57 thoughts on “Iran Nuclear Trigger Document a Forgery, Mossad Suspected – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

    1. This is simply a shameful, non-responsive non sequitur attack on Giraldi & Porter. It does not deal w. the firm claim in their piece that Giraldi has confirmed fr. an inside U.S. intelligence source that the CIA has deemed the Iranian document a forgery. That’s the claim. NOw, if Kamm wants to debunk it, let him try. But to argue that Porter is a Cambodian Holocuast denier–what does that have to do with anything?? This is pure bilge.

      1. On 30 December 2009, I posted the following comment to the above-linked commentary by Oliver Kamm. As of today (1 January 2010) it has not yet been approved by the moderator (presumably Mr. Kamm):


        You correctly state that “The Times’s exposure of Iran’s nuclear duplicity stands or falls on its merits.” I’d like to briefly speak to that.

        I’ve examined the Persian (Farsi) documents that the Times published on-line, and I see no reason why they should be taken at face value. In particular, the two-page document about a nuclear trigger is suspect:

        1) It’s supposed to be a highly sensitive document, but it lacks any classification markings or special handling instructions;

        2) It’s alleged to have been written in early 2007, but it bears no date, and there is nothing in the document that would lead to an inference that it was written in early 2007;

        3) Times reporter Catherine Philp maintains, without citing a source, that the document is from the “Centre for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics,” but the document itself indicates no such thing;

        4) Catherine Philp maintains that the “Centre for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics” is one of the 12 departments listed in the 1-page “memo” signed by Mr. Fakhrizadeh, but it isn’t. (I’ve read the original Persian);

        5) The typography of the 2-page memo is also suspect, because it suggests that the computer used didn’t have a proper Persian input method installed on it — a situation you wouldn’t expect to find at a technically advanced center in 2007.

        With regard to the 1-page “memo” signed by Fakhrizadeh in 2005:

        1) It has no apparent connection whatsoever to the 2-page document about nuclear trigger work;

        2) It’s not really a memo, but rather a distribution list. None of the names of the organizations listed suggest nuclear weapons work;

        3) The document to which the distribution list was attached is not provided;

        4) The distribution list includes no classification stamp or any indication that the information is in any way sensitive.

        Bottom line: these documents don’t establish that Iran was working on an initiator for an atomic weapon in 2007.

        I think The Times failed to perform due diligence in its reporting on these dubious documents.

  1. Richard, this part –
    “Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect.” does not match the exacting standards of this part –
    “U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a “neutron initiator” for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.”

    You regularly criticise Haaretz articles as unreliable because they quote unnamed Israeli sources. You do this, in part, because of the person who is writing them (often calling them ‘stenographers’ etc etc). Why, then, is Mr Giraldi any different? He is also quoting unnamed sources. It is also worth knowing what his ideological interest is, just as you consider it relevant when attempting to debunk Haaretz articles citing unnamed sources.

    All I ask for is consistency.

    1. You don’t quite have it right. I criticize Haaretz because it NEVER produces named sources for its reports. I wouldn’t mind if Haaretz used unnamed sources for sensitive reports on intelligence or even military matters. But it doesn’t even name source for plain vanilla political stories.

      So I don’t expect Giraldi or Porter to name an inside intelligence source unless they’e prepared to dry up their future relationships with these sources.

      If Oliver Kamm & you think it’s relevant to a story on Iranian nuclear research to quote someone’s decades old testimony on Cambodian genocide then you’re welcome to it. The rest of us know how much weight to attach to this garbage.

      All I ask for is consistency.

      Isn’t it the hobgoblin of little minds?

  2. I hadn’t noticed this: “This should also apply to the level of trust we place in the Mossad, the Times of London, or any party with its own agenda around the subject of Iran’s nuclear program: “Would you buy a used conflict from this intelligence agency/newspaper?”

    Leaving aside your almost unique talent for self-parody, does Kamm’s post not deal with the agenda held by those pushing the forgery line?

    1. You’re really a mean-spirited weasel you know that. Gareth Porter & Phil Giraldi provided a credible intelligence source for their claim that the memo is a fake. Oliver Kamm provided nothing remotely similar to prove its authenticity. He claimed it came from Iran but provided absolutely no proof & certainly didn’t reveal the Times’ source, which would allow us to judge for ourselves the credibility of the claim. Instead of doing that, he attempts to tear down their reputations by quoting irrelevant non sequitur passages fr. their pasts which are supposed to show what? That they hold kooky views about the Cambodian Holocaust? What does that have to do w. anything. I’ve read Gareth Porter’s work on Iran & I, who know some things about the subject, find him entirely credible. I also know others who write for IPS & find them credible journalists. So much for Kamm’s claim that IPS is a nest of leftist vipers.

