Most international Islamic terrorists are Sunni, not Shia. the Sunni have dominated Islam for 1000+ years, and they think they are, quite literally, God’s gift to the world.
Iranians are Shia. The Shia have been the spat-upon underclass in Islam for the 1000+ years, and they don’t have the arrogance/hubris, generally, that Sunni Muslims have almost by birthright.
All the 9/11 hijackers were Sunni. In fact, I don’t know of any international terrorist incidents perpetrated by Shia Muslims.
I am much more concerned about renegade groups getting some fissile material. I hope the Iranians are worried about that too, because there’s a good chance that THEY will get nuked if some terrorists gets enough of Iran’s uranium for a small bomb, and sets it off in some major city. At the very least they’d be invaded, their leaders would be jailed/executed, and their people crushed under the boot of the West.
Still, it’s not like Qaddafi’s Libya having the bomb. THAT would have been a mess waiting to happen. Libyans are Sunnis, and Qaddafi openly supported/aided terrorists.
I made that claim- I got it from Foreign Affairs magazine. Right now I can’t back it up any better than that, but they have been publishing for 90 years…
Any physicists or nuclear scientists want to confirm or deny this one?
To be precise, here’s the quote, from this article (most of which is behind a paywall):
That’s it. But it stands to reason that a country which develops its own bomb will use a unique design which would leave its tell-tale signs once detonated… but I’ll have to look into it or wait for an expert to do better than that.
From the same article, on the point of the Iranians’ “madness”:
Not a slam dunk I admit, but I’d need to be persuaded that Iran’s behavior adds up to ‘insane’ and not just ‘jerks’.
I do have one problem with the reasoning in it, though. If Iran’s rhetoric convinces the US/Israel that its leaders are irrational, wouldn’t its building a nuclear weapon provoke attack rather than deter it? Or to put it another way, if they meant it strictly as a deterrent, wouldn’t they tone down the “destroy Israel” and “death to America” rhetoric?
I would think that if Iran truly wanted to deter an attack (nuclear or conventional) by building a nuclear device, it would do its level best to convince the world that it no longer wanted to destroy the Zionists and the Great Satan, and that its weapon(s) were for deterrence only.
Of course, if you assume that they are, in fact, rational, that would likely mean they are actually telling the truth when they say they are not building a nuclear weapon, because to do so combined with the bellicose rhetoric would absolutely invite a massive preemptive strike.
No. Neither of those nations needs a provocation to attack Iran. Especially America; America is perfectly happy to attack nations that go out of their way to avoid provocations.
Well, that’s Der Trihs America-hater logic, which differs somewhat from conventional logic.
Of course, we haven’t attacked Iran, despite having had ample reason to do so since 1979, but let’s not confuse the issue with facts.
You know, this America-as-bloodthirsty-mass-murderer thing you have going is getting kind of old; nobody other than yourself gives it any weight. Have you even considered the possibility that your view might be, um, distorted?
That’s not to dissimilar to the talking point promulgated by Shia apologists, but it’s grossly simplistic and hardly accurate since Shia have often been rulers, have repeatedly shown that they are just as capable of arrogance and hubris particularly when discussions of the Hidden Imam come up and I’d certainly question the idea that the Sunnis are more arrogant.
Victims of the Hezbollah would beg to differ.
For a variety of reasons Qaddafi was far, far less likely than the Iranians to have good relations with Islamist terrorists. In fact, I’m not sure he funded any unless you want to classify any terrorists who are Muslim as Islamic terrorists. He preferred people like Abu Nidal to Mujahids longing to become Shahids and enter paradise.
Qaddafi was also hardly a conventional Sunni I’m not sure the point of your “Libyans are Sunnis” comment and Iran has also openly supported/aided terrorists(both Sunni and Shia) to a vastly greater degree than Qaddafi ever dreamed.
I know lots of westerners make a big deal about the Sunni-Shia divide, but aside from some isolated regions, it’s not what many think.
The Iranians and their men in Lebanon(the Hezbollah) have always had excellent relations with Hamas though the former are Shia and the latter are Sunnis.
For that matter, following the triumph of the Iranian revolution Khomeini was wildly popular throughout the Arab world, including most Sunnis.
Iran are not going to use nucear weapons if they have them. The main goal of having nuclear weapons would be to deter attacks on Iran.
They know they cant hope to win, so there is no military reason for them to start a war.
They will want to keep the weapons close to them, so they arent going to just hand them over to some random terrorist group.
No, they are not crazy despite their rhetoric (after all, listen to some of the things our politicians say). They have held on to power for almost 40 years so why would they throw all that overboard just so some armchair generals can invent a Clancy style counter attack?
Uh huh. We were allies of Iran when the Shah was in power. Go look in Wikipedia and educate yourself about the cause of the 1979 hostage crisis.
And no, we haven’t attacked Iran. We also didn’t “back” either side in the Iran-Iraq war.
I suppose you’ll say that those terrorist groups we’ve been funding are enraged Jewish rabbits or something, because we haven’t sponsored any human terrorist groups anywhere.
And that is what made us Iran’s enemy, as opposed to the Shah. Imposing him on them made us the enemy.
Yes we did, and yes we did.
I suppose you’ll say that those terrorist groups we’ve been funding are enraged Jewish rabbits or something, because we haven’t sponsored any human terrorist groups anywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, we have; for example we’ve supported the MEK, a group that our own State Department classified as terrorists. But it’s OK to support terrorists as long as we are doing it, naturally.
Stop calling me a bigot. You’ve already been warned once.
