There is NO "Sunni-Shia divide". It's just BUSHIT propaganda.

[LynnTheDem]

There has never been a "Sunni-Shia divide", nor a Sunni-Shia war. And the meme that the Sunni are trying to incite a civil war between Sunni & Shia is ridiculous on several fronts. Not the least of which is why a supposed 20% minority would be stupid enough to want war against a 60% majority.

The group that constantly chants of imminent Sunni-Shia war are bush, his Cartel and the mainstream media, and even they continously contradict themselves, jumping from blaming al Zarqawi's group (Palestinian) to al Qaeda (mostly Saudi/Pakistani) to the Sunni as the instigators.

Logic clearly shows it.

If the Shia are 60% of Iraq, and the Sunni only 20%, as the MSM claims, then in actual numbers, far more SHIA oppose the US occupiers and FAR MORE SHIA who believe attacks on US troops are justified, than the number of Sunni who believe so.

Juan Cole, Iraqi and top ME expert, discusses this himself;

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=2440

More logic:

WHO tells reporters that the various car bombings & attacks in Iraq against Iraqis was done by Sunnis? Answer: The Pentagon spokesman.

They didn't interview Sunnis, and ask them if they done it, and the Sunnis didn't admit to the bombings.

In fact, the bushCartel keep insisting that 75% of all attacks are al Zaqawri and his al Tawheed/Ansar al Islam group. A Palestinian and a Palestinian group. Not Sunni. Not even Iraqi.

And in fact the bushCartel also keep insisting that al Qaeda are trying to incite sectarian war between Sunni and Shia. Not the Sunni, not the Palestinian Zarqawi group, but al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda to ignite Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq

http://www.shianews.com/hi/middle_east/news_id/0001055.php


We must Correct the Misconceptions with Facts and Truth

After the saga of The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post, we have seen that even the icons of Western media can waver and lie. Rather than repeating the terminologies the anti-Pakistan media uses for Pakistan to present its viewpoints, Pakistani journalists must define and use correct terminology as it relates to Pakistan.

The Western media-created "Islamic Extremism", "Kashmiri Militants" and "Sunni-Shia" divide is not to be parroted but politely corrected.

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

UK;

All This Talk of Civil War, Now This

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq

I ask myself why the Americans are rubbing this Sunni-Shia thing so hard. Let's turn the glass round the other way. If a violent Sunni movement wished to evict the Americans from Iraq - and there is indeed a resistance movement fighting very cruelly to do just that - why would it want to turn the Shia population of Iraq, 60 per cent of Iraqis, against them? The last thing such a resistance would want is to have the majority of Iraqis against it.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles360.htm


Why we say the troops must get out of

The US warns of the danger of civil war, but at the same time it is setting up structures of rule which institiutionalise sectarian and ethnic divisions. Like all occupying imperialist powers, the US can only maintain its dominance by playing different groups off against one another.

As political analyst Wameed Nadhmi told Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly newspaper, "the US aim is to weaken Iraq-to divide it on sectarian and ethnic lines while keeping it geographically intact."

The warning of an imminent civil war has no historical basis.

We should also be very suspicious of US claims that the mainly Sunni-based armed resistance is targeting Shias. For example, after the horrific dual bombings in Karbala and Baghdad in March that killed over 200 people, hundreds of people in the Sunni city of Fallujah-the heart of the armed resistance-queued to donate blood to the mostly Shia victims.

http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/531/p6c.html

The Sunni Versus Shia Myth

Much that has been written about the ‘division’ between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq is not only a total distortion of the demographics of the Iraqi population, it also feeds into the propaganda campaign of ‘divide and rule’ tactics that even opponents of the war and occupation can fall into the trap of accepting as true...

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0156.html

As regards the Shias in the south, their divide from Baghdad has been much exaggerated as part of the anti-Saddam propaganda. It is totally overlooked that the historic Sunni-Shia divide no longer exists.

http://asianaffairs.com/may2003/us_invasion.htm

On Iraq Division

Iraq does not divide logically or neatly between Sunni Arab and Shia Arab. They live intermixed in much of Iraq and in Baghdad, where an estimated 60 percent of the population is Shia, 20 percent Sunni Arab, and 20 percent Kurd and Turkman. Sunni Arabs live in the southern cities of Basra and Zubayr and along the borders with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iraq's Arabs-Sunni or Shia-do not now and never have sought division.

There is a long tradition of inter-communal cooperation and intermarriage. Many Sunni Arab clans and families, including Saddam's, have Sunni and Shia branches.Iraq's Sunni and Shia Arabs are Iraqi first and pan-Arab last. Arab nationalist sympathies have a long history in Iraq.

http://www.menavista.com/articles/yaphe.htm

Sowing The Seeds Of Civil War In Iraq

Some Shia and Sunni religious leaders formed an anti-sectarian front, the Muslim Scholars Committee. The MSC has organised demonstrations in Baghdad and other cities encouraging Muslims to unite and pray at each others' mosques, where secularpeople are also welcome. The committee invited over 30 secular and Christian organisations to attend the First Founding Iraqi Conference Against the US Occupation. This significant development attracted little media coverage, as it contradicts the notion that Iraqis are incapable of working collectively.

The western media predicted that civil war was imminent after explosions at Shia mosques killed hundreds of people in March. But instead, these explosions generated a massive show of unity across Iraq. People blamed the US (and Israel) for planning the atrocities or turning a blind eye to the perpetrators.

Bush and Blair continue to peddle the myth, beloved of old colonialists, that Iraqis will start a civil war if the "benevolent" presence of the occupation forces is removed.

It is the US-led presence itself which is dividing Iraqis now. The US is deepening a split between a minority for and an overwhelming majority against the US-led forces.

-Sami Ramadani is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University and was a political exile from Saddam's regime

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-ramadani030704.htm

Dahr Jamail; Unembedded in Iraq

The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are mosques here where they pray together.

There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this.

Another Iraqi man pointed out that if there were a civil war, no Shia or Kurdish attack on Fallujah could ever possibly compare to the devastation the US military has caused there. I think he makes a good point.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

End the Iraq War

The Bush administration has promoted the idea that Iraq will descend into civil war and chaos without the occupation. This argument is no more credible than the “terrorist base” argument.

Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about “third world” peoples – that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Iraq.html

Iraqi Unified Resistance

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraqi_unified_resistance

The Iraqi Resistance: A New Phase

http://www.counterpunch.org/ali04102004.html

'We Are One Hand' -- Sunnis, Shiites Uniting Against U.S. in Iraq

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=9384ee3ba6fe3e8d4535443108da081a

In Iraq, a 'perfect storm'

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0409/p01s03-woiq.htm

Sunnis and Shias Uniting Against U.S

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0514-03.htm

Fury Ignites Solidarity in Iraq

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0409-05.htm

Iraqi Marchers (Shia & Sunni) Break Through US Roadblocks in Bid to Relieve Rebel Bastion (Sunni, Fallujah)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0408-05.htm

Sunni-Shiite Cooperation Grows, Worrying U.S. Officials

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08CND-SHIA.html?ex=1106888400&en=99f4a6985d39b693&ei=5070&oref=login&ex=1082088000&en=de634d216ea13636&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Who keeps insisting there IS a "Sunni-Shia Divide"? bush. His Cartel. Rightwing pundits. And the US StenoMedia.

Yet the Iraqis themselves deny it.

Hmmmm. Who to believe...

[wtmusic]

1. Ask a wingnut whether al-Sadr is a Shia or a Sunni

they'll say Sunni (incorrectly). We just couldn't have Shiites who want us the hell out of there, now could we?

[kwassa]

3. Sunni and Shia are the two sects of Islam: the divide is not mythical

or a creation of the Bush administration, it is true throughout Islam, not just Iraq.

Iraq does have all the major Shia religious shrines. Iran is an entirely Shia nation, the only one, I believe.

There are many other internal conflicts in Iraqi society, but this one not a myth. The greater problem is extremism, both Shia and Sunni.

[LynnTheDem]

4. You didn't even glance at any of the links in my OP, did you.

Some people are just deaf & blind & cannot be reached.

[kwassa]

6. Thanks for the personal attack on me, very classy of you

Lynn:
"Some people are just deaf & blind & cannot be reached."

No, I haven't read your massive links, which would take hours to read. I have read quite a bit on the subject, however, enough to know that there is a divide. The biggest difference the role of the imam in Shia life; there is no clerical equivalence in power on the Sunni side. The imams believe themselved descended from Mohammed, where Sunni clerics make no such claim.

Anyway, I've read enough to know your thesis is simply not true.

[LynnTheDem]

9. You're welcome and OBVIOUSLY you have NOT read quite a bit on the

subject or you would know that there is NO Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq.

They MARRY each other, fer cryin' out loud.

You didn't bother to even glance over my post; I was not posting about RELIGIOUS differences.

My "THESIS" is QUOTES FROM IRAQIS, Sunni AND Shia. My "THESIS" is from articles by mideast EXPERTS.

It seems you're saying YOU KNOW MORE AND BETTER than what the SUNNI AND SHIA IRAQIS, at I have extensively quoted and linked to in my post, know.

AMAZING!

Are YOU a Sunni Iraqi? Shia Iraqi? Mideast Expert? NO? Then I wouldn't be needing your opinion on the subject, thanks. ;)

[kwassa]

10. Religious differences are group differences, sorry you don't understand

you also appear to have a need to SHOUT, for some reason.

Saddam's government was entirely Sunni, he persecuted Shia as a group.

I think your theory is nonsense, actually.

[DrWeird]

12. I think it's nonsense to not read the OP...

and then get involved in a nonsensical argument based on ones own lack of reading comprehension.

[kwassa]

13. so you like personal insults, too?

DrWierd:
"and then get involved in a nonsensical argument based on ones own lack of reading comprehension"

What have I not comprehended? Or, are you merely stuck in generic insults? You clearly haven't followed what I said, speaking of reading comprehension.

[DrWeird]

19. Nothing personal about it.

Take a good look and you should be able to see where you screwed up. If you can't, well than I can't help you.

[kwassa]

I knew you had no argument, you lost that one.

[kwassa]

26. here is specific nonsense

quoting from the OP:

"Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about “third world” peoples – that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq."

This is an idiotic analysis. The whole argument that a country won't have a civil war because they haven't have one before is moronic.

This writer doesn't know anything about the history of Iraq, which is above all an invented country manufactured by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, from three dissimmilar and unrelated ethnic groups. This so-called country is about 80 years old! To quote from the above "that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq." THIS IS TRUE. This is the history of Iraq! There is no great unified identity, except in reaction to invasion by an outside power, the US, which would naturally bring them closer together.

[DrWeird]

31. You're right. That's a bunch of nonsense.

"The whole argument that a country won't have a civil war because they haven't have one before is moronic."

Yup, that quote's nonsense. Especially since that's not the posters whole argument, and it's coming from somebody who was just whining about personal attacks.

"This writer doesn't know anything about the history of Iraq, which is above all an invented country manufactured by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, from three dissimmilar and unrelated ethnic groups. This so-called country is about 80 years old"

Here's some more nonsense. Ironic too, since the author of this quote just made a ridiculous gaffe regarding the history of Iraq. Furthermore, the author fails to acknowledge the point that Shia and Sunni have been living there for the last 1400, which has a large amount to do with the OP, which the author clearly didn't read nor comprehend.

[kwassa]

36. another story

Iraq's Sunni-Shiite tension rising
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0922/p06s01-woiq.htm

The killing of two Sunni clerics earlier this week could be part of a slide toward sectarian civil war, analysts say.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


excerpt:
Yet almost lost to Western eyes in the focus on the beheading and the other foreign hostages was the killing of two Sunni clerics in separate incidents in Baghdad Sunday and Monday. Iraq experts fear those killings could feed the kind of religious strife that some forces - including Zarqawi - have sought to provoke.

"Foreign guerrillas killing Iraqi Salafis to provoke Iraqi-on-Iraqi Sunni-Shiite violence is among the few scenarios that make any sense," says Juan Cole, an Iraq specialist at the University of Michigan.

One of the two sheikhs killed, Hazem al-Zeidi, was prominent in negotiating between the Sunni and Shiite sects of Iraqi Islam. Some analysts, zeroing in on efforts since January by Zarqawi to provoke sectarian conflict, see his hand in the killings. But others close to the two Sunni sheikhs say they suspect their opposition to the American presence in Iraq as the motivation for the killings.

"We cannot as yet accuse specific people for these crimes, but we can suspect specific aims," says Muthana al-Dhari, spokesman for the Association of Muslim Clerics. "Those responsible are attacking our well-known opposition to the American occupation of our country. And they are attacking our success in strengthening that opposition with other sects."

Five members of the association, a conservative Sunni group headquartered in Baghdad and best known for its opposition to US troops in Iraq, have been killed since February.

Clerics from the organization have condemned the kidnapping of foreigners, while the organization is said to have intervened on behalf of foreign hostages - an avocation that could draw the ire of criminal groups or some political factions. But the association says none of the five murdered clerics was ever involved in such negotiations.

After one of the two killings occurred in the Sadr City neighborhood, loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, some here speculated the killing may have been sanctioned by Mr. Sadr. But Mr. Dhari says the association and Sadr agree on the importance of ridding Iraq of the occupiers, and that they also share the view that Iraq's current interim government is illegitimate because unelected. "I would also point out the demonstrations in Sadr City condemning the killings," says Dhari. "We know people are trying to make trouble between our two sects, but I believe the two sides recognize that and will be able to stay out of the trap."

