SeVeR

NBVegita: Your grip of the english language must also be brought into disrepute. The sentence refers to transparency measures that are required for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear programme. This in plain english means exactly what i told you it means - remote monitoring equipment. Sorry to kill your whole post in one sentence. I wish you hadn't needed to go to all the trouble of looking through your dictionary... Just to be sure you realise what i'm saying... (i really have to be sure) Iran letting inspectors into their facilities to monitor their uranium production levels is what we call a transparency measure , meaning they must be complying on some level to transparency measures. And as i said in the previous post, it's hardly reasonable to expect any country to let the UN place spy-cameras in their government labs. In my opinion Iran was co-operating as much as they should with the IAEA... and the IAEA seems to agree on the important aspects: Asking a country to put spy-cameras in their labs, and when they don't, saying "they aren't giving us any proof they're not making nukes so lets lay on the sanctions", is not reasonable; especially when Iran is letting the IAEA inspect their facilities on a regular basis... yielding trustworthy results! So interpret it how you want, and keep your dictionary handy. -EDIT- Were the French resistance hiding behind women and children when the Nazis massacred entire villages? You sure have a nice way to justify civilian massacres.

Aileron: Hezbollah killed: 119 Israeli soldiers 43 civilians Israel killed: 50 Hezbollah soldiers (UN estimate and Lebanese government estimate) 1100 civilians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict That seems pretty concrete to me. Hezbollah began this conflict by targetting the Israeli military. Israel responded by bombing civilian infrastructure and killing large numbers of civilians. Now who is the terrorist organisation here? You say Israel was doing nothing to Lebanon. yet in actuality they still occupied an area of Lebanon right up until the war, known as the Shebaa Farms. But that is negligable to the complete invasions of Lebanon by Israel in 1978 and 1982 and the continued occupation of southern Lebanon up until 2000. Do you think 6 years makes that right? Hezbollah weren't at peace with Israel, they were waiting for the right moment to attack Israel and that happened when the new leader took over. Regarding tactics you're right that its a little hard to distinguish... but you can be sure that the women and children who perished were not much of a threat to Israel. The UN estimates 50 Hezbollah fighters died and i believe that to be an unbiased estimate. You can't blame them for their tactics, they're a necessity against a superior force.

AstroProdigy: For the last time i'm going to ask you to prove this statement: Ok Astro, i'll tell you why Iranians respect Jews... it's because the supreme religious leader responsible for the Iranian revolution told them too! "...the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected. As a result Jews have one representative in the Iranian parliament. "Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us," says Mr Hammami." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm Some psychopath... Iranians are not anti-semitic, they're anti-zionist, which means they hate Israel. I too hate Israel but have nothing against someone for being a Jew. The problem is Zionists want the public to confuse anti-zionists with racists for obvious reasons. Iran bears the brunt of this. The fact is Jews are treated equally and Iran has the largest population in the Middle East other than Israel. Oh and here's why they can't make nukes... although you probably think the supreme leader of Iran would lie... since Muslims are deceptive and don't have any integrity... since Allah allows that sort of thing. [/sarcasm] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull 1. Iran were co-operating but have been punished due to the UN appeasing the American's anti-Iranian policy. This has pushed Iran further away from the negotiating table. 2. Why on Earth should Iran give their military secrets to the UN? This has nothing to do with generating nuclear power. No country would give away their military secrets.. especially not the US. 3. The way i see it, Iran would still be co-operating with the IAEA had the US not imposed sanctions, so exactly what do they have to hide? As for missile technology you're crazy to think any country would open up its military to the UN... this is an open door for America to gain military intelligence for their next potential war.

I hope my rear compartment can withstand your assault. At least long enough to grab onto your beautiful pair of... pressure valves

