General Assembly addresses of September 2006

[koan]

Raven wrote: According to my source who is a practicing muslim from sudan, He says Ali was mohammeds best friend. He said the sunni think the angels got it wrong in giving the prohecies to mohammed. This is in answer to my question of what the difference was between sunni's and shia. He was gracious enough to explain it to me.


If your source and his mosque truly believe that the angels got it wrong when they made Mohammad the prophet...they could be in big trouble when the others find out.

[Raven]

My source also put a finer point to it. He says the differences also occur because they think Ali was the finer, more respectable man. Their differences go way deep. Which to me, explains alot of the hostility between the two groups.

Just look at the Catholic/Protestent issues!

[Raven]

koan wrote: If your source and his mosque truly believe that the angels got it wrong when they made Mohammad the prophet...they could be in big trouble when the others find out.
Not sure if it was his beliefs. But you are right. He was a patient of mine. He was a very interesting person. I quite enjoyed listening to him explain things.

[spot]

Raven wrote: He says Ali was mohammeds best friend.I would note here that Muhammad was thirty years older than Ali. It seems an odd relationship to assert. Not impossible, just odd.

[koan]

Muslim scholars agree that the first woman to adopt Islam was Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife. However, there is some disagreement over the identity of the first male to convert. Sunnis as well as Shi'as agree that Ali ibn Abi Talib was the first male convert, however he was still a child according to the Sunnis. That would make Ali ibn Abi Talib as the first general male convert, and Abu Bakr the first adult male convert. - wikipedia.

To put it bluntly, the patient was probably not in his right mind if what he said to you is what you claim. One of the two of you got it wrong.

Onwards!

I'd like to hear a response to point A in the UN speech.

Secondary topic, is anyone questioning The Salvador Option or can we say that US involvement in insurgency issues is accepted?

[Raven]

spot wrote: I would note here that Muhammad was thirty years older than Ali. It seems an odd relationship to assert. Not impossible, just odd.
That would explain Muhammads death before Ali's then! :p And if Koan was right in saying that he was his son in law, then why not?

[Raven]

koan wrote: Muslim scholars agree that the first woman to adopt Islam was Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife. However, there is some disagreement over the identity of the first male to convert. Sunnis as well as Shi'as agree that Ali ibn Abi Talib was the first male convert, however he was still a child according to the Sunnis. That would make Ali ibn Abi Talib as the first general male convert, and Abu Bakr the first adult male convert. - wikipedia.



To put it bluntly, the patient was probably not in his right mind if what he said to you is what you claim. One of the two of you got it wrong.



Onwards!

I'd like to hear a response to point A in the UN speech.

Secondary topic, is anyone questioning The Salvador Option or can we say that US involvement in insurgency issues is accepted?
Oh come on! Are you serious? I can assure you my patient was in his right mind. And I heard him right.

Onwards then.

[zinkyusa]

koan wrote: It is quite amazing what the media gives us that is then forgotten or buried in the back pages. Look up The Salvador Option.


What do my comments have to do with the Salvador Option?

[koan]

zinkyusa wrote: What do my comments have to do with the Salvador Option?
It is a series of posts.

spot wrote: It's widely recognised that the Sunni insurgents are directed by US backing, to allow the US troops to stay out of harm's way...
zinky wrote: Come on Spot, widely accepted by who, except for yourself?...

We look at what the media gives us.
koan wrote: It is quite amazing what the media gives us that is then forgotten or buried in the back pages. Look up The Salvador Option.


The Salvador Option, for those who didn't look it up.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic...

For decades the US propped up brutal dictatorships. But repression created fertile ground for Marxist guerrillas.

So in the 1980s, the US belatedly switched to democracy-building to stop the revolutions sweeping the region.

President Reagan promised to draw the line against further communist expansion in El Salvador.

There followed a bloody 12-year stalemate between the US-funded and organised Salvadoran army, and Cuban-backed guerrillas.

Between one and two percent of the population - more than 70,000 people - died.

And this is a more thorough article



The clearest correlation is in Mosul, where the Police Commandos began operating in late October (http://www.strykernews.com/archives/200 ... tions.html ). In mid-November it was reported that insurgents were conducting an offensive and had managed to drive most of the (regular) police from the city. There followed what was described as a joint counter-offensive by US forces and Police Commandos. The Police Commandos conducted raids inside the old quarter starting on 16 November in which dozens of suspects were arrested. During one such raid on a mosque and a tea shop, detainees, blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs, were seen being taken away by commandos (http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam ... 63000.html ). In the weeks and months that followed over 150 bodies appeared (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4105009.stm ), often in batches and frequently having obviously been executed, usually with a bullet to the head (eg. http://www.middle-east-online.com/engli ... /?id=12147 ).