Some Iraq experts like Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution in Washington warn that civil war looms larger as violence escalates - emboldening insurgent groups that believe they have time on their side.

Indeed, one outstanding difference separating the Sadr Shiites and Sunnis is the January elections. Sadr said this week they must take place in January as planned, while Sunnis like Dhari say elections won't be legitimate because the Allawi government is contemplating dropping certain districts from the vote - he estimates as much as one-third of the population - over security concerns.

Michigan's Dr. Cole says Sadr supporters have attacked Sunni mosques and driven Sunnis out of neighborhoods in the past. On the other hand, he points to the Sadr "alliance" over the past five months with the Fallujah resistance as having attenuated sectarian differences. "It would be strange," he adds, "if the Sadrists, still under severe US pressure, should choose this moment to alienate these strange political bedfellows."

[DrWeird]

39. Yeah, and here's one for you.

"What is striking is how much has changed in a week – a week. No one can talk about the Sunni Triangle anymore. No one can seriously talk about Sunni-Shia fragmentation or civil war. The occupation cannot talk about small bands of resistance. Now it is a popular rebellion and it has spread."


—Wamid Nadhmi, a political science professor at Baghdad University

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=5529§ionID=15

[LynnTheDem]

53. OOh loverly! THANKS Dr. W!

I've been collecting such articles and I totally missed this one! THANKS!

From the article:

Divide and conquer

One of the main concerns being raised about the occupation is that the sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq are going to lead to a civil war once the US and its allies withdraw.

The unity that Sunnis and Shia demonstrated during and since the April uprising shows just how superficial the differences between them really are.

Class not religion

The reality is that Iraq’s modern history is characterized by a strong secular tradition and a history of intermarriage between the Sunnis and Shia.

Despite a long history of persecution by Sunnis — initially under the Ottoman Empire, then under the British installed King Faisal, and eventually under Saddam Hussein — it has always been clear to the Shia that a Sunni elite was responsible for their oppression.

This class rather than sectarian division was reinforced by struggles and revolts that brought Sunnis and Shia together against their common enemies.

The US’s last excuse, that their presence is necessary to prevent civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias and to prevent an Iranian backed Islamic republic from emerging, has no basis in reality.

She's not the only Shi'ite that's saying that!

[kwassa]

57. Another article about the Sunni-Shiite divide

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12383-2004Dec19?language=printer

In Iraq: One Religion, Two Realities
Sunni, Shiite Sermons Leave No Room for Dialogue on Election or Insurgents
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, December 20, 2004; Page A01


BAGHDAD -- In a ritual practiced thousands of times, the men gather at two mosques -- Um al-Qura in a Sunni neighborhood, Baratha in a Shiite one -- at the appointed hour. The phrase "God is greatest" is uttered four times, and the men line up in successive rows. An hour or so later, crowds spilling into the halls, they bow their heads in graceful uniformity. Silence ensues, and they pray.

The words uttered in between, though, echo across a yawning divide.

Each week in Baghdad, sermons to the faithful offer a tale of two Fridays. Both sermons -- one Sunni, the other Shiite -- dwell on the issues that color Baghdad's weary life: the insurgency, elections planned for next month and the U.S. military presence. But the messages are so diametrically opposed as to speak to two realities and two futures for the country.

In Um al-Qura, built by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein as the Mother of All Battles Mosque, the insurgency is celebrated as an act of resistance against a faithless and deceitful American occupier. In no less strident rhetoric, at the venerated Baratha mosque, that same insurgency is condemned as wicked and senseless violence waged by loyalists of Hussein and foreigners. Elections are subjugation at the Sunni sermon, liberation at the Shiite one. And at each, the community's patience, the preachers insist, is wearing dangerously thin after yet another provocation or slight.


(jump)

At mosques such as Um al-Qura, the Sunni community is fashioned as the bulwark against U.S. and Israeli designs on the country. Shiite Iranians posing as Iraqis are flooding the country, the preachers say, and the Kurds are serving as stooges of the U.S. presence. The Sunnis are the nation's defenders against an occupation, and they are being called upon to act.

(sounds like ethnic hatred to me!)

[Ms. Clio]

59. No, it sounds like political divisions have been stirred up by occupation

by a foreign army. Or maybe you missed all the bits about how the dueling sermons are all about that occupation and its results?

Just because people use the rhetoric of religion in politics, doesn't mean what they are talking about is religion.

[kwassa]

64. Ms. Clio

"Just because people use the rhetoric of religion in politics, doesn't mean what they are talking about is religion."

It sure is a good clue.

Political divisions were stirred up and manipulated by Saddam before the US was ever there.

[Ms. Clio]

67. So all Bush's rhetoric about freedom and liberty

and saving Social Security must be a good clue as to what he really means, too?

Of course political divisions were stirred up and manipulated before the U.S. invaded. And the U.S. continues to stir and manipulate them.

[kwassa]

60. Yet another article refers to the Sunni-Shiite divide and Hussein's part

On edge, Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq try to talk it out
A meeting Saturday of Sunni and Shiite clerics revealed a possible piece of common ground: distrust of the US.
By Dan Murphy | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p08s01-woiq.htm

(Brief excerpt, refering to Hussein's role in oppressing Shia.)

BAGHDAD - In a side building at Saddam Hussein's last great monument to himself - the "Mother of All Battles Mosque" - built at a cost of $10 million with soaring minarets styled after missiles and Kalashnikovs to commemorate his survival of the 1991 Gulf War, a group of Shiite and Sunni clerics have gathered to fight one of Hussein's most divisive legacies.

With the threat of sectarian strife hanging over Iraq's transition, punctuated by mosque takeovers in the southern city of Basra, an explosion at a small Sunni mosque in Baghdad, and the press rife with talk about rivalry across Iraq's great sectarian divide, the imams want to head off potential conflict.

It's the sort of meeting that heralds one of the short-term successes of the US invasion. Hussein worked assiduously to divide Sunni, the national minority who benefited most from his rule, and Shiites, the majority sect who were ruthlessly suppressed during his reign.

A meeting like this in his time would have ended with arrests and executions.

(much more at the site)

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

119. Do that. And ask him if he'd like to join the Iraqi discussion board.

Mostly Sunnis, but there are a few Shia and a few of us who are just interested in the people the POTUS is bombing the crap out of.

[LynnTheDem]

118. LOL!!! Give it UP already! And have you emaild Dr. Juan Cole yet???

I am just DYING to hear his reply when you tell him he's just "telling lies" and "talking nonsense". LOL!!!

[LynnTheDem]

66. No, it doesn't sound like "ethnic hatred" LOL!

IRANIANS dear! NOT IRAQIS!

YET AGAIN YOU BACK UP MY ORIGINAL POST!!!

I don't think you understand what my OP is about; it's about there being NO SUNNI-SHIA DIVIDE IN IRAQ. As in NO divide between IRAQI SUNNI and IRAQI SHIA.

I said it's OUTSIDERS TRYING TO INCITE a division.

And YOU keep posting articles PROVING that.

[bear425]

112. Here's another snip from that article. Very interesting and goes

to the OP's writing.

One of the main concerns being raised about the occupation is that the sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq are going to lead to a civil war once the US and its allies withdraw.

The unity that Sunnis and Shia demonstrated during and since the April uprising shows just how superficial the differences between them really are. The fact is that sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq are not a product of deep-seated cultural differences. They are the product of a history of imperialism and colonialism in the region and domestic Iraqi politics. This applies as much to the Arab-Kurd tension as it does to the Sunni-Shias.

[LynnTheDem]

48. THANKS! Your article BACKS UP MY POST very nicely!

-"Foreign guerrillas killing Iraqi Salafis to provoke Iraqi-on-Iraqi Sunni-Shiite violence is among the few scenarios that make any sense," says Juan Cole, an Iraq specialist at the University of Michigan.

-Some analysts, zeroing in on efforts since January by Zarqawi to provoke sectarian conflict, see his hand in the killings.

-Five members of the association, a conservative Sunni group headquartered in Baghdad and best known for its opposition to US troops in Iraq, have been killed since February.

-We know people are trying to make trouble between our two sects, but I believe the two sides recognize that and will be able to stay out of the trap."

*****
And then they even quote from Hanlon, a neocon rightwingnut warmongerer.

There is NO Sunni-Shia divide and outside interests are trying to INCITE such a divide.

THINK about that with some logic; WHY would they have to try and INCITE a division if that division were already there???

And YOUR article discusses EXACTLY that and is EXACTLY what MY original post was about. :)

[Ms. Clio]

62. Here's another: "Bush's Grand Plan? Incite Civil war in Iraq"

The Bush Administration is intentionally steering Iraq towards civil war. The elections are merely the catalyst for igniting, what could be, a massive social upheaval. This explains the bizarre insistence on voting when security is nearly nonexistent and where a mere 7% of the people can even identify the candidates. (This figure gleaned from Allawi's Baghdad newspaper, Al-Sabah) Rumsfeld is using the elections as a springboard for aggravating tensions between Sunnis and Shiites and for diverting attention away from the troops. It's a foolhardy move that only magnifies the desperation of the present situation. The Pentagon brass expected a "cakewalk" and, instead, they've found themselves mired in a guerilla war.

Everyone from Brent Scowcroft to Tom Friedman has speculated on the likelihood of civil war. Their comments are more reflective of the hopes of American elites than they are of realities on the ground. Sure, Friedman would like to see Muslims killing Muslims, but it won't happen. Tom hasn't guessed right on the war yet, and that's not about to change. The same could be said for Rumsfeld. For a Sec-Def who regards "information as power", Rumsfeld seems woefully blinkered by the true nature of the fighting. He seems incapable of grasping even the most basic elements of the conflict or the psychology that fuels it. Whatever happened to the military mantra, "Know your enemy"?

When you destroy a man's home and kill and disgrace his friends, he'll fight back. And, when you rob a man of everything he has, including his dignity, you leave him with one, solitary passion rage. This rage is now animating the resistance in ways that no one had previously anticipated. The world's lone superpower is roped to the ground like Gulliver and the Pentagon high-command is getting increasingly agitated.

Civil war can be messy. Inciting religious and sectarian hatreds tends to disrupt the smooth execution of business; like the purging of potential enemies and the extracting of vital resources. Never the less, Rumsfeld is nearly out of options; "divide and conquer" may be all that's left. If we glance at the last 3 imperial projects; Kosovo, Haiti and Afghanistan, the very same strategy was applied. All three nations have been effectively carved up, delivered to US multi-national corporations, and reduced to warlordism or anarchy. Their outcome sets the precedent for similar results in Iraq.
Will Iraq be Balkenized along ethnic and religious lines?

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01152005.html

[LynnTheDem]

71. THANKS, Ms. Clio! ANOTHER one I didn't have!

My collection is growing by leaps and bounds today! :D

[LynnTheDem]

33. Rather like your nonsense that Hussein's govt was ONLY SUNNI.

LOL!!!

That really is one of the most misinformed remarks on Iraq I've yet heard.

So you really aren't one to be saying anything about anyone else on Iraq. ;)

By the way. note in that article you're denigrating how the author has sourced everything. Then take a look at what sources were used that you're denigrating their info of. LOL!

[LynnTheDem]

18. Thanks, Dr.! And now that poster says Hussein's govt was ONLY SUNNI!

And has the NERVE to call ME MISINFORMED???!!

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[LynnTheDem]

15. WOWZAH!!! You are VERY misinformed!!!

And WRONG!

"Saddam's govt was ENTIRELY SUNNI"????? :wow: :wow: :wow:

THAT is being SERIOUSLY MISINFORMED.

Do some actual RESEARCH;

FACT: Hussein's TOP CABINET consisted of Christians (1), Sunni (3)...and SHIA (3).

He even had FEMALE SHIA in his government.

And them's the FACTS.

[Ms. Clio]

17. Yes, Saddam was playing one group against the other

Imagine that.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Like bush is doing? :D But he most certainly DID have Shia in his govt!

I confess, I'm stunned that anyone could be so misinformed as to believe Hussein's govt was ONLY SUNNI...

Our MSM has A LOT to answer for!

[Ms. Clio]

30. Like Bush is doing, yes :D

I recently read a book about the Crow Indians. During the late 19th century, The U.S. wanted them to stop stealing horses from their traditional enemies, especially the Sioux. And by this time, all the native people had been confined to reservations, anyway. So during the mid 1880s, the Crows and Sioux made peace and began to visit each other frequently.

For the Indian agents, this seemed to present more of a possible threat than horse stealing. The Crow agent wrote: "I think it is a better policy to keep alive the traditional enmities and jealousies between these tribes than for us to try to get them to be friends." The more divided they were, he thought, the more "controllable" they would be.

[ieoeja]

42. Saddam's government was not not entirely Sunni.

It was a Sunni-Christian coalition. The then Iraqi equivalent of our Vice President, for instance, was a Christian.

Though you are correct in that they persecuted the Shia. I don't know what came first, Shia persecution or Shia rebellion. Probably both escalated over the decades.

[LynnTheDem]

50. To be exact, it was a Sunni-SHIA-Christian government

Only 1 Christain in the top cabinet and that was Tariq Aziz. There were also 3 Shia.

Shia rebellion came first; Iran was inciting them big time.

If yer interested in the subject I have some superb links to NDU articles that go into tons of detail about the whole situ.