      Does Oliver Kamm have an agenda? You bet? Do Giraldi & Porter? Maybe. But the fact of the matter is that Giraldi & Porter produced the goods & Kamm produced bubkes. There you go.

      1. I’ll ignore the ad hominems (aren’t you capable of reading your own rules). Which is the credible intelligence source? This is all they seem to have:

        “Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.”

        And variations on the same theme throughout the article. Correct me if I’m wrong. Where are the goods?

        1. The goods are a ‘U.S. intelligence source.’ That’s good enough for me. What’s Oliver Kamm’s source? He won’t even tell you, will he? Oh that’s right, he does have an “Asian intelligence source.” Israel is in Asia [hand hits head in shock]! Who’d have thought that the Times of London & Mossad would play it so cute as to attempt to shield the identity of the source with such preciousness? Unless Kamm wants to claim that China provided the memo to him, or perhaps the Nepalese intelligence service.

          1. Ah, so you don’t have anything better than that. Again, to emphasise, I’m agnostic on whether it’s a forgery or not. The point is that the article you cite is hardly conclusive evidence that it is.

          2. you don’t have anything better than that.

            I repeat a U.S. INTELLIGENCE SOURCE. Do you understand what this means? It means someone who has all the intelligence resources of the U.S. gov’t at his command. And you ask for a BETTER source than this? What would that be? Barack Obama himself? Or God perhaps?

            Now you can doubt that Giraldi HAS such a source or that he’s made it up. But unfortunately for you his track record is far superior to yours or Oliver Kamm’s in terms of access to legitimate intelligence sources & his stories turning out to be accurate. And Giraldi was a CIA agent as neither you nor Kamm have been a I presume.

          3. It’s interesting. The original Times article has a number of different people responding to the document, some in support, some more ambiguous. For readers’ interest, I include them all:

            1. “Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

            2. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”

            3. Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”

            4. Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”

            The whole article is here – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece

          4. The original article is based on a fabrication. So why would quoting what anyone had to say about an article based on a fabrication prove anything? Pls. don’t do this again. I find it offensive.

          5. You cannot be sure that it’s a fabrication, as you yourself acknowledge: “Also disgusting about this report IF TRUE [my caps, in lieu of italics], is that either the U.S. or Israel could go to war against Iran on the basis…”

            I don’t care if you find it offensive. If you want to ban me it is your prerogative. I didn’t break your rules; precisely the opposite, I engaged with the material.

      2. Richard, I really must, for the second time, protest your propensity to insult……..

        weasels. How dare you characterize these clever, bright-eyed, glossy-furred creatures in such a vile manner? Please be kinder to weasels from now on. They do not deserve the vilification you have been heaping upon them.

  3. Alex, for your information, Giraldi has turned out to be correct in the past many more times than any so-called “source” from – or tied to – Israel. he correctly called the yellow cake forgery for what it was (and by now we all know where this particularly clumsy attempt at a”smoking gun” leads to. Hint: start with Ledeen); his analysis of the neocon plans and machinations in the US during the run up to the Iraq atrocity were usually spot on – often confirmed by subsequent events; and his comments on the Iran situation – and the ME in general – are sufficiently well rationalized politically to give credence to the connections he shines light on.

    Your attempt to cast aspersions on Giraldi are noted, as they fall in line with the typical obfuscations we see coming from israel, more often than not, by people who emigrated there while young enough to serve in their IDF. people who fall into this category (as you and Seth are) suffer a bit from IGS (intelligence Glory Schtick). You can’t but ascribe to the Mossad a certain aura of near-invincibility. Deep at heart you find it hard to believe they would be so readily caught red-handed, so to speak. As Richard points out however, in this type of political red flag operations, the aim is to get a narrative implanted – so plausible deniability is all they really need for cover-up, just like with this nuclear “trigger” document or the nigerian yellow cake libel. As long as it sticks long enough for newspapers to pick up, the mission is accomplished. You alex, are apparently a foot soldier in this battle, whether you realize it or not. They use your idealism and the serious complications from flare-ups of IGS to make you a conduit. I am sorry to see you quite so willing.

