Netanyahu: Iran a threat to the world.

He gave evidence of a common theme though. You just seem to want to tar him with being a bigot.

Not made that claim, I was simply querying as I have stated numerous times. What evidence? nothing backed up and sourced, everything was opinionated. He uses quora as evidence which in fact went against what he was saying, from which I quoted from. Perhaps a bit of bias or prejudice creeped through on his statement or perhaps he was simply mistaken, I don't know. He compared Iran-Pakistan to Scotland-England which is ridiculous on so many levels its painful.



NO it wasn't, I knew you didn't understand the point...it was about the people, not the governments. And the region has a history of dispute, sectarianism and fighting. The books, references and academic papers I gave you to read all show this...it goes back over a thousand years, vastly pre-dating the counties of Iran or Pakistan..but indicative of ingrained prejudices and hatreds between the peoples of the region over hundreds of years. This is what Xordium was talking about when he said that the greatest threat with regard to Iran is the border with Pakistan...and the only actual fighting going on is on that border so I cannot see how that isn't actually indicative of what he said...and while both countries do attempt to combat the problems, they also surreptitiously support them...again this is indicative of the superficial nature of the relationship.

:D As I said, your go to mo.

Its not hard to see a shia / sunni issue, I just disagree that it has been a traditional issue between the two people historically or the two nations. You haven't provided a bead of evidence, the evidence is heavily against you including two polls on the general public, government to government level (which in a way represent the people too as governments do), a accepted source now as Quora and Reddit (I didn't bring them into acceptance) whilst you have sourced an irrelevant poll highly disputed and contradicted by two independent polls, "trust me mate" and random books you haven't even read yourself on irrelevant subjects or attempted to source from.

I told you then your links did no such thing, I asked you then to quote or source from them and also have stated this same thing in my last reply to you which you didn't. The border skirmishes are recent, the boluc are not with Pakistan or with Iran, they want their own thing. They are even ethnically different. And well he's wrong there too since the greatest threat to them is from arabs or infact israel, which you agree with and quite possibly Iraq now and certainly Iraq in the near past.

What part of

Pakistani forces inflicted heavy casualties on the separatists. The insurgency fell into decline after a return to the four-province structure and the abolishment of the Sardari system.

do you not understand?

Edit: I buy the way the Gullop polled 2168 people nationally all over country putting another nail into Zogbys poll.

and PEW
Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by province and urbanity
Adult population (excluding the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Jammu and Kashmir for security reasons, areas of instability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [formerly the North-West Frontier Province] and Baluchistan, military restricted areas and villages with less than 100 inhabitants – together, roughly 18% of the population). Disproportionately urban. The data were weighted to reflect the actual urbanity distribution in Pakistan.

Putting another nail in the coffin for your other point of it not being representative.
 
Last edited:

You are blind, you cannot see for the trees.

You assume I haven't even read the stuff I've offered...it's laughable. You accuse others of bias, yet your own is deemed acceptable...you recognise Shia/Sunni animosity but dismiss this as not being relevant, you focus on a single separatist operation, when its but one example of a history going back centuries, you rely on two small sample polls whilst dismissing academic papers, and a specialist 6 year study on the regional relationships...you dismiss an entire body of work simply because it doesn't agree with a position on Lebanon, which is irrelevant to the area we are speaking about...you cannot even see that the fighting that is demonstrably going on right now is indicative of general enmities in the region...that sectarianism heavily influences the attitudes and risks inherent in the region...that the increasing clashes and accusations between Iran and Pakistan are straining their relations on a broader scale and that these have been going on for the last 45 years, in part fuelled by traditional differences both cultural and religious.

Hell it's not even isolated to the Iranian Pakistani border....it's inherent in Pakistan..the government has limited influence in most of its border regions, with tribal leaders and militants holding sway...we see this not only on the Iranian border, but also Afghanistan ,Tajikistan and Kashmir. (And yes I know the Tajikistan border is occupied territory).

I'm not making this stuff up just to upset you, or because I hate Pakistanis or Muslims or any other such rubbish...I'm saying it because it's true, whether you like it or not.

You cannot even accept that your own evidence shows I was right about the Pew poll being disproportionately urban...it even tells you it is, and that impacts its reliability when we are referring to the area of the Persian/Indian border which is now Iran/Pakistan. You put the nail in your own coffin..ironically it doesn't even matter if it is representative, as it doesn't deal with actual issue underlying here or is it based on a 6 year study like the Zogby polling study (and the Zogby poll used over 20,000 people in 20 countries over a 6 year period, representing hundreds of thousands of responses.) which is that Xordium said the most immediate threat is on the Iranian border with Pakistan...and as that's where the fighting is and that's were the Iranian and Pakistanis are actually in dispute, he is right. The Saudis and Iranians are not fighting...in fact the Iranians are not fighting anyone other than on that border with Pakistan.

Other examples of these tensions are seen here:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/the-nuclear-implications-of-iran-pakistan-tensions/

Here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29752647

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-flare-along-iran-and-pakistans-dusty-border/

And so it goes on....

Essentially whatever you might think or what polls might or might not show, the reality is that there is some very serious tensions going on between Iran and Pakistan, and people are worried about it...very worried.
 
Last edited:
You are blind, you cannot see for the trees.

You assume I haven't even read the stuff I've offered...it's laughable. You accuse others of bias, yet your own is deemed acceptable...you recognise Shia/Sunni animosity but dismiss this as not being relevant, you focus on a single separatist operation, when its but one example of a history going back centuries, you rely on two small sample polls whilst dismissing academic papers, and a specialist 6 year study on the regional relationships...you dismiss an entire body of work simply because it doesn't agree with a position on Lebanon, which is irrelevant to the area we are speaking about...you cannot even see that the fighting that is demonstrably going on right now is indicative of general enmities in the region...that sectarianism heavily influences the attitudes and risks inherent in the region...that the increasing clashes and accusations between Iran and Pakistan are straining their relations on a broader scale and that these have been going on for the last 45 years, in part fuelled by traditional differences birth cultural and religious.

