Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Dam Hackers

NEW YORK -- A probe by the Justice Department has determined that Iran was responsible for a 2013 cyberattack on a dam in the New York City suburbs, and an indictment is expected soon, a U.S. official told The Associated Press Thursday.

The official, who was briefed on the probe, spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing criminal investigation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-find-iran-was-behind-hack-into-us-dam-ap/

Surely this is a different Iran from the one we made a deal with recently..correct? Since the Iran we made a deal with is nothing but trustworthy.

This is the same people that Bardock said were telling the truth when they said they didn't want to blow up Israel, so yes, its the same Iran.

How/ why should these people be trusted with Nukes when they can't stop committing international crime?

I foresee people will brush it aside by saying that we aren't exactly innocent when it comes to hacking other countries. Which is true, but then again it doesn't necessarily negate the fact we can't seem to trust the people we're making nuke deals with.

Iranians want nukes to maintain world peace goddamn it!

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How/ why should these people be trusted with Nukes when they can't stop committing international crime?

They shouldn't be trusted with nukes. Which is what the Iran deal ensures for the foreseeable future. That's why most reasonable people are for it.

So a deal that gives them nukes in 10.2 years

A deal that wont allow the IAEA to disclose if they broke the deal

A deal that allows Iran to self inspect

A deal that makes US defend Iran if Israel that attacks because of a broken deal

A deal that allows iran to keep their centerfuges

A deal with a country that hacks and threatens to launch missiles and has just broken more UN resolutions

This is a good deal to you?

I can't say you are smart.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They shouldn't be trusted with nukes. Which is what the Iran deal ensures for the foreseeable future. That's why most reasonable people are for it.

But there is still the whole thing with inspections right? Where they need several days notice..and possibly even up to a few weeks notice? Or has that changed?

Since if you do not feel they can be trusted with nukes then surely they also couldn't be trusted when it comes to inspections to make sure they don't have nukes?

Oh yea I forgot about that, they can delay inspection up to 24-48 days..

48 days is utterly unacceptable. 24 days is still unacceptable.

Originally posted by Surtur
But there is still the whole thing with inspections right? Where they need several days notice..and possibly even up to a few weeks notice? Or has that changed?

Since if you do not feel they can be trusted with nukes then surely they also couldn't be trusted when it comes to inspections to make sure they don't have nukes?

The experts are satisfied with the conditions of inspections. I do not know enough about inspecting nuclear refineries to judge the deal in that aspect and therefore have to defer to expert opinion. Perhaps you have more knowledge in this field, then you should share your expertise with us.

Bardock says its a good deal though, what doe she know that we dont?

Originally posted by Stigma
Iranians want nukes to maintain world peace goddamn it!

'Maintaining peace' is the reason other nuclear countries use as the reason for keeping their nuclear arsenal. N. Korea might be the one exception.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The experts are satisfied with the conditions of inspections. I do not know enough about inspecting nuclear refineries to judge the deal in that aspect and therefore have to defer to expert opinion. Perhaps you have more knowledge in this field, then you should share your expertise with us.

Why should they get 48 days? Can anyone explain why they'd need 48 days to prepare if they have nothing to hide? Or even why they'd need 24 days?

Also surely you are aware there have been experts that aren't satisfied with the conditions, right? Not every expert has the same opinion of this deal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The experts are satisfied with the conditions of inspections. I do not know enough about inspecting nuclear refineries to judge the deal in that aspect and therefore have to defer to expert opinion. Perhaps you have more knowledge in this field, then you should share your expertise with us.

Wrong again, the deal specifically states that the "experts" whoever those people are are not allowed to disclose if the deal was broken, try again.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wrong again, the deal specifically states that the "experts" whoever those people are are not allowed to disclose if the deal was broken, try again.

WTF?! Why can't they disclose if the deal is broken? Was this agreement drawn up by a 12 yr. old boy?

If they break the deal we deserve to know..the world deserves to know.

Yes read about it here

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/First_JCPOA_Post-Implementation_Day_Report_26Feb2016_Final.pdf

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/olli-heinonen-the-iaeas-latest-report-falls-short1/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/07/great-news-iran-deal-monitors-cant-disclose-violations/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bardock says its a good deal though, what doe she know that we dont?

We don't have to take my word, we can take one of your articles again

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
For all the blow hards here

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-fires-2-missiles-marked-israel-must-wiped-071612751.html

Also the Iran deal makes it impossible for the Inspectors to tell the world if Iran has violated the deal..

Some good deal huh? I bet everyone who supported this deal feels pretty small now.

http://armscontrolcenter.org/the-real-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations/

From your article:

Regarding Iran inspecting itself:




On Iran cheating


On Iran keeping centrifuges:




So basically you lied about all of this, and an article that you posted proves that you are dishonest.

Thanks for reposting what I said, everything there is correct and accurate and you are a liar.

"The head of the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed Monday that certain agreements reached under the Iran nuclear deal limit inspectors from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Islamic Republic.

