Some interesting stuff from Iran

I am not fond of Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran. I think he's a terrorist in presidential clothing, and from what I understand, most Iranians can't stand him and can't wait until they can vote his extremist self out of office.

There was an article on Yahoo News. It's about Iran defending their actions against Kurdish terrorists in Iraq.

But as I read the article, it sounded very much like the Isrealis defending defending themselves against attacks by Hamas.

Now, we all know Iran's prez hates Isreal and Jews, and condemns every breath they take. So I find it odd that he would literally act like Isreal.

Don't get me wrong - I think Iran has a right to defend herself against terrorists who seek to kill innocent Iranians with bombs and missiles and what have you. What I find odd is that Iran's leader thinks HE has a right to defend Iranians from bombs meant to kill civilians, but Isreal does not have a right to defend her civilians.

I also think Iran has a responsibility to target only the terrorists, just as I believe Isreal has that same responsibility. By the same token, I think if the PJAK terrorists are hiding behind women and children, Iran has a right to nail the terrorists anyway, just as Isreal has a right to nail Hamas terrorists who cowardly hide behind women and children.

That Ahmadinejad is a silly goose. He has a standard for Isreal, but doesn't have to live up to that standard himself.

It is imperative that Iraq is protected from this idiot. Right now he's shelling the Kurdish region of Iraq. If the PJAK isn't reigned in, he has a good excuse to do it, and the beginning of what could end up the gradual extension of his bombings into other regions of Iraq in his quest to make Iraq part of Persia.

So now, I present the article - have a little fun, and insert "Isreal" for "Iran", and "Hamas" for "PJAK", and "Iraq" for "Palestine", and see if you don't get a chuckle out of Iran defending the very actions that they condemn Isreal for.



TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has confirmed for the first time it has been firing artillery shells on camps of Kurdish militants inside northern Iraq, saying the local authorities had not listened to its warnings.

The militant Kurdish separatist group PJAK -- linked to Turkey's outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) -- has been behind a string of deadly attacks on security forces in northwestern Iran in recent months.

"Some of their bases are 10 kilometres (six miles) deep inside Iraqi territory so this is part of our natural right to secure our borders," said General Yayha Rahim Safavi, military adviser to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"Of course we issued warnings to the Iraqi government and told them to take them (the rebels) away from the border and respect its obligations," Safavi said in an interview with Iran's English language channel Press TV late Saturday.

"But unfortunately the Kurdistan region, the northern part of Iraq, did not listen, so we feel entitled to target military bases of PJAK and they have been under our artillery fire," he added, according to the channel's English translation.

Safavi, the former head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, gave no details of when the firing had taken place or if it was continuing.

Iraqi Kurdish officials said last month that hundreds of Iraqi Kurds had fled remote mountain villages near the country's eastern frontier after Iranian gunners targeted separatist guerrilla bases.

But Vice Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi vehemently denied on September 3 that Iran had shelled rebel bases in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Safavi said that "groups of four to five" Kurdish militants from PJAK (Party of Free Life of Kurdistan) at a time moved across the border from their bases in Iraq to carry out attacks in western Iran.

"They set off bombs and they create insecurity. And I think it is part of our natural right to fight such rogue counter-revolutionary armed groups as they are creating insecurity."

Earlier this month, seven members of the Iranian security forces were killed in a shootout with "rebels" in the western province Kermanshah, which has a substantial Kurdish population.

Iraqi doctors on strike in attempt to gain government help

The safety of the Iraqi people is the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

The article below shows the extreme need of the al Maliki government to take charge, dump the alliances with the militias and gangs, and protect their people!

Doctors make reasonably good money in Iraq, and so they are one of the primary targets for kidnappings and murders by militias and terrorists.

Everyone knows that al Sadr makes a good profit from kidnapping Iraqis, and everyone knows that once he gets his money, his thirst for blood overrides any sense of decency, and most of the time, he murders the kidnapping victims - sometimes before he gets the ransom money, and sometimes after he's received it.

Don't get me wrong - al Sadr is not the only thug in the business of kidnapping doctors, college professors and students and others who are important to Iraq's future. But he's one of the biggest thugs in this business.

It's time for the Iraqi government to post police and troops outside hospitals and clinics (and colleges, among other places) to protect these institutions AND the people.

It's time for the Iraqi government to impose the ultimate punishment for anyone who participates in kidnappings and murders - foreigners or Iraqis.

And it's time for the people to show this government that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Strikes, like these doctors are doing, may get the message across, and I applaud these doctors for standing up for their rights.

BAGHDAD, 25 July 2007 (IRIN) - Nearly 150 doctors in Basra, Iraq's second largest city about 600km south of Baghdad, began a three-day strike on 23 July, demanding the government protect them and their families.

“We will not attend our clinics and will not do operations for three days to draw to the government's attention our plight as doctors living in harsh conditions,” said Dr Muaid Jumaa, head of the Basra Doctors’ Association.

