# IRAN will BE Referred to The UN Security Council!!



## Epsilon (25 September 2005)

Finally it happened. The belligerent Islamic regime in Tehran will be referred for Sanctions to the UN Security Council by the IAEA.........
Please read.....

Nuclear watchdog clears way for Iran's referral to UN
24/09/2005 - 19:30:55

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s board today approved a resolution that clears the way for referring Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.

Diplomats inside the meeting said, however, that only 22 of the 35 board nations voted for the US-backed European Union motion, reflecting the divisions over referral.

Only twice in the past two decades has the IAEA board voted on an issue instead of adopting a resolution by consensus. Both of those were on sending North Korea to the council – in 1993 and 2003 – for breaking with the non-Non-proliferationproliferation treaty.

Board nations Russia and China, which are also veto-wielding Security Council members, abstained from today’s vote, along with 10 other nations, all of them developing countries, diplomats said. Among those voting for the resolution were European countries on the board, along with the US, Canada, Australia and Japan.

Venezuela cast the only vote against.

The EU draft resolution adopted by the board was one submitted yesterday, after last-minute talks collapsed with Russia and China on modifications meant to make the text milder in exchange for Moscow’s and Beijing’s overt support.

That EU draft called on the board to consider reporting Iran to the council. As grounds, it mentioned non-compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and suspicions that Iran’s nuclear activities could threaten international peace and security.

The approval reflected board concern over Iran’s “long history of concealment and deception,” despite the divisions among board members, said the chief US representative to the meeting, Gregory Schulte.

In opting for referral, the board is “concerned that Iran’s activities pose an increasing threat to international peace and security,” Schulte told reporters. “The IAEA has called on Iran to … come clean.”

But Iran’s delegation head, Javad Vaeidi, said strong opposition by a large minority of board members reflected that “there is no consensus on the way forward.” He warned of retaliation, declaring: “Threat invokes threat.”

Tehran had already warned that, if the resolution was approved, it could respond by starting uranium enrichment – a possible path to nuclear arms – and by reducing IAEA powers to inspect its activities under the additional agreement it had signed but not yet ratified.

Diplomats accredited to the agency who sought anonymity because their information was confidential said that both threats were contained in unsigned letters and shown by a member of the Iranian delegation to the IAEA chief, Mohamed Elbaradei.

The Security Council could impose sanctions if it determines that Iran violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but the draft made no mention of sanctions, in recognition of Russian and Chinese opposition.

Still, it was unequivocal in saying that – unless Iran ends uranium conversion and clears up questions remaining about its past nuclear activities – grounds exist for it to be referred to the Security Council.

A nation’s failure to comply with the nonproliferation treaty is automatic grounds for a report to the Security Council under IAEA statutes, and the draft said “Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations … constitute non-compliance.”

Additionally, Iran’s spotty record on co-operating with an IAEA investigation that began in 2002 has led to an “absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes,” the document said.

That finding puts Iran “within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsbility for the maintenance of international peace and security,” the text said.


SOURCE: Ireland On Line.


----------



## Happy (25 September 2005)

Bit worrying, UN most of times, looks to be a lousy paper tiger sitting on hands with no teeth.


----------



## Epsilon (25 September 2005)

Well, yes.....It's true,  the UN can ONLY make decisions.....Decide on proposals.
It cannot (except in rare situations...) implement decisions***.....
However, such a decision by the Security Council can give the "green light" for other.....More drastic measures....

*** Iran can always (as one would suspect they may do...) withdraw from the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) member of which they are now.....BUT, such a move may have even more severe consenquences for them......

***** The Pendulum is heavily swinging in our (West's) favour. Even India has voted in favour of referring Iran to the Security Council......Of the "big guns" Only Russia (for obvious reasons-they are building a $1 billion Nuclear Reactor in Iran) and China abstained for voting......
Amazingly only one of the 35 IAEA member-nations voted against the motion.....That was....Loony Chavez's Venezuela!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 July 2008)

It will be interesting to see the outcome from the proposals presently offered by both parties.With America taking some heat out of the Persian Gulf the Iranian president has done this interview which I see as extremely positive for further compromise.

