Al-Qaeda’s relationship with the government of Iran was openly hostile as revealed by recently declassified documents, contrary to hysterical and baseless American claims of an Iran-Qaeda connection.

In an attempt to incriminate the Iranian regime and rally support for war, several of America’s most hawkish leaders and commentators haverepeatedly recycled the unsubstantiated claim thatTehran has had a cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda. The claims were always dubious  - and embarrassingly reminiscent of similar lies in the case of Iraq – but now they’ve been even more firmly disproven.

The suspected arsonist behind a deadly fire at a Brussels mosque said Tuesday he set the Shia place of worship ablaze to scare the community he blames for the violence in Syria.

Belgium’s Muslim community was in shock a day after the attack that left an Imam dead.

The suspect, a self-described Muslim in his mid-30s, told investigators he sought to “scare” the Shia community as it was allegedly responsible for Syria’s crackdown on dissent, the public prosecutor’s office said.

Under questioning, the man said “he was shocked by the pictures of what was going on in Syria and wanted to do something to scare members of the community which was responsible” for the violence, spokesman Jean-Marc Meilleur told the press.

The suspect, who presented himself as a Sunni Muslim, was charged with arson resulting in death and remanded in custody. The fact that the attack late Monday was based on religious beliefs is an aggravating factor, said Meilleur.

The man told investigators he had acted alone and decided to carry out the attack two weeks ago but had had no intention to kill.

If not arrested he would have surrendered to the police, he also told the authorities.

As investigators interrogated him, members of Belgium’s Shia and Sunni communities met to ensure calm after the arson attack, which also left two other people injured.

Interior Minister Joelle Milquet suggested inter-religious strife may be to blame after the man stormed into the Rida mosque with an axe, a knife and fuel, shouting about the conflict in Syria.

Centuries-old tensions between Islam’s Sunni and Shia movements have fuelled violence in several Muslim countries, from Iraq to Yemen and Pakistan.

But the vice president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium (EMB) group, Isabelle Praile, rejected any links between conflicts abroad and the arson, calling it “an isolated case”.

While insisting the two communities live in peace in Brussels, she did call for extra security for worshippers, saying that the attack “revived a feeling of insecurity among Shias”.

Meilleur said authorities were still trying to determine the suspect’s identity. He gave three different names and indicated he was an illegal immigrant.

“He said he has a Moroccan passport and lives somewhere in Belgium, but did not want to say where,” said Meilleur.

The suspect may also be charged with carrying out “an act of terrorism”.

The mayor of the city’s Anderlecht ward, Gaetan Van Goidsenhoven, said Sunnis and Shias were “thirsty for reconciliation” when they met after the arson attack.

“They expressed the need for calm to return, for all beliefs to be respected,” he said.

More than 100 men gathered near the Rida mosque shortly after the fire, shouting Shia slogans as others hugged or cried over the death of Imam Abdallah Dadou, a 46-year-old father of four who died of smoke inhalation.

Around 15 worshippers returned to the scene of the fire on Tuesday, staring at the heavily-damaged building.

The area around the Brussels mosque, one of four Shia centres of worship in the city’s overwhelming majority Sunni community, has a large immigrant Muslim population.

A mosque official, Azzedine Laghmich, said the attacker was a Sunni Salafist who shouted Sunni slogans and something about the conflict in Syria.

The mosque had already been placed under police protection several years ago due to threats from members of the ultra-conservative Salafist movement, Praile said.

Gilad Atzmon is one of the sweetest, funniest, most charming and likable people I’ve ever met.

He’s also one of the world’s best saxaphone players. Gilad’s music is not only gorgeous, but uncommonly accessible for music in its class.

His writing, which includes two novels, a nonfiction book, and countless essays, is grounded in the highest humanistic ideals, invigorating laughter, and an irrepressible joie de vivre.

In short, Gilad is outrageously easy to like.

So why is he hated so much?

Why are his appearances protested by angry picketers? Why is the most vicious and mendacious kind of calumny being hurled at him in such quantities? Why is there an organized effort to make this gentle, loving free spirit out to be some kind of deranged Nazi?

His detractors say his writing invites it. But they’re wrong. The proof is that the anti-Atzmon brigade has to resort to lies (or to be charitable, gratuitous distortions) to make him look bad.

There must be some deeper reason why they hate him.

Maybe it’s because he’s such a powerful symbol of – and argument for – the end of Zionism.

