Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Anti-Sharia Group to Hold Protest in Dearborn Saturday

 

Order of the Dragon, the group originally behind the planned Good Friday protest, has announced that they will host a demonstration against radical Islam on May 28 at Dearborn City Hall.

patch    
Michigan-based group Order of the Dragon, which canceled its April 22 anti-Sharia Law protest in Dearborn after controversial Quran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones latched himself onto the event, is heading back to Dearborn this weekend to host another event.

The group announced on its website that they will rally at City Hall at 3 p.m. this Saturday, May 28, for a demonstration “against radical Islam and Sharia.”

The group said they will be joined by representatives from the American Defense League, ACT! For America and David Horowitz’s Freedom Center. All three list one of their organizational goals as fighting radical Islam.

At an April 16 press conference and meeting with religious leaders in Dearborn, Order of the Dragon
President Frank Fiorello and Vice President Jammie Bothwell said that they never believed Sharia was happening in Dearborn, but that the Order saw inklings of it that concerned them. Examples, he said, included the fact that Fordson High School football players practice at night during Ramadan, due to the fact that Muslim players must fast during the day.

“I don’t think Sharia law has been implemented here or anywhere else,” Fiorello said. “I’m just worried about the future.”

The 15-member group’s mission–as stated on their website–is “to come together as a community, help protect the traditional rights of Americans … (and) protect our country from the rise of radical Islam and the implementation of Sharia law.”

At that same April meeting, Fiorello and Bothwell announced that their Good Friday protest had been canceled.

But Pastor Jones–who had planned to continue on with the event–was summoned to court over the matter and, as a result, the Good Friday event never took place. Instead, he was found “likely to breach the peace” by a jury and arrested after refusing to pay a $1 peace bond to the city.

Jones is currently suing the city of Dearborn and Wayne County prosecutor’s office, as well as appealing the ruling.

Jones has not pledged to take part in the May 28 demonstration, but is expected to make an appearance at the Arab International Festival on June 17 in east Dearborn.



http://dearborn.patch.com/articles/anti-sharia-group-to-hold-protest-in-dearborn-saturday?ncid=breaking_news#comments

Terror Attack Scout Tells Jury of Plan to Toss Severed Heads

 

(Bloomberg) -- David Coleman Headley, a key witness in the U.S. government's case against alleged planners of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, told a federal court jury he was "pleased" when he learned they'd been carried out.

He also told the panel of eight women and four men at the Chicago courthouse about a planned assault upon a Danish newspaper in which victims were to be shot and decapitated by attackers who would then heave the heads from office windows. That plot followed the publication in the newspaper of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

"Shoot them first and then behead them," were the instructions Headley testified today he was told to relay to the would-be attackers during a meeting in Pakistan's rugged Waziristan region with a man the U.S. says has ties to al-Qaeda, the Muslim terrorist group formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

Headley's testimony came on the second day of the U.S. trial of Tahawwur Rana, a Chicago businessman accused of using his immigration business to provide cover for Headley as he scouted the Mumbai sites where more than 160 people, including six Americans, were killed over three days in November 2008.

Rana, 50, is also accused of providing Headley's pretext for a similar mission to Copenhagen where the never-executed assault on the Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten newspaper would have been carried out.

Material Support
A Pakistani native and Canadian citizen, Rana is charged with providing material support for the two plots and for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group believed to have been behind the raids on two Mumbai hotels, a café, a train station and a Jewish center.

He faces a possible life sentence if convicted. Defense attorney Charlie Swift in his opening statement yesterday told jurors his client had been duped by his friend, Headley.

The U.S. government in 2001 labeled Lashkar-e-Taiba, which agitates for the separation from India of the predominantly Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir, a terrorist organization.

Headley was the first witness called by federal prosecutors in the trial. Last year he pleaded guilty to 12 criminal counts including conspiracy to commit murder and supporting terrorists, and is a cooperating government witness.

"I was pleased," Headley, 50, told Assistant U.S. Attorney Dan Collins today when asked how he reacted to news the Mumbai attack had occurred.

On his reconnaissance missions, Headley said, he'd carried business cards claiming he was an consultant for Rana's business and had opened a branch office in Mumbai which he said he used as part of his cover.

Mumbai Assault
Headley began testifying yesterday, telling the court how he'd met with agents of the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba, as well as a man he said worked for that nation's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. Headley also said he told Rana about their preparations for the Mumbai assault.

Today, the American-born Headley described preparations for the planned strike at Jyllands-Posten. In 2005, the paper published caricatures of Muhammad, including one depicting him with a bomb in his turban.
The cartoons touched off protests in Muslim communities worldwide.

"Discussion on this matter has been long overdue," Headley said Rana told him when apprised of the Danish plot. In e-mails shown to jurors today, Headley referred to the revenge attack as the "Mickey Mouse" project.

Newspaper Attack
Ilyas Kashmiri, one of eight men charged in connection with the Headley-Rana case, led the newspaper attack planning and allegedly told Headley it would be carried out by operatives living in the U.K.

Kashmiri commands Harakat-ul Jihad Islami, a Pakistan-based terrorist group with ties to al-Qaeda, according to the U.S. Another defendant, Abdur Rehman Hashim Syed, is allegedly a retired Pakistani army officer, while a third -- identified only as "Major Iqbal" -- also reportedly helped plan the Mumbai assault. None of the three are in U.S. custody.

Nine of the 10 Mumbai attackers died in firefights with responding Indian authorities.
Headley and Collins today took turns reading from the transcript of a telephone conversation between one of Headley's Lashkar handlers and two of the attackers of the Chabad House, a Jewish hostel in Mumbai, on Nov. 27, 2008, regarding the disposition of two hostages there.

"Get rid of them now," handler Sajid Mir reportedly told the attackers. "Place the barrel on the backside of their heads and fire."

Mir is charged with 12 counts in the U.S. case, including the murder of U.S. nationals in India. He isn't in custody.

