|
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
But YOU are refering to the US's idea about nations as "FACTS" that they are true becuase they are created by the government.. Creating a Fact isnt significant here becuase there are biases to creating facts....like Hitlers "facts" about the Jews..or Osama's creation of facts about the Western world. |
Ok well it was this notion and context I was reffering to about the creation of facts. I'm glad you FINALLY get it.
| quote: | | And how do you know Iran is making Nuclear weapons.. through CNN satellite pictures...LOOOOOOOOOOL |
What's wrong with CNN these days? They seem to be strongly pro-arab, anti-war, and critize USA policy very heavily.
Ok fine, lets get some other real sources yea?
Here, AP report:
The Associated Press, December 12, 2002, Thursday, BC cycle, Washington Dateline, 436 words, U.S. suspects two construction sites in Iran of being future weapons sites, By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON
| quote: | Two construction sites in central Iran may be used for a clandestine program to develop nuclear weapons, U.S. officials said Thursday.
The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, generally endorsed reports issued by an Iranian resistance group this summer that accused Iran of building facilities for their nuclear programs at the two sites.
U.S. intelligence officials do not believe Iran has made any nuclear weapons. Iran denies having a nuclear weapons program. In August, officials with the National Council of Resistance of Iran said the sites, once completed, will be a nuclear fuel production plant and research lab at Natanz and a heavy water production plant at Arak. Both sites are in central Iran, south of the capital of Tehran.
The rebel group cited their own sources inside the Iranian government.
The Natanz plant also may include a uranium-enrichment facility, U.S officials said. A heavy water plant at Arak would be part of a plutonium program.
U.S. officials say Iran's lack of fissile material - either enriched uranium or plutonium - remains a key stumbling block for its nuclear goals.
Iran has not declared either site to international monitors, U.S. officials said.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran, based in Paris, is a government-in-exile that advocates violent overthrow of Iran's religious government. Officials say they want to install a democratic government in Iran that protects human rights.
Although the U.S. State Department says the council is a terrorist organization, its members operate freely in the United States, and some in Congress support removing the terrorist label.
Earlier this year, CIA Director George J. Tenet said U.S. intelligence is worried countries like Iran may make "sudden leaps" in their nuclear programs.
"Tehran may be able to indigenously produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by late this decade," Tenet told a congressional committee in March.
Much of the public attention given to Iran's nuclear effort focuses on a power reactor at Bushehr, which is being built with Russian assistance. But the design of the reactor, as well as international agreements for oversight of its operation, are expected to prevent it from being used to make material that can be used in nuclear weapons.
Instead, the primary concern about the reactor is that it will lead to more expertise in nuclear matters in Iran, benefiting its weapons program, U.S. officials say.
Separately, Iran is considering construction of another major nuclear power plant, state-run television reported Thursday. |
Here French source:
Agence France Presse, December 1, 2002 Sunday, International News, 1028 words, Behind the rhetoric, US and Iran cooperating over Iraq, PARIS, Dec 1
| quote: |
Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrived in Tehran Wednesday, seeking to sound out the Islamic republic over Iraq while raising concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.
A Foreign Office official accompanying Straw described Iran's position over Iraq as "schizophrenic" -- with Tehran being no friend of Saddam Hussein but vigorously opposed to any attack on its neighbour.
And he insisted that while Straw, who is on the final leg of a whirlwind regional tour, was "not a US messenger", he would be listening to concerns here that Iran may be next in Washington's firing line.
"We don't believe that there are three dossiers on Bush's desk," the official said, referring to US President George W. Bush lumping of Iran into an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. "But (the Iranians) have got a nuclear program going on, and they have to provide some reassurances about that," the source said, adding that Iran's refusal to accept the existence of Israel was also an area of concern.
The US and Israel have already sounded alarm bells over the Moscow-aided construction of a nuclear power plant in Bushehr in southern Iran, as well as Iran's missile programme.
For their part, officials here have indicated that Straw, on his third visit to Tehran in just over a year, can also expect a long list of gripes when he meets with reformist President Mohammad Khatami and his counterpart Kamal Kharazi.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said the "serious issues" to be raised with Straw were "the mounting crimes of the Zionist (Israeli) regime" and the United States' "unacceptable unilateralism".
He said Iran would also be sending a message to Washington, through Straw, regarding the controversial US Baptist minister Jerry Falwell who on Sunday labelled the Muslim Prophet Mohammed "a terrorist".
The furious reaction here has revived memories of the 1989 death sentence for alleged blasphemy imposed on British writer Salman Rushdie by the late supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
But Straw looks likely to try to keep Iraq on top of the agenda.