I'm not making this stuff up just to upset you, or because I hate Pakistanis or Muslims or any other such rubbish...I'm saying it because it's true, whether you like it or not.

Well why haven't you quoted and sourced from them anywhere even when asked literally half a dozen times? You presented for Christ's sake two huge books, do you think anyone rational isn't going to read two whole books? you complain about watching 10 min videos when Sliver slams them up every other day.

Its not my fault your poll has been questioned over its reliability on the very subject matter of favourable views, and is contradicted by two independent and larger studies that have gone on for years with correlating results. Your study poll doesn't even correlate with its own earlier poll 6 years before. Why blame me for problems I cant control. your dismissing two independent polls from equally respected pollsters because they fail to align with your views, that should be concerning to you.

Your putting to much emphasis on recent border skirmishes from separatists movements that effect both sides which both sides have worked on to crush and conflating that to fit within a false premise of the two nations being traditional foes. Even when everything documented says otherwise.

Quite frankly it looks like you've taken a position based on "trust me mate" and are not willing to retract even an inch, your usual mo.

You cannot even accept that your own evidence shows I was right about the Pew poll being disproportionately urban...it even tells you it is, and that impacts its reliability when we are referring to the area of the Persian/Indian border which is now Iran/Pakistan. You put the nail in your own coffin..ironically it doesn't even matter if it is representative, as it doesn't deal with actual issue underlying here or is it based on a 6 year study like the Zogby study (it's not just a poll, the poll is derived from the study which focus solely on Iran...not a global opinion poll like the Pew Attitude Poll), which is that Xordium said the most immediate threat is on the Iranian border with Pakistan...and as that's where the fighting is and that's were the Iranian and Pakistanis are actually in dispute, he is right. The Saudis and Iranians are not fighting...in fact the Iranians are not fighting anyone other than on that border with Pakistan.

In statistics, stratified sampling is a method of sampling from a population. In statistical surveys, when subpopulations within an overall population vary, it is advantageous to sample each subpopulation (stratum) independently.

The interest isn't of opinion in the border but the overall wider population in general so again you are wrong (its virtually impossible for them to majority poll Shia this way). And again the pew poll has been conducted over many successive years just like the Zogby, but isn't tarred with controversy and is backed up by another respected pollster of 2150 people!

Wrong again they are at war in Iraq as we speak for Christ's sake, the odd separatists attack from with their own border or from Pakistan's is small fry in the context of larger problems they face from a potential strike from Israel and the proxy struggle they are at with Saudi. Its bananas to think otherwise. Especially when you consider their only complaint is Pakistan's lack of ability to control its border rather than a deeper routed issue. For heavens sake they have worked on the issue for decades and completely stifled any border issues until the afghan war. Not to mention Syria where they are also involved with boots on the ground so wrong again...
 
Last edited:
Well why haven't you quoted and sourced from them anywhere even when asked literally half a dozen times? You presented for Christ's sake two huge books, do you think anyone rational isn't going to read two whole books? you complain about watching 10 min videos when Sliver slams them up every other day.

I explained why....the papers were short enough for you read in a few minutes and needed to be read in full to maintain the context...and the books were referenced at the points where relevant.

Its not my fault your poll has been questioned over its reliability on the very subject matter of favourable views, and is contradicted by two independent and larger studies that have gone on for years with correlating results. Your study poll doesn't even correlate with its own earlier poll 6 years before. Why blame me for problems I cant control. your dismissing two independent polls from equally respected pollsters because they fail to align with your views, that should be concerning to you.

I'm not even dismissing them...I'm saying they are global polls and the one I quoted is based solely on Iran and is important because it gives us the demographic data we require...the other polls do not...the poll is simply a supporting document for everything else to illustrate how the demographics of the region impact the issue locally...and that local issues can and do influence overall policy. Sometimes to the point of war.

Your putting to much emphasis on recent border skirmishes from separatists movements that effect both sides which both sides have worked on to crush and conflating that to fit within a false premise of the two nations being traditional foes. Even when everything documented says otherwise.

Everything documented supports what I'm saying Craterloads...everything. There is a traditional Shia/Sunni animosity, there is a traditional background of tribal tensions in the region that is now the Iran-Pak border. Read the supporting documents.

Quite frankly it looks like you've taken a position based on "trust me mate" and are not willing to retract even an inch, your usual mo.

If you say so...it's BS, but if you say so. :rolleyes:


The interest isn't of opinion in the border but the overall wider population in general so again you are wrong (its virtually impossible for them to majority poll Shia this way). And again the pew poll has been conducted over many successive years just like the Zogby, but isn't tarred with controversy and is backed up by another respected pollster of 2150 people!

Yawn...if your entire argument is based on two global polls who samples a couple of thousand people over the phone and with admitted disproportionality that warranted weighting, then it's pretty weak.

Wrong again they are at war in Iraq as we speak for Christ's sake, the odd separatists attack from with their own border or from Pakistan's is small fry in the context of larger problems they face from a potential strike from Israel and the proxy struggle they are at with Saudi. Its bananas to think otherwise. Especially when you consider their only complaint is Pakistan's lack of ability to control its border rather than a deeper routed issue. For heavens sake they have worked on the issue for decades and completely stifled any border issues until the afghan war.

Iran is not at war in Iraq. They are supporting militias against IS (as they are across the Middle East) but there is no direct Iranian action in Iraq against any nation, they are supporting the nations against an insurgency...unlike the border with Pakistan. The other issue is Iranian suspicions of collusion within Pakistan with Saudi Arabia, Again this is pointed out in the articles supplied.

And your opinion is not shared by any of the last three sources I supplied. In fact they are the opposite. You are underplaying the risks here, I have no idea why...probably due to some inherent bias you have. Who knows.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/iran-and-pakistans-coming-clash/

I'll quote it for you as you seem unable to use links and complain incessantly about it.

