14 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are two references:
Go to page 9 of the Committee report and read the caption under the photograph of the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.
1.)The explanation under the Sat Image.
2.)"Former Iranian President Rafsanjani said in April 2006 that Iran was producing enriched uranium in a small 164-centrifuge cascade using P-1 centrifuge technology, a basic Pakistani centrifuge design.
(I read the whole thing)
Edit: I have no idea what grade of uranium is produced by a -164-centrifuge cascade using P-1 centrifuge technology.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by xsIf you read the first paragraph of the IAEA letter (also on the same page of the first link), it is specifically complaining about the caption. It gives further details, but I still haven't figured out how to copy from a PDF document😳
There are two references:
1.)The explanation under the Sat Image.
2.)"Former Iranian President Rafsanjani said in April 2006 that Iran was producing enriched uranium in a small 164-centrifuge cascade using P-1 centrifuge technology, a basic Pakistani centrifuge design.
(I read the whole thing)
Edit: I have no idea what grade of uranium is produced by a -164-centrifuge cascade using P-1 centrifuge technology.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can't, but you can view pdf files as html.
If you read the first paragraph of the IAEA letter (also on the same page of the first link), it is specifically complaining about the caption. It gives further details, but I still haven't figured out how to copy from a PDF document😳
"Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States"
http://tinyurl.com/hweua
I can't get google to find the IAEA letter, so can't post a link to it in html.
D
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by xsJust like that time they reported what weapons inspectors were saying about Iraq's wmds before the u.s. led invasion?
No doubt that's what the BBC was counting on.
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm
Of course, that was just "frothing at the mouth anti-americanism". Despite the fact that it turned out that the BBC were spot on.
D
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RagnorakThe link to the IAEA letter is on the same page as the bbc article under a box titled "Read the Report".
You can't, but you can view pdf files as html.
"Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States"
http://tinyurl.com/hweua
I can't get google to find the IAEA letter, so can't post a link to it in html.
D
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RagnorakWelcome to the here and now.
Just like that time they reported what weapons inspectors were saying about Iraq's wmds before the u.s. led invasion?
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm
Of course, that was just "frothing at the mouth anti-americanism". Despite the fact that it turned out that the BBC were spot on.
D
At worst the report gets a B- . The letter, seems reasonable. I can't see how anyone who took the time to read both could not argue either side.
The BBC title; US Iran report branded dishonest is sensationalism.
The BBC article itself is dishonest.
And your thread title; UN corrects US propaganda against Iran an outright lie.
The comments on the first page following your initial post are a testament to why the world is the way it is.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by xs????? What in the bbc article is "dishonest"?? At worst, you might say the title is a bit inaccurate as only part of the Committee report was labelled "dishonest", but quite a few assertions were labelled "erroneous" and "misleading".
Welcome to the here and now.
At worst the report gets a B- . The letter, seems reasonable. I can't see how anyone who took the time to read both could not argue either side.
The BBC title; [b]US Iran report branded dishonest is sensationalism.
The BBC article itself is dishonest.
And your thread title; UN corrects US propaganda against Iran an ...[text shortened]... n the first page following your initial post are a testament to why the world is the way it is.[/b]
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWe "semi" agree on the title.
????? What in the bbc article is "dishonest"?? At worst, you might say the title is a bit inaccurate as only part of the Committee report was labelled "dishonest", but quite a few assertions were labelled "erroneous" and "misleading".
Here's the lead in:
The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading".
The letter never called the whole report "erroneous" and "misleading", just facts relating to the withdrawal of the designation of Mr. Charlier. Which appears to me to be what bothered the IAEA the most.
First paragraph:
In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity.
The letter did not say the report contained distortions of IAEA's own findings, which is clearly implied by the BBC.
Next relative paragraph:
It(the IAEA) says the report was wrong to say that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels.
The letter eloquently -and with explanation- called the caption under the photo incorrect. (The inclusion "weapons-grade" in the caption might or might not have been a mistake, but it was not repeated in the text of the report.) The BBC never mentions a caption.
That's as far as I'm going...had I turned in such a story in Journalism 101, my editor would have had a field day.
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by RagnorakI heard that the UN were doing a major investigation into American Intelligence but they couldn’t find any.
"The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme it called "outrageous" and "dishonest" ."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
D
Hmmm, that joke sounded funnier in my head...
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by Ragnorakthat report was from the US Congress ... just a few days ago y'all were getting all weepy-eyed over the apparent intelligence displayed by the Senate Intelligence Committee ...
"The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme it called "outrageous" and "dishonest" ."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
D
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cherry_picking
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by RagnorakWhy does this not surprise me? The Bush administration has been consistently secretive, disdainful of informed US opinion, disdainful of world opinion, and utterly unprincipled (i.e. the ends justify the means).
"The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme it called "outrageous" and "dishonest" ."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
D
They are not leading America in a direction most Americans (Republican, Democrat, OR Independent) approve of, e.g.:
Bush faces Senate rebellion
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate committee rebelled against President George W. Bush on Thursday, passing a bill it said would protect the rights of foreign terrorism suspects and repair a U.S. image damaged by harsh treatment of detainees.
...
[John] McCain, who was himself a prisoner in the Vietnam War, released a letter from Bush's former secretary of state, Colin Powell, that said the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Powell said he opposed Bush's bid to redefine the Geneva Conventions that require humane treatment of prisoners.
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by spruce112358Let' see if I can put this to you the way No1 would,
Why does this not surprise me? The Bush administration has been consistently secretive, disdainful of informed US opinion, disdainful of world opinion, and utterly unprincipled (i.e. the ends justify the means).
They are not leading America in a direction most Americans (Republican, Democrat, OR Independent) approve of, e.g.:
Bush faces Senate r ...[text shortened]... ed Bush's bid to redefine the Geneva Conventions that require humane treatment of prisoners.
Not a big reader are ya?