The trial may last into mid-June, U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber has said.
The case is U.S. v. Kashmiri, 09-cr-00830, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
--Editors: Peter Blumberg, Steve Farr


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/24/bloomberg1376-LLPO0V0D9L3501-2E0E69GTS4SGG9U1KIKH931U1J.DTL#ixzz1NNa3K3lO

Feds Issue Threat: No Fly Zone for Texas?




by Connor Boyack, with Brian Roberts and Michael Boldin

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice upped the ante in a high-stakes political game of chicken. Lobbying against pending legislation in the Texas legislature which would criminalize any searches conducted without probable cause, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy sent a letter to a few high-ranking members of Texas’ government warning against promoting the bill and threatening a complete closure of all flights to and from the state.
“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”
No doubt written with the threatening intent one reads into it, Murphy added: “We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote.”

Previous to the federal government’s threat, the Texas legislature had considered the ramifications of the bill. More importantly, they were responding to a clear need to uphold the Fourth Amendment and ensure that each person enjoys the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” — a right which the U.S. Constitution mandates “shall not be violated.”

Repeated TSA violations of the Fourth Amendment

That need has demonstrated itself in great abundance in past months, as the TSA has aggressively pursued its new policy of invasive searches and seizures at the nation’s airports. The “ramifications” to which the U.S. Attorney refers are evidently an easily dismissed matter of little importance to the federal government; to those affected by these policies, the ramifications of a bill seeking to prevent further occurrences is no doubt a welcome development.

It was less than a month ago at the Dallas, TX airport where former Miss USA Susie Castillo tearfully produced a viral video describing the molestation she had just then endured at the hands of a TSA agent. “I mean, she actually… touched my vagina,” Castillo said through her tears. “They’re making me… choose to either get molested… or go through this machine that’s completely unhealthy and dangerous. I don’t want to go through it, and here I am crying.”

Castillo isn’t the only person who would be protected under this Texas legislation. All other innocent travelers would likewise be shielded. That includes the six year old girl who made the headlines last month for being groped by a TSA agent (an action which the TSA defended as being alright since it “followed the current standard operating procedures”), as well as the eight-month-old infant subjected to a pat down while cradled in the arms of her mother.

These are but a few of the myriad confrontations that occur daily where TSA agents detain, invasively search, and seize items from innocent individuals who are not suspected of any crime whatsoever. Texas’ bill would correct this horrific perversion of the law within its state, but the federal government is clearly interested in justifying and maintaining its statist status quo.

Repeated Threats from the Federal Government

Evidence of that arrogant persistence is found in letters similar to the one penned last night by the U.S. Attorney to Texas officials. Almost two years ago, a similarly threatening letter was sent to Oklahoma by the U.S. Attorney General. In it, the state is warned against pursuing a constitutional amendment to make the English language official. The threat was a termination of appropriated funds to the state.

Another letter was sent in 2009 to both Montana and Tennessee in response to those states passing a Firearms Freedom Act. Rather than an explicit threat of any sort, these letters completely dismissed any constitutional standing or legitimate concern by the states, instead (incorrectly) affirming the federal government’s supreme authority over the issue at hand.

More recently, a U.S. Attorney wrote to the Governor of Rhode Island warning against that state’s implementation of medical marijuana legislation which would constitutionally regulate the manufacture, distribution, and consumption of the plant within the state. The attorney trumpeted the federal laws relating to the “controlled substance” and assured the Governor that the Department of Justice’s full resources would be brought to bear against any state (theirs included) which attempted to oppose the federal government’s complete control.

Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the founding and adoption of the Constitution, considers these letters to be far more ominous than mere statements. In response to the 2009 letters, he said, “I look at this and I see this letter which gets close to looking like an order from the central government down to a sovereign state legislature, and I say…WOW. This looks like something that (Roman Emperor) Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials.” He continued, “It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government.”

Despite Threats, Moving Forward

For now, it appears that the U.S. Attorney’s threat has realized its goal; the sponsor of the Texas bill has decided to concede defeat in this battle, but remains committed to fighting the war. “I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for liberty in the state of Texas,” said Senator Dan Patrick, the bill’s sponsor. As such, as of right now, the bill has died.

This much is clear: the federal government should not consider this a victory. As individuals are being unjustly molested on a daily basis, it is increasingly becoming apparent that there exists a strong, emotionally-charged undercurrent of resistance against the TSA and its invasive searches and seizures.

If anything, the withdrawal of Texas’ legislation last night should be seen as the calm before the coming storm of state-based opposition to the TSA.

Texas is Not Alone

If anything can serve as a rallying cry to unite the states against an oppressive, unconstitutional action on the part of the federal government, it is the institutionalized and fear-based justification of the molestation of innocent men, women, and children. The U.S. Attorney’s stern counsel to consider the “ramifications” of the Texas bill speaks more in support of the state’s actions than against it.

Indeed, when one considers the ramifications of not opposing the federal government on this issue, it is difficult to imagine how many Susie Castillos will be felt up by the feds for no valid reason whatsoever. That unnecessary nightmare is enough to encourage a single state — in this case, Texas — to stand strong in the defense of the individual liberties of its citizens.

But Texas is not alone. Already, four other states are considering similar “travel freedom” legislation. And, sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least ten others in 2012. Taken together, it becomes evident that many other states will soon be picking up the baton, together having the courage needed to put the federal government back in its rightful place — which isn’t inside the waistline of innocent passengers.

The TSA’s resident propagandist, Blogger Bob, will have his work cut out for him in the months ahead.

Connor Boyack [send him mail] is the state chapter coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He is a web developer, political economist, and budding philanthropist trying to change the world one byte at a time. He lives in Utah with his wife and son. Read his blog.
Brian Roberts [send him email] is communications director for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin - and visit his personal blog - http://www.michaelboldin.com/

Bahrain's Voiceless: How al-Jazeera's Coverage of the Arab Spring Is Uneven

 

A couple of weeks ago, the Qatari English language daily the Peninsula ran the provocative headline, “Why Are We So Timid?” in its Saturday special issue. “Freedom eludes the Qatari media even as the country's top leadership is keen to promote free expression and has lifted all kinds of restrictions on the local press,” opined the writer in a front-page story.

