In a recent, inadvertently released Canadian training manual on "Torture Awareness," Canada has linked the United States and Israel among others like China, Syria and Iran as countries that have prisoner interrogation techniques that include Torture. The manual mistakenly came to light during an investigation of abuse by Canadian soldiers against prisoners in Afghanistan.

Canada puts U.S., Guantanamo and Israel on torture 'watch list'

Canada has put the United States and Israel on a torture watch list, according to CTV. A Canadian government document cites the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and interrogation techniques that include "forced nudity, isolation, and sleep deprivation."
...

A Foreign Affairs Department training manual, titled "Torture Awareness Workshop Reference Materials," provides legal definitions of torture and instructs Canadian consular officials how to detect signs of abuse among detainees held abroad. It lists Guantanamo Bay and the United States, along with Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The manual was inadvertently released to lawyers working on a lawsuit involving abuse of Afghanistan detainees by Canadians, the Canadian Press reported.

One Canadian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr, is due before a U.S. military commission in early February. The Pentagon has charged him with "murder by an unprivileged belligerent" for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Delta Force soldier Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in 2002. Khadar was 15 at the time.

Almost 48 hours after the fiasco at Columbia University, it should be crystal-clear to Lee Bollinger that his invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ivy League campus was a huge mistake. His personal attacks on the Iranian President during his most craven and unprofessional introduction on Monday, are making a bigger stir then the ridiculous statements made by Ahmadinejad. Go figure.

I think the eye of Columbia University is blackening as we speak.

World reaction so far are quite emphatic.

I find nothing courageous about the Bollinger's insulting introductory remarks. On the contrary, they amount to a monumental cheap shot and pandering to a biased audience. It would have been far more appropriate, and much more in keeping with the presumable spirit that led to the invitation in the first place, to have thanked Ahmadinejad for his willingness to address the audience and to have welcomed a forum for discussion.

David Herlihy, Boston USA

***

Respecting guests _ whoever they are is a universal principle. Either you invite somebody or if you do you have to respect them. Bollinger's violation of this etiquette was nothing but lack of culture in a professor, hopefully not in good people of America.

Farzad, Iran

***

Not very fund of Mr. AhmadiNejad but the introduction by the Univ. President was in accordance with neither of:

a)typical univ dialogue manner
b)accepted treatment of an invited guest
c)diplomacy
d)setting a good example for students

He discredited the Univ. by reading a political statment and insulting the president of Iran. Any other leader of a country with cold relations to the U.S. should be a fool to walk to that podium. It's a shame how media impacts a person of his statue.

Jaami, Toronto

***

Iranian president was a invited guest to Columbia University and was invited by its president Bollinger and should have been treated as such. He was insulted and humiliated which was wrong. In future do not invite anybody to your home and then insult him in your home. It is a disgrace to Columbia University.

Pundalik Shenoy, Parsippany, NJ

***

It is a cruel cruel act to Insult a head of State of any country and that too after inviting him. If it was a street protest that was something else. Mr Bollingers should have not invited him in the first place if his intention was to insult him. He has not only lost a chance of creating peace but has made it even worse.

[ssami80], Toronto, Canada

***

Although Ahmadinejad (AJad) is no saint, he managed to score some very good points. He stayed composed in the face of childish insults from Bolwinkel:),he made some very good points on hypocrisy of US with regards to terrorits & Nuclear issue. As he pointed out, US has designated the MEK as a terrorist organization yet it harbors them in Iraq because they serve its purpose. AJad's speech showed the hypocrisy of the West and media that were trying so hard to discredit him by spinning the outcome!

Bahram, San Jose

***

Mr. Bollinger should not have given the Iranian president the benefit of his anger. Ahmadinejhad knows that the best way for him to gain attention on the world stage is to deny the Holocaust- it shocks people, it makes the news, people listen to him. If any leader had the guts to say, well you have a right to your opinion, I'm interested to know why you think that way sir, I'm sure Ahmadinejad would drop his silly act. Bollinger only made the man looked insulted and himself lowered.

