Ahmadinejad Issues Warning on Sanctions

[Logan13]

Ahmadinejad Issues Warning on Sanctions
Dec 05, 2006
AP

Iran's president warned Washington's European allies on Tuesday that Iran would reconsider its relations with them if they insist on punishing Tehran for its nuclear program, saying that would amount to an act of "hostility."
His comments came ahead of a meeting in Paris of diplomats from the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany to discuss imposing penalties on Iran for refusing to stop uranium enrichment.

"I'm telling you in plain language that as of now on, if you try, whether in your propaganda or at international organizations, to take steps against the rights of the Iranian nation, the Iranian nation will consider it an act of hostility," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech before thousands in northern Iran.

"And if you insist on pursuing this path," he continued, Iran "will reconsider its relations with you."

It was the first time that Ahmadinejad had threatened to downgrade relations with European nations, which are responsible of a large portion of Iran's international trade. It was not clear what steps Ahmadinejad had in mind. The president does not have the final word in Iran _ that lies with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. When Ahmadinejad on one occasion was quoted as threatening to retaliate against the West by restricting oil sales, he was quickly countermanded.

Kristen Silverberg, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, said Tuesday the Security Council should swiftly follow through on its earlier resolution demanding that Iran halt enrichment.

"It's now a matter of international law, binding international law, that Iran suspend its activities," Silverberg said in Berlin. "Iran has defied the international community in refusing to do so, and so we think it's important that we move this sanctions resolution as soon as possible.

The Security Council has been at odds over how to deal with Iran's defiance of the Aug. 31 U.N. deadline to halt uranium enrichment. Western powers accuse Iran of seeking nuclear bombs, while Tehran insists it only wants nuclear energy.

The Europeans and Americans want tough sanctions; Russia and China have pushed for dialogue, despite the failure of an EU effort to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Monday the six nations were nearing an agreement.

Iran says it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has criticized Iran for concealing significant aspects of its nuclear work and says it has failed to answer all questions about its program.

Ahmadinejad, who was visiting Mazandaran province on the Caspian Sea, reiterated there would be no slowing of Iran's nuclear program.

"Thanks to the grace of God and (the Iranian people's) resistance, we are on the final stage of the path to the nuclear peak. Not more than one step is left to be taken. By the end of the year, we will organize a celebration across the country to mark the stabilization of our nuclear rights," he said, referring to the Iranian calendar year that ends March 20.

By "stabilization," Ahmadinejad appeared to mean that Iran has managed to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, a requirement for making sufficient fuel to power Iran's Russian-built reactor at Bushehr, which is due to go on line next year.

[3Vandoo]

nuke him

[Bigen12]

The Iranian people better get that nut job out of office, before he hurts himself...

[singern]

He is indeed a nut job, but he is a nut job with a A shitload of OIL, a powerful military, a Nuke in progress, and unbreakable ties to international terror groups.

Make no mistake, Take this Nut Job seriously.

[mcpeepants]

what makes him a nutjob? not liking what someone is saying doesn't make them crazy.

[Bigen12]

what makes him a nutjob? not liking what someone is saying doesn't make them crazy.

Well personally, between his beliefs that the Holocaust is a myth, to his constant ravings about wiping Israel away, I feel pretty confident in my assessment.

[RA]

Its like the dog trying to walk the owner

[Logan13]

what makes him a nutjob? not liking what someone is saying doesn't make them crazy.

Oh boy.

[mcpeepants]

Well personally, between his beliefs that the Holocaust is a myth, to his constant ravings about wiping Israel away, I feel pretty confident in my assessment.

Turkey does not believe there was an Armenian genocide back during the turn of the century. Does that make Turkey crazy? The US govt kept talking about attacking Iraq and did. Does that make Bush, Cheney and co nut jobs?

[singern]

Turkey does not believe there was an Armenian genocide back during the turn of the century. Does that make Turkey crazy? The US govt kept talking about attacking Iraq and did. Does that make Bush, Cheney and co nut jobs?

History will decide who was crazy and who was not.
I think you have chosen a side (which is your right to do so ) and you are defending that choice regardless of reality.
For me, when it comes to choosing sides, I go with the greater good. If its between brutal oppression and religious national control, VS liberty and democracy. I chose the latter. but thats just me...........