The question comes at an interesting point in time for the tiny peninsular nation just of the coast of Saudi Arabia. Qatar, of course, is home to satellite news broadcaster al-Jazeera, hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to attention grabbing reporting from some of the world's hottest hot zones. Already the go-to option for news in a Middle East seeking an alternative to the Western perspectives of the BBC and CNN, the station gained world-wide prestige for its ground breaking coverage of the Egyptian revolution, and even earned a place in the Time 100 rankings of the world's influentials, twice. It wouldn't be out of line to suggest that the station's passionate embrace of the young Egyptian revolutionaries helped, in part, to unseat
President Hosni Mubarak. Within days of his fall, an online petition demanding that US cable operators start distributing the channel made the rounds. Longtime critics, who derisively labeled it “al Qaeda TV” back when it questioned the U.S. role in Iraq, have started reconsidering the value of a station that now appears to be on the side of free speech, democracy and human rights. In an interview with Time's Ishaan Tharoor, al Jazeera's DC Bureau Chief Abderrahim Foukara answered the question of why it was important to have a different perspective:

For Americans, what happens in Egypt is of immense consequence to the U.S. and its interests in that part of the world. And it was really interesting to see all sorts of Americans, including the intelligence community, scratching their heads, trying to understand how this came about, what the ramifications were and how they'd deal with it. Simultaneously, you had this detailed coverage on Al Jazeera. I think our coverage of Egypt has been crucial in demonstrating to people that there are certain stories integral to world peace and stability that require access to a channel like Al Jazeera English. It has made the investment, has the presence, the perspective, the expertise and the knowledge to properly tell a story like Egypt.
Similarly, Al Jazeera leads the way when it comes to coverage of Libya's ongoing rebellion. Within a week of the protests that launched President Muammar Gaddafi's crackdown on his own people, the station started using the rebel tricolor to mark its coverage, instead of the green Libyan flag. I asked Al Anstey, Al Jazeera English's Managing Director, about the station's use of such a loaded symbol. I was trying to make a point about balanced coverage of a complicated uprising. He responded that there was no such thing as balance when it came to a tyrannical regime that threatened to go house to house in search of dissenters to eradicate like rats. “We chose the tricolor because Illustrates the dynamic of the story,” he said. “There are so many people challenging the authority of a dictator who has been in power for 42 years, and using the old flag is a symbol of the challenge to that regime.”

“Giving a voice to the voiceless” is how Anstey described the station's operating logic. And when it comes to victims of earthquakes, floods, and oppressive regimes, al Jazeera largely succeeds. Except, perhaps, in the case of Bahrain, Qatar's tiny island neighbor to the north, where a Sunni minority monarchy has cracked down brutally on a largely Shia pro-democracy uprising. Over the past three months the authorities have embarked upon a devastating campaign of repression, intimidation and torture that wouldn't look out of place in Libya or Mubarak's Egypt. Yet the coverage on Al Jazeera has been largely limited to brief mentions and a backstage examination of why the world's media has been so slow to cover the events there.

As the program well points out, Bahrain's government has adeptly blocked major coverage simply by preventing journalists' entry. But the excuse rings hollow, especially coming from Al Jazeera, which usually takes such blockades as a challenge to a duel, not a reason for retreat. Is there a double standard in effect? Qatari troops are in Bahrain, part of a Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council effort to quash any notions of democracy in a region defined by Sunni monarchies. And Al Jazeera is largely funded by Qatar's Sunni ruling family. Which leads us back to the Peninsula's headline: Why are we so timid? Anstey swears that the station is absolutely independent, and if a story merits news, no matter how controversial, it will be covered.

Compared to coverage of Syria, where not only are journalists banned, but an Al Jazeera correspondent was kidnapped and delivered to Iran, reporting on Bahrain is insipid at best. As the Washington Post reported a few weeks ago, Bahrain simply didn't merit the international importance of a story out of Egypt, Libya or even Yemen, according to the station's news directors. Still, the situation in Bahrain marks a potentially explosive Sunni-Shia conflagration that most certainly will embroil the neighborhood. So is self-censorship to blame? It could be. As one independent Qatari media consultant told me, “no one likes to air out their dirty laundry in public.” And Qatar's role in quashing dissent in Bahrain, even as part of a grudging alliance with Saudi, would certainly go against Al Jazeera's much vaunted support for human rights and self determination.


Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/05/24/bahrains-voiceless-how-al-jazeeras-coverage-of-the-arab-spring-is-uneven/#ixzz1NL9qJnVw

Ivory Coast Muslims: Accuse and Threaten Neighboring Christian Ghana


Never content or satisfied with the massacres that they have lead or instigated the Mohamedist's lust for non-Muslim blood, territory and wealth is insatiable.  

It's the same old story all over again; Muslims invent a non-existent offense as justification for violence.  The use of straw man arguments to incite violence is as old as Islam itself.  As anyone that has studied the structure of the Koran knows, the later verses written after the death of Mohamed's first wife are primarily dedicated to justifying either preemptively or retroactively the violence that Mohamed intended to practice and nothing has changed.

In the case of Ivory Coast and Ghana, the government of neighboring Christian dominated Ghana is being accused of harboring pro-Gbagbo militants intent on overthrowing the current government of Ivory Coast.  The violence inciting accusations caterwauling out of Ivory Coast come despite adamant denials and assurances that they will not permit militant activity from the government of Ghana.

Even more revealing is that these claims out of the new Muslim government amidst its own efforts to hunt down members of the previous government and put them on trial accusing them of having their hands soaked in blood, when it was his own military aggression that resulted in the civil war and slaughter of his opponents supporters.

Not surprisingly, the new president's calls for peace are just as laughable as the claims that Islam is a religion of peace, because they are in fact one and the same.  Islam is of course the biggest mass murderer on the face of the planet out-pacing the combined efforts of Socialism/Marxism and Communism which run a distant second and also claim to be the only path to peaceful coexistence.


The accusations by Ivory Coast's newly installed government are already inciting violence against people from neighboring Ghana working in Ivory Coast.  In case you're new to the whole ethnic cleansing process, this is exactly how it's done.  Situations are created which incite the Muslim population to violence against the Christian population and forces them out of their homes.