His visits to Iran late last year were crucial in sounding out Tehran's position over Afghanistan ahead of US-led airstrikes there against the then ruling Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror network.
Iran stayed neutral during the attacks, and its cooperation during the Afghan peace talks in Bonn last year was hailed as crucial in establishing the current Afghan government of Hamid Karzai.
Iran is officially opposed to an attack against Iraq and has stated its "active neutrality", even though it bore the brunt of Baghdad's chemical arsenal during their 1980-88 war.
Among Tehran's fears is the prospect of more US troops at its borders, an influx of refugees similar to that during the 1991 Gulf War, or a breaking up of Iraq due to its delicate ethnic make-up of Kurds, Arabs and Shiites.
But the Islamic republic also has close ties with Kurdish leaders in the self-rule zone of northern Iraq across the border, and is home to Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Hakim, a prominent exiled Iraqi Shiite cleric who heads the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Both the Kurds and SCIRI are components of the Iraqi opposition being courted by Washington and London.
Straw's visit comes two weeks after Iran announced it had approved the appointment of Richard Dalton as Britain's new ambassador to Tehran, ending an eight-month diplomatic stand-off that started when Iran refused to accept an earlier nominee.
Some quarters in Iran's hardline camp, however, have signalled their total opposition to the visit.
The conservative Jomhuri-Eslami paper wrote Tuesday in an editorial entitled "What Mr. Straw needs to know" that "the Iranian people hate the English and their mission as a messenger boy for the Americans".
Referring to such opposition, the official accompanying Straw said Britain acknowledged there was a "dual government in Iran" -- a reference to the reformists in government and their more powerful hardline rivals who control the other key institutions.
And although Khatami indicated last week that he was open to Straw bringing a message from Washington, which has had no diplomatic links with Tehran since 1980, the official stressed that the foreign secretary "is not going to Tehran on behalf of the US, he has his own relationship (with Iran)". |
Ok, UN opinion:
Associated Press Worldstream, December 18, 2002 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 625 words, UN nuclear agency to visit Iran Feb. 25 to check on Tehran's nuclear program, GEORGE JAHN; Associated Press Writer, VIENNA, Austria
| quote: | The United Nations' chief nuclear inspector will visit Iran Feb. 25, his spokesman said Wednesday, announcing a tour of facilities that Washington says belong to a secret weapons program.
Spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, would be accompanied by experts planning to set up "safeguards" at two sites where Iran is building nuclear reactors to ensure no material is diverted for use in weapons programs.
"When they declare new facilities, we want to get in as early as possible," he said. Safeguards - which go into effect shortly before reactors go on line - typically ensure remote cameras and other monitoring means are in place. ElBaradei had been expected to visit sometime in February after Tehran canceled a tour originally set for this month, but Wednesday's announcement was the first time a specific date was given.
The United States has long been suspicious about Iran's nuclear program, accusing the country of sponsoring terrorism and labeling it - along with Iraq and North Korea - part of an "axis of evil."
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said last week satellite imagery indicated that some structures at the Natanz plant in central Iran were being covered with earth, indicating Tehran is building "a secret underground site where it could produce fissile material."
"Iran clearly intended to harden and bury that facility," Boucher said. "That facility was probably never intended by Iran to be a declared component of the peaceful (nuclear) program."
Iranian government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh rejected Boucher's charges shortly after they were made, saying Natanz "is not under the ground" and that "all our nuclear sites are for peaceful purposes and open to IAEA inspection."
An official at the Vienna-based agency, speaking on condition of anonymity said Wednesday satellite photos did show hard concrete and earthworks covering some structures at Natanz but suggested that did not necessarily mean Tehran had something to hide.
"Given what the Israelis did to the Iraqi reactor, I might consider hardening my facility as well, even for peaceful purposes," he said. Israeli air strikes destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
The IAEA official also said the satellite imagery of reactors at Natanz and another site, Arak, indicated they could produce heavy water and be used for enrichment of nuclear fuel, procedures that could be applied for weapons programs.
But "Iran has a right to have such facilities as long as at the appropriate time it declares them to us and puts them under safeguards, and Iran has declared to us that they will do so," he said.
ElBaradei recently said he learned six months ago that Tehran was expanding nuclear facilities - three months before Tehran officially notified him in September. Gwozdecky said Wednesday the official notice given by Iran met accepted IAEA deadlines.
Iran says the two nuclear sites are intended to generate electricity during the next two decades and that Tehran has no plans to produce nuclear weapons.
