Wow. A thread here and in GD. This must really bug you. (Reply #9)

In the discussion thread: AP EXCLUSIVE: UN TO LET IRAN INSPECT ALLEGED NUKE WORK SITE [View all]

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:22 PM

randome (34,845 posts)

9. Wow. A thread here and in GD. This must really bug you.

The U.N. will handle whatever inspections of past sites the way they want. And the U.S. and the other signatories to the treaty will handle inspections of suspect current sites the way they want.

See? It's still easy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

104 replies	Author	Time	Post
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

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.