Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Romney Aligning Himself With Israeli Hawks On Iran

the flipside to that is none of them, nor any American for that matter, ever did anything to Israel or Jews, yet it is America that continues to pay for the collective guilt of the holocaust. That's why someone like Mannlicher can throw out some Nazi statement and for some people they back down. Because if you question something about Israel - as in why its America that has to bear the brunt regarding the true cost of Israel's existence in the world, then obviously you're a Nazi.

I gave up long ago caring what label some pinhead uses to try to keep me quiet on a subject where I express no bias or hatred. Throwing out labels is a weak attempt to squelch the basis of the argument. It can't be good for them if too many people start questioning why we have a one sided alliance that costs us American lives and money with Israel.

I don't start discussions talking about a dislike for the Jews, my discussions have always been focused on Americas biased and unequal support for a nation.

If a person can't separate the two, that isn't a concern of mine, nor will it ever slow me down in my opinion on it.

There you go again, propagandist. You clearly have no honor.

Tim,

This post is an act of desperation. You cannot refute The_Real_Hawkeye's posts; therefore, your only alternative was to viciously attack his character. In doing so you stooped to deep chasms in which only the slimy dive. You have become the enemy against whom you rail.


R

From the article: "The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 � that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon � reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 � has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb."

IAEA Expert Team Returns from Iran

22 February 2012 | A senior IAEA expert team is returning from Iran after two days of discussions with Iranian officials held on 20 and 21 February 2012. The meeting followed previous discussions held on 29 to 31 January 2012.

During both the first and second round of discussions, the Agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place.

Intensive efforts were made to reach agreement on a document facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear programme, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions. Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document.

"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin during the first or second meetings," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said. "We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached."

Could Iran be building nuclear weapons? A scientific perspective



There is much concern that Iran is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Such a development, we�re told, could induce Israel to launch a unilateral military strike with all types of unpredictable consequences.

Now Iran, of course, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty � unlike many other Middle East nations � and thus far the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) has found no direct proof of nuclear weapons development in Iran. I don�t know whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons � or, if it is, why.

On the other hand, I can provide a bit of background on why the IAEA and many countries have come to be so concerned about Iran�s nuclear ambitions.

Iran�s first nuclear power plant, located outside the southwest city of Bushehr, was opened last year. It has already begun contributing electricity to the domestic power grid. Construction of a second power plant is underway in Darkhovin, north of Bushehr, and the country is dotted with nuclear research facilities, most prominently the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.

Of particular concern to the IAEA, though, are the uranium enrichment facilities located in Natanz and Fordow, both south of Tehran. To understand why enrichment facilities cause consternation in the international community, we have to understand the process of nuclear fuel enrichment.

I�ll start with some physics and chemistry. Chemical elements found in nature are distinguished from each other by the number of protons in their atomic nuclei. Every atom of each particular element has the same number of protons in its nucleus. But it�s not that simple: most chemical elements actually consist of a collection of different nuclear isotopes.

Isotopes of the same chemical element have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but different numbers of neutrons.

Different isotopes of hydrogen: Hydrogen-1 (with no neutrons), Hydrogen-2 (with one neutron), and Hydrogen-3 (with two neutrons).

We can specify which isotope we�re talking about by identifying the combined number of protons and neutrons in the isotope�s nucleus. So, for example, naturally occurring potassium is made up of the isotopes Potassium-39, Potassium-40 and Potassium-41, with relative abundances of 93.26%, 0.01% and 6.73% respectively.

These numbers mean that 93.26% of naturally occurring potassium is composed of Potassium-39, and so on. All three potassium isotopes have almost exactly the same chemical properties, but their nuclei are completely different.

Why is this important? Because different isotopes of the same element can have very different properties. Unlike other potassium isotopes, Potassium-40 is radioactive. Potassium is an essential ingredient of all living organisms, and the nuclear radiation from the Potassium-40 within our bodies is responsible for about one quarter of our natural background radiation dose.

This brings us back to nuclear energy. Naturally occurring uranium consists of 99.3% Uranium-238 (U-238) and 0.7% Uranium-235 (U-235). Of the two, only U-235 undergoes nuclear fission � the splitting of atoms to generate massive amounts of energy � with low-energy neutrons.

