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.

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