    As for Giraldi, the allegations he makes are in line with what we already know, so the attempt to assign him some nefarious motives falls way flat. We know for example, that currently, there is one country in the world, and only one, that’s itching to bomb Iran – for reasons of their own – and that is Israel. They are working overtime to get others tethered to their ’cause” just like they did with Iraq. There are especially highly visible attempts to drag the US into this – all over our media – and we don’t need Giraldi to tell us that. We see and hear what israeli and neocon inciters are spreading on our air waves and in the papers (see eg, the koperman hit job in the NYT). The parallels with Iraq are eery and have been duly noted by everyone who has eyes to see and is motivated to use them.

    My advise to you, Alex, is that you should peddle the Giraldi libels in places more likely to be already sympathetic to israel’s plans vis-a-vis Iran. People who read Richard’s blog are not likely to be swayed, so it’s a bit of a waste of time.

    PS there is a cure to IGS but the cure has serious side effects.

      1. Hysterical. Or perhaps the truth hurts that I do more on a day-to-day level (primarily through my involvement with CFP) to advance the cause of reconciliation than you do. Speaking of which, any chance you’ll post the appeal that I sent you? Or would that distract from the far more important cause of sending you off to Washington D.C. for J-Street’s conference?

        1. the truth hurts that I do more on a day-to-day level (primarily through my involvement with CFP) to advance the cause of reconciliation than you do

          I find it completely implausible that you are a Combatants for Peace activist. Completely. And as for that involvement, I would say that whatever good you may do there is certainly offset by the almost entirely negative role you play here & presumably in any other similar fora in which you might participate.

          1. By implausible are you accusing me of lying?

            Re. web forums: I occasionally post criticisms of Yaakov whatever his surname is; apart from that, very little. I haven’t been posting here – I only intended to post the Kamm article as an interesting counter-point; as people started insulting me I felt I had to respond.

            And do you think your participation in the JStreet conference offsets the need to inform your readers about the financial needs of an important Israeli-Palestinian peace organisation?

          2. No, not lying. But maybe lying to yrself. I don’t think you quite understand what you’re doing given the complete bifurcation of your world. You claim to be an activist for Israeli-Palestinian peace on the one hand & act as a pro Israel shill on the other. That’s why I find all this implausible.

            The Kamm article is not “an interesting counterpoint.” It is shallow, self-serving & reprehensible. But given that he edits a Murdoch shmate, entire understandable.

          3. I’m still waiting for a single piece of evidence that I’m a ‘pro Israel shill’. I’m pro-Israel in the sense that I want Israel to thrive and exist in peace and security alongside a Palestinian state (or in some kind of federal/bi-national arrangement), but I’m guessing that’s not exactly what you intended.

            Any chance you’ll explain to your readers why you asked for money to travel to Washington but don’t seem to be bothered enough to post the CFP appeal?

          4. If you don’t understand the role you play here then I’m not the one to explain it to you. Everyone else here except perhaps Rafi, Guy, Bar Kochba or Amir might disagree (& they generally support something akin to a settler/rightist 1 state solution). But everyone else in these comment threads knows precisely what I mean & echoes my sentiments.

            The more you ask me to publish this material the less likely I am to do it. And since you have asked in such an insulting fashion it won’t see the light here. You don’t really expect me to publish this material. You just want to score pts by being able to claim I’m a hypocrite becuase I won’t promote Combatants for Peace. But the issue isn’t CFP–it’s YOU. I’m sorry to punish such a worthwhile organization as CFP for yr sins. If they still want me to publish something ask them to use a diff. emissary & I will do so.

            If your goal is really to support CFP, then you will find someone I respect to ask me to promote this event. If I don’t hear fr. someone else fr. CFP I’ll know what to think about yr motives.

          5. Another distortion, although I give you credit for engaging with the issue at hand. I didn’t ask you in an insulting fashion; I sent you a polite email on the 14th December – you said you would take care of it when you had more time. That was quite some time ago, but perhaps you thought it was more important to post links to video games etc. I only drew attention to the fact that you happily ask your readers to pay for you to go to Washington D.C. because you needlessly cast doubt on the motives of my involvement with CFP, an organisation I am proud to be active within.