The victims are repeatedly stated to have belonged mostly to the security forces, with ‘insurgents’ blamed for conducting a campaign of intimidation. Yet, most of the bodies were dressed in civilian clothes with little in the way of identification. In the few instances in which positive identifications have been reported, these are based on flimsy evidence. For instance, in the case of nine victims described as soldiers that had been shot in the head, a US army lieutenant simply stated that a ‘unit recently moved to one of the US bases’ had ‘some guys missing’ (http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam ... 63000.html ); photographs of the victims showed them wearing civilian clothes. A blatant case of disinformation regards a group of 31 bodies ‘discovered’ by the Police Commandos in March 2005 scattered around a cemetery in western Mosul. The bodies, described by an Interior Ministry spokesman as belonging to civilians, police officers and army soldiers, were said to have been the victims of a single policeman, Shoqayer Fareed Sheet, who confessed to these and numerous other killings on a special television show conceived by founder of the Police Commandos Adnan Thavit, called Terrorism in the Hands of Justice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar10.html ). Not only does this programme break every conceivable moral and legal standard, but it is notorious for parading obviously tortured detainees who are often forced to confess to being homosexuals or paedophiles as well as murderers. ( http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:OkQ0 ... onalNews22 March2005.doc+quds+press&hl=en&client=safari)

emphasis mine

[Bryn Mawr]

Raven wrote: Every nation has the right to govern themselves. But what right do some have to blow up trains, planes and automobiles and countless innocent lives to change anothers foreign policy? Liberalism has gotten out of hand. All they spout is human rights of murderers. What about the rest of us? Will you still be shouting 'right on man' when britain is under sharia law?


Late to the party again but I couldn't let this one go by.

Could you tell me please Raven, which *nations* have been blowing up trains, planes and automobiles?

I see terrorist organizations doing it but no nations.

Whilst you're about it, could you tell me how Iraq were implicated in terrorism? The original claim there was "clear and present danger of iminent attack using wepons of mass distruction" - not even a suggestion of commission of terrorist acts.

Warmongering has gotten out of hand. All they spout is invasion and death. What about the rest of us?

Britain will not be under Sharia law any time soon.

[Bryn Mawr]

Raven wrote: And the founding fathers of America insisted on a seperation of church and state. You must remember, that Iran is ruled by an Ayatollah. They are a theocracy. The president is a puppet.


What does this have to do with the way Iran chooses to run their country? Are they bound by holy writ to follow the ruling of the founding fathers of America?

[Bryn Mawr]

Raven wrote: You respect that speech? It's well rehearsed propoganda to throw the un into confusion while they carry on with their nuke plans. Like I said before, if it were truly a peaceful plan, why be so defiant?


Which nuke plans - even the IAEA say the US are inventing that story.

There is not, and never has been, any evidence (other than that given out by the US propaganda machine and described by the IAEA as " deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors,") thet Iran is actively trying to build nuclear weapons rather than nuclear power plants.

[Bryn Mawr]

Raven wrote: Maybe. But I can tell you one thing, I am a woman of the west. My culture lets me state my opinion without cutting out my tongue for it. I wonder how many christian churches are in Iran?


Did you watch John Reid's debate at lunchtime today?

For an hour and 20 he discussed the place of Islam in Britain, in light of the growth of fundamentalism, with a group of Muslims. It was very noticable that a lot of the points coming from the Muslim side were put, very eruditely, by women - stating their opinion in a mixed group without having their tounges cut out.

It was also noticable that the news channels concentrated almost exclusively on a 5 minute harangue by a known Muslim extremist whilst ignoring the 75 minutes of peacable debate that surrounded it.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable wrote: In the tradition of Iraq, Iran completely ignores UN demands to stop working on their nukes "or else". The UN response: Well okay then, why not come take center stage instead?



The UN is a useless organization never meant to be more than a debate forum. It needs to go.


Would you, if some big bruiser came up and told you to stop improving your home "or else", say or course sir, anything you say sir?

Or would you say, with everyone watching, "up yours" and continue to improve your home?

[Bryn Mawr]

zinkyusa wrote:

We look at what the media gives us.


Well there's your first mistake then :wah:

How accurate do you imagine that is? Tell me, just how much coverage *did* the US media give to the IAEA's condemnation of an "outrageous and dishonest" congressional report?

[Bryn Mawr]

Raven wrote: I didnt say he WAS a prophet. I said the sunni thought he should be. All I said was he was mohammeds mate. And my source is actually Muslim. So before you call me absurd, make sure you quote me right.


The split was not over who should be the prophet but who should lead the church after the prophet's death - his son-in-law or his uncle.

[spot]

Bryn Mawr wrote: The split was not over who should be the prophet but who should lead the church after the prophet's death - his son-in-law or his uncle.I suspect the split was backdated to then by the people who finally were at odds with each other twenty years later. But yes, what you have is what the official line says.

[koan]

Should we move to the next part of the speech? It was food for thought as well.

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq`s security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d`être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can`t the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

[zinkyusa]

Bryn Mawr wrote: Well there's your first mistake then :wah:

How accurate do you imagine that is? Tell me, just how much coverage *did* the US media give to the IAEA's condemnation of an "outrageous and dishonest" congressional report?


Actually Bryn Mawr they gave it quite a bit. I think most people in the US understand it was nothing more than a political report with the mid-term election fast approaching.

[zinkyusa]

koan wrote: It is a series of posts.





The Salvador Option, for those who didn't look it up.

This, he said, required pouring in resources to build up the local army as a shield against hostile guerrillas behind which democracy-building could work its magic...

For decades the US propped up brutal dictatorships. But repression created fertile ground for Marxist guerrillas.

So in the 1980s, the US belatedly switched to democracy-building to stop the revolutions sweeping the region.

President Reagan promised to draw the line against further communist expansion in El Salvador.

There followed a bloody 12-year stalemate between the US-funded and organised Salvadoran army, and Cuban-backed guerrillas.

Between one and two percent of the population - more than 70,000 people - died.