30 seconds of ads. first and streaming flash player. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25882303#25882303


----------



## juw177 (29 July 2008)

No surprise here since the UN acts in the interest of the richest nations in the world. All sanctions have ever done was to cause a third world coutries' population to suffer so they will be softened up for the US to overthrow their government.

Oh, don't forget they have found no evidence that Iran is planning on obtaining nuclear weapons. They are just pointing the finger at Iran saying "they look shady so let's put sanctions on them and invade their country".

Will the UN do anything about genocide of Palestinians and Israel's (proven) nuclear stockpile? Or discuss the illegal US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia?


----------



## kgee (29 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> No surprise here since the UN acts in the interest of the richest nations in the world. All sanctions have ever done was to cause a third world coutries' population to suffer so they will be softened up for the US to overthrow their government.
> 
> Oh, don't forget they have found no evidence that Iran is planning on obtaining nuclear weapons. They are just pointing the finger at Iran saying "they look shady so let's put sanctions on them and invade their country".
> 
> Will the UN do anything about genocide of Palestinians and Israel's (proven) nuclear stockpile? Or discuss the illegal US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia?




I'm as cynical as anyone but with both China and Russia abstaining  + the fact that (I think) Iran is sitting on the 2nd largest gas reserves in the world and that Ahmaddinejad (geez I like that name) has said he wants Israel wiped off the earth
maybe it was time for the UN to say something??


----------



## refined silver (29 July 2008)

Normal UN process is after months or years of diplomatic wrangling to finally come to a resolution and write a letter, with a deadline.

If the deadline passes and you don't do what we say, we will write another letter!


----------



## robert toms (29 July 2008)

Rather irrelevant actions. China and Russia will veto any big resolution in the end...and why shouldn't they?
The US wants to say which countries can defend themselves and which countries cannot .If Iraq did in fact have weapons of mass destruction they would never have been attacked.
Does the west want to install a new Shah in Iran...one that is compliant with the west's needs for cheap energy.
Same crap...different day !
Iran was on Bush's axis of evil list...North Korea..too hard....then Iraq ...easy enough it was thought....and now for Iran.
Let the propaganda games begin ?


----------



## brty (29 July 2008)

Hi,

Bush has run out of time to do anything through the glacial speed of the UN. If Obama wins the election, the US will be mostly gone from the middle east, for at least 4 years.

Mind you, with the speed of the UN, maybe they are really thinking of a few years into the future  Does Bush have a son?? 

brty


----------



## juw177 (29 July 2008)

brty said:


> If Obama wins the election, the US will be mostly gone from the middle east, for at least 4 years.




Rubbish. Obama will change nothing and he has made it very clear to his zionist lobby groups.




			
				kgee said:
			
		

> I'm as cynical as anyone but with both China and Russia abstaining + the fact that (I think) Iran is sitting on the 2nd largest gas reserves in the world and that Ahmaddinejad (geez I like that name) has said he wants Israel wiped off the earth




Iran has trade relationships with China, Russia and Venezuela. Are you saying there is something wrong with the fact that it is not Exxon drilling there instead?

And it was a translation error taken out of context but they ran with the propaganda as expected.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 July 2008)

Why nuclear power generation???The nuclear enrichment program might not be for weoponry but it would be convenient if friction escalated with neighbouring countries.From my internet research, history shows a timeline of many conflicts in Persia, cultural change and now the official Islamic Republic of Iran.

Islam means different things to different people. 

Timeline resouce :- http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html



> 570 -- The Prophet Mohammad was born.
> 
> 608-622 -- The long war between the Sasanians and the Byzantines significantly weakened both sides.
> 
> ...




Any answers as to why go nuclear powered in a country with so much gas and oil?Many countries in the world do not have nuclear power.Bit suss. don`t you think?


----------



## juw177 (29 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Any answers as to why go nuclear powered in a country with so much gas and oil?Many countries in the world do not have nuclear power.Bit suss. don`t you think?




Any answers as to why a country with so much gas and oil is being targeted by the UN? Many countries in the world have nuclear enrichment programs.Bit suss. don`t you think?


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Any answers as to why a country with so much gas and oil is being targeted by the UN? Many countries in the world have nuclear enrichment programs.Bit suss. don`t you think?