It is reported that many Ghanaian nationals in Ivory Coast are living in constant fear of possible attacks from some Ivorians who are said to be angered by reports that the Ghanaian government is harbouring some Ivorian dissidents who are allegedly plotting to overthrow the Ouattara government.  The report was yesterday confirmed by one Ghanaian national who said on Accra based Citi FM that Ghanaians in La Cote d'Ivoire had become targets for possible attack because some Ivorians, mainly from the North of the country, had been threatening to kill them.


It is important to recall that it was massive illegal immigration and voter fraud that gave the current Islamist government an excuse to conduct a coup and illegally take control of the government in the first place.  In this light we see clearly that the presence of foreign persons is only tolerable if they are Muslims and violence as a tool to displace that rightful owners is acceptable if they are Christians.

Within days of being inaugurated the Islamist government of Ivory Coast has started both an official and unofficial witch hunt for members of the previous legal and legitimate government, accused their neighbor of harboring persons actively plotting to overthrow the government of Ivory Coast, incited violence against persons from Ghana working in Ivory Coast, and threatened to attack them if they don't solve a non-existent  problem.

This isn't rocket science people.... The problem is Islam, always has been and always will be until the world does something about it.  Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.  Outtara used the power of Islam to take control of Ivory Coast, he now clearly has his eyes on Ghana.  Is anybody else watching?

Hamas' New Social Media Push

IPT News

May 23, 2011
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2889/hamas-new-social-media-push

[Image]"We call for adopting a strategy on the basis of resistance and the upholding of our rights and constants," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri stated in an official message on Twitter. While statements in support of "resistance" may be old and established, Hamas' leadership is capitalizing on the social media craze to try reaching a new crowd.

The power of social media hasn't been lost on Hamas. During the past year, young Palestinians in the Gaza Strip used Facebook, Twitter, and other similar sites to rally for a unified Palestinian government. The protests, which initially were suppressed, ultimately brought Hamas to the table with its Fatah rival, and were a Palestinian expression of pro-democracy movements in the Arab World.

Hamas' new media push includes accounts on Youtube, Flickr, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as a website (http://www.hamasinfo.net/) for the group's "Information Office." Notably, Facebook and Youtube have actively removed websites tied to terrorists and violence due to over content violations, while Twitter's terms of use seem more flexible. Launched over the course of the past year, these new outlets will join the Palestinian Information Center and the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades Information Office in touting the group's official line.

It's also not the first time that Hamas has used the latest technology in disseminating its message. In April 2010, the Hamas' Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades produced its first 3D video, focused on the failure of the Israeli government to secure the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

Hamas' new push creates a web of ways to broadcast information. At the center is the news website Hamasinfo.net, which shows the latest speeches, statements, and information from Hamas' leaders. It also hosts important older speeches regarding the group's ideology. For example, to clarify the terrorist group's opposition to creating an Islamic Emirate in Gaza, the Information Office re-released a 2007 interview of leader Mahmoud al-Zahhar on Al-Jazeera Talk.

New releases on its website are broadcast on Twitter and Facebook, where people can comment or link back to original articles and videos. More than 240 people have "liked" the official Hamas Facebook profile since its launch on May 15th. Hamas has also endorsed violent marches of Palestinian refugees on Israel's borders, in the "likes and interest" section of its Facebook profile.

The group's Flickr page shows favorable pictures of its leadership, such as Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal meeting with senior political figures or attending Hamas rallies. Other pictures from its Facebook page show Meshaal visiting Palestinian hospitals.

Its Youtube account, which is not yet fully functional, also will feature interviews and clips from the group's website.

Through social media sites like these, Hamas can show two sides to its organization. On one hand, Hamas presents the image of a group with broad appeal, working for Palestinian unity, and rallying for independence. On the other, the speeches on its new website show that the group hasn't given up extremist positions, despite selectively omitting statements like Hamas' opposition to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. These include a recent announcement by spokesman Al-Zuhri that America is no longer a friend to the region and will fail to force it into ever recognizing Israel.

Before the launch of official social media, communication between Hamas members and the public relied on web forums. One such forum run by the Ezzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, Al-Qassam English Forum, continues to provide an official English-language outlet for discussion, multimedia, and advocacy on Hamas' behalf. It also includes photos of 'martyrdom operations' and videos honoring suicide attackers.

However, unlike al-Qaida-style groups which thrive in the unregulated web forums, Hamas shut down the al-Qassam Forum's Arabic section last year. With little control over the message put out on these websites, many posts focused solely on jihad and hate towards Israel and Jews. Hamas hasn't lost the violent tinge to its writings, but its articles refer more to the "right of resistance," and other euphemisms for terror.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/2889/hamas-new-social-media-push

"Focus Your Operations On Oil"


IN AN ARTICLE entitled Osama's Oil Obsession, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross writes:
One early indication of a shift in jihadist thinking on attacking oil facilities was Rashid al-Anzi's The Laws of Targeting Petroleum-Related Interests and a Review of the Laws Pertaining to the Economic Jihad, a treatise posted online in March 2004. Anzi, a noted jihadist thinker, called the widespread availability of oil the factor that "enabled America to dominate the world," and explained how attacks on the oil supply could harm the jihadists' foes. He claimed that rising oil prices hurt industrialized countries more than others, and that they were particularly devastating to the United States, the world's largest consumer.

Bin Laden came around to the same basic ideas in an audio recording entitled "Depose the Tyrants," which was released on Dec. 16, 2004. In the recording, the al Qaeda leader asserted that "the biggest reason for our enemies' control over our lands is to steal our oil." He explained that oil prices were too low, and even the trading of oil on the free market constituted a theft by Western countries. For this reason, the jihadist movement should take the situation into its own hands. "Focus your operations on [oil]," he said, "especially in Iraq and the Gulf, for that will be the death of them."

Bin Laden is dead, but the attacks continue and the threat remains. We must make ourselves less vulnerable. One well-placed jihadi strike could totally destroy the economy of the West. Why? Because our entire economy rests on oil. Why? Because at the pump we have no choice. The backbone of the economy — transportation — requires oil.