[mcpeepants]

History will decide who was crazy and who was not.
I think you have chosen a side (which is your right to do so ) and you are defending that choice regardless of reality.
For me, when it comes to choosing sides, I go with the greater good. If its between brutal oppression and religious national control, VS liberty and democracy. I chose the latter. but thats just me...........

I just don't want to see Iran get attacked. Demonizing Iran, like Iraq before, makes war easier to sell. I don't see the "liberty and democracy" we forced onto Iraq as a greater good. Let Iran transition towards democracy. Threatening Iran will only strengthening hardliners and make it easier to characterize reformers as foreign agents who support regime change. We can help promote the transition by restoring diplomatic and trade relations. This will produce more positive results than "democracy" at gunpoint will.

[Bigen12]

Turkey does not believe there was an Armenian genocide back during the turn of the century. Does that make Turkey crazy? The US govt kept talking about attacking Iraq and did. Does that make Bush, Cheney and co nut jobs?

Bro this guy's constant chest beating will eventually drag Iran into war for no good reason. I think that is reason enough to call him a nut job.

I just don't want to see Iran get attacked. Demonizing Iran, like Iraq before, makes war easier to sell. I don't see the "liberty and democracy" we forced onto Iraq as a greater good. Let Iran transition towards democracy. Threatening Iran will only strengthening hardliners and make it easier to characterize reformers as foreign agents who support regime change. We can help promote the transition by restoring diplomatic and trade relations. This will produce more positive results than "democracy" at gunpoint will.

It's the things that Ahmadinejad is saying that is demonizing Iran. We can't stand by as he preaches his threatening ideas.

I hope as you, that the Iranian people will get him out of office before his words come to haunt his country.

You have a good day

[mcpeepants]

Bro this guy's constant chest beating will eventually drag Iran into war for no good reason. I think that is reason enough to call him a nut job.



It's the things that Ahmadinejad is saying that is demonizing Iran. We can't stand by as he preaches his threatening ideas.

I hope as you, that the Iranian people will get him out of office before his words come to haunt his country.

You have a good day

Turkey is in constant denial Armenian denial about the armenian genocide. Unless Ahmadinejad is hiding something about his "mental illness" we should not be assuming his a nut job. Iran won't be dragged into war, it will be attacked, saying that is an attempt to lessen the guilt of the attackers. For all the demonizing about Saddam, he didn't attack us, we attacked him. Also, I here politicians and pundits talking about "surgical strikes" and potentially dropping nukes on Iran's nuclear plants, that language sounds more threatening than Ahmadinejad because the US govt can back up what it says and would face no retribution for it unlike Iran.

[Bigen12]

Also, I here politicians and pundits talking about "surgical strikes" and potentially dropping nukes on Iran's nuclear plants, that language sounds more threatening than Ahmadinejad because the US govt can back up what it says and would face no retribution for it unlike Iran.

Exactly!

Thats why it's nuts for him to be talking as he has in the past and as he continues to, he's fueling the fire.

[biglouie250]

the difference between crazy and genius is measured by success.

[RA]

what makes him a nutjob? not liking what someone is saying doesn't make them crazy.

What makes him a nutjob is ever since we went into Iraq his mouth has been supercharged with this crazy ass rhetoric. How exactly does he think he can push around the worlds lone super power? With what? His new shiney rock thrower 3000xl?

[mcpeepants]

Exactly!

Thats why it's nuts for him to be talking as he has in the past and as he continues to, he's fueling the fire.

You said in a previous post that "We can't stand by as he preaches his threatening ideas." Do you consider US politicians and pundits threatening Iran with strikes and potentially nuclear strikes as more threatening then because the US can back up what it says?

[mcpeepants]

What makes him a nutjob is ever since we went into Iraq his mouth has been supercharged with this crazy ass rhetoric. How exactly does he think he can push around the worlds lone super power? With what? His new shiney rock thrower 3000xl?

How does running your mouth makes you nut job? He's been running his mouth and showing his weapons because it might make the US think again about attacking Iran. Saddam kowtowed to Western pressure and still got invaded. Iran is not dumb enough to make that mistake.

[DNoMac]

Well personally, between his beliefs that the Holocaust is a myth, to his constant ravings about wiping Israel away, I feel pretty confident in my assessment.

Word.

[Logan13]

You said in a previous post that "We can't stand by as he preaches his threatening ideas." Do you consider US politicians and pundits threatening Iran with strikes and potentially nuclear strikes as more threatening then because the US can back up what it says?

