IAEA, Hypocrisy and Israeli Nukes.

[nirreich]

A troll like you replies even before reading completely what others are saying!

??????

 

[nirreich]

Everything sane is absurd to nazis and zionists, nothing new! The americans did not consider the brits as peace-loving two hundred years ago but they do now and that is the point. As time passes old enemies become friends and many things change but one thing for sure, israel and its nukes will always remain a threat to world peace. BTW what the Pakistanis diod to us in 1971 is nothing compared to what the Germans did to you during the Second World War, now, has that stopped you from becoming friendly with the Germans or have you chosen to be a traitor?

You are blind to the differences between the different cases, so I will just give you to bottom line: the German got rid of their Nazi regime (with the generous help of the Allied forces), Britain is no longer an Empire with colonies, but Pakistan is the same Pakistan that butchered your people in 1970-1971: manage by generals and intelligence agencies who use terror and violence against innocent civilians in order to empower their position.

Although it is part of your country's miserable history, you ignore it just not to jeopardise your anti-Semite ideas. Do not you have any national dignity?

 

[T-Rex]

You are blind to the differences between the different cases, so I will just give you to bottom line: the German got rid of their Nazi regime (with the generous help of the Allied forces), Britain is no longer an Empire with colonies, but Pakistan is the same Pakistan that butchered your people in 1970-1971: manage by generals and intelligence agencies who use terror and violence against innocent civilians in order to empower their position.

Although it is part of your country's miserable history, you ignore it just not to jeopardise your anti-Semite ideas. Do not you have any national dignity?

To the nazis and zionists their case is always different, that's how they have excelled in the art of hypocrisy. As I said according to your f*****d up theory you must be a traitor to have relations with the Germans. Anyway the topic is israel's nuclear threat to the region not our relation with Pakistan or israel's relation with the Germans! So, stay on the topic.

 

[nirreich]

To the nazis and zionists their case is always different, that's how they have excelled in the art of hypocrisy. As I said according to your f*****d up theory you must be a traitor to have relations with the Germans. Anyway the topic is israel's nuclear threat to the region not our relation with Pakistan or israel's relation with the Germans! So, stay on the topic.

You cannot evade reality with your stupidity, no matter how much you try: you are defending the Pakistanis although it is the same regime that killed thousands of your people and treated them as inferior. And all in the name of your anti-Semitism, you are willing to give up your national dignity just that to attack Israel. Do not you have any shame?

As I said, regardless of your fantasies about Nazis, Germany is a democratic and liberal nation which took responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi regime, and behave accordingly, so there is no problem for having relations with Germany. However, Pakistan never took responsibility for its crimes against the Bangalis, and why should it? People like you do not even care.

 

[Kompromat]

 

[Kompromat]

You cannot evade reality with your stupidity, no matter how much you try: you are defending the Pakistanis although it is the same regime that killed thousands of your people and treated them as inferior. And all in the name of your anti-Semitism, you are willing to give up your national dignity just that to attack Israel. Do not you have any shame?

As I said, regardless of your fantasies about Nazis, Germany is a democratic and liberal nation which took responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi regime, and behave accordingly, so there is no problem for having relations with Germany. However, Pakistan never took responsibility for its crimes against the Bangalis, and why should it? People like you do not even care.

Classic Zionist Rant!

 

[nirreich]

Classic Zionist Rant!

Now we have on this thread another troll this time from the "glorious" republic of Pakistan

 

[Saifullah Sani]

IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability​

By Joby Warrick, Published: November 7

Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.

Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.
The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog is due to release a report this week laying out its findings on Iran’s efforts to obtain sensitive nuclear technology. Fears that Iran could quickly build an atomic bomb if it chooses to has fueled anti-Iran rhetoric and new threats of military strikes. Some U.S. arms-control groups have cautioned against what they fear could be an overreaction to the report, saying there is still time to persuade Iran to change its behavior.
Iranian officials expressed indifference about the report.

“Let them publish and see what happens,” said Iran’s foreign minister and former nuclear top official, Ali Akbar Salehi, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported Saturday.