The Open Fuel Standard
is the answer we've been looking for. Please sign up for updates at Open Fuel Standard Act and take the recommended actions. The actions don't take a lot of time, but a lot of us need to participate to make it happen. This is it! This is the opportunity we've been waiting for, and we have no time to lose.

ACT! for America
members, this should be your central objective until it's done — to get your representative to co-sponsor the bill. Make this your relentless war cry at every meeting. We have a year and a half to get 211 more co-sponsors. Now is the time to deny orthodox Muslims the unbelievably excessive wealth they use as a weapon against us. Let's get it done.

Six holy words

By Badrya Darwish



As usual, Mr Netanyahu did not bring anything new - it's true that I waited to hear his speech, only for him to reiterate what he has been saying for the past few years. What surprised me was not Netanyahu's attitude and his thoughts. We know Netanyahu is an extremist Zionist. We were not expecting anything from him. It was the way the US Congress received him. It was like a theatre. The minute he walked in, they all stood up and kept clapping for five minutes. I have never seen such applause even for an American president - Obama or anyone else. The US Congress even exceeded the applause game of the Syrian parliament when Bashar Al-Assad gave a speech there last month. I had criticized it and mocked it then. I apologize.

Then they gave Netanyahu the chance to speak. When he got on the podium, there was another round of applause. For a moment I thought he was addressing the Knesset, and not the US Congress. Then I told myself, be patient. Listen to the man. The minute he uttered a word, the Congress stood up for more applause. I was confused - did this man liberate America? Is he coming back home as a war hero? This standing ovation was repeated every time the homecoming hero opened his mouth.

So at the end of the day, there were only a few things that Netanyahu could mention. He wants Abbas to say the six holy words - "I will accept a Jewish state". If the whole world approves this theory, this means they did not occupy Palestine. There will be no Palestine anymore. This also means they will kick out the more than a million Israeli Arabs (those who did not leave when Israel was created in 1948). Plus, every Jew in the world, whether Filipino, Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, Moroccan etc etc, can cl
aim Palestine as their homeland, ironically, except the Palestinians themselves. This will be the worst apartheid crime in history if the world approves Netanyahu's demands.

Leave alone that he did not agree on the return of refugees - nearly five million of them scattered all over the world. In some Arab countries, they are not naturalized and only carry a travel document that is not accepted in most embassies. So they are stuck in refugee camps like animals in a zoo.

By the way, he also insists Jerusalem is the capital of his apartheid Jewish state. What about the other two major religious sites - the Aqsa Mosque of the Muslims and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre of the Christians? If every country is formed on the basis of religion, imagine how many more communities would start claiming a state of their own - for instance Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc. Imagine if all Muslims in the world start claiming Saudi Arabia as their country? And this is the case
with all other religions.

Sorry Mr Netanyahu. Your great theory doesn't pass in modern history. Maybe three or four thousand years back, you could have built countries based on religions.

 

Abbas to Netanyahu: "You are incidental in history. We are the owners of...

Pakistan, Iran ‘pillars of Muslim brotherhood’

 
 
Our correspondentWednesday, May 25, 2011
 
Islamabad

A delegation of the Al-Mustafa University, Iran, led by Pakistan Affairs Director General Professor Sajjad Hashmian, called on International Islamic University (IIU) Rector Professor Fateh Muhammad Malik here on Tuesday.

Gulzar Ahmad Khwaja, director general (Administration, Finance and Planning), IIU, Saqib Akbar, renowned writer and chairman of the Akhuwat Academy, Dr. Javed Hamdani, a scholar and Persian language expert, were present on the occasion.

Talking to the delegation, Professor Fateh Muhammad Malik said that Pakistan and Iran have cultural, religious and geographical importance for each other. Similarly, the foundations of both universities are common to promote Islamic as well as modern education. “Pakistan and Iran are the strong elements of Muslim brotherhood bond. This relationship will be much stronger in future,” he said.

Professor Sajjad Hashmian said that the IIU is striving for the same cause just like Al-Mustafa University, Iran. He invited the IIU rector to visit Al-Mustafa University to promote bilateral understandings between the two universities.

Professor Hashmian said that the Al-Mustafa University has several branches in other countries but unfortunately not in Pakistan.
 
 
 
 

Damascus on Trial

 

by David Schenker
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2011, pp. 59-66 (view PDF)


In September 2008, the U.S. Federal Court in Washington, D.C., rendered a $413 million civil judgment against the government of Syria for its provision of support and material aid to the killers of two American contractors in Iraq.[1] Syria's appeal is pending, but should it lose, the victims' families will undoubtedly endeavor to attach Syrian assets in the United States and abroad.
On September 26, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Syria "supported, protected, harbored, and subsidized" the Iraq-based terrorist group headed by Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi (above), thus being culpable for the beheading of two U.S. contractors by this group.
Until now, with the exception of sanctions, financial designations, and periodic cross-border direct action, Washington has imposed little cost on Damascus for its consistent support for terrorist attacks in Iraq since the 2003 war. And while the financial implications of this court verdict are unlikely to change Damascus's standing support for terrorism, it will impose an unprecedented price on Bashar al-Assad's increasingly reckless regime.

