Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You'd best learn these two facts:
I never lie, and I'm never wrong.
. In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification." Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to. The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites. Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site. Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves. If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.
In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/obama_and_irans_nuclear_lies.html#ixzz5nH0Ua9im
More????
“Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Iran can easily stretch out the inspection of suspect nuclear sites for three months or more.”
Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Drop back when you need another spanking.....you dunce.
You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
We prefer using the actual meaning of terms around here.
I took it directly from the dictionary.
Need me to look up "fool" for you, before you imagine (I almost said 'think') it is a complement?
Bet you want to retracts this now: "America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet,"
There are 195 nations, so your claim is that 136.5 of 'em are under hostile military occupation by the US.
Which is greater.....the number of nations, above, or the frequency with which total strangers call you an imbecile?
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
".... lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself."
There is no better explanation for your posts.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
We prefer using the actual meaning of terms around here.
I took it directly from the dictionary.
Need me to look up "fool" for you, before you imagine (I almost said 'think') it is a complement?
Bet you want to retracts this now: "America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet,"
There are 195 nations, so your claim is that 136.5 of 'em are under hostile military occupation by the US.
Which is greater.....the number of nations, above, or the frequency with which total strangers call you an imbecile?
You required a rationale for militarist aggression across the globe. Americans would soil themselves in unison were anyone to do here what we do across the globe.
I don't mind facing objective reality in Reality America. Why do you chafe at the prospect so?
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
".... lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself."
There is no better explanation for your posts.
Mam, I would be concerned if you did not lose your shit when I post.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
".... lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself."
There is no better explanation for your posts.
Mam, I would be concerned if you did not lose your shit when I post.
Repost sans the juvenile vulgarity which reveals how deeply wounded my response left you.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?
Actually no mam, this was one of those feckless attempts at a rationale I predicted above, thank you. It is quintessential american gaslighting.
America supports 73% of the dictatorships on the planet with it's military and economic warfare, but we can always couch it an "alternative" way or prop up some faux excuse. Why we can even overlook genocide, interment camps, bailing out capitalism with socialism, and refusing to prosecute our aristocracy for its patronage of child sex tracking.
America's exceptionalism lies in its ability to avoid any and all semblance of integrity and honesty with itself.
We prefer using the actual meaning of terms around here.
I took it directly from the dictionary.
Need me to look up "fool" for you, before you imagine (I almost said 'think') it is a complement?
Bet you want to retracts this now: "America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet,"
There are 195 nations, so your claim is that 136.5 of 'em are under hostile military occupation by the US.
Which is greater.....the number of nations, above, or the frequency with which total strangers call you an imbecile?
You required a rationale for militarist aggression across the globe. Americans would soil themselves in unison were anyone to do here what we do across the globe.
I don't mind facing objective reality in Reality America. Why do you chafe at the prospect so?
You're definition of 'chafe' is providing the actual definition of terms you use incorrectly?
English is my second language....
....it appears you don't have a first one.
Trump's presenting a bill to our hosting nations for the cost of our presence, if they don't want us there, they only have to refuse to pay the bill."And Iran never blocked inspections either."
I just proved the very opposite...you're simply lying.
Nope. You are lying.
It is obvious.
What Iran said is that they have the OPTION of blocking physical access for 24 days.
But they NEVER used it.
Then never once blocked any inspection access at all, ever.
And it is impossible to block IAEA inspection access because they use electronic means that can not be blocked without an obvious violation to the operation of devices.
Israel was lying and claiming violations that were not true.
The IAEA correctly ignored Israel.
Iran was never in violation, and monitoring by the IAEA was never interferred with.
You clearly are promoting the false lies Israel constantly propagates.
Failed again.
You'd best learn these two facts:
I never lie, and I'm never wrong.
. In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification." Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to. The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites. Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site. Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves. If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.
In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/obama_and_irans_nuclear_lies.html#ixzz5nH0Ua9im
More????
“Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Iran can easily stretch out the inspection of suspect nuclear sites for three months or more.”
Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Drop back when you need another spanking.....you dunce.
You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Trump's presenting a bill to our hosting nations for the cost of our presence, if they don't want us there, they only have to refuse to pay the bill.Nope. You are lying.
It is obvious.
What Iran said is that they have the OPTION of blocking physical access for 24 days.
But they NEVER used it.
Then never once blocked any inspection access at all, ever.
And it is impossible to block IAEA inspection access because they use electronic means that can not be blocked without an obvious violation to the operation of devices.
Israel was lying and claiming violations that were not true.
The IAEA correctly ignored Israel.
Iran was never in violation, and monitoring by the IAEA was never interferred with.
You clearly are promoting the false lies Israel constantly propagates.
Failed again.
You'd best learn these two facts:
I never lie, and I'm never wrong.
. In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification." Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to. The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites. Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site. Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves. If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.
In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/obama_and_irans_nuclear_lies.html#ixzz5nH0Ua9im
More????
“Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Iran can easily stretch out the inspection of suspect nuclear sites for three months or more.”
Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Drop back when you need another spanking.....you dunce.