Jumaa said 12 doctors had been killed in Basra by unidentified gunmen since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, and dozens of others had fled the city.

“We are protesting against the assassinations, kidnappings, threats and blackmail facing doctors in Basra and calling on the government to shoulder its responsibilities in protecting this important sector of our society,” Jumaa said.

“The government has to improve the security situation in the province and this is not hard,” he continued.

"We call on the government and parliament to adopt laws to protect doctors. Tough punishments should be meted out to those who threaten, kidnap and kill doctors.”

According to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry released earlier this year, 618 medical employees, including 132 doctors, as well as medics and other health care workers, have been killed nationwide since 2003. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of other medical personnel are believed to have fled to Iraq's northern semi-autonomous Kurdistan region and neighbouring countries.

Bodyguards

Iraqi medical personnel have adopted their own security measures to stay safe.

For nearly two years now, dentist Mohammed Adil Tawfiq has not been moving a metre without his two bodyguards, after three of his best friends were killed by unidentified gunmen.

“I have no confidence in government security forces and since I can't afford to leave the country, I've decided to employ two bodyguards," said Tawfiq, a 44-year-old father of three.

"No one seems to be concerned about our plight or offered us protection and that’s why I've decided to take this step. Of course, I’ve had to fork out a huge chunk of my income to pay for them,” said Tawfiq, who refused to divulge his salary.

"This is not at all in the government’s interests because those who can leave will leave, and this will affect the provision of health services," he added.

al Maliki's Gov't vs US Troops vs al Sadr's Militia...

This is what I'm talking about...


BAGHDAD (AP) - U.S. and Iraqi forces blocked access to a town on
the northeast outskirts of Baghdad where Shiite gunmen were dug in
for a third day Monday behind earthen barriers. Police issued calls
for residents to leave the town, and some said they were running
out of food and fuel.

...

The continued fighting and deaths of Iraqis and American forces
in the sixth month of the American bid to calm Baghdad and the
center of the country illuminate the stubborn resistance to a
political solution in Iraq, where the government and legislature
appear determined to press for sectarian advantage rather than
Iraqi unity.

The Shiite-dominated parliament said Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki should intervene to end the crackdown by U.S. and Iraqi
forces on Husseiniyah. The town is a stronghold of the Mahdi Army,
the militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and straddles
the highway to Baqouba, where U.S. forces are in the second month
of a drive to cleanse that region of al-Qaida in Iraq.

It's going to be interesting to see if al Maliki and his fellow politicians once again prevent American and Iraqi troops from arresting al Sadr's minions - once again prevent justice from being served.

It's a test... al Maliki et al in the Iraq government have an opportunity to prove who they are working for.

Anyone want to make a wager?

Will Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and his government once again protect al Sadr and his thugs who kill Sunni Iraqis AND Shiite Iraqis who do not subscribe to their murderous schemes?

Or will they FINALLY stand behind the people of Iraq and put an end to al Sadr's reign of terror?

The problem with Iraq: Shia, Sunni and Kurd

Don't get me wrong - the problem is not the religion or branch of Islam.

The problem is that Iraq actually differentiates between these branches of Islam.

One question: Are the Kurds included as a 3rd party because they are neither Sunni or Shia? Or is it a racial issue?

From what I can tell, the Kurds are a race, not a religious faction.

Iraq - it's government, and apparently a bunch of its citizens - insists on making religion or religious branch an issue, and this insistance is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as well as the inability of the government to function at even a modest level.

Americans are primarily Christian. But you don't ever see cities described as "The Baptist city of..." or politicians described as "The Methodist senator from..."

Some would tell you that America's founding fathers separated church and state, and therefore religion cannot be mentioned in schools, government buildings, etc. That's not really the way it was intended.

Our founding fathers did NOT intend for our politicians and government to be free of religion.

What they were striving for was a government that was NOT dictated by a church.

Look at America's history... our founders came from ENGLAND, a country that was once run by the church. First, it was the Catholic church. Then it was the Church of England. And England spent a long period of her history with battles between the Catholics and the Protestants.

So America's founding fathers wanted everyone - regardless of their religion - to be able to worship freely. And they wanted their government to be one that worked for all people, regardless of their religion, and therefore, it would be improper to have a government sanctioned religion, or any church official dictating government policy.

That does NOT mean that politicians cannot be religious men and vote based on their religious inclinations. For example, many Christians believe abortion is wrong. A Christian politician who sincerely believes that abortion is wrong has every right to vote against abortion. Same with the death penalty and other issues where a politician may have a religious belief that compels him/her to vote a particular way.

What you will not find is any politician voting for one Christian religious group over another (say, to give Mormons more tax benefits than Pentacostals, or Catholics more welfare benefits than Baptists, or Methodists more land than a non-denominational Christian group). Nor will you find politicians voting to give non-Christians (ie: Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Atheists, etc) less rights than Christians.

