Monday, 30 November 2009

Rivero on Iran / "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I intended writing this a while back, but couldn't be bothered. Now I feel bothered enough to mention it.
-----
As befitting Rivero's worldview, he is indulgent of Iran, seemingly based on the principle of support for one's enemies' enemy. Iran is Israel's enemy, thus Iran gets Rivero's support.

In early October '09 Rivero pushed a very positive view of Iran's position in negotiations over proposals Iran allow foreign rather than domestic uranium enrichment. Before the negotiations had concluded, Rivero was asserting Iran was going to agree to the proposals, and that such agreement would cast Israeli and American policy into disarray, as Iran's agreement was the last thing Israel and USA policy actually demanded, intent on war at any cost as they are, or so Rivero believes.

However, now we are further down the road, late November, and Iran still has refused to agree to the proposals. So, not only was Rivero wrong in fact - Iran did not (and still has not) signup to the proposals - but also the Rivero's entire scheme of Israel and USA being "hellbent on war no matter what" is undermined. But does Rivero even notice? No.

Surprisingly Rivero hasn't deleted some of his earlier comments, so we get a good chance to see how his position on Iran and the proposals has shifted, as the facts have changed. As the facts have changed, we can see Rivero yet holds to the same basic premise - but that premise - of (Jewish) aggression Iran is now justified by the new facts (even though the new facts contradict the old facts, which back in October Rivero had used to justify the same premise.) So, two seemingly contrary sets of facts - what Rivero thought would happen but didn't (Iran accepting the propsals) and what Rivero thought wouldn't happen but did (Iran refusing to accept the proposals) - are both rationalised by Rivero as justifying his wider premise of Jews conspiring in aggression against Iran.

Here's Rivero back October 24th:
As I predicted yesterday, Israel is trying to find some way to scuttle the Iran deal and proceed with the war.

------------------

Israel is cornered here. For that matter so is the United States. When this Iran deal goes through on Friday, the primary excuse for war with Iran evaporates.

....the Iran enrichment deal ends the possibility of a new war with which to distract from the old war.
And here's Rivero, more recently, writing after it became clear Iran still hadn't signed up to the proposals: Rivero, October 30th:
It isn't a deal until ALL sides agree to it.

The big lie here is the attempt to claim that Iran did agree to the original deal, which they did not, then to portray Iran as having broken the agreement which was never agreed to.
Ahem. On October 21st Rivero had written:
"Iran agrees 'in principle' to compromise on nuclear programme

Crisis over.

War is called off!

Now on to Israel's war crimes trials!!!!
Rivero seemed certain Iran would sign, he said Israel and USA warmongering was "cornered" by the prospect of Iran signing the proposals. But late November, and Iran still hasn't signed, and there's been a subsequent UN motion censuring Iran.

If "the Iran enrichment deal ends the possibility of a new war" as Rivero claimed, why didn't Iran go for it? If the deal had "ended the possibility of a new war", why did Iran refuse to sign, and doesn't that mean anything? The interpretation is just changed, so that the new facts can renew the attack on Jews.....err....Israel. Whoops.

16 comments:

socrates said...

TLNL, at another blog, someone said the same thing, that Iran backed out of their offer to enrich uranium for social causes rather than for military purposes. Is this true? What if any excuse does Iran offer for backing out of the deal? Please respond as if you were an attorney for Iran's position. The other blogger is saying this is proof that Iran was lying the whole time. He says they don't want the uranium enriched in this way, because then it will become impossible to weaponise. I do see your point and agree that Rivero is twisting everything to fit his own astroturfing against the Joos, oops, Israel. Some of Rivero's best friends are Jewish. Yup, him and Idi Amin both. <=) Don't mind that smilie at the end. I'm trying to figure out how to do those. :) By the way, I think all nukes should be outlawed. What's so funny 'bout wind, solar, and hemp? [/Elvis Costello]

the_last_name_left said...

I don't know much about Iran at all. All I know is it appears they still haven't signed up to the deal which seemed to offer them 3rd party uranium enrichment. I can see good reasons why they would refuse, as they are party to the NNPT, which allows them uranium enrichment for domestic power use. Why should Iran accept second power status in such an arrangement - especially when non signatories like Pakistan, India and Israel achieve major concessions even despite their non signatory status? Nevertheless, one has to look at what Iran is doing - and Rivero seems to be giving them carte blanche........because they are Israel's enemy, and that has to be a good thing, right? Rivero thinks so. I don't think so.

