Search the Community

Iran Has/Wants Nuclear Weapons? To date, no concrete evidence has been presented about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Each and every inspect report by the IAEA and the National Intelligence Estimate has confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Leader of Islamic Revolution has denounced nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and stated unequivocally that Islam forbids the “production and stock piling of nuclear weapons.” The Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons is a registered document with the UN. Iran has been the only country to lobby for a nuclear-free Middle East. In contrast, Israel has yet to agree to a single IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant in Dimona is an open secret used to intimidate the Palestinians and neighboring countries. Iran Threatened to Wipe Israel off the Map? The world hears incessantly how Iranian president Ahmedinjad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” yet, not a single translation of this speech has been made to clearly prove he made this statement. In 2005, the newly-elected Ahmedinjad was giving a speech at a conference in Tehran about Zionism. He quoted the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini, and said, “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” A direct translation of this is: “The Imam [Khomeini] said [the] regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” The words “wiped off the map” are not to be found in that sentence, and any amateur translator will tell you nagsheh, the Persian term for map, is not found in that sentence. In the speech, Ahmedinjad further stated that just as the Soviet regime had fallen, the Zionist one would too. He did not say Israel was going to be wiped off any map. Obviously when the Soviet regime collapsed, was Russia wiped off the map? In the same infamous speech, Ahmedinjad called for a Middle East where Muslims, Jews, and Christians would live in a real democracy and in liberty. For the record, Iran has not launched an attack on any nation in the past 300 years, but it has defended itself against assaults by other countries. Compare this track record to that of the biggest war monger in the Middle East, the same one that uses cluster bombs to take out innocent children. The Iranians are Eagerly Awaiting the Arrival of “US Democracy”? American-style democracy has taken over the Middle East; just ask the Iraqis and Afghans how happy they are post-American liberation of their countries. Operation Iraqi Freedom has only cost 1.3 million Iraqi lives to date. In the last Iranian elections, an overwhelming 85 percent of voters turned out to pick the next president, and practically every pre-election poll showed President Ahmedinjad with a significant lead over his opponents. However, the West continues to claim Iran is not a democratic country despite it being the only Middle Eastern country with transparent elections and a fully functional parliament. Western hypocrisy of this magnitude must be respected, and the West has yet to call its allies (Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) for throwing political opponents in jail and never holding elections. By all instances, Iran is a democratic society, but to the United States and its allies, the very existence of a democracy in Iran is a threat. They removed this threat in 1953 when they overthrew the democratically-elected government and put in the totalitarian Shah. Speaking of democracy and sovereignty, the US would know a thing or two about those terms, considering for the past 30 years we have tried to overthrow the Iranian government and laid siege upon siege on the Iranian people. More recently, Congress voted to allocate 120 million dollars for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran. It doesn’t end there. The US also generously donated 60-75 million dollars to fund and support violent underground extremist groups MKO, one of the largest anti-Iran terrorist organizations. Democracy in the Middle East is synonymous with murderous and catastrophic regime change. Iran Is Five Years Away from a Nuclear Bomb? Every few months, the United States and Britain try to scare us out of sleeping at night by saying Iran is five years away from a nuclear bomb. Here’s the problem: Iran has been “five years away from a nuclear bomb” for the past four decades. Obama was asked by a Washington Post reporter if he would “call on Israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.” The usually eloquent Obama stuttered his way through a response once he finally regained his composure and stated, “And, as far as Israel goes, I’m not going to comment on their program.” Maybe he should leave Iran’s peaceful program alone and worry about the nuclear warheads Israel and India have. http://shervinandpol...-few-questions/