And this is a more thorough article



The clearest correlation is in Mosul, where the Police Commandos began operating in late October (http://www.strykernews.com/archives/200 ... tions.html ). In mid-November it was reported that insurgents were conducting an offensive and had managed to drive most of the (regular) police from the city. There followed what was described as a joint counter-offensive by US forces and Police Commandos. The Police Commandos conducted raids inside the old quarter starting on 16 November in which dozens of suspects were arrested. During one such raid on a mosque and a tea shop, detainees, blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs, were seen being taken away by commandos (http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam ... 63000.html ). In the weeks and months that followed over 150 bodies appeared (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4105009.stm ), often in batches and frequently having obviously been executed, usually with a bullet to the head (eg. http://www.middle-east-online.com/engli ... /?id=12147 ).

The victims are repeatedly stated to have belonged mostly to the security forces, with ‘insurgents’ blamed for conducting a campaign of intimidation. Yet, most of the bodies were dressed in civilian clothes with little in the way of identification. In the few instances in which positive identifications have been reported, these are based on flimsy evidence. For instance, in the case of nine victims described as soldiers that had been shot in the head, a US army lieutenant simply stated that a ‘unit recently moved to one of the US bases’ had ‘some guys missing’ (http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam ... 63000.html ); photographs of the victims showed them wearing civilian clothes. A blatant case of disinformation regards a group of 31 bodies ‘discovered’ by the Police Commandos in March 2005 scattered around a cemetery in western Mosul. The bodies, described by an Interior Ministry spokesman as belonging to civilians, police officers and army soldiers, were said to have been the victims of a single policeman, Shoqayer Fareed Sheet, who confessed to these and numerous other killings on a special television show conceived by founder of the Police Commandos Adnan Thavit, called Terrorism in the Hands of Justice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar10.html ). Not only does this programme break every conceivable moral and legal standard, but it is notorious for parading obviously tortured detainees who are often forced to confess to being homosexuals or paedophiles as well as murderers. ( http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:OkQ0 ... onalNews22 March2005.doc+quds+press&hl=en&client=safari)

emphasis mine


Guess I still don't see the relavance, I was referring to fighting on-going in Al Anbar province between US Marines and Sunnis insurgents. This has nothing to do with alleged training of death squads.

[Bryn Mawr]

zinkyusa wrote: Guess I still don't see the relavance, I was referring to fighting on-going in Al Anbar province between US Marines and Sunnis insurgents. This has nothing to do with alleged training of death squads.


I believe that the conversation that sparked the reply was that most of the fighting was between the Sunni and the Shia rather than between the Iraqi and the Marines. The suggestion was that the US policy was to set one side against the other to save US citizens being killed - that's bad press for the president.

[zinkyusa]

Bryn Mawr wrote: I believe that the conversation that sparked the reply was that most of the fighting was between the Sunni and the Shia rather than between the Iraqi and the Marines. The suggestion was that the US policy was to set one side against the other to save US citizens being killed - that's bad press for the president.


Ah, must have missed that..kind of a long thread and I've been in and out.

I think the suggestion is ludicrous as addtional US troops have been moved recently into Baghdad and into harms way in an effort to lessen the sectarian violence. IMO it would be much more likely that Al-Qaeda or other extremists are instigating the violence, not that any instigation is needed.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr wrote: Would you, if some big bruiser came up and told you to stop improving your home "or else", say or course sir, anything you say sir?



Or would you say, with everyone watching, "up yours" and continue to improve your home?Limping along with the analogy, I certainly wouldn't expect he "big bruiser" to welcome me into his house with open arms.

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: Ah, must have missed that..kind of a long thread and I've been in and out.

I think the suggestion is ludicrous as addtional US troops have been moved recently into Baghdad and into harms way in an effort to lessen the sectarian violence. IMO it would be much more likely that Al-Qaeda or other extremists are instigating the violence, not that any instigation is needed.You know, zinky, for someone who insists on a few facts you give a lot of opinion. If what you say were true, given the rising civilian casualty rate, the number of US military casualties wouldn't have dropped so dramatically recently. I don't see any evidence for your opinion at all.

Shall we proceed with the speeches? I wonder whether that of Hugo Chavez was widely reported? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00893.html carries the speech but I've not seen it on any other US news outlet yet.

The Washington Post misses the beginning and look why...Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.



Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.



The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.Here's a bit of the meat, just to savour it:The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother - he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then - and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

[spot]

Accountable wrote: Limping along with the analogy, I certainly wouldn't expect he "big bruiser" to welcome me into his house with open arms.And nobody would want you to, in all honesty. Close your doors, shut off your payments to foreign states and sit it out.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable wrote: Limping along with the analogy, I certainly wouldn't expect he "big bruiser" to welcome me into his house with open arms.
Rather than the poor turn of words, consider the intent behind the words.

Iran starts to develop a much needed nuclear power program to bring their industrial infrastructure into the 20th century.

Along come the Americans who start demanding that they stop what they are doing or they will be invaded. Never mind at this point the form of justification used and the truth or otherwise of that, with the eyes of the world on what is happening, with the US already being involved in two wars in the region and getting increasing amounts of flak from the international community, what would your answer have been?

It was as straight a piece of bullying as I've ever seen and they called your bluff. Everything since has been posturing to save face on each side.

ETA - I don't like the guy but I will stand up for his right to tell the US to butt out of his countries affairs.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr wrote: Rather than the poor turn of words, consider the intent behind the words.