Aileron: Communism removes an individual's ability to acquire power, its against everything i stand for... Funding Hezbollah is not anti-semitic since Hezbollah is not an anti-semitic organisation. They attack Israel in the same way Israel attacks Lebanon. Is Israel anti-islamic? You can't have one without the other. If i remember correctly the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed by both sides was higher on the Hebollah side... meaning they were more efficient at taking out soldiers with minimal civilian casualties. Israels destruction of civilian infrastructure and their use of illegal cluster bombs doesn't say alot for their good intentions. You say that some lunatic cleric leader could decide its the will of Allah to use nukes. I'm personally more worried about Bush using the terrorism argument to justify another war. Not to mention Israels tendency to use disproportionate force. By the way, Israel has nukes, and i don't see them as any less vicious than Hezbollah. This entire argument is irrelevent with no proof Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We might as well discuss what America would do with antimatter weapons. NBV: The last report i saw showed that Iran was co-operating with the IAEA (this is the one you lnked me too right?). As for what you've said... why the !@#$%^&* should Iran give the IAEA information about its missile programs?!?! That has nothing to do with developing nuclear power and is the equivalent of America giving the UN access to its top secret military bases. As for the highly enriched uranium, i don't know what you're getting at. Firstly they have declared their enriched uranium to the IAEA (" Iran has continued to operate single machines, as well as the 10-, 24-and 164-machine cascades, at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), and to feed UF6 intermittently into these machines. Between 2 November 2006 and 17 February 2007, a total of approximately 66 kg of UF6 was declared by Iran as having been fed into the process and enriched to levels below 5% U-235. The environmental sample results thus far indicate a maximum enrichment of 4.2% U-235 in the first 164-machine cascade (GOV/2006/64, para. 4).") Secondly, they have to enrich uranium to reactor grade quality... that's the whole point of building a nuclear reactor! IAEA report: As for "traces" of plutonium, i'd be wondering where they came from too. Could be anywhere.. Iran have admitted to the IAEA that they have plutonium. Additionally: "The IAEA report, widely quoted by news agencies, says there is no sign that Tehran has secretly been developing weapons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3259035.stm This means Iran has not agreed to the use of remote sensing equipment. You can't just ask a country to allow the use of spy-cameras in their highly secure facilities... i'm sure the US would tell the IAEA to get stuffed aswell! i'm sorry but Iran has given proof, the IAEA has said there is no evidence of weapons development, and the only thing Iran refuses to do is to have spy-cameras put in their secure government lab. The United States has produced a dishonest report about Iran's capabilities. This means they have lied to incriminate Iran... does that point seem to slip from your minds? Do you remember how Iraq suddenly hit the news out of nowhere... WMDs this, evil dictator that. Then all of a sudden we invade and it turns out there were no WMDs. Lets remember that the US defied the UN to go into Iraq. So they make faulty intelligence, bombard the public to get support in the wake of 9/11 anger, defy the UN, and invade a country that is of no threat to America. Does that strike you as wrong? Now look at Iran, we are being bombarded with anti-Iranian news, there has been faulty intelligence (thankfully brought to light before an invasion could take place, its interesting to note that this came up around the time military force was being suggested), its happening all over again and the !@#$%^&*ing idiots who listen to the bull!@#$%^&* spewed out by agencies like Fox News are lapping it up and letting it happen.

I bet you got a big submarine waiting for me

not unless you cut open your urethra and let some guy called Adam !@#$%^&* it. Maybe X'terr could tell us a ltle more about that?

arg too much pink!

Thanks for the analysis Aileron. I'll try and clear a few things up for you: 1. I'm anti-religious and thus despise Islam and the extreme version of Islam taken within Iran to curtail personal freedoms. 2. I would much rather live in America than Iran for this reason. 3. I recognise Iranian tolerance for the Jewish population in their country and am therefore at odds with the western media for portraying an anti-semitic view of the Iranians 4. I recognise Iranian anti-zionism... again something portrayed within the west as anti-semitic, furthering my disdain at what passes for news in our society. 5. I understand that Iran has never been proven to want anything other than nuclear power-plants. Coupling this with America's "dishonest" report (The UN's words, not mine) about Irans nuclear capabilities i'm becoming convinced of non-sincere motives on behalf of America. 6. I'm hardly a commie... i'm as greedy as they come, i ac!@#$%^&*ulate wealth and thank our capitalist system that allows the intelligent to take advantage of the stupid. 7. I believe in democracy and socialism, but can't stand the corruption of this system in America which has found it easy to corrupt all forms of government through socialist policies. This is heartbreaking, socialism can be the greatest form of civilisation and also the most susceptible to corruption on the most extreme scale. 8. The timescale of the Iraqi war to follow 9/11 and a desensitisation to violence following the invasion of afghanistan, the incorrect intelligence, and the further attempts at publicising incorrect intelligence are what leads me to believe the WMD statement was a lie rather than stupidity. This is a belief, not a fact. Whether it was a lie or a stupid mistake the consequence should have been the same - removal from office. I hope that helps.

