Europe, "Constructive Dialogue", Engagement and Jihad

[Canajew]

Report: Iran establishes unit to recruit suicide bombers

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

Iran has set up a new unit to recruit suicide bombers from around the world, the London-based Arabic newspaper A-Shark al-Awsat reported Friday.

According to the report, the secretary-general of the new unit began by drawing up a list of names of people who support suicide attacks in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

The newspaper reported that the bureau, called "The martyrs of the resurrection of the Islamic world," replaces a unit of the Iranian Republican Guard, which was known as the "department for the revolutionary freedom movements."

Those behind the establishment of the unit are extremist Islamists members of the Iranian regime, the report claims, who are opposed to the moderate steps taken by President Mohammed Khatami.

these are the people Europe is trying to appease, and this will get no play there. They will pretend such a threat does not exist.

And this is another indicator that in the modern age, with information so freely disseminable and communications so easy, containment of a pathological genocidal ideology like Islamofacism, which, as can be seen by the number of non-Arabic formerly non-Muslim (i.e. converts) who are among the most active in the Jihad, is not likely to be a successful strategy.

The disaffected and disenfranchised and just plain antisocial among western target societies are already being "turned to the dark side" as it were, and the left in America and the mainstream in Europe is prepared to stand indolently by and let it happen, or to actively facilitate in its spread.

A country that sets up a "suicide bomber" division, which presumably would target civilians as readily as anything else, IS a terrorist state, and even though the Europeans are prepared to ignore the terrorism that Iran sponsors in Israel and on its borders (which is ABJECTLY DISGUSTING in and of itself - Olivier, I am talking to you) the fact that they could start a world-wide recruitment effort for such attoricties cannot be tolerated by any in the free world.

George Bush may be a simpleton. I think he probably is a simpleton. But when he said "if you are not with us you are with the terrorists", he was bang on (even if he didn't mean to be or didn't arive at that using the correct analytical approach).

Europe's support of Iran, its coddling of it while ignoring its rush to develop nuclear weapons, which many in Europe secretly want, its willful blindness to the attrocities committed using Iranian resources in Israel, its ignoring of the fact that Iran does all it can to DESTABILIZE the Israeli-Palestinain conflict, working AGAINST the peace Europe nominally says it wants, and its efforts to undermine American initiatives in the war on terror (rather than trying to modify policy, it just tries to obstruct) makes it, effectively, objectively against us.

I guess the real question to ask is Why? I sort of know why, with the self interest and the trauma of world war and the willingness to appease at all costs, but why don't they SEE, and what can be done to make them?

[KSO]

So... Why Iran is waking up? Why all the modernisation steps taken in the last decade were stopped and Iran is back on the road to a very extreme country?
the Irani Ayattollas noticed the fact George Bush is realising their dream of Shiiti Iraq, They know that in the next 5-10 years The US will be so much buisy in Iraq that they can do virtually anything they want, they can fund global terrorism (including of course Hizbollah) they can acquire WMDs, they can neglect all human rights on their terroitory and the US won't do nothing.
Iran is definately a factor that was not considered by the Bush administration before beginning the war, and all of us can pay for this mistake.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/may/05_28_1.html

TURKEY COULD TURN TO NUKES AFTER IRAN


LONDON [MENL] -- Turkey could quickly assemble atomic bombs should Iran achieve nuclear weapons capability.

Leading analysts said Turkey could be one of several Middle East states that could launch a crash nuclear weapons program if its Iranian neighbor achieves such capability. The other countries likely to turn nuclear after Iran include Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Turkey has been a NATO member for more than 50 years. But the analysts said NATO was not structured to defend Turkey from a nuclear Iran.

"Were Turkey to decide that it had to proliferate to defend itself, it has good industrial and scientific infrastructures which it could draw upon to build nuclear weapons on its own," Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute, wrote in an analysis. "It would be difficult to prevent a determined Turkey from building nuclear weapons in well under a decade."



___________________________

Note there is a vast amount of anecdotal information on the web about a Turkish nuclear weapons program including CANDU (Canadian reactor program).

BTW Turkey was one of the first sites where American atomic missiles were based outside the USA. And as the article above notes is a NATO member.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by KSO

Iran is definately a factor that was not considered by the Bush administration before beginning the war, and all of us can pay for this mistake.

