Our troops are unable to keep this from happening because they are not allowed to patrol in Sadr City which is where most of the violence is
happening. This request to stay out of Sadr City was by al-Maliki
The thing is, long before maliki was in power, or before there was even an independant iraqi government, the US was clashing with the Mahdi Army.
Pretty constantly too. But we never took him out or hit the organization real hard. Even after he agreed to stop attacking the US, and then broke the
agreement and continued to attack. For some odd reason, we've been allowing him to exist and act as a militia leader. It has nothing to do with
maliki, we simply decided that we wouldn't destroy him. Our troops can't really deal with him because of our government.
Originally posted by runetang
Lol. if they wanted peace they would not kill each other over their religion and who the leader was in medieval times a thousand years ago.
Do you see Arian Christian activists attacking Catholic churchs because they deemed Arius a heretic at the Nicene creed during the 3rd century A.D.?
Thats because the catholics exterminated the arians. THe sunni and shia are trying to exterminate one another. There are other muslim sects that have
been wiped out or suppressed greatly over time. And to this day we still have incredible animosity between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox
churches. They're not bombing each other, today, but then agian, most people in europe in general aren't resorting to violence. Thats because they
have stable economies and live in responsive liberal representative democracies. The middle east doesn't have any of that. If europe didn't have
that, then europe'd be resorting to wanton internal violence.
Sunni and Shia will work together. Dont you doubt that for a second. Not in Iraq so much, at the moment, but regionally they will play
strategies that include Sunni and Shia countries working together (Strategic Alliance - Syria & Iran).
The syrian government is not shia, its alawis, and its also a secular baathist government. They're not engaged in open warfare against one another
right now, but that isn't saying much. And the syrian government will simply exterminate any radical shi'ite iran backed groups that try to
infiltrate syria. THey've done it before in recent times, and they'll do it again. Similarly, the Iranian government will crush any attempts at a
nationalist secular government, like that of teh Ba'ath party.
The Shia and SUnni will not
work together, in the long or the short term. The sunni beleive that the shia are, quite simply, heretics, who are
the dupes of satan, and thus evil, and are trying to destroy the sunnis.
Al-qaida in Iraq isn't working with
the Mahdi Army, for example. They Al-qaida in Iraq is targeting and killing, en mass, shias. The Mahdi
Army and Badr Brigades are shi'ite death squads, they are targetting sunnis. They are not uniting against the United States. There are small scale
attacks against US Troops in iraq, both from the Shia and Sunni. But there is no group that is both shia and sunni and actively working against the
US. I have no doubt that sometimes some of the militia commanders from different groups work together a little bit. BUt they all know that once the US
leaves, its going to be a battle royale between the shia militias and the sunni militias. Whoever wins is then going to try to crush the kurdish
Personally, I've read up on the history of Islam and feel that the Shia are the rightful sect, because they wanted to go by blood
Its really irrelevant at this point. The differences were origianlly partisan political differences. That political split lead to isolation between
the two, and they've grown to become extremely different. Besides, there is no longer anyone that can seriously make a claim at being a worthy
descendant of Mohammed,and there is no longer a position of global Caliph.
Also, why does it matter if the successor is a blood relative of Mohammed? Mohammed was just
a man, not a god. His blood isn't divine, he was
a great prophet. That doesn't mean that his children, and grandchildren, down through the ages, are also great prophets. Indeed, the entire idea
behind islam is that mohammed was the last prophet. Theres no reason why his relatives should be the community leaders. The sunni idea is that the
leaders amoung the people should get together, debate, and select a person that is capable, just, competent, and pious, to lead them all.
The shia idea was that it should be the relatives of Mohammed and Ali, irrespective of their capabilities.
Also, notice, the shia, their theology is a little more polytheistic than the sunni. They greatly revere Ali, who wasn't even a prophet, and his
martyrd sons. They put great emphasis on the Saints and their holy men. And its from the shia branch of islam that we've seen the hiding places for
most of the crypto-pagans, and the revival of older, paganistic practices, like witchcraft. The shia branch has been split and rammified so many
times, whereas the sunni branch hasn't, it has collection of sects, that are still thoroughly sunni.
So you can see that the sunnis would object to the shia, as a 'slide down the slippery slope' to outright paganism, especially when the iranian
kings started using the shia sect to exert their control from outside of the usual islamic system.
Of course, the shia consider the sunnis to have betrayed the lineage of mohammed and the religion itself too. But neither is really 'right'. When
the Great Schism in Christendom occured, you couldn't really say that the Orthodox were 'correct', and that the Catholic were 'incorrect'. Its
The Shia are the successors to the Fatimids, and Mohammed's "blood people".
The shia are largely non-arab central asian converts to islam.
because all they do is blow-up their innocent brothers, the blood people of Mohammad, their prophet! Shame on them .. in my
The sunni are hardly the only muslims attacking other muslims. The shia are just as viscious and violent.
Christianity didn't get all weird with dead flesh worship and idol worship of dead Jesus's pinned up in front of the congregation and such
until Catholicism, a human doctrine, introduced the concept of his extreme suffering, and theologically dwelt on the suffering until they came up with
Thats utterly false. The ideas within the catholic church long predate the establishment of the church. And certainly, the greek orthodox church
didn't pick up these ideas because they were in the catholic church.