[kwassa]

156. Iraq was ruled by Saddam's Sunni Tikriti clan, his homeboys

not even all Sunnis, much less Shia.

http://www.stjoenews-press.com/main.asp?SectionID=162&SubSectionID=449&ArticleID=40211&TM=83357.5

excerpt:
Aziz was the only Christian in Saddam's inner circle, most of whom were Sunni Muslims like Saddam. He served as foreign minister during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and was a frequent spokesman at that time.

Although he was one of Saddam's most loyal aides, Aziz, like most who were not from Saddam's Tikriti clan, had virtually no power, U.S. officials have said. That could explain his longevity in Saddam's inner circle - without an independent power base, he posed no threat.

[LynnTheDem]

160. You just proved what I'd posted. Well done!

I believe you said ONLY SUNNI. And now you know you were in fact incorrect.

In his inner circle was Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister, Christian, yep. And notice the article you posted said MOST were Muslins. Not "ALL".

And the article is correct; the majority of his entire govt and army commanders were Sunni. BUT they were not "ALL" Sunni. Some were Christians and some were Shia. Now we're in agreement on the issue. :)

[LynnTheDem]

7. Good point, wtmusic

I've seen that myself and while I noticed they were wrong I didn't think about what it means; you put it perfectly.

What they also totally ignore is that if the Shia are 60%, and the Sunni are 20%, then the vast majority of warm bodies opposed to US troops in Iraq are SHIA;

Poll; US; Liberators or Occupiers?

80% of both Sunni and Shia answered occupiers.

Shia: 25 million @ 60% = 15,000,000 * 80% = 12,000,000

Sunni: 25 million @ 20% = 5,000,000 * 80% = 4,000,000

THREE TIMES as many SHIA than Sunnis.

Opinion of bush?

Shia: 63% unfavorable; 9,450,000

Sunni: 66% unfavorable; 3,300,000

OOPS huh...SIX MILLION MORE SHIA than Sunni have an UNFAVORABLE view of bush. :D

[robertpaulsen]

90. Speaking of al-Sadr, MSM buries him at the end of the "election" coverage.

Looks like we still don't have al-Sadr's supporters on our side.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3009835

[leftchick]

2. Thanks Lynn...

and I now know who is probably REALLY responsible for the car bombings of the Shiaa mosques.

;)

[bobweaver]

5. Northern Ireland is not a Catholic/Protestant conflict, it's an occupation

of Ireland by England. Israel/Palestine is not a Jewish/Muslim conflict, it is an occupation of Palestine by the Jews.

[henrik larssonisking]

16. uh

ulster is racked by the tensions between the ulster scots (proddies) and the ulster catholics, The scots came to ulster at the behest of king james, so if you want to be historically accurate its a problem between two celtic tribes seperated by language and religion.

[Ms. Clio]

20. No, it's a problem created by a British king

settling Scots in Ireland.

[Bridget Burke]

21. And colonial powers LOVE these divisions.

Catholics & Protestants manage to live together peacefully in many countries. But the Brits imported Nonconformists to Ireland to keep the natives down. There have been conflicts for centuries, but also events like the actions of the United Irishmen. Founded in Belfast by Nonconformists & members of the Church of Ireland, they expanded to include Catholics. But this led to rebellion and Union with Great Britain.

Many British politicians continued to encourage the division, because it was good for the Empire. Some of them still do, even though the sun has set on their Empire.

[henrik larssonisking]

29. not all countries

catholics and protestants in Scotland also have a lot of sectarian problems, murders, assaults etc, you have to realise its not just a religious war there is a tribal edge to it also. It could be said that yes Scots protestants formented the trouble in Ulster, but that could also mean that the Irish catholics who emigrated to Western Scotland since then have formented the troubles further.

[Bridget Burke]

37. The English fomented the trouble in Northern Ireland.

Ulster is not synonymous with Northern Ireland. Parts of Ulster were too Catholic & ceded to the Free State (now the Republic). Actually, parts of Northern Ireland had a Catholic majority. A Boundary Commission was going to iron out the problems but the English never got around to creating it.

The English brought over the Scots to keep the Irish down, but mistreated the Scots-Irish as well. They were Nonconformists, not Church of Ireland. Quite a few of them left for the New World. But the division between the Irish & Scots-Irish was useful for their colonial masters & was encouraged. The United Irishmen were nipped in the bud.

I wonder--are the Catholics & Protestants who fight in Scotland of the upper classes? Or are they working class, with too few jobs to go around? Isn't it better for the powers to be that they fight each other, rather than ask for a better situation for all?

Comparable situations include the poor whites in our South. When the Populist movement united some whites with some blacks, the powers that be enacted the Jim Crow Laws. Segregation had NOT always been the rule in the South. (Alas, far too many of the poor whites were descendants of the Scots-Irish who'd come to this country to escape that sort of thing.)

[henrik larssonisking]

38. classes

the sectarian divide crosses all the class boundries, even different races, its especially prevalant in the areas around the city of glasgow but you see it across the whole country, it permeates all aspects of society, education, sport, the military everything.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Well, Scotland's lucky, then.

All those Scots are too childishly tribal to govern themselves.

What would they do without England?

[henrik larssonisking]

47. without westminster

and the strong hold it has had over scotland for nigh on 300 years the internicine warfare between the clans and the differing religious viewpoints would probuably have had a nightmare effect on the growth of scotland and its institutions. So yes in some ways being under a unified crown has had its advantages.

[Ms. Clio]

65. Oh, the proud boast of the colonizer everywhere

Those Native Americans were so lucky that the European colonial powers saved them from fighting amongst themselves, too.

[Bridget Burke]

72. A text book case...

Oh, I'll tell you a tale of peace and love
Of a land that reigns all lands above
May peace and plenty be her share
Who kept our homes from want and care
Oh, God bless England is our prayer

Now our fathers oft were naughty boys
For pikes and guns are dangerous toys
At Ballinahabwee and at Bunker's hill
We made poor England cry her fill
But old Brittania loves us still

Now, when we were savage, fierce and wild
She came as a mother to her child
Gently raised us from the slime
And kept our hands from hellish crime
And she sent us to heaven in our own good time

Well, now Irish men forget the past
And think of the day that's coming fast
When we shall all be civilized
Neat and clean and well advised
Oh, won't mother England be surprised?

Written by Tommy Makem, who sang it with the Clancy Brothers. I've omitted a few "whack fol the diddy"'s.

[Ms. Clio]

150. That's powerful, terrific--thanks, I'm saving that

Please excuse my abysmal ignorance--who were Tommy Makem and the Clancy Brothers, and when was it written?

[truebrit71]

27. Wrong. It is ENTIRELY a catholic/protestant conflict...

:eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

32. So it has no historical context whatsoever?

And has nothing to do with Britain's conquest and colonization of Ireland?

If you were one of my students, you would flunk this class.

[bobweaver]

40. Wrong. It is an occupation of Ireland by England. To try to bring religion

into it is to buy into the propaganda of England.

[henrik larssonisking]

49. occupation

i think occupation is the wrong term here, the majority of ulster are loyalists who want the British Army there, funnily it was the Catholic minority who originally wanted the army there in the 70's to protect them from the loyalist terror gangs.

[Ms. Clio]

63. I'm sorry, do your history books not go back to the 15th century? n/t

[henrik larssonisking]

68. if you notice my answer was to a question

that was in the present tense.

[Ms. Clio]

8. Absolutely right--in fact, I think that myth is being propagated

as part of an effort to incite sectarian violence. "Divide and conquer."

Have you seen Helena Cobban's blog? She's a Mid East journalist and a friend of Cole's, but she disagrees with him on some things--check it out, I think you'll like it.

http://justworldnews.org/

Here is her response to Juan Cole on the elections
http://justworldnews.org/archives/001088.html

[Southern Dem 2005]

11. Actually, there is a divide between the different Muslim branches

that has existed for centuries. Not sure where you get your info. Bush didn't have to create this one, although it is likely more pronounced among the fundamentalists on each side.

[Ms. Clio]

14. I am talking about political divide

You must be the expert though--so pray tell, when was the last civil war in Iraq in the modern era over this Shia-Sunni divide?

I get my "info" from numerous sources, including some cited by Lynn above, and others that I have read over the past several years. Did you bother to click on any of those links?

[LynnTheDem]

23. NOT another one!

Good grief.

Not sure where I get my info??? TRY READING MY ORIGINAL POST.

ARRRRRRRRGH!!!

[Bridget Burke]

25. Hey, they just finished reading "Islam for Eejits"

Written by that noted authority, Jack Chick.

[LynnTheDem]

35. ROTFLMAO!!!

You owe me an entire can of Diet Mountain Dew (and maybe a new keyboard!) for that one, LOL! :D :D :D

[Bridget Burke]

24. What wars have been fought between Shia & Sunni?

And not back in the days of the Caliphate.

Catholics & Protestants fought bloody battles in the past but mostly get along, nowadays. Unless there's a colonial power encouraging the conflict.

[ieoeja]

44. Iran and Iraq in the 80s

And I suppose you could include the various Shia rebellions put down by Iraq during the 80s.

[DrWeird]

45. The Iraqi Shia fought along side the Iraqi Sunni

Against the Iranian Shia. And that was mostly politics.

[leftchick]

28. uhhh...

do you know how to click on a link in the original post?

:eyes:

[cthrumatrix]

34. are we expecting truth from the media "liars".... since when did

they start that?

[dutchdoctor]

41. still disagree..

OK, I've read most of your links, not all because there are so many... Nnot all seem to be from very reliable sources..

I am still not convinced by your theory, let's do this point by point:
-The fact that both Shia and Sunni consistently and strongly disapprove of the occupation does not mean that they are unified in other respects, so the playing with percentages does not mean anything. We know most Iraqis hate the occupation, but that doesn't mean they're united...

-I can not find any solid arguments that the Sunni people are actually a majority as you claim. You will probably say that the same thing goes for a supposed Shia majority, but since this is generally accepted (and other signs point that way) the burden of proof lies with you...

-You point to several links that talk about Sunni and Shia uniting in the face of the occupation. like this one: http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?arti...
and this one:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0409-05.htm
All these links are from the first half of 2004. There may have been some solidarity back then, but I think general wisdom amongst analysts is that with the upcoming election the divisions have deepened (more below)

-If they are truly united, and if there is no Shia majority, then why is Al-Sistani and every other Shia cleric (including the rebellious Al Sadr) participating in the election and actively encouraging their people to vote, where the two major Sunni groups are boycotting the elections? This has been on the news everywhere, but since I feel you don't trust the MSM let me give you a link from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4197367.stm">"One is that this vicious Sunni violence aimed at Shia symbols and targets will make it increasingly hard to avoid sectarian strife, even civil war."
Aljazeera, not usually a sucker for Bush's lies, says the same thing:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E41D494-F911-4B0A-A3CC-A2AAF2C025AC.htm">Attacks on Shia Muslims have increased in the run-up to the 30 January national elections. Senior Shia political leader Abd al-Aziz Hakim - whose list is expected to dominate the elections - said the attack was the latest salvo by extremists trying to stoke civil war between Shia and Sunnis. "It is quite obvious why there is such an attack. They are trying to create sectarian strife," Hakim said.

-last but not least: We can discuss this as long as we want, but the sad thing is that we'll probably find out soon enough. When there is equal voter turnout in the Shiite and Sunni population and they get along happily together you will have been right. I hope you will be, but the chances are slim.
edited for spelling

[LynnTheDem]

51. There is NO Sunni-Shia divide, there never has been.

The LARGEST organization in Iraq is also boycotting the elections...and that organization is Sunni AND SHIA.

Sunnis are not waging war against the Shia, and the Shia are not waging war against the Sunnis. And the ONLY people who say they ARE is BUSH, his CARTEL and the MSM which gets all their info on this stuff from...THE PENTAGON.

You included a quote that backs up my original post, thanks!

YOUR quote:

Senior Shia political leader Abd al-Aziz Hakim - whose list is expected to dominate the elections - said the attack was the latest salvo by extremists trying to stoke civil war between Shia and Sunnis.

Yep exactly what my original post is all about; EXTREMISTS TRYING TO INCITE A DIVISION. And again I say common bloody sense tells ya, they wouldn't need to INCITE if the division were already there.

And as you seem to prefer believing what the US media says, the mainstream media says Zarqawi is responsible for 75% of all attacks in Iraq. When did he & his group become Sunnis? When did they even become Iraqis?

It's not "MY THEORY" by the way. The entire world believes there is NO Sunni-Shia divide and that the bushCartel are waging a divide & conquer propaganda war to incite such a divide. ONLY AMERICANS (rightwingnuts for the most part) believe in any such Sunni-Shia divide.

Thanks for your input. :)

[kwassa]

56. Still nonsense, Lynn. You can talk it up all you want, and it ain't true

and it has nothing to do with left or right but the history of Islam.

[LynnTheDem]

58. You REALLY want to remain oblivious of FACTS???

Just HOW MANY QUOTES from IRAQIS do you need before you would be willing to believe them???!!

I just LOVE your "YOU can TALK IT UP"...LOL!!!

Do you think I'm MAKING UP all these articles QUOTING THE IRAQIS???

*I* am not "talking up" ANYTHING. I'm posting ARTICLES that I DIDN'T WRITE.

But you are incredibly determined to remain totlaly ignorant, and that is certainly your right to do so.

I suggest you write to IRAQI Dr. Juan Cole and tell him HE TOO is "talking up" "nonsense".

And also SHI'ITE Dr. Wamid Nadhmi; can't have her "talking up" "nonsense".