Michelle, Albuquerque

***

This was not an invitation to embrace freedom of speech. It was a propaganda campaign organized by Mr. Bollinger and co. - one which they lost to Ahmadinejad. How can the president of a famous university be so "astonishingly uneducated" as to take it upon himself to dictate to his audience what to think of his guest? Is this freedom of thought, common courtsey?
Rather than insulting a nation by insulting its elected president, Mr. Bollinger should take a look at his own president right at home.

hamid, Toronto

***

Although I strongly disagree with Mr. Ahmadinejad's politics, I believe it was right to allow him to speak at Columbia. To deny him his right to speak freely is to deny him the right in which Americans most strongly believe. We do not need to agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad, but when we are accusatory and insulting, it does no good for the already strained relationship between our country and many others, including Iran. Diplomacy must be tried before all else-mission is definitely not accomplished.

SK, New York City

***

The reactions and actions of American unlearned society and their institutional behaviour at Columbia University shows how arrogant Americans are. American education is geared toward bully rather than the pursuit of knowledge. By insulting Ahmadinejad Americans have shown the world their shallow, hallow cognition. I had predicted this would happen. American politics, civil administration and social institutions are intertwined. You are with us or against us is the thinking. What a dementia hell

Obwota Omwony, Magwi, Sudan

***

Bollinger acted disgracefully, in a way all too typical of loud, obscene Americans. What a poor example to give to the students of the university! Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to express his opinions and should have been welcomed as a guest rather than insulted and ridiculed by a petty uni president.

Anthony Nixon, Dundalk, Ireland

***

So the president of the University called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a petty and cruel dictator. This is so typical of the ignorance of world affairs by US citizens. How rude can Americans get?

[cunnind], La Chatre, France

***

Mr. Lee was not only rude but also ungentlemanlly. I gather the impression that the Iraninan President was not invited for purely academic reasons as the host would like us the beleive. Rather it was intended to make him a public redicule / spectacle and to emphasise the extent of hate Americans have towards him. such a move in my is a disgrace to modern diplomacy.I wonder if Bush would not receive the same reception in Cameroon.

Kwendi, Buea, Cameroon

***

Mr Lee Bollinger's was not agood Amaricans representative when he presented his rudly speech against Irans president.He showed that what U.S always tell about Iran coming true about it self.Mr.Ahmadinejat defeted the iranians rights logicaly,camly and ofcourse politly.He prove that Iranians want to achieve their rights in this way but the U.S want to privant Iran from it's right in such way Mr Lee Bollinger's talked to him ...illogical and rude.

mitra, Shiraz

***

Ahmadinejad is an elected president of my country. I may not agree with him on many things but I would hate to see him being disrespected by a few idiots who haven't set a foot outside a coutry that doesnt know what culture, etquete and knowledge really is.

Leyli Karima, Tehran, Iran

***

"This was not an invitation to embrace freedom of speech. It was a propaganda campaign organized by Mr. Bollinger and co. - one which they lost to Ahmadinejad. How can the president of a famous university be so "astonishingly uneducated" as to take it upon himself to dictate to his audience what to think of his guest? Is this freedom of thought, common courtesy?"

hamid, toronto

Ugly... but true!

The Iranian president, Mahmod Ahmadinejad, came to the U.S. this week to address the United Nations and to speak, by invitation, at a prestigious U.S. University.

Much has already been written about the Iranian President, so I will refrain from stating the obvious, to which we all know about this dictator of Iran and his feeling about the Holocaust and Israel. I want to speak to the way he was treated as an invited guest to Columbia University.

To begin, I want to say that I personally think the President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, made a mistake inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia at this time, with regard to the current political atmosphere and world events. However he made his decision and stood by it, claiming he would take the leader of Iran to task on many issues like the Holocaust, Human rights, Nuclear war etc. etc.. I respected him for that.

But what I saw from Lee Bollinger in his introduction of the Iranian President, was, to say the least, a surprising and stunning displayed of calculated disrespect and belligerence toward an invited foreign leader.

During his introduction he called the Iranian President a "petty and cruel dictator."