            In any case at least we know it’s all about you: because of your personal beef with me you won’t promote an important organisation (you and I both know you could do so without drawing attention to the fact that it was me who sent you the letter). We need no longer take your calls for Israeli-Palestinian peace seriously again. Although we wait with baited breath for your next call for conference expenses.

            Re. ‘everyone else in these comment threads’ yada yada yada, I’ve heard it before and I don’t doubt it. Mary, Shirin, Dickerson etc etc: they are no less misguided than you.

          6. I hosted a major conference on Dec. 16th which was why I told you your event would have to wait. I went on a family vacation on Dec. 21st & returned 2 days ago. You seem to think the world revolves around you & lash out when I don’t sufficiently recognize the importance you attach to things.

            I didn’t ask you in an insulting fashion

            You certainly did tonight.

            I didn’t post a link to a video game. I wrote a post that featured a graphic from one.

            I can see by this response that your devotion to CFP doesn’t trump your personal pique and that you make CFP suffer for your personal vendettas.

            You didn’t contribute to any of my previous soliciations of donations. I don’t see why anyone here should take you or yr snittishness seriously when it comes to calling into question the worthiness of the projects for which I ask donations.

  4. Just to clarify your role, alex – your part of the operation – call it “trigger document” – is during the mop-up phase. Your job is to cast doubts unto whoever brings allegations of forgery. It’s Giraldi today, someone else tomorrow. there are enough of you out there – to kick up a cloud of doubt over the messenger(s), whoever they point you to.

    Now, just between you and me, you should really be paid for the effort. The forger(s) did. If you ask nicely, I’ll let you know what to ask for and in what coin.

      1. I am not surprised. Way back when, before I got over my ziocain addiction, there was a rather crude attempt to recruit me, in a way that left no doubt what the purpose was (I was in a relatively sensitive industry at the time). Glad to say that, partly thanks to the blatant crudity of it, I became angry enough at the presumptioussness of it all to report the incident to the appropriate agencies. I have since become aware of many attempts to recruit ex-Israelis – especially those from technical fields – and I probably am privy only to a few of the stories and obviously not to the “success” stories. Suffice it to say that in my own fields I tread around all collaborations that involve israelis with great caution, and advise others to that effect. That includes many americans who can be unbelievably trusting – almost to the point of naivite – even when quite smart in their own fields. It’s really a very opportunistic game the israeli intelligence agencies play (and it’s not only mossad), preying on remnants of patriotism, tribalism, family ties, business relationships, close firendships, whatever may work. The contacts/solicitations don’t even have a clear purpose at first and, if ‘recruited” one may not even be called upon to do anything, until one day, a slightly off-color request comes one’s way from an unexpected source. Nuff said.

        Sorry to be so vague, but it’s necessary.

  5. Dana – I’ll treat your second comment as akin to the late night drunken text to an ex that really shouldn’t have been sent. Your first comment is more interesting: it’s totally opposite to my position. Far from suffering from ‘IGS’, as you creatively put it, I merely work on the assumption that the Mossad is no less incompetent than its rivals. I also assume that the Iranian security services are no less incompetent than the Mossad. Thus your attempt at analysing my motives are irrelevant.

    I have no idea whether or not this document is a forgery. What I do know is that the basis for claiming it is is ideologically driven, and not the dispassionate analysis Richard would claim it is. That was my point of raising the issue of Oliver Kamm’s post. It is a shame that you are so caught up in your own issues that you cannot see this.

    1. Both Dana’s comments were quite incisive I thought. But I guess the truth stings a bit. Alex, you are an apologist for Israel. Yes, you are a liberal apologist for Israel; & yes, some of yr views are fairly tolerant and open-minded. But whether through general truculence or ideological bias, your role here & I would imagine elsewhere on the web & wherever you hang out is to stir up clouds of dust as Dana put it when someone raises legitimate criticism of Israel & its motives.

      1. Well now it is clear: those who dare to dissent from the orthodoxy propounded at Tikkun Olam and other kindred sites are apologists for Israel. I’ll remind you: an astounding capacity for self-parody.

    2. Alex,

      You write: “I have no idea whether or not this document is a forgery. What I do know is that the basis for claiming it is is ideologically driven…”

      Actually, there are good, non-ideological reasons for seriously doubting the alleged “nuclear trigger” document’s authenticity. I’ve enumerated some of these in another comment you’ll find above.