Recently in a discussion on these boards an argument was made that how Iran and India are great countries because they don't get dictated to by the foreign powers. It was said to get to the Pakistanis who can't think straight because of their country's history of taking foreign dictation. While there are no two opinions about this in the case of Iran, and whereas Pakistan has often acted like a US client state, one has to question the assumption behind extolling India's position vis-a-vis foreign dictation. The easiest way is to compare Iran's and India's relations with the US for the last couple of decades to see through the argument. The United States had always viewed Indian (and Pakistani) nuclear programs as a threat to the West and its allies. But in early 1990s when India was reeling under IMF loans and US sanctions, the then Indian government entered into back channel talks to convince them that Indian nukes were not a threat to the US or the West and asked for the sanctions to be lifted. Americans bluntly told them to normalise relations with Israel to prove their sincerity. India complied. Magically, literally overnight, Indian nukes stopped being a threat and an era of US-Indian strategic partnership was entered into. This partnership got a fresh boost about which you can read the links below. Pakistan was told to follow Indian example when the US imposed sanctions after nuclear tests in the late 90s but Pakistanis refused. Which was unusual since Pakistan is supposed to be a client state in the Saudi model, doing what the Americans demand, but here the usual Indian and Pakistani roles vis-a-vis foreign dictation were reversed. This also tells us that foreign dictation is not an either/or proposition. Most developing countries are pushed to find a balance to resist dictation of powerful countries while at the same preserve their country's interests. Some countries are more successful in this than the others, depending on their internal politics, size and geostrategic location. Note that India is not a signatory to NPT (Nuclear non-proliferation treaty) whereas Iran is but we still get the following: Why? Because of this: It may be argued that the current Indian foreign policy is in line with its interests, that India doesn't need to keep speaking against injustice to harm its own interests. So its strategic partnership with the US and Israel is understandable. This may so but the pied pipers of Incredible India™ on these boards should be consistent when they criticise those camps that support US hegemony in the region through its Zionist proxy, and those that don't. Or those that exist to take foreign dictation (Saudi et al) and those that don't (Iran, Syria, Russia). There is a reason that, of all the emerging powers in the region (China, Russia, India), it is the latter which is a US strategic partner and not others. A useful summary from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Israel_relations

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/140304/2014-nobel-peace-prize-nominees-malala-pope-francis-putin Is the Nobel Peace Prize worth anything at all now? Especially after they awarded it to a mass-murderer and criminal like Obama? And now they look toward Putin... This was me for a good 10 minutes when I first learnt about Putin's nomination.

Exactly seven years ago, on February 10, 2007 Obama announced his presidency. Here is the whole speech: his talk is mainly about change. About min 19.00 he talks about ending war on Iraq. He wants to bring the troops home. "It is someone else's civil war and Shia and Sunni must learn to settle their own problems." But then the question is, why does his government today interfere in Syria?

Just wanted to let you all know of an alternative news organization MintPress. I found some of their articles interesting and debatable, at the very least, a breeze of fresh air in the stagnant pond of rotten news in USA specially from the commercial media (CNN, Fox, NPR etc.). Here's the website: http://www.mintpressnews.com/ Here's what the MintPress founder Mnar Muhawesh says about her ambitions: “If you know what you are doing is going to make a difference for Muslims, then do it,” she says. The need for Muslim, especially Shia, journalists has become crucial in the Western world, Muhawesh feels. “[We] as Muslims are not represented equally as we should be, and as long as Muslims avoid journalist careers, then the voice of the Muslims will rarely be heard or even understood,” she adds. Many Shia scholars, including the prominent Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi of Toronto, have stressed the need to enter the world of journalism. Being the mainstream source of media, journalists are gifted with that ability to let the world know what Islam and Shi’ism really stand for. As Muhawesh puts it “Alhamdullila I feel like God has given me a mission in life to represent Muslims in the one country that is fighting a war against Islam, yet the one country that is giving opportunity to everyone. I am taking advantage of this opportunity and will Insha’Allah help Muslims everywhere.”

SCENES FROM NOBAMA PROTEST MARCH Protests Countrywide! Divergent views on why South Africans dislike the man We are called the Rainbow Nation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrTeBDetcfw South African Muslim Lawyer's Asscociation Also:http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/311388.html

