Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on September 05, 2006, 05:16:48 PM
-
Apparently Ahmadinejad has determined that the presence of insufficiently Islamic professors in Iranian universities is interfering with plans for the return of the 12th Imam and the final triumph of the Dar-el-Islam.
This is so eerily reminiscent of the purge of insufficiently loyal professors from the German universities following the election of Adolf Hitler that the world media might have paid more attention if they hadn't already determined that George Bush and not Ahmadinejad is the new Adolf Hitler and that Israel and not Iran is the new Third Reich. Sadly, we only have room for one new Hitler figure at a time.
Hopefully the group of purged academics will include everyone who knows the difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238.
Iran's Ahmadinejad Urges Purge of Secular Academics
By Ladane Nasseri
Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government plans to purge liberal and secular faculty members from Iran's universities in a bid to revive the ideals of the Islamic Republic's heyday in the 1980s.
``Our academic system has been influenced for 150 years by secularism,'' the official Islamic Republic News Agency cited Ahmadinejad as telling a group of students today. ``We have started to make change happen but we need special support for it,'' he said.
``Students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities,'' the president said.
Ahmadinejad was elected in June 2005 after pledging to redistribute the country's oil wealth to the people. His victory gave the backers of the Islamic revolution power over all state institutions. Ahmadinejad has scrapped some social and civil reforms inspired by his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.
About 40 professors at Tehran University were forced into early retirement in June. The move led to several days of student protests, Agence France-Ptesse reported.
Canadian-Iranian academic Ramin Jahanbegloo, arrested in May, is awaiting trial on suspicion of acting against Iranian interests and contacting foreigners. Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei accused Jahanbegloo of fomenting a ``velvet revolution'' in the Islamic Republic on U.S. orders. The academic was released on bail Aug. 30 after four months in prison in Tehran.
Ebadi Group Curbed
Last month, Iran banned any activity by a human rights group headed by Nobel peace prizewinner Shirin Ebadi. The group has involved itself in rights cases including those of journalist Akbar Ganji, who was imprisoned for six years and released in March, and photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, who died in detention in 2003.
The Iranian government also ordered a raid to remove television satellite dishes from homes in Tehran, the capital, saying they threaten the nation's ``psychological security.'' The dishes, tolerated under Khatami, have mushroomed in the past decade. Music, news and talk programs by dissident Iranian channels based abroad are the most popular of the foreign broadcasts.
Iran refused to meet an Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council deadline to suspend production of nuclear fuel, a stance that may lead to sanctions. The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of using a nuclear-power program to disguise weapons development.
-
Interestingly enough, I've heard posters here advocate the removal of secular teachers and professors in the US.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Interestingly enough, I've heard posters here advocate the removal of secular teachers and professors in the US.
:rofl
but even you have to admit there's a huge difference in the level of extremety here.
-
If Armadinejad had the power to purge academia (which he hasn't), he would have done it already instead of just spouting about it.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Neoconservatives, who can be counted on to escalate, argue that we're actually in the thick of the Fourth World War. The historian Bernard Lewis warned a few weeks ago that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could be planning to annihilate Israel (and perhaps even the United States) on Aug. 22 because it was a significant day for Muslims.
Can everyone please take a deep breath?
To review a bit of history: in 1938, Adolf Hitler launched what became a world war not merely because he was evil but because he was in complete control of the strongest country on the planet. At the time, Germany had the world's second largest industrial base and its mightiest army.
..Iran does not even rank among the top 20 economies in the world. The Pentagon's budget this year is more than double Iran's total gross domestic product..Tehran's nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but its program is not nearly as advanced as is often implied. Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.
Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall—and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA's wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives' more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA's lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration.
One man who is greatly enjoying being the subject of this outsize portraiture is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has gone from being an obscure and not-so-powerful politician.....to a central player in the Middle East simply by goading the United States and watching Washington take the bait. By turning him into enemy No. 1, by reacting to every outlandish statement he makes, the Bush administration has given him far more attention than he deserves. And so now he writes letters to Bush, offers to debate him and prances about in the global spotlight provided by American attention.
Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640262/site/newsweek/)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
:rofl
but even you have to admit there's a huge difference in the level of extremety here.
Haven't you used the slippery slope argument in regards to gun rights? I'd say it applies here too.
-
Just curious.... Who here asked for the purging of secular teachers from America's schools, and when?
If possible, please include a link to the thread. My back is itchy.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hopefully the group of purged academics will include everyone who knows the difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238.
:rofl :aok :rofl
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Interestingly enough, I've heard posters here advocate the removal of secular teachers and professors in the US.
Hmmm, posters on a bbs *****in' vs the president of country wherein it is quite possible this opinion will become law. I have to say that there really isn't a comparison here.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Just curious.... Who here asked for the purging of secular teachers from America's schools, and when?
If possible, please include a link to the thread. My back is itchy.
I'll vote for purgin' the way out in left field liberal profs. Too bad we don't have national elections for these kind of things.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Haven't you used the slippery slope argument in regards to gun rights? I'd say it applies here too.
Nope not gun rights.....that was gay marriage.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Interestingly enough, I've heard posters here advocate the removal of secular teachers and professors in the US.
I recall some saying that teachers/professors shouldn't use their position as a pulpit of sorts for their own political beliefs and that if they do....then they should be removed.
I don't recall any posts that called for the unilateral removal of ALL secular teachers and professors.
Just curious.... Who here asked for the purging of secular teachers from America's schools, and when?
If possible, please include a link to the thread. My back is itchy.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I recall some saying that teachers/professors shouldn't use their position as a pulpit of sorts for their own political beliefs and that if they do....then they should be removed.
I don't recall any posts that called for the unilateral removal of ALL secular teachers and professors.
I believe we asked for them to be removed if they did that, but didn't teach.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I believe we asked for them to be removed if they did that, but didn't teach.
Right, thats what I recall as well. We just said it differently ;)
-
Hi Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
If Armadinejad had the power to purge academia (which he hasn't), he would have done it already instead of just spouting about it.
From the original article in the real world of Iran - "About 40 professors at Tehran University were forced into early retirement in June. The move led to several days of student protests, Agence France-Ptesse reported.
Canadian-Iranian academic Ramin Jahanbegloo, arrested in May, is awaiting trial on suspicion of acting against Iranian interests and contacting foreigners. Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei accused Jahanbegloo of fomenting a ``velvet revolution'' in the Islamic Republic on U.S. orders. The academic was released on bail Aug. 30 after four months in prison in Tehran."
He has gone from being an obscure and not-so-powerful politician...
I see, is this Ahmadinejad mentioned in the Newsweek article any relation to the Ahmadinejad who just started a highly successfull proxy war with Israel in July and supplied Hezbollah with missiles capable of disabling warships, taking down helicopters, and reaching Haifa and most of Northern Israel with conventional, chemical, or biological warheads? You know the guy with the centrifuges capable of separating Uranium Isotopes and the Russian/Chinese/Pakistani reactors capable of making weapons grade Plutonium? The fellow whose munitions factories currently manufacture the majority of IEDs and rockets used against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and who is currently working jointly with the North Koreans to develop multistage missiles capable of reaching all of their enemies? Is he any relation to that Ahmadinejad?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Momus--
If Armadinejad had the power to purge academia (which he hasn't), he would have done it already instead of just spouting about it.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640262/site/newsweek/)
So some dude named Fareed Zakaria says Irans nuke program "...is not nearly as advanced as is often implied..." I feel much more at ease now knowing that a military 'expert' who writes the occasional Newsweek article has weighed in.
"Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity."
So Mr. Newsweek scribe is the final arbiter of what a "serious" estimate is?.. I kinda agree with the guy, but he sounds like an idiot.