You are very wrong. Iran and Syria were and are very much considered. Since you made the insinuation, I'll leave it up to you to cite your sources and proof, and then I'll counter it.

[KSO]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
You are very wrong. Iran and Syria were and are very much considered. Since you made the insinuation, I'll leave it up to you to cite your sources and proof, and then I'll counter it.

Well.. what is done with Iran (Syria is to pathetic to be a factor even in syrian politics)
Why nonthing hasn't been done in februar when Iran's Ayatollahs stole the elections by banning all moderate candidates?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by KSO
So... Why Iran is waking up? Why all the modernisation steps taken in the last decade were stopped and Iran is back on the road to a very extreme country?


your analysis is simplistic. The anti-progress crowd were making "progress" long before the American invasion of Iraq. They are, and have always been in positions of power and authority. They allowed some semblances of liberalization becasue they believed it would allow them to maintain control with a minimum amount of disruption. But they were not particularly close to free and open elections and equal rights for women and an end to international terroism. they just weren't.

But you are right. The American actions in Iraq have emboldened them. but not directly. They are emboldened because they perceive European "even handedness" will allow them to get away with it. And European "even handedness" (being a skew to the Islamists) has been strengthened by their opposition to the war and their subsequent willingness to piss into the wind if they thought it would be counter to what America wants.

So Iran sees it can pursue nuclear weapons without sanction, that it can continue to sponsor terrorism against the new Europeran boogey-man, Israel (replacing the old European boogeyman, the Jew), and that it can roll bakc any sembalnces of advancements on human rights and there will be no consequences, as the Europeans would not even conceivably act in a way they think the Americans would want them to. This also explains Syria's intransigence, for if the Europeans would have supported the American position, which is extremely well founded, that Syria is an occupying power and that it is a sponsor of foreign terrorism, the Syrians would have had to deal with it. But the Europeans did not, and so Syria can go on being a corrupt, backwards authoritarian police state.

And the Europeans can go on pretending they are all high and mighty and the most moral people in the world and all that BS while they continue to spout against American imperialism and support for oppression at the same time as they take the side of oppressors and aggressors against their own people and against a nation like Israel just trying to defend itself from Iranian missiles and Syrian terrorism.


the Irani Ayattollas noticed the fact George Bush is realising their dream of Shiiti Iraq, They know that in the next 5-10 years The US will be so much buisy in Iraq that they can do virtually anything they want, they can fund global terrorism (including of course Hizbollah) they can acquire WMDs, they can neglect all human rights on their terroitory and the US won't do nothing.
Iran is definately a factor that was not considered by the Bush administration before beginning the war, and all of us can pay for this mistake.

so in your view Europe is irrelevant? I have been saying something similar for a while now, that if the US wants something doen with enough resolve, it gets done, or at least an attempt gets made, while if the US doesn't care (like in Rwanda), no other country or group of countries will stand up and affect change. Europe may have power, but it is completely unwilling to use it, which means that it has no ability to affect change merely through the intimation of force rather than actually having to use it. The US didn't have to use force in Lybia to affect change, it just hadto convince Lybia that it might.

The Europeans will never be able to convince anyone that it might possibly use force, because of the way it act and the appeasement policy it has followed which has been such a miserable failure over the past few decades.

But it is an open question of whether it would have been better to deal with Iran or Syria before Iraq. I will not pretend I have the answer, and I believe there are fairly strong arguments that either Iran or Syria should have been dealt with first.

But as of right now, the Iranian people are fairly well disposed to the US. As such, the Americans should do all they can to work for the subversion of that govenrment and the overthrow of that government by the people under its control. And of course this is made far more difficult by the misguided and harmful policies of the Europeans, preaching engagement and cooperation with the Iranian theocratic oppressors and ideological Islamofacists.

Once again, Europe is disgusting in all this, but I still am not entirely sure why. I can't reason out their end game. What do they expect will come out of all this? Everybody holding hands and singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" or some other BS like that? How is making it easier for dictators and tyrants to maintain control over their population and commit acts of terrorism abroad supposed to make the world a safer place? Olivier?

