Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Upcoming Iranian Nuclear talks.
Options
-
08-04-2012 5:22pm#1So another round of P5+1 talks seem to be set for Friday in Istanbul, although some confusion remains over the venue.
In any case western powers have already declared their demands for the talks, these include:Getting Iran to suspend high-level uranium enrichment and close a nuclear facility built deep under a mountain near the holy city of Qom are "near-term priorities" for the United States and its allies, a senior U.S. official said on Sunday.
The New York Times said the United States and other Western nations planned to demand Iran immediately close and ultimately dismantle the Fordow facility and also would call for a halt in the production of 20-percent enriched uranium.
In return Iran would likely get an easing of sanctions. I hope the talks are successful and we can finally bring an end to this stand off.
A theoretical question for you now. Seeing as any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program would be run in order to counter Israels own program, what do you think would happen if Iran offered to completely and totally halt all nuclear activities in exchange for Israel to publicly declare its program and also halt it's activities/ bring them under IAEA monitoring?
An unlikely and possibly impossible solution but is it a fair one?4
Comments
-
So another round of P5+1 talks seem to be set for Friday in Istanbul, although some confusion remains over the venue.
In any case western powers have already declared their demands for the talks, these include:
In return Iran would likely get an easing of sanctions. I hope the talks are successful and we can finally bring an end to this stand off.
A theoretical question for you now. Seeing as any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program would be run in order to counter Israels own program, what do you think would happen if Iran offered to completely and totally halt all nuclear activities in exchange for Israel to publicly declare its program and also halt it's activities/ bring them under IAEA monitoring?
An unlikely and possibly impossible solution but is it a fair one?
Yes would agree with that.0 -
'Fair' is far too vacuos a term, especially when dealing with the potential destruction of a nuclear weapon.
Not going to happen, a very basic concept of international affairs is that your do not reward behaviour like Iran exhibited in the last few years - you encourage it elsewhere and there is little or nothing to stop them starting again and demanding something else. Hence why the sanctions, it gives you a 'carrot' which is basically getting rid of the stick.
If your asking would it please alot of left wingers in the West, and make Iran save face - probably. Is it a good idea beyond that? Most definitly not.0 -
Not going to happen, a very basic concept of international affairs is that your do not reward behaviour like Iran exhibited in the last few years.
Behaviour like the below?Iran signs nuclear fuel-swap deal with Turkey
The Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, who spent 18 hours hammering out the deal with his Brazilian and Iranian counterparts, said there was now no need for more sanctions against Iran.
"The swap deal shows that Tehran wants to open a constructive path... there is no more ground for new sanctions and pressures," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8685846.stm
Or perhaps this?Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'
Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.
"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.
"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6274147.stm
Perhaps if this type of behaviour was not ignored and dismissed then the behaviour that Iran has engaged in in the last few years would not have happened.
You're starting the narrative where it suits your agenda.0 -
A theoretical question for you now. Seeing as any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program would be run in order to counter Israels own program, what do you think would happen if Iran offered to completely and totally halt all nuclear activities in exchange for Israel to publicly declare its program and also halt it's activities/ bring them under IAEA monitoring?
It would be a start, but I'd suggest for it to go that one step further, and for Israel to become completely nuclear-free.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
'Fair' is far too vacuos a term, especially when dealing with the potential destruction of a nuclear weapon.
Not going to happen, a very basic concept of international affairs is that your do not reward behaviour like Iran exhibited in the last few years - you encourage it elsewhere and there is little or nothing to stop them starting again and demanding something else. Hence why the sanctions, it gives you a 'carrot' which is basically getting rid of the stick.
If your asking would it please alot of left wingers in the West, and make Iran save face - probably. Is it a good idea beyond that? Most definitly not.
What are you talking about, 'left wingers in the West'? Don't attempt to lay claim to the right with your centrist views. The far-right in Europe is supportive of Iran and its regime.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »What are you talking about, 'left wingers in the West'? Don't attempt to lay claim to the right with your centrist views. The far-right in Europe is supportive of Iran and its regime.