Yukiya Amano, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, which is responsible for ensuring Iran complies with the agreement, told reporters that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal.

Amano’s remarks come on the heels of a February IAEA oversight report that omitted many details and figures related to Iran’s nuclear program. The report sparked questions from outside nuclear experts and accusations from critics that the IAEA was not being transparent with its findings.

Amano disclosed in response to questions from reporters that the last report was intentionally vague because the nuclear agreement prohibits the IAEA from publishing critical data about Iran’s program that had been disclosed by the agency in the past."

Originally posted by Surtur
WTF?! Why can't they disclose if the deal is broken? Was this agreement drawn up by a 12 yr. old boy?

If they break the deal we deserve to know..the world deserves to know.

You should read the link that TI posted in the other thread, it has a long section about how the 24day thing is a vast simplification and the conditions for inspection are actually very, very good for the IAEA.

Here's the link again: http://armscontrolcenter.org/the-real-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations/

The issue isn't that the IAEA aren't allowed to declare publicly if Iran is breaking the agreement. It's that the rest of the nuclear industry can't get access to figures about each location with regards to reduction of uranium, removal of centrifuges so they can't tell how quickly they are complying with the UN resolution. The problem being that the resolution never stipulated that those figures needed to be reported

If it turns out Iran IS breaking the deal the IAEA CAN report it and can even say which parameters of the deal they are breaking.

For example they can report that Iran has not complied in reducing its stockpiles of uranium as per the deal

They can't say "Iran has only reduced its stockpile by x amount when it should have reduced it by y amount and so is in breach of the agreement"

Are you denouncing another of your sources then, TI?

Why do you keep posting these articles that prove your dishonesty and actually state the opposite of what you want it to be?

Yahoo is my source?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You should read the link that TI posted in the other thread, it has a long section about how the 24day thing is a vast simplification and the conditions for inspection are actually very, very good for the IAEA.

Here's the link again: http://armscontrolcenter.org/the-real-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations/

Okay, but then why can they not disclose if they break the deal? Why do we not deserve this information if Iran is breaking a deal about nukes? Surely you'd agree they have zero right to do this?

Bardock is cool with refugees mass raping his country's women and Iranians having free reign over nukes. It's all good

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, but then why can they not disclose if they break the deal? Why do we not deserve this information if Iran is breaking a deal about nukes? Surely you'd agree they have zero right to do this?

In short...they CAN report if Iran is breaking the deal.

Originally posted by jaden101
In short...they CAN report if Iran is breaking the deal.

But they also could not report it, correct? To me it shouldn't even be in question. They break the deal? We are told about it ASAP.

Originally posted by Surtur
But they also could not report it, correct? To me it shouldn't even be in question. They break the deal? We are told about it ASAP.

Look at it this way

You task me with finding out whether your wife is cheating on you

I find out that she's cheated on you 100 times with 30 people but I can only tell you the basic fact that she's cheating on you. Not the details and numbers

That's what the IAEA CAN do. Report that Iran has broke the deal...just not the where exactly and by how much.

We are talking about real nuclear weapons vs hypothetical situation, its not apples to apples comparison.

Originally posted by Raisen
Bardock is cool with refugees mass raping his country's women and Iranians having free reign over nukes. It's all good

Notice he ran off with hardcore evidence he cant refute?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We are talking about real nuclear weapons vs hypothetical situation, its not apples to apples comparison.

Yes. The only hypothetical scenario here is you saying the IAEA can't report if Iran break the deal. They can. So either you know that but you're deliberately lying or you're lying out of ignorance. Either way you don't come off looking good.

Im not lying, I just heard this on CNN yesterday and I posted a article about it. How am I lying now?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im not lying, I just heard this on CNN yesterday and I posted a article about it. How am I lying now?

So it's the second option then. Lying out of ignorance. Not the first time you've jumped at an attention grabbing headline and not bothered to check the detail, is it?

So CNN Lied, go figure.

Ah hah, my vindication

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iaea-iran-nuke-deal-limits-reporting-violations/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ah hah, my vindication

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iaea-iran-nuke-deal-limits-reporting-violations/

That states exactly what I've been saying. That they CAN report whether Iran have broken the deal. They just can't report which locations and to what extent. Hence "limited reporting"

So yes. You were still wrong.

That seems like a pretty big deal they cant report on the locations and to what extent..so yes I am still right. And its not even me being right or wrong, its the agreement of the deal.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That seems like a pretty big deal they cant report on the locations and to what extent..so yes I am still right. And its not even me being right or wrong, its the agreement of the deal.

At worst it's a weak aspect of the reporting agreement, yes.

You said they couldn't report if Iran is breaking the deal...They can. So you were wrong. There's no scale of right and wrong in regards to what you stated. There's just you being wrong. The question is whether you're going to be honest about whether you knew what you were posting was wrong or whether you didn't know because you didn't bother to check. Why should anyone believe anything you post if that's the way you carry yourself?

Lets just agree to disagree.

Ok.