Iran stockpiling food? Why?

reply to post by trysts

The problem with googling for information is that I have no idea who is posting the information. A concurrence of different websites indicates a certain amount of truthfulness, but it does not guarantee it.

On the other hand, when I converse directly (or even when I read a direct conversation) with someone of that particular culture, I am fairly certain that I am getting at least an honest interpretation. For instance, based on your post, I can safely assume that you believe the Jundallah are proxy Israeli forces, or at least are backed by the US. Googling the name gets me many varied opinions, and I haven't found anything more concrete than accusations to support those ties.

In other words, I have a sterile definition and a lot more confusion than when I started, in return for my time.

So, why do you believe the Jundallah are carrying out Western objectives?

TheRedneck

reply to post by Trajan

I am by no means claiming the U.S. doesn't meddle in the affairs of other nations but to claim that Iran has been a passive observer in the Middle-East is laughable at best.

Danielle Pletka | Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near East and South Asian Affairs
July 25, 2012:

As a technical matter, Iran's relationship with terrorist groups is generally managed through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and more specifically by its Quds Force headed by Qassem Soleimani. But that tasking should in no way be construed as separate from the Supreme Leader and Iran's government. The IRGC acts for the regime. Iran's relationship with terrorist groups - about which I will be more specific below - is operational, financial, political and military. Iranian government officials have been known to direct, manage and support attacks throughout the world. Nor have Israelis been Iran's only victims; at the hands of Iranian supported special groups in Iraq, more than a thousand American soldiers lost their lives. At the hands of Hezbollah, we have lost diplomats, CIA officials, servicemen and civilians. Iran was directly behind the attacks on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. Even now, Iran is arming the Taliban in Afghanistan even as it opposes the group for political reasons.[1]

www.aei.org...
Please read the testimony and let me know which claims you believe to be false.
Do I understand why Iran would be doing some of the things suggested in the testimony? Yes.
Do I have to agree with some of Iran's goals just because I understand the motive? No.
Does it mean that because I disagree with some of their goals I automatically don't understand any of their motives? No
I admit that some of the info in the testimony linked to above could be propaganda produced by my government(U.S.). Do you believe the Iranian regime ever spreads propaganda to further its agenda?

reply to post by Trajan


Food for thought

If the Iranian regime hesitated over tactics when protests erupted over the "theft" of the presidential elections by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was well prepared on one front: internet censorship is both routine and highly developed in the Islamic Republic, so when the crackdown came it was swift and – fairly – effective. Iran uses what the OpenNet Initiative calls "one of the most extensive technical filtering systems in the world". Internet providers are required to go through state-controlled gateways. Reformist websites, Flickr, foreign blogs and social networks such as Facebook were all sporadically blocked before the elections, but censorship intensified once the unrest began. Filtering has become much heavier in the last fortnight. "It is very bad," says a keen internet user in north Tehran. "They're tightening the circle." The internet is said to be running at less than a tenth the speed it usually does.

www.guardian.co.uk...
Do you think there is any truth to this?

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I honesty had no idea about the differences between Zionists and Jews. Thank you, for I have embarked on a quest to understand. I also had no idea of the seven Noahide Laws and how they are for everyone. In fact, in my searching, I have discovered things that, in their making sense, things are clicking into place. Many thanks, again.

No biggie here. They've just been watching doomsday preppers"

Originally posted by Trajan
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

The Iranian regime is democratically elected.

The same thing could be said about you my friend. NDAA and the Patriot Act have made your rights null and void. (I am assuming you are American).

Lol, The Ayatollahs run Iran, the pretend elected part holds no power.
We have Free Speech over here, In Iran you disappear if you speak out against the Ayatollahs, and your family, and your friends and anyone else closely associated to you.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by trysts

The problem with googling for information is that I have no idea who is posting the information. A concurrence of different websites indicates a certain amount of truthfulness, but it does not guarantee it.

On the other hand, when I converse directly (or even when I read a direct conversation) with someone of that particular culture, I am fairly certain that I am getting at least an honest interpretation. For instance, based on your post, I can safely assume that you believe the Jundallah are proxy Israeli forces, or at least are backed by the US. Googling the name gets me many varied opinions, and I haven't found anything more concrete than accusations to support those ties.

In other words, I have a sterile definition and a lot more confusion than when I started, in return for my time.

So, why do you believe the Jundallah are carrying out Western objectives?