And of course Robert Fisk. Not an Iraqi, but as one of the world's top investigastive reporters who's been in Iraq for the past 2 years, FOR SURE he has no idea what he's talking about and you should set him straight, too, about his "talking up" "nonsense".

:D :D :D

buh bye! :)

[LynnTheDem]

78. Let me know their replies please!

When you tell them all they're just "talking up nonsense". I'd love to add those to my collection! :)

[DistantWind88]

61. Quoting you...

"The entire world believes there is NO Sunni-Shia divide"

Well at least two people don't...

[DrWeird]

75. reading is fun-damental.

I mean, it's obvious to everybody who reads above the 6th grade level that nobody's saying there isn't any difference between sunni and shia. It's just that people are saying the divide is being greatly exaggerated and exploited for repugnant circumstances. I mean Jesus Christ, you'd think the quotation marks in the OP would have been a dead give away.

[LynnTheDem]

79. After totally LOSING every argument, and continuously posting articles

that back up my original post, kwassa says it's just "talking up nonsense". LOL!

SOMEONE needs to inform Dr. Juan Cole and a whole lot of other Iraqis, professors, ME experts, investigative journalists etc that they too are just "talking up nonsense"!

:D :D :D

[kwassa]

108. I quoted Cole, who contradicted your point of view

and most of what you posted are opinion blogs, not facts.

[LynnTheDem]

121. LOL!

You're fun. :D

[LynnTheDem]

77. FINISH the quote instead of your CHERRY PICKING, dear

EXCEPT AMERICANS, MOSTLY RIGHTWINGNUTS.

Didn't you learn what kinda doo-doo one finds oneself in when one CHERRY-PICKS after bush's little cherry-picking adventure???

LOL!

[theboss]

43. I think the issue is that Iran is Shi'ite

And will use a power vacuum in Iraq as opportunity to force a similar government in Iraq, and that could be bad news for Sunnis who were previously in power.

I don't think it's a myth that there is a major divide between these groups. I mean, Catholics and Protestants are both Christians, but there are some pretty deep divides there.

It may be a myth that civil war is inevitable, but I think that there is a pretty good chance of religious rule being imposed by some group (probably the Shi'ites) once we leave.

The fact that there has been joint Sunni-Shia resistance is not that odd. In World War II, the communists and nationalists called a ceasefire and fought side-by-side against the Japanese in China. The various factions of Muhajadeen were united against the Soviets. But once the occupier leaves, all hell can break loose.

[LynnTheDem]

80. We're talking about IRAQIS only, not Iranian Shia

There is NO Sunni-Shia divide BETWEEN IRAQIS.

My apologies if I've not made that clear.

NO divide between IRAQI Sunnis and IRAQI Shia.

Yes there is a divide between BOTH Iraqi Sunni & Shia...against IRANIAN Shia.

The majority of Iraqi Shia have NEVER been very closely aligned with Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war, Shia and Sunni fought together against Iran, and when Saddam Hussein gave back to Iran the Iranian lands they'd taken during the war, the Iraqi Shia were outraged. They were very proud of the defense of Iraq and that they'd managed to win that land away from Iran.

There will definitely be religious rule, the secularism under Hussein is, very unfortunately, gone, and especially Iraq's women will suffer the worse for that, but I don't think it'll be as extreme a form as Iran. More like Saudi, is my guess.

Edit to say more like Syria (not Saudi, God forbid lol!) after a poster so very politely pointed out my goof. :)

[Zynx]

85. You think Saudi is LESS extreme than Iran on women???

Good lord you are ignorant.

[LynnTheDem]

88. You're right, and I didn't mean to say Saudi, thanks I'll correct that.

Thank you very much for so politely pointing that out to me!

[Xithras]

52. Um, you should talk to an actual Iraqi. The Shia/Sunni divide is real

It's best analogy in the west is the Catholic/Protestant divide. The fundie Sunni's believe that the Shia aren't really Muslim and are going to hell (the same way fundie Protestants believe that Catholics aren't Christian). The Shia, in turn, look on their Sunni bretheren as misguided blasphemers who defy the will of Allah.

As in America, 80% of Iraqi Muslims couldn't give a damn either way, and the division only matters to that 20% fundie minority. The difference, of course, is that the Iraqi fundies have machine guns, mortars, car bombs, and a propensity towards using them.

If you want a great real-world example of the Shia-Sunni conflict, subscribe to some english language Pakistani news outlets. The Shia and Sunni in Pakistan are constantly shooting at each other and blowing up each others mosques, and it's really just Musharaffs iron fist that keeps a wider war from erupting there. Very few of these bombings make western news reports because they're considered unimportant from a global perspective, but if you monitor local headlines from that region you'll see that these kinds of attacks happen every few weeks or so.

[LynnTheDem]

55. And WHAT do you think Dr. JUAN COLE is??? WHAT do you think

Wamid Nadhmi is???

There is NO SUNNI-SHIA divide, and if you read the original post and the subsequent posted articles, that fact is made very evident.

You're talking RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES. I'm NOT.

[DistantWind88]

69. Then why did the Shiites

revolt in Iraq before, most famously, after GW1?

http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_foi/pi_foi_icg02.pdf

From another source: "Wahhabism is violently anti-Shia and regards Shi'ite Muslims as Islamic heretics. In Saudi Arabia, where Wahabism is the dominant school of Islamic thought, the Shi'a have long been the target of severe discrimination. Only recently has there been an improvement in their situation."

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/middleeast/irq040303.html

Looks like at least a minor split to me.

[LynnTheDem]

74. They revolted, SHIA AND SUNNI, against Hussein and the ELITE CLASS

And again, several articles in my OP talk about exactly that.

And by the way, the REBELS in 1991 killed SUNNI AND SHIA AND KURDS.

Wahhabis are NOT SUNNI. NOT SHIA.

So what's your point?

[Xithras]

81. Wahhabis not Sunni? Yes, they are.

A minor history for you. Muhammad al-Wahab was a Sunni Imam who lived about 200 years ago. He came to believe that Sunni Islam had grown corrupt and went fundamentalist on everyone, rejecting everything added to Sunni dogma after about 950 AD. He felt that wealth was evil, that drugs were evil, and that Islam was turning away from Muhammads original teachings. His eventual theology can be summed up in one sentence "Live simply, according to the laws of Sunni Islam contained within the Koran, and devote your life to nothing except the worship of Allah".

Wahab's fundamentalist teachings infuriated the modernist Sunni imams of his time and they threw him out. He went into the desert, eventually stumbled across and converted a desert tribe called the Saud's, and the rest is history.

By the way, you will also find that very, very few Muslims identify themselves as "Wahhabi". The proper term is Salafi, which pretty much translates to "fundamentalist" or "orthodox" in the English language. While many Salafi's identify with and follow Wahab's teachings, they don't identify themselves as Wahhabis as a result (as a western example, many people consider themselves Protestants and agree with the revolt and teachings of Martin Luther, but actual Lutherans are a very small subset of Protestantism).

Basically put, Wahhabism is an ultra-orthodox subset of Salafism, which is itself an orthodox subset of Sunni Islam. Since orthodox Sunni Islam teaches that Shia Islam is an apostate faith, the Shia are seen as an enemy to be converted or destroyed.

[LynnTheDem]

89. NO they are not.

From a Sunni Iraqi (great discussion board of Iraqis for anyone interested)

Wahhabis are NOT sunni's. In fact, most Wahhabi's are anthropomorphists ( Mushabbihha), and anthropomorphists are not Muslims. This judgement is, however, based on the individual belief, not collective. There are a few people who call themselves or are fond of wahhabis out of total ignorance.

http://www.yanabi.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=2016&forumid=1

Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, by Hamid Algar

The western media have labelled as ‘Wahhabis’ any jihad groups in Central Asia, and conveniently used phrases such as "strict Sunni Islam" or "puritan Islam" to describe the Saudi and the Taliban governments. But Wahhabism is not Sunni Islam.

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/book02/wahhabibk.htm

[bicentennial_baby]

92. Oh yes, they are

"Hanbalis belong to the most puritanical and iconoclastic of the four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The founder of the Hanbali sect was the Iraqi-born theologian and jurist Imam Ahmad ibn-Hanbal. His puritanism brought him into conflict with the Mutazilite school of rationalism and free-will...His knowledge of Islam, piety, and steadfastness won him many disciples and admirers. But the puritanism of the Hanbali madhab, combined with the promotion of the Hanbali madhab by Ottoman rulers, who attempted to aggressively suppress Wahhabism (a religiopolitical ideology within the Hanbali madhab), resulted in the Hanbalis being the smallest of the four established Sunni madhabs."

-pg 17, Global Islamic Politics, Mir Zohair Husain

[LynnTheDem]

94. Oh no they aren't.

Origins of Islamic Extremism - Wahhabism is a strict sect that developed in Saudi Arabia.

Name: Wahhabism, Wahhabi Islam
Founder: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792) could be considered the first modern Islamic fundamentalist.

http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm]

Saudis are not Sunnis and Sunnis are not Saudis. :)

[bicentennial_baby]

96. Ok, I'm sorry but

First of all, a Saudi is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. A Sunni Muslim is a member of the larger of the two main sects of Islam (the major madhabs), Sunni and S'hia Islam. A Saudi can be a Sunni, and a Sunni could be a Saudi, if he or she lived in Saudi Arabia.

Second, within Sunni Islam, there are four minor madhabs which are considered to be schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The four madhabs of Sunni Islam are: Hanifis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis. As I stated above, Wahabbist Muslims belong to the Hanbali madhab, which does indeed make them Sunnis, whether you like it or not.

[Xithras]

101. Wha?!?!?!

You seem to be confusing terms.

Sunni and Shia are NOT tribal or ethnic terms, they're religious terms. People of any race or tribe can become Sunni or Shia, the same way they can become Baptist, Catholic, Wiccan, or Asatru.

As far as ethnicity goes, just about all of the population we're discussing is Arab, with the two notable exceptions of the Kurds (who are probably descended from a race in the Caucasus), and the Assyrians (the indigenous Iraqi people who lived before the Arabs invaded...today they're mostly Christian). The Shia and Sunni that are doing the fighting are all Arab and do see themselves as one common "race".

Saudi is a national term, like "American" or "Canadian", and is really irrelevant to this discussion of religion.

Fact is, more than 90% of Saudi's identify themselves as Sunni. A sizeable percentage of those consider themselves Salifi Sunnis, and some of those follow the teachings of Wahab. Saying that Iraqi Sunnis can't follow Wahabs teachings is like saying that Mexican Catholics can't follow the teachings of the Pope because he's Polish. One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

[LynnTheDem]

107. Of course Sunnis can decide to follow Wahhab teachings.

I will again say what I've been saying which is FACT: Sunni Muslims ARE NOT Wahhabis.

Catholics ARE NOT Protestants.

Sunni Muslims are not Wahhabis.

[bicentennial_baby]

110. But Wahhabis ARE Sunnis!

Do you get that?

[LynnTheDem]

113. Why don't you join the Sunni discussion board?

You apparently are interested in the topic and you can post directly to Sunnis. Only I would suggest you don't say "Wahhabis are Sunnis", lol!

WAHHABISM: UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS AND ROLE MODELS OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

The most extremist pseudo-Sunni movement today is Wahhabism (also known as Salafism). While many may think that Wahhabi terror is a recent phenomenon that has only targeted non-Muslims, it will surprise many to know that the orthodox Sunni Muslims were the first to be slaughtered in waves of Wahhabi massacres in Arabia hundreds of years ago. One only has to read the historical evolution of Saudi Arabia to know the gruesome details of the tragedy – a tragedy in which thousands of Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims perished at the hands of Wahhabi militants.

The extremist interpretations of Wahhabism, although previously confined to small pockets of people in Arabia, has survived to this day under the protection, finance, and tutelage of the Saudi state religious organs. This has transformed Wahhabism – and related Salafi groups that receive inspiration and support from them – from a regional to a global threat to be reckoned with by the world community. To a Wahhabi-Salafi, all those who differ with them, including Sunni Muslims, Shi’ite Muslims, Christians, and Jews, are infidels who are fair targets.

Because Wahhabis claim to be “true Sunnis,” it is difficult for one who is unfamiliar with Wahhabism to distinguish it from orthodox Sunni Islam. If a Wahhabi is asked if he/she is Sunni, he/she will always reply in the affirmative.

Sunnis and other Wahhabi detractors have labeled them as Wahhabis to differentiate them from orthodox Sunnis.

http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

109. Have you done your research yet on Hussein's "only Sunni" govt?

LOL! :D

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

122. Just a friendly suggestion;

Be careful with the constant posting of insults; it's against DU rules and we wouldn't want you getting banned. ;)

[Xithras]

93. Did you even read my post?

"Wahhabi" is a western term. Most so-called "Wahhabi's" are simply Salafi Sunni's. A Salafi Sunni is just an orthodox Sunni.

By your logic, orthodox Jews aren't actually Jewish at all, and the Pope isn't actually Catholic because his orthodox beliefs clash with those held my the majority of his churches members.

[LynnTheDem]

95. Yep read your post, thanks

What most members of the sect call themselves are al-Muwahhiddun, ("the monotheists") or al-Ikhwan ("the brethren").

Salaf as-Salih; or Salafi.

Sunni Muslims are not Wahhabis or Salafis or al-Muwahhiddun or al-Ikhwan.

There are Wahhabes in Iraq; they're Iraqi Wahabbis. They are not Sunni Muslims.