The US is in reaction mode, Iran is not.

[mcpeepants]

The US is in reaction mode, Iran is not.

Bush put Iran on the "axis of evil" (seems like david frum was watching to many cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoons) after it assisted in setting up the new afghan govt after the fall of the taliban (the taliban was an enemy of Iran and they almost went to war). that's an offensive move, not a reaction.

[Logan13]

Bush put Iran on the "axis of evil" (seems like david frum was watching to many cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoons) after it assisted in setting up the new afghan govt after the fall of the taliban (the taliban was an enemy of Iran and they almost went to war). that's an offensive move, not a reaction.

They did not become what they are because they were labeled as such, they were labeled as such for what they are.

[Logan13]

Bush put Iran on the "axis of evil" (seems like david frum was watching to many cheesy Hanna-Barbera cartoons) after it assisted in setting up the new afghan govt after the fall of the taliban (the taliban was an enemy of Iran and they almost went to war). that's an offensive move, not a reaction.

Iran was against the Taliban because the Taliban are mostly Sunni and Iran is Shiite. Just more of the same in Muslim culture. Never-ending cycle, and it had NOTHING to do with trying to help NATO in Afghanistan. This fued has been going on for 1500 years!

Why have the Sunnis and Shiites been killing each other for all these years you ask?
The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed.

[Bigen12]

You said in a previous post that "We can't stand by as he preaches his threatening ideas." Do you consider US politicians and pundits threatening Iran with strikes and potentially nuclear strikes as more threatening then because the US can back up what it says?

Please provide a source, where Bush threatened Iran with nuclear strikes.

[Bigen12]

How does running your mouth makes you nut job? He's been running his mouth and showing his weapons because it might make the US think again about attacking Iran.

You don’t understand how a person in a weaker position, threatening a person in a much stronger position, isn’t the brightest thing in the world to do?

I don’t think the US would invade Iran, we could in a matter of days, bomb Iran back to the stone age. I know that you know that, and Ahmadinejad knows that.

Saddam kowtowed to Western pressure and still got invaded.

How did Saddam kowtow to western pressure?

He did just enough, allowing inspections where there were nothing to be found, to prolong his regime that is all.

[RA]

How does running your mouth makes you nut job? He's been running his mouth and showing his weapons because it might make the US think again about attacking Iran. Saddam kowtowed to Western pressure and still got invaded. Iran is dumb enough to make that mistake.

True

Thats the point I was trying to make. You said the US might think again? Why exactly? Because hes so scary?

[mcpeepants]

Iran was against the Taliban because the Taliban are mostly Sunni and Iran is Shiite. Just more of the same in Muslim culture. Never-ending cycle, and it had NOTHING to do with trying to help NATO in Afghanistan. This fued has been going on for 1500 years!

Why have the Sunnis and Shiites been killing each other for all these years you ask?
The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed.

Sunni Pakistan and Shia Iran have good relations. Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey have good relations.

[mcpeepants]

Please provide a source, where Bush threatened Iran with nuclear strikes.

By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Saturday, April 8, 2006 11:13 p.m. EDT
Report: Bush Considers Nuclear Strikes on Iran



Reprint Information
Ex-U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick Dies

GOP's Capitol Leadership Winds Down
Justice Stevens: No Flag Burning Change
Jeane Kirkpatrick Dies at 80
Poll: Few Optimistic of Clear Victory in Iraq


The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, according to a new report.

Longtime investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who claims to have high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts, said President Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler." Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, makes his new claims in The New Yorker magazine, according to the London Telegraph. [Editor's Note: Will Iran launch a pre-emptive strike on the U.S. Find out about 'Avoiding Nuclear D-Day' in this special report -- Click Here Now.]

Some U.S. military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker. The conviction that Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or U.S. forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Tehran's nuclear program.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Tehran.


Story Continues Below

Although Iran claims that its nuclear program is peaceful, U.S. and European intelligence agencies are certain that Tehran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

The Telegraph disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.

Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centers for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure, the Telegraph reports. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities is fueling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.



Audible Is Offering A Free Audiobook Download
Are Pheromones a Secret Weapon for Dating?
New Stock Market Report ? Limited Time Offer!
7 Funds at Vanguard to Buy; 10 to Sell-Free!


The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.
The election of Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear program, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?'"

