- Thread starter
- #41
And what article exactly Iran had violated?
Everyone has the right to be defended. Even a terrorist (and Iran is not a terrorist). That's what the word "justice" means.
Looks like Non Prolifiration Treaty is dead.
- Thread starter Zavulon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iran nuclear iran usa
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 16,042
- 14,008
- 2,278
Bluster as Russia deals with defeat in Ukraine
1) I provided two links for you outlining the UN watchdogs findings of how they violated
2) a terrorist isn’t defending themselves. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorist
A terrorist by definition is engaged in the offensive
- Thread starter
- #44
And I've provided you with the link to the full text of NPT, and you still failed to find out what article exactly was violated by Iran.
Read it, pls.
No. The leading state sponsor of terrorism is the USA. Everyone has the right to defend themselves. That's what the word "justice" means.
It's simply not true. Many so called terrorists are defending their own people and their own land.
In my opinion 3.4 5
But review what I sent you what the UN thinks
Anyone that says the USA is the leading state sponsor of terrorist, is an Iranian regime idiot
Then you don’t know what at terrorist is
- Thread starter
- #46
Now read 3.1
-----------
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
--------
And the only question that IAEA should answer is : "Are they making bombs?". That's all what they have right to do. By demanding more they exceed their authority. A sovereign country can say "f#ck you, that's why" to any international agency, and in this case the problem should be solved by common decision of all five permanent UN SC members, and legal owners of nuclear weapons. And national intelligence agencies of all five nuclear states (who are definitely not interested in the increasing of nuclear club), including the USA, gave the same answer: No, Iran is not producing nuclear weapons.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,402
- 16,267
- 2,180
The UN seems to think so.
"Russian authorities committed crimes against humanity targeting civilian population through drone attacks as well as war crimes of forcible transfer and deportation of civilians"
"For over a year, Russian armed forces have been directing drone attacks against an extensive range of civilian targets, injuring and killing civilians, causing large-scale destruction, and spreading terror. "
Targeting the Innocent: Russia’s Continued Attacks on Ukrainian Civilians — Public International Law & Policy Group
Targeting the Innocent: Russia’s Continued Attacks on Ukrainian Civilians By: Dr. Gregory P. Noone and Kateryna Kyrychenko, PILPG, and Todd Scott, Gargi Talukder, Lindsay Rindskopf, Bailey Higgs, Weixin Yang, and Rene Kathawala, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Introduction Three ye
www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org
"Targeting the Innocent: Russia’s Continued Attacks on Ukrainian Civilians"
"Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia continues to deliberately target civilians, causing widespread devastation and uncertainty through repeated attacks and indiscriminate bombings. "
Yes, the media sometimes lies, depending on the media outlet.
MH17 photo of fighter jet released in Russia slammed
A photo published on Russian television that appeared to show MH17 being shot out of the sky by a Ukrainian fighter jet has been vigorously refuted by citizen sleuths across the world.
The problem with the Malaysian Airlines reporting was that it was by Channel One Russia. Which is owned by the state, which is Putin.
They wouldn't say anything unless they felt they could. And they wouldn't say this lie, unless they were told they could, or told to say this.
You can't pass this off as a rouge media outlet. This was THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, this was Putin saying this.
- Thread starter
- #48
First of all, there is freedom of media in Russia. Second, if Putin was working as a censor in Channel 1, he couldn't do his own job. Third - all those "UN experts" can roll those papers and shove them deep inside their rectum at least until they have even one proven case of deliberately commited murder of a civilian.
The UN seems to think so.
"Russian authorities committed crimes against humanity targeting civilian population through drone attacks as well as war crimes of forcible transfer and deportation of civilians"
"For over a year, Russian armed forces have been directing drone attacks against an extensive range of civilian targets, injuring and killing civilians, causing large-scale destruction, and spreading terror. "
Targeting the Innocent: Russia’s Continued Attacks on Ukrainian Civilians — Public International Law & Policy Group
Targeting the Innocent: Russia’s Continued Attacks on Ukrainian Civilians By: Dr. Gregory P. Noone and Kateryna Kyrychenko, PILPG, and Todd Scott, Gargi Talukder, Lindsay Rindskopf, Bailey Higgs, Weixin Yang, and Rene Kathawala, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Introduction Three ye
"Targeting the Innocent: Russia’s Continued Attacks on Ukrainian Civilians"
"Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia continues to deliberately target civilians, causing widespread devastation and uncertainty through repeated attacks and indiscriminate bombings. "
Yes, the media sometimes lies, depending on the media outlet.
MH17 photo of fighter jet released in Russia slammed
A photo published on Russian television that appeared to show MH17 being shot out of the sky by a Ukrainian fighter jet has been vigorously refuted by citizen sleuths across the world.www.smh.com.au
The problem with the Malaysian Airlines reporting was that it was by Channel One Russia. Which is owned by the state, which is Putin.
They wouldn't say anything unless they felt they could. And they wouldn't say this lie, unless they were told they could, or told to say this.
You can't pass this off as a rouge media outlet. This was THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, this was Putin saying this.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,402
- 16,267
- 2,180
First of all, there IS NOT freedom of media in Russia.
