All the nukes that’s fit to print (cont’d)

on 77 Comments

The infographic accompanying yesterday’s New York Times article on the U.S.’s attempt to head off a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race is — as one might have expected — missing a little bit of ink. Guess where?

Let’s take a look:
nuke

Iran and Syria are both dark and foreboding — blackened out entirely — for having "construction begun" on their nuclear programs. But the only country in the region that has, indeed, begun construction and brought that construction to full fruition (40 years ago!) as a nuclear weapons arsenal (guess who) is colored in the oh-so-less-threatening darker gray. Israel is merely the shade of the vast majority of its neighbors — signifying "plans developed" for a nuclear program. Yes, just one of the guys, contrasted — literally — against Iran and Syria.

Most offensively, this is a blatant error of fact. It’s such a glaring one — "construction"? hell yes! of even a bomb! — that you have to wonder if it was on purpose.

My sometimes conspiratorial mind — hey, my country was actually overthrown by the C.I.A. — gets all excited about these things and imagines a kid on the infographics desk, barely 26, with a graduate degree in journalism from NYU. He gets the assignment and, perhaps a careful reader of his own paper, immediately thinks about how to draw Israel.

Our young star, with his rapidly rising career — paychecks and health coverage and all — makes the first draft with Israel the same fully blackened shade of Iran and Syria. Then he questions it, turns to a more senior colleague (probably 32, still paying off his own student debt), and asks. But once that question arises, how does it not go all the way up the editorial chain of command?

It’s even more troubling to think that the question was never asked — denoting, perhaps, gross incompetence or, worse yet, a culture of fear on the issue at the Times. Let’s hope the that the Times, at the very least, has the courage to issue a correction.

About Ali Gharib

Other posts by .


Posted In:

77 Responses

  1. David44
    May 4, 2010, 9:45 am

    Presumably the right thing to do would be to have a separate color for Israel altogether, as the one actual nuclear state in the region. It would still be misleading (albeit not as misleading as the version the Times actually produced) to color Israel the same as Iran and Syria, since, as you rightly point out, it is not merely a country where “construction has begun”.

  2. Mooser
    May 4, 2010, 9:46 am

    Mr Gharib, the author of the post, is blantantly ignoring the most salient fact about the entire ME nuclear imbroglio , if imbroglio is the word I want, and spelled correctly, too.
    But the fact is, as I am sure our wittier correspondents will tell us, that the nuclear bombs in Israel are Zionist, or even better, Jewish nuclear bombs, and Iran has Islamic construction plans. Or maybe even Muslim construction plans. Gates of Vienna, anyone?

    • Citizen
      May 4, 2010, 10:05 am

      Gee, Mooser, you mean those same gates that opened up to Hitler’s troops? Vienna shuts down the gates, Vienna opens them. My, those Viennese sure are fickle. Must be their music.

    • Avi
      May 4, 2010, 10:10 am

      Iran has scary Muslims strapped to cannon balls ready to be fired at a moment’s notice.

  3. outingdystopia
    May 4, 2010, 10:17 am

    While the chart is misleading and attempting to demonize Iran and Syria- the following is from a Times piece featured today in the world section of the site:
    “Although Israel does not take part in the nonproliferation treaty, its arsenal, estimated at 100 to 200 warheads, has overshadowed the conferences in recent years. Egypt and other non-nuclear nations have refused to endorse stricter inspections and other global measures as long as Israel remains outside the treaty.”
    link to nytimes.com

    The Times does have a tendency to advance official propaganda but it also does not always shy away from illicit truths.

  4. marc b.
    May 4, 2010, 10:19 am

    Another fantastical gem brought to us by David Sanger, who earlier penned ‘Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran’. Sanger’s imagination seems a bit retarded in some respects however, as his ‘war game’, put on graciously by the Saban Center, fails to address that chronological bit where Israeli warplanes are in Iraqi air space. (And as far as Jordan and Saudi Arabia are concerned, they’re not really sovereign countries after all.)

    Without telling the U.S. in advance, Israel strikes at six of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities, using a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge. (It is unclear to the Iranians if the Saudis were active participants or not.)

    Already-tense relations between the White House and Israel worsen rapidly, but the lack of advance notice allows Washington to say truthfully that it had not condoned the attack.

    link to nytimes.com

    Apparently the map and the big red arrow couldn’t be printed in brail to assist Sanger in his analysis.