Gilad Atzmon grew up in Israel in a Jewish family that included Holocaust survivors. He fell in love with jazz as a teenager, so when it came time to serve in the IDF he joined a military band. During his IDF service, Gilad awakened to the horrors of Zionism and its brutality toward Palestinians. Shortly after leaving the IDF, he also left Israel and never returned.

Now London-based, Gilad Atzmon is considered one of Europe’s top jazz musicians – and, increasingly, its leading ex-Israeli anti-Zionist voice. He has published two acclaimed novels, and his new book The Wandering Who? has endured vicious attacks, smear campaigns, and boycotts by such Zionists as Alan Dershowitz, and is becoming a worldwide bestseller.

In all of this, Gilad Atzmon is quite the anti-Zionist success story. His creative output, both musical and verbal, challenges arbitrary boundaries and celebrates freedom. (Jazz, the greatest art form America ever produced, is at its root a celebration of musical freedom by once-enslaved African-Americans.)

We can say with certainty it wasn't Iran...

On Monday in New Delhi, an explosion tore through an Israeli diplomatic vehicle, wounding the driver and a diplomat's wife, according to Indian officials. On the same day in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, authorities say attackers planted an explosive device on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy, but it was discovered and defused before it went off (Reuters).

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was quick to place the blame on Iran and added that Iran is "the greatest exporter of terror in the world." Of course, Western Media without any investigation or research conveyed the same sentiment. Nothing should come as a surprise here.

Israeli white supremacy--Yes, Israelis are white supremacists, how else would anyone explain the apartheid system they have in place--cannot accept any findings brown colored sub-gentile Indian investigators would find. But what about Western media, is it too run by white supremacists? It would have made sense for the media to take cues from Indian investigators before making pervasive accusations against Iran.

Indian investigators are well trained. Let's not forget, this isn't the first bombing in India. India has suffered attacks from Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim terror groups. Juan Cole writes, "Indian investigators are first rate. Based on the modus operandi, their initial thesis is that the attack was the work of the “Indian Mujahidin” group. It had used a similar remote controlled sticky bomb, placed by a motorcyclist, in an attack on Taiwanese tourists outside the Jama Masjid cathedral mosque in 2010. IM is a [Wahaabi group], not connected to Iran, and doesn't like Shiite Muslims."

India is Iran’s economic lifeline, and Tehran would not likely risk such an operation at this time. As Juan Cole points out, "India gets 12% of its oil from Iran and sees an $8 billion annual export opportunity in filling the trade vacuum left by unilateral US and European boycotts of Iran. Contrary to a bad Reuters article, Indian officials denied Tuesday that the bombing would affect trade ties."

But is there a connection between Israel and Wahaabi terror groups? They can't really be working together, can they? On January 1, 2012, the Israeli newspaper, "Haaretz" reported:

Israeli Mossad agents posed as CIA officers in order to recruit members of a Pakistani terror group to carry out assassinations and attacks against the regime in Iran, Foreign Policy revealed on Friday, quoting U.S. intelligence memos.

[...]

[Foreign Policy's Mark Perry] quotes a number of American intelligence officials and claims that the Mossad agents used American dollars and U.S. passports to pose as CIA spies to try to recruit members of Jundallah, a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization that has carried out a series of attacks in Iran and assassinations of government officials.

Now isn't that an interesting development. Why haven't we heard of this report more regularly cited in the Western media? Beyond the scope of this piece, there are plenty of conclusions we can draw from this report. Besides the obvious one that Israel and Wahaabi terror groups are in cahoots with each other; the other conclusion is -- Wahaabi terror groups are willing to work with US intelligence agencies. And we were gullible to think America was the enemy.

So what was the US response to these findings. Absolutely nothing.

According to the intelligence officer, a senior administration official vowed to "take the gloves off" with Israel, but ultimately the U.S. did nothing.
"In the end it was just easier to do nothing than to, you know, rock the boat," the intelligence officer said.

Is America an Israeli colony? It's hard to say otherwise with evidence such as this.

Let's go back to Mr. Netanyahu assertion about Iran being "the greatest exporter of terror in the world," this sounds more like an example of the psychological disorder of displacement. Displacement is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind redirects effects from an object felt to be dangerous or unacceptable to an object felt to be safe or acceptable. So consider his statement as more of a confession, confessing to Israeli terrorism.