Salehi said that the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program is “100 percent political” and that the IAEA is “under pressure from foreign powers.”

‘Never really stopped’

Although the IAEA has chided Iran for years to come clean about a number of apparently weapons-related scientific projects, the new disclosures fill out the contours of an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected. Beginning early in the last decade and apparently resuming — though at a more measured pace — after a pause in 2003, Iranian scientists worked concurrently across multiple disciplines to obtain key skills needed to make and test a nuclear weapon that could fit inside the country’s long-range missiles, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who has reviewed the intelligence files.

“The program never really stopped,” said Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. The institute performs widely respected independent analyses of nuclear programs in countries around the world, often drawing from IAEA data.

“After 2003, money was made available for research in areas that sure look like nuclear weapons work but were hidden within civilian institutions,” Albright said.
U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Iran’s leaders have not decided whether to build nuclear weapons but are intent on gathering all the components and skills so they can quickly assemble a bomb if they choose to. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are peaceful and intended only to generate electricity.

The IAEA has declined to comment on the intelligence it has received from member states, including the United States, pending the release of its report.
But some of the highlights were described in a presentation by Albright at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week. PowerPoint slides from the presentation were obtained by The Washington Post, and details of Albright’s summary were confirmed by two European diplomats privy to the IAEA’s internal reports. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, in keeping with diplomatic protocol.

Albright said IAEA officials, based on the totality of the evidence given to them, have concluded that Iran “has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core. In the presentation, he described intelligence that points to a formalized and rigorous process for gaining all the necessary skills for weapons-building, using native talent as well as a generous helping of foreign expertise.

“The [intelligence] points to a comprehensive project structure and hierarchy with clear responsibilities, timelines and deliverables,” Albright said, according to the notes from the presentation.

Key outside assistance

According to Albright, one key breakthrough that has not been publicly described was Iran’s success in obtaining design information for a device known as an R265 generator. The device is a hemispherical aluminum shell with an intricate array of high explosives that detonate with split-second precision. These charges compress a small sphere of enriched uranium or plutonium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

Creating such a device is a formidable technical challenge, and Iran needed outside assistance in designing the generator and testing its performance, Albright said.

According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear program. Documents provided to the U.N. officials showed that Danilenko offered assistance to the Iranians over at least five years, giving lectures and sharing research papers on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design, according to two officials with access to the IAEA’s confidential files.

Danilenko’s role was judged to be so critical that IAEA investigators devoted considerable effort to obtaining his cooperation, the two officials said. The scientist acknowledged his role but said he thought his work was limited to assisting civilian engineering projects, the sources said.

There is no evidence that Russian government officials knew of Danilenko’s activities in Iran. *E-mails requesting comment from Russian officials in Washington and Moscow were not returned. Efforts to reach Danilenko through his former company were not successful.

Iran relied on foreign experts to supply mathematical formulas and codes for theoretical design work — some of which appear to have originated in North Korea, diplomats and weapons experts say. Additional help appears to have come from the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose design for a device known as a neutron initiator was found in Iran, the sources said. Khan is known to have provided nuclear blueprints to Libya that included a neutron initiator, a device that shoots a stream of atomic particles into a nuclear weapon’s fissile core at the start of the nuclear chain reaction.

One Iranian document provided to the IAEA portrayed Iranian scientists as discussing plans to conduct a four-year study of neutron initiators beginning in 2007, four years after Iran was said to have halted such research.

“It is unknown if it commenced or progressed as planned,” Albright said.

The disclosures come against a backdrop of new threats of military strikes on Iran. Israeli newspapers reported last week that there is high-level government support in Israel for a military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.

“One of the problems with such open threats of military action is that it furthers the drift towards a military conflict and makes it more difficult to dial down tensions,” said Peter Crail, a nonproliferation analyst with the Arms Control Association, a Washington advocacy group. “It also risks creating an assumption that we can always end Iran’s nuclear program with a few airstrikes if nothing else works. That’s simply not the case.”