He continued with his harangue and monologue as students listened attentively to his every word, with the suggestion that Ahmadinejad was either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," because of his continued denial of the Holocaust.


Click Video
This was an obviously craven and cowardly capitulation to outside pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. He should have challenged Ahmedinejad’s many ridiculous and absurd statements in a manner that was not abusive or insulting. His behavior was completely inappropriate. It presented to the world, the face of an arrogant and bullying America.

Ahmadinejad was finally introduced and allowed to speak. He was obviously shocked at how he was being treated, before being allowed to speak.

Through an interpretor, he began his speech,

“At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...”

An eruption of applause interrupted the President.

Ahmadinejad continued: “...I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.

Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.

Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. .”

In my opinion, this display was just an awkward attempt by Lee Bollinger to redeem his reputation and keep the funds coming in from alumni who said they would withhold contributions to the University in the future because of his decision to have Ahmadinejad on campus.

Unfortunately, this pitiful introduction of Ahmadinejad may eclipse, in the eyes of the world, any of the appalling and horrible things that Ahmadinejad is said to stand for.

It appears, Mr. Bollinger, that Mr. Ahmadinejad may have looked more the statesman and will be shown that way throughout the Arab world.

This says it all.


Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walks among us

Hatemonger Mahmoud Ahmadinejad landed in a hornet's nest of outrage yesterday as Columbia University prepared to welcome him with open arms today and stuck by a dean's outrageous assertion that it would let Adolf Hitler speak, too.

The Holocaust-denying Iranian tyrant jetted into New York as students, faculty and political leaders protested Columbia's decision to roll out the red carpet.

"It's a stain on the university," said sophomore Elizabeth Friess, 20. "You can't have an open debate with someone who wants to wipe out Israel. There is no reasoning with someone like that."

The Fars News Agency is reporting this morning that while the Iranian President is here in New York this week to address the U.N., he is going to meet with the "survivors and bereaved families of the 9-11 incident."


Excuse me!

Ahmadinejad Leaves for New York
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left Tehran on Sunday for his third trip to the United States, saying the visit was a good chance to present Iran's solutions for the problems of the world". (emphasis mine)

During his two-day sojourn in New York, the Iranian president, who will be accompanied by a group of high-ranking officials, is also scheduled to attend bilateral talks with several of his counterparts and meet Iranians residing in the US.

Ahmadinejad is also set to use a speech at a leading US university to challenge George W Bush at a time of high tensions with Washington over his country's pursuit of nuclear technology.

The invitation by New York's Columbia University to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is attracting growing criticism from the US hawks ahead of his arrival on Sunday.

Meetings with the survivors and bereaved families of the 9-11 incident, journalists and critics of the Bush administration are also included in Ahmadinejad's itinerary.

When and where is this suppose to happen? Or is this just a bunch of hype for those sheep he left behind in Iran?

Still waiting on confirmation of this Fars report.

The Islamic Republic News Agency is reporting that Iran complained to New York officials because they are ignoring Iranian sympathy for the families of victims of the 2001 World Trade Center disaster.

Iran protests to New York officials over ignoring Iran sympathy with terror victims

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had offered to lay bouquets of flowers at Ground Zero in New York to express sympathy of Iranian nation to fellow human beings who fell victims to September 11 terrorist attacks.

The offer from the great nation of Iran with ancient civilization indicated extent of humanitarian sympathy in Iranian culture toward the human losses.

It is not the matter of politics. It is expression of peace and friendship from a nation to another.

Really! But, at the same time, Ahmadinejad was ripping into the U.S. during a military parade in Tehran which included military equipment painted with "Down with the U.S." slogans on them.

A day before flying to New York to speak directly to the American people, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a confrontational tone Saturday with a parade of fighter jets and missiles and tough warnings for the United States to stay out of the Mideast.

Three new domestically manufactured warplanes streaked over the capital during the parade marking the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran, which sparked a 1980-88 war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The parade also featured the Ghadr missile, which has a range of 1,120 miles, capable of reaching Israel.