Iran and Pakistan appear to be on a collision course that will in all likelihood leave relations severely strained in the years ahead.

The most visible sign of strain in the bilateral relationship is also in many ways the least serious. Specifically, as my colleague Ankit noted, last month five Iranian border guards in Iran’s Sistan Baluchistan region were kidnapped by the Iran-based Sunni militant group Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice). However, according to the Iranian government, they were then brought to Pakistan and are being held in Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

In the immediate aftermath of the kidnappings, the Iranian government expressed indignation at the Pakistan government for its failure to do more to curb the tide of Sunni Islamists in the country. Iranian Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli went so far as to threaten to send Iranian troops into Pakistan to secure the border guards’ release.

This prompted Islamabad to respond by saying, “Iranian forces have no authority to cross our borders in violation of the international law. We must respect each other’s borders.” It also added, “The government of Pakistan regrets the suggestions of negligence on its part over the incident, especially when Pakistan’s active support against terrorists groups in the past is well-known and acknowledged by Iran.”

Tensions have largely subsided since then, however, even though the five border guards remain in captivity. Last week an Iranian spokesperson said: “Based on the information available, all abducted Iranian border guards are in good health.” Other Iranian officials confirmed that they were engaged in talks with Pakistani officials to secure the border guards’ release, and Tehran has said it hopes to return them to their families in the near future. Still, tensions over the border region will continue to periodically spark crises between Pakistan and Iran for the indefinite future.

A more serious flashpoint between Pakistan and Iran is taking place farther away in Syria. Specifically, numerous media outlets and private intelligence firms have confirmed that recent Pakistani-Saudi Arabian defense cooperation meetings have been aimed at reaching an agreement whereby Riyadh would purchase military arms from Islamabad for Syrian opposition forces. According to the reports, Saudi funds will be used to purchase Chinese shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles—among other weapons—that will be smuggled into Syria via Jordan.

Such a deal would place Pakistan and Iran closer to direct confrontation as Iranian troops and their Hezbollah allies have long been operating in Syria in an effort to shore up the Bashar al-Assad government. Should Pakistani supplied arms bring down an Iranian transport plane, for example, Tehran would be hard pressed not to retaliate against Pakistan in some fashion.

Besides being a potentially far more dangerous flashpoint, the dispute over Syria is likely to persist for two reasons. First, the Syrian civil war is unlikely to subside anytime soon. Certainly, it looks to continue long after the dispute over the border guards has run its course. Additionally, the Pakistani-Iranian collision course in Syria is in many ways a microcosm of the larger problems over Pakistan’s support for Saudi Arabia and Iran’s reaction to it. As Saudi Arabia and Iran’s longstanding rivalry likely intensifies in the coming years, Tehran is almost certain to become more concerned about Islamabad’s ties with Riyadh. This trianglular relationship is likely to have interesting implications for some of the world’s major powers, among them the United States, China and India. It’s one reason, among many, why Iran and China are likely to clash in the coming years and decades.

One battleground where this trianglular relationship in general, and the Pakistani-Iranian rivalry in particular, is likely to play itself out in the near future is Afghanistan. As Ankit and I discuss in some detail on the podcast this week, the withdrawal of NATO combat forces this year is likely to prompt regional powers like Iran, Pakistan, India, China and Russia to assert themselves in Kabul.

Pakistan and Iran have nearly diametrically opposed interests in Afghanistan, which will make it a prime contender for the biggest flashpoint in the bilateral relationship in the coming years. And Saudi Arabia and India will also be right in the middle of this flashpoint. China might also find itself getting pulled in as well.

Here is another requested quote from an earlier link that you wanted:

There is little common ground between Iran and Pakistan on a solution to the Afghan crisis, and history may repeat itself with both states once again funding proxy wars between Shi'a and Sunnis in each other's countries as well as in Afghanistan, increasing the likelihood of a major sectarian explosion in the region.

Communities of some five million Baluch tribesmen stretch across southwestern Pakistan and southeastern Iran. Baluchis on both sides of the border feel neglected, on sectarian grounds in Iran and on ethnic grounds in Pakistan, and nationalist sentiments have long simmered, sometimes erupting into open insurrection.[26] While the shah helped the Pakistani army crush Baluch insurgencies in the days prior to his ouster, today insurgency has again erupted with both Pakistani and Iranian officials accusing each other of aiding the insurgents. Tehran has also repeatedly accused the U.S. Special Forces of using their bases in Pakistan to pursue undercover operations inside Iran designed to foment Baluch opposition to the Islamic regime.[27] In June 2008, Jundallah terrorists, an insurgent Baluchi group operating from Pakistan, kidnapped sixteen members of Iran's paramilitary Law Enforcement Forces (niru-ye entezami) and, over the course of months, executed all of their hostages.[28] Tehran blames the Pakistani government for sheltering the group even though Pakistan has also declared Jundallah to be a terrorist organization and, on occasion, Pakistani troops have killed Jundallah terrorists.[29]

Sectarian tension has also complicated relations. In the 1980s, several radical groups sponsored by Pakistani intelligence[30] began a systematic assault on Shi'i symbols and mosques in Pakistan. Pakistani Shi'a, with Iranian assistance, responded by forming their own militias. The continued targeting by Sunni terrorists of Pakistani Shi'a remains an Iranian concern.[31] This Shi'i-Sunni strife in Pakistan has provoked Iran to provide clandestine support to its co-religionists there.[32]

However, Pakistan and Iran have worked to improve security cooperation. In 2001, the two states established the Pakistan-Iran Joint Ministerial Commission on Security to enhance cooperation on security issues such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and sectarian violence. Top Iranian political and intelligence officials regularly engage their Pakistani counterparts, but engagement does not necessarily equate to trust.

