9 ms·

No, we are the aggressors here and I remain highly skeptical that Iran is even trying to do develop nuclear weapons. All the news outlets that speak English are

No, we are the aggressors here and I remain highly skeptical that Iran is even trying to do develop nuclear weapons. All the news outlets that speak English are biased as hell on this. If you want real news instead of propaganda you have to watch RT or Al Jazeera. Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran.

berntb 14y ago
Do these media also, like Iran and the Arab world, support Sudan and claim that HRW etc are conspiracies about the mass murder and mass rapes? (It would be easy to continue with examples like this.) Edit: A karma 33 account. I've probably been trolled.
talmand 14y ago
I've always felt that in one way or another, everyone involved is an aggressor. This is the real problem, most won't take a step back to break the cycle. Any news outlet that openly condemns any nation is biased and is propaganda for whatever agenda. A news agency should be just reporting the news so the viewer can decide their feelings on the nations that the reports are about. Now if Al Jazeera wants to have that stance, then that's fine as long as everyone understands what it is that they are doing. I have not seen any solid proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons but I have to assume that they are. It is what nations do, they will build what they feel is necessary to protect their interests. If the nations around them have nuclear weapons then most likely they feel the need to have them as well.
andylei 14y ago
>> Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran. you know, its possible that the US, Israel, AND Iran are all doing bad things. just because Iran is not being condemned by a some media organizations does not mean it has any meaningful high ground. why are you skeptical that iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons? if they weren't, why would they be developing secret enrichment facilities? why would "The IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution[186] by a vote of 32–2 that expressed "deep and increasing concern" over the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" (from wikipedia)? and more importantly, israel and the us are clearly concerned about iranian nuclear weapons development. it seems as if private intelligence lines up with public intelligence. why are you so confident that everybody else is wrong and you are right?
- jpxxx 14y ago
  It is a stone cold, dead in the ground for a decade, crystalline clear FACT that Iran has no nuclear weapon manufacturing program, and no plausible capacity to engage in one in the near future. Period, full stop, end telegram. Armed with this certainty, you can now begin to answer the rest of your questions for yourself.
  - irishcoffee 14y ago
    So, I heard the world is flat.
    - jpxxx 14y ago
      And I heard there's an organization called the IAEA that's unaffiliated with any particular nation-state that's been at the center of this extremely contentious global issue that would agree with exactly what I said, because that's exactly what they're saying, so uh, enjoy your limp sarcasm.
      - underdown 14y ago
        Not having sufficient evidence to prove something is happening is not quite the same thing as proving it isn't happening.
        jpxxx 14y ago
        Let me be clear: there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has nuclear weapons in its possession. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has had an organized nuclear weapons development program for the last nine years. There is some evidence that there was a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. This is where you start discussing things: with reality and facts. I am insulted that these facts I am offering are being downvoted ten miles deep when hundreds of millions of lives are affected by the outcome of this prove-a-negative "debate".
        14y ago
gaius 14y ago
So here's the thing with news: it's expensive to run a news operation, and almost impossible to make any money doing it, since there is so much competition. All serious news operations get their funding elsewhere. The BBC is funded by the UK taxpayer (and thus behaves like a branch of the civil service). Reuters is funded by its financial services wing (the point of it is to provide news to traders, who will then trade via Reuters). Al-Jazeera is funded by the local Sheikh. Once you understand this, all the inherent biases become obvious.
- corin_ 14y ago
  Slight correction: The BBC is not funded by taxpayers, but TV license payers, that is to say by people who chose to watch TV. While I won't argue that the BBC doesn't have biases, they aren't as simple as "like a branch of the civil service".
technoslut 14y ago
Much of the news is based on propaganda and assumptions. >No, we are the aggressors here and I remain highly skeptical that Iran is even trying to do develop nuclear weapons. You may believe that but it doesn't make it so. There was a recent story about how UN inspectors found traces of uranium that were enriched higher than they were supposed to be for civilian purposes.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  140kg of uranium was enriched to 20% isotope purity for ostensible use in a medical isotope reactor. That's a civilian purpose. Weaponized uranium requires 85% isotope purity.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
Yes, they bought all those centrifuges to make smoothies. {sarc}
Symmetry 14y ago
Having the same uncritical acceptance of what a news outfit prints - but for a different news outfit from the people around - doesn't make you better, just different.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Al Jazeera has always had an anti-US/Israel bent, and they have always made that pretty clear. So, while they might provide useful coverage of the issue, it seems to me who them condemn and who they do not may not be the final, unbiased say in the matter...
Karunamon 14y ago
>If you want real news instead of propaganda you have to watch RT or Al Jazeera. Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran. You realize that both RT and AJ Arabic are very, very anti-US biased? Especially RT?
- tkahn6 14y ago
  They're also state-funded media outlets. RT by Putin's political structure, Al Jazeera by the Qatari Monarchy.
factorizer 14y ago
Iranian officials repeatedly denied the right of existence of Israel. As a German who at least tries to learn something from history, these are signals i can not ignore. Also, from my point of view, the political system of Israel and the way its society works, is something worth fighting for. Whereas the political system of Iran is something worth fighting against. Ask any Iranian, who is not brainwashed and wants to live a life not controlled by religious nutcases.
- Wrap 14y ago
  Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany? That's a blatant strawman in no need of answering, and for being a German it looks like you learned the wrong lesson; it's ok for someone to victimize others because they were once the victims? Also, what do you mean by "the political system of Israel and the way it's society works, is something worth fighting for"? A political system & way of life built on the subjugation of a people, stealing their land and turning millions of them into refugees, all justified by a religious belief that their deity gave them that land over 2000 years ago? Iran's political system has major problems, but at least they didn't emigrate from Europe to kill and drive a people off their own land and claim it as their own cuz the old testament said it was their's..
  - factorizer 14y ago
    I think some points of clarification are in order: I do not compare Iran to Nazi Germany, this would mean to deny the uniqueness of the holocaust in human history. I meant, as a German I have a moral obligation to support Israel in its fight for existance. If officials of another country talk about wiping Israel from the map, i get suspicious. You don't? I hope not. To state, that Israels political system is built on the subjugation of a people is really rather shallow and a grave simplification. What you, Wrap, say, sounds like you think that the "palestinian people" (whatever that is or was) are the victims in that case and have done nothing to nobody. That is just wrong and i advise you to read up on the whole story. Also, from my point of view, the right of existance of Israel is not a topic of discussion anymore. Maybe it was unfortunate to found it where it's been founded after WW2, but that is not something that can be changed now in any sensible way. And, come on, Wrap, the Jews where "emigrating" from Europe to "kill and drive a people off their own land and claim it as their own"??? That is just ridiculous. Please get an education. Last point about Irans political system: It does not have "major problems", it is basically run by sad men greedy for power that use religion as means of suppression. The one thing you have to give them, is that Iran/Persia was not a very aggressive country in the past. But that's it. They do oppress their people (~80 million) which you really can not say of Israel. Also they throw threats all around, and I do not think they do this just for funsies.