We, the US, are going to attack Iran during the time near our presidential elections... thats what this is about.
Making a start raving fool like Ahmadinejad important is a political ploy because every time he opens his mouth something stupid comes out they can use. He's a perfect scape goat for the republicans to point at and say "Ah ha!!, see why you need us in control, we're tougher than the whimpy cut & run Democrats".
Plus during the initial phases of a good military action the people rally under the flag and sing the national anthem poo pooing anyone who speaks out about it as un-americain, or as hurting the troops.
Ahmadinejad is only as dangerous as his fiery rhetoric, he's little more than 50lbs of mouth-piece for the radicals in the Iranian Govt... he couldn't declare war on his own nuts without permission.
It's his his fans in the Iranian military that worry me, remember the Gulf of Tonkin?.. some 23 year old Ahmadinejad fan manning a gunboat could get all excited and decide to cap a few off at some US boys... thats all the excuse President Fern and his fat cronies will need... under the same rherotic "We didn't go looking for this, they attacked us".
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
So some dude named Fareed Zakaria says Irans nuke program "...is not nearly as advanced as is often implied..." I feel much more at ease now knowing that a military 'expert' who writes the occasional Newsweek article has weighed in.
...
The problem is that the current US administration, with all its intel, wasn't too good either at giving an accurate report of Iraq's WMD capabilities....
-
That's great Seagoon, but Armadinejad does not have anything close to a monopoly of power on this issue or indeed on any other and in fact is subject to a great deal of opposition, even from within Iran's ruling establishment, Anyone familiar with the internal politics of Iran would recognise this. If you are familiar with these intricacies then why gloss over them? And if you're not, well then....
the Ahmadinejad who just started a highly successfull proxy war with Israel in July and supplied Hezbollah with missiles capable of disabling warships, taking down helicopters, and reaching Haifa and most of Northern Israel with conventional, chemical, or biological warheads?
The one area specifically excluded from the remit of the Iranian president is intelligence/defence, you should know that. That said, you have evidence that Ahmadinejad directly sanctioned July's events? Source please.
You know the guy with the centrifuges capable of separating Uranium Isotopes and the Russian/Chinese/Pakistani reactors capable of making weapons grade Plutonium?
None of which is under question, so how is it relevant?
The fellow whose munitions factories currently manufacture the majority of IEDs and rockets used against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan..
Interesting. According to Gen. John P. Abizaid of CENTCOM:
improvised explosive device components manufactured in Iran have made their way into Iraq, but there's no provable connection that the Iranian government is directly providing bomb components to terrorists in Iraq.
Source. (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060317_4529.html)
The fact is that Iran is actually one of the more stabilising forces in Iraq right now. If you want a slightly more balanced view on what is really happening there currently then you should read last month's Chatham House report which you can find here (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf). The authors don't automatically reduce every issue to a Muslims bad - Christans good level so you may find it a little dry. ;)
Originally posted by x0847Marine
So some dude named Fareed Zakaria says Irans nuke program "...is not nearly as advanced as is often implied..." I feel much more at ease now knowing that a military 'expert' who writes the occasional Newsweek article has weighed in.
Interesting. I would have thought someone as obviously well informed about middle-east policy as yourself would have heard of him.
Zakaria ran a major research project on American foreign policy at Harvard University, where he taught international relations and political philosophy...He serves on the boards of Yale University, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, New America Foundation and Columbia University's International House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria
So Mr. Newsweek scribe is the final arbiter of what a "serious" estimate is?
Not the final arbiter but more than qualified enough to express an opinion to which some consideration should be granted, wouldn't you say?
I kinda agree with the guy, but he sounds like an idiot.
I'm sure he would be just mortified by your assessment.
We, the US, are going to attack Iran during the time near our presidential elections... thats what this is about.
That remains to be seen.