Watch the documentary here: http://larouchepac.c...qaeda-executive

In caving on Jerusalem, Dems pulled back the curtain on the lobby by Philip Weiss on September 6, 2012 35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09cEwnivdr0&feature=player_embedded Last night was an amazing moment at the Democratic National Convention; for an instant, we saw the Israel lobby naked on the national stage. When party bosses stuffed the phrase, "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel," back into the platform, reportedly at the command of the president himself, and the Democratic rank-and-file on the floor bridled at the command and booed, and even the convention chair, Mayor Villaraigosa, looked to be following orders, the curtain was pulled back on the wizard of Oz-- to use the great conspiratorial figure of a previous American century-- and the press and the informed public were left to discuss what we had all just seen. The moment will be remembered for the two attractive and disgusted Arab-American delegates featured on-camera in the video of the botched votes above, at :25 and 1:00 -- and in the report on NBC Nightly News last night: the man with his "Yalla the Vote" (Get out the Vote!) tshirt, and the woman with her Arab-Americans sign. Most of the press subsequently performed damage control. Larry O'Donnell of MSNBC poohpoohed it as routine platform-management. Andrea Mitchell changed the subject to the weather shifting tonight's venue, and balloons. Only one commentator truly distinguished himself. Chris Hayes of MSNBC said that it was a "craven" moment and went right to the policy implications, that Israel's claim to Jerusalem is "untenable" and one cause of the endless conflict in the Middle East. Rachel Maddow quickly turned the subject to the other word the Dems had reinserted in the platform-- God-- to get the conversation back on safe ground. more: http://mondoweiss.ne...-the-lobby.html

Will Obama attack Iran for an October Surprise or will he Wag the Dog just before the Republican Convention? I think an unjustified attack on Iran's civilian nuclear facilities is almost certain to happen before the November elections in the US. Netanyahu does not trust Obama and wants the murderous endeavor to occur before his political leverage on Obama is diminished in the event that Obama is reelected. Obama would be less politically accountable if he does not have to worry about any more elections in the future and he would be term-limited after a second term. Obama may now see an attack as his only chance at winning reelection. If he doesn’t attack and the Israelis attack on their own, the Republicans will portray Obama as anti-Israel. In the initial weeks after a war begins the current president's poll numbers usually improve as the country rallies around the Commander-in-Chief and buys into the war propaganda. However, this is risky. The world economy is still in a depression and a war with Iran would be a body-blow to the already feeble economy that will be disastrous to the entire world. Any support for this insane war against American interests on behalf of the Zionist entity will soon dissipate as people begin to discover the lies they have been fed and face the economic misery that follows. There is risk that some people will see the war as purely political and meant only to help him win reelection. The real firestorm will come when American’s learn the real reason the Israeli’s want their American lackeys to fight this war for them: the destruction of these nuclear facilities will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and many American troops in the region. The war will be fought in radiological waste. Our media are helping the Zionists hide the fact that an Israeli or US attack on Iran's civilian nuclear facilities would expose thousands of our own troops to lethal doses of radiation and hundreds of thousands of civilians. The impact from attacking Iran’s nuclear reactor in Bushehr alone would be devastating. Bahrain is home to US Naval Forces Central Command and the US 5th Fleet. If Bahrain will be heavily affected, as Cordesman and Toukan state in their study, then our troops will be too: And (See: page 90, Anthony H. Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan, Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities, March 14, 2009 ) Israel wants the US to incur the wrath of the Islamic world for a war that entails what is in essence a massive radiological attack on civilians. They want the body bags to be stuffed with American troops, not Israelis. There are many other reasons this war will be a disaster, but the full impact would be felt after the election. So if the attack will happen before the election, when will it happen? If the economic devastation were the only consideration, then Obama would probably wait until two or three weeks before the election, to make sure voters don't have a true inkling about the economic disaster to come. But the impact on the economy isn't the only factor to consider. Obama may want the attack to be before October in order to protect himself politically from the accusation that he is starting a war only because it is necessary for him to win reelection. There is a major incentive to avoid starting the war in October so that Republicans cannot accuse Obama of an "October Surprise." There is a strategic oil reserve that can and will be tapped to offset the major damage to the world's oils supply and stave off the impact on the economy. So I think it will be before October, which leaves only August and September. The Republican National Convention is scheduled for August 27 and the Democrats follow with their convention a week later, starting September 3. The Republicans have been trying to portray Obama as anti-Israel and weak on foreign policy. Their convention will probably be mostly focused on fixing the economy and criticizing Obama for not taking action on Iran. I think Obama is planning to attack Iran in the week before the Republican Convention because he thinks it will maximize his chances for reelection. This would force Republican Convention speakers to make major modifications to their speeches to replace the parts that attack Obama for not taking action against Iran. It will also take away media coverage of the Republican Convention. There will be many Ron Paul supporters at the Republican Convention and they are against this war which is not in America's interests and they will be booing anytime the warmongers mention an attack on Iran. By the following week the newness of the war will have faded. The media will cover the entire convention and it will set Obama up to portray himself as tough on foreign policy at the Democratic National Convention that will look a lot like the 2004 Republican National Convention. He can claim that he had no choice but to take action because negotiations and sanctions have not yielded his desired result. If Republicans criticize the timing of the attack Obama can cite the Republicans' own demands that he attack Iran against them to make it look like it is they who are being political when they should be rallying around our troops. A war game in 2002 and another earlier this year showed that Iran’s naval strategy for the Persian Gulf focusing on asymmetric warfare using hundreds of small fast ships armed with cruise missiles could result in disaster for the US Navy. If Iran succeeded in sinking the US Fifth Fleet, or even just an aircraft carrier, the political damage would be enormous and the entire world would be stunned. Because the primary concern of Obama is his own reelection, I would expect any attack he launches against Iran’s nuclear facilities to be accompanied or preceded by a massive attack on the IRGCN and Iran’s missile sites. If he were to try just surgical strikes, Iran would then have control of how the situation escalates and the IRGCN would be able to retaliate.