Much of the public attention given to Iran's nuclear effort focuses on a power reactor at Bushehr, which is being built with Russian assistance. The power station in southern Iran is supposed to go on line at the end of the year, and visiting IAEA inspectors have safeguard measures in place.
Safeguards are already operating at about half a dozen sites, said Gwozdecky, the agency spokesman.
Iran is party to the international Nonproliferation Treaty and has a safeguards agreement in place with the IAEA, which agency officials say has detected no diversion of nuclear material Tehran has declared. |
Russian opinion via mid east mirror (fairly hippie):
Mideast Mirror, July 5, 2002, ARAB/ISLAMIC WORLD, 1133 words, Russia may scale down its support for Iran's nuclear program
| quote: | During last May's U.S.-Russian summit in Moscow, American newsmen asked Russia's Chief of Staff Gen. Yuri Baliovski about relations between Moscow and Tehran, whether Iran had indeed tested its new medium-range Shihab-3 missile earlier in the month, and whether Iran could threaten Russia, Israel and the U.S. with its missiles and nuclear programs, writes Huda al-Husseini in the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat.
'IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS': The general replied (after lauding cooperation between his country and Iran): "As to whether Iran had tested the missile, Iran does have nuclear weapons-not strategic weapons that can be delivered 5,500 kilometers or more, of course. As a military man, I do not consider Iran to pose a threat to Russia. As for the United States, the Iranian threat is practically nil."
The angry Iranians immediately denied what the Russian general said. Hamid Reza Asefi, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said that the general's information was wrong, and that Iran was developing a peaceful nuclear program.
Russia, which has been helping Iran build an USD 800 million nuclear reactor in the southern port city of Busheir, has been coming under increasing pressure from Washington to stop cooperating with the Iranians. The Americans fear that Iran was planning to acquire nuclear weapons.
A Russian source says that new developments have altered President Vladimir Putin's position vis a vis the Busheir nuclear project, especially since Russia was accepted as a full G-8 member. The G-8 promised Moscow USD 20 billion to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that could fall into terrorist hands.
The source says that Putin decided to gradually wind down Russia's participation in building the 1,000 megawatt Busheir reactor because of Iranian refusal to return to Moscow the nuclear fuel used in the plant. This fuel is capable of being enriched into weapons grade plutonium and uranium-the stuff nuclear weapons are made of. The source said that Putin's decision is final, and that he has been moving slowly to implement it so as not to give the impression of having caved in to American pressure.
The British Guardian newspaper recently quoted a secret document sent from the Russian ministry of nuclear energy to the Kremlin as saying that the contract Moscow signed with Tehran concerning Busheir makes no mention of which side is supposed to be responsible for the fuel used by the plant.
This is not the first disagreement between Moscow and Tehran on this issue. Only two months ago, Iran rejected a Russian proposal that the IAEA conduct a more thorough inspection of the Busheir facility which is supposed to be completed by 2005. At the time, European diplomatic sources said that Tehran had doubled its efforts to acquire missile technology and nuclear weapons, and that it was negotiating with Ukraine and Belarus to do so.
Up to now, the Iranian government has steadfastly rejected all accusations that it intends to use the Busheir reactor in order to produce weapons grade plutonium. Nevertheless, Iranian officials see it as their country's right to be able to acquire nuclear weapons-at least until the existing nuclear powers (the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan) agree to scrap their nuclear arsenals. The main impetus for Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons is the fact that its two major enemies-the U.S. and Israel-are both nuclear powers.
The Russian source says that the Busheir nuclear plant threatens to cause a major diplomatic row between Russia on the one hand, and the U.S., Israel and some European and Middle Eastern countries on the other.
He says that Moscow realizes Tehran's keenness to make use of Busheir to produce nuclear materials.
The Russians realize that Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent, especially since President Bush included Iran in his "axis of evil."
The Russian source went on to say that Israel wants to maintain its strategic superiority in the Middle East; that was why the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1982.
He says that Israel sent a delegation to Moscow during President Bush's recent visit in order to press for stopping construction at Busheir.
An American source told me some time ago that Busheir does not pose a threat. Besides, Iran can always say that the IAEA had inspected the plant and decided that it does not violate any international agreement.
According to the Russian source, the global atmosphere at the end of the Cold War did not prevent Russia from nurturing military, technological and political relations with Iran. When Iranian President Mohammad Khatami visited Moscow last year, the two sides signed contracts for the sale of USD 5 billion worth of Russian arms to Tehran. Another contract signed during Khatami's visit was one concerning Busheir.