You obviously have no idea.

Does anyone else?


----------



## kgee (29 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Iran has trade relationships with China, Russia and Venezuela. Are you saying there is something wrong with the fact that it is not Exxon drilling there instead?




What I'm saying is that if both China and Russia have abstained it must be for a reason, surely they do not want to upset Iran when they are trying there best to get access to Iran's oil and gas?


----------



## juw177 (29 July 2008)

kgee, that is what I meant. Iran has trade partners who (rightly) see threats to Iran as a threat to them. China, Russia and Venezuela have and still are subject to intimidation by the west. Like Iran, they are not a part of "the clique" so it is no surprise they do not support this.


Wysiwyg, no I dont know what you mean, or why Islam has anything to do with this. care to explain with a few facts?


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Wysiwyg, no I dont know what you mean, or why Islam has anything to do with this. care to explain with a few facts?




In a region with historic AND present war/conflict.Neighbouring country issuing threats with fearful thoughts.And a uranium enrichment program.What does it look like?????What the world does not want to see is nuclear arms proliferation in a region with deep seated  and ongoing (no thanks to Americas intervention in some ways) aggressive approach to conflict resolution.
I would like see  Iran as a co-operative and friendly country to participate in world affairs and a country with passive intentions.A good country.

p.s. I do not know anything about Islam and find all religious beginnings stem from one imagining.


----------



## kgee (29 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> kgee, that is what I meant. Iran has trade partners who (rightly) see threats to Iran as a threat to them. China, Russia and Venezuela have and still are subject to intimidation by the west. Like Iran, they are not a part of "the clique" so it is no surprise they do not support this.




Well thats a matter of opinion ... personaly I believe if both Russia and China were to unite... then the west couldn't intimidate them at all 
So the fact that they abstained suggests to me that maybe china and russia don't want Iran having the potential to make nuclear arms.
I know russia has been trying to broker a deal where they do the 'enrichment' and also trying to get them to start off with the low grade uranium that can't be enriched  ( I'm not a scientist but thats the gist I've been getting)


----------



## juw177 (30 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> In a region with historic AND present war/conflict.Neighbouring country issuing threats with fearful thoughts.And a uranium enrichment program.What does it look like?????




You will have to be specific here because you are sounding like the guys on Fox news.
-What neighbouring countries are you referring to? (Israel is not a country)
-What threats?
-When has Iran attacked another country? (Gulf War) What was the cause of the conflict? (Oil, USA backing Sadaam)

Iran has good relations with other middle eastern countries. Israel knows this which is why it had been bombing Syria and Lebanon (illegally). And the west uses propaganda to legitimise it.

Not only is Israel enriching uranium, it has a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Now that is a state that has a history of aggression towards neighbouring countries and still issues threats. Disarm them and it will bring much peace to the middle east.


----------



## noder (30 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> (Israel is not a country)



Seriously?


----------



## disarray (30 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Iran has good relations with other middle eastern countries. Israel knows this which is why it had been bombing Syria and Lebanon (illegally). And the west uses propaganda to legitimise it.




noooo, iran has mixed relations with other middle eastern countries, now and throughout history. their support of hezbollah isn't endearing them to the lebanese, and in fact is largely responsible for israeli strikes into southern lebanon, there are ongoing tensions with iraq, and they are part of the nuclear black market which was the cause of israels recent strike on syria.



> Not only is Israel enriching uranium, it has a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Now that is a state that has a history of aggression towards neighbouring countries and still issues threats. Disarm them and it will bring much peace to the middle east.




what planet are you on? israel has been repeatedly attacked since its inception by combined arab forces who publicly call for the extermination of israel and the jews. seriously juw, you've got such an anti-west hardon its clouding your judgement. disarm the israelis to bring peace to the middle east. ha! keep on raging against the west though, you're doing chinese nationalists everywhere proud.


----------



## juw177 (30 July 2008)

Noder, yes seriously, Israel is a *state* formed by an occupation that drove off the Palestinians.

disarray,
-Who has said they wanted to exterminate Jews? Why are you equating Jews to Israel?
-What army has invaded Israel?
The media has a tendency to over emphasis Israeli casualties from a few rockets fired into Israel's "territories" while understating Israel's atrocities. If you are brainwashed then so be it, but at least cite where you got your information from.