It is? I dont care.
You deny a systemic dislike of Israel amoungst leftist organistations? Seems pretty clear to me.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Behaviour like the below?
Or perhaps this?
That entire incident has been thourougly explained thouroughly through its scientific facility ie the amount of fuel they were offering was enough to prevent a bomb earlier, but not at the point of offering. Nor is it the main point of contention with the Iranian nuclear program. They want full inspections to all facilities by the IAEA. Its irrelevant to your arugment regarldess and is made more so through its actions before and since.
To make it simple for you - behaviour like flaunting international law and not allowing the full inspecetions granted to the IAEA under the treaty. I think thats pretty clear.Chuck Stone wrote: »Perhaps if this type of behaviour was not ignored and dismissed then the behaviour that Iran has engaged in in the last few years would not have happened.
You're starting the narrative where it suits your agenda.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. It would still be rewarding behaviour that must not be rewarded. That is all.
Deal with the point actually made and stop with the 'well I blame Israel for its behaviour' what-about-ery.0 -
You deny a systemic dislike of Israel amoungst leftist organistations? Seems pretty clear to me.
All of which is valid and with merit. What's your point? Israel brings all criticism it receives on itself by refusing to play ball, and being more stubborn than a fascist taxi driver.0 -
Advertisement
-
All of which is valid and with merit. What's your point? Israel brings all criticism it receives on itself by refusing to play ball, and being more stubborn than a fascist taxi driver.
Which makes my claim about it making the left wing happy valid :rolleyes:. Thank you for agreeing with me in a round about way.0 -
All of which is valid and with merit. What's your point? Israel brings all criticism it receives on itself by refusing to play ball, and being more stubborn than a fascist taxi driver.
Israel is a fascist state? :pac:
And I suppose the Islamic states of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc are all beacons of democracy and human rights. Turn off the blinkers, lad. The typical Irish lefty is so blinded by faux outrage that in their warped mind they see despots like Ahmadinejad with his nuclear program as the good guys, while they rant and rave about Israel on online forums (usually using a laptop with Israeli microchips). Do you see how bizarre this looks to a normal person?
Israel doesn't stone women to death for walking outside without a hijab. Nor does it execute teenagers for having emo style haircuts. Nor does it hang homosexuals as a spectator sport for the public. I could go on but I'm sure you're aware of these facts already.
Here is some friendly advice: Stop reading the hate propaganda, turn off the laptop, and go outside. You may even engage in conversation with a Jewish person. They are intelligent, friendly people. Despite what you may believe, they don't have horns. Good chap.0 -
MOD NOTE:
Folks in this thread need to calm down. Less of name-calling and aggressive posting please.0 -
Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal posts
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. It would still be rewarding behaviour that must not be rewarded.
What does that even mean? Are you saying the only way to deal with states that US interests deems 'out-of-line' is by threatening them with sanctions and ultimately wide scale destruction?
Don't you think that neocon, chicken-hawk, 'strategy' has cost the people of the US enough already in blood and treasure?0 -
Let's see, the US plan to demand Iran immediately close Fordow and halt the production of 20-percent enriched uranium. While Iran has already made it very clear that it will not negotiate on those two issues."We see no justification for such a request from the P5+1," the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, told the Iranian student news agency.
So I think it's safe to say the talks will be a complete waste of time.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »What does that even mean? Are you saying the only way to deal with states that US interests deems 'out-of-line' is by threatening them with sanctions and ultimately wide scale destruction?
Don't you think that neocon, chicken-hawk, 'strategy' has cost the people of the US enough already in blood and treasure?
We'll ignore the fact the entire internationaly system recognises that what they are doing is 'out-of-line'.
Yes thats exactly what it means :rolleyes: Is parody the only defence you have for your opinions? I cant count how many times Ive been instantly subscribed to any number of positions and points of view because I took a given position in one argument. Is it so beyond the pale that I have opinions formed through rational thought on each matter, rather than a fixed ideology that informs every one of my opinions?