[KSO]

Originally posted by Canajew



so in your view Europe is irrelevant?

In the ME Yes, has anything happened when they oppose Israel's actions, or has anyone seriously thought of EU as mediators between Israel and the Palestinians? No, Most europeans were against the Iraq war, has it helped to prevent it? No.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
In the ME Yes, has anything happened when they oppose Israel's actions, or has anyone seriously thought of EU as mediators between Israel and the Palestinians? No, Most europeans were against the Iraq war, has it helped to prevent it? No.

When the West is divided, it makes all of us weaker.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mira
When the West is divided, it makes all of us weaker.

completely agree, and this is the point.

As I said in another thread, which got Olivier's panties all in a bunch (proverbially speaking, whether it did so literally is beyond the scope of my knowledge) the french, and Europe too, is pretty much incapable of doing anything on their own, but they are in a position to screw things up for others - to make it more difficult or impossible for the US and her real allies to affect the sorts of changes that are necessary to address real threats.

and this makes us all weaker, for even as Europe pretends it doesn't need the US or it is secure independent of the US or that its interests do not closely track American interests, it is just a fiction. For while American security does not ensure Europe's, if America is unsuccessful in its efforts there will be no way for Europe to protect itself.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by KSO
In the ME Yes, has anything happened when they oppose Israel's actions, or has anyone seriously thought of EU as mediators between Israel and the Palestinians? No, Most europeans were against the Iraq war, has it helped to prevent it? No.

your myopic perspective has made you overlook an important factor. The only way for the conflict to EVER end is for the Palestinaisn to stop wanting and trying to destroy Israel. And this will only happen when the Palestinaisn realize they have lost, they cannot win, and that giving up on their maximalist demands and trying to actually build their own future and their own functional society (and good luck with that, incidentally) is the only way to go. And as long as they get moral and financial support from Europe, and as long as Europe is prepared to ignore the abject depravity of the Palestinaisn, their society, their culture and their practices, and as long as it is prepared to chastize Israel at every opportunity and make it more difficult for Israel to do what is necessary to protect itself (as in Rafah last weeK) the Palestinaisn will not be driven to the only conclusion which would make them stop.

So again, while the Europeans are not capable of ending the conflict, their policy IS successful at making the conflict more intractible, by providing the Palestinaisn with moral and financial support, by making them think victory is not out of the question, and by circumscribing Israel's ability to deter Palestinian agression.

So Europe is not irrelevant, in fact they are one of the driving forces behind the continuation of the conflict. And every condemnation of Israel that they come out with, every biased statement that ignores palestinain depravity but lends credibility to the lies and distortions of the Palestinains, every dollar they give to the PA while throwing up roadblocks to accountability, transparency and NGOs that would monitor Palestinian barbarity, only makes the likelihhod of the conflcit continuing greater.

The Palestinains are like little bully children, sneaking up and attacking other kids and then quickly scurrying back behind their mothers' dresses, and Europe is like the mother who will lash out at those comming to deter the Pallestinains no matter what, which only further entrenches the behaviour of the bully. Unless the bully gets whipped a few times, and knows it will be whipped whenever it engages in bullying, it will never stop.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Canajew
your myopic perspective has made you overlook an important factor. The only way for the conflict to EVER end is for the Palestinaisn to stop wanting and trying to destroy Israel. And this will only happen when the Palestinaisn realize they have lost, they cannot win, and that giving up on their maximalist demands and trying to actually build their own future and their own functional society (and good luck with that, incidentally) is the only way to go. And as long as they get moral and financial support from Europe, and as long as Europe is prepared to ignore the abject depravity of the Palestinaisn, their society, their culture and their practices, and as long as it is prepared to chastize Israel at every opportunity and make it more difficult for Israel to do what is necessary to protect itself (as in Rafah last weeK) the Palestinaisn will not be driven to the only conclusion which would make them stop.

So again, while the Europeans are not capable of ending the conflict, their policy IS successful at making the conflict more intractible, by providing the Palestinaisn with moral and financial support, by making them think victory is not out of the question, and by circumscribing Israel's ability to deter Palestinian agression.