[kwassa]

105. Wahhabi is a sect of Sunni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Wahhabism (sometimes spelled Wahabbism or Wahabism) is a movement of Islam named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792). It is a fundamentalist sect which branched off of the Sunni form of Islam and has become an object of increased interest because it is the major sect of the government and society of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, and claimed to be followed by Osama bin Laden, who was raised in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is an offending synonym for one form of Salafism. Osama bin Laden's recent alliance with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a presumed Salafi, at least shows his Salafi tendencies. Late great scholars of Wahhabsim declared bin Laden to be Khawarij and thus not belonging to the Salafi methodology. Some traditional Sunni scholars claim that Osama bin Laden is from the Qutbist branch of Salafism and not the Wahhabi branch. This is the view of some of those affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of America.

[LynnTheDem]

117. Message from Abdul Karim Qadiri

"Wahhabis are NOT sunni's."

Better email him that no matter how many times he tells his lies he's still just talking nonsense. :D

[kwassa]

159. so, what is he to me?

He doesn't determine history, does he?

[Xithras]

76. But it's all about the religious differences.

It's fundie vs. fundie, and while I'll agree that they're a minority in their countries, that minority is intent on widening it and sparking a civil war. How many high ranking Shia imams have been killed by Sunni fundi radicals now? How many more will it take before the Shia grow weary of dealing with the troublesome Sunni minority and undertake eradication measures? How many fundamentalist Sunni's are going to be willing to live happily in a nation that will undoubtably become a Shia-controlled Muslim state, when the Sunni's view Shia dogma as heresy? Iraq has no real history of tolerance outside of "we wont kill you if you don't rebel", so it's hard to see where that sudden surge of Iraqi brotherhood and loving udnerstanding is supposed to come from.

I don't know that we would see the full scale civil war that Bush parrots on about, but at the minimum we'd see Iraq devolve into a North Ireland style conflict where the nations peace is regularly interrupted by civilian killings and car bombs, and at the worst a Somali style breakdown where the country effectily seperates into regional or tribal governments run by warlords and wanna-be monarchs and religious leaders.

[LynnTheDem]

84. But it's not about religious differences.

Could you please provide any proof from any reputable source that "Sunni fundi radicals" have killed Shia imams?

And you'll want to send that proof to bush, he could really use that. LOL! (Nah he's probably got someone to make it up already. :D )

And how many high-ranking SUNNI clerics have been killed? Many. Who killed them?

bush & Cartel say a Palestinian group did.

No it isn't hard to see where that "Iraqi brotherhood" comes from. it's NOT religious differences, it is and always has been CLASS differences.

Why did the Sunni march for miles with supplies for the Shia after US forces bombed the shit out of Najaf?

Why did the Shia march for miles with supplies for the Sunni after US forces bombed the shit out of Fallujah?

Why did Shia and Sunni set up organizations of Shia & Sunni together?

Why do Shia and Sunni marry each other?

Why do many Shia and Sunni belong to the same tribes?

Why do Shia and Sunni say "Iraq for Iraqis"?

Why does the US military admit the insurgency is NATIONALISTIC?

There is no Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq; but SOMEONE(S) is trying to MAKE one, and bush's constant chanting about such a divide and imminent civil war if we pull out is just propaganda.

I don't always get along with my own family; do you? But I won't start a war against them. ;)

[Xithras]

91. You're not comparing apples to apples.

I said (twice, I believe) that the fundie Muslims are a minority, and it is among them that the Shia/Sunni devide exists today. The vast majority (70%-90% depending on the poll, so lets split the difference and say 80%) of Iraqi's are moderates, kind of like Catholics that only go to church on major holidays and support birth control, or Protestants that pray to saints. To these people the Shia/Sunni divide is a relatively minor matter.

The problem, as I've already stated, is that the 20% fundie minority is armed to the teeth and dead set on MAKING it a major matter for the rest of the country. Even at 20%, that's more than one and a half MILLION fighting age, male, orthodox Muslims who hate each other. The other 23.something million men, women, and children can be as loving, nationalistic, and inclusive as they want, but if that minority decides to start a civil war NOTHING is going to stop them.

Right now the only thing they orthodox on both sides have in common is their hatred for us. Once that ends, do you really think they're going to forget more than a millenia of war and opression?

[LynnTheDem]

100. It's possible and even likely that a few extremist Sunni AND Shia are

killing Sunni and Shia in Iraq.

Every city and every nation has their share of nutjobs. :D

But they aren't a large enough group to cause a civil war in Iraq and I don't think they're doing much killing of anyone. ALL Iraqis are armed to the teeth. They were all allowed to be under Hussein, and now thanks to George W. bush, they're all REALLY armed to the teeth.

[kwassa]

120. There WILL be a CIVIL WAR for OTHER REASONS!!!!!

I'm writing my title in your favorite style of capital letters.

It isn't about the divide between Sunni and Shia, which does exist, and is part of the mix.

It is about a power grab by ruthless people in a ruthless culture that values brute strength and nothing else. The remnents of Saddam's government is fighting for the lifestyle and power they once had, and will kill anyone who gets in their way to get it back. This does not mean that they won't cooperate temporarily with Al Zarqawi or anyone else if it suits their personal ends. It is also likely that these various ex-Baathists will fight it out with each other and various Shia power factions in order that one strong men will end up on top of the entire situation, the next Saddam, when it all shakes out. It is absolute power, or nothing.

[LynnTheDem]

125. WOW! Have you got the Gift of the Sight? Iraq's NEVER had a civil war

in all it's very long history...but YOU say there WILL be one! Never mind that a slew of mideast experts say it's highly unlikely, YOU KNOW there will be one!

AMAZING! :wow:


LOL!!!

[kwassa]

143. Iraq has had many civil uprisings in it's brief 83 year history.

Iraq is very young, only 83 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/2893067.stm

Uprising

1923 - Shaykh Mahmud Barzinji rebels against British rule and declares a Kurdish kingdom in northern Iraq.

1932 - Uprising in the Barzan region to protest at Iraq's admittance to the League of Nations, while Kurdish demands for autonomy are ignored.

1943 - Mullah Mustafa Barzani leads another uprising, and wins control of large areas of Irbil and Badinan.

1946 August - British RAF bombing forces Kurdish rebels over border into Iran where they join Iranian Kurds led by Qazi Mohamed, who founds an independent Kurdish state in Mahabad.

1946 - Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) holds its first congress in Mahabad. Within a few months, the "Mahabad Republic" collapses under attack from Iranian forces, and Mustafa Barzani flees to the Soviet Union.

1951 - A new generation of Kurdish nationalists revives the KDP. Mullah Mustafa Barzani is nominated president while in exile in the Soviet Union, but the real leader of the KDP is Ibrahim Ahmad, who favours close ties with the Iraqi Communist Party.

(more at the site)

[kwassa]

145. Christian civil uprising in Iraq

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0858896.html

In 1933 the small Christian Assyrian community revolted, culminating in a governmental military crackdown and loss of life and setting a precedent for internal minority uprisings in Iraq. Meanwhile, the first oil concession had been granted in 1925, and in 1934 the export of oil began. Domestic politics were turbulent, with many factions contending for power. Late in 1936, the country experienced the first of seven military coups that were to take place in the next five years.

[kwassa]

147. History of Shiite-Sunni conflict in Iraq

Here is a very extensive article on the entire history between the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq.


http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/su03/nakash.htm
The Struggle for Power in Iraq

by Yitzhak Nakash

brief excerpt:

they (Shiites) would not be able to realize their dream of attaining power in a large and prosperous state. Shiites have nourished that dream ever since their failed revolt against the British in 1920, when the plan of Shiite clerics to dominate Iraq misfired.

In the months leading up to the revolt, the Shiite religious leaders in Iraq and the Sunni Sharifians, then based in Syria, forged an alliance aimed at creating an Arab Islamic state ruled by an Arab emir and a legislative assembly. Whereas the Sharifians considered this formula an opening for their rule of Iraq, Shiite clerics hoped that it would enable them to oversee the legislative process once British control was ended. The Shiite tribes rose, but they were crushed by superior British arms. And then, to the dismay of the Shiites, the British brought the Sharifians to power, even though their part in the rising was not less than that of the Shiites. In subsequent years, Shiites would claim that their uprising had enabled the Sunni minority to attain power and enjoy all the fruits of office.

(jump)

This means that in modern Iraq a Sunni minority, constituting some 17 percent of the population and based in central Iraq, held sway over the Shiite majority of 60 percent spread over southern and central Iraq and over a Kurdish minority of 20 percent in the north.

[LynnTheDem]

148. Umm no actually, Iraq dates back centuries

Need links?

Here's one I still have handy;

http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm

Sunni & Shia have never had civil war against each other. Yes there have been rebellions, fights and skirmishes. I've said so previously on this thread. But they have never had a civil war against each other.

[kwassa]

151. Before 1921, it isn't Iraq, it isn't a country, it is part of a caliphate

Rebellions, fights, and skirmishes are civil disturbances indicative of divisions in the civilian populace. You are desperately trying to split hairs, now.

There is no requirement of a civil war for a divide to exist.

Hussein ruthless oppressed Shiites in his reign, and specifically went after them. There has been historical tension and conflict between them throughout the history of the country of Iraq. I've already posted one very extensive detailed source and can easily find many more.

[LynnTheDem]

154. "isn't a country"?

LOL!!!

The Brits invading Iraq and installing a puppet suddenly turned Iraq into a country?

Call it anything you like.

I said the Sunni and the Shia have lived together in Iraq for centuries. They have. That's a FACT.

I'm finished with this thread now. If you're unable to locate info on the Shia and Christians that were in Hussein's government let me know & I'll email you links. If you're interested in absorbing the information.

Have a good day! :)

[kwassa]

158. No, it is part of the Ottoman Empire that covered the region

and I am not suprised you are leaving, as you lost this argument awhile ago.

Lynn:
"I'm finished with this thread now. If you're unable to locate info on the Shia and Christians that were in Hussein's government let me know & I'll email you links. If you're interested in absorbing the information."

Like I said elsewhere, Saddams's government was ruled by his Sunni al-Tikriti clan. It is not some equally divided ethincally balanced government. Saddam also carried out ruthless attacks on both Shiites and Kurds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. Tarik Aziz Was A Christan

but he was certainly a token and the exception that proves the rule...

[LynnTheDem]

172. Yes it was Iraq. Didn't wonder why the articles all say HISTORY OF IRAQ?

Here's another one for you. You should get hold of these guys and put them straight!

World History

Iraq
3500 BC The world's first civilization developed in Sumer (now southeastern Iraq). This civilization is referred to as Mesopotamia.
539 BC Mesopotamia was conquered by the Persians.
331 BC Alexander the Great took the area from the Persians.
126 BC The Greek rule ended when the Parthians established control of Iraq.
226 AD The Persian Sassanid dynasty took control of Mesopotamia.
637 AD Arab Muslims conquered the Sassanids. They brought the Arabic language and the Islamic religion to Mesopotamia.
750 The Abbasid dynasty came to power. They founded Baghdad as their capital.
800 Baghdad had grown to a city with nearly a million people. It as the center of trade and culture.
1258 The Arab Empire was destroyed when the Mongols invaded Mesopotamia.
Early 1500s The Ottoman Empire gained control of the region.
1700s The Ottoman's power in Mesopotamia began to decline.
1800s The United Kingdom became involved with the Persian Gulf region

http://www.worldhistory.com/iraq.htm

I'm not "desperately" anything. I have continuously said there has never been civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia. Robert Fisk says exactly this. Is he just stupid? Juan Cole says exactly this. Is he just stupid?

Hussein suppressed EVERYONE who threatened his rule and he especially oppressed religious fundamentalism. I've never said he didn't oppress the Shia. He most certainly did. Your moving of the goalposts in an attempt to paint yourself right is cute, but NOWHERE have I said he didn't oppress the Shia. I said there was never a CIVIL WAR between Shia and Sunni in Iraq.

As for your post of "Saddam's boys" in his government, please reread the article you posted, and take in the fact that it says, correctly, that MOST of his govt were Sunni Muslims. NOT "all". But "MOST".

Which is correct. YOU said "ONLY SUNNI". I said they were not only Sunni.

I'm correct and your own posted article proves that.

But back to this "desperate"...just why are YOU so desperate to prove me wrong???

[Snivi Yllom]

54. it's not all coming from one side

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/22/3336
"Shia, Sunni and Kurd tremble on the edge of explosive civil war, and the American administrators are using spit and baling wire to keep the lid on. " - William Rivers Pitt 21 January 2004

http://www.wildnesswithin.com/darkness.html
"Civil war will break out in Iraq as the Shia majority, the Kurdish and Sunni minorities, go for each other's throats. " -William Rivers Pitt 18 March 2003

[LynnTheDem]

97. Mr. Pitt is my HERO. But I believe he's incorrect.

I gotta go with Dr. Juan Cole on this one. Sorry Mr. Pitt!

[formernaderite]

73. If anything this illegal war has created a rift..

between them. Thanks for the links.

[Disturbed]

82. How many Kurds are Sunnis?

How many are Shias?

Seems that this situation is not so simple.

The U.S. and Britain will use whatever they can to remain in Iraq to garner the territory and the resources.

[LynnTheDem]

98. Most all Kurds are Sunnis.

Bloody confusing, ain't it. :D

[Zynx]

83. Answer me this

Do Sunnis obey edicts from Ayatollahs?