-
I noticed you didn't address Seagoon's mention of the forced retirement of those Iranian professors Momus. Of course I also believe that Amadmanjihad has no real power and is nothing but a mouthpiece for his Muslim overlords.
How can you with a straight face claim that Iran is a stabilizing force in Iraq. You just lost your last shred of credibility with me.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You just lost your last shred of credibility with me.
Coming from someone of your diminutive calibre that's a ringing endorsement, so thanks.
Firstly, the academics in question: Seagoon doesn't provide a link for his assertion and makes no case that Armadinejad was directly responsible, so I'll refrain from commenting until he supplies that information.
I don't think that any well-informed person would argue that Iran couldn't do a lot more to destabilise Iraq if they really wanted to. That said, you only have to look at the direct support that Iran has offered to the mainstream Shia political parties who are maintaining a semblance of order in Iraq to understand that Iran has promoted stability in Iraq.
One reason for this might be a consequence of what happened in 2001/2002 : the US campaign against the Taliban in Afgahistan led to a significant refugee crisis that Iran largely dealt with by itself. that's a good a reason as any for Iran to try to prevent an all-out civil war in Iraq which would without doubt create a crisis far far worse.
Another reason is that Iran forsees Iraq as an integral part of a future sphere of influence. To this end, it is very much in Iran's interest to maintain a stable Iraq, since only a stable, Shia majority dominated Iraq assures Iranian influence.
I'd suggest reading the report I linked to above if you're really interested in a balanced view of what is currently motivating Iran, and take all the "Armadinejad is Hitler" posts with a substantial pinch of salt.
-
Momus,
I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards you, but I seriously doubt there is any point in us entering into a discussion of this, we live in the equivalent of different universes that do not seem to intersect at many points. As a result, any discussion is bound to generate more heat than light, and life is too short for that. So if you have no objection, I'll simply respond to a couple of your points and let it go at that.
Regarding Iranian IED components: I first became aware of this when guys coming back from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan began mentioning that over the past year that they had seen a marked improvement in IED technology. Specifically, they were seeing fewer and fewer of the cobbled together munitions based IEDs activated by cell phone signals (which the US can now defeat) and more purpose built munitions of all sizes that utilized highly sophisticated shaped charges and infrared and closed-circuit detonators that cannot be spoofed or suppressed by current methods. These devices were much too sophisticated to be manufactured "in theatre" and all of their intel indicated that these were being manufactured in Iran.
The Abizaid quote you mention comes from March, when the US was attempting to suppress the reports in the US media that Iraq was already in a Sunni/Shi' ite civil war or that Iran was essentially running Southern Iraq via the Mullahs. Since that time however, the official US line is reporting what the troops in the field already know:
"(AP) August 14 - The U.S. military has evidence that Shi ite extremists in Iraq are receiving arms and training from Iran, but it is not clear if the Iranian government is involved, a U.S. spokesman said Monday.
"We know that some Shi ite elements have been in Iran receiving training," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell told reporters. "But the degree to which it is known and endorsed by the government of Iran is uncertain."
The Iranian government did not immediately respond to the comments.
"We do know that weapons have been provided and IED technology been made available to these extremist elements," Caldwell said, referring to improvised explosive devices, or homemade bombs, that are in widespread use in Iraq's insurgency and sectarian conflict.
Caldwell's assertion came on the heels of allegations by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who told The New York Times that Iran was encouraging *****e militias to step up attacks on U.S. forces in retaliation for the Israeli assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon. The *****e Hezbollah is backed by Iran."
(VOA) US General Says Iranian Forces Do Training in Iraq
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
23 August 2006
Pessin report - Download 363k audio clip
Listen to Pessin report audio clip
A senior U.S. military spokesman says Iranian forces have infiltrated Iraq to provide training, money and equipment to Shi 'ite extremists and fuel their insurgency. The officer went farther than others have in detailing Iran's alleged role in Iraq's violence.