The following was written by Charles Davis and Medea Benjamin. Charles Davis has as covered Capitol Hill for public radio and the international news wire Inter Press Service. Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and Global Exchange. In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies. Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to "long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift. Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial status quo. "Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war policy,” gushed Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a "lap in the face to the generals.” Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is falling. "This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America,” cried hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the House Armed Services Committee. "This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.” In McKeon’s world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people. Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed "extended operations” – were pursued "to bring stability to those countries.” And Leon Panetta that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two major wars at the same time—and win. And Obama assured America’s military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline – U.S. taxpayers’ money – would still be funneled their way in obscene bucket loads."Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told reporters, "but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it "will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,” totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s incometax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed – like we were promised – the way lawmakers are trying to cut those "failed domestic programs.” The U.S. could cut its military spending in half tomorrow and still spend more than three times as much as its next nearest rival, China. That’s because China, instead of waging wars of choice around the world, prefers projecting its might by investing in its own country. On the other hand, the U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its military presence in China’s backyard, more interested in projecting its dwindling power than rebuilding its economy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted that every dollar going to the military is a dollar that can’t be used to provide food and shelter for those in need. Today’s obscene amount of military spending isn’t necessary if the administration wished to pursue the quaint goal of simply defending the country from invasion. Maintaining "the best-trained, best-equipped military in history,” as Obama says is his goal? That’s a different story – for a different purpose. Indeed, as Madeline Albright observed, possessing that kind of military might is no fun if you don’t get to use it, as Obama has with gusto in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Uganda. The truth is that the Obama administration’s "new” strategy is more of the same—a reaffirmation of the U.S. government’s commitment to militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S. officials aren’t shy about that. Indeed, throughout the strategy document the ostensible purpose for having a military — to provide national security — repeatedly takes a backseat to promoting the economic interests of the U.S. elite that profits from empire. Repositioning U.S. forces "toward the Asia-Pacific region,” for instance – including the stationing of American soldiers in that hotbed of violent extremism, Australia – is cast not just as a means of ensuring peace and stability, but guaranteeing "the free flow of commerce.” Maintaining a global empire of bases from Europe to Okinawa isn’t necessary for self-defense, but according to Obama, ensuring – with guns – "the prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic system.” Of course, that economic considerations shape U.S. foreign policy is nothing new. More than 25 years ago, President Jimmy Carter – that Jimmy Carter – declared in a State of the Union address that U.S. military force would be employed in the Persian Gulf, not for the cause of peace, freedom and apple pie, but to ensure "the free movement of Middle East oil.” And so it goes. Far from affecting change, Obama is ensuring continuity. "U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security,” states his new military strategy, in order to "prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its destabilizing policies” — as if it’s Iran that has been destabilizing the region. And as Obama publicly proclaims his support for "political and economic reform” in the Middle East, just like every other U.S. president he not-so-privately backs their oppressors from Bahrain to Yemen and signs off on the biggest weapons deal in history to that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia. Obama can talk all he wants about turning the page on a decade of war and occupation, but so long as he continues to fight wars and military occupy countries on the other side of the globe, talk is all it is. The facts, sadly, are this: since taking office Obama doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq– and partially succeeded; he dramatically expanded the use of killer drones from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested military budgets that would make George W. Bush blush. If you want to see what his military strategy really is, forget what’s said at press conferences and in turgidly written Pentagon press releases. Just look at the record.

