Al Jazeera English: Clinton: Iran pursuing nuclear arms

[SealLion]

Well, I've been wanting to post this pretty much the entire day. Just had to take some time out for other things and I 'm gett'in bored. So what do I do when I'm bored.......??

Head on down to The SBI.

well, Iran has been discussed a number of times and I've here some additional info that corroborates all with what slik said in a few other posts.

Let's begin with the 6 O' clock news, shall we??

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said Iran has left the international community little choice but to impose harsh penalties against it over its controversial nuclear program.

well, your gonna see in a few posted quotes below that this is all hogwash with respect to Iran and it's supposed nuclear arsenal program.

Speaking at a US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar on Sunday, Clinton said there was mounting evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Keep an eye on those words that I embolded above. The question that is gonna be asked later on is 'what evidence'. Yes. That's right....what evidence does the US of A(ccuser) have to support it's claim that Iran really does want to start up a nuclear weapons program and has enough enriched uranium.

Remember that question as knowing that will come in handy with respect to international collusive efforts to establish Iran as some kind of 'axis of evil' nation.
This in addition to unsupported and unsubstantiated claims.

First, let's talk about Israels nuclear program of which it does not state to how many nuclear weapons there are.

Have you ever noticed that there is more interest then there ever was on Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programs in relation to the nuclear weapons that Israel has that are as EQUAL a threat to peace, life, and freedom from fear of death??

Ah...I bet you never thought about that. Did you??

Well, as it so happens, Turkey has been in the news of late with respect to that EXACT interest.

Here's what I mean:

The Turkish president has condemned Western countries' focus on Iran's nuclear program, stressing that the world should deal with Israel's nuclear weapons instead.

That's what I mean.
There's more of course....

Recep Tayyip Erdogan ( The Turkish president) .......told reporters in New York that Iran's nuclear program is not aimed at "military ends". The Turkish president noted that Israel has "nuclear weapons" and has used "phosphorous bombs" against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

"Why these are not on the agenda? It is always Iran…" Erdogan told reporters in New York.

"If only Iran is put on the world agenda, then we may neglect other issues such as the Gaza [conflict] that should be addressed," he said.

]

That is EXACTLY right.

But there's more to a supposed collusion to label Iran as evil and having a strong desire to possess nuclear weapons to destroy people, life, cause fear and destruction.

IMO, Iran is far from that. That is because there is a collusive effort by the US, Euro states, and Israel to ensure that Israel stay strong militarily, ensure military dominance and have it's political and military allies further Israel's cause in the region.

Here's some other information regarding Israel:

Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has been pushing for a the removal of all weapons of mass destruction across the globe.

So Israel is not a signatory member to the NPT. Well that might be interesting but there's one thing that I'm confused about.
The image below, I think, illustrates that Israel is a signatory of that agreement. So I"ll state here that I'm not really sure of that statement made above on whether or not Israel is a signatory member of the NPT or not.

Nevertheless, that's kind of a minor issue. so lets' continue.

Now here's some evidence for Iran's side of the story;

Tehran says its nuclear program is being pursued within the framework of the IAEA and international regulations.

The UN nuclear watchdog in its previous reports had confirmed that Iran only enriches uranium-235 to a level of "less than 5 percent."

LInk to the above quotes:

LINk

Let's have a look at a few other things, shall we....

Have a look at this image that I got off, of Wikipedia.






So what's the Vela Incident, you might ask??
As it turns out, I went to the Wikipedia link and read some of it.

Here's a few quotes:

The Vela Incident (sometimes referred to as the South Atlantic Flash) was an unidentified "double flash" of light that was detected by an American Vela Hotel satellite on September 22, 1979.

Here's an explanation on what a double flash is:

..........dual light flashes associated with a nuclear explosion—to be specific the initial brief, intense flash, followed by the second longer flash

guess what else, folks...It gets dirtier.

.........The satellite reported the characteristic double flash of an atmospheric nuclear explosion of two to three kilotons, in the Indian Ocean between Bouvet Island (a very small, uninhabited Norwegian possession) and the Prince Edward Islands which belong to South Africa

Notice that SA is mentioned.
That'll come in as an interesting piece of information as you'll see quite shortly......

The initial assessment by the National Security Council (NSC) in October 1976 was that the American intelligence community had "high confidence" that the event was a low-yield nuclear explosion, although no radioactive debris had ever been detected, and there was "no corroborating seismic or hydro-acoustic data." A later NSC report revised this position to "a position of agnosticism" about whether a test had occurred or not

Did you read that. A US agency had reverted it's position to agnosticism on the event. That makes me wonder that someone, during that time, was informed by someone else in the US government via Israeli-US communication channels regarding this event and who caused it.