U.S. officials frequently criticize Iran for supporting Iraqi Shi'ite extremists. But in the past they have declined to say whether that support includes infiltration by Iranian forces. At a news conference Wednesday, Brigadier General Michael Barbero made that direct connection.
"I have seen reports of their involvement and presence there as trainers to train these terrorists and extremist groups," he said.
General Barbero, an operations officer on the staff of the top U.S. generals, also says Iran is providing technology to help Iraqi insurgents build more effective bombs, what the military calls Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs.
"I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of the [Shi 'ite] extremist groups, and also providing advanced IED technology to them," he said. "And there's clear evidence of that."
Finally, regarding your comment that I reduce everything to a "Muslims bad - Christans good" level, you completely misunderstand me on this point. I am not under the delusion that everyone who calls himself "Christian" is good.
As a vocation and a personal belief, I am committed to the idea that Christ and His Gospel are Good and I do try to proclaim that message as reasonably as I can. My worldview is admittedly the Christian worldview, but I am not a advocate or defender of an idea of Christendom or that Christianity can be established militarily or politically in the same way that for instance Islam is. I will admit that I believe that Muhammad and his vision (which contradicts the message of Christ and the Gospel) are not good or capable of coexisting peacefully with any other worldview.
- SEAGOON
-
Thanks Seagoon. You could have just answered with a reliable source for your original assertion that the Iranian government is actively supplying IED components to Iraqi insurgents. You still haven't, in fact your first quote specifically says that there is no evidence of Iranian government involvement.
Also, at the risk of repeating myself, where's your source for your claim that Armadinejad sanctioned or initiated the Hezbollah/Israel conflict in July?
If you're going to quote media articles please provide a link. It makes it much easier for me to find the parts you omit that undermine your position:
Caldwell did not refer to Khalilzad's allegations but said the weapons used by *****e extremists here had markings that made it clear they were manufactured in Iran within the last three years.
"This is not to say that the government of Iran is associated with that"
Source (http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ContentGuid=59374b89-76fa-4489-a453-34d93e1a30b9)
General Barbero says coalition troops have not directly encountered any of the Iranian forces he says have been inside Iraq, and he would not provide any details on the number or specific duties of the Iranians.
Source. (http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-23-voa58.cfm)
So how does he know exactly? It's just coincidence that these allegations start to be thrown about as the US is trying to turn up the diplomatic pressure over the Hezbollah/nuclear issue? Sure it is. ;)
Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally, regarding your comment that I reduce everything to a "Muslims bad - Christans good" level, you completely misunderstand me on this point. I am not under the delusion that everyone who calls himself "Christian" is good.
Maybe not, but you certainly start from the position that all muslims are inherrently evil; do I need to quote your demon worship line once more to illustrate this?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Coming from someone of your diminutive calibre that's a ringing endorsement, so thanks.
Firstly, the academics in question: Seagoon doesn't provide a link for his assertion and makes no case that Armadinejad was directly responsible, so I'll refrain from commenting until he supplies that information.
He provide you a source. You obviously have an opinion on the subject and so I think you'd do well to be better informed. I've taken the 30 seconds to look it up and provide you with a link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aVaNIdJJvcNU&refer=germany
-
Ok. It says 40 "academics" were "forced to retire". It gives no more info than that, and I've spent some time looking elsewhere believe me. I don't know who they were, what reason was given for their dismissal, who took the decision other than the Iranian Ministry of Education, in short, not enough to make an informed comment.
If you have some more info let's have it.
-
Geeze, we could use this guy over here :aok
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Ok. It says 40 "academics" were "forced to retire". It gives no more info than that, and I've spent some time looking elsewhere believe me. I don't know who they were, what reason was given for their dismissal, who took the decision other than the Iranian Ministry of Education, in short, not enough to make an informed comment.
If you have some more info let's have it.
Did you ignore the comments made by Amadmanjihad?