(While U-238 will fission when bombarded with high-energy neutrons, not enough of these are emitted from the fission of other uranium nuclei to sustain a nuclear chain reaction.) As a result, most nuclear power plants need uranium fuel to be �enriched� in U-235.

This means increasing the relative concentration of U-235 in the uranium to 3.5%�5% relative to U-238, as opposed to 0.7%. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, need U-235 to be concentrated to a much higher level � 80% or greater. Low-enrichment nuclear fuel cannot be made to explode like a nuclear weapon.

A model of the Uranium-235 isotope. Its nucleus contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons. Wikimedia Commons

To accomplish this enrichment, then, one must find a way to concentrate U-235 relative to U-238. This a very difficult task because one cannot use chemical processes to distinguish the two isotopes. The nuclear industry has now settled on centrifugal enrichment technology as the most economical method of separating U-235 and U-238.

In this process, uranium-hexaflouride � a processed, gaseous form of uranium � is spun extremely rapidly in a metal cylinder (the centrifuge). Since U-235 is slightly lighter than U-238, it tends to collect at the centre of the cylinder, where it is skimmed off.

The output of one centrifuge is fed into another, each one slightly enhancing the ratio of U-235 to U-238. The process is continued until the desired enrichment is obtained.

Monitoring the level of enrichment is crucial, both for the operator of the program and for outside observers such as the IAEA. Luckily, because of the different nuclear properties of U-235 and U-238, the enrichment level can very easily be measured.

U-235 is about ten-times more radioactive than U-238, and the pattern of gamma-rays from U-235 is very different from that of U-238. The combination of these two characteristics makes it easy to determine the relative concentrations of the two isotopes.

The IAEA does this with equipment placed outside containers holding the enriched uranium, the input uranium and the leftover tails from the process.

Containers of fresh high-enrichment uranium from a Chilean reactor. NNSANews

I find reports that Iran is enriching fuel to 20% � as opposed to the 5% required for electricity production � very worrying. Although uranium enriched to 20% will not make an effective nuclear weapon, it could be a sign they�re testing their procedures to make weapons-grade uranium.

On the other hand, some research reactors used to make medical radioisotopes require 20%-enriched uranium. This is the reason given by Iran for its production of higher-enrichment uranium.

Nevertheless, any plant capable of enriching uranium in sufficient quantities to make nuclear fuel can be configured to enrich that uranium to 80%. One simply feeds it though the sequence of centrifuges until the desired concentration is reached.

Because achieving 80% enrichment is the most complex and difficult part of manufacturing nuclear weapons, undeclared enrichment facilities represent the strongest technological indication of a nuclear weapons program � which is why they are monitored so closely by the IAEA.

Iran has the world�s second largest natural gas reserves, enough to supply the country�s domestic electricity needs for centuries. Furthermore, it is relatively easy for a government to buy nuclear fuel (albeit with conditions, such as being required to permit snap inspections of all nuclear facilities). In my opinion, it is not necessary for Iran to have built their own enrichment plants.

Nevertheless, now that the facilities have been built, it is easy enough for the IAEA (if given access) to determine the level of enrichment of the nuclear fuel being produced, and to make sure this matches the amount of natural uranium fed into the plant. This way they can detect whether any uranium has been diverted into other, undisclosed programs.

It is therefore vital, above all, that the IAEA inspectors continue to be allowed access to Iran�s nuclear facilities.

BBC News Middle East
6 March 2012 Last updated at 10:15 ET
Q&A: Iran nuclear issue

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that medium-level uranium enrichment had begun at the Fordo plant near Qom in northern Iran.

Tehran has said it plans to carry out uranium enrichment there for purely peaceful purposes. The West argues Iran is building a nuclear weapons capacity.

In November 2011 the IAEA released its latest report on Iran's nuclear programme, presenting new evidence suggesting that Iran is secretly working to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed the claims as fictitious.

What does the IAEA report say?

The IAEA has long expressed concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but its latest report (November 2011) lays out the case in much greater detail than before.

Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.

The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.

There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.

Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August 2011.

