Trusting Iranians...

muttly · Sep 13, 2015

It would be a blanket statement if Hot Air had said that Iran has always stonewalled everyone at the site. But they didn't say that. They used the word previously. Previously stonewalled everyone. So yes or no? Did Iran deny access previously in 2012? It's not so hard to answer the question. Go ahead and try.

muttly · Sep 13, 2015

RLENT said:
My only argument on the matter is that Hot Air's statement - which was unqualified and of a blanket nature - is false.

They said Iran previously stonewalled. Is 2012 previous to 2015?

Turtle · Sep 13, 2015

muttly said:
The assertion that they made is Iran PREVIOUSLY stonewalled everyone .

Incorrect. You bolded and underlined it, and you still don't know what they asserted. They didn't assert that Iran previously stonewalled everyone, they asserted that Iran previously stonewalled absolutely everyone. And that's a false statement.

muttly said:
Like 2005 was a while ago. Not very recent. So no U.N inspectors accessed the site in a long time.

Still previously, though. And they have, in fact, accessed the site.

muttly said:
Btw, Iran was asked to access the site back in 2012. U.N. Inspectors weren't allowed in. So yes they previously stonewalled absolutely everyone back in 2012.

Then Hotair should have stated that, instead of a blanket incorrect statement.

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

muttly said:
It would be a blanket statement if Hot Air had said that Iran has always stonewalled everyone at the site. But they didn't say that. ... Go ahead and try.

Unless of course, one is The Barf ... and then there is only perpetual try ... and the attendant FAIL ...

muttly · Sep 14, 2015

Turtle said:
Incorrect. You bolded and underlined it, and you still don't know what they asserted. They didn't assert that Iran previously stonewalled everyone, they asserted that Iran previously stonewalled absolutely everyone. And that's a false statement.
Still previously, though. And they have, in fact, accessed the site.

Then Hotair should have stated that, instead of a blanket incorrect statement.

In 2012 they previously stonewalled absolutely everyone. 2012 is previous to 2015. Iran previously stonewalled absolutely everyone back then at a previous time, in 2012. The assertion wasn't that on every occasion since the site has been in existence that they have previously stonewalled. That would be a an incorrect statement.
For example: Previously I drove for expedite company A. That statement is 100% correct, even though previously I also drove for a medical supply company.

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

muttly said:
... It's not so hard to answer the question. ...

Are you frickin' kiddin' me ?

Only in Barf's Bizzaro World ... where "It's not so hard to answer the question" means the exact opposite of what it says ...

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

muttly said:
In 2012 they previously stonewalled absolutely everyone. 2012 is previous to 2015. Iran previously stonewalled absolutely everyone back then at a previous time, in 2012. The assertion wasn't that on every occasion since the site has been in existence that they have previously stonewalled. That would be a an incorrect statement.
For example: Previously I drove for expedite company A. That statement is 100% correct, even though previously I also drove for a medical supply company.

Are you trying to audition as The Poster Child for intellectual dishonesty ?

muttly · Sep 14, 2015

Ylentl capitulates.

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

Contrary to the generally held belief in Barf's Bizzaro World, words are not vegetables and are not suitable components for making a salad by throwing them in a bowl and then tossing them around.

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

muttly said:
Ylentl capitulates.

Not even close ... but I do understand how someone who can't even divine the plain meaning of words in their own native language might think so ...

Turtle · Sep 14, 2015

muttly said:
In 2012 they previously stonewalled absolutely everyone. 2012 is previous to 2015.

Incorrect. In 2012, they previously did not stonewall inspections in 2005. 2012 is previous to 2015, though, so that much is correct.

Iran previously stonewalled absolutely everyone back then at a previous time, in 2012.

No, in 2012 they previously allowed inspections in 2005, and stonewalled absolutely everyone presently in 2012.

The assertion wasn't that on every occasion since the site has been in existence that they have previously stonewalled.

That's exactly what the assertion was, since Hotair didn't qualify the statement in any way.

That would be a an incorrect statement

Correct.

For example: Previously I drove for expedite company A. That statement is 100% correct, even though previously I also drove for a medical supply company.