Support for the Insurgency

In December 2010, U.S. counterterrorism officials reported an uptick in the number of insurgents entering Iraq via Syria.[2] It was the most significant reference to a Syrian role in the movement of jihadists since December 2009 when Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed Damascus for car bomb attacks that killed more than one hundred in Baghdad. But it was only the latest in a long series of U.S. complaints about Syrian provision of support to Iraqi insurgents, a development that started even prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Indeed, as Washington was surging troops to the region in 2003 in preparation for the blitz on Baghdad, Damascus was deploying its own counter-force to fight the Americans.
In the months leading up to the invasion, the Assad regime allowed the establishment of an office across the street from the U.S. embassy in Damascus where insurgent hopefuls could sign up and get on a bus to Baghdad for the opportunity to repel the invaders.[3] While brazen, Damascus's support and encouragement for Washington's enemies in Iraq came as little surprise. From the very start, Syria made no secret of its intent to undermine the U.S. invasion. Just days after the start of military operations, for example, then-Syrian foreign minister Farouq Shara publicly announced that "Syria's interest is to see the invaders defeated in Iraq."[4]
The defeat of the U.S. project in Iraq was an interest Damascus shared with Tehran. So much so that, according to then-Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam, on the eve of the invasion, the two countries forged an agreement to encourage "resistance" against U.S. forces in Iraq.[5]
The Assad regime also took other steps including recruiting local staff—such as the Aleppo-based militant Islamist cleric Abu al-Qaqa—to help organize the infiltrations across Syrian territory.[6] To ensure that these dangerous Islamists did not plant domestic roots that might threaten the Assad regime, Syria's security apparatus apparently documented the presence of these killers. Then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz displayed some of the evidence of this official Syrian complicity during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2003.
Holding up passports belonging to foreign fighters encountered by U.S. forces in Iraq, Wolfowitz said,
A foreigner who came into Iraq on March 24th through Syria—not a Syrian, but through Syria. The entry permit on his passport said he came to, quote, "volunteer for jihad." Here's another one, came into Iraq through Syria—same crossing point. The entry permit said, "to join the Arab volunteers." And here's a third one that came in on April 7th. [7]
Wolfowitz's statements were subsequently augmented by those of a dozen or so U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) flag officers, also focusing on the movement of jihadists through Syrian territory and Assad regime complicity in the endeavor. In March 2007, for example, CENTCOM revealed that training camps had been established on Syrian territory for Iraqi and foreign fighters.[8]
The most prominent of these statements, however, was issued by then-U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus, who during testimony to Congress on September 10, 2007, presented maps illustrating Syria's pivotal role as the source of foreign fighters entering Iraq.[9] Only a week earlier, during an interview with al-Watan al-Arabi, the general described how Syria allowed thousands of insurgents to arrive at Damascus International Airport and then cross the Iraqi border.[10] These foreign fighters, he explained, supplied the main manpower pool for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq. That same month, the centrality of Syria to the insurgency was corroborated by the Sinjar documents, a trove of al-Qaeda materials captured by U.S. forces in Iraq.[11]
Syrian conduct during the war—in particular the state's burgeoning support for and tolerance of al-Qaeda's transit—came as a surprise to many. After all, following September 11, 2001, Damascus provided intelligence on al-Qaeda to Washington that helped save American lives. But Syria was playing a double game by supporting terrorists moving to Iraq while simultaneously supplying information on future attacks—outside of the Middle East—to Washington. Damascus hoped this would purchase immunity, but the gambit failed. After Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Syria in March 2003 of providing night vision goggles to Saddam and declared that Washington would "consider such trafficking as hostile acts and [would] hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments,"[12] Damascus cut off the intelligence sharing.
As a Syrian foreign ministry official confided to New Yorker correspondent Seymour Hersh, if Washington had agreed to discuss these issues in a back channel, the intelligence sharing might have continued. "But when you publicly try to humiliate a country," he said, "it'll become stubborn."[13] While Damascus sought to blame Washington for the breakdown of the channel, by the time the cooperation had ceased, Syria had been actively facilitating the movement of jihadists into Iraq for months. In addition to killing U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians, these insurgents also captured and killed dozens of U.S. civilians working in Iraq.

The Case against Damascus

Two of those American contractors executed by al-Qaeda in Iraq were Olin Eugene "Jack" Armstrong and Jack Hensley. In 2004, Thailand resident Armstrong and Hensley, who was based in Marietta, Georgia, were employed as contract managers by private construction subcontractors in Iraq. The two were kidnapped from their residential housing in Iraq on September 16 of that year. On September 20 and 21 respectively, videos documenting the gruesome beheadings of Armstrong and Hensley were posted on an online web forum associated with al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi.[14] Remains of the victims were found in Baghdad soon after.
In August 2006, the families of Armstrong and Hensley brought a civil action against the government of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad, Syrian military intelligence, and its director, Assif Shawkat. The action, launched by the estates of Armstrong and Hensley—under the name of estate administrator Francis Gates—alleged that Damascus "provided material support and resources" to al-Qaeda in Iraq and sought economic damages, compensation for grief, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages arising from their deaths.[15]
A three-day evidentiary hearing was held in January 2008 to establish the facts of the case. Four American expert witnesses testified how Syria facilitated the movement of jihadists to Iraq, how the Assad regime provided support and sanctuary to the Zarqawi network, and how the regime—and specifically the president and his brother-in-law, military intelligence chief Shawkat—were aware of the activities of Zarqawi and al-Qaeda.[16] The government of Syria neither answered the suit nor appeared in court.
On September 26, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its memorandum opinion. In her ruling, Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote,
Plaintiffs proved, by evidence satisfactory to the Court, that Syria provided substantial assistance to Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq and that this led to the deaths by beheading of Jack Armstrong and Jack Hensley. … The evidence shows that Syria supported, protected, harbored, and subsidized a terrorist group whose modus operandi was the targeting, brutalization, and murder of American and Iraqi citizens.[17]
Most importantly, in her ruling, Judge Collyer concluded that consistent with precedent, Damascus could in fact be held liable for damages pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).[18] Under the international principle of sovereign immunity, U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over foreign states aside from certain enumerated exceptions codified by a U.S. federal statute in the act. Cases of state-sponsored terrorism are one exception. As of January 28, 2008, U.S. law "waives sovereign immunity for states that sponsor terrorism and provides a private right of action against such states."[19] Because Assad and Shawkat were not individually served with the action, the court ruled that they would not be defendants.
Based on this ruling, the court awarded damages requested by the Armstrong and Hensley estates. In terms of economic damages—lost income incurred by premature death—the compensation was relatively low, slightly over $1 million each. However, the especially cruel and prolonged technique of execution—and the resultant suffering of the victims and surviving family members—produced substantial damages awards. Most significant were the pain and suffering and punitive damages, which were especially high "in hopes that [these] substantial awards will deter further Syrian sponsorship of terrorists."[20] The court awarded to each family $50 million for pain and suffering, and $150 million for punitive damages. All told, the civil judgment against Syria totaled $413,909,587.