    • MRW
      May 6, 2010, 7:23 am

      Read Philip Giraldi’s latest at antiwar about this:
      A TIMETABLE FOR WAR
      link to original.antiwar.com

      Then read what our piece of shit soldiers are doing in Afghanistan — our callow, immoral examples of heathen disgrace — starting four paragraphs down (you only have to read two paragraphs). They are as hideously and badly trained as the IDF I’ve been bitching about for years. Support our troops? No fucking way. They’ve just lost my support. No wonder that kid who locked himself out of his house and car wanted to blow up Times Square. Can you imagine occupiers in our country doing this to our citizens, what the blowback would be?
      THIS HEADLINE AGAIN?
      link to original.antiwar.com

    • Shingo
      May 6, 2010, 7:25 am

      Sanger and Broad are pathological liars.

  5. kalithea
    May 4, 2010, 10:43 am

    Hey New York Times? NEWSFLASH: Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs!

    Those nukes are not “in construction”. They’re in “ready mode, one nod away from becoming a catastrophic consequence for the entire world not just the Middle East.

  6. Avi
    May 4, 2010, 10:57 am

    I decided to make my own map.

    So, here’s the new and improved map.

    Corrections/Additions?

    • marc b.
      May 4, 2010, 11:08 am

      jeez. nice job. i’m still struggling with ‘cut and paste’ in my Word program.

      • Avi
        May 4, 2010, 11:15 am

        ‘cut and paste’ was the second thing I mastered, right after ‘undo’.

    • Citizen
      May 4, 2010, 11:16 am

      Pretty nice, Avi. You have a knack. Care to add some text to those two colorful signs illustrating Israel’s situation? Some people are prejudiced in favor of text.

      • Avi
        May 4, 2010, 11:44 am
      • Citizen
        May 4, 2010, 11:49 am

        Thanks, Avi. That is a good representation of reality on the subject matter.

      • Avi
        May 4, 2010, 11:55 am

        Incidentally,

        The New York Times, as well as Israel and the US, would lose the “nuclear” propaganda card they keep waving if the discussion were to focus on Weapons of Mass Destruction as none of the states of the Middle East region has the capability or the intention of developing biological and chemical weapons. Israel, however, has fully operational programs in these respective fields.

      • Avi
        May 4, 2010, 11:58 am

        The focus on the nuclear issue is merely a matter of semantics as the ambiguity between civilian and military programs is exploited by the likes of the NYT to create a different reality.

      • eGuard
        May 4, 2010, 12:38 pm

        Hey, what happened to the West Bank? NYT was clear: no program there, (at least one fact right. You know, that’s the trick: it was a “find the fact”-puzzle).

      • Psychopathic god
        May 4, 2010, 1:12 pm

        avi, if you REALLY want to get creative, not to mention accurate and informative, you would mark the Iran map to show that power lines radiate from the Natanz facility for miles and miles, with terminal points at extensive groves of pine forests, planted about 20 years ago in an attempt to cool the desert and prepare it for residential and commercial development. Iran is topographically challenged — it’s mostly desert and mountain, so Iranians have to be extremely creative and husband their resources very carefully to provide dwelling places for their burgeoning population.
        You could also put a special dot at the nuclear facility near Isfehan: Isfehan is a UN Heritage Site. An attack on the nuke plant at Isfehan would undoubtedly damage the UN Heritage site, placing whatever misguided state actor that initiated that attack in the same category as the Taliban that destroyed the massive Buddha images about a decade ago.

        One more dot, if you please, Avi: at Qom (about half-an-inch south of Tehran). Iranians were really, really bad, quoth Mama Clinton, and kept that facility secret!!!! Until they, um, told the IAEA about it, that is, which happened before they housed any nuclear material in the site…. Be that as it may; it’s highly likely that the purpose of the site at Qom is much like the function planned for the Natanz nuclear facility: to provide electrical power to formerly desert lands recently reclaimed and greened, after decades of effort and installation of irrigation and other infrastructure to make formerly inhospitable desert land, life supporting. A kind of “make the desert bloom” project that, unlike Israel’s, does NOT involve stealing water and land from its rightful owners.

  7. bob
    May 4, 2010, 11:06 am

    So, what were the facts that Syria had a nuclear program? Trace materials at an IDF bomb site, right?

    • eee
      May 4, 2010, 11:14 am

      link to foreignaffairs.com

      The author lived in Syria for many years. But of course you know better than him.

