IRAN, U.S. LIES, IDIOTS AT CNN, WMD

Sadly the IAEA report on Iran that was released today was realeased ONLY to Diplomats of the countries on the Security Council, and is not available to the public. We can, however, look towards the U.S. Ambassador's own statement on the report after he had seen it, wherein he stated, about the assertion by the U.S. that Iran's program is for weapons, the report "doesn't make any conclusions in that regard."
In it's own push to remind the world that we should all fear Iran, the U.S. State Department released their own report today (to coincide with the IAEA's statements) about the "State Sponsors of Terror," which somehow NEVER includes the United States, even though America fits the American definition of "state sponsor of terror."

[To step away from Iran to talk about the U.S. as the worlds leading "State sponsor of terror," lets look at the words of President Bush:
"If you harbor terrorists, you are [a] terrorist. If you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist, and will be treated like one."
Just to mention a couple of the terrorists "harbored" in America today (not including the actions of the american military and how they fit the definition of "terrorism," as that would take too long and I don't have the patience), we should really mention: (1)Luis Posada Carilles (Miami), (2)Jorge Mas Canosa (Miami), (3)Emmanuel Constant (New York), etc.
(1) Nicaragua, (2) Cuba, and (3) Haiti should all (theoretically) be flattening America with carpet-bombing as we speak, but enough about that.]


Today's report on "State Sponsors of Terror" by the State Department was accepted as Fact by countless "news" organisations, including CNN Europe, who seem to have never heard of the U.S. State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, Bureau of International Information Programs (quote from their site: "IIP informs, engages, and influences international audiences about U.S. policy and society to advance America's interests"), Advisory Commision on Public Diplomacy, or any of the other countless Executive Branch departments that specialize in providing propaganda to the people of the world. So anyway, this piece of [insert appropriate noun here] was presented today as honest Fact on CNN, coinciding with the (non-public) release of the IAEA's findings on the Iranian Nuclear Program.
The U.S. would like the world to know:

"Iran remained the leading state sponsor of terror." (they were last year as well apparently? Ok, if that's what you believe, then fine). What are the specific reasons given for why Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror? As follows: Iran's continued support for terror groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the PLO, including support through rhetoric, and providing them with funding and weapons. "Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaida members it detained in 2003." Bringing to justice is defined as "transfer custody of detainees... to third countries for interrigation and/or trial." "Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the transitional government and the Multi-National Forces in Iraq." I don't honestly see how this could possibly put Iran ahead of America as the Leading State Sponsor of Terror. First of all, the actions of Hizbollah, Hamas, AAMB and the PLO all fall within the confines of International Law as it relates to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and a state or region's ability to protect its land and its people from a foreign invasion force, that invasion force namely being the Israeli Defence forces regarding their occupation of what is by law land that belongs to Lebanon and Palestine. Therefore, supporting them is actually more in line with international law than the support that France gave to the rebels in the English Colonies during the time of the "American Revolution" and is not an action that could be defined as "sponsoring terror" in the honest definition of the phrase. What is in violation of international law is the continuing incursions by the IDF into foreign territory, and they are using U.S. supplied Apache helicopter gunships and U.S. supplied bulldozers, which is the same kind of thing that the U.S. is trying to pin on Iran. In psychology we call that "displacement." America's definition of "bringing to justice" is that these Al-Qaida suspects are to be turned over to the U.S. for interrogation. However, the U.S. interrogation practices are in violation of international law as it relates to the Humane Treatment of Prisoners, so for Iran to turn over these suspects to the U.S. (the third party, or "third country" as phrased in this report) would be for them to willingly aid in the violation of International Law and treaties. So their actions in attempting to stymie additional violations of international law are apparently "terrorist" actions. Right. Iran's policies in Iraq "appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the Multi-National Forces." And, of course, the puppet "transitional" government put in to place by these multi national forces. So, Iran's policies in an invaded territory are inconsistant with those of the people who violated international law (Article 51, U.N. Charter, again) when they invaded the country anyway? And that makes Iran the sponsors of terrorism? I don't see how ANY of these accusations are supported by ANY real evidence WHATSOEVER, but yet it's all accepted as truth by "journalists" who are supposed to be "unbiased" and "objective" but yet have somehow lost the ability to reason for themselves. The report is topped off with a great statement trying to pin WMD's on Iran as well (it worked so well in Iraq, lets try it on Iran!): "State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD threat." How? "A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organisation to aquire advanced WMD." Ok, but where did you come up with the factual basis for Iran having ANY WMD's AT ALL? "Nations that fail to live up to international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism." So if a nation fails to live up to its international obligations, then they must have WMDs that they're going to give to terrorists. What defines failure to live up to international obligations? Maybe attacking a defenseless country on the grounds that it may possibly somehow in the future develop WMDs or could possibly have WMDs or would like to know where to get WMDs, or what? We heard this about Iraq, and we're still waiting for these WMDs to be found. Are you actually coming forward now to give evidence that Iran has some sort of WMDs? "Iran is capable of producing biological or chemical agents or weapons." WHAT?!?!?! "Iran could support terrorist organisations seeking to aquire WMD." WHAT?!?!?!?! ARE YOU MAKING BASELESS WMD ACCUSATIONS AGAIN?!?!? HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO FEED THE WORLD SHIT AND TELL EVERYONE ITS CHOCOLATE?!?! WHEN ARE YOU GONNA STOP WITH YOUR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PARANOID OBSESSION WITH WMD?!?!?! ENOUGH ALREADY, GET A FUCKING SHRINK!!!!!!!