In March 2012, it was announced that Iran had agreed to take part in fresh six-party talks and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site at Parchin, under certain conditions.

The UN Security Council has ordered Iran to stop enrichment. Why?

Because the technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion.

Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Security Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and other nuclear activities.

Under international law, an order from the Security Council is held to supersede rights granted by other international organisations. The Council has ordered sanctions under Article 41 of the UN Charter, which enables it to decide "what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions". The Council has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an arrangement allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.

How does Iran justify its refusal to obey the Security Council resolutions?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection by the IAEA. Iran is under inspection, though not under the strictest rules allowed because it will not agree to them. Only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends to enrich only for power station fuel or other peaceful purposes. It says the UN resolutions are politically motivated. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights."

What does Iran say about developing nuclear weapons?

It says it will not make a nuclear bomb. Following the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared: "We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons, has said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?

This would depend on Iran taking the decision to make a nuclear device and Iran says it will not do so. But experts believe that technically it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within a few months. A US general said in April 2010 that Iran could still take several years after that to make a device. Former CIA chief Leon Panetta said in June 2010 that it could take two years. Israel's retired intelligence chief Meir Dagan has said it could take until 2015.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in January 2011 that sanctions had slowed down Iran's nuclear work. She also said that Iran had faced technical difficulties, possibly a reference to a computer virus said to have affected its centrifuge machinery. But in July 2011, Iran said it was installing new, faster centrifuges to speed progress in uranium enrichment. If successful, it could shorten the time needed to stockpile material that can have civilian as well as military purposes, if processed much further.

In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would raise suspicions and leave itself open to attack. If, while remaining in the treaty, it enriched to nuclear weapons level or was found diverting material for a bomb in secret, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

But what about the US intelligence assessment issued on Iran in 2007?

The National Intelligence Estimate played down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assessed "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it. The NIE added: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

However, Israel did not accept the conclusions and there was also doubt elsewhere. In 2008, the then director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack, saying: "Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

What sanctions has the UN imposed on Iran?

The UN has imposed four sets of sanctions, in Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1929.

These seek to make it more difficult for Iran to acquire equipment, technology and finance to support its nuclear activities. They ban the sale to Iran of materiel and technology related to nuclear enrichment and heavy-water activities and ballistic missile development, restrict dealings with certain Iranian banks and individuals, stop the sale of major arms systems to Iran (Russia has cancelled the sale of an anti-aircraft missile system) and allow some inspections of air and sea cargoes.

However, they do not stop the trade in oil and gas, the major source of Iran's income.

What about additional sanctions by the US and EU?

The US brought in restrictions on trade with Iran after the taking of American hostages in 1979, which it tightened in 1995, and in 2010 additionally targeted Iranian finances, shipping and the Revolutionary Guard.

In January 2012 the US imposed sanctions on Iran's central bank and against three oil companies that trade with Iran, including China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. The sanctions prevent the companies from receiving US export licences, US Export Import Bank financing or any loans over $10m from US institutions.

Later that month European Union foreign ministers formally adopted an oil embargo against Iran. This involves an immediate ban on all new oil contracts with Iran, while existing contracts will be honoured until 1 July 2012.

What are the chances of an attack on Iran?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran, so the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains.

In March 2012, Mr Netanyahu said that time was running out to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon, before any such programme became too advanced or went underground. He said he would never allow Israelis to "live in the shadow of annihilation".

Wikileaks revelations have shown that Gulf Arab states have urged the US to attack Iran.

American officials have stressed the instability that would result from any attack on Iran. They appear to be hoping that even if Iran continues to develop its nuclear expertise, it will not try to build a bomb.

US President Barack Obama said there was "still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution". He warned that "loose talk of war" was playing into Iran's hands, but has stressed that all options remain open.

How does the nuclear plant at Bushehr fit in?

This reactor was started in the 1970s under the Shah but then put on hold until recently when the Russians finished it. The Russians will provide raw fuel and take away the spent fuel, which could potentially be used to make a plutonium-based nuclear bomb.

Bushehr is technically separate from the issue of enrichment. However, the US says that because Russia is providing the fuel, Iran does not need its own enrichment programme. Iran says that the reactor shows that it does have a civil nuclear power plan and that it needs to develop enrichment to serve this in the longer term.