Iran starts to develop a much needed nuclear power program to bring their industrial infrastructure into the 20th century.



Along come the Americans who start demanding that they stop what they are doing or they will be invaded. Never mind at this point the form of justification used and the truth or otherwise of that, with the eyes of the world on what is happening, with the US already being involved in two wars in the region and getting increasing amounts of flak from the international community, what would your answer have been?



It was as straight a piece of bullying as I've ever seen and they called your bluff. Everything since has been posturing to save face on each side.



ETA - I don't like the guy but I will stand up for his right to tell the US to butt out of his countries affairs.US?? I thought it was your beloved UN that told them to shut the program down.

[zinkyusa]

Bryn Mawr wrote: Rather than the poor turn of words, consider the intent behind the words.

Iran starts to develop a much needed nuclear power program to bring their industrial infrastructure into the 20th century.

Along come the Americans who start demanding that they stop what they are doing or they will be invaded. Never mind at this point the form of justification used and the truth or otherwise of that, with the eyes of the world on what is happening, with the US already being involved in two wars in the region and getting increasing amounts of flak from the international community, what would your answer have been?

It was as straight a piece of bullying as I've ever seen and they called your bluff. Everything since has been posturing to save face on each side.

ETA - I don't like the guy but I will stand up for his right to tell the US to butt out of his countries affairs.


Why does a country with that much oil need a nuclear program and what do they need a centrifuge and Plutonium for?

Iran will never get a nuclear weapon, if not the US the IDF will destroy their progam.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: You know, zinky, for someone who insists on a few facts you give a lot of opinion. If what you say were true, given the rising civilian casualty rate, the number of US military casualties wouldn't have dropped so dramatically recently. I don't see any evidence for your opinion at all.

Shall we proceed with the speeches? I wonder whether that of Hugo Chavez was widely reported? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00893.html carries the speech but I've not seen it on any other US news outlet yet.

The Washington Post misses the beginning and look why...Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.



Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.



The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.Here's a bit of the meat, just to savour it:The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother - he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then - and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.



But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.


Please Spot you're the one with all the wacked out opinions where do you get the data for you outlandish remarks.

Here are the US causalties by month they are not dropping dramatically and have been faily consisten unfortunately:

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

Period Fatalities

Mar-03 65

Apr-03 74

May-03 37

Jun-03 30

Jul-03 48

Aug-03 35

Sep-03 31

Oct-03 44

Nov-03 82

Dec-03 40

Jan-04 47

Feb-04 20

Mar-04 52

Apr-04 135

May-04 80

Jun-04 42

Jul-04 54

Aug-04 66

Sep-04 80

Oct-04 63

Nov-04 137

Dec-04 72

Jan-05 107

Feb-05 58

Mar-05 35

Apr-05 52

May-05 80

Jun-05 78

Jul-05 54

Aug-05 85

Sep-05 49

Oct-05 96

Nov-05 84

Dec-05 68

Jan-06 62

Feb-06 55

Mar-06 31

Apr-06 76

May-06 69

Jun-06 61

Jul-06 43

Aug-06 65

Sep-06 50

Total 2692

You still have not provided any sources for your version of recent Afghan history.

Quoting opinion pieces form the Washington Post mean nothing, nor does your long winded droning about empire building.

American's do want peace and most agree that invasion of Iraq was a mistake, so do some people in the US government.

As usual Europe is asleep at the wheel and the UN is third a world mafia..

[koan]

1957

The United States and Iran sign a civil nuclear cooperation agreement as part of the US Atoms for Peace program. The agreement, which provides for technical assistance and the lease of several kilograms of enriched uranium, also calls for cooperation on research on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

—US Department of State, "Atoms for Peace Agreement with Iran," Department of State Bulletin 36 (15 April 1957), p. 629; in Daniel Poneman, Nuclear Power in the Developing World (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), p. 84.

1960s

While the United States is supplying a research reactor, it also sells Iran many hot cells. [Note: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists describes hot cells as heavily shielded rooms with remotely operated arms used to chemically separate material irradiated in the research reactor, possibly including plutonium laden 'targets'.]

—David Albright, "An Iranian Bomb?," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Washington, DC), January 1995, , accessed 7 July 2002; David Albright and Mark Hibbs, "Spotlight Shifts to Iran," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1992, pp. 9-11.

September 1967

The United States supplies 5.545kg of enriched uranium, of which 5.165kg contain fissile isotopes, to Iran for fuel in a research reactor. The United States also supplies 112g of plutonium, of which 104g are fissile isotopes, for use as "start-up sources for research reactor."

—"US Supplied Nuclear material to Iran," 29 January 1980; in Digital National Security Archive .

1 July 1968

Iran signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the day it is opened for signature.

—Anne Hessing Cahn, "Determinants of the Nuclear Option: The Case of Iran," Nuclear Proliferation in the Near-Nuclear Countries (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975), Onkar Marwah and Ann Shulz, eds., p. 186.

13 March 1969

The White house approves the amendments to the Iran-United States Agreement for Cooperation concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy of 1957, which prolongs the agreement for 10 years.

—"Proposed Agreement for Cooperation between the US Government and the Government of Iran concerning the Civil Uses of Atomic Energy," Memorandum, 13 March 1969, in Digital National Security Archive, .

