Comments from Registered Members

(Register or log in to make your comment.)

David R. Evans 2009-10-17

Hossein Ziai, Your commenta are based on lies and propaganda, not truth. "Wow. I just heard Mr. Ritter state that the Iranian President did not deny the Holocaust. He is making other remarks that are totally false and again I don't see why Mr. Ritter is taking this blatantly anti Semite position. He is stating that "we must not demonize Iran" is he serious." Ritter, like most who challenge Israeli policies, is no anti-Semite. Truth is that at no time has Ahmedinijad denied the Holocaust. Please provide an accurate translation of this oft-repeated false claim made by Zionist propagandists and liars. Also, reconnisance photos have provided evidence of the "outed" second enrichment site as the first shovelful of dirt was turned. Media attention was shifted from Ahmedinejad's claims of Israeli war crimes in Gaza to "Bad-boy-Iran-the-nuclear-threat" instantly when this second site was "coincidently" revealed. Connect the dots. My God, some people are stupid!

David R. Evans 2009-10-17

It seems to me that maybe we all should have listened to Scott Ritter several years ago: http://www.rushtowar.com/

shel_tr 2009-10-16

You also suggested that “there is insufficient information to discredit it” (Ritter’s opinion). As I’ve shown, this is incorrect since at least some of his conclusions were not supported by evidence, or they simply disregarded evidence that other unbiased organizations (IAEA) say must not be ruled-out. I’m not discrediting the man, all I’ve ever been saying that he over-reaches in this interview. As Hossein Ziai indicates, there’s plenty of room for thoughtful listeners to ask questions about Ritter’s point-of-view. If there’s truth to it, our questions should be welcomed…

shel_tr 2009-10-16

So, the facts are: IAEA held a private mtg with many distinguished attendees, ISIS published notes of the presentation, those notes have not been vetted or approved by IAEA, but none of the attendees has disputed ISIS' summary. The notes show that IAEA explicitly stated that the evidence of Iranian nuclear weaponization cannot be ruled-out. So although IAEA may not publicly admit it, their opinion is diametrically opposed to Ritter's. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you were the one who accused me of ineptly quarreling with Ritter...!!

ObservationPost 2009-10-16

And I will keep it even simpler. "The IAEA has not reviewed these notes and has not supported their dissemination. As a result, they represent an unofficial record of the meeting and may contain inaccuracies," as ISIS itself admitted. A meeting that occurred, don't forget, over 18 months ago. We can now wait a couple more weeks to let IAEA inspectors go in and end this contrived tempest about Iranian nuclear ambitions. When by the way will Israel permit such an on-the-ground inspection? Never, that's when.

shel_tr 2009-10-16

ObservationPost: I’ll keep it simple for you. Ritter categorically denied Iranian nuclear weaponization. IAEA’s more balanced approach is that, though the evidence contains inconsistencies, it is credible and so can’t be ruled out. Do I have a video recording of El Baradei screaming that from a chandelier? Of course not! But what we ALL have is a report from ISIS, reporting on a presentation by the head of IAEA to multiple attendees. ISIS is a 3rd party organization whose role is to prevent nuclear proliferation. They’ve never been given to outbursts of Hava Nagila! IAEA has never denied ISIS’ report, and neither has any of the other attendees. Pls provide any evidence supporting your disbelief. I encourage contrary evidence, and well-conceived opposing debate. However, your posts are exclusively argumentative, and do not progress the discussion (such as it is...).

Hossein Ziai 2009-10-16

Wow. I just heard Mr. Ritter state that the Iranian President did not deny the Holocaust. He is making other remarks that are totally false and again I don't see why Mr. Ritter is taking this blatantly anti Semite position. He is stating that "we must not demonize Iran" is he serious. Has Mr. Ritter seen the brutality brought by the regime on the people? If this is not a demonic act I don't know what is. Mr. Ritter's manifest sympathy with Iran informs of a dangerous agenda. People have been killed and raped by agents of the Iranian regime, no one can possibly condone this type of anti human behavior. Does Mr. Ritter think we are fools, perhaps he has been fooled in taking a blatantly false position here but we are not fooled.

Hossein Ziai 2009-10-16

Mr. Ritter has an agenda it seems, and I am not sure what it is and who it will serve. What he is saying (Albardei has also said this) contradicts real analysis of the situation. He is clearly wrong when he states Iran does not have a "secret" program. He claims he is a professional and will not be "fooled" but I think his agenda gives him away. We are facing real danger, and this is well documented. For Mr. Ritter to dwell on some laptop and that it contains false information is itself suspect. He claims Iran has fully complied on these issues. He is is either joking with us or something has cuased his analysis to be twisted.

ObservationPost 2009-10-15

[Continuing to quote caveats from the ISIS "report"] —it’s a preliminary design plan. -The process is different from that used at UCF. -There are technical inconsistencies in the diagram. -Some of the correspondence is identical to that provided by Iran, with the addition of handwritten notes. -It is not yet possible to reach a conclusion; the Agency needs far more information to make an evaluation." I ask again, on the basis of such flimsy, second hand, "presumptions", we should take our country to war? shel-tr also claims that the IAEA emphatically said something or another. Then why doesn't he cite an IAEA report instead of one from ISIS, an organization with no official standing? Because he cannot. Hello, Israel, get yourself another propagandist. One that is worth his salt. shel_tr is a joke.