The nuclear issue also complicates Pakistani-Iranian ties. Pakistani and Western officials sometimes say that Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadir Khan operated outside the law when he provided assistance to Tehran's nuclear weapons program; however, evidence also suggests that the Pakistani military was not only aware of Khan's nuclear transactions with Iran but also tacitly approved of his activities.[33] Nevertheless, there remains a sense of rivalry between Islamabad and Tehran on the nuclear issue, given Pakistan's unique position as the sole Muslim country with the bomb. Interestingly, one of the drivers of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is fear of a "Sunni bomb." Rumors of an oil-for-nukes pact between Riyadh and Islamabad have exacerbated such concerns. [34]

http://www.meforum.org/2119/pakistan-and-irans-dysfunctional-relationship

And another:

Iran says the jihadis enjoy support not only from Saudi Arabia and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, but also from the Inter-Services Intelligence branch of the Pakistani military.

Pakistani officials say they are overwhelmed by internal security problems, and securing the border with Iran is not a top priority.

Perhaps most importantly, the Sunni jihadists attacking Iran have deep ties with politically connected opium smugglers, men flush with billions of dollars who despise the Iranians for their own reasons.

Before it was split between Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, Baluchistan spread over an area slightly larger than California. The 650-mile Iran-Pakistan border drawn by the British in 1871 starts at the Arabian Sea, cutting through rugged mountains and dry riverbeds, into open desert at a point where the frontiers of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan touch.

The Baluch in Iran do not speak Farsi but Baluchi, just like the Baluch in Pakistan, and in Iran they are a Sunni minority. Instead of the Western-style men’s apparel popular in Tehran, the Baluch in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province dress in shalwar kameez like their counterparts in Pakistan. Many still have family on both sides of the border, and culture is not the only thing they have in common: The Baluch in Iran and Pakistan share a troubled, often violent, relationship with their rulers.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ded-secret-war-between-iran-and-pakistan.html

Why you couldn't just read the damned things I have no idea...do I really need to quote everything I reference? Really?

One of the biggest problems is the Pakistani government t itself, which is not a unified government but an umbrella of widely disparate interests, each trying to do its own thing, alliances are all over the place, one part of the Govt might be fighting against the Separatists (or whomever) while another part is supporting them...not to mention the whole Saudi-Iran proxy war that is rumoured to be fuelled by Pakistani interests.
 
Last edited:
I explained why....the papers were short enough for you read in a few minutes and needed to be read in full to maintain the context...and the books were referenced at the points where relevant.

So you couldn't source from them after all.

I'm not even dismissing them...I'm saying they are global polls and the one I quoted is based solely on Iran and is important because it gives us the demographic data we require...the other polls do not...the poll is simply a supporting document for everything else to illustrate how the demographics of the region impact the issue locally...and that local issues can and do influence overall policy. Sometimes to the point of war.

It doesn't matter if its solely on Iran because the individual polls of all are. We don't need demographic date if the polls have been administered properly and are representative of the nation, which is what matters and they are using the methodology they have.

Everything documented supports what I'm saying Craterloads...everything. There is a traditional Shia/Sunni animosity, there is a traditional background of tribal tensions in the region that is now the Iran-Pak border. Read the supporting documents.

The same border Pakistan has had issues from by separatists that oppose it and Iran. Hence why they crushed resistance together because it effected both of them negatively. It isn't a one way thing.


Yawn...if your entire argument is based on two global polls then it's pretty weak.

It isn't, its based on many varied sources and personal experience and of others and by the not so compelling argument you have made so far.

Iran is not at war in Iraq. They are supporting militias against IS (as they are across the Middle East) but there is no direct Iranian action in Iraq...unlike the border with Pakistan. The other issue is Iranian suspicions of collusion within Pakistan with Saudi Arabia, Again this is pointed out in the articles supplied.

So are ghosts piloting Iranian combat aircrafts? And leading squads of the revolutionary guards in Syria where many have died? if you are not even willing to retract on simple easily provable facts, then what hope do I have in the broader context of the discussion.

And your opinion is not shared by any of the last three sources I supplied. In fact they are the opposite. You are underplaying the risks here, I have no idea why...probably due to some inherent bias you have. Who knows.

Why? I'm aware of the border spats, its unfortunate and annoying for both sides and from what I've read its been managed over the recent years. Are Iran getting a bit tried of Pakistan's incompetence, yes. Does that make them traditional foes? no. These issues developed in the 90s, traditional foes usually spans centuries. Which is the crux of the discussion.

Here is another requested quote from an earlier link that you wanted:

Exactly, post Afghanistan as I have said all along. Your articles support what I had said all along, issues arised when Afghanistan became a issue, you are welcome to back to my first few posts to see. Not so much traditional foes, and it also mentions pak supplying iran with nuclear help, you simply unequivocally don't do that with sworn enemies.

And another:

And again a boluc issue who are neither Iranian or Pakistani and again a recent issue one at that.

These don't support your traditional longstanding and historical foe argument. Your were supposed to show long standing issues through the ages prior to 1947 spanning back well before that hundred of years. That was what you claimed, that's what I asked you quote, now I know why you didn't.
 
Last edited:
So you couldn't source from them after all.

Err.....

It doesn't matter if its solely on Iran because the individual polls of all are. We don't need demographic date if the polls have been administered properly and are representative of the nation, which is what matters and they are using the methodology they have.

Ignoring the point. So irrelevant to the point I'm discussing, which requires demographics, particularly in a fractured society like Pakistan.

The same border Pakistan has had issues from by separatists that oppose it and Iran. Hence why they crushed resistance together because it effected both of them negatively. It isn't a one way thing.

No it's not and that you recognise that on,u supports what I've stated.

It isn't, its based on many varied sources and personal experience and of others and by the not so compelling argument you have made so far.

Yet the only academic and current evidence has been produced by myself. You gave the wiki page which has issues and two polls.

So are ghosts piloting Iranian combat aircrafts? And leading squads of the revolutionary guards in Syria where many have died? if you are not even willing to retract on simple easily provable facts, then what hope do I have in the broader context of the discussion.

As I said they are not fight a nation, but supporting the nations against an insurgency. That is not what is happening on the Iran-Pak border.