11 April 1974

A US State Department telegram says the United States considers cooperation with Iran in the field of nuclear energy as an alternative means for energy production to be a suitable area for joint collaboration and cooperation. The Secretary of State suggests for this to be the first working group for the US-Iran joint economic commission. The United States also prepares the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission with a team of experts to visit Tehran to discuss the most useful ways in which the two countries could cooperate.

—"US-Iran Cooperation," Department of State Telegram, 11 April 1974, in Digital National Security Archive, .

30 May 1974

The visit by the United States Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Dixie Ray, lays the ground work for collaboration, and assures Iran of US intentions with regard to cooperation in the field of nuclear energy.

—"Summary of Developments in Secretary's Absence," 30 May 1974, in Digital National Security Archive, .

3 November 1974

The United States and Iran agree to form a US-Iran Joint Commission intended to strengthen ties between the two countries various fields, and particularly that of nuclear energy and power generation, for which an agreement is under discussion. In the meantime, provisional contracts have been signed for the United States to provide enriched fuel for eight power reactors, whose construction is under discussion between Iran and American firms. Both sides have agreed to discourage further national development of nuclear weapons capabilities as per the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which both countries are signatories.

—"US-Iran Joint Statement," Unclassified Briefing Paper, 3 November 1974, in Digital National Security Archive, .

1975

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Iranian Finance Minster Hushang Ansari sign a broad trade agreement that calls for the purchase of eight reactors valued at $6.4 billion. The US Atomic Energy Commission agrees to supply Iran with fuel for two 1,200MWe light water reactors and signs a provisional agreement to supply fuel for as many as six additional reactors with a total power capacity of 8,000MWe. The fuel agreements, however, are both subject to US governmental approval.

—The Times (London); in Poneman p. 87 and Anne Hessing Cahn, "Determinants of the Nuclear Option: The Case of Iran," Nuclear Proliferation in the Near-Nuclear Countries (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975), Onkar Marwah and Ann Shulz, eds., p. 190.



Are we getting the picture here?

source

[zinkyusa]

koan wrote: 1957

The United States and Iran sign a civil nuclear cooperation agreement as part of the US Atoms for Peace program. The agreement, which provides for technical assistance and the lease of several kilograms of enriched uranium, also calls for cooperation on research on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

—US Department of State, "Atoms for Peace Agreement with Iran," Department of State Bulletin 36 (15 April 1957), p. 629; in Daniel Poneman, Nuclear Power in the Developing World (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), p. 84.

1960s

While the United States is supplying a research reactor, it also sells Iran many hot cells. [Note: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists describes hot cells as heavily shielded rooms with remotely operated arms used to chemically separate material irradiated in the research reactor, possibly including plutonium laden 'targets'.]

—David Albright, "An Iranian Bomb?," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Washington, DC), January 1995, , accessed 7 July 2002; David Albright and Mark Hibbs, "Spotlight Shifts to Iran," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1992, pp. 9-11.

September 1967

The United States supplies 5.545kg of enriched uranium, of which 5.165kg contain fissile isotopes, to Iran for fuel in a research reactor. The United States also supplies 112g of plutonium, of which 104g are fissile isotopes, for use as "start-up sources for research reactor."

—"US Supplied Nuclear material to Iran," 29 January 1980; in Digital National Security Archive .

1 July 1968

Iran signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the day it is opened for signature.

—Anne Hessing Cahn, "Determinants of the Nuclear Option: The Case of Iran," Nuclear Proliferation in the Near-Nuclear Countries (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975), Onkar Marwah and Ann Shulz, eds., p. 186.

13 March 1969

The White house approves the amendments to the Iran-United States Agreement for Cooperation concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy of 1957, which prolongs the agreement for 10 years.

—"Proposed Agreement for Cooperation between the US Government and the Government of Iran concerning the Civil Uses of Atomic Energy," Memorandum, 13 March 1969, in Digital National Security Archive, .

11 April 1974

A US State Department telegram says the United States considers cooperation with Iran in the field of nuclear energy as an alternative means for energy production to be a suitable area for joint collaboration and cooperation. The Secretary of State suggests for this to be the first working group for the US-Iran joint economic commission. The United States also prepares the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission with a team of experts to visit Tehran to discuss the most useful ways in which the two countries could cooperate.

—"US-Iran Cooperation," Department of State Telegram, 11 April 1974, in Digital National Security Archive, .

30 May 1974

The visit by the United States Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Dixie Ray, lays the ground work for collaboration, and assures Iran of US intentions with regard to cooperation in the field of nuclear energy.

—"Summary of Developments in Secretary's Absence," 30 May 1974, in Digital National Security Archive, .

3 November 1974

The United States and Iran agree to form a US-Iran Joint Commission intended to strengthen ties between the two countries various fields, and particularly that of nuclear energy and power generation, for which an agreement is under discussion. In the meantime, provisional contracts have been signed for the United States to provide enriched fuel for eight power reactors, whose construction is under discussion between Iran and American firms. Both sides have agreed to discourage further national development of nuclear weapons capabilities as per the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which both countries are signatories.

—"US-Iran Joint Statement," Unclassified Briefing Paper, 3 November 1974, in Digital National Security Archive, .

1975

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Iranian Finance Minster Hushang Ansari sign a broad trade agreement that calls for the purchase of eight reactors valued at $6.4 billion. The US Atomic Energy Commission agrees to supply Iran with fuel for two 1,200MWe light water reactors and signs a provisional agreement to supply fuel for as many as six additional reactors with a total power capacity of 8,000MWe. The fuel agreements, however, are both subject to US governmental approval.

