Good Point

Well, where else apart from the Guardian would you expect to go nowadays to find regular support for a theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism world-wide, kills gays, denies the Holocaust, and brutally suppresses any dissent?

8 thoughts on “Good Point”

  1. Like or loathe Hasan and Milne – and I’m no fan – and agree or disagree with their opinion of its threat – and I don’t know enough to judge – holding that there’s insufficient evidence of a nuclear weapons programme doesn’t constitute “support”. A country – believe it or not – can support terrorism, kill gays, suppress dissent and still possess no nukes.

    Are they wrong? Then – by God – call them out for it! But taking an argument over fact claims and stirring in a big dollop of moralism isn’t going to make it any more palatable.

  2. It is strange how guardianistas can so firmly underwrite the stated nuclear ambitions of the Iranian regime, and demand that we all do likewise, and take them at their word.

    Yet when that same regime is announcing its ambition to wipe out the Israelis, those same guardianistas all rush forward to tell us this is mere rhetoric, posturing, they would never actually do it.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    BenSix – “Like or loathe Hasan and Milne – and I’m no fan – and agree or disagree with their opinion of its threat – and I don’t know enough to judge – holding that there’s insufficient evidence of a nuclear weapons programme doesn’t constitute “support”.”

    It does if there is no rational reason for what is going on except a nuclear programme. This is just Chomsky’s lie – he can claim there was no evidence of genocide in Cambodia because, you know, refugees lie and some photos were staged for a Thia newspaper or two and so on. But of course the Khmer Rouge were carrying out a genocidal campaign and the evidence was not conclusive, but it was strong for an open mind. There is, I think, nothing short of an actual nuclear test that would convince Milne because, like Chomsky, he is not interested in the actual evidence.

    “Are they wrong? Then – by God – call them out for it!”

    They can explain why Iran is enriching their uranium then. What they were doing with blue prints for nuclear weapons. That sort of thing. Given there is no other explanation for this, and bearing in mind we don’t have a signed confession from Ahmadinejad, there will always be enough doubt for professional propagandists like Milne to draw on. So at some point sensible people say they have a nuclear weapons programme. Like Japan.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Doug – “Without wishing to get into ‘yes they do, no they don’t’ there are other explanations about Iran.”

    Well let’s ignore the fact that Juan Cole is a lying sack of sh!t for a moment. After all, we want to be a little professional. What does the douche actually say in that article:

    “Everything we know about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program points to it mainly being for civilian purposes. There is no known nuclear weapons program as such. Whatever computer simulations or other measures Iran has taken would be consistent with seeking nuclear latency as a deterrent against an invasion.”

    He is using the words “civilian” and “nuclear weapons program” in odd ways that most of us would not recognise. Latency?

    “It is likely that Iran wants “nuclear latency,” or the “Japan option.” That would involve knowing how to construct a bomb in short order if the country was ever directly menaced with an invasion and regime change a la Iraq.”

    In other words they have a nuclear weapons program. They may or may not wish to build an actual bomb, but they plan, according to Cole, to do everything to do with building a bomb except turning the last screw. It is an odd choice of words that says the Manhattan project was only a bomb programme once they detonated an actual real bomb.

    So computer simulations? Of what? Bomb designs of course. Not a bomb programme according to Cole. How do they know what sort of computer simulations to run? Well either two ways – either they are carrying out actual experiments with explosives and ordinary uranium to refine their designs (and that is likely because we know they have bought high speed X-ray machines with limited alternative purposes) or they are playing with the designs they bought from the Pakistanis.

    Either way are you seriously suggesting this is not a bomb programme?

    Iran has no need for highly enriched uranium except for their bomb programme. They have no need for enriched uranium at all except for their bomb programme. Having only one reactor which they contracted the Russians to provide the supply of fuel.

    They have a bomb programme.

  5. If it comes to that and using the same logic as the pro-Iranians, Israel doesn’t have a bomb either, they’ve never admitted it as such and no one’s seen any conclusive evidence. You can bet none of the usual suspects would give them the benefit of the doubt though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *