http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/opinion/a ... google_cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/opinion/abdo-shia-sunni-tension/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)
Quote-- When the influential cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi recently called on fellow Sunni Muslims to join the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, he effectively called for the Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East to escalate in some countries and start anew in others.
Qaradawi said he was not demonizing all Shia Muslims -- but that is precisely the effect of his inflammatory words. He denounced al-Assad's Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam, as "more infidel than Christians and Jews." signaling a broader demonization of all Shia. He also said the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah (whose name means "the party of God") is really "the party of the devil."
"How could 100 million Shia (worldwide) defeat 1.7 billion (Sunnis)?" Qaradawi asked, speaking May 31 in Doha, Qatar, about the two largest Muslim sects. "Only because they (Sunni) are weak," he said, attempting to inspire the Sunnis to go to Syria to fight against al-Assad and prove their strength.
Quote"I call on Muslims everywhere to help their brothers be victorious," Qaradawi said in his sermon. "Everyone who has the ability and has training to kill ... is required to go" to Syria. "We cannot ask our brothers to be killed while we watch."
Such provocative statements are classic Qaradawi, who in 2008 warned of the "Shiitization" of the Middle East. But as a clever operative, he knows this time his statements could escalate the conflict in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
Qaradawi's rhetoric could also embolden the Sunni majority in Saudi Arabia and the Shia majority in Bahrain, where the Sunni royal family is fighting a Shia-led uprising. In addition, his statements could add legitimacy to the alarm in Egypt, where Sunnis fear a possible, though improbable, infiltration of Shia Islam from Iran.
Qaradawi, who is a controversial figure in the West but has millions of Sunni followers, timed his remarks on the heels of a speech a week earlier by Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader. Nasrallah acknowledged what had been an open secret -- that Hezbollah fighters are in Syria battling the Sunni opposition and supporting the al-Assad regime.
Like Qaradawi, Nasrallah said his condemnation of the Sunnis did not apply to all -- just those fighting al-Assad -- but he too aimed to escalate the sectarian animosity that has already begun to grip the Muslim world.
I lack the knowledge and the analytical skills to dissect this, but the idea that Shiite Iran becoming the fall guy for Sunni hatred has a certain appeal, I must say.
A new war? Not really. The enmity is 14 centuries old.
The Battle of Karbala (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala)
The Iraq - Iran war, lasted 8 years, and the constant killing of each other that is going on all over the middle east.
In Syria the same war at the moment between Shia and Sunni.
Nothing more than a turf war for supremacy. May they long continue.
I'm aware of the enmity. My son did 2 tours in Iraq. He mentioned on his return that there was constant friction between the two sects; many times the Sunnis/Shiites voiced their hatred based on 300 year old gripes. The stupidity/irony of the war is that Saddam was grinding the Shiites under his heel. we removed him and destabilized the country, and opened the door for more Shiite activity. My son was fighting against Shiites from Iran on his second tour, not Saddam's supporters.
Quote from: "stromboli"I'm aware of the enmity. My son did 2 tours in Iraq. He mentioned on his return that there was constant friction between the two sects; many times the Sunnis/Shiites voiced their hatred based on 300 year old gripes. The stupidity/irony of the war is that Saddam was grinding the Shiites under his heel. we removed him and destabilized the country, and opened the door for more Shiite activity. My son was fighting against Shiites from Iran on his second tour, not Saddam's supporters.
That's because Bush father made a huge blunder in 1991 by listening to the Saoudis, and false information, misconceptions about that region, and decided to remove Saddam. What followed, 9/11 and the second Iraqi war, is the logical sequel to that disaster.
Sounds like a fucking mess.
As Ollie used to say to Stan, "that's another fine mess you've gotten us into!"
Quote from: "Sal1981"Sounds like a fucking mess.
More like a nightmare. Just imagine Bush doesn't invade Kuweit to kick out Saddam, and there's no 9/11, no freaking perpetual war on terrorism. The two Bushes should be sent to The Hague for crimes agains humanity.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Sal1981"Sounds like a fucking mess.
More like a nightmare. Just imagine Bush doesn't invade Kuweit to kick out Saddam, and there's no 9/11, no freaking perpetual war on terrorism. The two Bushes should be sent to The Hague for crimes agains humanity.
My son would still have wound up in Afghanistan, so.... but he might not have suffered PTSD. Can't say. But there's no doubt the Bushes flat screwed up.
No not a new war anymore than Catholics and Protestants. You'll always have power shift and times change and tribal people angling for power.
The weather in the UK is a lot like the demographics of Iraq, sometimes it's Sunni but mostly it's Shiite.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"The weather in the UK is a lot like the demographics of Iraq, sometimes it's Sunni but mostly it's Shiite.
*badum tisssh*