Some of the missile trucks were painted with the slogans "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel." The parade also featured unmanned aerial surveillance drones, torpedoes, and tanks.

Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops. Iran denies the claims.

Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open.

He's a perfect fit with those liberals at Columbia University.

While here in the U.S. to address the U.N. next week, the Iranian President has not only decided he'll visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath, but has been invited to speak to our children at the Columbia University in New York.

Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for "hate-mongering vitriol."

Columbia University Plans to Host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is traveling to New York to address the United Nations' General Assembly. He was scheduled to appear Monday at a question-and-answer session with Columbia faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum.

The State Department calls Iran a state sponsor of terror, and Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and urged for Israel to be destroyed.

For those who can't make the "Q & A" at Columbia University on Monday, here is a sample of what to expect from him. Just the kind of things our children should be hearing from "World Leaders."


If you would like to join the protests of this event, Michelle Malkin has everything you need to help show this guy how American's really feel about him.

Hear from the Iranian People themselves.

Ahmadinejad MUST BE STOPPED.



And the icing on the cake...

Secret Service Will Protect Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero

UPDATE - Sept. 20, 2007 - 4:22PM EST: Fox News is reporting that Ahmadinejad told 60 Minutes that he is not going to press his luck, and may not go to ground zero.

We'll see!

UPDATE - Sept. 21, 2007 - 2:40PM EST: The Islamic Republic News Agency is reporting that Ahmadinejad IS going to Ground Zero on Monday Sept. 24th, to "pay homage to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001."

The Foundation for Democracy in Iran, in coordination with Citizens United and other groups, is calling on all Americans to come to New York on Monday to defend Ground Zero. They will be chartering buses from Washington DC.

Could this be the start of the build up to the inevitable Iran/Saudi conflict in Iraq?

Many Sunni regimes in the region have felt vulnerable since last years election of the Iranian-backed Shiite government in Iraq. Saudi Arabia in particular has said that it would not allow Iran to build a puppet government in Iraq.

"There's a sense here and in the region of the need to build up defenses against Iranian encroachment," said a U.S. official familiar with the deals.

US 'plans huge Saudi arms deal'

The United States is reported to be preparing a major arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade.

It is said to be part of a strategy for countering Iran's growing strength.

Defence officials quoted by US media and the AFP news agency said it would include missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships.

To counter objections from Israel, they said, the Jewish state would be offered significantly increased military aid.

But the New York Times says Bush administration officials are concerned that the size of the package and broader concerns about Saudi Arabia's influence in Iraq could prompt critics in Congress to oppose the package.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates is said to be planning to discuss the proposals in a visit to Saudi Arabia next week with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The officials said discussions with Congress on the arms package had just begun, and that no announcements were expected during the visit.

Other US allies in the region - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - could receive equipment and weaponry as part of the deal, the officials said.

The writing's on the wall, or is it just graffiti?

We all know Iranian fighters are slowly occupying northern and southern Iraq preparing for the U.S. cut and run that appears to be inevitable, and the Iraqi government is now saying that nearly half of the foreigners in Iraqi prisons are from Saudi Arabia.

It has become painfully obvious that our "friends the Saudis," have been slowly and quietly keeping the insurgency in Iraq alive, despite it's claims to be cracking down on terrorism.

LGF has this to say about "Our friends the Saudis": Nearly Half of Arrested Jihadis Are Saudi Citizens

Our allies in Saudi Arabia have been running a scam on us ever since September 11, 2001, claiming that they’ve cracked down on the jihad preachers who spread “deviant” ideas. What they’ve cracked down on is the reporting of those hate sermons; there used to be sources on the web where you could find translations, but all of the ones I formerly used have now dried up. (If you think that means the sermons have stopped, I have some prime swampland in Florida you might be interested in.)

Here we have an Iraqi national security adviser who says that Saudis comprise nearly half of all foreign fighters captured in Iraq, and the kingdom needs to ... crack down on jihad preachers: Many detainees in Iraq are Saudi.

