
But in late 1995, Shahmoradi was at the Sharif University of Technology, which is a leading center for nanodiamonds in Iran. Albright argues that this is evidence supporting his suspicion that nanodiamonds were a cover for his real work, because the main center for nanodiamond research is at Malek Ashtar University of Technology rather than at Sharif University.
However, Sharif University had just established an Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in 2005 that was intended to become the hub for nanotechnology research activities and strategy planning for Iran. So Sharif University and Shahmoradi would have been the logical choice to contract one of the world's leading specialists on nanodiamonds.