So Europe is not irrelevant, in fact they are one of the driving forces behind the continuation of the conflict. And every condemnation of Israel that they come out with, every biased statement that ignores palestinain depravity but lends credibility to the lies and distortions of the Palestinains, every dollar they give to the PA while throwing up roadblocks to accountability, transparency and NGOs that would monitor Palestinian barbarity, only makes the likelihhod of the conflcit continuing greater.

The Palestinains are like little bully children, sneaking up and attacking other kids and then quickly scurrying back behind their mothers' dresses, and Europe is like the mother who will lash out at those comming to deter the Pallestinains no matter what, which only further entrenches the behaviour of the bully. Unless the bully gets whipped a few times, and knows it will be whipped whenever it engages in bullying, it will never stop.

Exactly. Arafat only agreed to Oslo when the Soviet Union lost the cold war (in english he agreed, in arabic he explained that it was nothing more than a hudna to save face to the other Arabs and we saw that he meant every word he spoke to the Arabs in practice throughout the Oslo years). The Arabs took the wrong side and when their super-power collapsed, Arafat changed tactics from his former position at Khartoum and accepted the life-line that Rabin threw to him.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mira
Exactly. Arafat only agreed to Oslo when the Soviet Union lost the cold war (in english he agreed, in arabic he explained that it was nothing more than a hudna to save face to the other Arabs and we saw that he meant every word he spoke to the Arabs in practice throughout the Oslo years). The Arabs took the wrong side and when their super-power collapsed, Arafat changed tactics from his former position at Khartoum and accepted the life-line that Rabin threw to him.

Not accurate, Israel understood after the Big "Aliya" From Russia, that still demographiclly the Palestinians are winning, also Israel's economy was pretty much stuck, Rabin understood that foreign investments are needed and the condition that many countries set up was peace process with the Palestinians.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
Not accurate, Israel understood after the Big "Aliya" From Russia, that still demographiclly the Palestinians are winning, also Israel's economy was pretty much stuck, Rabin understood that foreign investments are needed and the condition that many countries set up was peace process with the Palestinians.

Oh come on, KSO. Russian aliya was still going strong in 1993. It was strong all the way up through 1999. The negotitations were conducted in complete secrecy in Norway. Not only did the Arabs lose their backing from the former Soviet Union, but Arafat did a lot of damage himself to the PLO, isolating himself from the Arab block by taking Saddam Hussein's side in his claim to Kuwait.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by KSO
Not accurate, Israel understood after the Big "Aliya" From Russia, that still demographiclly the Palestinians are winning, also Israel's economy was pretty much stuck, Rabin understood that foreign investments are needed and the condition that many countries set up was peace process with the Palestinians.

irrelevant. the issue was why the Palestinians were prepared to pretend to give up the clauses in their charter and the struggle for the destruction of Israel. they only agreed to this because they felt marginalized and cornered and had to do this in order to have any hoipe of anything. if they stiull had soviet backing and felt this suppoort would allow them to continue, they would not have agreed to even pretend to agree to Oslo.

focussing on why Israel agreed to Oslo is missing the point entirely. it is a separate issue.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Canajew
these are the people Europe is trying to appease
Ain't it the truth!

EU dhimmitude from Chris Patten (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002063.php)

The Rt. Hon. Chris Patten, the European Union's External Relations Commissioner, is ready to acknowledge that there may indeed be a clash of civilizations going on — but of course, it's the West's fault. He engages in every kind of moral and theological equivalence, trashing the West's history while exalting Islam's. Of course, he never deals with the theology and legal structure of jihad and dhimmitude, which threatens the West today, and for which there is no parallel in Western religious traditions.

Part of Patten's problem is that he seems to think that one cannot and must not fight a moral evil if one can be convicted of any evil in turn. But that would have made it impossible for Britain to resist Hitler; the Nazis could and did point to the sins of British colonialism, hoping to steal the moral high ground. They couldn't, because the society they built was objectively evil, regardless of the sins of others. Of course the West should clean house, but becoming a conglomeration of Sharia states is not the way to do it. Both reform and resistance can and should be undertaken.