—The Times (London); in Poneman p. 87 and Anne Hessing Cahn, "Determinants of the Nuclear Option: The Case of Iran," Nuclear Proliferation in the Near-Nuclear Countries (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1975), Onkar Marwah and Ann Shulz, eds., p. 190.



Are we getting the picture here?

source


Ancient history Koan unless Iran agrees to adher to the NPT, a minor detail..

Huge dif between light water reactors and enriching uranium for weapons..

[koan]

zinkyusa wrote: Ancient history Koan unless Iran agrees to adher to the NPT, a minor detail..

Huge dif between light water reactors and enriching uranium for weapons..


Where is your proof that they have been developing nuclear weapons?

It is not ancient history to them. It is 50 years of investment involving billions of dollars with the consent of America. Now that the US changes it's opinion, are they supposed to throw all that investment in the trash? Would you consent to your own country wasting billions of dollars because of unfounded accusations?

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: Here are the US causalties by month they are not dropping dramatically and have been faily consisten unfortunately:

You still have not provided any sources for your version of recent Afghan history.

Quoting opinion pieces form the Washington Post mean nothing, nor does your long winded droning about empire building.In what way does your reply relate to the post you replied to? Zinky, you're bringing details from one thread into another and you're untidying the discussion.

To deal with your points, I've quoted no opinion pieces from the WP (as far as I remember - do tell me if I'm wrong), I've quoted speeches in the UN General Assembly.

The Bush wording I criticised (in another thread) was "Together we overthrew", and my comment was 'Who, in the name of goodness, is "we"? He's claiming Afghan involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, now?' - which I agree is loosely worded. Of course the hired thugs from the Northern Alliance were Afghans and of course they were involved in the fighting. "Together we overthrew" gives the impression of joint planning, joint decision making, joint responsibility, and it implies that the hired thugs from the Northern Alliance were representative of the Afghan people as a whole. Well sucks to that, the continued current fighting shows they weren't.

Why on earth go back to 2003 for the statistics? Handing elements of the Sunni insurgents carte-blanche in exchange for immunity is a recent practice which started after the death of Al-Zarqawi The dropping total is over the last three months, alongside the pick-up in the civilian death rate. Go to your link and look at the graph, you'll see what I mean. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/ ... _Casey.php quotes General George Casey who "acknowledged that the security situation had become more difficult in the past few months, and said Iraqi leaders must find common ground on key issues dividing the country if progress is to be made" and said "We're starting to see this conflict here transition from an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis". Note the "had" and the withdrawal of US troops within the Baghdad defensive area for self-protection while the killing continues. "addtional US troops have been moved recently into Baghdad and into harms way in an effort to lessen the sectarian violence" is totally contradicted by that report - into Baghdad is into the safety zone, not into harm's way.

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: Ancient history Koan unless Iran agrees to adher to the NPT, a minor detail..

Huge dif between light water reactors and enriching uranium for weapons..zinkyusa wrote: Why does a country with that much oil need a nuclear program and what do they need a centrifuge and Plutonium for?Iran's a fully signed up member of the NPT and has fully complied with it. Why do you imply otherwise?

They need centrifuges to enrich Uranium to reactor-grade (as distinct from weapons-grade). Why are you implying that they seek Plutonium? They don't, they haven't.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: In what way does your reply relate to the post you replied to? Zinky, you're bringing details from one thread into another and you're untidying the discussion.

To deal with your points, I've quoted no opinion pieces from the WP (as far as I remember - do tell me if I'm wrong), I've quoted speeches in the UN General Assembly.

The Bush wording I criticised (in another thread) was "Together we overthrew", and my comment was 'Who, in the name of goodness, is "we"? He's claiming Afghan involvement in the invasion of Afghanistan, now?' - which I agree is loosely worded. Of course the hired thugs from the Northern Alliance were Afghans and of course they were involved in the fighting. "Together we overthrew" gives the impression of joint planning, joint decision making, joint responsibility, and it implies that the hired thugs from the Northern Alliance were representative of the Afghan people as a whole. Well sucks to that, the continued current fighting shows they weren't.

Why on earth go back to 2003 for the statistics? Handing elements of the Sunni insurgents carte-blanche in exchange for immunity is a recent practice which started after the death of Al-Zarqawi The dropping total is over the last three months, alongside the pick-up in the civilian death rate. Go to your link and look at the graph, you'll see what I mean. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/ ... _Casey.php quotes General George Casey who "acknowledged that the security situation had become more difficult in the past few months, and said Iraqi leaders must find common ground on key issues dividing the country if progress is to be made" and said "We're starting to see this conflict here transition from an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis". Note the "had" and the withdrawal of US troops within the Baghdad defensive area for self-protection while the killing continues. "addtional US troops have been moved recently into Baghdad and into harms way in an effort to lessen the sectarian violence" is totally contradicted by that report - into Baghdad is into the safety zone, not into harm's way.


Spot you stated the following:

the number of US military casualties wouldn't have dropped so dramatically recently

This is false as the fatality figures I posted proved. The number of US casualty's has not dropped dramatically recently. If you were not so long winded and could post to the point in something less than encyclopedic proportions it would be easier to follw the thread. Obviously you can't even recall your own gibberish..

