Reply #128: I meant cut and paste the relevant short bits, as was perfectly obvious.

[Baconfoot]

Since I read the same articles you did, you must know they don't support your claims. If I had the time to address each of your links I would do so, for various reasons having to do with how I feel about the nature of what I identified the second of the two issues you are conflating. However, I can't spend more than a few minutes on it.

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=2440 doesn't talk about what I identified as the second of the two issues you are conflating at all.
It is the second issue people are harping on you about. You have extremely good points with respect to the first issue, but not with respect to the second and it is only the second issue which I addressed at all in my original post.

Neither does http://www.shianews.com/hi/middle_east/news_id/0001055.php

Nor does
http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/531/p6c.html

Nor does
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles360.htm
Indeed, having read the article, I might have quoted in defense of my position with respect to what I identified as the second of the two issues you are conflating the the very same sentence you yourself quoted in defense of your position. "But I ask myself why the Americans are rubbing this Sunni-Shia thing so hard." Though Fisk never talks directly about , if he were on your side of it his words "this Sunni-Shia thing" might not even have a referent.

The quote you give from:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:rsgCZYT0tvEJ:paknews.com/editorials.php%3Fid%3D2%26date1%3D2004-06-25+a+Sunni-Shia+divide+is+a+lie+&hl=en&lr=&strip=1
"The Western media-created "Islamic Extremism", "Kashmiri Militants" and "Sunni-Shia" divide is not to be parroted but politely corrected."
is not something the article gives any support for whatsoever, it merely asserts the claim without supporting it. (This article is to be written by a Pakastani journalist understandably frustrated with his public figures in Pakastan sucking up to the US, but it is not what I would call objective with respect to the "Kashmiris under Indian-Hindu occupation".)

One would hope that you weren't even trying to address the second of the two issues I identified you as having conflated, but if so then you had an easy response to many people who have posted against you in this thread, which you have not effectively used. "I wasn't talking about that issue but about a related one."

I would in closing, refer you to your own post 122 in this thread.