      • Citizen
        May 4, 2010, 11:22 am

        “If Damascus were to come clean on its nuclear program, the revelation would significantly improve strained U.S.-Syrian relations.”

        Also, “If Tel Aviv were to come clean on its long-existing, fully capable nuclear program–the one JFK tried so hard to prevent, the revelation would significantly improve strained U.S.-Israeli relations–not to mention the strained relations Israel has with the rest of the captive world.”

      • eee
        May 4, 2010, 11:28 am

        Have you not heard of the memo to stop feeding the troll?
        Do you guys never follow your own advice?

        Since you don’t want relations between Israel and the US to improve, you want the US to stop giving aid to Israel for example, why do you support Israel coming clean and improving its relations? You should be for Israel hiding its nuclear capabilities thus worsening its relations with the US.

      • Citizen
        May 4, 2010, 11:56 am

        Eee, where do you live, on Mars? The official public policy of ambiguity regarding the very real Israel nukes everyone here knows about (and which JFK tried to stop), including Obama’s latest rendition of said ambiguity, are easily available.

      • Colin Murray
        May 4, 2010, 12:08 pm

        Thank you very much for your generous offer of assistance, but we will decide what is in our best interests.

      • Leper Colonialist
        May 4, 2010, 12:11 pm

        OMG! Rhetorical Question Alert!

      • eee
        May 4, 2010, 12:56 pm

        Citizen,

        Didn’t you write:
        “If Tel Aviv were to come clean on its long-existing, fully capable nuclear program–the one JFK tried so hard to prevent, the revelation would significantly improve strained U.S.-Israeli relations–not to mention the strained relations Israel has with the rest of the captive world.”

        Why are you contradicting yourself? Now you are saying that Israel’s position on its nuclear arsenal does not influence Israeli-American relations. So which is it?

      • eee
        May 4, 2010, 12:57 pm

        “Thank you very much for your generous offer of assistance, but we will decide what is in our best interests.”

        Of course, that is why you keep voting a Congress that sends Israel 3 billion dollars per year.

      • Psychopathic god
        May 4, 2010, 12:57 pm

        starting when?

        Jewish leaders are meeting in Washington, DC, speaking to a host of US govt elected reps and bureaucrats, to insist that US do something about “antisemitism that is of pandemic proportions”

        a “pandemic” of anti semitism. in Washington, DC.
        Fear sweeps the Jewish community in the region.
        Bethesda, MD may soon see the abandonment of the entire length of Montrose Road as the JCC abandons its multi-acre campus and it dozen or more buildings as Jews flee desperately for the security of Israel and its security walls manned by their gun-toting Jewish child-soldiers.
        The recently-expanded and enlarged synagogue on Old Georgetown Road, one of the wealthiest and most prestigious addresses in the US, may be abandoned as its congregants flee “pandemic anti-semitism.” The move may be a boon to DC’s homeless, who can easily access the abandoned building by nearby Metrorail (take the Red line).

      • Citizen
        May 4, 2010, 1:07 pm

        Please, eee, explain your logic. I am saying that the US should clearly tell the American people that the only regional Middle Eastern power with the bomb is Israel. And we should judge other nations in that local accordingly.

      • MarkF
        May 5, 2010, 7:54 am

        I agree with you, sending 3 billion a year to Israel is not in our best interests.

        I read a great article by Dan Senor in the WSJ gloating about how well the Israeli economy is doing, which is great to hear. Israel is not in debt, has universal health care, and by all accounts is swell.

        After providing all those years of help from a friend, why not offer to help a “friend in need”? We’re broke, we’re in massive debt, why not offer to reduce or suspend the taking of aid until we’re back on our feet? Heck, donate 500 million of it to help flood ravaged Nashville.

        How’s that commercial go? Not a sermon, just a thought.

      • Colin Murray
        May 4, 2010, 5:49 pm

        WINEP’ers have zero credibility. These are the same neocons who have been saying ‘Iran will have nuclear weapons in six months’ for the last ten years. Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me 300 times and I will label you a complete liar.

      • Shingo
        May 4, 2010, 7:47 pm

        “The author lived in Syria for many years. But of course you know better than him.”

        That proves he’s telling the truth then, like say, Curveball who lived in Iraq eight eee?