Hezbollah are international terrorists like Timothy McVeigh is an international terrorist. Really? Did you honestly think that even had a small chance of convincing anyone?
Not that I’m a big fan of the Palestinian cause, but they’re not flying planes into buildings, either.
Dude, have you just not heard of the Lockerbie bombing, or were you hoping I hadn’t? I’m asking in all seriousness. I really want to know. I doubt you’ll share that information, but I’ll ask anyway.
And yes, I can believe that the entire Arab world was celebrating after the Iranian revolution. The honeymoon ended though, didn’t it? And the sectarian hate started right where it left off.
Are you really hoping I don’t read/watch the news, or something? Dude, I know that the majority of the violence in Iraq over the last 8 years has been Sunni vs. Shia. For that matter, anybody who watches the news knows that. The same problems exist in most Arab countries. It’s like the Catholic/Protestant divide…it’s not going away. There’s too much hate and history of hate on both sides.
I didn’t call you a bigot. I made a comment about that part of your post which was bigoted bullshit.
Huh?
Are you trying to deny that Hezbollah are international terrorists? If so, you might want to talk to the victims of their bombings in Argentina.
Yes, I’ve heard of it and I suspect I’m vastly more familiar with it than you. What is your point in bringing it up?
Are you under the impression that the bombers were radical Islamists?
They weren’t any more than the butchers of Munich, Mt. Scopus, or the various Palestinian nationalists who hijacked airliners throughout the 70s.
I certainly don’t think the Colonel funded people and groups viewed as terrorists and mentioned so in my post where I said
I assume you’re familiar with who Abu Nidal was?
No, it didn’t.
No, it hasn’t been. Sunni insurgents have killed large numbers of Sunnis and Moqtada Al Sadr has had no qualms about slaughtering Shia. Yes, there’s been large amounts of sectarian deaths, but reducing it to a sectarian conflict is grossly simplistic.
No, it’s not. The hatred between Sunnis and Shia is certainly tremendous in Iraq and a few other countries but it’s not typical.
No, it’s not. That’s an exceptionally lazy analogy that many westerners regularly make which collapses on examination.
Stop chopping my posts up. You are trying to create the impression that you are categorically responding, but you’re really just covering for your lack of content.
As far as Hezbollah, you’re right, they have been involved, quite possibly, in several international attacks.
However, the vast, vast majority of international terrorism is Sunni. That’s just how it is. Nobody here is dumb enough, or uninformed enough, to think otherwise.
And Qaddafi committed state-sponsored terrorism. Why even bother to dispute that?
Please realize that being from Iran gives you considerably less credibility on these issues. You’re about as objective a source on this as Jerry Falwell was on Creationism, just like pretty much any other person from the Middle East. Peddle your spin to people who’ll swallow it, please.
That of course is another example of ignorant, racist bullshit.
You could just as easily argue that I have no credibility on this subject because I’m an American.
Do you argue that African-American posters have “less credibility” on race-related issues or that Jewish posters have “less credibility” when it comes to discussing the treatment of Jews in the Middle East or the Middle Ages?
Anyway, people will notice that I’m not playing the role of the apologist attacking him for slurring my great Shia ancestors but am pointing out that his claims about how horrible the Sunnis are and how great the Shias are are both heavily exaggerated.
There are quietists, radicals, and traditionalists among both the Shia and the Sunnis and claiming that the Sunnis are somehow more “arrogant” than the Shia or “crazier” is simply bullshit.
It’s also just the 21st Century version of the crap I heard spouted off by ignorant Americans in the 1980s about how it was the Shia who were the “crazies” and the radicals(this being the time when Shia radicals had blown up the Marine Barracks in Lebanon and taken over the US Embassy in Iran) whereas the Sunnis were the more reasonable ones.
Now, are there many countries where Sunnis and Shia don’t get along? Yes, but it’s limited to only parts of the Islamic world, it’s hardly universal.
Moreover, comparisons between the Shia-Sunnis differences and Catholic-Protestant differences are intellectually lazy and grossly simplistic.
It’s part of a long tradition of westerners trying to fit Muslims into western categories. In the Middle Ages when Christians referred to Muslims as “Mohammedans” and continued well into the late 20th Century when news reports on the Lebanese Civil War would refer to the Christian groups as “right-wingers” while the Muslim groups were referred to as “left-wingers”.
The Sunnis and Shia certainly have theological differences, but they’ve never been nearly as dramatic as the differences between the Catholics and the Protestants, they never had the religious wars that Christians had and, most importantly, they never denied each other were Muslims, denied the others could enter heaven.
They are not separate “sects” or “denominations” the way the Catholics and Protestants are, recognize clerics of each group(though obviously clerics in Islam are different than clerics in the Catholic Church) and often pray together.
The Salafists are the lone exception to the above two paragraphs, and they’re a rather recent group and were it not for the Saudi oil money and the way the West elevated the Saudis to prominence, they’d hardly be that influential.
Now, that’s not to say that in many areas where Shias and Sunnis have become sworn enemies due to tribal, though not sectarian reasons, most notably Iraq and Lebanon. However, even there, you’ll notice that Shia Iraqis while they have a long-standing rivalry which has often erupted into bloodshed with the Sunni Arabs, have gotten along very well with the Kurds, who are overwhelmingly Sunni. Similarly, people will notice that the Shia Hezbollah are staunch allies of the Sunni Hamas.
He was criticizing your point of view as distorted because you are an Iranian. Since when is “Iranian” a race?
Don’t play the race card when it isn’t actually in your hand to begin with. Your point of view is skewed and unobjective because of your political affiliations, not because of your race.