Why? I'm aware of the border spats, its unfortunate and annoying for both sides and from what I've read its been managed over the recent years. Are Iran getting a bit tried of Pakistan's incompetence, yes. Does that make them traditional foes? no. These issues developed in the 90s, traditional foes usually spans centuries. Which is the crux of the discussion.

So the Shia/Sunni issues only began in the 1990s? Really?

Did you read anything...even if we only limit ourselves to the Julluah, which you want to do, that began before the shah was ousted. And if we look at the region, the tensions were inherent under ottoman and British rule. The tensions predate the actual governments and nations themselves. If you bothered reading the material you would see why. Persia and India (which were the entities prior to the creation of the modern nations) were indeed traditional foes, going back millennia, not only centuries. So there is an indisputable history here.

The tensions between Iran and Pakistan directly (as opposed to being localised concerns between local partisan groups) began almost 40 years ago:

Pakistan’s tradition of Sunni-Shia solidarity continued for its first two decades and its relations with Iran were based on political, not religious concerns. However, things began to change in the late 1970s when sectarian concerns began to become important. After the military overthrow of Pakistan’s civilian government in 1977 by Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan began to drift towards Sunni-directed Islamization. Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution turned it into an explicit Shia state and had the effect of making Pakistan even more explicitly Sunni as Shias were seen as a fifth column.



S
These don't support your traditional longstanding and historical foe argument. Your were supposed to show long standing issues through the ages prior to 1947 spanning back well before that hundred of years. That was what you claimed, that's what I asked you quote, now I know why you didn't.

Im beginning to think you are either intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid, you wonder why I want you to read the links rather than selectively quote...so you can get the context of the antagonism..

Here a part of the history supplied before that you did bother reading:

Even as Sunnis triumphed politically in the Muslim world, Shias continued to look to the Imams—the blood descendants of Ali and Husayn—as their legitimate political and religious leaders. Even within the Shia community, however, there arose differences over the proper line of succession. Mainstream Shias believe there were twelve Imams. Zaydi Shias, found mostly in Yemen, broke off from the majority Shia community at the fifth Imam, and sustained imamate rule in parts of Yemen up to the 1960s. Ismaili Shias, centered in South Asia but with important diaspora communities throughout the world, broke off at the seventh Imam. Ismailis revere the Aga Khan as the living representative of their Imam. The majority of Shias, particularly those in Iran and the eastern Arab world, believe that the twelfth Imam entered a state of occultation, or hiddenness, in 939 and that he will return at the end of time. Since then, “Twelvers,” or Ithna Ashari Shias, have vested religious authority in their senior clerical leaders, called ayatollahs (Arabic for “sign of God”).

Many Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian converts to Islam chose to become Shia rather than Sunni in the early centuries of the religion as a protest against the ethnic Arab empires that treated non-Arabs as second-class citizens. Their religions influenced the evolution of Shia Islam as distinct from Sunni Islam in rituals and beliefs.

Sunnis dominated the first nine centuries of Islamic rule (excluding the Shia Fatimid dynasty) until the Safavid dynasty was established in Persia in 1501. The Safavids made Shia Islam the state religion, and over the following two centuries they fought with the Ottomans, the seat of the Sunni caliphate. As these empires faded, their battles roughly settled the political borders of modern Iran and Turkey by the seventeenth century, and their legacies resulted in the current demographic distribution of Islam’s sects. Shias comprise a majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, and a plurality in Lebanon, while Sunnis make up the majority of more than forty countries from Morocco to Indonesia.

There is a lot more to it, including the Mughal invasions through India, the Arab conquests again within that region...the conversion to Islam and then the oppression of Zoroastrianism in the same region...all this contributes to the historical enmities that these nations inherited.

Other links that illustrate and give history behind this :

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_conquest/islamic_conquest.php

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/mughalempire_1.shtml

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/afsharids/afsharids.php

We could go on and on...but to ignore the historical turmoil of the region and its impact on the modern turmoil is daft.

Ignore it if you want, but it's true nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

Its true, and with your last edit you have and unfortunately it doesn't say what you claimed it did.

Ignoring the point. So irrelevant to the point I'm discussing, which requires demographics, particularly in a fractured society like Pakistan.

It doesn't if the poll methodology is correct and is representative of Pakistan, we want a general view of the feeling. you claimed it not valid because it must have strictly asked Shias in Pakistan on how they felt about Iran hence the favourable score, but given the methodology its impossible to do what you claim.

No it's not and that you recognise that on,u supports what I've stated.

Well it is, hence why they are separatists groups. Hence why they operated in unison earlier on.

Yet the only academic and current evidence has been produced by myself. You gave the wiki page which has issues and two polls.

Documented history on governmental level, social populous level. You initially said trust me mate, and the articles you have supplied don't even back up what you claim they do. Your last source the diplomat isthe first google hit, academic papers... And the papers you did supply were all post 1947 and still are.

As I said they are not fight a nation, but supporting the nations against an insurgency. That is not what is happening on the Iran-Pak border.

Who do Iranian revolutionaries guards represent? Norway? They are Iranians fighting on the ground and dying, you were incorrect, just accept it. If anything right now loosing Syria or Iraq has massive consequences for Iran hence why they are pumping billions of dollars, weapons and men at them. Lobbing a few rockets at each other in brief isolated skirmishes doesn't come close.


So the Shia/Sunni issues on,y began in the 1990s? Did you read anything...if we only limit ourselves to the Julluah, which you want to do, that began before the shah was ousted. And if we look at the region, the tensions were inherent under ottoman and British rule. The tensions predate the actual governments and nations themselves. If you bothered reading the material you would see why. Persia and India (which were the entities prior to the creation of the modern nations) were indeed traditional foes, going back millennia, not only centuries. So there is an indisputable history here.

Between Pakistan and Iran, yes. The soviet afghan war was a catalyst as both sides wanted different things in iran, its documented history.