What about fuel for the Tehran research reactor?

There is a small research reactor in Tehran making medical isotopes, installed by the Americans many years ago. This is running low on fuel, which has previously been provided from abroad. The US, Russia and France proposed taking Iran's stock of low-enriched (3.5%) uranium out of the country and return it as higher-enriched (20%) fuel rods. The idea was to get the low-enriched stock out of Iran and prevent it from being potentially used for a nuclear device.

On 17 May 2010 it was announced in Tehran that, after talks with Turkey and Brazil, Iran had agreed to ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey. However, Iran also said it would continue to enrich other uranium to 20%. Western governments rejected the deal and said it did not solve the basic enrichment issue.

What about Iran's enrichment plant at Qom?

A new and previously secret enrichment plant being built underground near Qom was revealed in 2009. The IAEA said it should have been declared much earlier and is demanding that construction stop. Iran says it broke no rules - there is a dispute about its obligations to the IAEA - and stated that it was constructing the plant in a mountain in order to safeguard its technology from an air attack.

Iran said the plant, known as the Fordo fuel enrichment plant, would enrich uranium up to 5% and would have 3,000 centrifuges.

In June 2011 Iran said the purpose of the plant was to enrich uranium to 20%, as well as carry out research and development.

In January 2012 the IAEA confirmed that Iran had started the production of uranium enriched up to 20% at the plant.

Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?

Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament. Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not covered by the NPT.

Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "

Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.

Iran seeking to build long-range missile, warns David Cameron

Prime minister says Iran is planning inter-continental weaponry, but urges Israel to give sanctions more time.


David Cameron has warned that Iran is seeking to build an inter-continental missile that would threaten the west, as he urged Israel to allow time for sanctions to force the Iranians to change their strategic stance.

He was speaking after the cabinet was briefed for an hour by the national security adviser, Sir Kim Darroch, on the imminence of the threat to the UK posed by Iran.

It is the first time Cameron has made such an explicit warning that Iran could endanger UK security, and has faint echoes of the warnings from Tony Blair's government that Iraq could fire weapons of mass destruction with 45 minutes' notice.

It is understood that the government's National Security Council is also looking at potential reprisals in the UK if Israel were to launch a pre-emptive strike against an Iranian nuclear site. Critics accuse Iran of planning to use its enrichment of uranium for weapons. Cameron will be briefed by President Barack Obama next week on the US approach to any such strike when the two leaders meet in Washington.

Speaking to MPs on the Commons liaison committee, the prime minister said Tehran's ambitions were dangerous for the Middle East.

But Cameron also added that Iran "is a danger more broadly, not least because there are signs that the Iranians want to have some sort of inter-continental missile capability.

"We have to be clear this is a threat potentially much wider than just Israel and the region."

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told an American Jewish group in Washington on Monday that diplomacy and sanctions had failed and that "none of us can afford to wait much longer" to act against Tehran.

On Tuesday six global powers agreed to resume negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, calling for "concrete and practical steps" to restore international trust in Tehran's stated intentions.

In a letter to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, the EU foreign policy chief, Lady Ashton, said the negotiations should restart as soon as possible, at a venue to be decided.

Writing on behalf of a negotiating group comprising the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany, Ashton said: "Our overall goal remains a comprehensive negotiated long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme, while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with the NPT [nuclear non-proliferation treaty]."

The last set of talks broke down in Istanbul in January last year. Western diplomats said Jalili refused at that meeting to negotiate over Iran's nuclear programme or any confidence-building measures previously discussed, such as an exchange of Iranian enriched uranium for foreign-made fuel rods for the Tehran research reactor.

At the meeting, the Iranian negotiator laid down preconditions for talks including the lifting of all sanctions and a guarantee that Iran could continue its nuclear programme, including the most controversial element, uranium enrichment.

Tehran says the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the west and Israel allege it is a front for an effort to build a nuclear arsenal, or at least establish the capacity to build a bomb at short notice.

Jalili's reply to Ashton was delivered in February, four months after her proposal, suggesting talks on "a spectrum of issues" including "Iran's nuclear issue".