Israel is not some poor victim haunted by the holocaust. Since they gained independence they have *always* been the invader and ruthless land grabber. And it is due to the help of the US giving them one of the most advanced armies in the world.


----------



## disarray (30 July 2008)

> Who has said they wanted to exterminate Jews?




ummm the president of iran, leading theocrats in iran, extremist muslims, "moderate muslims", palestinians, hezbollah, al quada, etc. etc.



> Why are you equating Jews to Israel?




because israel is the jewish homeland and they identify with the land that "god" has given them



> What army has invaded Israel?




Arab-Israeli Conflict



> The media has a tendency to over emphasis Israeli casualties from a few rockets fired into Israel's "territories" while understating Israel's atrocities. If you are brainwashed then so be it, but at least cite where you got your information from.




what media do you watch? there is plenty of coverage of arab deaths, in fact hezbollah wage an extremely effective propaganda campaign (often rolling out the same child in various post attack photo ops) which gives a great deal of negative publicity to israel. if you spend all your time plugged into CNN to come up with these opinions then i think you might be the one suffering from brainwashing. as for citing sources, i haven't seen anything from you so put the hypocrisy aside.



> Israel is not some poor victim haunted by the holocaust. Since they gained independence they have always been the invader and ruthless land grabber. And it is due to the help of the US giving them one of the most advanced armies in the world.




  broaden your mind man and stop being so polarised. yeah the israelis can be monsters, so can the palestinians, so can the americans, so can the iranians, so can the chinese - welcome to humanity. the trick is to understand why people do what they do instead of just jumping up and down about who has some dubious moral highground in a conflict that is anything but.


----------



## noder (30 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Noder, yes seriously, Israel is a *state* formed by an occupation that drove off the Palestinians.




So by this logic, I can deduce that Australia is not a country, but a *state* formed by an occupation that drove off the Indigenous Australian?


----------



## metric (30 July 2008)

never in the history of israel have the jews been the populous majority. they have always been the minority. so they have no historic right to claim israel  as their state alone.

israel is the only friend of the usa in the mid east. but before the israeli state (1948) the usa had no enemies in the mid east......

israel has illegal nukes...where is the security council? economic sanctions? etc? 

it is a blatant lie to say that iran wants to wipe israel off the map. it is a false translation. do a google. western media will not tell you the truth....western media is run by jews....as is hollywood, the bush government, world banking, ..etc, etc, etc..

ive got nothing against jews. its just that many people handle the truth carelessly in favour of the state of israel.


----------



## metric (30 July 2008)

noder said:


> So by this logic, I can deduce that Australia is not a country, but a *state* formed by an occupation that drove off the Indigenous Australian?




that may well be correct. we are after all the 'commonwealth of australia'...


----------



## juw177 (30 July 2008)

disarray, I am afraid your post is all misinformation. And if you bothered to read the link you posted, you will find that Israel is the aggressor.

If Israel is being "constantly attacked", then why don't you explain why it is that the occupied territories of Israel has vastly expanded into neighbouring countries over the last decades as a result of military conflict?

No, Israel is not the Jewish homeland. I am sure many Jews will find that offensive.

And media coverage of the conflicts have no Israeli bias? Give me a break please.


----------



## disarray (30 July 2008)

metric said:


> never in the history of israel have the jews been the populous majority. they have always been the minority. so they have no historic right to claim israel  as their state alone.






> No, Israel is not the Jewish homeland. I am sure many Jews will find that offensive




and many jews would disagree



> israel is the only friend of the usa in the mid east. but before the israeli state (1948) the usa had no enemies in the mid east......




saudi arabia? kuwait? pakistan? afghanistan? turkey? yeah no relations with the US here.



> israel has illegal nukes...where is the security council? economic sanctions? etc?




there are none because israel is a protected species, partly because of western guilt over the holocaust, partly because of the strength of the jewish lobby movement, partly because the arabs hate israel and would exterminate the israelis if they could, and partly because israel is a buffer for the west as it maintains the focus of the psycho muslim brigade.



