Sunna  less tolerable  Shia  than shia  tolerated  Sunna

Shia  more  liberals than  Sunna Thats why  shia  so  many  branch.

And  even  think  that today In Iran fire worshipers still official

As Shia  historically  dissident closer ,tolerable Judaism  than sunna.Shia  more  pragmatic ,less fanatic.

One of the  reasen shia  rooted  in Iran as old  civiliation  they  dont  want  to be asimileted  by Sunna by Araps. Because Arap  major&&05;ty  was Sunna  on that time.

Think  that from  North Africa to  Arabian  peninsula so  many nation etnicity  speak  Arabic  asimileted  by  language.

Shia-sunna difference  emerge  like  a political  party-group not  even belief ,on that  time   later  on sticked  to Iranians who  was  Sunna first ,later  on  conquer  Turks  forced  Persian  convert Shia.

Egyptian  was  Shia because of  Fatimi State  in Egypt ,Salahdin Eyyubi  conguered Egypt founded  Eyyubi State so  far Egypt Sunna.

In fact, those radicals are capable of long term, relatively inexpensive, sustained campaign. They are using relatively low resources. Also, they don't seem to have much need for "normal life", whatever that might mean. It makes them an useful asset if one is able to control them. Unfortunately, they seem to be difficult to control, often biting the hand that feeds them.

 

DG

 

http://www.emoticonsformsn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/peace-emoticon-for-msn-01.gif" alt="peace emoticon for msn 01" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: small;" /> 

It often appears baffling how Islamic terrorists can keep proclaiming imminent victory...

=========================================

We hear this claimed from time to time in the United States as well.  For example, some folks claim that we were victorious in the invasion of Iraq.  Perhaps that is the case from a tactical perspective - but if you look at the Iraq campaign in its entirety, with its incredibly high overall cost:

 

-  $2.2 trillion spent so far (and counting)

-  Iran is for all intensive purposes in the power brokers seat in the middle east (angering our arab allies)

-  The invasion acted as a huge recruiting tool for the terrorists and Al Qaida

-  US international opinion tanked - "big-time"

-  40k+ US dead and wounded

-  100k+ Iraqi dead and wounded

-  US military exhausted, plus limits of US power exposed for all to see

-  US military gear/equipment now in dire need of outright replacement or overhaul

-  No WMD found (no surprise - we knew that before we invaded)

-  US kicked out unanimously by vote of the Iraqi people who were supposedly going to be so grateful we invaded them

-  China (who we borrowed the money from to finance the who stupid affair) gets all the big oil deals. 

-  Iraq vastly less stable now than it was under Saddam

-  Post-invasion Iraq now used as example of how not to manage the aftermath of an invasion - even by our ALLIES. 

 

So we did manage to kill Saddam.  But if that is the definition of victory, here's hoping  we don't get anymore victories like this one.  Because the only way to define "victory" in this case, is to classify it as "phyrric".

 

 

 

Then rather than whinging how about providing some long-term analysis that shows the benefits as you see them in terms of US interests. 

 

R 

I might try but that would imply that there is a long term pattern to the current incoherence in American strategy when it comes to the Arabs. There is an inplace strategy with China ("entanglement") that not even the incompetent Obama administration can derail, but the full socialist embrace of the color revolutions, as applied and failed into Eastern Europe, as a means to pacify and control the failed Arab states for some exploitative colonialist goal has backfired. The recent American moves in Libya inflamed a quiescent terrorist state that has caused France no end of nightmares in her African sphere of interest. The Sudan has degenerated into worse chaos since the split. Syria, where the American meddling, threatens to become worse than Libya threatens to become general regional war, and now the Egyptian army to save Egypt from a failing economy and that another ruinous war with Israel, a route Morsi plainly intended to take, has left its barracks to oust that fascist Morsi regime.        

 

One wonders why the man, Obama, so avidly embraces the criminal interests of George Soros, who is a main actor and facilitator in these latest disasters.

 

Money.

 

Soros has lots of it, and the Democrats were willing to be bought. Now he owns them.

 

Not much different than most 3rd world countries.

@ Chris

 

Nice little kitchen-sink comment you wrote.  Let's see how it stands up to scrutiny:  

 

1.  2.2 trillion dollars on the Iraq War.

 

Correction:  2.2 trillion dollars on both the Afghan and Iraq wars combined.  A more generally accepted number is about half that figure.

 

2.  Iran is now the power broker of the Middle East.

 

Correction:  Iran has become about as isolated as it has ever been.  Other than reconnecting in a limited way with Iraq's Shiites, the war has unified the Sunni population in its fear of Shiite Iran.  Any reconnection with Iraq's Shiites comes at the cost of having to get involved in any war that arises between the two Islamic worlds.  And as we all know, that's costly.  Combine that with its continued support of the dictatorship in Syria's civil war, though perhaps not directly related to the Iraq War, it continues to drain Iran's resources making it harder to sew mischief around the world.  Sanctions etc., further limit its reach and capacity to fuel global terrorism.   Power broker?  Whose power broker?

 

3.  The war acted like a huge recruiting vehicle for terrorists.

 

Correction:  While its true that terrorist fighter were brought in from around the arab world, their conduct was so abysmal that they pretty much assured that the middle east governments will think multiple times about ever being soft on terrorism.  They've all seen the footage on al Jezera and it wasn't pretty.  What value does the discrediting of a popular, blood-thirsty, anti-American movement have?  I'd say quite a lot.

 

4.  40,000 US casualties.  

 

Correction:  Actually it was 36,710, with 3,570 combat deaths, but why quibble?  Let's just put the number of dead in perspective.  Vietnam--47,424;  Korea--33,686;  WWII--291,557.  With larger percentages of the population dying due to lower overall US populations as time goes back.  (And the first in the list, we didn't even win.)

 

5.  One hundred thousand + Iraq dead and wounded.  

 

Correction:  Again, an inaccurate figure but this time an underestimation.  It was in all likelihood more like 100,000 Iraqis dead.  But counting the dead alone as a result of the war neglects to mention the number it saved.  UNICEF cited a figure of half a million Iraqi children alone dead as a result of sanctions, which ended with the US invasion (and which I'm sure you still approve of).  An estimated one million Shiites died at the hands of Sadaam Hussein over the course of ten years leading up to the war.  (That's one US-Iraq War per year over a decade.)  And let's not forget who died and who killed them.  Roughly half the dying was done by Iraqi insurgents/terrorists.  (A good thing in my book). While the vast majority of civilian deaths were at the hands of these these very same insurgent/terrorists.

 

6.  US military spent, its limits for all to see.

 

Correction:  If you consider winning both a limit on US military power, you're living in an upside-down world.  Add to that a general acknowledgement by world militaries that the US is by far the most well-tested in the world--and the importance that implies--along with an end to the cry that the US will just stick around a few years and then pull out ("cut and run") further increases our credibility.  Also, it puts the lie to European claims that they can provide for themselves.  Obviously they were pretty much rendered impotent.  Terrorists now know that if they mess with us, they are bound to see drones flying overhead--a strategy tested and honed in Iraq and Afghanistan--dropping bombs in their laps.  When you see terrorist organizations rushing to disavow any connection with the Boston bombings, that's a good thing.

(Cont.)