Shi'a and Sunni are very disticnt branches of Islam. The best example I can think of is that Shi'a are a Catholic-type hierarchy, while Sunni's are like evangelical Protestants, where anyone can be a cleric.

[robertpaulsen]

86. "Sunni-Shia divide" is a smokescreen for the real wild card: the Kurds.

Thanks for your extensive investigation and links, Lynn. I've read a lot of these links already, and I'm bookmarking the rest for future reference.

My belief is that once the * misadministration realized that the "cakewalk" was not going to the original plan, they switched to Plan B: divide the country surreptitiously into three sections by inciting factional differences to get them fighting each other. Meanwhile, US troops can withdraw from the major battle zones and either safeguard the oil supply and delivery (TRY to safeguard it anyway) or go off to spread more "democracy" in Iran.

Obviously, the sources you cite prove that incite though Zarqawi/Osama/CIA/PNAC may try, the Sunni-Shia divide just doesn't exist on a political or factional level to the degree that it needs to exist in order for a civil war to take place between them. But the divide between Kurds and the rest of Iraq is real.

Here's a little tidbit from an interesting article by Seymour Hersh:

However, a senior C.I.A. official acknowledged in an interview last week that the Israelis were indeed operating in Kurdistan. He told me that the Israelis felt that they had little choice: “They think they have to be there.” Asked whether the Israelis had sought approval from Washington, the official laughed and said, “Do you know anybody who can tell the Israelis what to do? They’re always going to do what is in their best interest.” The C.I.A. official added that the Israeli presence was widely known in the American intelligence community.

The Israeli decision to seek a bigger foothold in Kurdistan—characterized by the former Israeli intelligence officer as “Plan B”—has also raised tensions between Israel and Turkey. It has provoked bitter statements from Turkish politicians and, in a major regional shift, a new alliance among Iran, Syria, and Turkey, all of which have significant Kurdish minorities. In early June, Intel Brief, a privately circulated intelligence newsletter produced by Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, and Philip Giraldi, who served as the C.I.A.’s deputy chief of base in Istanbul in the late nineteen-eighties, said:

Turkish sources confidentially report that the Turks are increasingly concerned by the expanding Israeli presence in Kurdistan and alleged encouragement of Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state. . . . The Turks note that the large Israeli intelligence operations in Northern Iraq incorporate anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian activity, including support to Iranian and Syrian Kurds who are in opposition to their respective governments.


Plan B: The Kurdish Gambit (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=635408

Yes, this illustrates that the "inciting" of factional differences in Iraq is not just limited to Sunni-Shia differences. But there also exists among the Kurds a genuine desire for autonomy independent of any foreign incitement.

Kurds Advancing to Reclaim Land in Northern Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1823553

Kurds Threaten to Pull Out of Iraqi Government
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=607919

1.7 Million Iraqi Kurds Sign Petition Asking UN for Autonomy Vote
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1100281


How do we get more nations to contribute troops to this quagmire?

Plan B indeed.

[johnaries]

87. Uh, Excuse, but I have a good friend that is a Kurd.

He's in Nothern Iraq (Kurdistan) as a translator right now, but the conflict between Sunnis and Shia is real and has been going on for centuries.

[LynnTheDem]

104. There is no Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq and never has been.

Is your Kurdish friend the one who says there is such a divide? He's incorrect if so.

Does your Kurdish friend also know that Sunni & Shia intermarry and belong to many of the same tribes and have done so for centuries? That for centuries they've lived together and worked together and played together?

That both Shia and Sunni are equal members in several large Iraqi organizations?

AHHH WAIT! A thought:

He may be referring to IRANIAN SHIA and Iraqi Sunnis and then OH YEAH he'd be right. MASSIVE divide between those 2.

*We're talking ONLY IRAQI Shia & Sunni here.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

114. I post articles from reputable journalists, sorry you don't like them

You chose sources that you like, most of which are opinion blogs.

Your thesis is still ridiculous.

[LynnTheDem]

123. Yes Dr. Juan Cole isn't reputable and neither are Fisk and Hersh. LOL!!!

There can't be a whole lot of progressives that would agree with you on that. :D

And have you informed Dr. Cole and Mr. Fisk that THEIR "thesis" is ridiculous???

You don't seem to have understood the FACT yet that "MY THESIS" is DR.COLE'S "THESIS" and ROBERT FISK'S "THESIS" and Sy Hersh's "THESIS" and a whole buncha profs and ME experts and investigative journalists that YOU seem to think are not "reputable".

[Tinoire]

212. Unbelievable. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

102. There is no 'divide' thanks to Bush:

[Baconfoot]

124. You are conflating the issues of who is doing what in Iraq and

whether there is a Sunny-Shia divide in any sense.

With respect to the second issue, unfortunately I have followed your links and find no support for your claim in them. Many of the links don't even pretend to support anything like your claim.

Anyone interested in doing the cut and paste job can demonstrate this for the group or people can just follow the links for themselves and discover just what I discovered.

[LynnTheDem]

126. There is no Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq.

That's my claim. And the articles I posted do, in fact, back up that claim. That's why I posted links to them.

"Cut and paste job"??? You're new to DU so maybe you don't know that for reasons of copyright laws we're not allowed to post more than 4 paragraphs?
Which is why I posted the urls to every one of them.

If you care to talk on specifics, great, give specifics.

[Baconfoot]

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

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.

[LynnTheDem]

135. Ummm...obviously only the bits relevant to what I'm posting about would

be the bits I'd post. I'm lost about what you're meaning, and could you explain more about what you see as the 2 issues?

My issue is there is no Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq, and that's exactly what those relevant bits in the articles I posted refer to.

I must be totally misunderstanding you...

[leftchick]

127. I just heard Sy Hersh on Democracy Now...

he says there is no insurgency, no divide among Iraqis. The US is fighting the very people of Iraq they are supposedly "liberating".
I agree with Lynn here. The USA State Run Media is in overdive to convince AmeriKans that the Iraqis need us to sort it out.
Bull Fucking Shit!

[Baconfoot]

129. That's on the first of the two conflated issues.I agree'w'U guys there.n/t

[LynnTheDem]

134. Would you explain what you mean by the "two" issues? I don't think I'm

understanding you properly.

My claim is that there is no (Iraqi) Sunni-Shia divide.

About the articles I posted, they ALL talk about there being no Sunni-Shia divide; those are the parts I highlighted. Are you saying that most of them don't ENTIRELY deal with the divide issue so they're "cut & paste"?

I mean if you were posting about fishing for bass, and an article with good bass fishing info also talked about trout, you wouldn't post the article? You wouldn't "cut & paste" the bits that are relevant to bass fishing?

I'm not being sarcastic here; the above is how I'm taking your post and I suspect I'm wrong, so if you could make it more clear for me, much appreciated! :)

[LynnTheDem]

130. Sy Hersh is just TELLING LIES!!! He's TALKING NONSENSE!!!

rotfl!

[theboss]

132. There was no divide between nationalists and communists in China in 1940s

They were very much united in killing a lot of Japanese. Didn't mean that once all the Japanese were gone they were going to end up liking each other. It's probably the one time in history that a civil war stopped to deal with an outside threat.

I'm really not sure why Lynn is arguing this like a mantra. Sunni and Shia are two very different branches of Islam and both branches are going to want a dominant say in post-Saddam Iraq. The fact that both were oppressed under the British and then the Baathists doesn't mean they are united in any way. The fact that they are fighting a common enemy now does not mean they are "united" in any broad sense.

[LynnTheDem]

136. And their centuries-long history of no civil war doesn't seem to indicate

it's unlikely they'll have one now?

And the reason why I "argue like a mantra" is because I, just like those I most respect such as Juan Cole, Sy Hersh and Robert Fisk, don't believe there will be a civil war and the bushCartel are only chanting civil war as a justification for remaining in Iraq especially when the latest polls show a clear majority of Iraqis wanting US troops out like NOW and Americans now a majority saying Iraq was a mistake.

And I would imagine that's also why Cole and Fisk and Hersh have "argued like a mantra".

:)

[theboss]

137. There is not a centuries-long history of Iraq....

I don't know why you are giving this country a history it simply does not have.

Iraq is barely 80 years old. And in those 80 years, it's either been a colony or dictatorship. Neither of those entities have civil wars.

Once the US leaves and the Shia install a theocracy, it's not going to be pretty. Add the religious differences to the control of the oil, and things will heat up.

[LynnTheDem]

138. Before you say that to anyone else, do some research first.

Coz you're very wrong.

[theboss]

140. Timelines are fun!

Enjoy!

http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm

You will like 1921 when Iraq becomes a state and the Kurds and Shi'ites immediately rebel.

[LynnTheDem]

141. Yes they are! Especially when you do a FULL timeline!

History of Iraq: Timeline of Events, 6750 BCE - 2004 CE

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/blis_iraq_chron.htm

Early Medieval Shia

In 945 AD / 334 AH, the Buyids seized control over Baghdad and the first Shi'ite state was established.

In addition to the Buyids, another Shi'a dynasty, the Hamdanids, came to power in northern Iraq in 944 AD / 333 AH. They eventually extended their rule over Syria. The establishment of two Shi'ite dynasties, the first in history, had far-reaching consequences for Shi'a Islam. Because of these two dynasties, Shi'a began to spread all over the Middle East and the numbers of Shi'ites rose dramatically.

The Shi'ite kingdoms came to an end with the rise of the Seljuqs as the regional power of the Middle East. The Seljuq Turks adopted Sunni Islam as their faith and subscribed to its harshest and least tolerant form, Hanfism. From the 11th to the 12th centuries (5th to 6th centuries AH), the Seljuqs ruled over Iran and Bagdhad. The Shi'ite communities, however, continued to thrive.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/SHIA/EARLY.HTM

Want more? As I said, the Sunni and Shia have been living together in Iraq for centuries.

Oh COOL! You'll love this one, from the same site as your link;

680: Battle at Karbala, where the Shi'i- leader Husayn was killed when claiming the leading position in the Caliphate. The battle was not military important, but had decisive political and religious importance, as this became the final schism between Sunnis and Shi'is.


http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm

[KittyWampus]

131. Your Use Of Bolded, Over Sized Capital Letters Highlights The

imbalance of your post.

There most certainly are major differences between secular Muslims and those following the ayatollahs and who preach jihad.

Those who were kept out of power by a minority will ultimately want to extract their revenge.

The Kurds definately want liberation.

The Turks definately want Kurdish territory.

Do the Imperial Powers manipulate underlying divisions in third world countries? Yes.

But to deny the underlying divisions exist and that they would not contribute to a stable country with no history of democracy or powersharing amongst factions is absurd.

[LynnTheDem]

133. Dr. Juan Cole, Robert Fisk, and Sy Hersh, to name just 3, disagree.

And I agree with them.

By the way, my OP has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kurds. I'm only talking about Sunnis and Shia. Your comments regarding the Turks & Kurds I agree with absolutely.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. Without Getting Into The Briar Patch

the schism between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam is quite real and the lion's share of scholarship on the topic suggests just that...


Only time will tell how that schism plays out in Iraq....

[theboss]

142. No it's not...their best friends!!!

Stop being silly!!! Religious people who consider each other heretics always get along in periods of political instability. Weren't you paying attention to Pre-Elizabethan England?!?!

[LynnTheDem]

146. Hey cool! That's that "with us or against us" black-white rhetoric!

Are the majority of DUers your best friends? Do you want to kill them all?

How come the black-white bullshit? They have to either hate each other or love each other? I hope you don't apply that to yourself about your fellow countrymen and women!

I've never said Iraq's Sunni & Shia are all "best friends"; what I've said is they've had rebellions and skirmishes -fact- they've never had a civil war against each other -fact- and there is no Sunni-Shia divide.

They do however have a long history of marrying each other, and many Shia and Sunni share the same tribes, so them I could understand hating each other. Don't all families and spouses end up doing that?

:D

[LynnTheDem]

144. Would you post links to this "lion's share"?

I only have links to professors and ME experts who say there is no Sunni-Shia divide, so I'd love to see who says otherwise.

Much appreciated, thanks!

[kwassa]

149. more history of the divide

http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=10338

Fallujah and its aftermath did not break the Iraqi insurgency's back

By Anthony H. Cordesman

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

excerpt:

At the same time, Iraqis who claim that religious identity has not been important in the past ignore some brutal realities. No one who spent time with Iraqi officials during the Iran-Iraq war can really be unaware that the security forces kept constant watch over Iraqi Shiites in the south, and that religious affiliation was a critical issue in Iraqi security operations. Large cadres of Iraqi Shiites did desert and some operated in the marshes and broader areas in the south.

Shiite towns and areas did suffer from active discrimination in investment and jobs after the regime began to run out of money in 1982. The security forces also enforced a ruthless crackdown on any Shiite officers, clerics, or civilians they perceived as threatening, and this lasted from mid-1983 until the fall of Saddam. The uprisings in 1991, and the low-level military operations against Shiite dissidents that lasted well into the late 1990's, also help divide Sunnis and Shiites.

[Ms. Clio]

153. Ah, yes, Anthony Cordesman--also the "expert" on WMDs

Iraq and the Risk Posed
by Weapons of
Mass Destruction

Iraq has lied to the UN and the world every time this helped it to preserve its CBRN and
missile weapons and facilities, and has been willing to suffer repeated diplomatic
embarrassments in the process. The biggest of these lies was its denial of a massive biological
weapons program between 1991-1995, but it has lied about its missile, chemical weapons, and
nuclear weapons programs as well. It has been repeatedly caught important or attempting to
import dual-use items and CIA and Department of Defense reporting makes it clear that it
continues to do to this date.


