US military officials said on Wednesday, March 7, that contrary to the prevailing impression, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed not only their dispute over an attack on Iran at their White House meeting on March 5, but devoted considerable attention to the Syrian crisis, focusing on the hundreds of surface-to-surface missiles armed with chemical and biological warheads possessed by Syria.The hazard could be accelerated by three elements, say American sources:1. Assad might decide to respond with extreme violence to foreign military intervention in Syria, even an operation confined only to drawing the civilian population into security zones safe from the attacks of his security services.2. Assad might respond to an Iranian request to take part in a preemptive strike launched by Tehran or Iranian retaliation for attacks on its nuclear facilities by the US or Israel.3. Assad might transfer the unconventional missions to Iran’s Lebanese surrogate, the Hizballah - in which case, the US, Turkey and Israel would have no option but to smash them.Testifying to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday, the Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey said the Assad regime had ““approximately five times more sophisticated air defenses than existed in Libya covering one-fifth of the terrain” and “about ten times more than we experienced in Serbia.” He also has chemical and biological weapons.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Thursday praised US President Barack Obama for recent remarks in which he warned against "beating the drums of war."Calling Obama's statement good, and a "departure from the illusion," Khamenei nonetheless criticized the US president for his steadfast advocacy of continued sanctions against Iran. It is a mistake to think Iran can be brought to its needs, Khamenei told a gathering of the clerical council, the Assembly of Experts.
Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar denied reports in British media Wednesday that the Gaza-based group would stay out of any military conflict between Israel and Iran, the Iranian Fars news site reported."Retaliation with utmost power is the position of Hamas with regard to a Zionist (Israeli) war on Iran," Fars quoted Zahar as saying.Speaking with Fars Wednesday, Zahar added that the group would respond not only against Israel if it attacked Iran, but also, "whoever [was] helping them."
A report in Ma'ariv Thursday said that U.S. President Baack H. Obama offered to give Israel advanced “bunker buster” missiles and long-range planes that could fly thousands of kilometers without refueling – if Israel agreed not to attack Iran during 2012.The report was based on discussions with diplomatic officials who were privy to the conversation Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had with Obama in Washington this week. The diplomats said that Obama had offered a “package deal,” whereby the U.S. would not seek to prevent an Israeli attack in 2013 – after the U.S. presidential election in November. That didn't mean that the U.S. was giving Israel a “green light” for an attack; it was more like a “yellow light,” which perhaps could be interpreted as close to red than green, the diplomats said.
Satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at the site, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger, diplomats told The Associated Presson Wednesday.The diplomats who spoke to the news agency are all nuclear experts accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency.Two of the diplomats told AP the crews at the Parchin military site may be trying to erase evidence of tests of a small experimental neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion. A third diplomat could not confirm that, but said any attempt to trigger a so-called neutron initiator could only be in the context of trying to develop nuclear arms.The diplomats also said they suspect attempts at sanitization, because some of thevehicles at the scene appeared to be haulage trucks and other equipment suited to carting off potentially contaminated soil from the site.
I decided to look into the Hamas Charter out of curiosity after seeing evidence that Hamas endorses CAIR. CAIR always refuses to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah whenever asked to do so. I encourage those who are interested to see CAIR's remarks for yourself in relation to The Third Jihad.Also, for those who have not yet viewed this free documentary, you can access it directly from thethirdjihad.com.
My question is this. If CAIR is really interested in promoting equality and the difference between peaceful Muslims and Islamists, then why the uproar? Clearly this documentary works to expose the radical side of Islam within the Middle East, Europe and America. These facts are clear, not distorted. So why the fuss from CAIR? The only logical conclusion I can find is that Islamists take it personally when someone exposes their faith. If CAIR really is a moderate group channeling equality for Muslim Americans, they would stand in truth with Muslims who speak out in The Third Jihad documentary. In looking at portions of the Hamas Charter paired with the knowledge that CAIR is supposedly endorsed by Hamas, the truth becomes evident.