None of your sources which you claimed mention ottoman or British rule, they all say just like I said issues began during the soviet-afghan war. I can quote you me saying that in the very first few posts. Pakistan and Iran are not traditional foes, in the sense of what traditional foes are.

Pakistan / india are no more, two independent countries.

Im beginning to think you are either intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid, you wonder why I want you to read the links rather than selectively quote...so you can get the context of the antagonism..

Here a part of the history supplied before that you did bother reading:

Its talking about sunni / shia disputes which I have said exist, but do not / did not encompass Pakistan - iran relations through their brief history. and arab / Persian disputes which are irrelavent. The issue is Iran and Pakistan or their peoples.

Even as Sunnis triumphed politically in the Muslim world, Shias continued to look to the Imams—the blood descendants of Ali and Husayn—as their legitimate political and religious leaders. Even within the Shia community, however, there arose differences over the proper line of succession. Mainstream Shias believe there were twelve Imams. Zaydi Shias, found mostly in Yemen, broke off from the majority Shia community at the fifth Imam, and sustained imamate rule in parts of Yemen up to the 1960s. Ismaili Shias, centered in South Asia but with important diaspora communities throughout the world, broke off at the seventh Imam. Ismailis revere the Aga Khan as the living representative of their Imam. The majority of Shias, particularly those in Iran and the eastern Arab world, believe that the twelfth Imam entered a state of occultation, or hiddenness, in 939 and that he will return at the end of time. Since then, “Twelvers,” or Ithna Ashari Shias, have vested religious authority in their senior clerical leaders, called ayatollahs (Arabic for “sign of God”).

Many Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian converts to Islam chose to become Shia rather than Sunni in the early centuries of the religion as a protest against the ethnic Arab empires that treated non-Arabs as second-class citizens. Their religions influenced the evolution of Shia Islam as distinct from Sunni Islam in rituals and beliefs.

Sunnis dominated the first nine centuries of Islamic rule (excluding the Shia Fatimid dynasty) until the Safavid dynasty was established in Persia in 1501. The Safavids made Shia Islam the state religion, and over the following two centuries they fought with the Ottomans, the seat of the Sunni caliphate. As these empires faded, their battles roughly settled the political borders of modern Iran and Turkey by the seventeenth century, and their legacies resulted in the current demographic distribution of Islam’s sects. Shias comprise a majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, and a plurality in Lebanon, while Sunnis make up the majority of more than forty countries from Morocco to Indonesia.

All this is a general overview of Shia / Sunni relation's
 
Last edited:
your talking about sunni / shia disputes, and arab / Persian disptes. The issue is Iran and Pakistan or their peoples.

You'd like it to be as simple and black and white as that...but as the Middle Eastern turmoil right now illustrates...in reality it's not. The problems go back centuries...but hey, in Craterloads world the Muslim world is a happy unified place...Pakistan is a stable country with a stable government in full control of its borders, no one is suppressed, everyone is happy and the Sunni and Shias are really just all friends, and Iran and Pakistan are just being playful when they kill each other or lock each other up...:rolleyes:

As for the rest, you are repeating yourself and ignoring valid explanations as to why your thinking is flawed, particularly in how you are representing poll data to appeal to a fractured government and society or that there is a significant difference in supporting a nation in defending itself from an insurgency and actually fighting against a nation. You did exactly what I said you would when I began to quote from sources...which shows your views are fixed, you don't even look at the evidence or reasoning supplied, you would rather just exert your own point of view, no matter how unrepresentative or naive it may be. That's why I offered the links so you could read the stuff in the context and with the full background supplied, not just snippets for you to opine about.

Anyway...I'm bored, believe whatever you want. Personally I think you're blinded by prejudice and naivety who would disagree with God himself if he came down from the heavens and told you the truth...but what do I know, I'm just an evil child killer according to you, which tells me all I need to know about you quite frankly.
 
Last edited:
You'd like it to be as simple and black and white as that...but as the Middle Eastern turmoil right now illustrates...in reality it's not. The problems go back centuries...but hey, in Craterloads world the Muslim world is a happy unified place...Pakistan is a stable country with a stable government in full control of its borders, no one is suppressed, everyone is happy and the Sunni and Shias are really just all friends, and Iran and Pakistan are just being playful when they kill each other or lock each other up...:rolleyes: .

Your just having a spasm now, as never said anything remotely like that during this debate. Quote me where if you feel? Ive simply stated they aren't traditional foes, which they aren't and the borders spats aren't something to be quaking in your boots about, which they aren't especially given whats happening around thm. Ive been quite consistent, so not sure how you conflated that with the drivel you've written above,

As for the rest, you are repeating yourself and ignoring valid explanations as to why your thinking is flawed, particularly in how you are representing poll data to appeal to a fractured government and society or that there is a significant difference in supporting a nation in defending itself from an insurgency and actually fighting against a nation.

My thinking is fine, its yours that is flawed since its based on arguably flawed data! you made erroneous claims why you thought my two independent polls data was flawed but the methodology rules that out. Don't like it, tough.

its not fighting against a nation for cheese sake, here look this is the problem you have conflated recent and very limited borders spats as "fighting a nation" if you needed to see where the problem is its here, and its blatantly obvious the Iraq and Syria situations is leagues ahead in seriousness.

Anyway...I'm bored, believe whatever you want. Personally I think you're blinded by prejudice and naivety who would disagree with God himself if he came down from the heavens and told you the truth...but what do I know, I'm just an evil child killer according to you, which tells me all I need to know about you quite frankly.

Ive been bored for a while now. And I think your too stubborn to retract or admit mistake ever, as proven by numerous obvious points in this discussion were you go around in circles instead of just saying "hey you know I got that wrong" Like trying to pass off Washington Posts writers personal comments as those of PEWs or claiming iran isn't fighting anywhere apart from the pak border when they are heavily involved in Iraq or Syria etc the lists goes on. I don't think you are a evil child killer, I in fact think you are a very good poster and morally sound 99% of the time.