The system isn't perfect (no system is), but Iraq needs to create a system similar to the American system.

Such as...

LICENSES and IDs:

Take every mention of one's religion from Iraqi licenses and ID cards. What difference does it make what religion someone is when it comes to traffic stops or any other situation where an ID or license must be shown? NONE.

When you require people to put their relgious affiliations on their ID cards (of any kind), you simply give militias and terrorists an easier means of finding murder victims.

OIL:

Iraq's oil law should NOT give out money to any religious group. It should divide oil profits based on population. If one city has 100,000 people, it should receive 10 x as much of the oil profits as a city with 10,000 people.

By breaking down the distribution by religious branch (or racial branch, where the Kurds are concerned), a Sunni (the minority) living in a Shiite city will get more than a Shiite living in a predominantly Sunni city. That makes no sense.

ALL Iraqis (including those who are neither Sunni nor Shiite, nor Kurd) deserve an equal share of the benefits derived from Iraq's oil.

But what if the majority of oil is from Kurdish land?

First, is the perception that it's "Kurdish" land. The land isn't Kurd - it's Iraqi.

Second, it's relatively easy to solve this situation:

Whomever owns the land is entitled to something, over and above the "profits split by all citizens".

In America, if a natural gas company finds gas on your property, you can choose to let them drill, and in return, you get free natural gas PLUS a "royalty" - a small payment in addition to the free gas.

The same could be done in Iraq - or something similar.

So if we're in the Kurdish north, and a oil is found, then the owner of the property can negotiate a royalty - whether the owner is Kurd, Sunni, Shia or Christian.

Then any profits that are to be divided amonst Iraqis would be given to the citizens of each region based on population, so ALL Iraqis benefit equally.

What about those who do not own land with oil beneath it?

Frankly, I don't happen to live on property with gas, oil or anything else beneath it (except clay). So I simply do not get free gas or royalties from anyone.

If I lived in Iraq, on land like the land I live on in America, it would be a bummer that I didn't have any oil under my soil, BUT, if the profits from the oil from all over Iraq that were to be split amongst all citizens meant that every citizen got an equal share, I WOULD get that money.

So instead of dividing oil revenues between religious or racial factions, divide it between CITIZENS. Equally. So that every citizen, regardless of the color of their skin or the way they worship God, is equal in the eyes of the government.

POLITICAL PARTIES:

When political parties are created based on relgion, then it becomes obvious that the majority voted into office will be members of the majority religious sect. And when the majority of the government belong to a specific religious sect, and their platform is for the betterment of their particular religious sect, it should come as no surprise that everything they work for is FOR their sect, and sometimes against other sects.

So what about political parties based on ideals? Tax reform, education, employment for all, services for the needy, etc. How about political parties that include an end to violence as part of their platform? A "zero tolerance" of militias and terrorists? Man, if I lived in Iraq, that party would get my vote.

When political platforms of a party are based on ideals, the voters will vote for ideals, not their own religious sect. And those politicians will represent ALL the people in their district - or area they live in - regardless of their religion. And they represent the ideals of their districts (education, taxes, employment, etc).

Politicians should pass laws that help ALL Iraqis. They should represent the people who live in their own communities - ALL the people who live in their own communities. And each community should be represented in the federal goverment (each community has their own needs and situations - that's why a local representative to the federal government is so important).

And not a mullah, cleric or imam from Iran, Palestine or Saudia Arabia - or even Iraq.


Religion plays an important role in the lives of all citizens of a country, and even in the lives of their politicians.

But if any one religion or religious sect is allowed to rule a country, it creates a situation where only those of the "chosen" (by politicians) religion will benefit, and everyone else gets cheated.


The politicians currently in office are in office representing their race or religion (except, maybe, any secular politicians who managed to get voted in).

It's the people of Iraq who need to begin establishing non-relgious political parties, based on platforms that help ALL the Iraqis. The platforms may differ from party to party, but the overall goal should be to help ALL Iraqis.

But the first thing that needs to be done is to get the religious reference off ALL Iraqi ID cards! Quit giving the militias and terrorists the upperhand in finding victims.

How can PM Nouri al Maliki succeed?

No secret, Iraq is in turmoil. Chaos reigns in most cities. And the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is not popular among the masses.

If Iraq is to succeed in quelling violence, reigning in the militias and foreign terrorists, as well as the insurgents, something obviously needs to be done differently than it's being done now.

The US Military canNOT stabilize Iraq by itself. There are many factors in play for true stabilization - chiefly, the people of Iraq and, more importantly, the Iraq government, led by its Prime Minister.

As an American, I am willing to put our sons and daughters in harm's way to protect the people of Iraq from militias and terrorists, foreign regimes, etc - because I believe the people of Iraq deserve that protection.

