'wikipedia says' is not acceptable. I don't denigrate Wikipedia as a matter of routine, but you should know full well wiki is edited by anyone who cares to and is only subject to partial oversight. It might all be sound information, but I was not given any 'original' source from which to gauge its veracity. I presume the poster could not be bothered to check it out. You should have learned your lesson the other day PW, whilst making a paper thin case for nuclear weapons *obviously* being developed by Iran, by citing a likely 'Times' forgery in the shape of 'neutron initiators' and very selective reading of El Bareidi quotes[your cherry picked comment] to support your argument. Never mind that El Bareidi is on record numerous times as having said there is no firm evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, you chose a quote which implied the opposite. Rank analysis by a propagandist. You are a perfect example of the one eyed anti thought approach that prevails on here. Employing a variation of Cartesian thought along the lines of 'I think so therefore it must be'.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
U.S. regains Hellfire air-to-ground missile from Cuba (Reuters)
from the article: Comment / Settlers can stay, but only as citizens of Palestine