ObservationPost 2009-10-15

shel_tr asks if I even read the report he cited in his abortive effort to discredit Scott Ritter. Yes, I read it. Did shel-tr? If so, he would have seen these things that raise questions about how much credence to place in the ISIS report: "The notes were prepared by one of the diplomats attending the briefing and checked among other delegations. The IAEA has not reviewed these notes and has not supported their dissemination. As a result, they represent an unofficial record of the meeting and may contain inaccuracies. The main points of the briefing on the alleged studies on weaponization are re-transcribed below. [NB: this is not the integral text of the briefing but notes taken during the session.] Regarding this last point, Mr. Heinonen showed a diagram in principle, presumed to be of Iranian origin, on which there is a space for measuring instruments. Agency Evaluation -It is definitely a process flow chart for production of UF4. -It is credible—it’s a preliminary design plan.

shel_tr 2009-10-15

By all means, the inspectors must be allowed to do their jobs. However, you are incorrect to say that there is no evidence. The inspectors have evidence from Natanz and Qom (for which Iran hastily admitted the very existence only after the West obtained evidence to suggest it), and they seek Iranian responses. There is much other evidence, too, some of which indicates (for instance) that Iran tested warheads in a configuration indicating implosion. If true, this would indicate a deeper level of weapon development. Indeed, based on evidence, the inspectors have many questions. And that's aside from the laptop issue (evidence which IAEA says cannot yet be ruled-out, even though Ritter has already made-up his mind).

neoconbuster 2009-10-15

@Shill-PR.The facts have already been told by SCOTT RITTER: There is no EVIDENCE! Let's the Inspectors do their jobs.

shel_tr 2009-10-15

Another "glittering" contribution from neocon! Too funny! He ignores the entire thread, concerning 3rd party organizations' worries regarding physical evidence and Iran's lack of responsiveness to those issues. He provides no facts, no references. But he made sure to take a swipe at me. A desperate man, badly outclassed, shortly exposes himself. neocon: You are irrelevant.

neoconbuster 2009-10-14

@SHILL-PR. "responsible world leaders do not share your willingness to ignore pertinent evidence." Those leaders are pushing for WAR and More Santions are they "Responsible" just because the dream with the OIL-Gas of the region. We need more than a CIA laptop computer as evidence. Take your check from IDF-Mossad and go!

shel_tr 2009-10-14

(cont'd) Fortunately, responsible world leaders do not share your willingness to ignore pertinent evidence.

shel_tr 2009-10-14

ObservationPost: Did you even read the cited document (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IAEA_Briefing_Weaponization.pdf)? Notice the very first sentence: “ISIS obtained the document below from several sources. It summarizes a briefing given in Vienna by Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's Deputy Director General of Safeguards in February 2008.” Despite your emphatic denial, the statement in question was most definitely made by IAEA. As to“so what?”, the significance is blindingly obvious: Ritter’s supposition is not supported by evidence, he has discredited his own argument. As for ISIS’ subsequent opinion, it means (at best) that Iran has not yet weaponized their nuclear capability. That’s all. IAEA has long since stated that the onus is on Iran to show that their intentions are exclusively peaceful, and that this has not yet been demonstrated to IAEA’s satisfaction. Iran has already completed the other milestones to go nuclear (Q: Why would Iran need over 1,000 kg of LEU…??). Fort

ObservationPost 2009-10-13

As I mentioned earlier, this rush to war is Israeli-inspired hysteria designed to start a war before the IAEA later this month gets inspectors on the ground and in a position to prove that Israel lies.

ObservationPost 2009-10-13

shel_tr ineptly quarrels with Scott Ridder on several grounds, e.g. "Ridder . . . feels empowered to conclude that the laptop evidence on Iranian nuclear weaponization is likely disinformation. In contrast, IAEA itself specifically states there is insufficient information to support such a conclusion." No, the IAEA did NOT. In an 18-month old "report" the ISIS, which has no official standing, said something akin to that. So what? If there is "insufficient information to support [Ritter's] conclusion", there is insufficient information to discredit it. Look at a much more recent ISIS report, if you place such faith in that organization. This week the ISIS concluded: "Overall the Agency does not believe that Iran has yet achieved the means of integrating a nuclear payload into the Shahab 3 missile with any confidence that it would work.” On the basis of this, we are expected to go to war with Iran -- NOW? TODAY? As I mentioned earlier, this rush to war is Israeli-inspired

neoconbuster 2009-10-10

@D.R.Evans: Fron Wikipedia: "( Russia, Ukraine, USA, Japan, China, India, ISRAEL, and Iran) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.Several other countries, including South Korea, Brazil, Pakistan, Romania, Taiwan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Australia, Malaysia and Turkey, are at various stages of development of their own small-scale launcher capabilities.

David R. Evans 2009-10-09

NASA has confirmed a spot-on low earth orbit for the Omid, which marks this as a tremendous technological accomplishment and introduces Iran into an exclusive club of nations who have launched satellites themselves, as opposed to contracting with the US, Russia, France or Japan. Omid (centre) and its launch vehicle (FARS) There is, of course, something disquieting about the Omid. It’s the shape – a perfect cube. Now, is this significant? You bet. Only one intergalactic species uses the cube form of interstellar spaceship – the Borg. You know, the ones that kidnapped star ship Enterprise captain Jon-Luc Picard and threatened to assimilate all humanity. Borg ship (not to scale) Have the Iranians been assimilated by the Borg? You be the judge. Check out page 147 of your Star Trek ®