Or it could mean that it is blatantly a stupid idea to give a state things they would not already have had for doing something oustide the norms of international community, particularly this and particularly for what can easily be temporary changes to their program.
If you cannot see why this is a bad idea then its clear your postition on Israel and 'neocon' US administrations colour your opinion about this matter far too much for you to have a reasoned idea of what should and shouldnt be done.
Given your past history includes you challenging statistical facts concerning the US, for no other reason than it makes it look rescource rich (as childish as that sounds) this hardly comes as a surprise.
Rewarding the ending of behaviour that should not have happened to begin with, and that you sure as hell dont want other people to do is blatantly a crap idea.
Why, exactly, would it be a good thing in this context? Given that the bad thing is encouraging pursuit of nuclear weapons in other states, and the same state again if needs be, Im sure you have quite the answer for this.
That peoples views concerning the Middle East are so filtered through the state of Israel that they would gladly encourage its, and other regions nuclearistion just to see it taken down a peg is terribly sad. And its basically what every discussion in the Middle East breaks down to on this forums recently.
Given the people that think this is a good idea, I can tell allready I would be arguing aganist a very different group if the situations were reversed.0 -
We'll ignore the fact the entire internationaly system recognises that what they are doing is 'out-of-line'.
Who or what is the international system?I cant count how many times Ive been instantly subscribed to any number of positions and points of view because I took a given position in one argument. Is it so beyond the pale that I have opinions formed through rational thought on each matter, rather than a fixed ideology that informs every one of my opinions?
What? Lots of words ^^^ with very little substance.Or it could mean that it is blatantly a stupid idea to give a state things they would not already have had for doing something oustide the norms of international community, particularly this and particularly for what can easily be temporary changes to their program.
By 'give things' you mean 'not attack'.If you cannot see why this is a bad idea then its clear your postition on Israel and 'neocon' US administrations colour your opinion about this matter far too much for you to have a reasoned idea of what should and shouldnt be done.
The failure of Neocon administrations speaks for itself and is patently obvious.Rewarding the ending of behaviour that should not have happened to begin with, and that you sure as hell dont want other people to do is blatantly a crap idea.
Again you begin the narrative where it suits you. 1953 overthrowing of Iranian democratic government. Support and supply of arms to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. Ignoring opportunities to de-escalate tensions and normalise relations (as above).Why, exactly, would it be a good thing in this context? Given that the bad thing is encouraging pursuit of nuclear weapons in other states, and the same state again if needs be, Im sure you have quite the answer for this.
Again you ignore the reasons and begin the narrative where it suits you. Iran has already had its democracy overthrown for having the audacity to attempt to use its own resources to better the people of Iran. Is it any wonder that the Iranian regime is seeking nuclear capability (if indeed it is at all) with the history of western aggression and disregard for Iranian aspirations to control its own destiny.That peoples views concerning the Middle East are so filtered through the state of Israel that they would gladly encourage its, and other regions nuclearistion just to see it taken down a peg is terribly sad.
I'm pretty sure most rational people would rather there were no nuclear weapons in the M.E. rather than more. Israel having nuclear weapons aggravates the situation and contributes to the inter-state nuclear brinkmanship.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »Who or what is the international system?
The UN and international statutes.Chuck Stone wrote: »What? Lots of words ^^^ with very little substance.
Merely pointing out that seeking to fit my opinion about Iran not being payed protection money into a wider ideology is pointless in my case, I do not have one.
No I mean making concessions on the international stage that you would not make had they not started a nuclear program and broken international law to begin with.Chuck Stone wrote: »By 'give things' you mean 'not attack'.Chuck Stone wrote: »The failure of Neocon administrations speaks for itself and is patently obvious.
Irrelevant to what I said. Your personal dislike of them and Israel is the only thing informing your opinion on this, not reasoned thought.Chuck Stone wrote: »Again you begin the narrative where it suits you. 1953 overthrowing of Iranian democratic government. Support and supply of arms to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. Ignoring opportunities to de-escalate tensions and normalise relations (as above).