The Syrian Line of Defense

Although the mammoth judgment did not get much attention in the U.S. media, Damascus clearly took note of the award.[21] On October 24, 2008—less than a month after the initial ruling—it filed a notice of appeal. In its effort to overturn the ruling, the government of Syria engaged Johnson administration attorney general Ramsey Clark as its counsel.[22]
Retention of Clark by the Assad regime was not very surprising. Clark has a prodigious record of defending publicly reviled individuals and causes. His clientele list is a veritable "Who's Who" of dictators and perpetrators of genocide that includes Radovan Karadžić, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (first member of the clergy to be convicted of genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). Perhaps of more relevance to this case, in the early 1990s, Clark defended the Palestine Liberation Organization in the suit brought by the family of the murdered American Leon Klinghoffer.
The appeal motion did not address the allegations of Syrian material support to terrorists who killed Americans. Rather, it centered largely on two jurisdictional matters. The first of Syria's arguments was that the case should be dismissed because "no service of process has been delivered by DHL [international delivery company] to Syria and no legally sufficient showing of service of process has been made." Indeed, according to the appeal brief, the signature documenting receipt by the Foreign Ministry in Damascus of the package alerting Syria of the legal action "could have been photocopied from an earlier signature … and could readily have been the product of manipulation and falsification." In any event, the brief continued, DHL is unreliable and "the Internet is rife with anguished, indignant complaints by DHL customers."[23]
Damascus conceded that "Essam" was in fact the name of the person who typically signs for packages at the Foreign Ministry, but it maintained that DHL perpetrated fraud to cover-up incompetence and that the government of Syria was never aware of the suit. While Syria's DHL conspiracy theory was entertaining, indications suggest the court will not find the explanation compelling.
More interesting was Clark's second argument as to why the case should have been dismissed or remanded to the district court. Syria argued that the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity that allowed the action to be brought was unconstitutional "because it gives the Executive and Legislative branches incentive and opportunity … to misuse the exception to deny equal sovereignty for political purposes."[24] Most recently, the brief noted, these branches terminated cases and undermined the judiciary's independence with regard to Libya.
In addition to expressing concerns about preservation of balance of powers in the United States, Syria argued that by singling out the state, the suit violated article II of the U.N. charter, which, Syria said, establishes the principle of "sovereign equality of all [U.N.] Members." "By force of the U.S. Secretary's designation [of Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism]," the brief laments, Syria is "deprived of its fundamental right of equal sovereignty."[25]
Worse, the brief continued, the enormous judgment—which Syria described as "economic warfare"—would only "further inflame anti-American passions [and] invite retaliation."
The near half a billion dollars in damages and penalties assessed against Syria for the deaths of two Americans in this case … can only fill Syrians and most of the rest of the world with wonder at the monetary demands U.S. laws place on American deaths and America's non-accountability for the lives it takes. With a gross domestic product per capita of $7,000, it would take 30,000 years for the average Syrian to earn the sum awarded for the death of one American in this case.[26]
In short, the Assad regime argued that the mammoth judgment leveled against Syria by the U.S. District Court with the expressed purpose of not letting "depraved lawlessness go unremarked and without consequence" will only result in Arabs hating Americans more.[27] Consistent with the long-standing Damascus modus operandi, Syria's lawyers essentially threaten violence against the United States unless the initial verdict is reversed.

Precedents

Notwithstanding the seeming novelty of the defense's strategy—attacking the constitutionality of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act exception for state sponsors of terrorism—Damascus and Clark are employing this tack in other cases. During another recent civil action, two Americans taken hostage in 1988 by the Syrian-supported Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) sought damages against Damascus for its provision of material support to the terrorist organization.[28] In this case, too, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not accept Damascus's argument that the terrorism exception was unconstitutional.
At the time of publication, the appeal verdict was pending, but judgments in several previous cases suggest that the Court of Appeals will affirm precedent and deny Syria's argument that the FSIA exception is unconstitutional, just as it has previously found that the U.N. charter is not self-executing and has no jurisdiction in U.S. courts.
Syria is only the latest state to be held accountable in U.S. courts for its role in killing Americans. Most famously, in 1998, the family of Alisa Flatow, who was killed in a bus bombing perpetrated by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, won a $247 million award from the group's Iranian sponsors. But significant judgments have also been rendered against Tehran for kidnappings, tortures, and murders perpetrated in Lebanon by its client Hezbollah and in Israel by Hamas. In 1997 and 2010, nearly $4 billion in civil judgments were rendered against Iran in U.S. courts by the victims of the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Likewise, in 2007, U.S. courts awarded $6 billion to six American families and UTA airlines after Libya was found responsible for downing Flight 772 by a bomb over Niger in 1989. Ultimately, the UTA settlement was folded into the $1.5 billion fund established by Libya in 2008 to compensate Lockerbie, La Belle, and all other pending terrorism claims against Libya.[29]
While these astronomical figures would optimally constitute a deterrent for terrorist regimes, regrettably they have not proven effective. The problem, obviously, is that the judgments are exceedingly difficult to collect. After a $1.3 billion judgment was levied against Iran in 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth calculated that more than $9 billion in uncollected torts had been ordered against Tehran, a sum that made the money a "meaningless charade."[30] Federal courts have frozen some Iranian funds, including a $2 billion account at Citibank.[31] Still other victims of Iran have sought, thus far unsuccessfully, to attach ancient Iranian artifacts in Chicago museums.[32]
As with Iran, wresting assets from Syria to satisfy the awards to the Armstrong and Hensley families will also prove a challenge. Damascus has relatively few assets in the United States, and diplomatic property is inviolable. Still, attorney Steven Perles, who represented the families, remains optimistic. To date, according to his assessment, he has recovered some $70-$75 million in frozen Iranian assets for his clients.[33] And should the verdict be upheld, he says he intends to focus on Syrian assets in Europe "where a number of countries recognize compensatory [if not punitive] damages from American courts." While compensation remains a distant prospect, as long as these judgments are pending—if Iran is any example—it may become increasingly difficult for Damascus to do business in Europe.
In any event, it is increasingly clear that because the Assad regime has contributed to so many American deaths in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, this lawsuit is sure to generate dozens more. Indeed, Perles himself has pledged to "financially pound the Syrians until they do what [Libyan leader] Qaddafi did and compensate the families for the deaths of their loved ones."[34] More suits against Damascus await.

