Latest Breaking News

still_one

(98,883 posts)

62. and I cannot either. However, I still question the original stories' implication

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 09:59 AM

Aug 2015

until I get more clarification.

Even within the original story there appears to be some ambiguity:

"The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how."

So I will agree that there appears to be something out of the ordinary, the details are not really known yet

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

AP EXCLUSIVE: UN TO LET IRAN INSPECT ALLEGED NUKE WORK SITE [View all] madville Aug 2015 OP

Fox, meet henhouse tularetom Aug 2015 #1

Schumer is probably calling other Democrats now madville Aug 2015 #2

And he'd be lying just as AP here is lying to YOU, its trusted audience blm Aug 2015 #83

Are We Sure That What Is Being Said.... global1 Aug 2015 #3

The author of this article Senator Tankerbell Aug 2015 #4

Accused by pro-Palestinian websites madville Aug 2015 #5

What's wrong with being pro-palestinian? Senator Tankerbell Aug 2015 #6

Its like Hillary being criticized by Jeb. 7962 Aug 2015 #11

Even if the criticism is factually accurate? Senator Tankerbell Aug 2015 #16

You have a low post count, but some people on DU like to kill the messenger... happyslug Aug 2015 #35

I have to say StoneCarver Aug 2015 #37

I read a lot of people on DU, and I hate it when people leave do to attacks by others happyslug Aug 2015 #38

You should say, as calling out people for low post counts violates DU Rules. n/t whathehell Aug 2015 #54

Bias calling our bias is not too credible. LanternWaste Aug 2015 #84

Ok, you can aim to discredit the source, but... renegade000 Aug 2015 #8

Right up there with the Bibi-Bomb! randome Aug 2015 #19

So in your mind being pro-Palestinian is a bad thing. This explains geek tragedy Aug 2015 #15

Bias is a two-way street madville Aug 2015 #18

lol, as if you would dismiss a site as "pro-Israeli" geek tragedy Aug 2015 #22

I do see their point madville Aug 2015 #26

Actually I think you have it backwards padfun Aug 2015 #59

Here is a non pro-Palestinian website still_one Aug 2015 #31

Not apparently, he does still_one Aug 2015 #30

I just saw an administration official leftynyc Aug 2015 #40

wow this sounds bad Enrique Aug 2015 #7

Actually, if you read the full article it reveals that this involves geek tragedy Aug 2015 #17

Meanwhile, the 24 day waiting period remains intact. 7962 Aug 2015 #20

Iran deal opponents now have their "death panels" lie, and it's a whopper geek tragedy Aug 2015 #21

Wow, thats a long article to TRY to explain it away. And pretty much failing. 7962 Aug 2015 #23

you didn't read the article. geek tragedy Aug 2015 #24

A lot of their work is/has been done at military sites. 7962 Aug 2015 #33

And a shrouded mirror LuvLoogie Aug 2015 #36

You can't 'hide' radiation in 24 days. You're determined to put the worst possible light on this. randome Aug 2015 #25

"Stability"? Not if another 1/2 dozen countries get nukes. 7962 Aug 2015 #34

Without the deal, Iran could get a bomb within a few months karynnj Aug 2015 #60

But they keep saying they dont have a weapons program, so how would that be possible? 7962 Aug 2015 #87

Ask Netanyahu or the UN that put the sanctions in place karynnj Aug 2015 #88

Of course I dont believe it, its just what they've insisted. 7962 Aug 2015 #92

RW media knows SO much more than nuclear scientists. GOP voters have been swallowing blm Aug 2015 #85

LOL - The AP article was propaganda that YOU are supporting. blm Aug 2015 #78

Wow. A thread here and in GD. This must really bug you. randome Aug 2015 #9

In related news, OJ Simpson to search for real killer 6chars Aug 2015 #10

To be explained away at a later date. As soon as they can come up with something! nt 7962 Aug 2015 #12

You know who George Jahn is? still_one Aug 2015 #28

No, because we happen to know that Parchin isn't even a nuclear research site. geek tragedy Aug 2015 #14

No, it doesn't concern at all, seeing as the story was bullshit. gcomeau Aug 2015 #89

Parchin is a NON-NUCLEAR site. geek tragedy Aug 2015 #13

The author, George Jahn, here is some background on him still_one Aug 2015 #27

Here is what the Guardian has to say about George Jahn on a related matter still_one Aug 2015 #29

