World Shi’a Twelver ignoramuses sign Munich 2013

The agreement, however, would not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent or dismantle any of its existing centrifuges."

Netanyahu’s conditions

Well, the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future.

President Obama rightly said that Iran's conciliatory words must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action. And to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from Iran's territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.

And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability.

Winston Churchill: Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.

The actual transcript of Obama's remarks on the Iranian nuclear deal:

The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: ' ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.'

Two-thirds of the world is covered by water, and the rest is censored by The Economist

What do you do when your post gets deleted, like mine was in The Economist? You try to understand what happened and you send an email to clarify what “removed because it breaks our comments policy” actually means, and get no response.

It may well be that the Comments Moderator is a program responding to certain criteria and not a human being but I have no way of telling whether it would pass the Turing Test or not.  

So is The Economist’s Comments Moderator just an imperfect program with no human intervention whatsoever or should The Economist’s famous ad be changed to   Two- thirds of the world is covered by water, and the rest  is censored by The Economist?

The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online.  The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:

http://www.economist.com/legal/terms-of-use#usercontent

We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.


Yours sincerely,

Comments Moderator The Economist online


Your comment:

I am often asked why stupidity and not design? Because how else can one
explain the Obama administration rushing into a deal with Iran, the outcome
of which would be a nuclear war? There is no other explanation but stupidity.
Ignorance falls in that category too because only the stupid would fail to
educate themselves on the motives that drive their enemies.

The quintessence of the US-Israel split on Iran
[1] http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/the-quintessence-of-us-israel-split-on.html

You may not:

·         Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages containing material that is obscene, racist, homophobic or sexist or that contains any form of hate speech;

·         Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that infringe copyright;

·         Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that are illegal, libellous, defamatory or may prejudice ongoing legal proceedings or breach a court injunction or other order;

·         Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages that are abusive, threatening or make any form of personal attack on another user or an employee of The Economist;

·         Post Messages in any language other than English;

·         Post the same Message, or a very similar Message, repeatedly;

·         Post or otherwise publish any Messages unrelated to the Forum or the Forum's topic;

·         Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages containing any form of advertising or promotion for goods and services or any chain Messages or "spam";

·         Post, link to or otherwise publish any Messages with recommendations to buy or refrain from buying a particular security or which contain confidential information of another party or which otherwise have the purpose of affecting the price or value of any security;

·         Disguise the origin of any Messages;

·         Impersonate any person or entity (including The Economist employees or Forum guests or hosts) or misrepresent any affiliation with any person or entity;

·         Post or transmit any Messages that contain software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of the Site or any computer software or equipment, or any other harmful component;

·         Collect or store other users' personal data; and/or

·         Restrict or inhibit any other user from using the Forums.

Stopping Israel from Stopping Iran

Actually, what the international community does not realize is that they are as much under threat as Israel is. 

Why Iran Has No Right of Enrichment - Dore Gold

“Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”

Isaac Asimov

                                                The Three Laws of Robotics

1.     A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.     A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.     A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Robots following Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics  would do a better job in protecting Americans than the present Obama administration.

In 1986 I rushed into the Barnes and Noble bookstore on 5^th Avenue, bought a copy of I,ROBOT, and handed it over to Isaac Asimov to sign it. The next day among computer  professionals I said – guys, I saw Isaac Asimov yesterday in Manhattan!  Who is he? they asked. 

I am often asked why stupidity and not design? Because how else can one explain the Obama administration  rushing  into a deal with  Iran, the outcome  of which would  be a nuclear war? There is no other explanation but stupidity. Ignorance falls in this category too because only the stupid would fail to educate themselves on the motives that  drive their enemies .     



Update: This is what I got from The Economist

The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online.  The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:

http://www.economist.com/legal/terms-of-use#usercontent

We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.


Yours sincerely,

Comments Moderator The Economist online


Your comment:

I am often asked why stupidity and not design? Because how else can one
explain the Obama administration rushing into a deal with Iran, the outcome
of which would be a nuclear war? There is no other explanation but stupidity.
Ignorance falls in that category too because only the stupid would fail to
educate themselves on the motives that drive their enemies.

The quintessence of the US-Israel split on Iran

[1] http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/the-quintessence-of-us-israel-split-on.html

and my response:

Would you be so kind to clarify which of the 14 rules have I violated? Thank you    

How would The Economist characterize a policy, the  outcome of which would be a nuclear war?  Intelligent? 

Naftali Bennett on Iran: " A bad Iran deal will lead to war and a good deal will actually prevent a war "

US Senator Mark Kirk: Iran’s Deal of the Century