They're showing the world that they were in fact co-operating with the IAEA from the very start. They're now taking the role of the cornered animal, justified in it's defense, driven to more extreme measures. This war is fought in public opinion. Iran will probably start co-operating again at some point in a carefully scripted and very public ploy to show they're genuine. In my mind they've gotten sympathy from anyone willing to read past the headline, and they've also gotten a big oppurtunity for further sympathy if/when they let the inspectors back in. There is afterall still no proof that Iran wants nukes and there is no proof that they are developing nukes.

haha, i was about to ask exactly the same thing!

NBV: You're right, asking for proof is not tyrannical. Threatening them if they don't give you that proof is. Aileron: Everything you say seems to be based on elaborate presumptions. For instance, you say that Iran is catering to moderationist Europe through modernisation and reinterpretation of their holy book. If only that were true! What they're doing is forming an absolute opposition to America by being as vocal as possible on issues such as Zionism and nuclear power. On the nuclear issue they are letting the US threaten and criminalise their country to show the extent at which American mistrust will govern their actions. On the Zionist issue Iran is teaching the world the difference between the Jews and the Zionists so that criticism of Israel is no longer confused with racism... a confusion that is desirous for supporters of Zionism within Israel and especially the US. Now the purpose of this absolute opposition is to polarise the debate, to remove America from the position of "World Policeman", and to demote them to one side of a fierce mud-slinging match within public opinion. Moderationists will see the US as one extreme and Iran as the other, that is how Iran plans to remove the US as a threat. So yea, you were right, they're appealing to moderationist Europe but not by modernising and certainly not through reinterpreting Islam. They're engaging the US on the two things that the US is wrong about... no matter how !@#$%^&*ed up their own Islamist dictatorship of a country is. For this reason they'll eventually knock the US of their podium.

No-one gave the murderer the right to play God. They took it upon themselves to play God and a Catholic of all people should know the consequences for murder in the afterlife. Is it worth going to !@#$%^&* to exact justice in this life or do you think God wants mankind to execute the sinners? The way i see it, capital punishment is murder, it's playing God, but for a Christian it's also murder in the name of God and a presumption of Gods will. I personally do not believe in God and don't give a !@#$%^&* about whether we use capital punishment. Aileron, maybe i just need to draw up a new definition of stupidity.

Wow Aileron, a whole post in reply to two short sentences... First off, pursuing justice is not playing God when pursued by a none believer. A Christian pursuing justice ultimately melds social justice with Biblical justice in an attempt to play God. Justice is not a Christian concept, justice came much earlier than Christianity, which hijacked the concept for their own authoritarian desires. All Christians are not Crusaders and i never said they were (is this a leap or a bound Ail?), the subtle point you missed is that Christians who play God only play God based on the current interpretation of God. The Crusaders in their time were saints, while in our time they're living out eternity in !@#$%^&*, so who is right? Now finally, i'm very interested to know what made you think i believe the Crusades were the worst wars in history? Really Aileron... the conclusions you've already drawn about me (wrong for the most part) somehow give you the ...imagination(?) to draw further, even more ridiculous, conclusions such as an implication that i think the crusades were the worst wars in history. Presumably you think i believe this because you believe i hate Christianity and see a Christian war as ten times worse than anything else? I've seen this before from you many times. It makes you a very dangerous person as inevitably your intelligence will get you into a decision making position, at which point you'll start making conclusions based on pre-conceived and uninformed ideas about people. As for which war... personally i would go for the first world war, the most sickening example of trench warfare ever.

Ahh... a Christian with no objection to playing God. I bet the Crusaders had God's blessing too.

Aileron: We disagree alot, and as a result you calling my opinion idiotic seems like a little more than a joke. NBV: Thankyou very much for providing me with that source of information. A very interesting report that really lays down all the issues. Regarding co-operation: "26. Pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities." They have also been allowing the IAEA to inspect their facilities on a regular (apparently monthly) basis. This and the accurate account of uranium seems to be co-operation. Where i can see you have an issue is with the remote monitoring proposal not being accepted right away. I have two points to make about this from reading that report. 1. This was proposed very recently and has not been rejected, only delayed based on the second point. 2. Iran has every right to question the legality and authority of putting remote monitoring equipment in their facilities.