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

[mcpeepants]

True

Thats the point I was trying to make. You said the US might think again? Why exactly? Because hes so scary?

typo

[mcpeepants]

You don’t understand how a person in a weaker position, threatening a person in a much stronger position, isn’t the brightest thing in the world to do?

I don’t think the US would invade Iran, we could in a matter of days, bomb Iran back to the stone age. I know that you know that, and Ahmadinejad knows that.



How did Saddam kowtow to western pressure?

He did just enough, allowing inspections where there were nothing to be found, to prolong his regime that is all.

Iran is being threatened at the same time by the west. how is keeping silent about it going to help? power does not respect weakness. if I know I can walk all over you, i will.

I wouldn't be so confident about US invading Iran even though the US is much stronger. The US unless the US goes all out in bombing, the air strikes will only have limited effects. The Iranian troops could just hunker down while it happening. Also, what do you think the Shia in Iraq would be doing while this is happening? They could ally with sunnis and declare all out war with the US. They could prevent the transfer of fuel and supply convoys to US troops. Also the Iranian army isn't as weak as the Iraqi army.

Saddam allowed pretty intensive sanctions and was still attack.

[Logan13]

Sunni Pakistan and Shia Iran have good relations. Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey have good relations.

Can you provide a source on this? But than again, this whole sunni vs. shiite fued that has been going on for 1500 years may not even be true, kind of like the holocaust may not be true....

[Logan13]

Iran is being threatened at the same time by the west. how is keeping silent about it going to help? power does not respect weakness. if I know I can walk all over you, i will.

I wouldn't be so confident about US invading Iran even though the US is much stronger. The US unless the US goes all out in bombing, the air strikes will only have limited effects. The Iranian troops could just hunker down while it happening. Also, what do you think the Shia in Iraq would be doing while this is happening? They could ally with sunnis and declare all out war with the US. They could prevent the transfer of fuel and supply convoys to US troops. Also the Iranian army isn't as weak as the Iraqi army.

Saddam allowed pretty intensive sanctions and was still attack.

You miss the point of bombing on Iran. It would be done to take out infrastructure, not neccessarily just to kill troops. I honestly do not think you are qualified to opine on military tactics........

[Bigen12]

Longtime investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who claims to have high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts, said President Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler." Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, makes his new claims in The New Yorker magazine, according to the London Telegraph. [Editor's Note: Will Iran launch a pre-emptive strike on the U.S. Find out about 'Avoiding Nuclear D-Day' in this special report -- Click Here Now.]

Some U.S. military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker. The conviction that Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or U.S. forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Tehran's nuclear program.

Come on, this is simply speculation, we have a reporter, who is claiming to have contacts at the Pentagon.

This doesn't prove that Bush has threatened Iran with Nukes.

[Bigen12]

Iran is being threatened at the same time by the west. how is keeping silent about it going to help? power does not respect weakness. if I know I can walk all over you, i will.

I wouldn't be so confident about US invading Iran even though the US is much stronger. The US unless the US goes all out in bombing, the air strikes will only have limited effects. The Iranian troops could just hunker down while it happening. Also, what do you think the Shia in Iraq would be doing while this is happening? They could ally with sunnis and declare all out war with the US. They could prevent the transfer of fuel and supply convoys to US troops. Also the Iranian army isn't as weak as the Iraqi army.

Saddam allowed pretty intensive sanctions and was still attack.

I'll tell you why Ahmadinejad is running his mouth. At the begining of the war on terror, Iran was helping, ie capturing members of Al Quida, you know why?

Because they were scared shittless that they would be next. Now that the Iraq war has became political, Iran realizes that the US won't be attacking them anytime soon, so he runs his mouth.

[mcpeepants]

I'll tell you why Ahmadinejad is running his mouth. At the begining of the war on terror, Iran was helping, ie capturing members of Al Quida, you know why?

Because they were scared shittless that they would be next. Now that the Iraq war has became political, Iran realizes that the US won't be attacking them anytime soon, so he runs his mouth.

I agree on that point. After 9-11 and after the fall of Saddam, the US was in a very strong position and could dictate in a position of strength. I think the previous president khatami laid out a letter willing to cut ties with hezabollah and end nuclear enrichment in Iran after the fall of Baghdad but the white house rejected it.

[mcpeepants]

Come on, this is simply speculation, we have a reporter, who is claiming to have contacts at the Pentagon.

This doesn't prove that Bush has threatened Iran with Nukes.