NOT ONCE in this WHOLE REPORT did they produce ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran has ANY sort of WMD program, but yet they're still mentioning it, trying to plant the seed. And even CNN buys this shit hook line and sinker.

[The report also made mention of the fact that the "war on terror" is probably going to last for a very very long time. If anyone who may be reading this has not read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you would be well served to give it a read.]

(If you don't believe me that I have accurately quoted the report, you may see for yourself the section of the Report on Iran, and the Full Report, both of which are in .PDF format and available on the U.S. State Department website.)

Another small bit mentioned in the terror sponsor state report was how Iran refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions to halt Uranium Enrichment, which makes them a nation that will "fail to live up to international obligations." This issue is far simpler than it's being made out to be, and one of the things making it much more complicated in the news is, as usual, INACCURATE REPORTING.

First of all, if you listen to CNN you would be likely to believe that there was a UN Security Council Resolution 30 days ago that demanded that Iran halt all enrichment activity or be held in violation of international law. As are most things reported in the "news" these days, that is simply not true. What happened 30 days ago was in fact a Presidential Statement calling on the IAEA to look in to unresolved questions regarding Iran's Nuclear Program. The statement was basically this:

“The Security Council calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and underlines, in this regard, the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

BUILD CONFIDENCE. The idea was that Iran was to stop what they were doing for the sake of BUILDING CONFIDENCE in their intentions of having a strictly peaceful nuclear program. This statement by the President of the Security Council for March was in response to a report by the IAEA from earlier that month, which concluded:

"The Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.
For confidence to be built in the peaceful nature of Iran´s programme, Iran should do its utmost to provide maximum transparency and build confidence. Only through clarification of all questions relevant to Iran´s past programme and through confidence building measures can confidence about Iran´s current nuclear activities be restored. This is clearly in the interest both of Iran and of the international community."

If I may bring your attention back to the beginning of the second paragraph: "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." They only wanted "confidence to be built." And this was all pre-SCO-Membership for Iran (as discussed in my "Conspicuously Absent from Western Media" entry) which means that China and Iran and Russia are all very close trading partners and security partners now, as they weren't when this whole posturing began by the U.S. government to try to drum up support for ANOTHER WAR to make americans feel confident in their Bullies in Office come November Congressional Midterm Elections.