berntb 14y ago

Do these media also, like Iran and the Arab world, support Sudan and claim that HRW etc are conspiracies about the mass murder and mass rapes? (It would be easy to continue with examples like this.) Edit: A karma 33 account. I've probably been trolled.

talmand 14y ago

I've always felt that in one way or another, everyone involved is an aggressor. This is the real problem, most won't take a step back to break the cycle. Any news outlet that openly condemns any nation is biased and is propaganda for whatever agenda. A news agency should be just reporting the news so the viewer can decide their feelings on the nations that the reports are about. Now if Al Jazeera wants to have that stance, then that's fine as long as everyone understands what it is that they are doing. I have not seen any solid proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons but I have to assume that they are. It is what nations do, they will build what they feel is necessary to protect their interests. If the nations around them have nuclear weapons then most likely they feel the need to have them as well.

andylei 14y ago

>> Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran. you know, its possible that the US, Israel, AND Iran are all doing bad things. just because Iran is not being condemned by a some media organizations does not mean it has any meaningful high ground. why are you skeptical that iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons? if they weren't, why would they be developing secret enrichment facilities? why would "The IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution[186] by a vote of 32–2 that expressed "deep and increasing concern" over the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" (from wikipedia)? and more importantly, israel and the us are clearly concerned about iranian nuclear weapons development. it seems as if private intelligence lines up with public intelligence. why are you so confident that everybody else is wrong and you are right?