You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
First you claim it's a "military occupation" and now you claim it's "extortion" if we don't protect them for free?Trump's presenting a bill to our hosting nations for the cost of our presence, if they don't want us there, they only have to refuse to pay the bill.You'd best learn these two facts:
I never lie, and I'm never wrong.
. In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification." Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to. The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites. Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site. Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves. If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.
In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/obama_and_irans_nuclear_lies.html#ixzz5nH0Ua9im
More????
“Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Iran can easily stretch out the inspection of suspect nuclear sites for three months or more.”
Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Drop back when you need another spanking.....you dunce.
You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Ah, extortion. So we do that with our military as well. Sounds like U.S. When America does its special brand of aggression, we have "hosts".
First you claim it's a "military occupation" and now you claim it's "extortion" if we don't protect them for free?Trump's presenting a bill to our hosting nations for the cost of our presence, if they don't want us there, they only have to refuse to pay the bill.You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Ah, extortion. So we do that with our military as well. Sounds like U.S. When America does its special brand of aggression, we have "hosts".
First you claim it's a "military occupation" and now you claim it's "extortion" if we don't protect them for free?Trump's presenting a bill to our hosting nations for the cost of our presence, if they don't want us there, they only have to refuse to pay the bill."New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Ah, extortion. So we do that with our military as well. Sounds like U.S. When America does its special brand of aggression, we have "hosts".
You're aware I'll take the risk of assuming that we support 73% of the dictatorships on the planet?
Fweedumb.
What's your point?First you claim it's a "military occupation" and now you claim it's "extortion" if we don't protect them for free?Trump's presenting a bill to our hosting nations for the cost of our presence, if they don't want us there, they only have to refuse to pay the bill."New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Ah, extortion. So we do that with our military as well. Sounds like U.S. When America does its special brand of aggression, we have "hosts".
You're aware I'll take the risk of assuming that we support 73% of the dictatorships on the planet?
Fweedumb.
6. One must be willfully blind to the anti-Semitism of Hussein Obama and his Democrats to pretend to be unable to connect these dots:
June 4, 2009 President Obama condemns Israeli settlements in the West Bank as “occupation” during his famous Arab outreach speech in Cairo, Egypt.
March 23, 2010 President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; presents him with 13 demands; abruptly leaves room after disagreement over Jewish settlements; no customary photo op.
May 19, 2011: Barack Obama becomes the first United States president to officially endorse a two-state division of Israel based on its pre-1967 borders.
March 2012 High-level sources reveal that the Obama administration allegedly leaked Israel’s secret relationship with Azerbaijan, where Israeli planes could refuel for an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
September 11, 2012 President Obama refuses to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu during the Israeli leader’s visit to the United States.
March 21, 2013: Obama visits Israel; refuses invitation to speak before Knesset; speaks to students about Israel’s “foreign army” in Palestinian territory; says, “It’s not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own.”
March 2015: U.S. State Department attempts to oust Netanyahu from power by funding an opposition political group in Israel with $349,276.
April 6, 2015: President Obama says in an interview that Iran’s recognition of Israel will not be a precondition of the Iran nuclear agreement.
January 16, 2016: President Obama lifts economic sanctions against Iran, opening the path for an Iranian nuclear bomb.
January 19, 2016 U.S. supports EU regulation requiring goods originating in the West Bank to be labeled separately from those made in the rest of Israel.
September 2016: White House publishes a transcript with a speech location as Jerusalem, Israel, then republishes it with a strike through the name “Israel.”
December 23, 2016 President Obama’s United Nations ambassador breaks a decades-long diplomatic precedent and allows a Security Council resolution to pass that condemns Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.
January 20, 2017: In his final hours as president, Mr. Obama gives $221 million to the Palestinian Authority. Two House Republicans had placed a hold on the money due to concerns about the PA, but the president did not honor the hold." A Shameful Record Against Israel
A Shameful Record Against Israel
7. Now, Trump:
"Mr. Pompeo made two revolutionary assertions in his statement. First, he said that “after carefully studying all sides of the legal debate,” like the Reagan administration before it, the Trump administration has concluded, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.”
Second, Mr. Pompeo noted, the near ubiquitousness of the false assertion that settlements are illegal has not advanced the prospects for peace. To the contrary, it has harmed the chances of getting to peace. In his words, “calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law has not advanced the cause of peace.”
Exposing The Neo-Jews
The Left supports Iran because Iran wants to destroy the Jewish State.
FIGHT THE POWER: Claiming ‘pervasive, college-sponsored anti-Semitism,’ Horowitz preps lawsuit against Pitzer, Pomona.
Pomona and Pitzer college leaders are facing the threat of litigation over anti-Semitism at their schools.
An attorney for the David Horowitz Freedom Center sent the private institutions a 5-page demand letter on Feb. 3 alleging a history of anti-Semitism at the two colleges and demanding it come to a stop. The letter accuses campus officials of “ambivalence toward — and even support and funding of — anti-Semitic hate group events and activities” in violation of Title VI.