It is irrelevant if you see the Iranian regime as victims. Are you proposing that people feel sorry for them and therefore let them have nuclear weapons? I think youll find your last 2 points have little substance. Look up who actually supplied weapons, the US and Israel do not feature heavily.
The last has been dealt with convincingly and repeatedly throughout the media if you could be bothered looking up an opinion that does not immediatly validate your own.Chuck Stone wrote: »Again you ignore the reasons and begin the narrative where it suits you. Iran has already had its democracy overthrown for having the audacity to attempt to use its own resources to better the people of Iran. Is it any wonder that the Iranian regime is seeking nuclear capability (if indeed it is at all) with the history of western aggression and disregard for Iranian aspirations to control its own destiny.
No, your letting your narrative get in the way of the actual issue - nuclearisation of Iran is a universally bad thing. It does not become a 'good' thing because it annoys Israel or the US...
So your argument so far boils down to, you deem Iran has been through enough to earn itself the right to nuclear weapons, therefore they should have them? Powerful stuff.Chuck Stone wrote: »I'm pretty sure most rational people would rather there were no nuclear weapons in the M.E. rather than more. Israel having nuclear weapons aggravates the situation and contributes to the inter-state nuclear brinkmanship.
It may well contribute, that hardly deals with the point that rewarding people for seeking a nuclear weapon is not something that should even be considered.
A bunch of red herrings and straw men - nothing dealt with the actual issues. Hardly a surprise, but a waste of my time.
Ill make it easy for you
- Why is my point about rewarding those who purposely and repeatedly breach the treaty not valid?
-Do you have any real positives to blank out this one enormous negative? I have plenty others, but you are yet to deal with this or even give a positive beyond that its a nicer thing to do than sanction...
Keep in mind that maintaining Iran is a "special case" because it has such a long history of being wronged (and wronging others, but then that can be ignored Im sure) is not exactly the pinnacle of intelectual or reasoned argument.
Also keep in mind proportion and scale - rewarding breaches has obvious and massive global ramifications so make your rebuttal powerful and far reaching. Its just not good enough that you and others are annoyed by Israel.0 -
The UN and international statutes.
The same UN that the US et al ignored when they went to war against Iraq in 2003? The same UN that the the US shields the state of Israel from regularly. Such hypocrisy.
The US and co like to throw about terms such as 'the will of international community' and other such faux displays of global unity. You will note that the non-aligned movement (which makes up the majority of the states on the planet) often do not subscribe to what the US describes as breaches of international norms.The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, endorsed Iran's right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.
Source
When nations such as the US make demands of other countries under the threat of war the burden of proof that the risk is real and all alternatives have been exhausted falls with those who initiate the use of military force.Merely pointing out that seeking to fit my opinion about Iran not being payed protection money into a wider ideology is pointless in my case, I do not have one.
What?No I mean making concessions on the international stage that you would not make had they not started a nuclear program and broken international law to begin with.
Again you are wilfully ignoring the context of western aggression against Iran and a long history of meddling, to put it mildly, in the M.E. in general.Your personal dislike of them and Israel is the only thing informing your opinion on this, not reasoned thought.
I have no personal dislike against the people of the US or Israel so you can quit with your misrepresentation right there. The wars in Iraq and Afgh have been a disaster for the US in terms of blood, treasure and standing on the international stage. I am sympathetic to the people of Israel and would love to see them live in security and peace. I find the treatment of the Palestinians abhorrent and I believe Israeli aggression against its neighbours has gone too far but that does not make me anti-Israel by any rational person's standards.It is irrelevant if you see the Iranian regime as victims.
The Iranian regime is nasty and brutish. What idiot would think otherwise?
Are you proposing that people feel sorry for them and therefore let them have nuclear weapons?No, your letting your narrative get in the way of the actual issue - nuclearisation of Iran is a universally bad thing. It does not become a 'good' thing because it annoys Israel or the US...
