Propaganda SpinMasters At Work?

[Winstonm]

Can we afford to trust the same Ministry of Truth who brought us weapons of mass destruction, Nigerian yellowcake, and stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq with telling us the unbridled truth about Iran and its ability to create a nuclear program?

 

Here are some contradictory comments about that subjuct: (emphasis added)

 

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor

Sunday January 28, 2007

The Observer

 

 

Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.

 

 

Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.

 

'The reality is that they have got to the stage where they can run a small experimental centrifuge cascade intermittently,' said one Western source familiar with the Iranian programme. 'They simply have not got to the stage where they can run 3,000 centrifuges There is no evidence either that they have been stockpiling low-enriched uranium which could be highly enriched quickly and which would give an idea of a malevolent intent.'

Another source with familiarity with the Iranian programme said: 'Iran has put all this money into this huge hole in the ground at Natanz; it has put a huge amount of money in these P-1 centrifuges, the model rejected by Urenco. It is like the Model T Ford compared to a Prius. That is not to say they will not master the technology eventually, but they are trying to master very challenging technology without access to everything that they require.'

 

 

Doesn't sound so threatening from this side of the argument. This time around, shouldn't we insist Congress - as well as the entire world have full availability to all relevant factual information before any action is taken against Iran?

[mike777]

This makes the huge assumption that Congress would read it. They do not!

[hrothgar]

Here's a longer quote from the observer:

 

Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.

 

. . .

 

The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network.

 

. . .

 

Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.

 

The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.

 

. . .

 

It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad.

 

The escalating sense of crisis is being driven by two imminent events, the 'installation' of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and the scheduled delivery of fuel from Russia for Iran's Busheyr civil nuclear reactor, due to start up this autumn. Both are regarded as potential trigger points for an Israeli attack.

[mike777]

I just wonder how this 3000 industrial centrifuge purchase speeds up the process. I assume they bought spare parts and techs to show them how to run and repair them. I still think 10 years seems an unlikely long time for Iran to get a Nuke, assuming the will is there.

 

As I said before it seems Iran would have the right to make and sell nukes to whoever they want it.

[macaw]

Maybe Dr. Emmett Brown sold them machine casings of spare pinball parts?

[Al_U_Card]

I just wonder how this 3000 industrial centrifuge purchase speeds up the process. I assume they bought spare parts and techs to show them how to run and repair them. I still think 10 years seems an unlikely long time for Iran to get a Nuke, assuming the will is there.

 

As I said before it seems Iran would have the right to make and sell nukes to whoever they want it.

China helped North Korea with their nukes......what's up with that....?

 

If we confuse principles with policies....it tends to gloss over the facts. Rhetoric instead of reason. Emotion instead of even-handedness. Don't lose sight of the right to exist of each and every person and country in this wide world. Let them have their self-determination it will allow them to make their own mistakes and not have to extract the price in human lives where none was originally required.

[helene_t]

Hmmmm ..... I recently agued in another thread that I wouldn't blame Israel for a preemptive attack. Thinking more about it, I'm not so sure. This sounds as if it would be a lot easier for the Iranian government to get nukes from some ex-Soviet state. Then again, why would the Iranians make these efforts (and denying foregin inspectors access to it) if it weren't because they intend to aquire weapons.

 

Another issue: do the Iranians really want nukes, and if so do they want to destroy Israel? The current Iranian president is a madman, but he doesn't have absolute power, and their's a fair chance that Iran will have a moderate government before they get nukes.

 

It occurs to me that the Iranian president and the U.S. government have identical goals here: both want as much hostility as possible because without hostility nobody would vote for them. Even if the Iranians don't expect to be able to aquire nukes, they might still want to pretend that they do. And even if the U.S. government isn't concerned about Iranian nukes, it might still want to pretend to be. I'd rather trust the Israelians, then, who are (at least partially) driven by a genuine desire to avoid getting nuked.

 

The again, what the ..... do I know about all this.

[mike777]

ok..so you live in Holland, yes? Do they want Iran to have nukes or do they put head in beach sand?

 

What are Holland 18 year olds willing to fight for....anything? or nothing?

