[Shadowfax]

drblow wrote:

You seem to believe that the Iranian government has some monopoly on secrecy and propaganda. Our own political leaders have been exposed by the Chilcot enquiry as, at the least, guilty of allowing known false intelligence to be spread in the media in order to effect an invasion which had a very dodgy legal basis, as considered by all until a few minutes before the invasion when Goldsmith apparently changed his mind.

Wow, why did they bother spending a fortune on an inquiry (which is still running) when they could have just asked you for the result?

My first post here said that this is the 5th inquiry into Iraq and it is a waste of time and money cos nothing will change and nothing will be proven and no-ones mind will be changed. You have demonstrated that point perfectly because you made your mind up before it even started (and certainly before it ended) and no matter what the conclusion is, you wont believe it unless it coincides with your own view.

[drblow]

Quote:

To get anything but conspiracy nut pablum from you

Yet again, you are the one on this thread spreading conspiracy theories about secret Iranian nuclear plans that you have no evidence for.

General Mike wrote:

The question is as ludicrous as the assumptions underlying it.

Assumptions my ass. Haven't you read anything about the inquiry? Really Margaret, try using a search engine.

You would do anything other than just answer the question, eh?

Pathetic.

Shadowfax wrote:

Wow, why did they bother spending a fortune on an inquiry (which is still running) when they could have just asked you for the result?

My first post here said that this is the 5th inquiry into Iraq and it is a waste of time and money cos nothing will change and nothing will be proven and no-ones mind will be changed. You have demonstrated that point perfectly because you made your mind up before it even started (and certainly before it ended) and no matter what the conclusion is, you wont believe it unless it coincides with your own view.

Says the guy who thinks for some unknown reason that Hans Blix is lying, yet can't attribute the same to Jack Straw.

[General Mike]

Quote:

Yet again, you are the one on this thread spreading conspiracy theories about secret Iranian nuclear plans that you have no evidence for.

No evidence? Qom exists you wally – the IAEA visited it November. And yes, until the ‘expose’ of the plant last year, the Iranians were developing it in secret. Your ignorance is breathtaking.

Quote:

Assumptions my ass. Haven't you read anything about the inquiry? Really Margaret, try using a search engine.You would do anything other than just answer the question, eh?

I’ve read plenty about the inquiry and you’ve absolutely nothing to link it to this thread other than your only loony compulsions. Be gone.

[drblow]

Quote:

Qom exists you wally – the IAEA visited it November. And yes, until the ‘expose’ of the plant last year, the Iranians were developing it in secret. Your ignorance is breathtaking.

Evidence of the weapons development you keep insinuating, you arse.

Quote:

I’ve read plenty about the inquiry and you’ve absolutely nothing to link it to this thread other than your only loony compulsions.

Anyone with half a brain knows the links. Keep denying it to yourself ... much more convincing than answering the question, eh?

[Frasier]

Why don't you answer GM's question Dr. Blow? Who are 'they' exactly?

[General Mike]

Quote:

Anyone with half a brain knows the links. Keep denying it to yourself ... much more convincing than answering the question, eh?

According to you, people shouldn't believe posters on this thread (who aren't Bush and Blair) who assert or infer that Iran wants a weapons programme in this thread because, in your opinion, Bush and Blair lied about Iraq. If you can't see the total lack of logical connection there, if you can't see what an utter non sequitur it is… well, then that would explain your belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theory quite nicely.

[Am_Fìobhach]

Actually, there is a fairly obvious connection - geographical proximity. And I'm sure there are others too.

However, connection or not, stuff about Iraq is of limited relevance to a discussion allegedly centred on Iran.

[Shadowfax]

Yes that was exactly the point I made in the other thread addressed to the one stringed banjo.

No matter what the actual subject of the thread is, he brings it back to his starting point of 'all the western leaders lie about everything and the Middle eastern leaders dont, so therefore <insert subject here> is all a huge global conspiracy' (designed to fool us poor unsuspecting idiots)

plink plink plink

[General Mike]

Quote:

Actually, there is a fairly obvious connection - geographical proximity. And I'm sure there are others too.

Not much gets past you does it, Am? How long before you discover they both begin with an 'i' for 'idiot'?