> it is a blatant lie to say that iran wants to wipe israel off the map. it is a false translation. do a google.




no YOU do a google. which part of ... 



> TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
> 
> "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.




is unclear to you?



> western media will not tell you the truth....western media is run by jews....as is hollywood, the bush government, world banking, ..etc, etc, etc.




welcome to right wing conspiracy nutter territory. congratulations, you're now a nazi and a racist!!!1 are you chinese metric? if so then its ok, only white people can be racist.



> ive got nothing against jews. its just that many people handle the truth carelessly in favour of the state of israel




once again your bias shows a shallow media exposure, there is LOADS AND LOADS of anti-israeli reporting and propaganda to be found, BBC, ABC and SBS are often sympathetic to the palestinians in their reporting. maybe al-jazeera are pro-israeli?



> disarray, I am afraid your post is all misinformation. And if you bothered to read the link you posted, you will find that Israel is the aggressor.




once again you totally miss the point - THEY ARE ALL AGGRESSORS, there is no moral high ground to be had because everyone involved is at fault. 



> If Israel is being "constantly attacked", then why don't you explain why it is that the occupied territories of Israel has vastly expanded into neighbouring countries over the last decades as a result of military conflict?




the creation of buffer zones, spoils of war, an attitude of entitlement to the land god set aside for them, plenty of reasons. you just keep focusing on how its all the americans fault though, it seems to be the central theme to most of your posts.


----------



## metric (30 July 2008)

these threads are a waste of time. no one will give in, give ground , or concede even a point...

just isnt worth the trouble typing a reply. you'll see im right.


----------



## juw177 (30 July 2008)

From the snippets of your posts


> entitlement to the land god set aside for them
> israel is a protected species
> from psycho muslim brigade




Oh snap.

So you believe the Jews were the chosen people and with their self proclaimed "invincible army" they are entitled to grab land and murder people as they please. Dont forget that the Nazis also believed they were the chosen people and saw others as sub human.



> THEY ARE ALL AGGRESSORS, there is no moral high ground to be had because everyone involved is at fault.




But I can see *you* are taking moral higher ground when it comes to your view of them "psycho Muslims and Arabs" yes? And people in this thread you accuse of being Chinese because they dissent against the west? Must be all the objective media you have been watching huh...

I will leave it at that.


----------



## disarray (30 July 2008)

metric said:


> these threads are a waste of time. no one will give in, give ground , or concede even a point...
> 
> just isnt worth the trouble typing a reply. you'll see im right.




lol, you're new to the internet huh? i'll see you're right about what?



> So you believe the Jews were the chosen people and with their self proclaimed "invincible army" they are entitled to grab land and murder people as they please




no, but many jews think this way. just because i recognise this doesn't mean i agree with it, however it is important that these factors are acknowledged and taken into consideration.



> But I can see you are taking moral higher ground when it comes to your view of them "psycho Muslims and Arabs" yes?




well i call it like i see it. when israelis start strapping bombs to their children and preaching the extermination of infidels in the synagogues then they get to be psychos too.



> And people in this thread you accuse of being Chinese because they dissent against the west?




its hardly an accusation, however it is important to recognise that peoples perceptions are coloured by culture and education and so on. by understanding your background i can better understand the influences on your opinion. feel victimised much? i can lend you a race card if you need.



> I will leave it at that




i'm sure you will. take this with you ...


----------



## bassmanpete (30 July 2008)

> Quote:
> entitlement to the land god set aside for them
> israel is a protected species
> from psycho muslim brigade
> ...




What you're doing in this case juw177 is known as quote mining - taking part of a sentence then stating that this is what the commenter believes. If you read it properly you'll see that what disarray said was that many Jews believe that about themselves.

And by the way, I never see anyone complaining about Egypt & Jordan having occupied Palestinian land


----------



## metric (30 July 2008)

ray......

you are the one who is new to debating this topic (jews, israel, mid east, invasion, suicide bombers, terrorists, etc) if you think there will be an agreeable outcome.....

nothing EVER comes from these discussions.....you...will...see...!!


----------



## juw177 (30 July 2008)

disarray said:


> well i call it like i see it. when israelis start strapping bombs to their children and preaching the extermination of infidels in the synagogues then they get to be psychos too.




you must be "seeing it" in your objective media you have been watching then.