not really

RT: After tough sanctions imposed by the United States and the West, Iran has given into the demands of President Obama, well some demands. Iran is returning the RQ-170 drone that was hacked back in December of last year. Their are some differences though: it's pink, it's about one eightieth the original size and being marketed as a toy in Iran. According to some reports the toys have already hit shelves In Tehran and carry a $4 price tag. The display of silliness has many US officials irate at the charade, but no need to get upset. President Obama will be receiving his very own custom built toy drone as well. “We wanted for Mr. Obama himself to have these toys and know that Iranians don't leave anyone's requests unanswered. We made the 'RQ' in pink as it is Mr. Obama's favorite color and we will send it to him via the Swiss embassy," said Seyyed Saeed Hassan-pour, head of the cultural department of the Aaye Company, to Reuters. The day of arrival was set for February 1, but no official word of Obama getting the toy has been confirmed. Back in December the drone was all over Iranian State TV. Footage of the drone surrounded by anti-American banners prompted the White House to officially submit a request to return the drone after it was captured near the Afghan border. As RT reported, the US originally denied they lost a drone over Iran before changing their story and insisting that they lost contact with the craft during a surveillance mission over neighboring Afghanistan. According to the US, the aircraft was flying around Eastern Afghanistan, but Iran argues it was well within the Iranian territory. Iranian engineers hijacked the multi-million dollar stealth drone’s system and managed to ease the craft down to a safe landing. Iranian ambassador Mohammad Khazaee submitted a complaint to the UN Security Council saying “the provocative and covert operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran by the US government, which have increased and intensified in recent months.” Khazaee went on to say the “American RQ-170 unmanned spy plane, bearing a specific serial number, violated Iran’s airspace.” He added Iran “strongly protests such hostile and aggressive moves and warns about harmful consequences of the repetition of such actions.” Iran's ambassador demanded a US apology for the incident, but has yet to receive it.So Iran has decided to take matters into their own hands. "We decided to show that we can deal with this issue in a very friendly and peaceful manner and put it in the playful hands of the children of Iran to pursue a 'soft war' with Mr. Obama and the US. This was the aim of producing this aircraft," Hassan-pour concluded.

Obama Campaign Video Says U.S.-Israel Bond 'Unbreakable' President Barack Obama’s November presidential campaign is gaining momentum. As well as securing massive donations to the tune of 3 million dollars in the last few days, the first campaign video dealing with Obama's Israel policy was uploaded to the YouTube website on Friday. The film, aimed at U.S Jewish voters, bears the title “Israel and the U.S. – an Unbreakable Bond.” The seven minute video features a number of Israeli officials, including President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren, and former head of the Mossad Efraim Halev praising President Obama. Obama and his advisors have been carrying out campaign in which senior U.S. officials, with Obama at their head, appear at every single event or conference of Jewish organizations in America. Just a few weeks ago, Obama spoke at the annual meeting of the U.S. Jewish reform movement, and it looks like he will also address the annual AIPAC conference at the beginning of November. Alan Solow, a former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and one of the organizers of the event told U.S. Jewish Newspaper “the Forward” that the President “emphasized that he is serious about preventing Iranian nuclear armament. He said that he hopes to reach this goal through sanctions, and that the Iranians are aware of the fact that all the options are on the table.” Shame on you Mr President, we elect you to serve our nation and to be loyal to our soil. Is this a christian values or American values? any how, over 6.5 million American Muslims are very disappointed with your foreign policy towards Muslims World. Thank You, Raza Mehkeri (American Muslims)