        Of couse, the author does not explain how a reactor could magically dissapear after Israel bombed it.  Buldings get destroyed by bombing, they do not dissapoear into thin air

    • marc b.
      May 4, 2010, 11:58 am

      bob, the IAEA has been critical of all the parties involved, condemning Israel for bombing the site, criticizing the US and Israel for not providing evidence of the Syrian program, and criticizing the Syrians for being less than cooperative. I just ran through the IAEA site for an update, and apparently Syria has not provided any further information on or access to its nuclear facilities since 2008.

  8. Colin Murray
    May 4, 2010, 12:06 pm

    Israel shares common values with us … not

    Israel’s secret police vet candidates for imam

    • Avi
      May 4, 2010, 12:36 pm

      That policy applies to school teachers in the Arab sector, too.

    • Psychopathic god
      May 4, 2010, 12:48 pm

      thanks Colin Murray

    • eee
      May 4, 2010, 1:00 pm

      Are you so sure that the FBI does not hold files about imam’s in the US?
      Are you sure that the FBI does not act behind the scenes to make sure that radical imam’s are not appointed in the US?

      • Citizen
        May 4, 2010, 1:09 pm

        Readers here will know that the FBI does not support imams, but rather
        zionists.

      • eee
        May 4, 2010, 1:27 pm

        link to csmonitor.com

        I think Israel treats its imams better than the US.

      • edwin
        May 4, 2010, 7:55 pm

        Ohhh that just makes everything just peachy. Its a good thing that you set the bar is mighty low, or else when you tripped and fell, you would have knocked it over.

  9. eGuard
    May 4, 2010, 1:01 pm

    Apart from the map, there’s misleading in the text & context too.
    First, the article is about nuclear bombs, the grapic is implicitly including civil use of nuclear power.
    Second, the legend has a misleading setup. The used range is not a continuum, and is incomplete. The parallel-shading is on a different scale as the grey-shading. “No program” could easily overlap “Interested in a program”.
    Below the map, there’s a comparation between Diamona, Israel and Bushehr, Iran: producing 26 vs planned 3000 MW. Says the line: that produces much more plutonium too. Well, a 26 MW reactor is for research only, and could be used for covering nuclear arms development, especially if you keep IAEA out.
    Then there are the sources at the footnote. Israel is not mentioned in the sources: does IAEA know all this then, about Israels nuclear situation? How do we know it is correct?
    All in all: someone would get fired for this, exept in politics.

  10. Blog Post linked to this.
  11. Richard Witty
    May 5, 2010, 11:46 am

    link to haaretz.com

    Five permanent UN Security Council members support Mideast nuclear arms ban
    U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China voice support for ‘full implementation’ of nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    This looks like the example of US and Israeli split in the UN. I didn’t think they would take that stand on something this significant. It is a very big change in US policy.

    • Shingo
      May 6, 2010, 7:12 am

      “Five permanent UN Security Council members support Mideast nuclear arms ban
      U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China voice support for ‘full implementation’ of nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”

      Iran has been calling for a nuclear free Middle East for years.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 7:40 am

        Its either a sea change on the part of US policy (at least partially in the implication of mandatory disclosure) or an effort at a comprehensive nuclear free middle east, including Israel and Iran, hopefully with disarmanent moving east.

        The prerequisite for nuclear disarmament for Israel is consented and realized peace with all of the Muslim world, including Iran.

        All of the Arab League has stated conditional acceptance of Israel at the green line. Iran hasn’t. Iran has repeated, and its proxies/allies have repeated “we will never recognize Israel”.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 7:51 am

        “The prerequisite for nuclear disarmament for Israel is consented and realized peace with all of the Muslim world, including Iran.”

        That’s been on offer since 2003 and Isael have continuously rejected it. Iran has said it would accept the treaty, which includes not only the recognitin of Israel, but normalization of relations with Israel.

        Even Hamas have said they would accept it.

        The reason Israel is rejecting it is not because of any one state not signing it, it’s becasue Israel doesn’t want to belong to the Middle East, doesnt care who accepts it, and wants to retain military superiority.

      • MRW
        May 6, 2010, 7:53 am

        Prove it, Witty. Give us a link that shows Iran has repeatedly said that.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 7:55 am

        And while you’re at it Witty, please provide a link where Israel has offered to recognize Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, or even a Palestinian state?

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:01 am

        I don’t have a link on whether Israel is willing to recognize Iran.

