Intelligence²: The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated
Intelligence² is an organisation that holds sessional debates on different issues reported on the media. "Intelligence² takes information and analysis as its raw material, and translates this into discussion, conversation, and sexy debate."
Their session on April 25th was on the following statement:
The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated
Speaking for the motion: Iradj Bagherzade, Dr Ali Ansari, and Martin Woollacott.
Speaking against the motion: Dr Mehrdad Khonsari, Dr Patrick Clawson, and Roey Gilad.
Chair: Richard Lindley.
BBC-Persian has a detailed coverage here.
About 700 people attended the session and cast their votes before and after the debate:
Before the debate, 268 of the attendees believed that "Iran is an imminent threat"
253 of them thought that the threat is exaggerated, and 214 (about 30%) of them were not sure.
After the debate, two third of those undecided chose their stance and guess what:
Their session on April 25th was on the following statement:
The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated
Speaking for the motion: Iradj Bagherzade, Dr Ali Ansari, and Martin Woollacott.
Speaking against the motion: Dr Mehrdad Khonsari, Dr Patrick Clawson, and Roey Gilad.
Chair: Richard Lindley.
BBC-Persian has a detailed coverage here.
About 700 people attended the session and cast their votes before and after the debate:
Before the debate, 268 of the attendees believed that "Iran is an imminent threat"
253 of them thought that the threat is exaggerated, and 214 (about 30%) of them were not sure.
After the debate, two third of those undecided chose their stance and guess what:
 | The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated | |||
| Date | April 25, 2006 | ||
| Votes | Before debate | After debate | |
| For | 34.4% | 51.1% | |
| Against | 36.5% | 38.7% | |
| Don't know | 29.1% | 10.2% | |
(results taken from their website)
It is very interesting to see that the percentage of the people thinking that the threat is exaggerated increased from about 34% to 51%. However, it can be described by considering the reports broadcasted by the mainstream media around the world. The US officials have systematically and consistently described the Iranian nuclear program as "Nuclear Weapons Program". John Bolton, for example, draws the following conclusion from the recent report prepared by IAEA (his voice from BBC-Persian, fast forward to 3:08):
"... The IAEA report shows that iran has accelarated its efforts to aquire nuclear weopons ..."
Apparantly, IAEA still has no evidence of existence of such nuclear weopons program.
"... The IAEA report shows that iran has accelarated its efforts to aquire nuclear weopons ..."
Apparantly, IAEA still has no evidence of existence of such nuclear weopons program.
posted by Amir @ Sunday, April 30, 2006
5 Comments:
Doesn't matter which one, but actually ALL you mentioned!
The regime's nuclear program must be STOPPED and its resources should be spent to serve the well-being of the poor Iranians.
Btw, dont try to be an apologist for the regime.
You better know that the Mullahs you defend seek nuclear weapons
Hello Winston,
I am not an appologist for the Mullahs. Also I am not a believer of whatever I am told. I process my raw input data myself, logically and fairly. At the same time, I challenge those whose views may be biased. This way I improve my way of thinking. Having said that, I sometimes criticize my raw input data. This nuclear issue is not excluded.
The reason I wrote that comment was to mention that "Iran having nuclear weapons program" is not a fact. My opinion has nothing to do with mullahs or anyone else. It is my own conclusion.
You think that the regime's nuclear program must be stopped and I respect your opinion. But you need to make your argument credible. Quoting "nuclear weapon programs" without talking about its accuracy makes your argument weak.
winston wrote:
Doesn't matter which one, but actually ALL you mentioned!
The regime's nuclear program must be STOPPED and its resources should be spent to serve the well-being of the poor Iranians.
Btw, dont try to be an apologist for the regime.
You better know that the Mullahs you defend seek nuclear weapons
No Nukes for Iran until the Mullahs are gone!
No nuclear bombs ever. never ever.
I dont care about OTHERS having Nuclear things. But NO to any thing nuclear (even peaceful) for the Mullahs of Iran.
Freedom and prosperity for Iran, then Nuclear energy.
We have other priorities, and nukes is not one of them. At least not in the top ten list of priorities for Iran
1- Removal of the regime
2- Freedom and Democracy
3- Drug Addicts & Street Kids and prostitution problems should be solved
4- Free Secular Education for all
5- Cities must be strengthened for quakes
6- Taking care of retirees
7- Taking care of farmers
8- Taking care of historical monuments
9- Tourism industry
10- Building more refineries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
101- peaceful nuclear energy
Post a Comment
<< Home