The Certainty of a Continuing Threat
Given this background, several things become clear:

· Iraq is ruled by a regime of proven liars that will lie again whenever this is
convenient.

· Iraq will never cease proliferating as long as the present regime is in power.

· Iraq does not perceive any moral or military “redlines” that will prevent it from using
CBRN weapons if it feels this is expedient.

· Iraq will continue to try to develop long-range missiles but has long had other
delivery options and will almost certainly continue to improve them.

· Iraqi proliferation will not be tied to one type of weapon of mass destruction. It will
seek chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons.
These points in some ways make Iraq’s current missile and CBRN capabilities moot. The
issue is not whether Iraq has yet achieved nuclear weapons or extremely lethal biological
weapons, or even whether it will indulge in another round of UN inspections. It is that this regime
will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and biological weapons with equal or greater lethality if
it is given the time and opportunity to do so.

(snip)

The second uncertainty is whether any new round of UN inspections can really be
successful in stopping Iraqi proliferation. The answer is probably no. They might well be able to
stop Iraq from major development of missiles and their deployment, large-scale production of
chemical weapons, and producing fissile material in any significant amounts. They cannot affect
Iraq’s technology base, they cannot hope to detect a covert biological program with nuclear
lethalities, and they cannot hope to prevent Iraq from assembling a nuclear device if it can obtain
fissile or “dirty” fissile material from outside Iraq. In fact, efforts directed at large, observable
Iraqi CBRN and missile activities may simply push Iraqi into concentrating on biological
weapons and asymmetric means of delivery.
Third, it is uncertain that the US can now do a more effective job of targeting Iraqi
missile and CBRN facilities and weapons than it did during the Gulf War and Desert Fox, in spite
of the impressive advances in US targeting and strike capabilities demonstrated in Kosovo and
Afghanistan. Iraq is expert at camouflage, deception and the use of decoys, exploits dispersal and
movement (shell games), creating duplicate and back-up systems, and creating small covert
facilities. Preserving such residual capabilities would be particularly important in the case of
biological and nuclear weapons.
Finally, the US cannot count on Iraq ceasing to proliferate simply because of regime
change – even if the new regime initially appears to do so. Iraq is a highly nationalistic country
that exists in a region where Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, Syria, and Egypt are also proliferators.
As is the case with a number of Asian powers like South Korea and Taiwan, Iraq may at a
minimum preserve a sudden breakout capability in an area like biological weapons almost
regardless of regime.




Yes. He is certainly the expert about Iraq, isn't he?

If you actually read the article, please note that he says NOTHING, EVER, about the U.S. role in helping Saddam back in the day. Yet another reason to find his opinions just a wee bit--convenient.


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:hBiHE6pxsWQJ:www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2002/Cordesman.pdf+%22Anthony+H.+Cordesman%22&hl=en

[kwassa]

157. There is plenty of other histories of Saddam oppressing Shiites

Are you saying they are all false?

[Ms. Clio]

161. What? I never said Saddam didn't oppress

the Shiites. Nobody is saying that--why would you introduce such a strawman? Saddam did not oppress anyone for religious reasons--he was a secular kind of thuggish dictator.

I simply suggest that you did not, perhaps, pick the best possible source to support your arguments.

[LynnTheDem]

171. A moving of the

goalposts? :D

[Ms. Clio]

177. Where oh where did those danged things go???

:wtf:

[Zynx]

152. Are you actually trying to claim there is no religious difference?

I wish a mod would close this thread for being idiotic, but that doesn't seem to happen around here.

There are *very* large theological differences between Shi'a and Sunni.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. Since She Challenged My Relatively Benign Assertion I Am Compelled To

Respond....


At least she's not peddling the malarkey that Sunnis and not Shias are the majority in Iraq any more...

[LynnTheDem]

162. Why are you lying?

What have I done to you, that you now lie?

1. I didn't "challenge" your assertion; I very politely asked you if you would post links. If you go back & read several of my prior posts you'd learn that I collect articles on this subject.

2. I was never "peddling the malarkey that Sunnis and not Shias are the majority in Iraq any more", and ANYONE who had read my post on that topic KNOWS THIS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT.

Shall I post what I said on that "malarky"? I said I wanted to find the facts and if anyone comes across such, would they kindly let me have the urls.

And yet you deliberately LIE.

Why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. Did You Or Did You Not Start A Thread Thst Claimed That Sunnis

Were A Majority In Iraq?


And didn't you make this claim to butress your assertion that Rumsfeld was incorrectly saying the Sunnis were a minority to make them look like deadenders....

[LynnTheDem]

167. And was that title not part of the TITLE of the ARTICLE I was

asking about? And was it not the entire main theme of that article?

Hint: yes.

And where did I make any such claim about rummy and deadenders??? NOT ONCE did I mention rummy OR deadenders.

I did, however, besides posting from the article, say this:

I'm trying to get the facts on this...

So I'm trying to find more info; which "international humanitarian org" did the census? Are there any more articles floating around backing up the various Shia & Sunni academicians quoted in 2003 as saying Sunni are in fact the majority?

If anyone has a better search engine (or search ability than me, which means most of you ) or comes across any such referances to this issue, would you please please please help me feed my pet peeve!

Yeah I sure was "peddling that malarky" and buttressing claims against rummy and deadenders even tho not once did I even mention those words.

You really should go back & actually READ that post.

So you're NOT lying about me on the "malarky" post; you just didn't bother to comprehend the post properly. That's fine.

And why are you lying about this "challenge"? Or is that a reading comprehension thing too? Or are you just willing to jump on me any chance you get, and if so, why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. I Didn't Bookmark The Thread...

But you stated that the Sunnis were a majority in Iraq....


The reality is the Sunnis are a minority...


You said that Rummy stated the Sunnis were a minority to butress his claim that they were deadenders because if the Sunnis were indeeed the majority they would welcome elections where they gain power...

[LynnTheDem]

174. There you go, lying again! PLEASE stop lying!

I posted the article's TITLE; Fresh Statistics’ Show Iraq's Sunnis In Majority and the topic of the article; that Sunni & Shia had agreed on this.

Then I posted bits of what the article said AND ASKED PEOPLE TO SEND ME INFO if they found any, as I wanted to KNOW THE FACTS about what the article claimed.

And just exactly WHERE did I even mention rummy's name???

Again; WHY are you lying and WTF did I do to you to deserve it???


Here's the post;

LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-26-05 07:29 AM
Original message
Shia and Sunni agree; SUNNI are Iraq's majority


I'm trying to get the facts on this, it's my current pet peeve, lol!

Here's what I gots:

The constantly-cited "60-20" Shia majority is from the "CIA Fact Book", from 1992. The CIA didn't actually ever do a census so I assume that was their "best guesstimate" or it was propaganda because chanting about overthrowing the MAJORITY regime wouldn't get the US very far:

"Observers said the contrasted Shiite and Sunnis statistics could have been politically motivated, as the U.S. occupation forces seeking to marginalize the role of Sunnis – now launching almost-daily resistance attacks that killed hundreds of American soldiers."

Some Iraqis say the claim that Shia were the majority first came from Jewish writer Hanna Batto.

The Shia & the Sunni both agree Iraq is a Sunni majority of 50-ish% Sunni and 40-ish% Shia;

"the number of Shiites, I think, is averaged at 40 or 45 percent of the whole population against 53 percent of Sunnis," the Shiite Mohamed Jawwad Ali told Quds Press news agency.

"Shiite scholars conceded that Shiites could make up as much as 40 percent of the whole population."

In 2003, an international humanitarian organization did a census, and they too found a Sunni majority;

"Fresh statistics by an international organization suggested that Iraq's Sunnis are in a clear majority...

The statistics, released by a reliable international humanitarian relief agency in 2003, suggested that Sunnis make up 58 percent of the Iraqi population and Shiites 40 percent."

*******
Sites w link to the above info:

http://occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2784

http://uruknet.web.at.it/colonna-centrale-pagina.php?p=...

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-01/29/arti...

http://www.searchingjenin.com/wire.php?category=Interna...

So I'm trying to find more info; which "international humanitarian org" did the census? Are there any more articles floating around backing up the various Shia & Sunni academicians quoted in 2003 as saying Sunni are in fact the majority?

If anyone has a better search engine (or search ability than me, which means most of you ) or comes across any such referances to this issue, would you please please please help me feed my pet peeve!

TIA!


Alert | Hide Thread | Nominate Topic for Homepage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3007634&mesg_id=3007634

[LynnTheDem]

179. In FACT, read the reply I posted to that thread:

LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-26-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. LOL! GOOD one!


I love that!

I think perhaps part of the problem is most people aren't aware that the Kurds are Sunnis.

So in fact right off the bat it's AT LEAST 40% Sunni to the oft-cited 60% Shia.

I'm so determined to find facts on this sucker, LOL! This "relief agency" released their stats, according to the original news article, so where IS it???!! ARRRRRGH I hate obsessions!

Yep...just "peddling that malarky" and impugning Rumsfeld. :eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

163. I believe what she is trying to claim, and there is evidence to support it

is that in the absence of domestic political maneuvering by opportunists like Saddam, or the meddling of imperial or colonial powers such as the Ottomans or the Brits or the U.S., those religious differences have not and will not automatically lead to sectarian conflict and violence. Nobody is claiming there are not large theological differences--the argument is whether those differences must inexorably be translated into the political realm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. One Of The Definitions Of Politics Is Who Gets What, When , And How..

When Saddam was in charge the minority Sunnis got all the goodies.....


If there are democratic elections the Shias will have the power and give the goodies to other Shias...


The Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland weren't at each other throats because of Martin Luther but because the minority Protestants had all the goodies....

[Ms. Clio]

170. The Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland

were at each others throats because the British set them upon each other.

These things do not happen in a historical vacuum!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

173. There Was An Economic Component....

The Protestants had a much higher standard of living in Northern Ireland just as the Sunnis had a much higher standard of living in Baathist Iraq...

[Ms. Clio]

175. They had a much higher standard of living because they were the colonizers

Just as most Americans today have a much higher standard of living than the vast majority of Native Americans--or, for that matter, a much higher standard of living than virtually all Iraqis.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. You Didn't Ask Me The Genesis Of The Inequity...

And regardless of it's roots it exists as it exists in Iraq with a religious layer.....


JMO but if America left tommorow Iraq would descend into chaos with the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis going their separate ways....


Saddam was Iraq's Tito... He kept disparate groups together through an iron fist but he lacked Tito's wisdom as Tito didn't overtly favor one group or attack his neighbors ......

[Ms. Clio]

181. You seemed to be ignoring the genesis of the inequality

The religious layer is not the primary underlying reason for the problem--colonialism is.

I say we go ahead and leave and see if that happens--let's just stop killing them--secretly bombing them and turning their whole country into a free fire zone, as Sy Hersh recently said. The American presence is doing absolutely nothing to stablize the country, and indeed, seems calculated to do precisely the opposite.

[LynnTheDem]

165. Don't read it, don't post to it, if you think it's "idiotic". And where

on this thread have I said there were "no religious differences"???!!

OF COURSE there are theological differences, just as there are between Sunni and Sunni and Shia and Shia.

I'm Anglican. My husband is not. That is a religious difference.

Do I want to kill him? Not most the time.

"Religious differences" is not what my OP is remotely about. Too bad you didn't read it first before posting. And why you bothered to post to a thread you wish locked as you deem it "idiotic" would make one wonder the best use of the word.

[liberal43110]

180. Lynn, you're just wrong on this one

I'm embarrassed for you.

[LynnTheDem]

182. And of course you're also embarrassed for Sy Hersch? And Dr. Cole?

And Robert Fisk?

Because I agree with them on this subject. SO if you're "embarrassed" for me, then of course you're embarrassed for them, too.

You should email them and let them all know they are "just wrong" and how you're "embarrassed" for them. :)

[Finding Rawls]

183. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW

WHAT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS ARE TO ANALYZE THE RELATIONSHIP OF SHIA AND SUNNI IN IRAQ?

NOT WHAT ARTICLES YOU CAN PRODUCE, YOUR CREDENTIALS. DO YOU HAVE A MASTERS RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF ISLAMIC HISTORY, ? OR EVEN BETTER, A PHD?

[Ms. Clio]

184. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW

WHY YOU FEEL THE NEED TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS????

And if only people with PhDs could post here--well, it would be a mighty quiet place.

[Finding Rawls]

185. Have you been reading the thread?

Lynn the Dem feels the need to utilize huge type in every post. I was mocking her in a fairly obvious manner.

And not everyone here has, or should have, a PhD. It occurs to me, however, that Lynn the Dem believes herself to be the authoritative DU historian on Shia-Sunni relations. I would like to know if she is justified.

[Ms. Clio]

186. Um, yeah, I've been reading the thread

If you have, then you will notice that I have also been participating rather extensively, as well.

It's quite obvious why you did it--probably not nearly as clever or as humorous as you think it was, though.

So who are you to judge anyone's credentials on anything?

[Finding Rawls]

188. I didn't think that it was funny

but I did hope that maybe Lynn the Dem would manage to restrain herself from using such huge type in the future if she understands that some people find it. . .gasp. . .Fox Newsesque.

If she has a Masters degree or a PhD in a subject related to Islamic history-specifically the relations between Sunni and Shia-then I would have to admit that she is somewhat legitimate in making the sweeping and broad statements that she has made.