TheRedneck

I have little doubt that the U.S. supported Jundullah. After their leader was captured by Iran, and only a few days before his scheduled execution, Rigi (the leader of Jundullah) confessed these ties to the U.S. I believe the CIA wished to cause tension and destabilization in Iran, which has been a typical goal of the U.S., no matter how many people are injured or murdered to accomplish this.

reply to post by trysts

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Yes, it was a PressTV exclusive, I remember now. Thanks for posting it

reply to post by trysts

I certainly cannot say truthfully that the US does not want desperately to infiltrate Iran; I am certain they do. But this being the first time I have heard of the Jundullah, I will reserve comment until I know more about them. Thank you for letting me know about this.

TheRedneck

The topic was: Iran stockpiling food? Why?
If one goes through the whole topic, the subject has been changed so many times that now it doesn't even make any sense.
We are awakened, we are the ones fighting against the corrupted system, wheter it be political, financial or whatever. We should not get into pointless discussions. As people with a better knowledge, we should discuss how to take this message to the masses and make them see what we see: The political/financial world we live today, is about to fall apart. The more people are aware of this, the better...

Originally posted by thecrippler
The topic was: Iran stockpiling food? Why?
If one goes through the whole topic, the subject has been changed so many times that now it doesn't even make any sense.
We are awakened, we are the ones fighting against the corrupted system, wheter it be political, financial or whatever. We should not get into pointless discussions. As people with a better knowledge, we should discuss how to take this message to the masses and make them see what we see: The political/financial world we live today, is about to fall apart. The more people are aware of this, the better...

It's a natural reaction to sanctions.
It means Iran doesn't plan on cooperating with the UN and expects continuing and new sanctions.
It means Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons capability because stockpiling food is a clear signal of them not changing their position.
That covers the whole topic.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Nuclear weapon capability is a far cry from enriching uranium higher than 20%.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I found a video with a good translation for everyone concerning Jundullah, and the public confession of Rigi. I would have edited, but I passed my edit window!

reply to post by superman2012

I can't speak to the validity of this( not really my skill set) but give it a look if you get a chance.

Aug. 2010 interview with former U.N. Weapons Inspector David Albright

B&B: Iran says it needs the 20% enriched uranium for a medical research reactor. Are you saying that isn’t credible?

Albright: I’m sure they plan to use it for that, but they don’t need to do this step in order to accomplish that goal -- they don’t have to be this efficient. They were making about 3 or 4 kilograms of 20% uranium a month, and they only need 10 to 20 kilograms a year… [By activating the second cascade] the waste product of the first cascade is … fed into the second cascade and the product [of that] is put back into the first cascade. … The output is 19.7%, which is the same as they were making before, but it’s more efficient. … Why are they doing this? This could just be centrifuge people trying to be more efficient, or it could be that they want to make 20% material that is way beyond what they need for the research reactor, so you do have to ask: Is there a hidden weapons motivation?

B&B: We understand that process of enriching uranium becomes increasingly easier as the quality goes up, so that once they can enrich to 20%, it becomes much easier to reach 90%, which is weapons grade. Is this correct?

Albright: It’s less energy [to go from 20% enrichment to 90%], so you don’t need as many centrifuges to do it. ... If you put in 60,000 centrifuges … to go from 20% to 90%, you need just 500 of those 60,000 centrifuges. That’s less than 10% of centrifuges to go from 20% to 90%.

B&B: What options face the international community if they want to stop Iran from producing enough weapons-grade material for a bomb?

Albright: Sanctions are hurting them; they are pretty bothered by that, but the main thing for the [International Atomic Energy Agency] is to watch what is going on. They are in the main enrichment plant twice a month on average and in the pilot plant where these centrifuges are operating about four times a month.

B&B: So what should we be looking out for in the coming months?

Albright: How much 20% material is made. That is key...

(emphasis mine)
latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Any misgivings? Like I said, I have no idea if this is true or not. I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Nuclear weapon capability is a far cry from enriching uranium higher than 20%.

No, it's not.
It is a necessary step for only one purpose, weapons.
By the UN observer data, only 500 out of 60,000 centrifuges are necessary to further enrich 20% material to 90% material. If they are allowed to stockpile enough 20% material do the math, their centrifuges will be accelerated 120 times. The material from their phony medical research claim can be quickly converted to weapons grade overnight compared to the slow buildup of a 20% stockpile. They have the centrifuges already.

There is no other reason for them to go down that road. They could agree to not have centrifuges and contract from other nations to have 20% material available to them for a medical reactor. Simple, no sanctions and they could probably get the material for free in the agreement as it would remove a threat that causes instability in the region.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Nuclear weapon capability is a far cry from enriching uranium higher than 20%.