Is it possible that the Iraqi government doesn't see the writing on the wall? Do they really believe that Saudi Arabia is going to stop supporting the Sunni insurgency, or stop issuing fatwas to justify the killing of innocent Iraqis?

As I see it, this should not come as a surprise to many, since the Saudi government has already warned us, under no uncertain terms, that they would arm and support all Sunni militias as soon as we leave Iraq. They can't allow Iran to take complete control of that entire region.

The civil war in Iraq will be between the Saudi-backed Sunnis and the Iranian-backed Shiites, and I suspect after a major blood-bath leaving tens, if not hundreds of thousands dead, Iran will come out the winner.

... and the Dems can't wait.

"Is Al-Qaeda the number one problem in Iraq?

It appears no matter what we do or how long we remain in Iraq, the real winner here is going to be Iran. It's simply a matter of time. The Sunni population is the minority, so the inevitable civil war will put the Iranian-backed Shiites running the country and the region.

Yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, said Iraqi forces are capable of securing the country and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

The American president insisting on fighting al-Qaeda, or saying that al-Qaeda is the problem in Iraq, is just like someone who is insisting on taking diabetes medicine while he has a cardiac problem." (Abu Sarhan)

Sunni Insurgent Leader Paints Iran as 'Real Enemy'

Over the course of a 90-minute interview, a leader of an armed Sunni group in western Baghdad described his hatred for Iran and the current Iraqi government, while outlining the dimensions of an armed insurgency that extends well beyond al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organization that U.S. officials routinely identify as their central enemy.

Abu Sarhan, as the 37-year-old insurgent wished to be known, said Iraq's Sunnis are deep into an entrenched and irresolvable civil war against Iranian-backed Shiites. He said the premise of the U.S. military's counterinsurgency strategy -- deploying thousands of soldiers in small outposts in violent neighborhoods -- only inflames the insurgency and prompts attacks against the Americans.

If U.S. forces release Sunni detainees, remove the concrete blast barriers that now cordon off several neighborhoods and improve services in areas neglected by the Shiite-led government, "the attacks will be reduced 95 percent within days," he said. He added that the Americans' insistence on striking Sunni areas "is generating an increasing resistance."...

Abu Sarhan's views illustrate the deep animosity toward Shiites that fuels so much of the sectarian violence in Iraq. His comments also suggested a more restrained view of the United States, which he considers an occupier but one that should not leave immediately.

"I personally don't have a hatred of the American people, and I respect American civilization," he said. "They have participated in the progress of all the nations of the world. They invented computers. Such people should be respected. But people who are crying over someone who died 1,400 years ago" -- referring to Shiites and their veneration of a leader killed in the 7th century -- "these should be eliminated, to clear the society of them, because they are simply trash."

"The real enemy for the resistance is Iran and those working for Iran," he went on. "Because Iran has a feud which goes back thousands of years with the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq."

Abu Sarhan said that the leading Shiite parties in the government, including the Dawa party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with the Supreme Council and prominent Shiite militias, are beholden to Iran. The Iranians appeared to be of such grave concern to him not just because of the bloody history of war between the two countries, but also because of Iran's perceived intolerance toward Sunnis in general. He said his long-term political goal was to recapture the prominence that Sunnis had enjoyed under Hussein's government.

"The problem is that the Americans have a relationship with the slaves: Dawa, Badr Organization, the Mahdi Army are slaves to Iran," he said.

Abu Sarhan described al-Qaeda in Iraq as an organized, predominantly Iraqi-run network with a strict hierarchy.

... The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, recently described al-Qaeda in Iraq as "public enemy number one." And President Bush, during a speech July 4, cited the organization as the one group that attempts to "cause enough chaos and confusion so America would leave."

"We must defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq," Bush said.

But Abu Sarhan described al-Qaeda in Iraq as one of "hundreds" of insurgent groups, some aligned and others in some degree of conflict, ranging from cells of about 10 people to groups with scores or hundreds of members.