Good night
 
Last edited:
Seems like typical Wahhabis ignorance of historical truth to me...which doesn't surprise me. You can't seem to understand simple differences and nuances in how facts are applied. Fighting between Iran and Pakistan is not the same as supporting an ally against a non-state insurgency, I was very clear about that...but you misrepresent that...as you did with the Washington post...it was a press release...it was repeated across the ticker and picked up by numerous outlets...and as I said, even if it wasn't..it's point was still valid and pertinent. And, yeah you did call me all kinds of pretty reprehensible names at one time, including accusing me of killing muslim children...the thread was deleted, but the argument in which you insulted me you started again, if I recall it was about whether Muslims were allowed to celebrate Mawlid.

As far as the polls, it's tough on you, because the Pew methodology States it's was predominantly urban, and it needed to be weighted against it...which means that it isn't as representative in the region under discussion as the poll I used simply because that was conducted demographically in the region itself.

Every single news source dealing with the border fighting and the political and diplomatic issues surrounding it all agree that it is indicative of a serious tension between Iran and Pakistan...one which is likely to increase as Pakistan gets involved in Syria and moves closer to Saudi Arabia...not to mention a resurgence of divergent interests in Afghanistan...

Essentially when you look at the evidence, Xordium is right...we ignore what's happening between Iran and Pakistan at our peril...like examples in the Balkans and elsewhere, often wars can start when local enmities and historical differences spark a wider conflict.
 
Last edited:
Seems like typical Wahhabis ignorance of historical truth to me...which doesn't surprise me..

Surely that would be me jumping at the chance of engaging iran given one side has nukes, not to mention Pakistan isn't Wahhabi and makes little sense in the scope of things.

As far as the polls, it's tough on you, because the Pew methodology States it's was predominantly urban, and it needed to be weighted against it...which means that it isn't as representative in the region under discussion as the poll I used simply because that was conducted demographically in the region itself.

It represented all sub groups and made that clear, you poll was from a dodgy study. mine was backed up by an independent 2nd study confirming accuracy.

Every single news source dealing with the border fighting and the political and diplomatic issues surrounding it all agree that it is indicative of a serious tension between Iran and Pakistan...one which is likely to increase as Pakistan gets involved in Syria and moves closer to Saudi Arabia...not to mention a resurgence of divergent interests in Afghanistan...

Interest in Afghanistan have been divergent for a while now, as I told you before and its were the main issues began. Sorry I don't feel border spats over boluc separatists , and rare and recent ones are that of all encompassing issue here.

Essentially when you look at the evidence, Xordium is right...we ignore what's happening between Iran and Pakistan at our peril.

You've provided very little of that to be frank, and lets not forget the arguments was Pakistan and iran are traditional enemies. Everything so far says otherwise. Infact they are allies for the most part, and the people see each other favourably for the most part too.

I think my position is the responsible one to be honest, claiming peoples don't hate other and don't see each other as enemies surely is the way forward, rather than trying to create false divides when historically the two nations have worked closely together. you do not supply your suppose arch enemy with nuke tech.
 
Last edited:
Surely that would be me jumping at the chance of engaging iran given one side has nukes, not to mention Pakistan isn't Wahhabi and makes little sense in the scope of things.

I didn't say it was...you are.

It represented all sub groups and made that clear, you poll was from a dodgy study. mine was backed up by an independent 2nd study confirming accuracy.

It was extrapolated. And no, it really wasn't, the AAI is a credible and recognised think tank, just as is Pew..they may disagree on their polls, but then there polls were conducted differently and with different perspectives...pew is a global poll...the AAI was a long term study of attitudes toward Iran by 20 regional nations separated by demographic data. One doesn't cancel the other, no matter how much you might want it to..neither do disagreements over the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon or whether changing attitudes to Iranian support for Assad on Lebanese policies impact the data on Iran-Pak relations.

Interest in Afghanistan have been divergent for a while now, as I told you before and its were the main issues began. Sorry I don't feels border spats, and rare and recent ones are that are the all encompassing issue here.

Which is how wars start...that's the point...all these sources are saying this is just the latest in a litany of incidents since the 1970s showing a fracturing of Iran-Pak relations.

You've provided very little of that to be frank, and lets not forget the arguments was Pakistan and iran are traditional enemies. Everything so far says otherwise. Infact they are allies for the most part, and the people see other favourably for the most part too.

Only because you are wilfully ignoring it...as you are wilfully ignoring the point that we were referring to the border regions.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it was...you are.

doesn't make any sense in the negative context you implied. Wahhabi would surely have no delusion iran is an enemy.

lol ffs its 5.30 in the morning and we have been at this for way too long.

Can we for the 3rd time just agree to disagree, and leave each other alone for at least a week :p
 
Last edited:
doesn't make any sense in the negative context you implied. Wahhabi would surely have no delusion iran is an enemy.

It relates to Wahhabi revisionism, not its political affectations.

Anyway, I'll let Xordium disabuse you instead...I'm bored of the conversation.

The ironic thing is that until I actually researched this, I was more in agreement t with you, that local tensions were immaterial...I argued it with Xordium (might have been this thread, but it was recently) because I was more of the opinion that Saudi was the greater threat...but when you really look at it...the whole Iran-Pak relationship is very superficial and dependant on mutual threats to them both...threats that have been diminishing since the 1970s and therefore my opinion altered according to the evidence....which shows a gradual, but real disintegration of relations fuelled by sectarianism and traditional rivalries that are historical to the region, at least in part....another reason is Pakistans relationship with Saudi Arabia, Saudi funding of Pakistans nuclear program which Iran considers Saudi effectively having access to nuclear weapons and the spread of Sunni Salafism through the region.

So a complex situation, but one where Xordium has noted the primary flash point.

The problem with the Pew Poll also is an issue you refuse to recognise. With the think tank itself stating that it is disproportionately urban, and did not survey many regions in Pakistan, including the region under discussion (citing security concerns), at best it is extrapolated to be 82% representative, with a quite large margin of error (+-4.2) with even greater errors of margin in the subsets extrapolated to account for the regions (quite a large portion of the demographic) to be accounted for.