French officials argued that in order to satisfy Israel that all was being done to resolve the nuclear crisis by peaceful means, the international response would have to make it absolutely clear that the talks would have to end with the "full implementation" of UN security council resolutions calling for the suspension of uranium enrichment. That language was spelt out in Ashton's latest letter.

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), presented to the agency's board this week, said Iran had tripled its rate of production of 20%-enriched uranium � seen by the west as a particular proliferation threat � and reported that Iran had not co-operated with an inspection visit last month, refusing access to a sensitive military site known as Parchin.

Iran is thought to have already developed a ballistic missile which can travel approximately 1,200 miles. The International Atomic Energy Agency has asked Iran to explain evidence that it once worked on a missile payload design that could be used to deliver a nuclear warhead.

There is evidence that the Iranians and North Koreans cooperated in the past on missile technology. However, there is no proof of North Korean involvement in any payload design, nor is there conclusive proof that Iran itself has pursued the development of such a weapon.

Cameron stressed that Iran should not be seen as "a mini superpower" but as "a disastrous country" with mass unemployment and a dysfunctional economy.

He said he still believed the track of sanctions should be pursued, arguing EU-wide sanctions were causing dislocation to the Iranian foreign exchange position and "should not be sniffed at".

He said the next step was to get the Indians and Chinese to also refuse to buy Iranian oil.

"The more pressure we pile on Iran through sanctions the more incentive they have to take a different path � it is the best option we have".

The prime minister said that no plans were being laid at this stage to increase the UK military presence in the region.

� This article was amended on 9 adn 12 March 2012 because quotes attributed to David Cameron went farther than his words as spoken. Headings said, Iran 'seeking to build nuclear weapon', warns David Cameron; and Prime minister says Iran is planning an 'inter-continental nuclear weapon'. Story text said, David Cameron has warned that Iran is seeking to build an 'inter-continental nuclear weapon' that threatens the west. These have been corrected to conform with his remark about an intercontinental missile capability quoted elsewhere in the story. An assertion that Iran is working with North Korea to turn an existing Iranian missile into one that can accommodate a nuclear warhead has been replaced by a more detailed account. Finally, the original article mentioned possibility of a pre-emptive strike against an Iranian "nuclear weapons site". This has been changed to nuclear site.

� 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON � A federal judge has determined that the Justice Department provided �ample evidence� to designate the most prominent Muslim group in America as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator.

According to a federal court ruling unsealed Friday, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has been involved in �a conspiracy to support Hamas,� a federally designated terrorist group that has murdered at least 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens.

The 20-page order, signed by U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis, cites �ample evidence� that CAIR participated in a �criminal conspiracy� led by the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas�s main fundraising arm in the U.S. As a result, the judge refused CAIR�s request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

�The four pieces of evidence the government relies on do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR�s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas,� Solis wrote in his July 2009 ruling.

The evidence includes documents introduced by the government showing CAIR and its founding chairman Omar Ahmad have operated as key members of Hamas� U.S. wing, known as the �Palestine Committee.� In addition, FBI wiretaps and agent testimony have placed both Ahmad and CAIR�s acting executive director � Nihad Awad � at a secret meeting last decade with Hamas leaders in Philadelphia. Meeting in a hotel room, participants hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas suicide bombers and their families as charity.

CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad, who arranged and led the secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia

�The attendees agreed not to mention the word Hamas but to refer to Hamas as �Samah,� which is Hamas spelled backwards,� Solis said. �The Philadelphia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take to accomplish its goal of supporting Hamas in the future.�

During the meeting � which was organized and led by CAIR founder Ahmad � the Hamas operatives agreed to form CAIR as an outwardly benign front group skilled in media manipulation. �They did not want to be viewed as being aligned with terrorist groups,� he said.

The judge did not dispute �press accounts and blog entries� that �CAIR is a criminal organization that supports terrorism,� according to the ruling.

The government�s evidence undermines CAIR�s public face as a �civil-rights advocacy organization,� while corroborating the findings of the bestselling book, �Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That�s Conspiring to Islamize America.� The book chronicles the undercover investigation of P. David Gaubatz and his son, who interned at CAIR�s national headquarters.

