Anyone who understands this?

<crickets>

They're both garbage and not worth the time to spit on.  Witness the actions of Sunni in Ramidi and the Shiites under Sadr.  Neither are our friends.  The only group that has proven to be our friends are the Kurds.

Quoted: They're both garbage and not worth the time to spit on.  Witness the actions of Sunni in Ramidi and the Shiites under Sadr.  Neither are our friends.  The only group that has proven to be our friends are the Kurds.

Add the fact that they hate each other too and you have all you need to know.  

Sunni are the minority, but sadam was sunni so they ran the place all this time. Now that democracy is afoot they are pissing themselves because like i said they are the minority. The Shiites, even though they are the majority, have been kept down so long it is a slow process to get them to not feel inferior and afraid of the sunni, after all the years of intimidation and not counting for shit. it is hard to get them to stand up and get in the game and be "somebody"..  Is that what you meant?

+1 opn the Kurds being the ones we can trust. And i`m not sure how the intigration of all them are going to work out. Maybe never will. I believe the kurds hate the iraqis in general anyway.

And think the Shiite are more friendly to us than the Sunni?

The Islamic Revolution in Iran is a Shiite thing. Remember the Ayatollah Khomeini? Yes, the Shiite and Sunni both hate us. Almost as much as they hate each other.

are you asking about the origins of the 2 groups or just the ones in Iraq, you're not being very specific, look through wikipedia.

AWWWWWWW SHITTE!!!

just a quick history thumbnail: sunni's believe mo appointed his father-in-law as his successor. the shia believe mo appointed his bro-in-law, ali to be his successor. they been fighting each other about it ever since. the sunni's believe ali is one of the great caliph's of islam, along with abu bakr, but the shia think no one is equal to ali and are usurpers.

OK, there's two groups.  One group consists of unwashed smelly, ignorant pigs, while in the other group you have nothing but classy educated, aristocrats, who have been choosen by their god to dominate the other.  Isn't this obvious?  the one small snag is that there is still some disagreement as to which group is which.  Not unlike this other situation:  Proddy Micks & Roman Micks

 Hey looky there.  I hit 900.  Woot!  Only took four years.  

oh yeah, the kurds are predominantly sunni but they're a different brand of sunni than the iraqi arabic sunnis.

just to clear things up for ya!

They all look/act the same... no sense differentiating.  Savages... nothing more.


- BG

Sunnies bad, Shiites not as bad.  Out.

Quoted: Sunnies bad, Shiites not as bad.  Out.

course, you don't wanna lump in the sunni's OUTSIDE iraq into that statement!

then again, maybe you do!

you know, i don't think you so much "understand" the situation as you do just hold your nose and jump in...

Just to add a little more confusion to the subject, historically Sunnis have been friendlier than Shiites, example being Jordan.

The Sunni minority under Saddam also outlawed Wahhabism in Iraq.

The Shiite majority are friendly with Iran.

The Kurds really want an independent state, they've been allies because we've been the enemy of their enemy since desert storm.

The Shiites have been quiet only because they believe they'll benefit most from a democraticly constituted government, being the majority. Most of the Shiite candidates have ties to Iran.

The Sunnis are friendly with Syria, who're also Baathists, and Sunni themselves.

Iraq itself is a nation thats borders were drawn by the west (Brits) less than a century ago. There's never been a cohesive nation of Iraq without a strongman dictator holding it together.

Why we abandoned our Saudi bases (because SA didn't support the war) and drew down troops in Afghanistan to get involved in Iraqi politics still escapes me.

Quoted: just a quick history thumbnail: sunni's believe mo appointed his father-in-law as his successor. the shia believe mo appointed his bro-in-law, ali to be his successor. they been fighting each other about it ever since. the sunni's believe ali is one of the great caliph's of islam, along with abu bakr, but the shia think no one is equal to ali and are usurpers.

Pretty close, but missing a few details.

Sunni's believe that Muhammad's succesor was to be appointed by tribal council, which was what happened. (His father in law, Abu Bakr)
The followers of Ali were pissed, because they felt that Muhammad had named Ali his succesor - this goes against Arab tradition.
Arab's traditionally fear kings, and so prefer to elect their rulers via council.
After Abu Bakr came 'Umar and 'Uthman, all selected by tribal council.
'Uthman was murdered, some suspect by Ali.
When Ali was selected by the tribal council, he did not get a chance to consolidate his rule, because of the controversy over 'Uthman's death.
So, there was a war, and people died, and they have been fighting ever since.
The majority of Shi'a are in Western Iraq/Iran.
This was because Ali had moved the caliphate to Iraq, and the Iraqis felt some loyalty to him.
The Iranians (Persians) sided with Ali because, well, they didn't like the Arabs, and saw it as an oppurtinity to break away from the caliphate.

On a side note, anyone who tells you that it was a mistake to invade Iraq because now the Iranians will have influence over the Western Iraqis because they are both  Shi'a is an idiot.
Arabs and Persians do not get along - lot of rivalry there.
Think Red Sox/Yankees.

Also - do not say Shi'ites, it is impolite and incorrect.
The proper term is shi'a.

ETA: As other posters have said - it is damn confusing!

Quoted: Quoted: Also - do not say Shi'ites, it is impolite and incorrect. The proper term is shi'a.

Now what would make you think this crowd really cares if they use the "impolite and incorrect" term for these people?  

The situation is too complicated. Just shoot everyone who isn't Kurdish!

Quoted: Quoted: just a quick history thumbnail: sunni's believe mo appointed his father-in-law as his successor. the shia believe mo appointed his bro-in-law, ali to be his successor. they been fighting each other about it ever since. the sunni's believe ali is one of the great caliph's of islam, along with abu bakr, but the shia think no one is equal to ali and are usurpers. Pretty close, but missing a few details. Sunni's believe that Muhammad's succesor was to be appointed by tribal council, which was what happened. (His father in law, Abu Bakr) The followers of Ali were pissed, because they felt that Muhammad had named Ali his succesor - this goes against Arab tradition. Arab's traditionally fear kings, and so prefer to elect their rulers via council. After Abu Bakr came 'Umar and 'Uthman, all selected by tribal council. 'Uthman was murdered, some suspect by Ali. When Ali was selected by the tribal council, he did not get a chance to consolidate his rule, because of the controversy over 'Uthman's death. So, there was a war, and people died, and they have been fighting ever since. The majority of Shi'a are in Western Iraq/Iran. This was because Ali had moved the caliphate to Iraq, and the Iraqis felt some loyalty to him. The Iranians (Persians) sided with Ali because, well, they didn't like the Arabs, and saw it as an oppurtinity to break away from the caliphate. On a side note, anyone who tells you that it was a mistake to invade Iraq because now the Iranians will have influence over the Western Iraqis because they are both  Shi'a is an idiot. Arabs and Persians do not get along - lot of rivalry there. Think Red Sox/Yankees. Also - do not say Shi'ites, it is impolite and incorrect. The proper term is shi'a. ETA: As other posters have said - it is damn confusing!

I just finished A History of God.  Sounds like you have too!

they both hate you, think you're the great satan and would grind your children up and shoot you as soon as look at you.


F' em.