Secondly, Putin doesn't sit down with a black marker pen and say "I'm censoring this".
He works on the basis of "if you **** up, I'll **** you up". That fear means that they wouldn't have posted that picture, if Putin didn't want it.
Putin would have been all over the issue. He'd have known what was going on, because it was a huge issue for him. He couldn't be seen as the one who shot it down, and he couldn't be seen as the one supporting those who did.
What Putin does do, A LOT, is cheap mind games. He puts things in the media that sow the seed of doubt into people's minds.
"Oh, it wasn't Russia, it wasn't Russian backed rebels, it was the Ukraine, and here's the proof".
Easy, and worked for the whole time before they figured out it was a SAM rather than an air to air missile.
The Skripals' murder attempt "oh, Porton Down also has this chemical". Not "we didn't do it", not "the British did it" but "well, it could theoretically have been the British because we think they have this chemical". They know it wasn't the British, because they know they did it.
Thirdly, if someone doesn't want to see the truth, they'll not see the truth. The ONLY proof you'd accept was if Putin came out and said "yes, **** the Ukraine, we're killing their people", and you know it. You're doing what Putin does, probably because you're being paid to come on here and deny things just like everyone else being paid by Putin does.
- Thread starter
- #50
There is no freedom of press anywhere. If you are on a big screen, you are doing what you have you been paid for. No exeptions.
Just pay attention how unisongly and well coordinated Western media depicted MH17 catastrophe of presumable poison of Skripals.
Exactly. And that's why a journalist, with however developed self-preservation instinct haven't direct telepatic connection with Putin or intelligence service and sometimes simply can't make fact-check fast enough. The said picture was posted in internet by putnik1 (if I recall correctly) or other "First-wave Russian Spring Patriot" (and who lately screwed up, and found himself in Spain).
That's the difference between official statement (which is usually true, a bit of something that's not a truth, but definitely not the whole truth) and a journalist investigation and expert speculations.
She or he didn't have much time and was already in internet, hitting tops. So, it's just risk balance. And journalists in Russia are basically a bit more free than in America, and more risk-prone.
Why not? Everybody already know that both Obama and Putin could directly authorize shoot down of a neutral civilian aircraft, or both Russian and Ukrainian (in fact also Russian) soldiers could f#ck up.
But given the quality of western "investigation" which even included obviously faked video and lack of proper expertise, and ignored certain facts, it seems much more possible that it was shoot down by Ukrainian forces.
In Old Western Civilization this thing was named "critical thinking". You know, when you try to examine all possibilities. Don't know how you call it now, in your Orwellian dystopian system. Oldthink, may be?
The spinal reflexes of the journalists: 1) It were not we; 2) They deserved it; 3) We could and probably should do much more harm. Denialism, victim-blaming and menacing, you call them nowadays, I believe.
Who knows. In Russian military forums we even discussed possibility of a US Stealth fight shoot it down by a long range air-to-air missile without being traced by Russian radars.
I don't know that it wasn't British. And given the "investigation", the simplest explanation I see, is that two citizens of Russian Federation were kidnapped and, probably, killed by the British special services. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
There are different things. First of all, it was quite open information that we are assisting in self-defence of our people in Ukraine. Both governmentally and individually. Hell, I've personally have been helping my friends from Donetsk and Mariupol (and not only there), mostly with money and expertise.
Of course, you never know, who exactly will be declared by the government as traitor and terrorist tomorrrow, but sometimes men do what should be done, whatever are risks and whatever are personal consequences for them.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #51
And, returning to the end of the non-prolifiration treaty, Russia reads it as a confirmation from Trump's administration that NPT is de facto dead, and both sides are ready to the new nuclear race and selling nukes to previously non-nuclear countries.
Of course, it's up to American people to decide if they are ready to another nuclear race, high risks of the nuclear terrorism and practical inevitability of the nuclear war in the matter of years.
Of course, it's up to American people to decide if they are ready to another nuclear race, high risks of the nuclear terrorism and practical inevitability of the nuclear war in the matter of years.
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 21,808
- 17,171
- 2,288
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 21,808
- 17,171
- 2,288
Illegal? Hahahahahahaha According to who?
So Iran's attacks on it's neighbors were illegal too.
Thanks.
Iran never does anything peacefully.
We know.
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 21,808
- 17,171
- 2,288
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 21,808
- 17,171
- 2,288
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 21,808
- 17,171
- 2,288
Time to put this idiot on ignore
- Thread starter
- #57
And who is now putting his head into his ass?
- Thread starter
- #58
According international law, of course.
Just read the definition of the word "neutrality". They weren't neutral, so attacking them was an act of self-defense.
As if it's something bad.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,402
- 16,267
- 2,180
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the presenter is able to say whatever they want. That's not what we're talking about here, and again, you're doing what you're paid to do, to be a Putin.
The only interesting thing about your post is that when I say "you're being paid by the Russian govt to be on here", you don't deny it.
Everything else is pure shit.
- Thread starter
- #60
I really couldn't care less about your personal opinion, but for the protocol: I'm not being paid for promoting here (or anywhere else) any specific point of view.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Seattle’s New Socialist Mayor Flatly Refuses to Investigate Fraud at Somali Daycare Centers
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