        There is no prospect of recognizing Hezbollah or Hamas as constituting a state, as they are not states and have not declared themselves to be one.

        Palestine, Israel has spoken of its advocacy for a Palestinian state as a good neighbor many times. There certainly are MANY issues of contention, otherwise there would be one already.

        And, hopefully a fair and viable Palestine will be realized soon.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:04 am

        Hamas abstained from the Arab League vote.

        It said it would not stand in the way of the will of the Palestinian people.

        It seems true to me that Israel wants its center of gravity to be towards Europe, and not central Asia. Not all that different than Turkey.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:08 am

        “It said it would not stand in the way of the will of the Palestinian people. ”

        Exactly. Iran said the same thing.

        “It seems true to me that Israel wants its center of gravity to be towards Europe, and not central Asia. Not all that different than Turkey.”

        Yes, Israel is a racist and white suermacist state who wants nothing to do with the Middle East, other than what it can steal.

        Tukkey is an active trading partner fo startes like Syria and Iran.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:11 am

        We derive different meanings from the combination of actions and words by Hamas.

        Israel does want normal, non-threatening relations with the Arab World. It doesn’t want to be a Jewish “Arab state” though.

        It wants to be a Jewish Mediterranean state.

  12. Richard Witty
    May 6, 2010, 6:28 am

    UN nuclear watchdog: World must unite to pressure Iran

    link to haaretz.com

    The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog on Thursday called for concerted international pressure on Tehran as it refuses to clear up doubts regarding its nuclear program and cooperate fully with watchdog IAEA’s inspections.

    International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said his agency was unable to rule out that Iran’s nuclear work was being diverted for military purposes, as feared by the West.

    It was not clear if Amano was referring to more diplomacy, sanctions or both but his call comes as major powers are discussing a possible fourth round of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment and cooperate with the IAEA.

    • Shingo
      May 6, 2010, 7:00 am

      “UN nuclear watchdog: World must unite to pressure Iran”‘

      Amano is a US puppet. They lobbied agressively to have him replace the previous Chief, Al Baradei.

      The so called “doubts”that amano was referrign to have been cleare dup rep[eatedly by Iran and the IAEA accepted those findings. The US refused to allow the cases to be closed and insiste dthey be re-opened.

      The IAEA has reported 21 times that they can say with 100% certainnty that Iran is not diverting any nuclear material from it’s nuclear propgram.

      Amano and the report deliberatley conflate US allegations of missile development (which has already been debunked) with nuclear enrichment (2 entirely different issues).

      The so called evidence Amano has before him is exactly the same evidence Al Baraedei had, when the IAEA concluded these issues to have been resolved.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 7:38 am

        Nevertheless, this was a public statement by the UN official responsible for the conclusion.

        Baradei said that Iran was not in compliance with inspections protocols when he left office.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 7:44 am

        “Baradei said that Iran was not in compliance with inspections protocols when he left office”

        False. Al Baradei never made any such statement.

        You’re a pathetic liar.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 7:57 am

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 7:58 am

        Maybe you will claim that the incidents of non-compliance are immaterial.

        Your assertions that Al Baradei describes that Iran is consistently and fully in compliance with AIEA inspection protocols is not accurate.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:02 am

        “Maybe you will claim that the incidents of non-compliance are immaterial’

        Maybe you might want to find those befoer you use phrases you have no understanding of.

        “Your assertions that Al Baradei describes that Iran is consistently and fully in compliance with AIEA inspection protocols is not accurate. ”

        Prove it. I have demonstrated repteadly that you have no clue about this topic Witty. You’re not fooling anyone by pretending to know what you’re talking about.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:05 am

        “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLWtAUsOS9Y”

        Iran is not required to suspend it’s entichment activitoes under the NPT you dipshit. In fact, theUN Resolution calling for Iran to do so is a violation fo the NPT.

        Nowhere does he state that Iran was not in compliance with inspections protocols.

        You’re pathetic Witty.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:05 am

        Did you watch the video clip of his presentation to the UN, in October I think it was?

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:08 am

        He did not state in those exact words that “Iran is in a state of non-compliance”. He did list a few issues that he defined as “required”, and that “Iran has not cooperated”.

        Its not black or white. Why do you repeatedly present Iran as fully complying, when they are partially?