[helene_t]

ok..so you live in Holland, yes? Do they want Iran to have nukes or do they put head in beach sand?

 

What are Holland 18 year olds willing to fight for....anything? or nothing?

Yes, I happen to be a 40-yo red-haired mathematician whol lives in the Netherlands. I cannot say anything general about what 40-yo's think about Iranian nukes, what mathematicians think about Iranian nukes, what red-haired people think about Iranians nukes or what Dutch people think about nukes. All I can say is what I myself think about Iranian nukes which is not very much as I don't know much about it.

 

Last time I visites Zeeland (Dutch province that was partily flooded in 1953), I saw an inscription on a stone, saying that a number of young men saved the village by supporting the dike-gate with their own bodies. So apparently, some Dutch people were willing to fight against the water 53 years ago. More recently, a few peoples have been burning religious schools, churches, and moscues, there have been manifestations against a retirement reform, and there have been fights between football supporters. But most Dutch people prefer ranting to fighting. Like people elsewhere. Fortunately. Most of the World is peacefull.

 

Btw, the beach sand is too cold to stick my head into at this time of the year.

[mike777]

ok we now know Holland is willing to fight once the world in not peaceful but not before :)

 

btw thanks for whatever you do for Nato.

[hrothgar]

ok..so you live in Holland, yes? Do they want Iran to have nukes or do they put head in beach sand?

Another piece of idiocy from he who will not commit.

 

Your question is down right stupid because, as is often the case, you presents a false dichotomy. There are plenty of people who

 

(a) Don't want Iran to develop nukes

(B) Believe that military action against Iran would not be an effective way to halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

 

Unfortunately, we're left with yet another of Mike's stupid little questions.

 

Whats truly remarkable about Mike his complete inability to ever offer any kind of concrete statement to a conversation. God forbid that he would every offer a prediction that folks could check back on 12 months down the road. For example, I was flabberghast that Mike recently commented that he was opposed to launching an attack on Iraq. Give the fairly bellicose / anti-Islamic tenor of so many of his thought experiments I was quite sure that Mike was a supporter of the Iraqi invasion.

 

Turns out that Mike believes that he was opposed to attacking Iraq and we have no way to check the legitimacy of this statement. Cause all Mike does is ask simplistic little questions. As least we know the depth of his mental processes.

[Aberlour10]

I have read in some threads here about possibility to get nuclear weapons from one of the ex-Sovjet republics. In the fact, there are no more such weapons, they were removed from the teritory of Ukraina, Belarus and Kazahstan etc. in the early 90's and are located now in Russia, under full control of russian goverment.

 

Robert

[Al_U_Card]

So we better invade Russia before they sell them to the highest bidder!!!

 

And if Iran decided to make transistors....or anything else for that matter....did the US ask permission to develop nuclear power...and weapons????

[luke warm]

Your question is down right stupid because, as is often the case, you presents a false dichotomy. There are plenty of people who

 

(a) Don't want Iran to develop nukes

(B) Believe that military action against Iran would not be an effective way to halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

it was just a question, richard... questions aren't stupid... btw, i think military action against iran would be an effective way to halt them... but i guess it depends upon what type of action and to what degree

Cause all Mike does is ask simplistic little questions.

i find most of his questions to be deep, not simplistic (for the rest of you - yes, i'm fully aware how wide open i just left myself)

[hrothgar]

it was just a question, richard... questions aren't stupid...

From my perspective, Mike doesn't ask questions to gain knowledge. Most of his questions look to be rhetorical devices; intended to frame a discussion. Moreover, these questions suggest a deeply biased and ignorant mindset. Hence, my original comment about the excluded middle.

 

I have no problem labeling the bulk of his questions as stupid (I do allow that they might be deliberately deceitful)

[Winstonm]

BTW, Helene, I love the look of redheads. ;)

 

Trying to get back to subject - the question again is how real is the threat of Iran gaining access to its own nuclear weapons program? Are we being deceived about those prospects in oreder to further warfare?

 

Helene, you hit on a terrific idea, and it was written about in the piece Hrtothgar posted - that Iran's claims of 3000 centrifuges going online are just Public Relations, that Iran is incapable of doing anything with these centrifuges. But by making the claim, they get hostility, which helps hold onto power - and besides, it makes it appear the government is actually doing something for fuel as they have alowed their oil-producing infratstructure to virtually rot.