From a speech he gave last Monday at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, with thanks to John Eibner:

If Samuel Huntington were a share, he would today be what market tipsters call a strong buy. That is bad news, because the clash of civilisations, which he predicted in his essay for “Foreign Affairs” in 1993, at the moment casts a gibbet’s shadow over the prospects for liberal order around the world. Depressingly, witlessly, we have to a great extent shaped our own disaster-in-waiting. ...
Oh, to have been the publisher of Professor Bernard Lewis, sage of Princeton. I admit to a personal debt to his scholarship. I have enjoyed, and I hope, learned from a number of his books.

But I have started to worry as I read on from “What Went Wrong?” to “The Crisis of Islam” that I am being carefully pointed in a particular direction, lined up before the fingerprints, the cosh, the swag bag and the rest of the evidence. “Most Muslims”, he tells us in “The Crisis of Islam”, “are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are not terrorists, but most present-day terrorists are Muslims and proudly identify themselves as such”. Well, yes - and it’s a sentence that resonates in parts of the policy-making community in Washington. But what if I had tried a similar formulation on some of these same policy makers just after the IRA bombed Harrods in London: “Most Catholics are not extremist Irish republicans, and most extreme republicans are not terrorists, but most terrorists in Britain today are Catholic and proudly identify themselves as such”. I suspect that it is not a sentence that would have increased my circle of admirers in America, not because it is wrong but because it is so loaded with an agenda. Anyway, what we have been taught is that there is a rage in the Islamic world - in part the result of history and humiliation - which fuels hostility to America and to Europe too, home of past crusaders and present infidel feudatories of the Great Satan. Clash go the civilisations.

There are many ways of coming at this issue, but I wish myself to be rather prosaic. I will not therefore deal with the religious arguments, leaving them to retired archbishops and other distinguished theologians, only noting in doing so that according to a “Sunday Times” survey in January, more Muslims attend a place of worship in the UK each week than Anglicans. ...


Oh! Well, in that case they have the moral high ground!

As for the present religious, ethnic or civilisational nature of our European club, there are probably about 12 million Muslims living in Western Europe, approaching four million in France, two and a half million in Germany, one and three quarter million here. Their religion is the fastest growing in the world. They practice it in Europe in a union of nation states formed out of the bloody wreckage of the 20th century. Our recent history of gas chambers and gulags, our Christian heritage of flagrant or more discreet anti-Semitism, do not entitle us to address the Islamic world as though we dwelt on a higher plane, custodians of a superior set of moral values. Our prejudices may be rock solid but our pulpits are made of straw.

What of this Islamic world which allegedly confronts our own civilisation? It is sometimes forgotten that three quarters of its 1.2 billion citizens live beyond the countries of the Arab League, in for example the democracies of Malaysia, Indonesia and India. Asian Muslim societies have their share of problems, not least dealing with pockets of extremism, but it is ludicrous to generalise about an Islamic anger engulfing countries from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific shores.

If we focus on a narrower range of Arab countries - the Magreb, the Mashreq, the Gulf, the countries in the cock-pit of current struggle and dissent - what do we find? In 2002, the Arab Thought Foundation commissioned a survey by Zogby International of attitudes in eight countries - Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. They questioned 3,800 people and their results confirmed other similar if not identical surveys, for example by the Pew Research Centre. What is pretty clear is that, like Americans or Europeans, Arabs are most concerned about matters of personal security, fulfilment and satisfaction. Perhaps it is a surprise that they do not appear to hate our Western values, and their cultural emanations - democracy, freedom, education, movies, television. Sad to say their favourite T.V. programme is “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” Other survey evidence underlines this point about the most significant values. The Second Arab Human Development Report published in 2003 - I shall return to its predecessor later - quotes from the World Values Survey which shows that Arabs top the world in believing that democracy is the best form of government. They are way ahead of Europeans and Americans, and three times as likely to hold this view as East Asians.

There is not much sign of a clash of values here. The problem seems to be rather simpler. The Arab world does not mind American and European values, but it cannot stand American policies and by extension the same policies when embraced or tolerated by Europeans. So the Arab world holds very negative opinions of the United States and the United Kingdom (even while holding, according to the same survey, positive views about American freedom and democracy). Why is the U.K. in this pit of unpopularity? Partly I suppose because of what we are seen to do, and partly because of what we are silent about. I don’t know how widely St Thomas More is read in Arab lands but “qui tacet consentire videtur” is true everywhere. Perhaps it cheers us to discover that France comes best out of these surveys, scoring very positive ratings, as do Japan, Germany and Canada.