I can't see another state acquiring nuclear capability as "a good thing". Even as the major powers use every under-handed method and contrivance in their power to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear status, I can't support an Iranian independent nuclear deterrent! I don't support the British one, so I'm fucked if I am going to support a radical, expansionist, militant Islamic state's acquisition of nuclear capability just to "even things out"! I think that's a deeply flawed aspect to Rivero's argument, and of those who argue similarly.

Why we are supposed to accept the Iranian regime at their word and celebrate their acquisition of nuclear weapons I have no idea. And yet Rivero and so many other places have fallen into the trap of doing so - they oppose american policy, so [i]anything[/i] opposing american policy must be "good". Even islamic nukes! That's bullshit.

Nukes against Sexism! Hmmm. Hold on? lol

I can't see that Iran should be allowed a free-hand to develop uranium enrichment as it is a clear path towards nuclear bomb development. I don't see that anywhere should be given the least encouragement to develop nuclear weapons - and enrichment is perhaps the single most critical step along the path to development and deployment of nuclear weapons.

It's not a reason to be happy if Iran successfully manages to acquire capability to enrich uranium to levels required for bomb-making.

Domestic use needs about 10% enriched uranium - bombs need more like 95%.

They use centrifuges to seperate out the heavier uranium. Each time it goes through a centrifuge it gets more concentrated........it's just a time process.

the_last_name_left said...

So, to find out the Iranians have a series of underground facilities capable of doing this process says they have the potential to do it. Who cares what the Iranians say they intend to do? They have the capability to enrich beyond what they need........and the facilities buried away to do it. FACT.

Another fact: why does America (and UK) have nuclear weapons? Because they are the most powerful weapons known to man. ISn't it? .......so why imagine the Iranians don't recognise that fact as readily as American planners, or British ones?

So why cheer Iranian success at it? I don't get it. A dangerous sort of method imo - "my enemy's enemy is my friend". I don't buy that at all.

Proof Iran was lieing all the time? I don't know. But it is clearly possible to see that as an explanation. One can't simply discount it - at least I can't, and without good reason I don't see that anyone else can.

I don't see why we should accept radical islamic state-leaders such as Iranian ones as being so much more moral and honest and upstanding than western ones. Religious fundamentalism doesn't make more sense just because there's more sand around and the weather is so much warmer.

I don't trust iranian leadership at all. I see no reason to do so. None at all.

Rivero has (long) taken to publishing stories from PressTV.ir - which, SFAIK, is, like ALL Iranian media, state-controlled. You want to trust Iranian state media? Interesting to see....but, to trust?

Likewise Rivero has often posted Pravda.ru stories. I'm sympathetic to Bolsheviks but I'm ashamed of Pravda.ru.......yet Rivero will run Pravda nonsense so long as it validates his own rubbish.

And where does his biggest scoop come from? The thing about "the dancing Israelis" and Israeli spies - 911 - etc? Carl Cameron - on FOX News.

Find me a reason to believe anything PressTV.ir say? Find me a reason to celebrate a newly nuclear militant, radical, islamic state?

the_last_name_left said...

just to be clear - I'm on about potential capability when I say Iran has "the capability" to enrich uranium to bomb levels.

they are enriching uranium already - and previously unknown facilities are being discovered/revealed.

Iran *might* have no intention of enriching uranium beyond the levels necessary for power production. The point is, Iran is enriching uranium.........and it is only a matter of degree before weapons level of enrichment is reached. And if they have already built all these underground places and have more centrifuges on order etc.........one has to acknowledge they have the capability to break-out of the NNPT. That's not merely a potential capability - they already possess the actual capability to some degree........the issue is how much of a degree, etc.

Also, Iran is an oil and gas-rich country atm. Yet, even so, we could argue maybe it is thinking ahead to put nuclear power in place........an investment, maybe?

But Iran is near the equator! Iran would be better served through investment in solar energy, surely? How many solar panels for a nuclear reactor? How much political strife if they chose solar instead of nuclear? But what weapons does solar provide? None. Has to be considered, surely?

socrates said...