 

And Jimmy, you said you would be for an invasion to prevent Iran from having nukes? If so, I wonder how influenced that choice is by the repeated claims of how terrible of threat is Iran.

 

I believe we can no longer simply tune in to CNN, Fox, ABC, or any other network, or read any newspaper and be assured of receiving factual information - not that anyone in the news is conspiring to present disinformation, but news is now profit driven whereas in the past T.V. news was a drain on the network; therefore, you have less money spent on digging out stories and more reliance on insiders - the insiders may well be spreading disinformation and the news organizations are simply reporting what they have been told.

 

I posted something the other day that was a critique of Iran's president's statement to "wipe Israel off the map." If my source was accurate, then this statement was never made verbatim. The president was quoting a speech of Ayatolla Khomeni first of all, and the translation was that Zionist ruling party of Israel should be "erased from the pages of time." There was no genocidal threat to it at all.

 

My fear is that misleading "labels" that are not accurate will have us at war - before we claim someone a madman, how about waiting until he proves that he is mad.

 

And Helene, as far as trusting Israel totally on this, keep in mind they have no oil reserves, either, so are just as much at risk for lost oil as is the U.S.

 

Truth is an elusive commodity these days - hard to determine - but still needed before war is begun.

[luke warm]

BTW, Helene, I love the look of redheads. :huh:

she's *way* too young for you, oldtimer - and for me, sigh

And Jimmy, you said you would be for an invasion to prevent Iran from having nukes?  If so, I wonder how influenced that choice is by the repeated claims of how terrible of threat is Iran.

i don't remember saying that (though i might have)... but if i did say it, my acceptance of that policy would be based more on iran's own claims of how terrible a threat they'd be... at some point in time it's probably correct to believe a person who keeps harping on the same theme

[Al_U_Card]

Where is Rez Pahlavi when we need him most? Oh yeah, he's dead (the former Shah of Iran) another military dictator puppet installed and financed by the CIA and one of the many reasons why the US is so vilified and considered the Satan of the world in those parts. Iran has a fairly secular and quite advanced upper middle class society (although much of it is kept quiet and away from the "masses"). Much as the religious right would have us keep the po' boys down on the farm....elites maintain power through the manipulation of the masses.

 

Stone throwing from glass houses, anyone?

[Winstonm]

And Jimmy, you said you would be for an invasion to prevent Iran from having nukes?  If so, I wonder how influenced that choice is by the repeated claims of how terrible of threat is Iran. 

 

 

i don't remember saying that (though i might have)... but if i did say it, my acceptance of that policy would be based more on iran's own claims of how terrible a threat they'd be... at some point in time it's probably correct to believe a person who keeps harping on the same theme

 

I could be wrong, too - and you are NEVER too old for redheads B)

 

The very point I am making, the question I am asking is in your last sentence:

"at some point in time it's probably correct to believe a person who keeps harping on the same theme"

From where does this information come? How accurately does it reflect the sayings of this man?

 

The very "wipe Israel off the map" comment has been discredited as a bad translation. Supposedly, the speech was comparing the fall of the regime of the Shah of Iran with Israel's current regime, and he quoted a speech by Ayatollah Khomeni in saying that this regime (meaning the Shah's in Khomeni's speech) should disappear from the face of time. The speech was talking about regime change in Israel and that the Palestinians who live there should take heart.

 

It is a considerable stretch to go from: Iran's regime under the Shah was changed, so take heart Palestinians that the Israel regime may also be removed from the pages of time - to - I am going to nuke Israel as soon as I can and "wipe Israel off the map." Bad translation or purposefully deceitful translation?

 

Like so many other "lies", this one has been repeated over and over until now it is accepted as truth - but is it?

 

See what I mean? Is this guy a real danger or has he been demonized by propaganda into something he really is not?

