Do You Know Who A.Q. Khan Is?

[trysail]

I'm curious to know how many people know who A.Q. Khan is.

Presumably, if you know who he is, you know what he did.

The "science" of polling being what it is, I suspect that responses to the poll will be heavily weighted toward "yes;" after all, it is to be expected that people who don't know who he is aren't likely to admit it.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Well I do as long as its not someone else with the same intitials that is!

 

[Liar]

I don't even know what an A.Q. Khan is.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

If it isn't Ghangis Khan, than I have no idea who it was.

 

[jomar]

I do.



Because I googled.

 

[Guest]

I do.



Because I googled.

Cheater cheater pumpkin eater.

Or is that pants on fire?

Wait - it's Lit. It would be pants on fire.

Or pussy eater.

(I'm so confused.)

 

[jomar]

Cheater cheater pumpkin eater.

Or is that pants on fire?

Wait - it's Lit. It would be pants on fire.

Or pussy eater.

(I'm so confused.)

The latter I do believe. But I did vote 'no' since I didn't know.

 

[Guest]

The latter I do believe. But I did vote 'no' since I didn't know.

I think I'll google pussy eater.

No sense going through life being confused.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's why so many polls are anonymous, because it's easier to be truthful.

Most poll-takers figured that one out long ago.

However, I'll put myself down as a "no", just for you.

edit;
New Yorker Article

 

[DrHappy]

I honestly voted yes. He's relevant these days. What about Mansoor Ijaz? I haven't heard from him in a while, though I'd like to hear his thoughts.

 

[sxcascinn]

No Should I????

 

[egelante]

I knew the name, but not why I knew it, so that's a no. I've seen a lot of Khan's over the past few days - attempting to track down an old friend

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Yes, I know who Dr. A.Q. Kahn is and what he's done. Now, how is Shrub going to spin this when his buddy in Pakistan goes under?

 

[adetaildiva]

Okay, so I don't know who or what A. Q. Khan is. A more relevant question to me is: should I care that I don't know?

 

[cloudy]

I know who he is.

So....what's the whole point of this thread?

 

[Guest]

I know who he is.

So....what's the whole point of this thread?

I think the point may have been to demonstrate his amazing brilliance at knowing so much more than the rest of us? Perhaps?

Which is why I didn't take it seriously.

I never did google pussy eater, though.

 

[cloudy]

I think the point may have been to demonstrate his amazing brilliance at knowing so much more than the rest of us? Perhaps?

Which is why I didn't take it seriously.

I never did google pussy eater, though.

Probably so.

After all, posting in a large, colorful and annoying font means that you're so much brighter and well-informed than everone else.

*nods*

 

[egelante]

Probably so.

After all, posting in a large, colorful and annoying font means that you're so much brighter and well-informed than everone else.

*nods*

Perhaps he's trying to prove his theory about the weighting of polling... problem is that it won't reveal the result!

 

[trysail]

So....what's the whole point of this thread?

It's quite simple: curiosity.

Here's a guy who's actions have the potential to profoundly alter the entire world. Stimulated by the week's events, I found myself wondering how many people are even aware of his existence.

 

[Kev H]

What saddens me to no end (again) is the global political maneuvering. No one is interested in the truth, unless it can provide leverage to get what you want. Sickening, actually.

Thank you, Stella, for the article link.

 

[trysail]

UN Says Knowledge of Iran's Atomic Work `Diminishing'
By Jonathan Tirone

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations nuclear agency said its knowledge of Iran's current atomic program is ``diminishing,'' even after the government in Tehran provided more information about past work.

``Since early 2006, the agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing,'' the International Atomic Energy Agency said today in a report on Iran's nuclear program issued in Vienna. ``The agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing.''

It's the second IAEA report issued since Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei brokered a June accord with Iran giving UN inspectors more access to people and places involved with the country's nuclear work. Inspectors had wanted answers to all their questions about Iran's uranium enrichment program before Nov. 22, when the IAEA's 35-member board of governors convenes.

Iran is operating 3,000 centrifuges at its underground enrichment plant in Natanz, the IAEA said. The country provided inspectors with ``consistent'' information on its past atomic work, the agency added.

The IAEA report is unlikely to satisfy U.S. diplomats, who are seeking to broaden economic and political sanctions against Tehran's government.