However, I am adamantly opposed to our sons and daughters dying in Iraq if Iraq's central governing body isn't willing to take the steps that need taken to decrease the risks to not only Americans, but Iraqi citizens.

So what can PM al Maliki and his government do?

Here are my ideas:

1. Don't even consider a vacation. Governments in crisis do not have the luxury of a vacation (until your people have the luxury of being able to walk down the street to the market without fear of death, the government has no business sitting around a pool sipping iced tea). You want to rotate 3 or 4 day leaves so there is always representation in the government and everyone can get a bit of a rest, no problem, but a governmental shutdown, while Americans and Iraqis are being murdered, should be out of the question.

In other words - get the country fixed, then everyone can take a much needed vacation. But when your people, and my people, are dying, ending the crisis is the first priority. Period.

2. Help YOUR people. "Your people" means EVERY Iraqi, regardless of race or religion. How can al Maliki help his people?

A. Get these people food. It's not like going to the market is an easy thing to do, and every time someone visits a market, their life is hanging in the balance. Take basic necessities - flour, sugar, beans, cheese, eggs and clean water for drinking and cooking - in supply trucks to each neighborhood each week, and hand it out to each household. This is not something that should last forever, but at least until the people can go to the markets safely.

B. Get the electric working. There are enough able bodied men capable of helping to get the electrical services working - and use your armed forces to protect the workers (if you cannot trust your armed forces just yet, then put coalition troops out there to protect these men). Your people need electric for cooking, lighting, air conditioning, heating, etc. If they have to be house bound, then at least help make it bearable. And once the electric is working, put people who live in these neighborhoods in charge of protecting the lines.

C. Get the water lines working - use these able bodied Iraqi men, protected by government forces or coalition forces. Your people need clean, safe drinking water.

D. Trash collection - trash is a health hazard. Iraqis need to clean up their neighborhoods, send trucks run by gov't troops or police into neighborhoods once a week, and have everyone pitch in in loading the garbage onto the trucks, which can then be taken to the dumps.

E. Invest in your people - hire those without jobs to do the work listed above. Giving these people productive work to do and a paycheck so they can support their families will not only help these families, but will boost the economy and spur growth. Gradually, with people earning a living, there will be less need for gov't supplied food ("A" above).

F. Make education a priority - kick the militias and other non-government groups out of the universities and schools. Set up guard units in school houses and on college campuses to protect the students so there are no more bombs or kidnappings from the schools. Give these kids a safe learning environment, and some reprieve from the violence.

All of the ideas above (A-F) would take some effort, but it would greatly increase the quality of life for the people of Iraq, thus providing them with some hope that the al Maliki gov't cares about the people, and can get the job done. If people believe in their government, they will support their government, and frankly, al Maliki et al need all the support they can get.

If you need help on any of these projects, there are lots of humanitarian groups, and even entire countries, who'd be willing to help, if they saw that the government was serious about helping its people.


3. Protect Iraqi Oil. Obviously, after years and years of being ignored, Iraq's oil machine needs investment from various oil companies. This is NOT a bad thing - investment creates jobs, the ability to produce more oil, and gets money flowing through the economy. However, be smart where your oil profits are concerned.

While I don't know all the ins and outs of the oil industry, there's got to be some way to assure that those taking the risk of investment receive a fair return, and the Iraqi people get a fair return (without any of the local or federal gov't leaders skimming from the top).

And, of course, if someone's going to invest in Iraq's oil, then they need the assurance of a contract with a long enough term that they can recoup their investment and make a profit that justifies the enormous investment they are going to have to make.

You can work on the net - of course, the books have to be transparent. If you work on the net, take out all costs of repairs, labor, and other legit expenses, and then split the net profits between the Iraqi people and the investors. I would be inclined to think 40% investors, 20% government projects (reinvestment into the country), 40% people. Or something like that.

Working off the gross would be more difficult - and I have no idea how to break that down, because I have no idea of the potential gross vs the costs of repair, labor, etc. However, if the gross is used, then it has to be fair to both the investor and the people, and a certain amount of flexibility should be in order, so that if the investors find their expenses higher than what they figured, they can get a somewhat larger % of the gross, OR if their profits are a certain percentage higher than what they calculated, the percentage going to the people can be adjusted somewhat.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult - at the end of the day, it's a business deal. Business is business. Both sides have to be smart, and if both sides want it to work, both sides have to be honest, because in the long run, both parties - the investors and the people - need to be able to depend on each other for the best possible outcome.


4. Break all ties to any religious group. Your only responsibility is to ALL your people. Right now, this government does not have the luxury of picking and choosing whom they favor (actually, no government should EVER favor any particular group!). Begin to develop political parties based on ideals, not religion. And when you make decisions based only on ideals and what is in the best interests of the majority of the people, you'll get a majority of the people supporting you.