Special correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report.
IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability - The Washington Post

 

[VelocuR]

Assalam alaikum

Raptor bhai, some say it was french commandoes who went into haram do u have any prove it was our ssg's that went in

Brother arab didnot backstabb us we enjoy good relations with Jordan saudia gulf states why u always say that

TARIQ

Wasalaam brother Tariq

The seizure shocked the Islamic world as hundreds of pilgrims present for the annual hajj were taken hostage, and hundreds of militants, security forces and hostages caught in crossfire were killed in the ensuing battles for control of the site. The siege ended two weeks after the takeover began with militants cleared from the mosque.[2] Following the attack, the Saudi state implemented stricter enforcement of Islamic code.

Confusion reigned at the field command, where several senior princes, the heads of the armed forces and military attachés from Pakistan gave advice. Pakistan Army infantry and armoured units deployed in Saudi Arabia were mobilized immediately. Pakistani SSG commandos were rushed to Mecca from Pakistan on Saudi Government's request.

In the middle of the day, Saudi troops abseiled from helicopters directly into the courtyard in the center of the mosque. The soldiers were picked off by insurgents holding superior positions. At this point, King Khalid appointed Turki head of the operation.[16]

The insurgents broadcast their demands from the mosque loudspeakers, calling for the cutoff of oil exports to the United States and expulsion of all foreign civilian and military experts from the Arabian peninsula. On November 25, the Arab Socialist Action Party - Arabian Peninsula issued a statement from Beirut alleging to clarify the demands of the insurgents. The party, however, denied any involvement of its own in the seizure.

Pakistanis were the only forces besides Saudis– as non-Muslims cannot enter the city of Mecca. The Pakistanis asked for permission to end the siege by flooding the mosque and then dropping a high-voltage electric cable to electrocute all present. This suggestion was requested by the then Commandant of the Pakistan Special Services Group, Brigadier Tariq Mehmood. This proposal was deemed unacceptable by Saudi authorities. They then used tanks to ram the doors of the mosque and Pakistani Commandos[[2]] then resorted to spraying the mosque with non-lethal gases in order to subdue the occupiers, and dropped grenades into the chambers through holes drilled in the mosque courtyard. The Pakistani commandos stormed the mosque, and used the least amount of force possible to avoid damage to the mosque. They killed most of the insurgents, and managed to force the surrender of the survivors.

The battle had lasted more than two weeks, and had officially left "255 pilgrims, troops and fanatics" killed "another 560 injured ... although diplomats suggested the toll was higher." Military casualties were 127 dead and 451 injured.[20]

Pakistani and French troops reportedly entered the Grand Mosque and flooded it with water; applied electricity to it; and electrocuted most of the rebels. Other reports said that paralyzing gas was used. Still others say only three of the highly trained French GIGN counter-terrorist commandos were involved in the assault and they had received an instant conversion to Islam by Saudi religious leaders in a formal ceremony. The Pakistanis and French were called in after poor results from assaults by the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG). Lawrence Wright reports that three Frenchmen were called in, members of the highly trained GIGN counter-terrorism unit. Because non-Muslims are not allowed in the holy city, they converted to Islam in a brief formal ceremony by Saudi religious leaders. Saudi officials deny the French actually entered Mecca.

The Seizure of the Holy Kaaba - PakPassion - Pakistan Cricket Forum

Brother arab didnot backstabb us we enjoy good relations with Jordan saudia gulf states why u always say that

You can't trust Arabs at all, they treated us second citizens. They historically backstabbing and selfish in the favor of West, Allah know best.

More details- http://www.scribd.com/doc/37605460/Wahabis-Attacked-Ka-aba

 

[VelocuR]

France President said Netanyahu is Liar, lol

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/139290-netanyahu-liar-nicholas-sarkozy.html#post2266052

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders’ microphones were accidently [sic] left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.]

---------- Post added at 04:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 AM ----------

We don't have any Pakistanis in Egypt, so you can not say that we treat you as second citizens, and Egyptians who work in the Gulf region complain from the same things that you complain from. Its nothing against Pakistanis specificlly bro., it is that some people are not very nice, but some are, you can not generalize. I have very good Pakistani friends here in New York matter of fact.