In the context of "who have you previously driven for?" your first answer would not be 100% incorrect, as important and pertinent information is missing. It's a lie by omission. In the context of IAEA inspections of Parchin, saying, "Doing this allows Iran to at least attempt to defuse some of the criticism of the deal since they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site," is incorrect and misleading, at the very least, and at the most, a blatant lie by omission.

muttly · Sep 14, 2015

Ylentl ,Still waiting on that answer to the question. Did Iran deny access to the site previously?Come on just answer the question. You don't have to say that they were stonewalling if you don't want to. But you know they were, right?

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

muttly said:
Ylentl ,Still waiting on that answer to the question. ...

And I'm still waiting on answers to all my previous questions.

I'll be quite happy to respond to each question you have posed to me thus far ... just as soon as you answer or address (in a substantive manner) my previous questions ...

I have indicated my willingness to respond above ... but thus far the only thing you have demonstrated is a lack of will to do the same.

If I fail to respond and answer your questions after you answer mine, after having said I will do so, then it will be a reflection on my character and personal integrity.

Just as your present failure to respond my previous questions is currently a reflection on yours.

Ball is in your court Champ - and whether I answer or not is dependent on your actions at this point.

Choose wisely ...

muttly · Sep 14, 2015

Oooh, lookie here Ylentl.

. Iran has refused to allow IAEA inspectors access to Parchin. Another round of talks in Vienna between the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency and Iran on an agreement which would see the IAEA entering sites of suspected nuclear activity in Iran ended without progress on Friday.

Were they stonewalling?

New Image Suggests More Suspicious Activity at Parchin

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

Apparently the mere idea of answering all those questions (ahem ... which probably numbered less than a dozen ...) I posed to you previously was just too much for you to confront and deal with ... as evidenced by your efforts to once again deflect ...

(Of course, you just totally ignored Turtle's last post ... which is quite understandable ... given that it exposes exactly where the flaws in your reasoning are ...)

To make the experience somewhat less traumatic for you, given your dainty sensibilities, I will - in a gesture of good faith - offer you a compromise:

You answer/address the first question I posed that you haven't answered ... and then I will answer/address the first question of yours that I haven't yet responded to.

Then we can proceed in that fashion, until all questions have been addressed.

Would you like me to repost that first question for you ?

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

Possibly the best unintended consequence to come out of the Iran deal thus far.

Article by former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg:

AIPAC Spent Millions of Dollars to Defeat the Iran Deal. Instead, It May Have Destroyed Itself.

RLENT · Sep 14, 2015

Transcript of a podcast of an interview with a former IAEA official (the former Head of Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office reporting to the Director General) discussing ... the reality of the IAEA’s procedures for inspecting managed-access sites such as the Parchin military facility in Iran, why he believes the AP (George Jahn) relied on a forgery for their recent report claiming Iran would get to inspect itself, and why he agrees with Robert Kelley‘s doubts of the explosives chamber’s existence and use for nuclear weapons research purposes:

The Scott Horton Show

Turtle · Sep 14, 2015

Wait. What? Iran gets to inspect itself? And we're supposed to just trust them and take them at their word? Oh hail no! That's one of the secret side deals between Iran and the spineless UN, and it's why Obama and his minioned regime refuses to turn over the side deals to Congress. All this deal does is enable Iran to have the bomb in 12 months instead of 3, and that's if they don't cheat, and you know they will, so they'll have the bomb by Halloween, and they'll use it on Israel, and then us, which is what Obama wants, anyway, so he can take over as dictator.

Oh, sorry, I had a muttgrim moment there.

muttly · Sep 14, 2015

Turtle said:
Incorrect. In 2012, they previously did not stonewall inspections in 2005. 2012 is previous to 2015, though, so that much is correct.

No, in 2012 they previously allowed inspections in 2005, and stonewalled absolutely everyone presently in 2012.

That's exactly what the assertion was, since Hotair didn't qualify the statement in any way.

Correct.

In the context of "who have you previously driven for?" your first answer would not be 100% incorrect, as important and pertinent information is missing. It's a lie by omission. In the context of IAEA inspections of Parchin, saying, "Doing this allows Iran to at least attempt to defuse some of the criticism of the deal since they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site," is incorrect and misleading, at the very least, and at the most, a blatant lie by omission.