Truth unveiled! Axis of evil Saudis, Americans and Israelis thought they wanted to hijack Syria in the middle of Arab spring, but that’s not they want, they want a slap with the back of the right hand! Arab spring is naturally an anti Israel movement against puppet regimes or friends of Israel such as Mubarak, as the chief of Israel described him as Israel’s best friend. They go down, and Israel is left without friends. Is Assad anything like Mubarak? no, was he also Israel’s best friend? no, did he promise his people to free occupied Syrian lands from Israel? YES. True Syrians’ demand for reforms in Syria is completely acceptable and legal just like Asad said, which is why he’s bringing reforms to Syria. But don’t get me wrong, do not mistake terrorists for protesters, this is what I’m going to explain for you. Just yesterday, Lebanese army intelligence has intercepted a covert shipment of 1,000 assault rifles, reportedly destined for the city of Baniyas in Syria. Army investigators say they have uncovered ties between the smugglers and the political entourage of former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who is backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia. The hardcore Sunni Wahhabi House of Saud – in yet another towering show of hypocrisy, and faithful to its hatred of secular Arab republics – has branded the Bashar al-Assad-controlled Ba’ath regime in Syria “a killing machine”. But who would of thought? Saudi Arabia is busy killing people in another country named Bahrain, which most of the news media don’t cover since the US media have been ordered not to cover news on the Saudi allies’ brutal crackdown on Bahraini people. Reports from the Center’s colleagues in the United States say “In the US some news agencies and TV stations were asked not to report on Bahrain and not to embarrass [President Barack Obama’s administration." Kingdom Saudi Arabia the most brutal dictatorship of all time pretends to be worried about on-going unrest in a secular Arab state? why? because Assad's regime is anti Israel and not a puppet, which goes against Saudi influence in Middle east. March 14 seems to be nearly exposed. Hariri the son betrayed Hariri the father, even tho Hezbollah revealed Israel's possible involvement in his father's assassination, he insists on selling Lebanon to Israel and Saudi Arabia. March 14 people are bunch of soulless traitors who only care about their own wealth and money in their bank accounts all over the world, they do not care about Lebanon's freedom being threatened by Israel, in fact, their hatred toward Hezbollah makes them rather Israeli occupation, where were they when Israel had southern Lebanon occupied for decades? wasn't it Hezbollah attacks which forced IDF to pull out? 14 March sickos' connection with arm smuggling to Syria must be investigated, and if proven, their party's activities must be banned and their members must be arrested. Lebanese intelligence also eavesdropped on discussions between the suspects and an arms dealer, in which the two sides agreed on a down payment of US$100,000 once buyers were shown high-quality Kalashnikov and M-16 rifle samples. The plan was to either ship the rifles in one batch by sea to Baniyas in Syria, or to divide it into smaller batches and smuggle it through Lebanon’s northern border. The suspects and the dealer were followed and arrested by army intelligence forces on July 30, after delivery of the arms in Ras Beirut. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television identified the smugglers as Wassam and Samir Tamim. They have reportedly confessed to running over 30 arms-smuggling operations from Marina to Baniyas with the assistance of Mohammad Kabbara, a member of the Al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc tied to Saudi intelligence. Al-Manar stated that the center of operations was Kabbara’s farm in northern Lebanon, adding that this was also a transit point for Islamist (Salafi) fighters traveling to the Syrian city of Homs. The Syrian army claimed last week that in recent fighting near Homs it has detained hundreds of Salafi fighters (reportedly including Afghans) with Lebanese documents, whose transfer to Syria was facilitated by Kabbara. The majority of Syrians have been always behind their government, it is not hidden to anybody that Assad's weak intelligence forces failed to protect his country from terrorists. One of the terrorists captured by Syrian intelligence forces confessed and said several terrorist groups were operating in Hama where their members are instructed to attack police, security personnel and law-enforcement officials in order to cause mayhem in the city. He also said the footage broadcast by Syrian television showing people throwing mutilated bodies into a river some ten days ago was very much true, confessing, "I was among the terrorists who threw one of the dead….” He said they mutilated the bodies of the victims with knives and swords in order to scare away security personnel and prevent them from entering Hama. Al-Kattan said terrorist leaders pay each member SYP 5000 (almost USD106) per day. By all means, the unrest in Syria differs from the Arab uprisings since it is a 'conspiracy' from foreign intervention attempting to 'reshape' the country's political structure. In the latest attempts, Washington and Tel Aviv hatched plots to reignite the flames of unrest in Syria through smuggling weapons into the Arab country. Informed sources in Lebanon blame Salafi extremists and elements associated with the country's al-Mustaqbal party for direct involvement in the recent unrest in Syria. The Lebanese sources say former Mustaqbal MP Mustafa Hashem has rented a large number of gas stations in the northern border region of Wadi Khaled, where the nomad residents on both the Lebanese and Syrian sides of the frontier are engaged in widespread smuggling. http://www.informati...rticle28832.htm http://www.atimes.co...t/MH13Ak01.html http://www.dailykos....ence-in-Bahrain http://www.presstv.i...ail/193510.html http://www.presstv.i...ail/178965.html http://www.presstv.i...ail/182208.html www.presstv.ir/detail/172567.html http://shervinandpol...t-syria-unrest/