How long have the Sunnis and Shi'ites been Muslim?

Well the Shia/Sunni conflict goes back to a few years after the death of Mohammad when conflict arose about who was to be the next caliph. One group favored Abu Bakr (Sunnis).. These muslims had a more democratic approach.

The caliph was to be chosen by the people from a panel of qualified leaders. THe SHias ont he other hand ( in keeping with tradition of the time ) supported ALi as the caliph ( he eventually became the FOURTH caliph ) based on his blood ties with mohammad. Likewise after Ali, Muawiya was elected caliph by the Sunnis, while the Shias supported Mohammad's grandsons Hassan and Hussein.

This led to armed conflict between the two groups during which Hassan and Hussein were killed in battle at Kerbala in Iraq.

The rift is OLD.. Since then another 71 distinct sects have popped up over the course of history.

Anyhow Antithesis is right. ALL ORGANIZED religion has been intolerant and violent at some point in their history. It is the basic nature of "god's bureaucracy" ( the clergy ) to consolidate their power by identifying a common enemy ( usually another denomination or religion.

That is not the fault of any religion in itself, but rather the "salvation mongers" that twist their stated religion to suit their needs, while disallowing anybody else from doing so.

Like how the catholic church approved of the inquisition.. or when catholics and protestants were alternately slaughtered in England.. or when a muslim cleric will offer heaven to anybody who blows themselves up ( of course they themselves NEVER get their hands dirty).

The weakest link in any organized religion is not the theology.. it is the application of theological principles by humans that is fucked up.

All the countries you mention were invading other countries. This has nothing to do with Saddam! Once again I am not sticking up for him but don't compare a country that was put in it's place during desert storm and not invading anyone to countries that were invading others. No comparision. Al Quada was not in Iraq and we don't belong there now.

So you're admitting that there has been violence and bloodshed - as a regular practice - since the BEGINNING of Islam.

Thank you.

I think you're a nice guy. I really do. But I think your "core" religion is mis-guided, violent and heading the wrong direction.

Why didn't Saddam comply with repeated UN Resolutions?
Why didn't Saddam allow weapons inspectors full access?


Hmmmmm... Perhaps pondering these things would help jar the memory of some people.

He didn't want to get caught, and he didn't want to worsen the sanctions. The country was already suffering financially, and his capabilities were limited. He had weapons, but you're missing a BIG problem.

Making chemical and biological weapons costs quite a lot of money in research, development, and manufacture. Add in some rather costly materials, facilities specifically set up to build the weapons, and on top of all of that wages and insurance. Now, in order to balance the cost while making a profit, they would need to sell all of those weapons at high prices and assume that the terrorists they supposedly had links to would have the money to pay for them when, in fact, most were local zealots and anti-government forces whose funds were low, and none of the major groups who could actually afford one like Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda, wanted to deal with Saddam anyway.

What's the only other alternative without a mode to move the weapons? Keep them for yourself just in case, the same tactic the United States used in the Cold War (except we didn't try to sell them at first).

You should have posted this in the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum.

Oh, and why is that? Because I saw that something wasn't possible and narrowed down what it could have been? Don't compare this to that 9/11 conspiracy bullshit, because this is actually plausible.

Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.


Do you actually believe everything you read in the National Enquirer?

Nope. Don't believe much out of your moth, either. So do you actually have an argument or are you just gonna keep saying it's false without proof?