You are right, it is not correct to generalize....

---------- Post added at 04:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 AM ----------

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu 'liar' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he 'can't stand' Israeli premier. Obama: You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!


French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not "stand" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier "is a liar."

According to a Monday report in the French website "Arret sur Images," after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elysée for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.

"By the time the (media) services at the Elysée realize it, it was on for at least three minutes," one journalist told the website. Still, he said that reporters "did not have a chance to take advantage of this fluke."

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that reporters present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the subject of the embarrassing comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."


He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

 

[blackcobran]

The restrictions are only for us.What they do is thier "right".

 

[nirreich]

The restrictions are only for us.What they do is thier "right".

What restrictions? Pakistan in under no restrictions to develop nuclear weapons and unfortunately it used its ability to jeopardise global security.

 

[monitor]

America itching to bomb Iran
Posted on November 7, 2011
By Simon Jenkins

This time there will be no excuses. Plans for British support for an American assault on Iran, revealed in the Guardian on November 3, are appalling. They would risk what even the “wars of September 11″ did not bring, a Christian-Muslim armageddon engulfing the region. This time no one should say they were not warned, that minds were elsewhere, that we were told it would be swift and surgical. Nobody should say that.

To western strategists, Iran today is exactly where Iraq was in 2002. The country posed no threat to the West. Yet “weapons of mass destruction” were said to be primed and had to be urgently eliminated. The offending regime could be subjugated by air power or, if not, by regime change. The cause was noble, and the outcome sure.

There any comparison ends. Iran is not a one-man, two-bit dictatorship, but a nation of 70 million people, an ancient and proud civilisation with a developed civil society and a modicum of pluralist democracy. Certainly its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants a weapons-ready nuclear enrichment programme, as the United Nations report by the International Atomic Energy Authority is expected to repeat. But he leads a country which, like Pakistan, Britain or Israel, craves status, prestige and the vague security that these unusable weapons seem to convey.

The planned attack on Iran is familiar in form. It is declared exclusively aerial, with missiles and unmanned drones deployed against nuclear and military targets. The airmen will promise, as they did in Belgrade, Baghdad and Benghazi, that bombing can do the job unaided. The enemy then digs in and fights back, the tempo of attack has to mount, and ground forces are sucked in.
Logic of war

We read that there are, as yet, no plans for a ground attack on Iran, though “a small number of special forces” may be required, as was required eventually in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The mission will creep from wrecking Iran’s nuclear capability to ensuring it cannot be rebuilt, and then to securing regime change and ‘freedom’. We have been there so often before. The logic of war tends towards totality, without which no victory can be declared. Total war on Iran would be a catastrophe.

Stopping Iran from developing a nuclear capability is and always was a lost cause. It appears to be three years from deliverable warheads and is besieged by foreign agents launching cyber-attacks, selling fake components and assassinating scientists. But Iran would be no easy target, like Libya or Iraq. The more isolated and threatened Iran is by the West, the more nuclear assertiveness attracts its leadership, and the more allies would rally to its cause.

Every expert report on Iran warns that bombing is the one thing likely to bond the unpopular Ahmadinejad to his people. The idea that they would rise up against him after the Pentagon’s reported ‘shock and awe’ three-day blitz of 1,200 targets is demented.

The wars of choice that followed September 11 have acquired a rhythm of their own. They have yielded 10 years of rolling thunder across the Muslim world, variously proclaiming retaliation, humanity, regime change and democracy. There have been pluses, the toppling of Saddam Hussain, Muammar Gaddafi and (temporarily) the Taliban. But the minuses have been tens of thousands killed, millions displaced, societies upheaved, billions of dollars of destruction and a region destabilised. The wars have been a gigantic, historic tragedy. They have not advanced western security one jot.

