Quake3World

BBC, 31 Jan:

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran would take decisive action if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sends the issue to the UN.

"If it happens, the government will be required under the law to end the suspension of all nuclear activities it has voluntarily halted.

"The first victim will be the Additional Protocol [of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)]. If it happens, Iran will definitely terminate its co-operation [with the IAEA] as of Saturday, 4 February," he said on Iranian television.

The Additional Protocol allows UN inspectors to carry out surprise inspections of nuclear sites or sites which are deemed to be suspect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 667970.stm

in short, iran will end the snap inspections which are not actually mandatory under the NPT (i.e. international law governing nuclear programs), but mandatory pre-scheduled inspections will continue

but now this fine detail has been omitted:

Tehran had also banned snap inspections of it sites by international nuclear experts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4722532.stm

i've been following the BBC's RSS feed on iran, and it's incredible how misleading their coverage is. the same goes for the bits and pieces from other mainstream outlets i've come across

likewise the allegations made by the US, france and germany about an iranian nuke program are repeated in every piece on this issue, but no mention is made of the fact that no evidence of this has ever been presented, or the fact that the most recent IAEA report on iran made clear how cooperative the iranians were being regarding inspections and the provision of requested documentation (at least until the IAEA decided, for reasons i've not been able to discover, to report iran to the UNSC)

so here we go again, sleepwalking into another war

How is this indictive of 'liberal' media?

then why ........?


Former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani - described for years as a moderate - claimed recently: "The Muslim world would win a nuclear exchange with Israel", and "an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world".
Put simply, he considers the death of millions of Iranians and Palestinians a small price to pay for the obliteration of Israel. And Rafsanjani is considered a moderate.
The fanatics don't care if they die. On the contrary, many will welcome it.

you know what amazes me about you seremtan?

its the fact that you can bury your head in the sand and up your arse at the same time while talking/writing complete fucking shite!

no-one who knows their ass from a hole in the ground would call rafsanjani a moderate.

busetibi wrote:then why ........?


Former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani - described for years as a moderate - claimed recently: "The Muslim world would win a nuclear exchange with Israel", and "an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world".
Put simply, he considers the death of millions of Iranians and Palestinians a small price to pay for the obliteration of Israel. And Rafsanjani is considered a moderate.
The fanatics don't care if they die. On the contrary, many will welcome it.

you know what amazes me about you seremtan?

its the fact that you can bury your head in the sand and up your arse at the same time while talking/writing complete fucking shite!

A) He is not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination.
B) His statement said nothing about wanting Israel gone at the cost of millions of Arabs. All he said was "Israel, you do not want to start a nuclear war with us." It's a warning to leave them alone.

You're the one who has their head buried - right up to the shoulders in whatever the press piles on you. Just because they said it in their article, you think Iran has threatened Israel with nuclear war and declared they would trade millions of arabs to nuke Israel.

Tell me, if that is the case, then why haven't they already done it?

uhm...israel has all the nukes...wheres the threat...cept from the jews?...

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:How is this indictive of 'liberal' media?

BBC = 'liberal'

busetibi wrote:then why ........?


Former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani - described for years as a moderate - claimed recently: "The Muslim world would win a nuclear exchange with Israel", and "an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world".
Put simply, he considers the death of millions of Iranians and Palestinians a small price to pay for the obliteration of Israel. And Rafsanjani is considered a moderate.
The fanatics don't care if they die. On the contrary, many will welcome it.

you know what amazes me about you seremtan?

its the fact that you can bury your head in the sand and up your arse at the same time while talking/writing complete fucking shite!

thanks for reminding me of your eminent qualifications as a complete and utter fucking moron. you didn't actually prove any of my first post wrong, but instead took it as a given that iran is developing nukes and then wanked on about something rafsanjani once said

oh yeah, and let's compare this:

Put simply, he considers the death of millions of Iranians and Palestinians a small price to pay for the obliteration of Israel. And Rafsanjani is considered a moderate.

to this:

When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying [to contain Saddam], [former US Secretary of State Madeleine] Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story ... 86,00.html

and albright is considered a democrat

conservatives have done such a good job brainwashing ppl...being balanced and doing good reporting is now considered liberal...george bush senior is now a liberal...reagan was liberal...is borke a liberal now as well?...

lol @ 'balanced and good reporting' = liberal

i'd have said balanced and good reporting = real journalism