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: Spot you stated the following:

the number of US military casualties wouldn't have dropped so dramatically recently

This is false as the fatality figures I posted proved. The number of US casualty's has not dropped dramatically recently. If you were not so long winded and could post to the point in something less than encyclopedic proportions it would be easier to follw the thread. Obviously you can't even recall your own gibberish..
Perhaps you're not very good at seeing statistical trends, zinky? Each of the May, June, July, August and September 2006 rolling four-month averages on your table are lower than at any time since June 2005. That's fairly dramatic, on my opinion, given that the civilian deaths have soared to over 5,000 a month during the same period. The violence has increased, the soldiers are withdrawn compared to previous patterns of deployment, and the Sunnis are doing their job of intimidation for them.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: Iran's a fully signed up member of the NPT and has fully complied with it. Why do you imply otherwise?

They need centrifuges to enrich Uranium to reactor-grade (as distinct from weapons-grade). Why are you implying that they seek Plutonium? They don't, they haven't.


Iran is not complying with the NPT, their actions are nefarious and suspicious, why can't they be open if they have nothing to hide? :

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Remaining uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's November 2004 report. IAEA deputy director for safeguards Pierre Goldschmidt reported in June 2005 that Iran had admitted to separating out small amounts of plutonium as recently as 1998.

It is generally believed that Iran's efforts are focused on uranium enrichment, though there are some indications of work on a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:BKw ... =clnk&cd=5



(f) Recalling that in reports referred to above, the Director General noted that after nearlythree years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

(g) Recalling Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPTSafeguards Agreement and the absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclearactivities, the nature of those activities and other issues arising from the Agency’s verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002,

(h) Recalling that the Director General has stated that Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue for the Agency to be able to clarify outstanding issues (GOV/2005/67), International Atomic Energy AgencyDerestricted 4 February2006 (This document has been derestricted at the meeting of the Board on 4 February 2006)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 2

GOV/2006/14 Page 2

(i) Recalling the requests of the Agency for Iran's cooperation in following up on reports relating to equipment, materials and activities which have applications in the conventional military area and in the civilian sphere as well as in the nuclear military area (as indicated by the Director General in GOV/2005/67),

(j) Recalling that in November 2005 the Director General reported (GOV/2005/87) that Iran possesses a document related to the procedural requirements for the reduction of UF6 to metal in small quantities, and on the casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uraniummetal into hemispherical forms, (

k) Expressing serious concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, and agreeing that anextensive period of confidence-building is required from Iran,

(l) Reaffirming the Board's resolve to continue to work for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, and

(m) Recognising that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and to realising the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery,

1. Underlines that outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's programme by Iran responding positively to the calls for confidence building measures which the Board has made on Iran, and in this context deems it necessary for Iran to:

• re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessingactivities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;

• reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;

• ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;

• pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;

• implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreementand Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations;

2. Requests the Director General to report to the Security Council of the United Nations that these steps are required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Council all IAEA reports andresolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue;

3. Expresses serious concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme, including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since, as reported by the Secretariat, this process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components; and, noting that the decision to put this document under Agency seal is a positive step, requests Iran to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a full copy to the Agency;

4. Deeply regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Board for the maintaining of the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities which the Board has declared essential toaddressing outstanding issues, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan facility on 8 August 2005 and took steps to resume enrichment activities on 10 January 2006;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 3

GOV/2006/14 Page 3

5. Calls on Iran to understand that there is a lack of confidence in Iran’s intentions in seeking to develop a fissile material production capability against the background of Iran's record on safeguards as recorded in previous Resolutions, and outstanding issues; and to reconsider its position in relation toconfidence-building measures, which are voluntary, and non legally binding, and to adopt a constructive approach in relation to negotiations that can result in increased confidence;

6. Requests Iran to extend full and prompt cooperation to the Agency, which the Director General deems indispensable and overdue, and in particular to help the Agency clarify possible activities which could have a military nuclear dimension;

7. Underlines that the Agency’s work on verifying Iran’s declarations is ongoing and requests theDirector General to continue with his efforts to implement the Agency's Safeguards Agreement withIran, to implement the Additional Protocol to that Agreement pending its entry into force, with a view to providing credible assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities inIran, and to pursue additional transparency measures required for the Agency to be able to resolveoutstanding issues and reconstruct the history and nature of all aspects of Iran's past nuclear activities;

8. Requests the Director General to report on the implementation of this and previous resolutionsto the next regular session of the Board, for its consideration, and immediately thereafter to convey,together with any Resolution from the March Board, that report to the Security Council; and

9. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: Iran is not complying with the NPT, their actions are nefarious and suspicious, why can't they be open if they have nothing to hide? :And that unbiased assessment is by... oh. The Federation of American Scientists? Which scientists did you say? American? That's good then, no bias there obviously.

VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest", according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

[...] The IAEA letter said the agency secretariat took "strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons.

The congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran, said the letter.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.

The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments had determined.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: Perhaps you're not very good at seeing statistical trends, zinky? Each of the May, June, July, August and September 2006 rolling four-month averages on your table are lower than at any time since June 2005. That's fairly dramatic, on my opinion, given that the civilian deaths have soared to over 5,000 a month during the same period. The violence has increased, the soldiers are withdrawn compared to previous patterns of deployment, and the Sunnis are doing their job of intimidation for them.