Yet the world changed after the attacks of September 11, and so did the policies pursued by Vladimir Putin. The Russian president opened up to the United States. Nevertheless, the Russians continued to show reluctance in fulfilling Washington's requests to stop helping the Iranians build the Busheir plant-mainly because American offers of compensation were vague.
But it seems that Washington kept pressing the Russians to do something about the plant. U.S. undersecretary of state for disarmament affairs John Bolton said that the future of America's relationship with Russia hinges upon Moscow's readiness to stop exporting dangerous materials to Iran.
The Russian source says that Putin will most likely continue to call publicly for increased cooperation with Iran and for going forward with completing the Busheir plant. Privately, though, he has decided to withdraw gradually from the project.
That is why he will propose again that Iran allow more strict international supervision of Busheir, and will insist more forcefully on the return of the plant's nuclear fuel-even though the contract signed by the two countries does not mention it.
Putin will then gradually reduce the number of Russian scientists and technicians working on the project until not enough are left in Iran to be able to operate the plant.
Yet the Russian source thinks it unlikely that such measures would deter Iran's determination to complete and operate the plant. Iran, he says, will simply seek to replace the Russians with personnel from other countries. In fact, Tehran is already secretly sounding out several other countries to see whether they would be interested in participating in the project should the Russians seek to pull out.
|
Ok I hope that sums up that yea Tehran does have a nuke program. and there are heavy doubts of how 'innocent' this is. Especially when you look that almost every nation that ever said they were developing an 'innocent' nuclear program lied in the context of history.
| quote: | and with the Karine-A incident...that ship could could have been anybody's...shipping off from different nations...
Read this and take a more neutral perspective before believing anything a government WANTS you to beleive!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/St...,636888,00.html |
Look, lets say I believe 100% of what this not very smart author writes ok? And I can disprove a lot of it case by case.. But gain assuming everything he wrote above is absolutely true! This one point alone should bring heavy doubt on the links of Iran and the PA.
So I will add just another reference to a certain event:
The Jerusalem Report, November 18, 2002, Pg. 5, 363 words, SANTORINI ARMS SHIP COMPLETED THREE SMUGGLING TRIPS BEFORE ISRAEL INTERCEPTED IT, Mitchell Ginsburg
| quote: |
Prior to its capture by the Israel Navy, the Santorini - one of two arms-smuggling vessels stopped by Israel since the start of the intifada - made three successful trips from Lebanon to the Gaza and the Sinai coast, The Jerusalem Report has learned. Only on its fourth mission, in May 2001, was the Santorini, loaded with Katyusha rockets, anti-tank missiles, mortars, small arms and ammunition, picked up in the Mediterranean; the Karine A, with a similar but larger cargo, was intercepted by Israeli naval commandos in the Red Sea in January 2002.
The Santorini's first voyage, directed by Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), was from Tripoli in November 2000. Its second and third voyages, both in April 2001, were run by Hizballah, and the fourth, failed attempt, again by the PFLP-GC. The arms cargoes in the "successful" trips were dropped along the Gaza coast and off Sinai, from where they could be smuggled into Palestinian territory through the maze of tunnels on the Egypt-Gaza frontier. The case of the Santorini again underlines the close links between Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Palestinian terror operations, according to a senior military source, who adds that the ship, originally called the Abd Al-Hadi, was acquired for the PFLP-GC in the port of Arwad, a small island off the Syrian coast, and was registered as Syrian.
The arms smuggled during the first voyage were packed in Syria and transferred to Tripoli via the Damascus-Beirut highway in a Syrian bus, according to the documented interrogation of one of the captured Lebanese crew members. The man told Israeli interrogators that the third shipment of arms was loaded by 25 Hizballah men on the beach at Jiyah, south of Beirut.
Intelligence sources say that the arms smuggling is merely the tip of an iceberg of Syrian and Iranian support for terror activities. According to one document shown to The Report, Iranian and Syrian money is regularly funneled into the territories in order to "not allow a calming down of the situation," and directives for attacks are also transmitted directly from Damascus.
Mitchell Ginsburg |
In this article we can also disprove Brian Whitaker assertion that "Assuming the ship had not been stopped in the Red sea and had passed through the Suez canal without being caught by the Egyptians, the problem would be how to sneak its weapons into Gaza without the Israelis noticing. At current levels of surveillance, the chances of that happening are almost nil." Well apparently this Santorini ship has successfully completed such smuggling operations. This Israeli government also admits that it suspects some smuggling operations were successful before the Karine A as well.
Last edited by Yoepus on Jan-03-2003 at 22:38
|