As a result, and I'm gonna take a guess here, that US agency changed it's position on the issue once they became intelligent on the event and all parties surrounding it.
That's my opinion.

Let's continue a little more,shall we.....

.......The NSC concluded that responsibility for a nuclear explosion, if any, should be ascribed to the Republic of South Africa....

Ok. So now we have some more information. But it doesn't end there. There was an investigation by the order of the then US President Carter.

.......the Administration of President Carter asked the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to convene a panel of instrumentation experts to re-examine the Vela Hotel 6911 data, and to attempt to determine whether the optical flash detected came from a nuclear test.....

So an investigation was begun to determine some facts. There were other factual investigations performed as you'll see...

Several U.S. Air Force .......surveillance aircraft flew .... sorties over that area of the Indian Ocean soon after the "double flash" was reported, but they failed to detect any sign of nuclear radiation. However the ...... aircraft never entered the low-pressure air mass that had been over the suspicious area at the time of the light flashes. Low levels of iodine-131 (a short-half-life product of nuclear fission) were reportedly detected in the thyroid glands of sheep in the Australian States of Victoria and Tasmania soon after the "detection" of the light flashes. Studies of wind patterns confirmed that fall-out from an explosion in the southern Indian Ocean could have been carried from there to southwestern Australia.

So some evidence has turned up. There's more though.....

......The Republic of South Africa did have a nuclear weapons program at the time, .......... ...., since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to international inspections and the ...... International Atomic Energy Agency ...... South Africa could not have constructed such a nuclear bomb until November 1979.......

a final piece of confirmation follows:

......."If the 1979 flash was caused by a test, most experts agree it was probably an Israeli test"............In February 1994, Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, a convicted Soviet spy and the commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base at the time, talked about the incident upon his release from prison. He said:

"Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test, code-named Operation Phoenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up."[22]

LInkS to the above qoutes:


LINK

and

LINK

interesting piece of information,yes??
So what does that have to do with this news article from AJE??

Well, since there's so much coverage and fear mongering about Iran and the double-stances that the Euro states and the US take on nuclear weapons and it's supposed construction by 'axis of evil' states such as what Iran are labeled as, it really should be taken with a grain of salt all this mumbo-jumbo about Iran's supposed construction of Nuclear weapons.

If the UN's nuclear inspection agency has confirmed, as quoted above, that Iran has less than 5 % of the needed enriched uranium and everybody else is crying wolf, it really makes me wonder about the truthfulness and intention of what the US, the Euro states, and Israel have.


Now recall that I quoted above about some supposed evidence that the US has about Iran's nuclear weapons build-up program.

Here's what I mean..../

Asked what evidence the US has to suggest that Iran has begun pursuing nuclear weapons, PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, told Al Jazeera that Washington can only "assume" so based on Iran's actions.

Did you read that??

It says that a spokesperson can only "assume"
Do you know what the definition of assume is??

Here's a definition from my Encyclopedia Brittanica from my HDD.
It's direct copy/paste function:

as·sume \ə-'süm\ vt, as·sumed as·sum·ing [ME, fr. L assumere, fr. ad- + sumere to take — more at consume


to pretend to have or be

to take as granted or true : suppose

Definitions for suppose are:

to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption

to take as being true based on hypothesizing.

So in other words, the US politicians are guessing, based on an assumption, which is based on hypothesizing.

I gave you those definitions so that your familiar with the language that's being used in the news articles.
I do this for you, the reader. To inform you of the language that is used and for your sake's familiarity of it.

So let's continue with the rest of the news article from AJE.....

.........Al Jazeera's correspondent in the Iranian capital, Tehran, said Clinton's assertion of evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapon programme indicates a shift in US rhetoric.

a change in rhetoric is usually followed by military actions. Remember Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the false findings of WMD??

What is the US in Iraq for??
We all know the answer to that, don't we??
It's called 'oil'.

And of course, there's other illegitimate reasons why the US and it's crooked allies are in Iraq. But that's another story for another day.

......(Clinton) ... is also using the trip to win Arab backing for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.....The goal of a comprehensive peace is fully in the interest of the United States. We are committed to our role in ensuring that negotiations begin and succeed,",

That is pure, unadulterated BullS##@t.

.....Al Jazeera's senior political analyst, said her remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian issue revealed nothing new about how the Obama administration would resolve the situation .