Nonsense Spot, those differences are statistically not significant as the sample is way to small. They indicate that the nature of combat involving US forces has not changed dramatically. The slight drop indicates that more of the combat is being assumed by Iraqis Army units and police as they come on line and become responsibile for more of their cities. The other reason that US fatalies are not changing significantly is because US forces are being redeployed to the most violent areas. If what you claimed was true there should almost no US casualties.

I agree the civilian deaths have increased due to the sectarian violence of both Sunnis and Shia death squads which is the result of internal power struggle which will most likely lead to civil war.

As usual you see what you want to see and don't let the fact stand in the way of a good story.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: And that unbiased assessment is by... oh. The Federation of American Scientists? Which scientists did you say? American? That's good then, no bias there obviously.

VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest", according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

[...] The IAEA letter said the agency secretariat took "strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons.

The congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran, said the letter.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.

The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments had determined.


My source is quoting IAEA reports Spot

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: My source is quoting IAEA reports SpotThat, of course, is what the IAEA were so outraged by in their letter - the selectivity of the Congressional Committee in taking IAEA out of context knowing the picture painted to be false in overview. If you insist on asking "what do they need a centrifuge" for in the same thread as your own posting that there's a "Huge dif between light water reactors and enriching uranium for weapons" then that was a bit of a mistake as well.

You really want me to drag out SPSS and do a statistical significance test on those rolling four-month averages? I'll do it if you insist but I've no doubt what the outcome is, the sample is sadly nothing like way to small. Or have you already performed one before making your statement?

[spot]

A brief note to those wondering where the General Assembly addresses of September 2006 have got to - we'll get back to them in a while and I apologise for the distraction of all this overspill from other threads. If anyone else can bring themselves to return to the topic in hand I'd be very pleased.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: That, of course, is what the IAEA were so outraged by in their letter - the selectivity of the Congressional Committee in taking IAEA out of context knowing the picture painted to be false in overview. If you insist on asking "what do they need a centrifuge" for in the same thread as your own posting that there's a "Huge dif between light water reactors and enriching uranium for weapons" then that was a bit of a mistake as well.

You really want me to drag out SPSS and do a statistical significance test on those rolling four-month averages? I'll do it if you insist but I've no doubt what the outcome is, the sample is sadly nothing like way to small. Or have you already performed one before making your statement?


Yes please do Spot, let's see your methodology in action, it will probably be as amusing as your revisionist history of the 911 attacks and their relationship tp Afghanistan, btw we are still waiting for your secret source which no one else has ever heard from.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: A brief note to those wondering where the General Assembly addresses of September 2006 have got to - we'll get back to them in a while and I apologise for the distraction of all this overspill from other threads. If anyone else can bring themselves to return to the topic in hand I'd be very pleased.


You are as guilty of the distraction as anyone else Spot.

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: You are as guilty of the distraction as anyone else Spot.
I'm responding to your posts, nothing more. The material originated from elsewhere but you chose to discuss it here for some unknown reason.

OK, I'll take the data into the office and have someone run them through SPSS but meanwhile - just to humour me - what was your basis for declaring "those differences are statistically not significant as the sample is way to small" in the first place? What did you analyse them with to come to that conclusion? You used the right words, I just wonder whether you used anything else as well.

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: btw we are still waiting for your secret source which no one else has ever heard from.There you have lost me - what is that about? What have I not covered that you consider still outstanding?

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: I'm responding to your posts, nothing more. The material originated from elsewhere but you chose to discuss it here for some unknown reason.

OK, I'll take the data into the office and have someone run it through SPSS but meanwhile - just to humour me - what was your basis for declaring "those differences are statistically not significant as the sample is way to small" in the first place? What did you analyse them with to come to that conclusion? You used the right words, I just wonder whether you used anything else as well.


Well mostly it is the nature of the combat itself. With such a relatively small number of fatalties invloving such a large number of forces and so many different and dynamic situations it will be difficult to find statistical data to support making very many conclusions in regards to their causes. There are few large scale pitched battles between US and insurgent groups and those are usually initiated by the US and Iraqis Gov't forces. The only commonality you will likely find is that about half the fatalities are caused by IED's and half from other causes including combat. You can probaly find some statistically significantly data for "hotspots" of the fatalities in certain geographical areas but how you can prove that the numbers are statisically significant enough to relate them in some manner to a US policy to incite sectarian violence for the purpose of reducing US casualties I think would be a reach. If we were losing a thousand a month there was a corresponding % drop (to these numbers I i have posted) then I think you might be able to do something.

[zinkyusa]

spot wrote: There you have lost me - what is that about? What have I not covered that you consider still outstanding?


That was my bad, I appear to have gotten my threads confused. I was referring to this:

It surprises me that so little evidence has been produced to back that assertion up. Would you like to find some? Tell a lie often enough and it gets generally accepted. No, I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with either Afghanistan or even the Taliban, but I do recognise that it's often assumed.



I must be getting senile.

[spot]

So - silly question here - why are you asking me to run the raw monthly figures through SPSS, as in "Yes please do Spot, let's see your methodology in action"? It's something I've met before on this site, to be asked to go and look for something that the requester already knows he's going to dismiss regardless oof the outcome. Why are you asking me to perform the work?

[spot]

zinkyusa wrote: That was my bad, I appear to have gotten my threads confused. I was referring to this:If I untangle this right, you're asking me to demonstrate a negative?