jpxxx 14y ago
It is a stone cold, dead in the ground for a decade, crystalline clear FACT that Iran has no nuclear weapon manufacturing program, and no plausible capacity to engage in one in the near future. Period, full stop, end telegram. Armed with this certainty, you can now begin to answer the rest of your questions for yourself.
- irishcoffee 14y ago
  So, I heard the world is flat.
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    And I heard there's an organization called the IAEA that's unaffiliated with any particular nation-state that's been at the center of this extremely contentious global issue that would agree with exactly what I said, because that's exactly what they're saying, so uh, enjoy your limp sarcasm.
    - underdown 14y ago
      Not having sufficient evidence to prove something is happening is not quite the same thing as proving it isn't happening.
      - jpxxx 14y ago
        Let me be clear: there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has nuclear weapons in its possession. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has had an organized nuclear weapons development program for the last nine years. There is some evidence that there was a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. This is where you start discussing things: with reality and facts. I am insulted that these facts I am offering are being downvoted ten miles deep when hundreds of millions of lives are affected by the outcome of this prove-a-negative "debate".
        14y ago

gaius 14y ago

So here's the thing with news: it's expensive to run a news operation, and almost impossible to make any money doing it, since there is so much competition. All serious news operations get their funding elsewhere. The BBC is funded by the UK taxpayer (and thus behaves like a branch of the civil service). Reuters is funded by its financial services wing (the point of it is to provide news to traders, who will then trade via Reuters). Al-Jazeera is funded by the local Sheikh. Once you understand this, all the inherent biases become obvious.

corin_ 14y ago
Slight correction: The BBC is not funded by taxpayers, but TV license payers, that is to say by people who chose to watch TV. While I won't argue that the BBC doesn't have biases, they aren't as simple as "like a branch of the civil service".

technoslut 14y ago

Much of the news is based on propaganda and assumptions. >No, we are the aggressors here and I remain highly skeptical that Iran is even trying to do develop nuclear weapons. You may believe that but it doesn't make it so. There was a recent story about how UN inspectors found traces of uranium that were enriched higher than they were supposed to be for civilian purposes.

jpxxx 14y ago
140kg of uranium was enriched to 20% isotope purity for ostensible use in a medical isotope reactor. That's a civilian purpose. Weaponized uranium requires 85% isotope purity.

Turing_Machine 14y ago

Yes, they bought all those centrifuges to make smoothies. {sarc}

Symmetry 14y ago

Having the same uncritical acceptance of what a news outfit prints - but for a different news outfit from the people around - doesn't make you better, just different.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Al Jazeera has always had an anti-US/Israel bent, and they have always made that pretty clear. So, while they might provide useful coverage of the issue, it seems to me who them condemn and who they do not may not be the final, unbiased say in the matter...

Karunamon 14y ago

>If you want real news instead of propaganda you have to watch RT or Al Jazeera. Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran. You realize that both RT and AJ Arabic are very, very anti-US biased? Especially RT?

tkahn6 14y ago
They're also state-funded media outlets. RT by Putin's political structure, Al Jazeera by the Qatari Monarchy.

factorizer 14y ago

Iranian officials repeatedly denied the right of existence of Israel. As a German who at least tries to learn something from history, these are signals i can not ignore. Also, from my point of view, the political system of Israel and the way its society works, is something worth fighting for. Whereas the political system of Iran is something worth fighting against. Ask any Iranian, who is not brainwashed and wants to live a life not controlled by religious nutcases.

Wrap 14y ago
Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany? That's a blatant strawman in no need of answering, and for being a German it looks like you learned the wrong lesson; it's ok for someone to victimize others because they were once the victims? Also, what do you mean by "the political system of Israel and the way it's society works, is something worth fighting for"? A political system & way of life built on the subjugation of a people, stealing their land and turning millions of them into refugees, all justified by a religious belief that their deity gave them that land over 2000 years ago? Iran's political system has major problems, but at least they didn't emigrate from Europe to kill and drive a people off their own land and claim it as their own cuz the old testament said it was their's..
- factorizer 14y ago
  I think some points of clarification are in order: I do not compare Iran to Nazi Germany, this would mean to deny the uniqueness of the holocaust in human history. I meant, as a German I have a moral obligation to support Israel in its fight for existance. If officials of another country talk about wiping Israel from the map, i get suspicious. You don't? I hope not. To state, that Israels political system is built on the subjugation of a people is really rather shallow and a grave simplification. What you, Wrap, say, sounds like you think that the "palestinian people" (whatever that is or was) are the victims in that case and have done nothing to nobody. That is just wrong and i advise you to read up on the whole story. Also, from my point of view, the right of existance of Israel is not a topic of discussion anymore. Maybe it was unfortunate to found it where it's been founded after WW2, but that is not something that can be changed now in any sensible way. And, come on, Wrap, the Jews where "emigrating" from Europe to "kill and drive a people off their own land and claim it as their own"??? That is just ridiculous. Please get an education. Last point about Irans political system: It does not have "major problems", it is basically run by sad men greedy for power that use religion as means of suppression. The one thing you have to give them, is that Iran/Persia was not a very aggressive country in the past. But that's it. They do oppress their people (~80 million) which you really can not say of Israel. Also they throw threats all around, and I do not think they do this just for funsies.