CAIR has sued the Gaubatzes for trespassing, but has not denied any of the book�s explosive findings tying CAIR closer to terrorism.

According to Politico.com, a federal grand jury in Washington is actively hearing evidence against CAIR emerging from the Holy Land trial, while also reviewing the thousands of pages of evidence gathered in the �Muslim Mafia� investigation. Prosecutors subpoenaed the evidence shortly after the book was published last fall.

CAIR, which has not been charged with a crime, denies allegations it works for Hamas � even as it refuses to condemn the terrorist group by name.

�CAIR is not a front group for Hamas,� insisted CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, �or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with.�

CAIR maintains it is simply a Muslim-rights group, but the Justice Department says it is a front group not only for Hamas, but for its parent the radical Muslim Brotherhood � a worldwide jihadist movement that prosecutors say has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.

�From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists,� said assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a separate court filing.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, implicated in a major terror case, shakes hands with undercover intern Chris Gaubatz at CAIR headquarters in Washington.

In 2007, U.S. prosecutors first named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families. A jury in 2008 convicted the charity and its leaders on all 108 felony counts.

�CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization � a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,� said assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.

The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it is not a terror front.

�Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,� advised assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Media outlets � including Fox News, which is financed by the same Saudi prince funding CAIR � continue to invite Awad and other CAIR leaders on the air to argue against airport profiling and other issues on CAIR�s agenda. Fox has offered CAIR guests full segments unopposed by critics and without viewer caveats regarding CAIR�s court-documented terror connections.

We need a Holy Crusade and it looks like Iran is it. Facts be damned!

Never forget we are doing God�s work here!!!!!

Tim,

This post is an act of desperation. You cannot refute The_Real_Hawkeye's posts; therefore, your only alternative was to viciously attack his character. In doing so you stooped to deep chasms in which only the slimy dive. You have become the enemy against whom you rail.


R

Tim demonstrates the absence of character and honor so common among the neocons here at the Fire. This, I have found, is a characteristic of leftism in general. He produces a list of so-called shortcomings on my part that are the product purely of his imagination and that of others of his ilk, lacking substantiation. Nothing screams poor character and absence of honor like that.

Start messin' with somebody's cognitive dissonance, they'll get pissy every time.

�The nuclear bomb is a fire against humanity, rather than a weapon of defense. The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride. Its possession is disgusting and shameful.�

�Iran can recruit hundreds of suicide bombers a day. Suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.�

Ahmadinejad Wants To Push Ahead With Developing Nuclear Weapons

VIENNA � Iran's president wants to shed the nation's secrecy and forge ahead openly with developing nuclear weapons but is opposed by the clerical leadership, which is worried about international reaction to such a move, says an intelligence assessment shared with The Associated Press.

That view, from a nation with traditionally reliable intelligence from the region, cannot be confirmed and contrasts with assessments by other countries that view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as relatively moderate on the nuclear issue compared to the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Attempts to interpret Iran's goals are important because as it expands uranium enrichment, it is moving closer to being able to make a nuclear weapon by the day, even as it asserts that it is not interested in such arms and its programs are geared only to making reactor fuel.

A U.S. official cited one assessment he has seen suggesting Ahmadinejad may be more "moderate" � more open to talks with the international community on resolving nuclear concerns than Khamenei. He asked for anonymity because his information was privileged.

But a blunt comment by Ahmadinejad last month raises questions. While repeating that Iran does not want nuclear arms, he openly reinforced its ability to make them, telling Iranian state TV that "if we want to make a bomb, we are not afraid of anybody."

That defiant statement fits the scenario laid down by the intelligence assessment shared with the AP, depicting Ahmadinejad as wanting to move publicly to develop a nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is pushing "to shake free of the restraints Iran has imposed upon itself, and openly push forward to create a nuclear bomb," says the assessment. But Khamenei, whose word is final on nuclear and other issues, "wants to progress using secret channels, due to concern about a severe response from the West," says the report.

Officials at the Iranian president's office were not available for comment Friday.

The varying views reflect the difficulties that intelligence agencies face when probing a secretive nation that plays its cards close to its chest. Lines of division are murky. Alliances shift and positions change, leaving governments and private analysts frustrated as they try to nail down Tehran's nuclear end game.