No, it's not.
It is a necessary step for only one purpose, weapons.
By the UN observer data, only 500 out of 60,000 centrifuges are necessary to further enrich 20% material to 90% material. If they are allowed to stockpile enough 20% material do the math, their centrifuges will be accelerated 120 times. The material from their phony medical research claim can be quickly converted to weapons grade overnight compared to the slow buildup of a 20% stockpile. They have the centrifuges already.

There is no other reason for them to go down that road. They could agree to not have centrifuges and contract from other nations to have 20% material available to them for a medical reactor. Simple, no sanctions and they could probably get the material for free in the agreement as it would remove a threat that causes instability in the region.

No, it's not.
It is also a necessary step for a couple other (conveniently forgotten?) purposes:

HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors, whose cores require about 20% or more of fissile material, as well as in naval reactors, where it often contains at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U. Significant quantities of HEU are used in the production of medical isotopes, for example molybdenum-99 for technetium-99m generators.

Naval reactors? Here is some studying for you.
Medical Isotopes? Sending it to their medical research reactor.

Unless, of course, you have undeniable proof that what you claim as fact, is the truth. If not, claim it is your opinion and conjecture on your part.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Nuclear weapon capability is a far cry from enriching uranium higher than 20%.

No, it's not.
It is a necessary step for only one purpose, weapons.
By the UN observer data, only 500 out of 60,000 centrifuges are necessary to further enrich 20% material to 90% material. If they are allowed to stockpile enough 20% material do the math, their centrifuges will be accelerated 120 times. The material from their phony medical research claim can be quickly converted to weapons grade overnight compared to the slow buildup of a 20% stockpile. They have the centrifuges already.

There is no other reason for them to go down that road. They could agree to not have centrifuges and contract from other nations to have 20% material available to them for a medical reactor. Simple, no sanctions and they could probably get the material for free in the agreement as it would remove a threat that causes instability in the region.

No, it's not.
It is also a necessary step for a couple other (conveniently forgotten?) purposes:

HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors, whose cores require about 20% or more of fissile material, as well as in naval reactors, where it often contains at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U. Significant quantities of HEU are used in the production of medical isotopes, for example molybdenum-99 for technetium-99m generators.

Naval reactors? Here is some studying for you.
Medical Isotopes? Sending it to their medical research reactor.

Unless, of course, you have undeniable proof that what you claim as fact, is the truth. If not, claim it is your opinion and conjecture on your part.

Lol, their navy consists of speedboats. Do you propose they are making nuclear powered speedboats?

They don't need centrifuges for a medical reactor. They could make an agreement through the UN to have the material supplied to them, or simply skip making them and procure the medical isotopes directly. The UN would easily fall head over heels to give them all the isotopes they want for free in return for dismantling their centrifuges.

reply to post by glasshouse


I really enjoy when he says this:

they don’t have to be this efficient.

Is that for him to say? How can anyone say that?
...and this

so you do have to ask: Is there a hidden weapons motivation?

...sure, they might. We can also ask if they are planning on eating it too, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Any misgivings? Like I said, I have no idea if this is true or not. I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist

No. I have no training in this field either, and I am at the mercy of the PTB and MSM just like anyone else. You need to see that there is no strong wording there, and there never has been, in regards to them building nuclear weapons. It is always, maybe, could, might...etc. I don't know either, but, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I was fooled by the US lies about Iraq's WMD, and you know what they say...

reply to post by TinfoilTP

Lol, their navy consists of speedboats. Do you propose they are making nuclear powered speedboats?

Please. If you are going to engage in adult discussion/debate, at least read the article.

Here you go, so you don't have to use that silly mouse to click that link:

Nuclear submarine program surfaces in Iran

That was the title of the first link.

They don't need centrifuges for a medical reactor. They could make an agreement through the UN to have the material supplied to them, or simply skip making them and procure the medical isotopes directly. The UN would easily fall head over heels to give them all the isotopes they want for free in return for dismantling their centrifuges.

So no country should be able to make anything for themselves? Don't you think that is why the US is in the economic hole it finds itself in? Why exactly can't a country be self-reliant? Because it doesn't jive with your beliefs? What happens if the UN decides that they don't have any to spare for Iran, because they might make a "dirty bomb" out of it?

Edit: Oh yes, here is a link for you to learn about their navy as well, so next time you don't make such a silly mistake.