Now that's the TRUTH!!

I'm glad there's someone from AJE who can see through the mist and smoke.
This is one of the reasons why I like AJE.
Because they go where no man has gone before.

......."There's an attempt to address the Palestine-Israeli question without putting any responsibility on the occupying force, Israel,......

"We haven't heard much new there.

That's for sure.

A little bit more before we get to the end...

.........there is no taking responsibility for the US failure to revive the deadlocked peace process by not fulfilling its pledge to end the dispute over Israeli settlements."

That's because there wont' be.

Now here's the link to the News article from AJE:

Enjoy the read. And I hope that I've opened your eyes a little bit wider to understand global issues a little more clearly:

Have fun

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Clinton: Iran pursuing nuclear arms

[slikrapid]

Remember that question as knowing that will come in handy with respect to international collusive efforts to establish Iran as some kind of 'axis of evil' nation.

lets hear from the iran president himself what his viewpoints are, notice also that this hasn't been reported by mainstream usa media:

"We believe that... the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane,"

"We believe that not only the Middle East but also the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane," he said.

"Today, no one can use a nuclear weapon and we believe that the US is taking a wrong move by stockpiling nuclear weapons," he added.

"Those who claim that they are against nuclear weapons should dismantle their nuclear weapons first to prove that they are honest."

in the meantime the media plays their biased/distract attention role:

Considering Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's calls for sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position that new sanctions should be "crippling," one might think the US media would pay attention to Ahmadinejad's statements.

Instead, the media's Sarah Palin obsession means that more Americans heard repeated calls to start a new war with Iran in the past week.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_58517.shtml

That is because there is a collusive effort by the US, Euro states, and Israel to ensure that Israel stay strong militarily, ensure military dominance and have it's political and military allies further Israel's cause in the region.

not only israel, but almost all other privileged nuclear club countries want their status preserved, so they build more nukes and dismantle the old/unreliable ones for the public to see

in this case, israel is one of the loudest & most aggressive war-hounds in favor of an outright attack (without evidence) or crippling sanctions (which will primarily target civilians) - knowing their overall involvement in global events, hiding truth about their nuclear arsenal (some 400 warheads), not allowing any kind of international inspection, threatening with force, treating middle-east as their (owned) backyard, 50+ year torture of palestinians, and so on - judging from all this it looks like the real threat lies somewhere else, and i would disagree on threat 'equality' when looking only at the weapon: 400 ready & tested nukes vs. 0 (not even available for any kind of test) is nowhere near equal

It says that a spokesperson can only "assume"
Do you know what the definition of assume is??

notice on that video in the middle how the PR person realized the difference of his & clinton's statements, he then tried to interrupt very forcefully in order to reassure the listeners how it wasn't really an assumption - he continued in a visibly different, aggressive tone loosing his 'cool' and ended up ranting about how the facility alone is sort of enough as the evidence of 'evil' iranian intentions, showing usa doesn't really want to negotiate, it simply wants to push their agenda and their demands to be obeyed, viewed as the only option and so on

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/2010214172432220260.html

Al Jazeera's correspondent in the Iranian capital, Tehran, said Clinton's assertion of evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapon programme indicates a shift in US rhetoric.

thats another tactic, they continually build a wall of suspicion & tension and the rhetoric changes levels (suspecting, indications, are fairly sure, are certain, undeniable) - in such a situation even a small spark (what would otherwise be seen as allegations supported with weak evidence) can ignite an usa attack/invasion

......(Clinton) ... is also using the trip to win Arab backing for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.....The goal of a comprehensive peace is fully in the interest of the United States. We are committed to our role in ensuring that negotiations begin and succeed,",

well, depending on how words/their meaning are interpreted it can be actually true:

- to win Arab backing for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations - could mean to bribe them into giving it support (maybe some extra bonus for turning a blind eye on war crimes?)

- goal of a comprehensive peace is fully in the interest of the United States - notice it isn't full/total peace, comprehensive can mean just about anything depending on the viewpoint or the level when it is enough for the usa to view it as comprehensive (btw is this some utopian 'comprehensive peace' which can never really be achieved, thus justifying continuous usa interference in foreign countries?)

