“Not the “muzzis.” The sunni muslims (Turkey and Saudi Arabia) from shiite muslims (Iran).
“Even most freepers still don’t get that distinction. And they still don’t understand that sunnis and shiites have killed more of each other than anyone else. By far.”
You can get too sophisticated sometimes. Most Freepers understand the difference between the two. The Saudi’s are Sunni’s and financed and manned 911 and have created a network of Madrassas and Mosques that are radicalizing Muslims all over the world. The Iranians are Shia’s and have desperately worked to undermine Iraq and took US hostages and fund Hezbollah and Hamas. Iraq is all mixed up etc.
Of course, I’m in favor of having them direct their destructive tendencies at each other instead of us. But basically, there is considerably less than a dime’s worth of difference from a standpoint of their threat to the US. So I’m not offended at all by the inclusive term. When the distinction is germane—ie playing one off against the other—then it’s sometimes a useful distinction.
But they all read the same Koran and worship the same demon. Their holy book tells them to conquer and subjugate the entire world. When they become Moslem Unitarians, maybe I’m not so opposed to letting them (as a group, no distinctions) play next to decent people.
Oh, I generally agree. Think I wasn’t clear about my point:
Obama isn’t defending the US or Europe here. If/when we attack Iran, he won’t be defending the US then.
He’ll be defending sunnis against shiites, and doing it by spending American treasure and blood. But the lestist will spin it as him defending the US. That’s what I want people to watch out for.
Now, all that said, a nuclear Iran cannot be permitted.