5. Don't just talk about Democracy - live it. If this government decides to be a legitimate goverment (ie: works for the people, not their individual careers and power aspirations), it's going to make some enemies, because the government will no longer be catering to certain sectarian groups. But when all is said and done, making enemies of these groups is the trade off for making loyal citizens of 100 times as many Iraqis.

Enforce the rule of law for ALL citizens - do not make exceptions for your buddies or those willing to do special favors for you on the side.

Yes, you guessed it, I'm suggesting the al Maliki and his government cut ties with Muqtada al Sadr and his militia, and any other vigilante group. When you protect Muqtada and his ilk, you let every Sunni, Christian and moderate Shiite know that you have no intention of protecting them. When you take your orders from an uneducated, murderous, control freak, you look weak and incapable of running Iraq. When you work for one against the rest, you are unworthy of leading Iraq.

If the government would outlaw al Sadr and other groups like his, and seriously start rounding them up and arresting them, punishing them for their kidnappings and murders, your people would feel safer, more loyal, and might even vote you in to a 2nd term.

As long as criminals like al Sadr call the shots with this goverment, and as long as this government fears criminals and lets them call the shots, it will be ineffective - a failure. And everyone in this government will go down in Iraq's history as weak and incapable of governing.

Every person entrusted with running this government needs to make a commitment to being SECULAR.

It's the only way you can represent all your people.

It's the only way you can save Iraq.


Part of me believes Nouri al Maliki and the rest of the government - at least most of them - truly do want the best for Iraq. But everyone in this government needs to realize that they need to work together for the people of Iraq, and start doing that NOW. Every Iraqi is equal, no matter his religion or race.

Criminals, murderers, kidnappers, and other undesirables need to be hunted down, arrested, tried, convicted and punished for their crimes - even if they belong to your sect, whether you're Shia or Sunni. Remember, a criminal is a criminal, and since these militias are acting in accordance with Satan's laws rather than God's laws, no matter what they call themselves, they don't have a religious leg to stand on anyway.

And if al Maliki's government is too weak or frightened to take the steps necessary to rid Iraq of the militias and brigades and terrorists, then either step down and let stronger Iraqis do the job, or at least quit interfering when the Americans raid the militias' hideouts or the terrorists' dens of iniquity - for the love of God, let SOMEONE protect the innocent people who need protection.

It's time for Iraq's government to get a backbone and regain their honor and integrity.

It's time for Nouri al Maliki and his government to climb out of Iran's pocket, dust al Sadr and his kind off the soles of their shoes, and defend the people of Iraq.

And if the Iraq government - Shia, Sunni, or Kurd - refuses to let go of all the religious ties that prevent them from working for ALL Iraqis, then the next time Iraqis go to the polls, it's time to elect secular politians who don't care what religious sect you belong to - because those are the men and women who are going to work for YOU.

Muqtada Al Sadr, Iraq's #1 terrorist

Is this the face of evil, or what? This is Muqtada al-Sadr, and Muq is a TERRORIST.


I've read just about everything about this jackal I could get my hands on.


It baffles me that he could be this powerful and have the following he has. He IS the Shia version of Osama Bin Laden.


For those of you who are not familiar with Muqtada, here's the short version:


His father was important. His father was respected. His father was assassinated in 1999 - some say by Saddam, other say he was murdered by his own people (and inside job).


Sadly, Muq's two brothers were also assassinated.


This left Muq - who had only been the doorman until then, probably because his father couldn't trust him with more responsibility - in a position of taking over his father's legacy.


Pity, that.


The biggest problem was that Muq never did his studies (or at least never passed them), and so he can NEVER be a true religious leader, can never issue a fatwa.


Instead of studying and becoming a better person under his father's guidance, Muq gorged himself on fattening foods and sat around playing video games, and even as an adult, he's an obese, uneducated video game addict.


In his spare time, he kisses Iran's butt, thumbs his nose at al Sistani, blackmails al Maliki... and if all these aren't bad enough, he is responsible for the murders of 1000s of Iraqis, via orders and leadership of his creepy, masked Mahdi Militia.


In America, this guy would have been thrown in jail within the 1st time he took up arms against the government or the people. In Iraq, everyone - including al-Sistani and al-Maliki - seems to be afraid of him, so everyone gives him his way, no matter how outrageous his demands.


Don't get me wrong - I understand why people are afraid. Muq is a lunatic - a bad-tempered child in a fat man's body. But those who join his murderous thug forces or give into his demands don't deserve to be called Iraqis.


"But Muq calls for the Americans to leave - that makes him a good Iraqi!"


NOT.


Muq calls for the Americans to leave so he has entirely free reign over Iraq and her people. So he can kill Sunnis and moderate Shiites wholesale. And then so he can hand Iraq over to his master, Iran.


Muq calls for the Americans to leave because the Americans want to prosecute the murderous criminal.