Results for the survey in Pakistan are based on 1,203 face-to-face interviews with adults 18 and older, between April 15 and May 7, 2014. Interviews were conducted in Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi, Saraiki or Sindhi. The survey is representative of roughly 82% of the adult population. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Jammu and Kashmir were excluded for security reasons as were areas of instability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the North-West Frontier Province) and Baluchistan. The survey is based on a multi-stage, area probability design stratified by province and urbanity. The primary sampling units were cities and villages. The sample is disproportionately urban but the data are weighted to reflect the actual urban/rural distribution in Pakistan.

The margin of sampling error is ±4.2 percentage points. For the results based on the full sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus the margin of error. The margin of error is larger for results based on subsamples in the survey. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Your second poll did not include Iran in its sampling data as Iran did not participate in the poll.
 
Last edited:
well it seems he's just pointed out that some Persians think Pakistanis are dirty/illiterate*

Thank you for reading what I read rather than implying something else. I posted a link - in that link that opinion was expressed.

Of course other people can read more into that if they so wish. The fact individuals, with certain roots, carry the point in question on so vehemently is somewhat ironical.
 
Thank you for reading what I read rather than implying something else. I posted a link - in that link that opinion was expressed.

Of course other people can read more into that if they so wish. The fact individuals, with certain roots, carry the point in question on so vehemently is somewhat ironical.

You expressed an opinion that no one in your link expressed, whether it's your opinIon or what the majority of Persians think only God knows.

What do you expect me and crater to do when you constantly consistently vehemently rail against a certain ethnic group?

Either you do it on purpose to get a reaction or you really have bigoted views.
 
You expressed an opinion that no one in your link expressed, whether it's your opinIon or what the majority of Persians think only God knows.

What do you expect me and crater to do when you constantly consistently vehemently rail against a certain ethnic group?

Either you do it on purpose to get a reaction or you really have bigoted views.

How about these from the link I posted and was referring to:

"I'm Iranian. I arrived in Islamabad on business sometime in the summer of 1996. I was supposed to spend a few days there, as well as a few in Karachi. On the way to a meeting from the airport, the taxi was stopped in traffic. I looked to my right and a man was walking on the sidewalk. In the next 60 seconds or so, I watched him pull down his Shalwar, defecate just off the sidewalk on a patch of dirt, pull up the pants, with one-kick throw some dirt over the lump he had left, and continue walking as if nothing had happened. I was shocked frozen and turned my face to see the embarrassed cab driver look at me with an apologetic face, tilting his head. I asked him to take me back to the airport, where I threw up in the public bathroom. Never attended or rescheduled that meeting, didn't go to Karachi. Left the country to go back to Mumbai vowing to never return and still haven't. Needless to say, my views on Pakistan have a major bias."

"Unfortunately for most of the Iranians , they are too religious to be friend with them. I met several of them and try to be friend with them. They all the time talk about Islam and it seems their life has only one dimension."

"2 things:
First, they really don't care about hygiene."

You may want to re-consider what you said there.
 
How about these from the link I posted and was referring to:

"I'm Iranian. I arrived in Islamabad on business sometime in the summer of 1996. I was supposed to spend a few days there, as well as a few in Karachi. On the way to a meeting from the airport, the taxi was stopped in traffic. I looked to my right and a man was walking on the sidewalk. In the next 60 seconds or so, I watched him pull down his Shalwar, defecate just off the sidewalk on a patch of dirt, pull up the pants, with one-kick throw some dirt over the lump he had left, and continue walking as if nothing had happened. I was shocked frozen and turned my face to see the embarrassed cab driver look at me with an apologetic face, tilting his head. I asked him to take me back to the airport, where I threw up in the public bathroom. Never attended or rescheduled that meeting, didn't go to Karachi. Left the country to go back to Mumbai vowing to never return and still haven't. Needless to say, my views on Pakistan have a major bias."

"Unfortunately for most of the Iranians , they are too religious to be friend with them. I met several of them and try to be friend with them. They all the time talk about Islam and it seems their life has only one dimension."

"2 things:
First, they really don't care about hygiene."

You may want to re-consider what you said there.

A few quotes out of the many that were there, each on it's own discussing the two opinions you expressed.

Neither combined one in a single line the way you did, way to bring your petty sectarianism into a thread where the leader of a nuclear powered country has constantly been during his reign trying to get an organised campaign to destroy Iranian infrastructure.

Keep bending over to those who want your utter destruction and ruin. While Sunni and Shia slaughter each other, all real danger to Israel is eliminated.

Iran or Pakistan are not best friends neither now or in the foreseeable future, as this Shia Sunni war continues things will get worse. There might be some hostility from a few arrogant Persians and of course the other side will retaliate but it's not a existential threat.

A petty thing compared to the real nightmares of the region. But carry on making it bigger than it is.
 
There were 11 post. I've selected just 3 out of those 11. A minute ago when said no-one now you agree there are 3. So are you wilfully misrepresenting things or can you just not read ...

"have heard only very biased and horrible things about Pakistanis"

"Less civilized people live in crowded cities in bad conditions(like Karachi) or small village with low life quality."

". But to me, Pakistan is the root of almost every trouble that happens to its neighbours (Iran, India, Afghanistan). A spoiled country with a really inherently corrupt government that uses suicide bombers and terorists to negotiate in its diplomatric relations. A full package of dirty politics and diplomacy."

There's another 3 so we are up to 6 out of 11 ... so I detailed a view over half of the people posting there felt. And yet you said no-one and then attacked me saying I had made it up ...
 
That opinion was not expressed in the way you expressed it.

No one said dirty and illiterate zealots that came directly from you.

Post whatever you want from that website, your words were your own indicating your own bigotry. Poke people and you will get reactions, even toddlers know this.
 
Back
Top Bottom