"The American president insisting on fighting al-Qaeda, or saying that al-Qaeda is the problem in Iraq, is just like someone who is insisting on taking diabetes medicine while he has a cardiac problem," he said, describing it as an "intentional" misdiagnosis. "Any person in the position of the American president, who has drawn himself a certain path, would be very embarrassed to change that track and confess that he has been wrong. Unless he loves his people more than he loves himself. Only then could he confess his wrongdoing for the sake of his people."

Abu Sarhan estimated that about half the attacks against American forces come as reprisals for U.S. raids or arrests. He cited the U.S. offensive in Diyala province, Operation Arrowhead Ripper, as the type of effort that engenders more enemies than friends. "You can imagine how many families were hurt because of this military campaign," he said.

Read Full Article here

Are we helping our arch enemy, Iran, get the control they need to dominate the region? Maybe!

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend?
More than likely with Iran, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Enemy.

The Blotter on ABCNews.com has apparently secured a report by a senior coalition official stating they have evidence that Iran has been shipping heavy weapons and explosives to the Taliban in Afghanistan in support of their fight with the U.S. and other coalition forces.

Ahmadinejad sleeping with the enemy... who'd a thunk?

Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling."

Iran and the Taliban had been fierce enemies when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and their apparent collaboration came as a surprise to some in the intelligence community.

"I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute, "even if they have to do some business with a group that has historically been their enemy."

The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."

The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

"These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones.

The coalition diplomatic message says the demolition charges "contained the same fake U.S. markings found on explosives recovered from insurgents operating in the Baghdad area."

"We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban," the message says.

The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant.

"It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."

I'm shocked and appalled.

UPDATE: U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates: Iran sending weapons to Taliban

It seems to me that the world is not only ok with Tehran and their illegal actions of late, but are down right happy them. What's wrong with this picture?

"To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?"
Fred Thompson

The Pirates of Tehran

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Read more...

Is this the real Global War on Terror?

One down... several more to go.

The Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, also known as the Mossad, is being accused by a U.S. intelligence company of assassinating a high level Iranian nuclear scientist.

Israel has made claim many times that it will not stand by and allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I think they mean it!

FoxNews Report:

A prize-winning Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the U.S. State Department and broadcasts to Iran.

An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.

Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.

According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on Jan. 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as “gas poisoning”. The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.

Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the U.S. intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis, who have repeatedly threatened to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb.

Hassanpour won Iran’s leading military research prize in 2004 and was awarded top prize at the Kharazmi international science festival in Iran last year.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed at Natanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and laborers have been “working feverishly” to assemble equipment at the plant.

While the United States works to get approval from the Czech government to build a U.S. anti-missile system in the Czech Republic, Russian leaders are all up in arms, calling it a "a mistake which will bring about negative consequences for international security."

The U.S. system proposed to be built near the Russian border with the Czech Republic is intended to protect European countries from the threat of Russian made, long-range missiles currently being supplied by Russia to the Iranian government. Iran continues building it's arsenal of WMD.

The U.S. base would be manned by approximately 200 U.S. military personnel, and could be operational by 2011.

Russia to raise European anti-missile plan with U.S.

Russia said on Friday a U.S. plan to deploy an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic was a "mistake" which would have negative consequences for international security.

The State Department announced on Sunday the two countries had agreed to start detailed talks on allowing their territory to be used for the system, designed to shoot down missiles with rockets.

U.S. officials say the system is intended to counter a long-range Iranian missile threat, not Russia.

"This issue will be a subject of our detailed analysis and dialogue with the United States and their partners."

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov rejected Washington's reassurances on Wednesday, saying Iranian missiles could not reach Europe.

The Russian military say they have modern missiles which can neutralize the planned U.S. missile defense system. But political leaders insist any NATO activity near Russian borders carries broader geopolitical threats for Moscow.

Russia, whose reviving self-confidence is backed by a windfall of oil and gas revenues, suspects Washington and NATO of trying to surround it and replace Moscow as a patron of ex-Soviet states.

"The creation of a U.S. anti-missile base in Europe can only be viewed as a considerable change in the configuration of the American military presence in Europe," the Foreign Ministry statement said.