Of course, Patten plumps for Palestinian rights, with apparently no awareness of the fact that many decent people have been soured on this issue by the relentless suicide bombings and targeting of civilians.

The treatment of the Palestinians is one of four areas of policy where the approach we pursue in America and Europe could abate or exacerbate Arab hostility, and build rather than burn bridges between the West and the whole of the Islamic world. ...

He also so thoroughly misunderstands the causes of terrorism that I wonder if he has ever read a single communique from Osama bin Laden, a single line of the Qur'an, or any other pertinent material:

Today’s terrorism by Islamic groups, able through the advance of technology to shatter civilised order through terrible acts of destruction, seems closer to the anarchists than to the gun-toting politicians, for instance the ones I myself know best who were notorious for their ability to carry both a ballot box and an Armalite. The ideas that sustain Usama Bin Laden and those who think like him, not all of them the members of a spectacularly sophisticated network of evil, but nonetheless fellow-believers in a loose confederation of dark prejudices, can hardly be dignified with the description of a sophisticated political manifesto. They do not travel far beyond the old graffiti “Yankee, Go Home”. But they do represent a form of political, social and cultural alienation, which we should seek to comprehend.

Etc. etc. etc. Ultimately, you see, it all comes down to Western policy. If we would just be nicer to them, if we would just give them what they want, all this terrorism will stop. Alas, Neville Chamberlain thought that too. Maybe sometime, somewhere, during the Ottoman conquests of Christian land after Christian land, some forefather of Chamberlain and Patten thought so too, and ventured out boldly to make a deal with the invaders. If so, his name is not recorded for history — such a man would only have ended up dead or numbered among the humiliated, anonymous dhimmis.

[Canajew]

Iran warns IAEA against unfavorable assessment
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHRAN, Iran

Iran said Sunday it expected the International Atomic Energy Agency to end scrutiny of its disputed nuclear activities, warning that continued cooperation depended on a positive assessment by the nuclear body.

"Considering Iran's complete and transparent cooperation, we expect the IAEA to close its file on Iran as soon as possible," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei plans to present an assessment of Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA board of governors in June. Asefi indicated that an unfavorable assessment would jeopardize further cooperation.

"It can't be that Iran cooperates but does not get cooperation in return," Asefi said.

"Iran has extended all possible cooperation to IAEA inspectors, even though there has never been anything to hide," he said in his weekly press briefing.

The United States and other nations accuse Iran of running a covert program to develop nuclear weapons and is pushing the United Nations to impose sanctions.

Iran has rejected U.S. allegations, saying its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity.

Asefi reiterated Iranian demands that European nations fulfill commitments made to Iran that its nuclear activities would be assessed fairly in return for cooperation with the IAEA.

Asefi said previous comments by President Mohammad Khatami warning that Iran could not continue unilateral cooperation with the IAEA did not mean Tehran was threatening to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"We are witnessing some pressures on IAEA meaning that Iran's case will not be closed in the next meeting. So we expect influential countries and IAEA to listen to reality," Asefi said.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said there was no reason for Iran to continue cooperation unilaterally in the nuclear dispute and suggested Tehran would resume uranium enrichment "if necessary" if the IAEA gives in to pressures from the United States.

Concerns over Iran's nuclear program mounted after IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at two Iranian sites. Iran said the uranium was already on materials imported from abroad.

Inspectors have also discovered an advanced P-2 centrifuge program that Iran had not reported to the U.N. agency.

Iran agreed last year, under international pressure, to suspend uranium enrichment and allow intrusive inspection of its nuclear facilities.

Earlier this month, Iran delivered a 1,000-page report that it said provides "all the information" the agency needs to draw a full picture.


another perfect exapmle - either say we are cooperating or we will stop pretending to cooperate. This whole leectriucity generation things is an obvious and completely transparent lie. Is Europe honestly this stupid? Will they appopgize to the wrold when Iran finally develops nuclear weapons, or will they just blame that on the Jews too?