Now this ^^ just cannot be taken seriously. The narrative is the narrative. You do not get to choose the chronological parameters of the debate about the history of Iran and the west.So your argument so far boils down to, you deem Iran has been through enough to earn itself the right to nuclear weapons, therefore they should have them?
No. I believe that nuclear proliferation is bad. Focussing on Iran's nuclear ambitions while ignoring the historical context of western aggression, Israeli nukes, is tunnel vision and intellectually lazy.Ill make it easy for you
You haven't and I don't think you can. Of all the people I have debated with on this forum I find your use of language the most difficult to decipher. Lots of words with very little substance. I have to read what you have written about 3 times before I can make head-or-tail of it and much of it still remains obtuse.0 -
Advertisement
-
These talks will just be a list of demands they know Iran will not concede too giving them more "smoking gun" to proceed with the war they desperately want.
What kind of bomb uses 20% enriched uranium anyway? Is it basically "stop researching this, you have no right to that knowledge"
Iran has a research reactor which generally use 20%+ enriched uranium. The US are basically telling Iran they do not have the right to conduct a broad spectrum of research which utilise such reactors.0 -
The US are basically telling Iran they do not have the right to conduct a broad spectrum of research which utilise such reactors.
The US is pissing in the wind.The head of the Iranian parliament's influential foreign policy committee, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said Tehran's negotiators are open to proposals but described the overall issue of uranium enrichment as "nonnegotiable."
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=235&sid=192859900 -
An answer to the first post of the OP:
On paper, and on paper alone it looks fair, but if you look at it:
Israel has never threatened to extinguish any nation, but Iran had. It has clearly threatened and threatens Israel. It calls it a spreading cancer, it encourages groups who to call Israeli extermination and so.
Taking that into account Israel holds (that's what is said) nuclear weapons to balance and determine countries like Iran from going too wild.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran may give their threats a serious boost and you don't want to test a madman (Ajmadinijad and his fellows) if he is serious or just playing around.
Also, you don't want to lose your current advantage (The Israeli nuclear weapons) if they exist.
Israel is a responsible country. If it wasn't what is happening now in Syria would be nothing compared to what Israel could do, if it were dark, not democratic and a western like state.
Be fearful regarding weapons in Northern Korea, the weak Pakistan.
Leave Israel out of it. It has a full control on it's capabilities unlike Pakistan, and doesn't threaten its neighbors unlike Northern Korea and Iran.
OP you called this thread: "Upcoming Iranian Nuclear Talks", but I see that your aim was to bash Israel again. You should edit your title.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »An answer to the first post of the OP:
On paper, and on paper alone it looks fair, but if you look at it:
Israel has never threatened to extinguish any nation, but Iran had. It has clearly threatened and threatens Israel. It calls it a spreading cancer, it encourages groups who to call Israeli extermination and so.
Taking that into account Israel holds (that's what is said) nuclear weapons to balance and determine countries like Iran from going too wild.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran may give their threats a serious boost and you don't want to test a madman (Ajmadinijad and his fellows) if he is serious or just playing around.
Also, you don't want to lose your current advantage (The Israeli nuclear weapons) if they exist.
Israel is a responsible country. If it wasn't what is happening now in Syria would be nothing compared to what Israel could do, if it were dark, not democratic and a western like state.
Be fearful regarding weapons in Northern Korea, the weak Pakistan.
Leave Israel out of it. It has a full control on it's capabilities unlike Pakistan, and doesn't threaten its neighbors unlike Northern Korea and Iran.
Chief of Staff of the Israeli army Halutz said at the very beginning of the (2006)war, “if the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Nothing is safe in Lebanon, it’s as simple as that.”
That's a nice little bubble you have there.OP you called this thread: "Upcoming Iranian Nuclear Talks", but I see that your aim was to bash Israel again. You should edit your title.
Your heavy bias is evident, so I'll ignore your baseless insult this time.0 -
Chief of Staff of the Israeli army Halutz said at the very beginning of the (2006)war, “if the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Nothing is safe in Lebanon, it’s as simple as that.”