How about this from Iran: http://www.irannewsdaily.com/view_news.asp?id=138306
The phrasing is a bit different. Something in the translation i suppose.
-
Hello Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
Thanks Seagoon. You could have just answered with a reliable source for your original assertion that the Iranian government is actively supplying IED components to Iraqi insurgents.
Look, you do not consider the guys on the ground getting blown up by the actual IEDs to be reliable sources, or the men commanding the guys getting blown up by the IEDs, in fact you immediately discount any information not coming from a source that would be wholly disinclined to support the notion of any Iranian involvement. In other words, unless I can present information that fits your inherent presuppositions, you deem it unreliable and won't believe it. Anything originating from official sources in the US or Israel for instance, is discounted.
Then again, even when the Iranian president SAYS he wants the secular academics purged you are disinclined to believe that Iran wants to purge secular academics. You operate from a hermeneutic of suspicion and your presuppositions are unassailable.
What would be the point of my providing you with source after source that you wouldn't believe or accept anyway? It's rather like trying to persuade Boroda, whom I personally like, that the Soviet Communists perpetrated horrendous atrocities. Even if Ahmadinejad presented the world with a signed translation in English saying "We are providing our Shi 'ite brothers in Iraq with materials to make IEDs" you would discount it as more empty commentary on his part, being blown out of all proportion by the evil US for its own political purposes.
Maybe not, but you certainly start from the position that all muslims are inherrently evil; do I need to quote your demon worship line once more to illustrate this?
Actually, I start from the biblical position that all men in their natural state are unregenerate and inclined towards evil, and that it is only because of God's restraining grace that we don't all sink as far as we can.
Why bother bringing up my comments in regard to Islam in particular. You regard all mention of God and Satan, Heaven and Hell, Demons and Angels, or the notion of God-inspired revelation as equally baseless and ridiculous do you not? So any comment that I make that starts with the assumption that the Bible is the entirely reliable Word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God is equally unreliable is it not? You wouldn't be prepared to seriously examine Islam or Christianity on the basis that the claims of one might be true and the other false, would you?
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon. If the US had any reliable proof that the Iranian government was stoking the insurgency to the degree you're claiming then they would be shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, even the quotes you've produced to date are qualified by "we have no proof the Iranian government is behind this.
..even when the Iranian president SAYS he wants the secular academics purged you are disinclined to believe that Iran wants to purge secular academics. You operate from a hermeneutic of suspicion and your presuppositions are unassailable.
That's because I am not credulous enough to believe that every utterance from Armadinejad represents official iranian policy. Anyone who understands the dynamics of the Iranian system would appreciate that fact. But there's a wider point. The Saudis stack academia with their yes-men. So does the Egyptian regime. Others certainly do as well. Neither seems to elicit much comment from you or anyone else, yet when Iran moves in a similar direction, you run amok invoking the ghost of Hitler, Chamberlain and Munich with scant regard for any realistic perspective.
Get a grip.
This constant Armadinejad is Hitler rhetoric betrays a total lack of understanding as to just how bad the nazis actually were and how weak Iran really is. Is Iran guilty of some of the charges levelled against it? Certainly some of them, but by no means all. The fact that these charges are being hyped by the same people who brought you the last misconceived piece of foreign policy adventurism for which the US, UK and Iraqis themselves are still paying the price ought to be ringing some alarm bells, should it not?
A word on the Shia. Since the invasion of Iraq, over 40,000 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths to the resulting violence. Iraqi Shia have borne the overwhelming brunt of this wave of killing. In this context, is it really any surprise that the Shia have turned to pro-Iranian groups for a measure of protection? If you don't like that fact then blame the leaders of the occupation and their failure to provide basic security, because that's where the blame lies, and not with their coreligionists on the other side of the border.
-
It makes it much easier for me to find the parts you omit that undermine your position:
You are posting just to undermine someone's credibility? Just a question. :)