Muqtada is not a man of God - he's Satan's minion. He kills all who disagree with him or who stand in his way.


Muq and his jackals kidnap innocent Iraqis and demand ransom from their families - and then, like the liar he is, instead of returning the kidnapping victims safe and sound once he has his money, he murders them in cold blood.


Muq is the guy who gives the orders, and his thugs are the ones who kill for him, and dump tortured, mutilated (against Islam) bodies in the streets and in the rivers.


Like I said, I understand those who are afraid of Muq, because he's certifiably crazy and no doubt bathes in, and drinks, the blood of Iraqis he's murdered, but if Iraq's leaders are not strong enough to stand up for the people of Iraq and take down Muq and his sheep, then step aside and let someone who is willing to do the job take over. This includes al-Maliki and everyone else in the government.


Muq is about as sectarian as they come, and every time the people in the Iraqi government turn a blind eye to his crimes and destruction, they keep the sectarian wounds open and bleeding.


Just a prediction - if Muqtada al Sadr is not arrested and punished, taken out of commission -either by US forces or US forces backing up Iraqi government forces - before the US leaves Iraq, he will reign terror over Iraq and her people, making anything Saddam might have done look tame in comparison.


Why before the US leaves? Because our soldiers have no ties to Muq - not religious, not tribal. And they don't fear him.


The same cannot be said - at least not yet - for the Iraqi Army, some of whom have ties to Muq, and let him use their uniforms, their weapons, and turn the other way while his thugs rape, pillage and murder (and sometimes outright help him).


NOTE: Not all the Iraqi Army is corrupt or in al-Sadr's pocket. Most of them are good people, trying to bring order to Iraq. Unfortunately, the few that are working for al-Sadr are enough to do a lot of damage. Hopefully, as the Iraqi Army matures, and more Sunnis and moderate Shiites join the ranks, these bad al-Sadr sheep will be weeded out, arrested, tried and convicted.

Iraqis know they must take a hand in bringing their country back to order. The only way to do this is to trounce the terrorists, and the #1 terrorist in Iraq is Muqtada al-Sadr.


Is this the guy you want running your country and determining your childrens' future?


For the record, why do I consider Muqtada al-Sadr Iraq's #1 terrorist? Because he is Iraqi. An Iraqi who slaughters his countrymen in pursuit of absolute power and a few pieces of silver from Iran, is worse than all the foreign terrorists coming into Iraq put together.


Here are some things to read to learn more about Muq's history, the crimes he's committed.


The Complete Story of Muqtada and Al-Madi Army by Last of the Iraqis


Here is a story about one of the Madhi Militia's kidnapping victims by a woman from America who was visiting Baghdad


Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6


And here's the story of one of Muq's victims, and a great example how Muq will slaughter anyone who gets in his way (watch out Maliki and Sistani!) - even another cleric! (Just one question: Where was the Shia religous leaders' outrage over this???)

Insurgents vs Terrorists

There is a difference.

An INSURGENT is someone who is a citizen of an occupied country who disagrees with the occupation, and who takes up arms against the occupation.

For Americans... the colonists who fought against England during the Revolutionary War would be like insurgents.

The insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis who want America and the coalition out of Iraq, and they are the guys who will fight the coalition in the hopes of kicking out the occupation.

TERRORISTS are a different creature - a beast.

Terrorists can be either citizens of an occupied country or foreigners who come into the occupied country for the sole purpose of caushing death and destruction.

Where terrorists differ from insurgents is that it is not a love for a homeland or a desire to be a sovereign nation that drives them - it is a love for power and control, and a willingness - or even a compulsion - to cause as much death and destruction as possible. Not only to the occupation forces, but to the citizens of the occupied country who stand in the way of their assumption of total power.

An insurgent who becomes willing to kill innocent men, women and children - for whatever reason - becomes a terrorist.

At this point in Iraq, it is fair to say all the violence against Iraqis - the car bombings, the chlorine bombs, the torture, the murder, the kidnappings - is done by terrorists.

Most terrorists in Iraq are either Al Qaeda Sunnis (and most of them are foreigners and all of them take their direction from foreigners) or Iraqis who are in cohoots with Iran and want to turn Iraq into an oppressive, Shia dominated and controlled state, or Iran-backed foreigners out to help the Iraqi Shia who are in Iran's pocket.


There was a time the US was fighting both insurgents and terrorists.

Now, the US is mainly fighting terrorists.

And the insurgents, who once accepted help from the terrorists, have realized that the terrorists want the coalition out of Iraq - not so Iraq is a free, sovereign nation, but so they can gain power over the Iraqi people with their extremist religious, nutjob "Islamic State" (ie: Taliban or worse).