      • marc b.
        May 6, 2010, 8:08 am

        witty, for someone who regularly peddles untruths, you would think you would have become a bit more careful with language. Baradei says in his statement that Iran had complied with all inspections, but had not suspended its enrichment activities or work on heavy water-related projects pursuant to a Security Council directive. and there is no evidence that such activities or projects are part of a weapons program. yes, Iran should comply with the SC directive. there was no statement by Baradei in that clip indicating a failure on Iran’s part to permit inspections. in fact most of the clip is devoted to the dust up between Syria and the IAEA.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:11 am

        “Did you watch the video clip of his presentation to the UN, in October I think it was? “‘

        Yes I did. Did you? More than half was spent taling about Syria.

        Nowhere does he say a thing about non compliance.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:12 am

        “He did list a few issues that he defined as “required”, and that “Iran has not cooperated”.”

        Do you disagree that those comments were in his testimony?

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:13 am

        “He did not state in those exact words that “Iran is in a state of non-compliance”.

        Exctly, becvasue that would have been flase, proving once again that you lied when you stated he did make such a statement.

        ” He did list a few issues that he defined as “required”, and that “Iran has not cooperated”.’

        Rubbish. He mentioned nothing about anything being required under the NPT.

        Stop the lies Witty. Your credibility is already garbage.

        Its not black or white. Why do you repeatedly present Iran as fully complying, when they are partially?

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:14 am

        The current AIEA inspector describes them as partially complying.

        Puppet or not.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:15 am

        “Do you disagree that those comments were in his testimony? ”

        You’re completely losing it Witty. His opening statement was that Ïran has complied…”

        Are you some kind of idiot?

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:16 am

        I am not an expert on the NPT, or on the AEIA. I only hear what is presented publicly, officially.

        Same as the rest of the world.

        You describe Iran as in full compliance. The officials describe Iran’s compliance in qualified terms.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:16 am

        “The current AIEA inspector describes them as partially complying.”

        The words “partially complying” do not appear anywhere on that page Witty.

        Moron.

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:18 am

        “I am not an expert on the NPT, or on the AEIA. I only hear what is presented publicly, officially.”

        It appears you don’t even hear very well.

        “Same as the rest of the world.”

        Rubbish. The rest of the world is made up of ignoramus sliek you and those who know somethig about the subject.

        “You describe Iran as in full compliance. The officials describe Iran’s compliance in qualified terms. ”

        What officials? You keep pulling these statement out fo your ass as though someone stated them, but none of them are provided in your sources.

        You are making this up as you go along.

      • Richard Witty
        May 6, 2010, 8:19 am

        “Amano told the Washington Post that Iran had still not allowed his inspectors better access to a site where it started enriching uranium to higher levels in February.

        “If this continues for a long time, we may have a problem the arrangement is not proper as of today,” he said. “

      • Shingo
        May 6, 2010, 8:26 am

        “Amano told the Washington Post that Iran had still not allowed his inspectors better access to a site where it started enriching uranium to higher levels in February. ”

        Amano did not say that the access they do have is indifficnt to meet all of Irans obligations under the NPT. The IAEA, under US pressure, continues to request more intrusive access and Iran are within their rights to decline – provided they have met their obligations.

        “If this continues for a long time, we may have a problem the arrangement is not proper as of today,” he said.”

        Amano is mincing words because he cannto say that Iran are in violation or falling short of their obligations.

  13. Cliff
    May 6, 2010, 8:28 am

    Some news from the Shanghai expo:

    “I have just learned from someone who is involved with the Palestinian delegation to the Shanghai World Expo 2010 themed Better City Better life that the Israelis have pulled a series of their usual dirty tricks. The Zionists have apparently taken a whole wing of the expo pavilion and they were promoting the temporary usurping zionist entity using photos of the Palestinian heritage: the church of the holy sepulcher, the dome of the rock, and others, many of which are in fact in the lands occupied in 1967. The Palestinian delegation complained that this was their heritage that was stolen by the usurper and exposed as a loot. Under pressure, the Chinese organizers requested the israelis to withdraw the pictures. The israelis complied after lots of fussing about. I was told that they replaced the photos they removed with photos of unbuilt space which the Palestinians took as a direct message that they will destroy the heritage they cannot usurp.”

    link to landandpeople.blogspot.com

    As usual, Zionists are scum of the Earth. A bunch of White Supremacists, liars, racists, freakshows. As evidenced by losers like eee and yonira and Dick Witty.

Leave a Reply