Thankyou for your in-depth reply to my points Aileron. I'm sure my idiotic opinion is only idiotic in the eyes of a self-righteous moderator with the power to be an !@#$%^&*. NBV where did you get that report from? If i saw it i might change my mind on the issue.

NBV: They have co-operated with the IAEA on every occasion by letting them view Iranian facilities. On the other hand Iran has not bowed to demands through the UN to suspend their enrichment process. These demands quite blatently come through US pressure within the UN security council. Remember a few months ago when i explained how nothing would happen if Iran rejected the deadline and carried on doing what they're doing? Nothing has happened, it was all posturing and threats; it's how the UN appeases the US. Look at it this way NBV, if Iran keeps letting the IAEA inspect their facilities then the UN will know the instant Iran decides to try and make weapons grade uranium. Currently their plant is configured as a civilian reactor and any change from that would take years to implement. They'd have to cut off the IAEA for a long time, something that would arouse suspicion. Ail: I thought you needed a plutonium trigger, probably because all countries use this method. One thing i do know is that weapons grade uranium is purer than civilian reactor grade uranium, they'd still need to change their plant to accommodate this extra level of purity. Now this is astonishing to me. Prove this please. All i know off is one source that says Iran is building a bomb. That source is the United States with the report branded "dishonest" by the IAEA. Simple fact is Bush hired Hoekstra to lie about Iran's nuclear ability for the purpose of providing reason to act on that lie. The reason this is so distressing is because its happened before, just 5 years back, in Iraq. I commend the IAEA for coming out and saying America is full of !@#$%^&*. You say the CIA sucks, but they're meant to suck, they're hired to suck, they're hired to lie to provide justification for Bush. Define "small freedoms"? I don't see any restriction of freedom for Jews. As for paying Hezbollah and Hamas to kill Jews, i think you mean Zionists... otherwise they wouldn't have far to travel from Iran would they!?! The Jews have a seat in parliament and based on their population thats quite representative. They are being called racist by people all over the world (even if you're not), i am even being called racist, people criticising Israel are being called racist. It's no coincidence that criticism of this political en!@#$%^&*y called Zionism is being confused with racism. What better way to instill hate in your enemies than to fit them with the racist label. There's no proof that they want to rule the world, and citing the operation of terrorist groups acting against one country, that they have every reason to hate, is not going to prove it either.

To whoever had a problem with me saying "The Truth", you're right. I just feel that there are alot of myths out there that need to be dispelled. There is however no evidence that those articles are lies. Certain things just need to be brought to the forefront: 1. There are two types of nuclear reactor and only one can produce the plutonium isotope needed for nuclear weaponry, Iran is building the other kind of reactor. 2. Iran has cooperated fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. 3. America has produced a dishonest report in which it lies about Irans nuclear capability. 4. There is a huge Jewish population in Iran who are treated well and respected. This is down to the supreme leader ordering his people to respect Jews. 5. The distinction between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism has been clouded by Zionists for the simple reason of painting all their foes as racists. My goal is to let them run their own show in whichever way they want. If they want an Islamic dictatorship then let them have it. If they live under a dictatorship and want a democracy then let them fight for it. Who are we to step in with our righteous hand?

No wonder fat people are full of !@#$%^&*.

pfft, telson you're such a noob.

Lol i seriously do not see the problem, in fact i see the opposite. The advert shows how easily two men can get into a "gay situation", obviously a plus for the gay community. Then it shows the typical heterosexual reaction, a very real reaction that happens everyday, especially on drunken nights out (not necessarily as extreme as pulling out chest hair). The reaction is again good for the gay community as it is comedic and an over-exaggeration to a gay experience. The advert actually promotes being gay as a precursor to acting as anti-gay as possible causing both extremes to be de-sensitized to the viewers; gayness becomes a more run-of-the-mill act to be laughed at rather than despised in any serious way.

It means you want animal sex with a horse

A temperature rise of just 2 degrees could bring devastating consequences for many parts of the world. Deserts would grow at an even greater rate, droughts would last for months rather than weeks, the hurricanes would make Katrina look like a leaf-blower. 2 degrees could kill millions. Global warming is serious because the climate (from a human perspective) is so fragile.

Global warming is just a relative term. What you experience is more extreme weather such as bigger hurricanes, blizzards and longer draughts. On average the temperature of the Earth will warm up but in some places it may cool down.