So now many insurgents, tired of the terrorists terrorizing (and killing) innocent Iraqis, and imposing bizarre rules and strict punishments (no smoking or they'll cut your fingers off, give them your daughters to use as sex slaves or they'll burn your house down and kill you, etc), have decided to fight the terrorists, alongside the Americans and coalition forces.

I guess there came a point where the Americans and the insurgents realized they had similar goals and objectives.

You see, the insurgents want the coalition to leave. But they also want the terrorists to leave - even more than wanting the coalition to leave.

But the coalition cannot leave until Iraq is cleared of the terrorists, and the Iraqi army and police are ready to fully take over security to keep Iraq clear of the terrorists.

The insurgents realized that Americans were not there to kill them, but were trying to protect them.

And Americans realized the insurgents didn't want to kill Americans as much as they wanted their country free of an occupation.

Perfect.

The coalition forces and the insurgents all have the same goals - they want Iraq to be free of terror and extremism, the government to work for the people of Iraq, and the US and coalition forces to then handover the security and policing of Iraq to Iraq so they can go home.

So now in several areas of Iraq, the citizens of Iraq are joining the Iraq Army and the local police forces, as well as setting up "neighborhood watch" units. The US Army and Marines are working with all of these groups - training them, helping them set up security centers, helping them rebuild their communities, and helping them root out the terrorists.

It's working, too!

Al Anbar is a good example. In Ramadi and Fallujah, the local citizens are helping the local police and coalition forces find terrorists and bombs and weapons caches. The terrorists are being arrested or driven out of these towns, and gradually, the people are regaining their lives - children can play, adults can go to the market, etc.

Don't get me wrong - there are still terror elements trying to regain their foothold in these cities. But the people of these cities are standing strong against the terrorists, because when all is said and done, they want their lives and their cities back - they want their children to be safe, and they want better lives for themselves and their families.

Once the cities are secure and rebuilt, and the police are trained and are fully taking charge of the security for these cities, then the local citizens want the US forces out.

This makes sense.

And once their job is done, the US forces will be glad to turn the cities completely over to the local citizens, and can leave, proud that they've helped the people they came to Iraq to help.


Here are some blog posts that you might be interested in - 1 written by a soldier and 1 written by a Baghdad blogger:

ISF Primer

Great Baghdad's view

Some thoughts from an everyday American...

I guess I should start this blog with a relatively brief summary of my perspective on Iraq (in depth, individual topics can be covered later)

Let's start with Saddam:

Of course, I can only speak from the POV of an American on the outside looking in, and though I doubt I speak for all Americans, many would agree with me on this issue.

Americans do not understand the leader of a country killing the citizens of his country. In America, our leaders do not have that much power - in fact, all their power is given to them by the citizens, and it can be taken away by the same citizens - not by assassination or bloody battles, but in the voting booth, through impeachment, and various other ways of ousting a poor leader.

If any of our presidents had ever gone on killing sprees, murdering Americans who disagreed with them, or who wanted to oust them from power, said presidents would have been arrested, tried and convicted (and in certain states, executed).

So we do not understand how Saddam could claim to love Iraq, while killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We do not understand the wholesale use of torture - beatings, imprisonments, rapes, theft of property - on Iraqis performed by Saddam, his crew, and even his sons.

Therefore, almost any American you talk to - if they are being honest - will admit they feel men like Saddam should be taken out. From there, we may disagree on what "taken out" means - some would say put in prison, some would say he should have to experience the same end he dealt to others.

There are 2 main points of view Americans have when it comes to invading another country:

1 - Thinks America should not get involved in any other country's business, unless it directly impacts us, and therefore, since Saddam wasn't a direct or immediate threat, we shouldn't have invaded, regardless of how many people he killed in Iraq or for what reasons he killed them.

2 - Believes we owe it to the world to give them the same freedoms we have - believes no man, woman or child should be subjected to brutality or torture by their government, and therefore, we owed it to Iraq to liberate them from Saddam's iron fist.

Now, for Americans who believe like I did, that Saddam should have been taken out - let's not forget the one thing that flourished under Saddam - a secular society, where Sunnis, Shia, Christians and even Jews were allowed to practice their religions, where people of all religions mixed in society, as friends, coworkers, and Iraqi citizens.

These same religious groups were very often united in their dislike for Saddam (except for those who got special favors) and his tactics, and they are united now in not wanting to be an occupied country.

Some Iraqis want America and the coalition out now - yesterday would not have been too soon.

Others want America and the coalition to stay long enough to rid Iraq of the Shiite militias and death squads (and the obese, uneducated, video-game-addicted clerics who run them), Al-Qaeda groups, Muslim extremists who would impose their way of life on Iraqis, and the Iranians who would like to turn Iraq into Iran, Jr.

I can honestly say that 100% of America - including President Bush - would like America and the coalition out now - yesterday would not have been too soon.

Yes, I said "including President Bush" - think about it... he surely does not want his legacy to be getting America into 2 wars. He wants to be able to wrap up these wars with positive results before he gets out of office, and that clock is ticking...