- We are committed to our role in ensuring that negotiations begin and succeed - define success, define results of negotiations, whose measure of these things is to be applied?

notice that not once did she mention who the aggressor is or what exactly do they want to achieve...its the usual sneaky ambiguous political (politically correct) talk

[SealLion]

yes. That rhetoric is what is building the procured tension. Procured tension is what seems to be making everyone from the West side with what the US's position is. '

I also have not heard from the Iranian leader. I am surprised that AJE isn't giving enough focus on Iran's side of the issue. I can understand the Western based media not providing input from Iran. Most likely due to political pressure and strong advice to not report Iran's position.


there is a new link on AJE in which Clinton is speaking. Within the 1 min. mark, you'll hear Clinton say" We are trying to get the international community together to apply pressure....."

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Clinton ramps up rhetoric on Iran

What an interesting set of words put together, I thought.
LIke you say, the language used as well as the tactics used ( i.e. getting the international community together )by the US in wanting more and more to have other countries on it's side and against Iran ( to apply pressure). Without giving Iran the chance to voice itself.

Like you say, this whole thing is just a measure for the nuclear-club nations to protect their status.

Here's some of the language used that seems to be consistent. The language used is always in favor of some kind of made up evidence when there is no evidence. There never was any evidence as equally as there never was any evidence in Iraq's so called WMD.

As in that case, the same terminology and language was used.
You always heard 'WMD'.

IN this situation, I"m hearing more and more of the same language and terms being used: 'consistant', 'sanctions', 'harsh penalties', 'evidence is accumulating', and so on.....

Have you noticed that, that was very similar to how the US responded months and months before a more aggressive stance was eventually under-taken against Iraq.??
It is the same path that is being followed here.

That is how language is used to substantiate the US's aggressive foreign policy positions and to ensure that others see only it's position by using that kind of language and trying to substantiate it's agenda by consistently using specific language and terms.

Also, LIke you say, Israel, being the war-mongerer that it is, is a participant behind this.
This I also strongly believe.

I also venture this opinion b/c, like you say, Israel want's very much to be the only nuclear weapons-holding country in the region.
The whole mid-east region is it's backyard.

[slikrapid]

I am surprised that AJE isn't giving enough focus on Iran's side of the issue. I can understand the Western based media not providing input from Iran. Most likely due to political pressure and strong advice to not report Iran's position.

could be, i remember seeing a video where a higher AJE official mentioned that their program was allowed to air in israel, but was denied in almost all middle-eastern arabic/islamic countries (this was still at its beginnings), so we might ask/guess what was that all about?

there is a new link on AJE in which Clinton is speaking. Within the 1 min. mark, you'll hear Clinton say" We are trying to get the international community together to apply pressure....."

yeah, there's definitely a ramping up of rhetoric going on, check these evidence-less accusations:

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said...We see the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament is being supplanted and Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,

It has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful,

notice blame being shifted to some faceless enemy more powerful than the government (Iran's Revolutionary Guard), yet there was no statement from them whatsoever, we don't see military personnel interfering with or opposing the government, these accusations look quite imaginary

as for the last comment, if usa accuses iran of something it is a customary thing for the accuser to also prove it first (20% enriched uranium is still a long way from 90%), not the other way around (iran to prove they are not guilty), just like in any decent legal process where one is not guilty until proven otherwise

as the mainstream media is failing to address these misinterpretations (as expected), its easy to make the impression of threat/danger, a bait for the less critical (majority?) citizens - if they had all the facts, presented in a non-biased way, you wouldn't need extra levels of criticism to see whats going on - btw have you noticed any significant anti-sanctions movement/protests from some non-governmental organization?

Clinton said that those sanctions would expressly target the business interests of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

Clinton flew to Saudi Arabia after Qatar in a further attempt to secure support for action against Iran.

US officials have suggested that Riyadh could help the situation diplomatically by offering China guarantees it would meet Beijing's oil requirements, possibly easing its reluctance to impose further sanctions on Iran.

no need to fly over there, usa & saudis are proven allies (at least since their teaming up with saudi bin ladens before the invasion of iraq), so they will try to sway china with the (probably cheaper) offer to meet china's oil requirements, even though china already made a 30 year oil deal with iran - anyone still thinking ordinary citizens don't need oil, just remember what happened when oil prices slightly increased - exactly, everything else went up - in a case of a real oil shortage (as in generated directly by international sanctions), the prices will skyrocket, meaning hunger over many months for the general population

There never was any evidence as equally as there never was any evidence in Iraq's so called WMD.

As in that case, the same terminology and language was used.
You always heard 'WMD'.

the unusual thing about that iraq is the fact usa didn't even bother to 'plant' any WMDs after the invasion, it really wouldn't be a problem just to fake and publicize it ('finally, after months of searching for WMDs'...news like that), to cover that obvious question, as if they didn't care about it anymore, after the original/main invasion goal was accomplished