Fortunately, Israelis are not as desperate as to strap bombs to children. Instead they just go in and shoot the opposing side's children, or drop cluster bombs on them.


----------



## disarray (30 July 2008)

metric said:


> nothing EVER comes from these discussions.....you...will...see...!!




what's the measure? having a wide range of opinions is good, dissemination of knowledge and all that. we don't have to agree for a discussion to be successful, other discussions on various boards have led to me modify my own ideas. just because i don't agree with the anti-american chinese nationalist brigade doesn't mean i'm not trying to understand you through your opinions.



> you must be "seeing it" in your objective media you have been watching then




you're missing the point again. you can find any media taking any side on any topic you choose, the only thing required is the wording of the search phrase. you consistently harp on about everyone watching fox news and being obviously brainwashed by the media (with metrics awesome jewish ownership angle thrown in) when they disagree with you, yet your posts are nothing more than opinion and you rarely post any supporting evidence for your claims.



> Fortunately, Israelis are not as desperate as to strap bombs to children. Instead they just go in and shoot the opposing side's children, or drop cluster bombs on them.




now i'm happy to listen to your ideas but sweeping statements about the brutality of america and israel are just stupid unless you give reasons (and preferably evidence) for your opinions. when you go on about israelis cluster bombing palestinian children you are just being emotional and hurting your own argument. try asking why did the israelis use cluster bombs? area denial. why do the israelis want area denial? because hezbollah keep launching rockets from the area. why are hezbollah launching rockets at israel? because they hate israel and want their land back. why do they hate israel and want their land back? is it justified for israel to use cluster bombs? are there other alternatives to clusterbombing that are less of a threat to civilians?

stop acting like you have some monopoly on the "correct" media to be forming your opinions on and instead broaden your perception instead of ranting about how evil america is. i don't like america either but at least make an effort to understand them.


----------



## metric (30 July 2008)

ray.

im not sure where you blokes that toe the establishment line and parrot mainstream media word for word, come from. perhaps when a topic such as this comes up on popular forums, a red flag goes up in propaganda underworld......

ive seen hundreds of arguments on just this topic. and the line is always drawn between the establishment parrots, and the free thinkers. we can also throw in a few confused bleeding hearts that have no idea of the politics, they just state how horrible it all is..

tell me one thing ray, that the establishment tell you, and you dont swallow hook, line, and sinker...? its got to be a rhetorical question as you will never admit that you believe everything you are told...which you do. your posts prove it.

before this topic can be debated, the first topic to get out of the way is western corporate mainstream media propaganda, and the effect it has on its citizens opinions..........


----------



## bassmanpete (30 July 2008)

> before this topic can be debated, the first topic to get out of the way is western corporate mainstream media propaganda, and the effect it has on its citizens opinions..........




That can also be applied to any other propaganda - Russian government, Chinese government, whatever. You imply that you're a free thinker but haven't specified which propa.. oops, sorry, information source you subscribe to.


----------



## metric (30 July 2008)

as none of it can really be trusted, 'you must learn to form your own opinion......'

you will be surprised how many people cant do that. you think about it...we are given other peoples opinions all our lives. school, uni's etc are structured so you get only the opinions they want you to have. say it aint so.....


----------



## mayk (30 July 2008)

Well, I might be shot for this, but Nazi's had a Ministry of Propaganda. At least they were telling the truth


----------



## juw177 (30 July 2008)

For the Israel conflict, there are many sources of information that sympathise with the zion resistance. They are just not found in the mainstream.

It is also about recognising the bias. The bias becomes very apparent when you realise that all deaths reported caused by US / Israel are either militants, terrorists, sectarian violence related or accidental. But when the good guys gets killed, it is deliberate and unjustified. They are policemen, contractors and soldiers with a loving family.

Mainstream reports also tend to report an event from one side without giving any context. For example, they report that Iran is refusing to stop the enrichment program, but fail to point out that enrichment is legal and the American NIE intelligence report concluded that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons.

So we have the likes of disarray with a very distorted view.