Thanks for your fine efforts. Of course there should be as few countries as possible with nuclear weaponised abilities. Your points are correct too about the need to get away from all types of nuclear power. If Iran is in an earthquake zone, it sounds very risky to build nuclear plants there. I also fear for this type of situation brewing, because the Israelis might go for some kind of preemptive attack on Iran which would turn the Middle East into more of a powder keg than it already is. Thankfully Obama is in power over Bush. While I hate the news of a buildup in Afghanistan, I have more faith in Obama getting the Iran situation to chill out more than if the neocons were still in power. Also, there have been those fake lefty types who have jumped out in praise of the Iranian government. They call the popular uprising there last year rigged. While we delved into the concept of military-industrial influenced coloured revolutions in previous threads, it is ridiculous that any progressive would side with the mullahs over the we the people from Iran.

socrates said...

Al Giordano has returned to DFQ2. Stu Piddy has made a comment. Francis Holland has made a bunch also. In another blog post, I have copied and pasted your insights on this emerging story. If you're up to it, this is your chance to ask Al Giordano of Narco News some questions. Though he's yet to deal with any of the content. He is spinning me as probably being funded by a cointelpro-like organisation. It appears that a raw nerve has bit hit, and Al Giordano has made the situation worse for himself. If into it, make sure to go to the right thread where Al, Stu, Francis, and myself have made posts. (davefromqueens2.blogspot.com)

socrates said...

I've also got new entries on the Brett Kimberlin Production of Michael Connell threatened by Karl Rove.

socrates said...

The_last_dude_left, where are you? I'm getting pounded under the weight of Giordano's sophistry and could really use the back up help. You know a lot more about the various topics than me. This is your chance to shine. The thread can be found here. Also, there's no mention of chemtrails. This is your milieu, buddy! {<:)

socrates said...

Francis Holland was wondering about Big Dan. I gave him the heads up that he is tied in with Jew hating and tinfoil (linkage). I also started us a new open thread at DFQ2 to continue the current dialogue. I think if comments go on too far past 100, it starts to blotch up the software. I like that guy Meno. He seems very sincere. I've also turned off comment moderation to make it easier for folks. I'm starting to think like Holland that we can have our small places and finds ways to hook up, and that's how we can compete against big blogs that censor. Google does treat blogspot very well.

socrates said...

I've always wondered what was worse- typos or follow posts to apologise for typos. (should have read find not finds) {<:)

socrates said...

Then there are the typos and errors that take place in correction posts. Ugh, or crikey as you would say. Crikey in American is ugh. Or maybe yowzers or something. Or Yikes?

socrates said...

I've got a new one up on Agent99. Just a warning. She's posted pictures of herself. Crikeness. linkage

socrates said...

The_last_name_left, by chance I found new comments on an old thread here while googling for info on Agent99. The anonymous person has made a few posts at my place too concerning Rigorous Intuition. If you go to this thread and read through how you were banned, clearly it was because they were saying we are the same person. Et in Arcadia Ego was my nemesis from the chemtrails topic. He was the moderator for a long time at RI. This was the same crap that Tinoire said when she bounced you from PI. Remember her mother of all chemtrails comment? Et in Arcadia Ego mentons something about Planters Peanuts to you. Right before he showed up to out you in a lie that we are the same person, someone left a quote by the original Socrates. I figure that's a sock puppet then of the disinfo fockers. Too much of a coincidence. Back to the peanut reference, that's because at another board we used to be both at, I noticed strange trails in an animated ad for that brand. Linkage At the end Jeff said the thread was locked because you were unable to speak for yourself. That's bullshit. They had to know we were different people from different countries. Were you using a proxy there? They know I'm from Massachusetts. I bet if you tried to log back in, you'd still be banned, meaning Jeff Wells is part and parcel of the racket which has astroturfed us as being the same person. Same as Agent99. This is as close as you can come to a paystub proving they are disinfo.

socrates said...

The_last_dude_left!!!! Check out my new entry at davefromqueens2.blogspot and tell me what you think or join in, feel free to post it here. This looks huge. I finally understand about what you found a while back linking Rivero to Aventura, Florida.

Larry said...

Its not the same without you visiting my site and sharing your 2 cents

the_last_name_left said...

that's very kind of you Larry. I promise I'll come along after and give you some grief.

;)