It's not definitive proof but Seymour Hersh, the reporter sited in the article, helped bring the Abu Ghraib scandal into the public attentions so I think he has some credibility. Also the fact that many of Irans sites are buried so deep underground that conventional weapons wont be able to reach them.

[mcpeepants]

You miss the point of bombing on Iran. It would be done to take out infrastructure, not neccessarily just to kill troops. I honestly do not think you are qualified to opine on military tactics........

I'm not a military tactician or experts. However, based on the known information, I can figure something like that would happen. Well here's a military source (General Barry McCaffrey) for you though. A transcipt from Hardball Nov 20, 2006. website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15830514/

MATTHEWS: We‘re back with General Barry McCaffrey.

I have to ask you, General, about this story we just talked a moment ago. It‘s Seymour Hersh of “The New Yorker.” Without getting into all the details, do you think it is feasible for the United States to take out Iran‘s nuclear facilities such as they are?

MCCAFFREY: No, I think our rhetoric has been ill advised. The notion that we can use conventional air power to go after Iranian nuclear facilities is preposterous.

We probably know where three-fourths of them are. With a six-month air campaign, we could probably degrade or knock out half of them.

We‘d set the entire world against us and, oh, by the way, they close the Persian Gulf and try and close our lines of communication from Kuwait, up to 150,000 troops stuck in the middle of Iraq.

It is absolutely a senseless idea. We‘re not going to do it.

MATTHEWS: If we did so, maybe this is more of a technological question than a military one, what would stop the Iranians, with the wealth they have, from rebuilding everything we destroy, only this time with the entire world playing them as victim?

MCCAFFREY: Well, I don‘t think it would go that far. I mean, if we attack—if we took two carrier battle groups and ran a bunch of good, vigorous strikes against Iranian nuke facilities at Bushehr and places like that, we‘d have an immediate reaction.

They would close the Persian Gulf. The Navy would have to withdraw out to sea. They‘d go out 200-300 miles. You‘d see a huge insurgent effort against our 400 kilometer supply lines.

We‘d be in a crisis mode within a week of the first air strikes.

MATTHEWS: So they have retaliatory ability against us. It wouldn‘t just be a clean strike and walk away?

MCCAFFREY: Sure. My first platoon sergeant said, “Don‘t ever threaten people in public and, by the way, when you do it, make sure you can carry out your threat.”

We‘re threatening people in public and we can‘t carry out the threat.

MATTHEWS: Interesting. Thank you very much, General Barry McCaffrey.

[mcpeepants]

Iran was against the Taliban because the Taliban are mostly Sunni and Iran is Shiite. Just more of the same in Muslim culture. Never-ending cycle, and it had NOTHING to do with trying to help NATO in Afghanistan. This fued has been going on for 1500 years!

Why have the Sunnis and Shiites been killing each other for all these years you ask?
The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed.

ethnic, religious, etc have fought each other and lived peacefully side by side since the dawn of mankind. Sunnis and shia have fought it other and have lived peacefully and intermarried for 1500 years. The english, french, germans and spanish have fought amongst themselves for over a thousand years. The same with Catholics and Protestants who have been slaughtering each other for several hundred years because of slightly different interpretations of the bible. Do you say just more of the same christian or european culture or does it only apply when it happens amongst muslims?

[mcpeepants]

Can you provide a source on this? But than again, this whole sunni vs. shiite fued that has been going on for 1500 years may not even be true, kind of like the holocaust may not be true....

Here's an overview of Iran-Pakistani relations from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Pakistan_relations

here's one from the Asia-Times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA13Df03.html

[Logan13]

ethnic, religious, etc have fought each other and lived peacefully side by side since the dawn of mankind. Sunnis and shia have fought it other and have lived peacefully and intermarried for 1500 years. The english, french, germans and spanish have fought amongst themselves for over a thousand years. The same with Catholics and Protestants who have been slaughtering each other for several hundred years because of slightly different interpretations of the bible. Do you say just more of the same christian or european culture or does it only apply when it happens amongst muslims?

No other group is in the headlines today, peepants. No other group is strapping bombs on themselves and walking onto a bus. You can deny what most already know, or point to other bad behavior in an effort to dodge, but it does not change what the facts are. Do you not think it strange that you, as an American, are more willing to believe the terrorists and terrorist supporters over your own country? You are constantly giving excuses for terrorists, yet I have not heard you one time stick up for the US. I do not think that you are who you say you are in here...