----------



## IFocus (30 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> It is also about recognising the bias. The bias becomes very apparent when you realise that all deaths reported caused by US / Israel are either militants, terrorists, sectarian violence related or accidental. But when the good guys gets killed, it is deliberate and unjustified. They are policemen, contractors and soldiers with a loving family.




Very true and more so in government controlled or sponsored media out lets.





> Mainstream reports also tend to report an event from one side without giving any context. For example, they report that Iran is refusing to stop the enrichment program, but fail to point out that enrichment is legal and the American NIE intelligence report concluded that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons.




Mainstream media is a business centered around provoking emotional response's for the purpose of their business to make more money nothing more.



juw177 said:


> So we have the likes of disarray with a very distorted view.




I though Disarray's points were excellent but enjoyed the discussion over all I am thankful we live in a place where we can exchange such views without fear of being persecuted.


----------



## kgee (30 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Mainstream reports also tend to report an event from one side without giving any context. For example, they report that Iran is refusing to stop the enrichment program, but fail to point out that enrichment is legal and the American NIE intelligence report concluded that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons.
> 
> So we have the likes of disarray with a very distorted view.




Legally Iran does have the right for uranium enrichment.
I believe every country does, but personally I would be concerned with some countries going down this line...Iran being one
Again I reiterate that Russia has been trying to broker a deal where the uranium is enriched outside of Iran...safegaurding the threat of this been used for nucleur arms...but still allowing Iran to have a nucleur energy program...From what I see Iran has flatly refused this saying its their sovereign right to use the enrichment program. To me the deal sounded ok.... and it was going to be for a probationary period with constant monitoring from the west. Again perfectly reasonable
The middle east is unstable to say the least I'm sure no one wants another country armed with nukes!!
Again both China and Russia had veto power but refused to use it...you say the west influenced them... That doesn't cut it for me it just seems like commonsense.
That may seem like a very eurocentric opinion but again I ask the question why do they need a nucleur energy program when they're sittin on the 2nd largest gas reserves in the world?


----------



## robert toms (31 July 2008)

If you want a different erudition on this subject go to the last essay on www.monbiot.com   under the heading "nuking the treaty"
It is done from the British aspect,but George Monbiot is a very readable British intellectual...in my opinion of course.


----------



## robert toms (1 August 2008)

The article by Monbiot...dismissed as propaganda....pointed out some inconsistencies in the argument that Iran should not pursue a nuclear programme..Just a couple..
Britain has just renewed its nuclear weapon stocks,and claims that it needs nuclear weapons for self-defence.Only they and France have nuclear weapons in Europe.
And the cosy united pledge by Brown and Obama to support the rogue nuclear state ,Israel, come hell or high water.It is estimated that Israel have between sixty to eighty nuclear weapons.
With Iran now hemmed in on three sides by the predatory US ,
who can blame them for sticking to their nuclear programme.
The UN is only as strong as the commitmnent of their members..and we saw very clearly during the WMD dishonesty how some members,including Australia,treat the UN with contempt when it suits them.

The first post on this thread,looked to me as if it came straight from the Israeli embassy....correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## mayk (1 August 2008)

^^ No it was Mostsad (intentional wrong spelling..) special. 

Think of this from the point of view of media and time line:

1 - Motivation (Iraq WMD. Iran U-Enrich)
2 - Sensationalization (Iran defying UN sanction doing military excercises, effect on America and its partner Isreal)
3 - Climax (Just before start of war)
4 - Result (Opps I did it again!! followed by public outcry)

 I guess we are in stage 2 fast moving toward stage 3.


After a while, someone will say hey Syria looks it is trying to hide something. And the cycle of lies and deception continues. 


The question to ask is why and simple answer is because they can (in Bill Clinton's own famous words is because "He could" in response to his sex scandal). 

Lastly, when all the countries are invaded the hunt for shadows will continue in the old mountains of Afghanistan.


----------



## juw177 (1 August 2008)

mayk, you left out what happens before your time line...

1. Prop up their regime by supplying arms and funding which the US did with Iraq and Iran in the 80s 90s.

2. Backstab the regime. Fund covert operations to destabalise country. Impose sanctions to starve out the population.


...then the media takes over as you described


----------