[Al_U_Card]

This whole administration is too dangerous to be considered laughable. They spin lies (as did so many before them) and then deny that they ever said what they did say.....(not quite so many before them) to sending troops to die for their quest for oil ( unfortunately too many did that)....I am not particularly crazy about Hillary, but she would be a refreshing change from the Bush leagues (boy there is an awfully sexist pun hanging around but I refuse to allow it life....lol)

[luke warm]

The very "wipe Israel off the map" comment has been discredited as a bad translation.  Supposedly, the speech was comparing the fall of the regime of the Shah of Iran with Israel's current regime, and he quoted a speech by Ayatollah Khomeni in saying that this regime (meaning the Shah's in Khomeni's speech) should disappear from the face of time.  The speech was talking about regime change in Israel and that the Palestinians who live there should take heart.

 

It is a considerable stretch to go from: Iran's regime under the Shah was changed, so take heart Palestinians that the Israel regime may also be removed from the pages of time - to - I am going to nuke Israel as soon as I can and "wipe Israel off the map."  Bad translation or purposefully deceitful translation?

 

Like so many other "lies", this one has been repeated over and over until now it is accepted as truth - but is it?

 

See what I mean?  Is this guy a real danger or has he been demonized by propaganda into something he really is not?

winston, why do you seem so willing to believe something like that? that the comment has been discredited as a bad translation? that just is not true... from the BBC:

Iran leader defends Israel remark 

 

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".  Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

 

His initial comment provoked anger from many governments, and prompted Israel to demand Iran's expulsion from the UN.

and even those in the region, who should supposedly know what words were used and what those words meant, said

Egypt said they showed "the weakness of the Iranian government". A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks.

and if he didn't say what he said, why this?

Tens of thousands of Iranians took part in the rally in Tehran which Iran organises every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan to show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

 

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire. Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

 

Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid," Mr Ahmadinejad told the official Irna news agency.

if he didn't say what i and others say he did, why did a palestinian official denounce him?

Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his (Ahmadinejad's) comments

 

Saeb Erekat

Chief Palestinian negotiator

you seem to have established a trend whereby you are willing to lend credence to a view that makes america's enemies look good (or less bad)

 

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm

[hrothgar]

>you seem to have established a trend whereby you are willing to lend

>credence to a view that makes america's enemies look good (or less bad)

 

Obviously, I am speaking for myself here and not Winston (however, I would hope that he and most of the rest of the members of this list would agree)

 

From my perspective there is a difference between analysis and propaganda. I would argue that the most important goal should be ensuring the accuracy of our description, not worrying whether or not the facts happen to make America's enemy's look "good / less bad". Some of us still believe that there is something to the whole notion of a "reality-based community".

 

>winston, why do you seem so willing to believe something like that? that

>the comment has been discredited as a bad translation? that just is not true...

>from the BBC:

 

There is a fair amount of debate about the precise meaning of Ahmadinejad's statement. Personally, I'm not a Farsi speaker so I'm not going to weigh in directly. I'll simple point folks over to the Wikipedia and quote part of their entry

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"

 

Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].

 

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

 

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

 

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

 

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

 

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]

 

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]

 

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]

 

On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". [13]

 

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

 

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [14]

 

[edit] Interpretation of speech as call for genocide

 

The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[15]

 

Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:

 

His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer[sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[16]

 

In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, "they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."[1]

 

In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[17]

 

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?

 

SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.

 

But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.

[helene_t]

Oh, so maybe "Israel should be wiped off the map" does not mean that the Israelean soil should vanish into a degenerated electron gas, but rather that Hamas should take control of the country, forcing the Israeleans to emmigrate, convert, get killed or maybe live in some small gettos in the Negev. Big diference.

 

Or did he just say that he hoped that the workers party will win the next election?

[Al_U_Card]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

 

Wiser words from our bloody past. Funny how we can't seem to come up with the methods to implement our higher ideals.

[helene_t]

Well, "fraternity" means some kind of in-group-vs-out-group moral, and "egality" is quite difficult to achieve without limitting "liberte".

 

I once read in a prospect from a volunteer-work organization that they work for "peace and justice". But peace is the absense of fighting and people usually fight for some kind of perceived justice. So "peace and justice" is self-contradicting except in the trivial sense that we all would like to have free lunch, and having our cake and eating it at the same time.