An administration official has leftynyc Aug 2015 #42

the ap already updated it's story and the administration never confirmed the story karynnj Aug 2015 #43

You're dreaming if you think leftynyc Aug 2015 #46

the administration does not trust the mullahs and has said so karynnj Aug 2015 #63

It really doesn't look that way leftynyc Aug 2015 #70

that is what they did in multiple hearings and many karynnj Aug 2015 #71

No - speeches is not what I'm talking about leftynyc Aug 2015 #73

The deal has been published and is on various websites karynnj Aug 2015 #74

Well, maybe because you personally leftynyc Aug 2015 #77

"I know DU trusts the oh-so-trustworthy mullahs " still getting your information geek tragedy Aug 2015 #64

I did a google search and leftynyc Aug 2015 #51

Here's one link karynnj Aug 2015 #53

I am pointing out that the story is misleading at best. It is an intentional still_one Aug 2015 #49

It doesn't look misleading to me leftynyc Aug 2015 #52

AP has removed the claim that Iran would be making the inspections themselves, rather than UN still_one Aug 2015 #55

And I can't find that revised report ANYWHERE leftynyc Aug 2015 #56

and I cannot either. However, I still question the original stories' implication still_one Aug 2015 #62

There are several things that have come out subsequently. For one thing, AP definitely distorted still_one Aug 2015 #75

AP's propaganda reeks to high heaven. Surprised you didn't smell it. blm Aug 2015 #79

That poster bases their opinions on what John Bolton tells them to think geek tragedy Aug 2015 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author 840high Aug 2015 #32

WHAT IS THAT YOU ARE SAYING? Darb Aug 2015 #39

That's a much different argument leftynyc Aug 2015 #41

link please that says specifically what AP misreported nt karynnj Aug 2015 #44

I saw the administration guy on CNN leftynyc Aug 2015 #45

I am not calling you a liar karynnj Aug 2015 #50

If you're suggesting the administration has confirmed that it's going to allow geek tragedy Aug 2015 #67

You actually think that? Then there is little help for you. 7962 Aug 2015 #47

It's called sovereignty padfun Aug 2015 #61

Thank you. Darb Aug 2015 #68

Don't bite off more than you can chew. Darb Aug 2015 #69

HA! Good to know we've got DUers who are fine with North Korea & Iran having a nuke! 7962 Aug 2015 #72

How many RW fundie Republicans here in US would 'Nuke em' or 'Glass em' or blm Aug 2015 #81

Yes, but they also dont run the country like the Ayatollahs do. 7962 Aug 2015 #86

There are none so blind, Darb Aug 2015 #91

Yet what I say is true. Look up the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. 7962 Aug 2015 #93

Horsepoo - Half of the pro-war voices are sitting in Congress and Senate. blm Aug 2015 #95

Many folks have better ideas. Pretty simple, really. 7962 Aug 2015 #96

And then 2 years later without an agreement, then what? Utter nonsense that you think blm Aug 2015 #97

Fine. Happy for you. Like I said, we'll see what happens. 7962 Aug 2015 #99

So long - O'Reilly and Trump can't be kept waiting. blm Aug 2015 #100

Yes, because anyone who has a problem with it MUST back one of those idiots. 7962 Aug 2015 #103

and you can ask them to make you a sandwich while they're at it. geek tragedy Aug 2015 #98

Shhh…he's moved on now…to Huckabee School of Foreign Policy. blm Aug 2015 #101

Some want war, I just wish they would fight it randys1 Aug 2015 #102

Odd though, how NONE of my comments mention any military action at all. 7962 Aug 2015 #104

Weak sauce. Darb Aug 2015 #90

When you've got nothing, resort to insults. Typical. 7962 Aug 2015 #94

This one doesn't pass the smell test. Pure BS propaganda. harun Aug 2015 #48

The story has subsequently been revised by the AP still_one Aug 2015 #57

Looks like it didn't pass their smell test either. harun Aug 2015 #58

Now if that doesn't call for a "WTF??" nothing does. Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #65

The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained geek tragedy Aug 2015 #66

AP has deliberately distorted the story. The Obama administration has said the following: still_one Aug 2015 #76

Funny thing - those posting their 'concern' over this seem to show up….. blm Aug 2015 #82