``We're not expecting to see a little bit more information here and a little bit more information there,'' Gregory Schulte, the U.S. envoy to the IAEA, said yesterday. ``What the Security Council wants to understand is what are they doing today and why are they not suspending those proliferation-sensitive activities that the Security Council has directed they suspend.''

UN Sanctions
Iran has been under UN sanctions since December for refusing to suspend enrichment while inspectors tried to determine the source of the country's uranium-enrichment technology. The Security Council's permanent members on Nov. 2 failed to finish drafting a third round of sanctions on Iran and will have to meet again on a U.S. proposal to increase pressure on the country.

The U.S. and some European countries suspect Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its uranium enrichment work is to generate electricity.

China and Russia have so far prevented more sanctions against Iran, the world's No. 2 holder of oil and natural gas reserves, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said earlier this month.

 

[thebullet]

Do you people REALLY know who AQ Khan is?

I didn't see the link mentioned by someone above, but I did listen to an interview of two Guardian reporters who have written a book about Pakistan's nuclear program. It is totally bizarre.

Those of you who think that Khan is the villain who was selling nuclear technology to North Korea and Lybia and perhaps Iran, too are only aware of a small portion of what appears to be the truth.

The story goes back to the fall of the Shah of Iran. The US lost our #1 ally and client state in the eastern arab/muslim world when the Shah was thrown out. Desperate to replace him, we turned to Pakistan.

Pakistan was pretty much broke at the time. They needed bucks, they needed arms, they wanted atomics. Over the course of 4 administrations (Carter's administration started it but really didn't do anything), America has been sending a tremendous amount of militrary aide to Pakistan, including specifically atomic aide.

Every year the Reagon administration was required by law to certify that Pakistan was not seeking nuclear arms while was sending nuclear components secretly to Pakistan.

Khan was the father of the Pakistani nuclear program. By the early 90's Pakistan was selling nuclear technology as a means to raise cash. They apparantly agreed to trade with North Korea: nuclear technology for missle technology.

In 2004 (I think) Khan admitted that he was exporting nuclear technology to the axis of evil, etc. He was placed under house arrest. Pakistan had proven they were on the side of the angels.

But it was all lies and the US knew it. Khan was made the scapegoat at the suggestion of Richard Armitage, undersecretary of State. Apparantly the plan came directly from the White House.

But it was the Pakistani military that was selling nuclear technology all along. They continue to export nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea among others. And the US knows it and ignores it.

The circular logic: we send nuclear technology secretly to Pakistan. Pakistan sells that technology to Iran with our knowledge and quiet acquiesence. We threaten to bomb Iran for having nuclear technology.

Is this a great country or not?

 

[Lovelynice]

IAEA - Iran generally truthful on nuclear power plans



.

 

[Pure]

a missed point.

the US knew what was happening, and has forgiven Khan and Musharaff,

[excerpt from the new yorker article, link given above] : A Bush Administration intelligence officer with years of experience in nonproliferation issues told me last month, “One thing we do know is that this was not a rogue operation. Suppose Edward Teller had suddenly decided to spread nuclear technology and equipment around the world. Do you really think he could do that without the government knowing? How do you get missiles from North Korea to Pakistan? Do you think A.Q. shipped all the centrifuges by Federal Express? The military has to be involved, at high levels.” The intelligence officer went on, “We had every opportunity to put a stop to the A. Q. Khan network fifteen years ago. Some of those involved today in the smuggling are the children of those we knew about in the eighties. It’s the second generation now.”

In public, the Bush Administration accepted the pardon at face value. Within hours of Musharraf’s television appearance, Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, praised him as “the right man at the right time.” Armitage added that Pakistan had been “very forthright in the last several years with us about proliferation.” A White House spokesman said that the Administration valued Musharraf’s assurances that “Pakistan was not involved in any of the proliferation activity.” A State Department spokesman said that how to deal with Khan was “a matter for Pakistan to decide.” [end excerpt]

----

the US is friends with a major funder of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, and is friends with the country, Pakistan, supplying the 'brains' for the nuclear black market, and possibly nuclear terrorism. oh, and Pakistan is likely hiding Osama and some of his boys.

 

[sr71plt]

I've been editing a book for Macmillan today on Indian foreign policy. And I just hit a whole section about A. Q. Khan. And I laughed.