Regardless, I am the DU official in charge of checking credentials.

[LynnTheDem]

191. I will "restrain myself" if and when the board owners ask me to.

Why don't you hit the alert button and demand they ask me to "restrain myself". After all, YOU don't have a PhD on DU Boards, do you? Best leave that to the owners, don't you think?

[Ms. Clio]

193. Academic credentials are not the only basis for expertise in a field

After all, Condi has a PhD in Soviet studies, but did she have an accurate grasp of the true situation in the USSR or predict its collapse?

If you don't like the type Lynn uses, don't read her posts. I personally find nothing remotely "Fox Newsesque" about them.

[Finding Rawls]

196. You're correct

Academic credentials are not the only basis for expertise in a field. A person who has spent a lot of time living in Iraq, or even in the middle east, might be considered an expert in the field. However, I would wager that there are more masters and phd holders on this board than there are people who have lived in Iraq for an extended period. I figured that Lynn the dem being in the first group was more likely, so I inquired.

And if you don't agree about the font, then I guess we'll disagree on that point.

[LynnTheDem]

189. WOW.

I have the words to describe you, but I'd be banned were I to use them.

My guess is you'll do that yourself sooner or later anyways.

OH DAMN I did it AGAIN! I posted an opinion without having a PhD on *****s! OOPS!

[LynnTheDem]

187. WTF???????!!

First off, are you suggesting NO ONE should post topics they don't have a PhD on???

:wow: :wow: :wow:

I happen to agree with those who DO happen to have PhDs on the subject. And I posted articles from several of them.

Just wtf is your problem with that???

I don't have the right to agree with these experts unless I too have a PhD in their subject???

:wow: :wow: :wow:

What a truly amazing question you ask...stunning!

Second, do you always go around asking strangers personal questions that are none of your business? Most people would consider that quite rude. Such as myself.

Third; I haven't analyzed f*ck-all. I posted articles that I happen to agree with. I take it then you NEVER EVER have an opinion on any topic that you yourself don't have a PhD in? Wow. You must have a very empty head or a hell of a lot of PhDs!

Fourth; Yes actually, I have a BA in Middle East Studies.

Gee, that's not high enough of a degree for me to actually have an opinion and post articles that my opinion agrees with, is it!

Well damn! I'm so fucked! And I'll never ever post an opinion again unless my PhD is on that topic. I know you do the same.

[Finding Rawls]

194. My PhD in etiquette is obviously in the mail

"Second, do you always go around asking strangers personal questions that are none of your business? Most people would consider that quite rude. Such as myself."

Are you serious? This is a message board and you've made a large number of posts, on this thread and others, on this topic. I can't believe that you think that asking you if you have a masters or phd in a field related to the subject matter is personal, private information that should not be inquired about.

Calm down. No one is out to get you

[LynnTheDem]

199. Obviously

However did you pass exams?

Yes I am serious; this is a public board; most posters don't like being asked for or giving out personal information.

You weren't just interested in whether I had degrees on MES; you were purposely being sarcastic and that's perfectly clear from your post. Please don't deny that now.

I'm calm thanks so much for your concern, but I prefer not having that rightwingnut rhetoric used on me. Most progressives prefer not having it used. In case you're unaware of the fact, rightwingnuts love to say "calm down" to Dems, as it's a very condescending remark and it infers the Dem is hysterical.

I don't believe I posted anything whatsoever about anyone being "out to get me", and again, that's rightwingnut rhetoric used to condescend and denigrate Dems, so please don't use it on me.

[Finding Rawls]

201. Personal Information?

Was I asking for a urine test? Your hair color? Your favorite color?

I was asking what kind of background you had on a topic that you obviously feel very strongly about. Under the circumstances, inquiring as to whether or not you have a graduate degree in a specific academic area is far from instrusive. Once again, calm down. You answered the question. You have a BA in middle eastern studies. More than most people on the board. Let's leave it at that.

[KissMeKate]

176. military psyops

we have a clear interest in playing up this divide and pretending its all about religious problems, and not reisitance to occupation.

We need to rethink our approach in Iraq, starting with the torture of prisoners.

[Ms. Clio]

200. Short and to the point and makes sense to me n/t

[Dookus]

190. you're wrong...

regardless of font size. And Iraq *IS* 83 years old.

[Finding Rawls]

192. The font size is disturbing nt

[LynnTheDem]

198. Well...

1. That's your problem. And there are ways to deal with it,

2. You could have asked me politely, but you chose to "mock" me.

3. You also could simply have alerted the mods and asked them about it.

[LynnTheDem]

195. Sure are a hell of a lot of us who are "wrong"! You must tell them all!

History of Iraq: Timeline of Events, 6750 BCE - 2004 CE

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/blis_iraq_chron.htm

Iraq: History

"In this summary, 'Mesopotamia' is used for the region, while 'Iraq' is used from the time of the Arab conquest.

1405: Iraq falls under control of Turkish tribes from Anatolia

http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm

And then there's Robert Fisk and Dahr Jamail and Dr.Ramadani and Dr. Yaphe, and Sy Hersh and Al Sistani and Dr. Cole and...

So many who say there is no Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq...all so wrong! And most have PhDs in the subject, even.

Gee, sure would think such people wouldn't go around being wrong.

Yep. We're all just wrong.

You really should email all of them and let them know!

[Dookus]

197. You're persistent, too

it's amusing.

[LynnTheDem]

203. Yep! I faked every one of those links! All those websites are actually

my own, totally faked!

And the articles by Fisk, Hersh, Cole, Yaphe, Jamail etc? I wrote them. Yep, I wrote every one of them myself! Got them published under their names, of course, but it was all my own work!

:eyes:

What's so amusing is how you have links right there in front of you that say exactly what I've said...and yet you just carry on as if they didn't exist and I'm just "persistent" and "amusing" and of course "wrong".

The condescension drips from you.

They're not wrong, all those whose opinions I agree with. Nope, not them; it's just me that's wrong.

Shoot the messenger. Always a favored tactic, isn't it.

[Dookus]

204. Look...

if your thesis is that the sunni/shia divide or the potential for civil war is exaggerated, then make that point. But to say repeatedly, adamantly and in giant text that there is NO divide is silly.

Similarly, aggressively asserting that Sunnis are the majority or that Iraq is hundreds (or thousands) of years old is just nuts.

You don't lay out a thesis - you throw extreme assertions like ninja stars. You shouldn't be surprised when people react.

[LynnTheDem]

206. And you're lying, too.

I DID NOT "aggressively asserting that Sunnis are the majority". I posted a news article that said new stats show a Sunni majority and that I would like information on the article if anyone comes across it as I WANT TO CHASE DOWN THE FACTS on that article.

I posted the entire post on this thread. It is VERY obvious when that post is read that I did not "aggressively asserting that Sunnis are the majority".

You know this. So in fact, you're just lying.

"Extreme assertions"???

Citing a news article & asking posters if they have any info that backs up any of what the article said is "throwing out extreme assertions"???!! :wow:

Using the same methodology of calling Iraq "Iraq" from 1400 onwards is "throwing out extreme assertions"???!! :wow:

Stating my opinion which coincides exactly with the opinions of several prominent ME experts and investigative reporters who have many articles out saying exactly what I said is "throwing out extreme assertions"???!! :wow:

I don't think so, LOL!

I am not alone in saying Iraq is in fact thousands of years old. The NAME is not. But it's the same damn land it's always been, and what I'd actually posted originally is the FACT that the Sunni and the Shia have been living together on that land that was named Mesopotamia and then changed to the name Iraq, for centuries.

Are YOU denying that Sunni and Shia have lived together for thousands of years in Baghdad and Basra and Kirkuk and all the other areas that were named Mesopotamia and name-changed to Iraq???

The name changed. So that means the Sunni & Shia have only lived together in that exact same area of land for 83 years???

Now that would be nuts, if you are saying that!

And in fact, as the links I previously posted show, history sites call Iraq "Iraq" from 1400 on. So does the Iraq history timeline in the United States Congressional Library.

Ya know what? If it's good enough for them to be calling it Iraq since 1400, it's good enough for me.

And the bottom line is this; my original post that Sunni & Shia have lived together for centuries in that exact area, regardless of the name of the land, is absolutely correct.

[Dookus]

207. and you could

say Italy is thousands of years old, but that, too, would be factually incorrect.

[JCMach1]

202. My Iraqi students tell me this all the time

there IS no divide

[LynnTheDem]

205. Careful!

You'll be called "amusing" and "liar" and "talking nonsense" and "wrong" and "just wrong" and "embarrassing" and...

:eyes:

I'm on a discussion board of mostly Iraqis, and all of them have said the same thing. "Sushi" is popular, lol! One parent a Shia and the other a Sunni, so the kids say they are "Sushi" :D

[Finding Rawls]

208. An honest question

If there is no Shia-Sunni divide why would Sunnis be boycotting the elections?

[LynnTheDem]

209. It's not just Sunnis boycotting the election.

Several Shia-Sunni joint organizations are also boycotting, but I don't have the Sunni-Shia breakdown.

The latest article I saw a couple days ago I believe said of the Shia some 60% said they planned to vote.

Let's use the total population figure and ignore that 50% are children & not eligible to vote. So use the "25,000,000" number for total poulation, with Shia @ 60% and Sunni @ 20%;

40% of Shia not voting would be 6,000,000. There are only a total of 5,000,000 Sunni in Iraq.

So actually that would be more SHIA saying they won't vote than there are Sunni.

Using that formula, even if 80% of Shia voted, that would be 3,000,000 Shia not voting. Add to that number however many in the organizations that are boycotting.

Would you vote, if say China invaded & occupied the US, killed 1,000,000 Americans (apx equiv of number of Iraqis killed) and forced an election on us, and while America is under occupation by a foreign army, and under martial law, with some 50% of the population of America unable to vote due to the raging war, for unknown candidates of unknown party platforms, for a group who will select a National Assembly, who will next year select a group (of 3 people) to select a president and entire executive staff?

I have to admit not only would I not vote, I'd be attacking every polling station I could find. No foreign occupier is going to come storming into America and force bullshit elections down MY throat, lol!

Edit: I totally forgot to say, of those "only 4 provinces" that won't be able to vote, they contain apx 54% of the entire population of Iraq, including Baghdad, which has some 2,000,000 Shia.

I have some articles that say "a sizable amount of the Shia boycotting" but no actual figures given. With the Shia being 60% to Sunni 20% tho, every 1% is significant.

[LynnTheDem]

210. What some boycotting Shia said;

Contrary to many Western press reports which depicted the debate over the election date as polarising Iraq along sectarian lines -- with the majority of Shia pro-election, while the Sunnis are pro-delay -- Iraqi political activist Mussa Al-Husseini (Shia) told the Weekly that there were also large sections of the Shia population who are committed to boycotting the elections.

Al-Husseini dismissed as superficial and simplistic the perception that all of Iraq's Shia were rallying around Sistani in his call to participate in the forthcoming elections. "We -- as Iraqi Shia -- find it strange that Sayid Sistani is so involved in such mundane political matters," said Al-Husseini. "The perception that all of Iraq's Shia population view these elections as a historic opportunity is completely wrong and misleading."

Al-Husseini, who describes himself as a secular Shia, went on to point out that there are large numbers of Iraqi Shia who will boycott the elections despite Sistani's calls to go to the polls, because they believe that the whole process is merely a charade intended to bestow legitimacy on an illegitimate order.

"The real issue is not about a Sunni boycott versus Shia participation," Al- Husseini insisted. "It is about whether you are against the occupation and support the national resistance. And there are as many Shia as there are Sunnis in that camp."

http://why-war.com/news/2004/12/02/tovoteor.html

[LynnTheDem]

211. More Shia boycotting;

"This is a statement issued and signed by 69 independent political groups, religious authorities ( marjyia ), tribal leaders and independent public figures," Mothana Hareth Al-Dari, spokesman for the influential Sunni Muslim Cleric's Association (MCA) said. The statement advocated an "absolute boycott" of the elections. No vote, it continued, "promoted by the occupation forces" can result in sovereignty and independence for the Iraqi people. It cited "vicious" attacks by the occupation on Iraqi cities like Najaf, Karbalaa, Samara, Mosul, Baghdad and "especially the genocidal war launched on Falluja", as among the reasons for boycotting the elections. "The undersigned realise that...the results of the vote have already been decided in favour of those supporting the occupation."

The signatories include Sunni, Shia, Christian, Turkman, Kurdish, Islamic and secular groups.

A Shia electoral list was announced last week, with the blessing of Iraq's senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. Significantly, it did not include supporters of Al-Sadr. The 275 candidate list is expected to dominate the Iraqi parliament and has created the false impression that the boycott is essentially Sunni, while Iraq's Shia are happy to contest the vote.

"You must realise," cautioned Al-Ali, "that there is a big difference between a Shia list and the Shia list. Yes, there is an electoral list, but it doesn't represent all the Shia. Don't forget that the Al-Sadrist movement is influential in the Iraqi street and it is boycotting the elections." The elections' opponents, he stressed, include both Sunni and Shia.

"I speak now as a Shia," he told the Weekly, "and what they are doing is dividing the nationalist line. We will not hesitate to expose those who do that."

And, according to the MCA's Al-Dhari, "one quarter of the election boycott front is Shia."

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/721/re7.htm

:wow: I didn't realize it was this many Shia boycotting. I think we're pretty much FUBAR.