"The Claremont Colleges have made it clear that they refuse to address their funding and support of anti-Semitism on campus and that they are unwilling to take steps to remedy this illegal discrimination. Therefore we are planning a lawsuit against them,” Horowitz stated.
The legal demand letter had noted the accusations of anti-Semitism are serious given President Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order, signed December 2019, that clarified that federal laws protect against discrimination of Jewish people. Trump, in signing the order, warned colleges and universities could lose federal funding if they ignore anti-Semitism on campus.
The two colleges promote BDS, “the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign against Israel on American campuses.” It also alleges violent threats against a Jewish leader on campus, eviction notices targeted at Jewish students, chants against the Jewish community on campus, and the theft of a prayer box from a Jewish student’s dorm room.
The letter claims “discriminatory exclusion of Jewish students from voting against BDS as a result of a vote by the Pitzer College Student Senate deliberately scheduled for the Jewish holiday of Passover” and “a vote by the Pitzer College Council, a governing body consisting of students, faculty and staff, to impose the Hamas-funded and anti-Semitic BDS movement on the College by suspending the study abroad program at the University of Haifa in Israel.”
The letter also cites an incident sponsored by the colleges in November 2019 during which a pro-Palestine filmmaker called a Jewish student journalist a “white nationalist” at the college-sponsored event.
Horowitz stated the two colleges’ responses provide “zero evidence of any effort to curb the malicious Jew hatred that has inundated their schools. Meanwhile, the Colleges continue to fund and provide campus privileges to a terrorist-funded and terror-supporting organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, whose sole purpose is to spread Jew hatred on campus.”
“…The Claremont Colleges are funding anti-Semitism and providing campus privileges to Jew-haters who spread genocidal lies about Jews and Israel. Yet when we have attempted to confront the Colleges about these actions, they respond with platitudes and falsely deny any responsibility or wrongdoing. For these reasons, a lawsuit is merited.”
Horowitz’s attorney is Harmeet Dhillon, vice president of the Republican National Lawyers Association and a contributor to Fox News.
The two colleges targeted by Horowitz are part of the Claremont consortium, a cluster of five private colleges in Southern California consisting of Pomona, Scripps, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd and Pitzer colleges.
They feel commonality with anyone that hates us and wants to destroy us.The Left supports Iran because Iran wants to destroy the Jewish State.
FIGHT THE POWER: Claiming ‘pervasive, college-sponsored anti-Semitism,’ Horowitz preps lawsuit against Pitzer, Pomona.
Pomona and Pitzer college leaders are facing the threat of litigation over anti-Semitism at their schools.
An attorney for the David Horowitz Freedom Center sent the private institutions a 5-page demand letter on Feb. 3 alleging a history of anti-Semitism at the two colleges and demanding it come to a stop. The letter accuses campus officials of “ambivalence toward — and even support and funding of — anti-Semitic hate group events and activities” in violation of Title VI.
"The Claremont Colleges have made it clear that they refuse to address their funding and support of anti-Semitism on campus and that they are unwilling to take steps to remedy this illegal discrimination. Therefore we are planning a lawsuit against them,” Horowitz stated.
The legal demand letter had noted the accusations of anti-Semitism are serious given President Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order, signed December 2019, that clarified that federal laws protect against discrimination of Jewish people. Trump, in signing the order, warned colleges and universities could lose federal funding if they ignore anti-Semitism on campus.
The two colleges promote BDS, “the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign against Israel on American campuses.” It also alleges violent threats against a Jewish leader on campus, eviction notices targeted at Jewish students, chants against the Jewish community on campus, and the theft of a prayer box from a Jewish student’s dorm room.
The letter claims “discriminatory exclusion of Jewish students from voting against BDS as a result of a vote by the Pitzer College Student Senate deliberately scheduled for the Jewish holiday of Passover” and “a vote by the Pitzer College Council, a governing body consisting of students, faculty and staff, to impose the Hamas-funded and anti-Semitic BDS movement on the College by suspending the study abroad program at the University of Haifa in Israel.”
The letter also cites an incident sponsored by the colleges in November 2019 during which a pro-Palestine filmmaker called a Jewish student journalist a “white nationalist” at the college-sponsored event.
Horowitz stated the two colleges’ responses provide “zero evidence of any effort to curb the malicious Jew hatred that has inundated their schools. Meanwhile, the Colleges continue to fund and provide campus privileges to a terrorist-funded and terror-supporting organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, whose sole purpose is to spread Jew hatred on campus.”
“…The Claremont Colleges are funding anti-Semitism and providing campus privileges to Jew-haters who spread genocidal lies about Jews and Israel. Yet when we have attempted to confront the Colleges about these actions, they respond with platitudes and falsely deny any responsibility or wrongdoing. For these reasons, a lawsuit is merited.”
Horowitz’s attorney is Harmeet Dhillon, vice president of the Republican National Lawyers Association and a contributor to Fox News.
The two colleges targeted by Horowitz are part of the Claremont consortium, a cluster of five private colleges in Southern California consisting of Pomona, Scripps, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd and Pitzer colleges.
How about 'the Left supports Iran' because the Left hates America?