And again, America's citizens are split on this:

In one camp, we have the seemingly beatnik, hippy, peace activists, who whine and wail about all America does wrong (this would be going on even if we hadn't invaded Iraq), and who would have us leave Iraq in chaos, bring our troops home, and let Iraq fix itself (if it can manage to get the militias, death squads, extremists, terrorists and Iranians out).

These sorts are not Iraq's friends. It's not really about peace and love. They don't give a fig what happens to Iraq or her people, they just don't want their tax dollars spent on the war or reconstruction, don't want military spending, and don't want to be bothered with anyone but themselves or their own. Or they hate President Bush so much, they would be against anything he was for - in other words, if President Bush said America should cut and run, some of these folks would suddenly be calling for us to stay in Iraq.

In the other camp, we have some Americans who were for the war and some Americans who were against the war. What unites the people of this camp is their feeling of responsibility for the current situation in Iraq - and a feeling that we must leave Iraq stable, free of the militias, death squads, extremists, terrorists and Iranian influence. They believe we have a responsibility to rebuild what was destroyed in the war, and they also hope we can rebuild what we did not destroy, that was not kept maintained over the years before the invasion.

There are folks in the latter camp who would jump into the "cut and run and never look back" camp if it looks like the fighting will never end so the rebuilding can progress at a faster rate so our sons and daughters can come home.

Bottom line: No American wants to stay in Iraq forever.

The everyday Iraqi has endured a lot of hardship as a result of this war.

I have read stories of Iraqis who have lost loved ones, their homes, and everything they owned. I have read about unemployment and poverty. I have read about Iraqis who live in the middle of war zones, constant bombing, and chaos and destruction.

This was never the intention of America - this was not what we wanted. We apparently expected to go into Iraq, liberate her people, help them establish and rebuild, and go home. But we made some mistakes - some of them huge - in our estimation of what would need to be done to assure the Iraqi people of a peaceful transition from a dictator running Iraq, to the Iraqis running Iraq.

And to America's shame, yes, there have been soldiers and Marines who have done some horredous things - and Americans want to see these guys get prosecuted and punished. We have not raised our sons to commit the crimes some of our military have committed. In some cases, long prison sentences are justified - in other cases, as far as I'm concerned, the death penalty would be fitting (specifically, I'm talking about the soldiers who raped the teenage girl and then killed her and her family).

Then there are others in the military who are simply jerks, who don't necessarily commit a crime, but who are arseholes, and who need taken down a peg. Not killed, not put in prison, but definitely bitch-slapped a few times and their rank and pay reduced, or, in some cases, dishonorably discharged, because you don't have to commit a crime to act dishonorably.

But as someone who knows many military men and women, the reality is that the vast majority of them are good people. These are the guys who risk their lives building schools, bringing water and food and medicine to the Iraqi people, patrol the cities and risk sniper fire from Al Qaeda or the militias to keep the citizens safe, work with local governments to secure their cities from terror and extremism, carry children who have been hurt in suicide bombings to safety and see to it that they get medical care, rescue children from orphanages run by greedy, heartless people, train the Iraqi army and police to protect Iraq, etc.

The majority of American military men and women would protect Iraqis with their lives - and many of them have.

And the American people?

We want the fighting to be over. We want to see Iraq rebuilt. We want our children to come home. We want Iraq to thrive. And we wish the Iraqi people the same freedom and peace that we wish for ourselves.

Perhaps I'm optimistic, but I think all of the above can be accomplished.

However, I don't know if we can leave it up to our governments and politicians alone. Sure, they can do some things, but let's face it - there are those in our governments who put their own interests and career goals ahead of the interests of their people.

When all is said and done, I think the citizens of these two countries are the key.

About this blog...

Dear Readers ~

The purpose of this blog is to create a forum for discussion, between Americans and Iraqis, as a means to help us understand each other, and, hopefully, build some bridges and create positive, productive dialogue between our people.

I would also like this blog to be a source for learning - a place where Iraqis and Americans can come to read about different issues with a variety of perspectives.

I have been reading both American and Iraqi blogs for some time, and one thing I have concluded is that, while there are many cultural differences, when all is said and done, we are not so very different.

I would like this blog to be a place where different viewpoints are expressed, without fear of flaming or name calling as I've seen on some blogs. We won't always agree, but disagreement can be enlightening and a learning experience that encourages growth, when we don't let our anger control our comments and responses.

Everyone, regardless of your point of view, is welcome to participate - I only ask that we keep the commentaries civil and on topic, and without hate and personal attacks. As long as this request is respected, there will be no moderation of the comments to each post (if it's not respected, then we'll just have posts from various guest bloggers, without comments).

In the end, the more we learn about each other, the greater the possibility that we can find solutions for the good of all. Not just now, but for our futures, as well.