They converge, however in noting that recent political divisions between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have spilled over to encompass Iran's nuclear activities to a greater degree than before.

While much about Iran's nuclear program is opaque, the growing capacity � if not the intention � to make weapons is on the record, captured in International Atomic Energy Agency reports documenting the expansion of Iran's enrichment program from its clandestine beginnings more than a decade ago to one that has produced enough material for more than two nuclear bombs.

More recently Iran has begun enriching to higher levels that would lessen the time needed to make weapons-grade material. And its stonewalling of an IAEA probe based on U.S. and other intelligence of secret work on components of a nuclear weapons program is adding to concerns raised by Tehran's refusal to freeze enrichment despite U.N. sanctions.

"They claim that all of their activities are for peaceful purposes," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the AP Friday. "But we have information that might have military implications and there are other activities that we don't know well, so it is difficult for us to draw a conclusion it is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Intelligence reports of tensions between Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics are in line with other signs showing Ahmadinejad at odds with Khamenei with less than two-years to go into his presidency.

In recent months, Ahmadinejad apparently fired � and was forced by Khamenei to reinstate � his interior minister in what some analysts see as a rebuffed attempt by the president to eliminate rivals to candidates he would like to see in positions of power, once his second and last term ends in 2013. That prompted an outburst of public criticism and led rivals in parliament to start proceedings that could in the most extreme case lead to impeachment.

Reports of disagreement on nuclear issues predate that dispute, but some officials from member nations of the Vienna-based IAEA see tensions over the future of the nuclear program sharpening.

Proliferation expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says his briefings from European government officials who have seen the latest U.S. intelligence assessment on the Islamic Republic seem to support the assessment shared with the AP that Khamenei is worried about how the world would react to a nuclear-armed Iran.

"There is a lot of caution in the regime about the implication of building nuclear weapons," says Albright. Asked whether Ahmadinejad or Khamenei have been the most circumspect, he says "the implication is that it was the Supreme Leader."

The leadership is "worried about starting a nuclear weapons race and worried about the international impact," said Albright, naming reactions from regional powers Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey as that of greatest concern to Tehran. Both Egypt and the Saudis have indicated that they would contemplate acquiring nuclear weapons if Iran had them.

One theory voiced by government officials and private analysts is that Iran might be looking to reach the level just short of making nuclear weapons � but able to do so quickly if it feels threatened. That would fit in with Khamenei's reported cautious stance.

In any case, Ahmadinejad seems to be further weakened by the dispute. That leaves the Revolutionary Guard � the military-industrial powerhouse that is increasingly asserting itself in most aspects of Iran's society � as a beneficiary says the intelligence assessment.

"Khamenei has decided to transfer engagement with the most sensitive parts of the nuclear program, including activity that can be used for nuclear weapons, from ... the group of scientists at the Defense Ministry, who are identified with Ahmadinejad, to a special body in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.," it says. "This, due to the increasing lack of trust the Leader has in people in sensitive positions, who are identified with the President."

The summary interprets the apparent decision to give the guard greater say over nuclear issues as a boost to its quest "to establish its status as a leading power force in the regime."

From the article: "The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 � that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon � reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 � has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb."

Now, go repeat that in the mirror as nobody is more guilty of it in this particular thread than yourself....

I put you in a corner and all you had left was to call me a propagandist and a man without honor.

Facts and reality a little hard to swallow there, TRH?

Then again, what would you know about honor?

I agree with this post; the US is saddled with the collective guilt for Nazi atrocities and keeps paying Israel to mitigate this guilt. Peace in the middle-East can not be gained as long as Israeli "settlers" keep building settlements on land that is within the agreed areas (by both parties) that are Palestinian.

see: "Israelis were warned on illegality of settlements in 1967 memo "; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-of-settlements-in-1967-memo-469443.html

see: "Israelis were warned on illegality of settlements in 1967 memo "; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-of-settlements-in-1967-memo-469443.html

It's amazing to me that I need professional help for finding the national government too conspiratorial yet you guys find a conspiracy in everything that Iran does and you guys don't need professional help.