If ever there were a country that was once ripe for soft-power diplomacy, it was modern Iran. Yet the west misread Ahmadinejad and then misread such dissenters as Mohammad Khatami and parliament’s speaker, Mahdi Karroubi. It defied pleas from moderates not to impose sanctions, rejecting the argument that Iran needed a strengthened professional, commercial and academic class as counterweight to the military and the mullahs. As with the sanctions imposed on Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya and Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, they have driven Iran’s rulers into a siege economy. Sanctions weaken the forces of pluralism and opposition. They are plainly counterproductive.

Western bombs cannot conquer Tehran. America and Britain might be able to invade in sufficient strength to knock out nuclear bunkers, but they could not stop rebuilding, especially after a war that would radicalise the nation and make it far more antagonistic. The outcome might make Israel feel temporarily a little safer, but it would render both Israel and the west more vulnerable to terrorist and other retaliation.

A virus seems to be running through the upper echelons of Washington and London, that of a moral duty to wage war against perceived evil wherever it offers a bombing target. Anyone watching last month’s Republican primary debate in Las Vegas will have been shocked at the belligerence shown by the six candidates towards the outside world.

It was a display of what the historian Robert D. Kaplan called “the warrior politics … of an imperial reality that dominates our foreign policy”, a fidgety search for reasons to go brawling round the globe, at any cost in resulting anarchy. The spectacle was frightening and depressing.

Copyright: Guardian News & Media Ltd

 

[dadoon22]

Counties that want to possess nuclear weapons also want to be like the United States in terms of how they see themselves.

I am sure that in terms of producing a WMD, nuclear isn't by far the only option. So to begin and end with nuclear technology is only following in the foot steps of the United States. To develop a new unseen technology from scratch is really what the goal should be.

Just a reminder that there is more than one answer to a problem.

 

[T-Rex]

Why No Objection
To Israel's WMD?
By Hassan Tahsin
Palestine Chronicle


"Apart from two plants in Dimona, Israel established a number of other nuclear plants in Nahal Suryak, south of Tel Aviv in 1958 and in Raishon Liston and Haifa."



CAIRO -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has spelled out clearly his reasons for accepting the Middle East road map with 14 reservations. During the Aqaba summit on June 6, he said: 'Permanent peace requires permanent security. This permanent security will bring about permanent peace to Israel.' To accept peace on Sharonís terms would make the proposed Palestinian state a mockery in the service of Israelís security.

The most dangerous thing is that Israel is allowed to possess all kinds of weapons of mass destruction while Arab countries are denied these weapons under the pretext that Israel is under threat.

Israel has said that it is not yet time to look at its nuclear arsenal and weapons of mass destruction because it has not yet attained permanent security and peace.

As a result, Israel has become a depot for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threatening the security of Arab, Asian and European countries. Does Israel require this large arsenal of banned weapons? The French constructed the Dimona nuclear reactor and produced enriched uranium. Israel was ready to produce its first nuclear bomb as early as 1965.

In March 1969, Moshe Dayan celebrated the birth of the Israeli nuclear state and the Israeli nuclear scientist Vannunu has acknowledged that his country was in 6th position in the nuclear club in the 1980s. According to one estimate, Israel possesses at least 100 nuclear bombs.

Apart from two plants in Dimona, Israel established a number of other nuclear plants in Nahal Suryak, south of Tel Aviv in 1958 and in Raishon Liston and Haifa. In 1994, US President Bill Clinton approved nine supercomputers to meet the needs of Israelís nuclear program. Informed sources have estimated that Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear warheads, but another report put the figure at more than 500.

Quoting Vannunu, American journalist Seymour Hersh says in his book that Israel possesses about 300 nuclear warheads. He also says that he has got information indicating Israel possesses hundreds of nitrogen bombs. Reports have confirmed that Israel has various types of nuclear weapons including nuclear bombs which could be dropped from planes, missile warheads, in addition to 25 hydrogen bombs.

Israel also holds an unspecified numbers of tactical weapons.

At least three international sources have confirmed that Israel had not only produced nuclear mines but spread them in various regions at different periods of the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially in Golan and Naqab during the military confrontation with Egypt in October 1973 and in January 1991.

The question is: Who can ask the international community to disarm Israel of its mass destructive weapons?



Arab News (arabnews.com) Published at the Arab News