When Will Trump Declare War on Iran?

Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
Did you read my earlier post? Bibi directed the inspectors to a location where it was known that a small amount of uranium had been stored. Understand please, a record of this location was on hand, and the inspectors had free rein to do their job.

Traces of uranium, not enriched uranium but uranium, were found. Of course they were. Probably, unless the warehouse had been vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum some traces would remain.

The Iranians were compliant with the terms of the agreement. As for Bibi.....

He wants regime change and he wants the US to expend our blood and treasure to get it, like usual.
Heck, even if a HEPA vacuum is utilized, an inspected site might still hold certain residue. Indeed, many years ago Iran had done some hidden enrichment-related centrifuge research work at this one location, I believe in or near Tehran if I recall correctly. Some years later, and long after they did that work and removed the associated equipment, they took enourmous efforts to try to clean the place, so to speak. It appeared that they thought they had cleaned the place and surrounding property by scraping, scrubbing, deep chemical cleaning, and painting the structure inside and out, as well as removing and replacing the outside soil, concrete, pavement, including the vegetation. And yet, years later when inspectors took swabs inside and outside the facility they still found traces of uranium left over from those hidden activities, despite their efforts to clean the place. Plus, inspectors were able to figure out the actual mine source of the uranium itself, with high certainty, based upon other trace elements found from those swabs.

Nevertheless, I think that historic episode, as well as other documented IAEA inspector work, helps highlight the basic conclusion that IAEA inspectors most certainly tend to know what they are doing...of which is why, when there isn't an IAEA report which details the findings of supposed violations by countries regarding their nuclear programs, that tells me that certain claims that are not based upon actual physical evidence are quite suspect when there isn't a report which details those violations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
Let's consider for one second. We have nuclear material...it's no longer in the warehouse but we can see the devices are saying it was here. It's now NOT here...and you ask the question, Where's the proof it moved and where's the proof it was Iran moving it. Wow.

Right now, to put this into perspective...there's an 8 month pregnant lady in front of you. I'm saying she's pregnant and you're asking where the father or the video showing she had sex. There HAD to be nuclear materials for there to register the trace amounts they got. Those materials aren't there anymore so it begs the question, WHERE ARE THEY! not what proof do we have that Iran moved them because clearly they moved them since they aren't there anymore. SO WHERE ARE THEY? That should be the question you ask yourself and others but instead, you prefer NOT to be logical or reasonable and instead prefer to be antagonistic.

Honestly, I really can't understand the stupidity of your questions. Even if you didn't believe the evidence from Israel, it should still warrant the question that materials were there and they aren't now. Logically they were moved so where are they? That at least makes logical sense. Any other nonsense is just that...nonsense.
Well, apparently you cannot back up the two claims that you made with actual evidence. And you appear to simply discount the rather important last question I asked.

Moreover, it is unclear from the reporting many forensic details of that inspection, such as what was the source of the uranium, which is important to know if it actually came from Iran versus potentially being covertly planted there by another county such as Israel. And, whether it was natural unmilled uranium ore, yellowcake, or even uranium hexafluoride, of which is needed to be known in order to determine if any violation had actually occurred since my understanding is safeguards don't equally apply at every stage of the uranium fuel cycle.

So, without these inspector-related forensic additional questions satisfactorily being answered amongst other possible questions, as well as establishing a time period regarding that supposed uranium being at that location, there is certainly no evidentiary proof presented in this case, via the press, that Iran had actually violated the JCPOA via its safeguards.

:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Sep 2019
232
86
CA
Well, apparently you cannot back up the two claims that you made with actual evidence. And you appear to simply discount the rather important last question I asked.

Moreover, it is unclear from the reporting many forensic details of that inspection, such as what was the source of the uranium, which is important to know if it actually came from Iran versus potentially being covertly planted there by another county such as Israel. And, whether it was natural unmilled uranium ore, yellowcake, or even uranium hexafluoride, of which is needed to be known in order to determine if any violation had actually occurred since my understanding is safeguards don't equally apply at every stage of the uranium fuel cycle.

So, without these inspector-related forensic additional questions satisfactorily being answered amongst other possible questions, as well as establishing a time period regarding that supposed uranium being at that location, there is certainly no evidentiary proof presented in this case, via the press, that Iran had actually violated the JCPOA via its safeguards.
Great...we have a starting point. The forensic details do not describe what materials, how much, and many other aspects...but isn't it fair to ask what is was, where it went, and let them show the source? That's what a reasonably prudent person would ask. The term RPP is a legal standard described as an individual who uses good judgment or common sense in handling practical matters. In this case, we found trace evidence...so would it be reasonably prudent to ask what caused it, where did it go, and ask to see it and verify that it's the source? Yep...that's EXACTLY what a RPP would do. What a RPP wouldn't do is sit back with their head up their butt and say, there's evidence, but not enough to say what it was, where it came from, or where the material is now...so I'll go ahead and ignore it and the findings we did get. That's more along the line of a unreasonable, gullible person who chooses to remain ignorant.

So with your own admission, you recognize there was some findings...now you can either be a reasonably prudent person and ask where it went, what it was and where it is now or you would rather argue because you can't argue your biased narrative when presented with evidence to show how ignorant you're being. I can't ask you to be intelligent, but I can point out when you're being dumb because it suits your narrative to do so...in this case, you're being dumb.

Any amount of evidence should be investigated. If you deny that, then you prefer to live in ignorance and make your decisions based on ignorance rather than information...which does say a lot about you and your positions.

Me, I'd rather say, "trace evidence was found which begs the questions...where did it go, what was it, and is it still there? Then go check it out and if it turns out to be something else, we can rule out the evidence as unrelated. However, without actually looking into it, we can't say for certain there wasn't something and we'd be remiss to leave it at that without investigating further."