  6. Why, Alex, you are losing your sense of humor and I am sorry to see that. But staying too long in the Israeli bubble can do that to you. Actually, I rather liked my second post and your bitch slap response (as we say over here in the other bubble that’s continental US) makes me really wonder now whether I’m on to something. me not mind though – there’s plenty more where that one came from.

    As for the rest of your comments, for one, IGS can afflict the most rational, you know, especially after prolonged exposure to the ingredients [very secret, BTW]. For another, thou protests too much regarding Mossad’s capabilities. Obviously, the forgery was not as skillfully done as it could be, but as Richard pointed out and I seconded, perfect forgery was not the intent of the operation. Political casus belli was, and for that it matters little how well it’s done and more how long before doubt is cast. Thirdly, regardless of what you think of Giraldi, if you read the article, you’ll see that there were fundamental questions to be raised regarding the document, such as the lack of confidential markings, the confusion of the office of origin and the strangely detailed task outlines, strange for it to be cast in one such document, and stranger still for the tasks to be so carelessly planned. To me it sounded like the plan someone thought could be made – not an actual plan (and planning is one of my specialties, so I know a piss-poor plan when I see one). All of which leads to one of two conclusions: either the Iranians are unbelievably competent and careless, thus negating your assumption of ascribing them competence (similar to that of the mossad, too; how generous! and how disingenuous!) or, it’s a paste up forgery meant to sustain credibility only so long. If the first is true, israel has little to worry from Iran so they should cut out the sabre rattling. If the second, ditto, as there’s no nuclear trigger and therefore no story.

    Finally, you did not give any consideration to the fact that Giraldi’s ideology – such as it is – may be a motivation for his interest, but it’s hardly a reason to doubt his account – his sources have been shown to be credible in the past, as, BTW, have Scahill’s – another detective of dirty shenanigans of the criminally minded private security contractors and military/industrial complexes. I know Giraldi is no lover of Israel, but then neither is half of the cia (the other half is on the fence), the nsa or the military brass. so what? why should they be enamored with a country that seems intent on dragging the US into dirty military adventures that are against the US’s interest?

  7. Interesting points: as I said, I have no idea whether this document is accurate or not, although I have little doubt that the Iranians are trying to get a nuclear weapon. If I were them I certainly would. In any case, soon we’ll see.

  8. Richard – please can you explain why my comment was ‘weaselly’?

    Just so everyone gets what’s going on:

    “Your last comment was so weaselly that I’ve decided not to maintain any private correspondence w. you fr. now on. You may post to the comment threads if you wish. But pls. do not write me privately as I will not read or reply to anything you write privately.” This is from Richard, the man who routinely uses ad hominem against those who disagree with him.

    1. please can you explain why my comment was ‘weaselly’?

      This is why:

      your almost unique talent for self-parody

      I don’t even know what this means. But it annoyed the hell out of me & made me determined that our private correspondence was at an end. Plus, the fact that you have made that private e mail public I find equally annoying.

      1. You routinely quote from emails you receive.

        Re. self-parody: it’s the fact that you routinely do what you ask others not to do: you don’t produce evidence, you do use ad hominems. This post, like most others, is replete with examples.

          1. I think it’s a reasonable use of the term, but fair enough if you disagree. In any case, you understand my point.

        1. See my comment rules. I generally only quote from e mails I receive w. an understanding fr. the correspondent that I may quote them. If you had asked I would not have given you permission to quote my e mail to you. It’s generally considered rude & a breach of etiquette.

          The only other times I quote e mails w/o the writer’s approval is when they contain threats or highly abusive content.

          Yes, I inadvertently broken my own rules a few times. But I try not to & generally succeed.

          1. Your comment privileges have been suspended. If you ever feel you can be a responsible member of the reader community here & avoid such offensive and insulting comments and behavior then I will consider reinstating yr privileges.

            But someone who says he feels pleased with himself for sharing my private e mail correspondence publicly will not publish here.

  9. “You quoted from a private email I sent you.”


    Can you please show me where it says that in the ‘Comment Rules’ tab that that’s a violation?

    Hope all is well. Have a happy 2010 if you’re celebrating.

    1. First, this is simply common courtesy. Second, I wrote in my comment rules that I will honor anyone’s request for privacy (under most conditions) in e mails sent to me. Therefore, it seems beyond reasonable to assume someone would understand that to mean that I might expect the same courtesy fr. any reader who I e mail privately. Third, my comment rules now include such a rule explicitly for the sake of immoderate readers like Alex who seem to think that they’re entitled to do as they like in matters like this.