"The presence of such a base near our borders will be a factor we will have to take into account when planning the next military and political steps, building national defense," it added.

We can't just sit back while Russia continues to supply our enemies with WMD.

In talks with Chinese officials about the UN sanctions recently placed on Iran, Iran's nuclear chief said, with regard to obtaining nuclear capabilities for peaceful means, "if we are threatened, the situation may change."

Threaten us and we will nuke your ass! That's what I hear.

Anyone who doesn't believe Iran's mission is to build several large nukes to threaten others, including the U.S., is being naive to say the least. (Hat tip: LGF)

Iranian official: If threatened, we will use nuclear weapons

Iran's chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened.

"We oppose obtaining nuclear weapons and we will peacefully use nuclear technology under the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty, but if we are threatened, the situation may change," He told a news conference after two days of talks in Beijing.

Iran's nuclear chief said his country has produced and stored 250 tons of the gas used as the feedstock for uranium enrichment, state-run television reported Friday.

Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said Iran has kept the uranium hexaflouride gas, or UF-6, in underground tunnels at a nuclear facility in Isfahan to protect it from any possible attack.

"Today, we have produced more than 250 tons of UF-6. Should you visit Isfahan, you will see we have constructed tunnels that are almost unique in the world," State-run television quoted Aghazadeh as saying.

Regional crisis in the making while libs talk.

On the heels of the Iranian nuke statement, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, if Iran attains nukes, Egypt will also have to in order to defend itself.

Is Egypt declaring its intentions to develop nuclear weapons? Thus it appeared in a speech delivered by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Thursday on the occasion of meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Sharm e-Sheikh.

“We don’t want nuclear weapons,” Mubarak stated, “But since they appear highly present in the area, we must defend ourselves."

Nice!

An Iraqi presidential spokesman said this morning that two Iranians invited by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani have been detained by U.S. forces in Iraq.

It's been no secret that the Iranian government has been trying to expand it's role in Iraq to counter any U.S. influence in the region.

Talabani's media adviser, Hiwa Osman said "The president is unhappy about it."

The New York Times report.
U.S. Is Holding Iranians Seized in Raids in Iraq

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

It was unclear what kind of evidence American officials possessed that the Iranians were planning attacks, and the officials would not identify those being held. One official said that “a lot of material” was seized in the raid, but would not say if it included arms or documents that pointed to planning for attacks. Much of the material was still being examined, the official said.

Nonetheless, the two raids, in central Baghdad, have deeply upset Iraqi government officials, who have been making strenuous efforts to engage Iran on matters of security. At least two of the Iranians were in this country on an invitation extended by Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani, during a visit to Tehran earlier this month. It was particularly awkward for the Iraqis that one of the raids took place in the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders, who traveled to Washington three weeks ago to meet President Bush.

Over the past four days, the Iraqis and Iranians have engaged in intense behind-the-scenes efforts to secure the release of the remaining detainees. One Iraqi government official said, “The Iranian ambassador has been running around from office to office.”

Iraqi leaders appealed to the American military, including to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American ground commander in Iraq, to release the Iranians, according to an Iraqi politician familiar with the efforts. The debate about what to do next has also engaged officials in the White House and the State Department. The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, has been fully briefed, officials said, though they would not say what Mr. Bush has been told about the seizure or the identity of the detainees.

A senior Western official in Baghdad said the raids were conducted after American officials received information that the people detained had been involved in attacks on official security forces in Iraq. “We conduct operations against those who threaten Iraqi and coalition forces,” the official said. “This was based on information.”

A spokesman for Mr. Hakim, who heads a Shiite political party called Sciri, which began as an exile group in Iran that opposed Saddam Hussein, declined to comment. In Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, had no comment about the case on Sunday other than to say it was under examination.

The action comes at a moment of extraordinary tension in the three-way relationship between the United States, Iran and Iraq. On Saturday, even as American officials were trying to determine the identity of some of the Iranians, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution imposing mild sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has rejected pressure to open talks with Iran about its actions in Iraq.

It may be time to do more than talk to Iran...