Pff.. and you call it a threat on the Lebanese existence?
It was a response made out of pain and anger after Israeli soldiers had been attacked, killed and kidnapped.Your heavy bias is evident, so I'll ignore your baseless insult this time.
también, mí amigo. también.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran may give their threats a serious boost and you don't want to test a madman (Ajmadinijad and his fellows) if he is serious or just playing around.
.some Israeli officials have privately and publicly rejected such a characterization of Iran's program. According to The Economist, "most of those Israeli experts willing to talk rate the chances of an Iranian nuclear attack as low. Despite Mr Ahmadinejad, most consider Iran to be a rational state actor susceptible to deterrence."
"Bombs away, The Economist, July 17, 2007". The Economist. 19 July 2007.0 -
The Israeli wrote: »Pff.. and you call it a threat on the Lebanese existence?
It was a response made out of pain and anger after Israeli soldiers had been attacked, killed and kidnapped.
también, mí amigo. también.
Your right, threatening to turn back a nations clock 20 years is nothing. Justifiable in fact.
Let's just leave it at that, before the thread goes more off topic.0 -
Your right, threatening to turn back a nations clock 20 years is nothing. Justifiable in fact.
Let's just leave it at that, before the thread goes more off topic.
I think that you are the only one who takes it seriously (or just picture it that way) judging by the Israeli's warfare.. Not to remind you, that above Halutz there was the government.
Also, taking Lebanon 20 years backwards means "destroying it's infrastructure".
Exterminating Israel, means, well it simply means exterminating Israel.. Viva la little difference.
Also, I bet that many Christian Lebanese miss the country they had 20 years ago.
How can it get off topic if it's already off topic from the start? :pac:
There is a very little correlation between the thread's title and the actual meaning of your post which issss Israel and why it shouldn't have nuclear weapons.0 -
First round of talks have just finished up. No word yet if any success was had.0
-
Advertisement
-
These talks will just be a list of demands they know Iran will not concede too giving them more "smoking gun" to proceed with the war they desperately want.
What kind of bomb uses 20% enriched uranium anyway? Is it basically "stop researching this, you have no right to that knowledge"
Iran has a research reactor which generally use 20%+ enriched uranium. The US are basically telling Iran they do not have the right to conduct a broad spectrum of research which utilise such reactors.
:rolleyes: clearly the fear is its another step on the road to a nuclear weapon. It means it is able to aquire nuclear weapons 50% faster. You honestly cant see how this would be an issue? Then your completly unable to judge a situation, or the feelings of those involved.
You ignore (or are unaware, wouldnt suprise me) that it is allowed under the IAEA treaty, if the country involved are properly monitored. If the country is not monitored, it is entirelly logical that a step on the nuclear weapon road is not supplied to the country.
The offer of medical and scientific isotopes has been on the table since day one. Please inform yourself better before posting.
Ill link you an article to an actual, informed scource that will give you the science behind it, and what exactly they are researching.
Iranian researchers have also been testing high explosives on tungsten, a dense metal that can serve as a surrogate for uranium. Such studies would be needed if they wanted to compress uranium to the critical mass needed for a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And they have been looking at devices that, when compressed rapidly, produce bursts of neutrons that could trigger a nuclear chain reaction. The mass and shape of the materials tested seem to be designed to fit atop the Shahab-3, a medium-range ballistic missile developed by Iran.
http://www.nature.com/news/iran-s-nuclear-plan-revealed-1.9356
The idea that people then shrug their shoulders at further enrichment, and if they dont are mearly saying "stop researching this, you have no right to that knowledge" is childish at best.
If you have evidence for all your claims, or at least show how your claims are the logical conclusion of evidence based reasoning, please be my guest and show everyone. Too many people here value their own, clearly biased and uninformed, opinion too highly.
Regardless, it is yet another red herring and I wont engage with it any more here, it is irrelevant if you believe what you believe. It adds nothing to the discussion, if you want to say something that actually does be my guest.0
Advertisement