      1. Hi Richard,

        Understood. Glad the rule has been updated because at least now you’ve clearly stated what you expect wrt personal e-mails (what you may expect/see, others may not as proven here).

        But surely now this means that Alex didn’t break your rules (despite what you felt was lack of common courtesy)? I’m sure he wouldn’t have done it had he known (or at least I’m assuming!).

        Happy 2010 and all the best,

        1. Alex wasn’t banned because he publicized the email. He was banned after a series of personal insults that culminated not only in publicizing my e mail to him but saying publicly that he was glad he’d done it. And he was suspended, not banned permanently. If he can manage to tell me that he feels he can adhere to comment rules & tone down the personal insults, then I’ll tone down my personal insults against him & reinstate him.

          1. “Alex wasn’t banned because he publicized the email.”

            Oh, I thought that’s what you said …

            “He was banned after a series of personal insults”

            I thought you guys were just going at it back n’ forth like most of us do in heated debates. To be honest, I didn’t see much wrong in what you, or he, said …

            “If he can manage to tell me that he feels he can adhere to comment rules”

            I can post this on his site (though I don’t know if it will get through as I think he stopped updating it) but how should he contact you?

          2. He’s written to me via Facebook & can do so that way if he wishes to agree to respect my comment rules (including the new one specifying that private msgs. not be cited w/o permission).

  10. Alex, you show incredible contempt and disdain toward the proprietor of this blog and then you turn around and want him to do you a favor and post something for you on his blog? You’re just not a morally serious person. That’s not how human relations work, it reeks of mean-spirited manipulativeness & empty provocation.

    Early in the back and forth you claimed he has an “almost unique talent for self-parody”. You didn’t initially provide a basis for the charge, and when you did later, your rationale simply does fly. I personally would find such an empty charge incredibly disrespectful. All he had done up to that point was indicate how your attempted equivalence of the un-named sources issue was fatuous and wrong-headed. And then after your early disdainful, contemptuous broadside you have the chutzpah to turn around a little further down and talk of “abuse”. I swear, why do pro-Israel shills—and yes, that’s what you’ve exemplified all along here, comment after banal comment—tend to be the biggest thin-skinned whiners?

    The big fallacy that you’ve shown all along is a total inability to understand distinctions and context. It reminds me of how the American columnist Paul Krugman used to satirize the American media in the tedious way they have of giving false equal weight to totally (factually) unequal ‘sides’ of an issue. He would use blatantly exaggerrated cases to get the point across, settled issues like heliocentrism or global warming, with the media giving opposing voices equal weight accompanied by the tag line “views differ”. In a less dire form, that’s essentially what the media does and it’s what you do (or rather did) here, Alex.

    The salient point is that Giraldi and Porter have demonstrated vastly more factual credibility over time compared to Oliver Kamm. If you look over their track record they’ve been pretty much spot on concerning the big foreign policy issues of contention in recent years like Iraqi WMD, etc. (as Dana noted). They’ve demonstrated themselves to be a solid source of information. Also, the context (again, a concept you seem unable to comprehend) of this post is the rising drumbeat for confrontation with Iran, many leading Israelis and American establishment neocons in media and government are pushing for this and have a preconceived position on Iranian intentions and nuclear weapons ambitions, that “agenda” is there for all to see. Giraldi and Porter’s alleged nefarious agenda is much less clear.

    But again, you’ve shown yourself incapable of mentally comprehending that not every claim has equal weight or value, not all positions or judgements are equal in their relationship to truth. Sorry, it’s a tough unfair world, particularly when it comes to pro-Israel shilling and empirical reality, the two tend to be at odds.

  11. Actually, Kamm has himself unwittingly confirmed that the document published in the Times was a fake. See his comment here:
    “It was in fact a retyped version of the relevant parts of that original document. The original document contained a lot of classified information. The Times did not publish the original document, because of the danger that it would alert the Iranian authorities to the source of the leak. The full version of the document is in the hands of the IAEA.”

    This contrasts the claims made by the Times who described the document they posted as “Iran’s nuclear trigger: document in full”. They also have a link to a translation of the document: “Iran’s secret nuclear trigger document: full translation.”

    ‘document in full’ and ‘full translation’

    Someone’s not telling the truth…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link