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.

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.