[Shadowfax]

I just realised sumfing. The 2nd letter in both countries is an 'r' for 'retard'

Its a global conspiracy Mike. I think we are on to something here


p.s. bet you cant guess what the 3rd letter stands for

[Am_Fìobhach]

We do, at least, seem agreed on something, then.

It must be a conspiracy...

[scotia125]

Quote:

Mags wrote;
No evidence? Qom exists you wally – the IAEA visited it November. And yes, until the ‘expose’ of the plant last year, the Iranians were developing it in secret. Your ignorance is breathtaking.

Ditto Margaret,

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 88,00.html

Wonder why the CIA kept it secret Mags? And if the CIA knew, the US President knew.

[General Mike]

Quote:

Wonder why the CIA kept it secret Mags? And if the CIA knew, the US President knew.

Ya see the thing is Scotia, in order for there to be an expose, someone has to expose it. Yes, they knew and yes, the kept quiet -- to break it to Iran at a moment where it would cause maximum embarrassment and where they would have incontrovertible evidence. That's why Iran copped to it so quickly - they couldn't do otherwise. The point is they had developed it in secret -- not declared it to IAEA, pretended it didn't exist. The fact that some intelligence services knew otherwise is neither here nor there.

[scotia125]

Quote:

Mags wrote;
Ya see the thing is Scotia, in order for there to be an expose, someone has to expose it. Yes, they knew and yes, the kept quiet -- to break it to Iran at a moment where it would cause maximum embarrassment and where they would have incontrovertible evidence. That's why Iran copped to it so quickly - they couldn't do otherwise. The point is they had developed it in secret -- not declared it to IAEA, pretended it didn't exist. The fact that some intelligence services knew otherwise is neither here nor there.

Are you now claiming that Iran broke any of the IAEA's rules regarding reporting uranium enrichment Maggie?
I take it you can provide us with definitive proof of the amounts of weapons grade uranium produced by Iran's centrifuges Mags?

[General Mike]

From a source you trust:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2479/qom ... ty-roundup

[scotia125]

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/2 ... iaea-rules

[General Mike]

Quote:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/2 ... iaea-rules

Well if Ahmadinejad says it's okay then that's that.

Your favourite source not good enough for you any more ha?

You really are pathetic. Be gone.

[scotia125]

General Mike wrote:

:lol: From a source you trust:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2479/qom ... ty-roundup

And just below that Mags,

Quote:

No, Iran has not unequivocally violated its safeguards obligations! There is on this website a statement by the legal adviser to the IAEA that covers this point.

While Iran’s actions are inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement, this should be seen in proper context. Given the fact that Article 42 [of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement] is broadly phrased and that the old version of Code 3.1 had been accepted as complying with the requirements of this Article for some 22 years prior to the Board’s decision in 1992 to modify it as indicated above, it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulation in itself constitutes non-compliance with, or a breach of, the [NPT-related] Safeguards Agreement as such.

So it looks like the legal adviser to the IAEA would accept, maybe unwillingly, that Iran’s notification of this new enrichment plant is not non-compliant with Iran’s obligations.

Where is the evidence that US officials have known about this facility for “several years”? All we have seen so far is a statement from a White House official which given the past history of the White House is worth very little. If they have known about it for “several years”, why haven’t the White House released its location and satellite imagery of it. So far, all have have seen are commercial images from an NGO. Could it be that the IAEA is sticking to its obligation to keep member’s information confidential and the White House has no idea of the location of the site that the Iranians have declared?

Dear oh dear Mags, Haha.

[General Mike]

Quote:

Dear oh dear Mags, Haha.

Why when have the Iranian president's say so would you need to go to the next level of evidence -- an anonymous blog comment? I mean that's really all you need. Please continue: you're only embarrassing yourself. You're just too dense to realise it.

Let's see what ElBaradei has to say:

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... 30?sp=true

Now I know you hate the Zionist entity Scotty, but really, do you have to be such a shameless apologist for little Mahmoud just because you share his views on the Jews?

[drblow]

Like Israel never broke a UN resolution.

Quote:

Now I know you hate the Zionist entity Scotty, but really, do you have to be such a shameless apologist for little Mahmoud just because you share his views on the Jews?

Now that is embarassing. Extremely embarassing.