Policy Implications

The $413 million civil judgment represents the latest in a growing series of irritants in the U.S.-Syrian relationship. Since 1979, when Syria was added as an inaugural member of the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism, U.S. relations with Damascus have never been good. Nevertheless, despite the pariah moniker, over time, relations between Washington and the terrorist state reached a condition of normalcy. This persisted until the Bush-era deterioration triggered by Syrian provision of assistance to insurgents in Iraq and the subsequent assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri in 2005, a murder widely believed to have a Syrian connection.
Despite the Obama administration's sincere efforts to reset the relationship, improve the ties via a more active program of diplomatic engagement, and split Syria from its 30-year strategic relationship with Iran, over the first two years of this presidency, the bilateral dynamic has only gotten worse. Since 2010, Washington has watched Syrian support for terrorism and meddling in Lebanon increase. Meanwhile, Assad regime coordination with Tehran appears to be on the upswing.
An early item on President Obama's agenda was the appointment of a new ambassador to Damascus, a post that had been vacant since the Hariri killing. In February 2010, Robert Ford was appointed to the post, but his confirmation was scuttled when President Assad hosted Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah for a trilateral meeting in Damascus on February 26.[35]
Ford was given a recess appointment at the end of 2010 congressional term and was dispatched to Syria in January 2011.[36] But it is unclear what he will be able to accomplish. In the face of two years of good will gestures by the Obama administration, Syria has provided increasingly lethal and destabilizing support to Hezbollah, believed to include SCUD and/or Fatah 110 missiles, and perhaps game-changing MANPAD systems, which can target Israeli F-16s over Lebanon. In addition to providing ongoing training to Hamas in Syria, recently released State Department cables suggest the presence of Hezbollah military facilities on Syrian soil.[37] At the same time, Damascus continues its policy of noncooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency investigation of the North Korean nuclear facility in al-Kibar destroyed by Israel in 2007.[38] Finally, the human rights situation in Syria remains appalling and shows no signs of improving.[39]
This $413 million judgment joins the perennial catalogue of U.S.-Syrian issues for discussion. And although it is unlikely to become a priority issue, the outstanding award does serve an important purpose on the list. For unlike the other items—which pose a concern for regional stability and a threat to regional friends—the pending damages highlight that Syria's behavior is not just a problem for other states but for Washington.
While it is possible that this Syrian obligation will ultimately be met through a Libya-style arrangement where the Assad regime jettisons its support for terrorism, ends its quest for nuclear weapons, and changes its strategic orientation in exchange for a rapprochement with Washington, this kind of deal remains a distant hope at best. In the meantime, the Gates v. Syria verdict is a useful reminder that Syrian support for terrorism kills Americans.
David Schenker, the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, previously served as the Pentagon's top policy aide on the Arab countries of the Levant.

Surprise! Iran May Still Be Developing Nuclear Weapons


A forthcoming report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will, once again, sound the alarm on Iran’s continued quest to build nuclear weapons. Despite increased scrutiny and penalties from the international community, Iranian leaders appear undeterred. Politico has more:
In the report, the IAEA said it was still assessing “further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear-related activities” as member states provided evidence suggesting that Iran has continued its nuclear program.
The report also found that a mysterious Syrian installation bombed four years ago by Israel was likely a nearly completed nuclear reactor. That’s the most definitive the IAEA has been about the building’s use since the attack that destroyed the facility.

And according to the AP:
“The agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities … including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” said the IAEA. Overall the report said the agency cannot “conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
Currently, Iran is under four sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions. Earlier today, in an effort to further isolate the Middle Eastern nation while punishing companies that do business with its regime, the Obama administration targeted seven foreign companies with sanctions. Additional sanctions were imposed on 15 individuals and companies “…in China, Iran, North Korea, Syria and elsewhere for illicit trading in missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.” And it doesn’t end there:
In addition to the Iran sanctions, the administration imposed penalties on 16 individuals and firms from Belarus, China, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela for violating the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act by selling or buying sensitive equipment and technology related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile systems.
Watch U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg explain the sanctions:
Exit question: What steps will the United States and the international community take if the sanctions do not dissuade Iran from continuing its nuclear program?




Rep. Miller: American -- Israeli Bond is Unbreakable

Surprise! Iran May Still Be Developing Nuclear Weapons

by Billy Hallowell Billy Hallowell

A forthcoming report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will, once again, sound the alarm on Iran’s continued quest to build nuclear weapons. Despite increased scrutiny and penalties from the international community, Iranian leaders appear undeterred. Politico has more:
In the report, the IAEA said it was still assessing “further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear-related activities” as member states provided evidence suggesting that Iran has continued its nuclear program.
The report also found that a mysterious Syrian installation bombed four years ago by Israel was likely a nearly completed nuclear reactor. That’s the most definitive the IAEA has been about the building’s use since the attack that destroyed the facility.

And according to the AP:
“The agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities … including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” said the IAEA. Overall the report said the agency cannot “conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
Currently, Iran is under four sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions. Earlier today, in an effort to further isolate the Middle Eastern nation while punishing companies that do business with its regime, the Obama administration targeted seven foreign companies with sanctions. Additional sanctions were imposed on 15 individuals and companies “…in China, Iran, North Korea, Syria and elsewhere for illicit trading in missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.” And it doesn’t end there:
In addition to the Iran sanctions, the administration imposed penalties on 16 individuals and firms from Belarus, China, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela for violating the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act by selling or buying sensitive equipment and technology related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile systems.
Watch U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg explain the sanctions:
Exit question: What steps will the United States and the international community take if the sanctions do not dissuade Iran from continuing its nuclear program?