@4d4m Said
Simply stating that I'm incorrect and discounting the evidence I proved is insufficient. You need an argument countering my claims. Just saying I'm wrong as Micheal Savage might do doesn't discredit me. Your inability to comprehend what I'm writing is also insufficient. It might be that you quickly scan my posts and then type something up without taking the time to analyze it. If that is the case there's no reason for you to post at all.
Relative to the Middle East:
This statement of yours "before 9/11 the US main Muslim allies were Sunni and enemies Shi'ite. After 9/11 we went to war with Sunni Muslims to the benefit of Shi'ites." Is completely wrong.
> As stated countries that are majority Sunni were before 9/11 and remain today allies of the USA.
> Also as stated countries that are majority Shia were before 9/11 and remains today advisories and/or enemies of the USA.
Relative to the Iraq:
Prior to 9/11 Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) was an ally of the USA. This was only peripherally related to the Sunni Majority in Iraq. What is specifically had to do with was the fact that Saddam Hussein had been more or less groomed as one of our allies as Iraq was a buffer between Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party were out buddies. Yes, they were
technically Sunnni, but being Sunni was not the point. The point was that Saddam Hussein was one of the many dictators that the USA propped up in order to support our international political agenda. The USA couldn't care less about what Saddam Hussein and his follower's religion was.
Relative to Iraq after 9/11: Once Saddam Hussein and his military was defeated, the USA made the completely misguided decision to remove all (or at least the vast majority) of the members of the Ba'ath Party from government and military positions. Again, yes as it turns our they were by vast majority Sunni. But that is not way they were removed from their positions. They were removed from their positions because they were members of the Ba'ath Party which was pro Saddam Hussein. The misguided fear was that the Ba'ath Party was anti-USA. That was not the case.
Relative to your statements in another thread about ISIS:
The formation of ISIS started NOT with Shia after either 9/11 nor the Second Gulf War. The formation of ISIS started in 1999 with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi was at best a Sunni in name only. Basically Zarqawi was a violent organized crime thug who liked cutting people's heads off (likely he was ultimately a serial murderer). After Iraq fell into civil war, Zarqawi's group gained momentum in attacking U.S. and Coalition Forces. The USA began calling Zarqawi's group Al Qaeda Iraq (AQI). This, quite frankly, was BS.
OBL and Al Qaeda didn't like Zarqawi and his group. However, the publicity of attacks against U.S. and Coalition Forces was so "good" that Al Qaeda
embraced Zarqawi as
AQI.
Over time, and after Zarqawi was killed, his group largely disbanded because:
1. Many were killed.
2. Many were arrested.
3. The organization lost its leadership.
4. The organization lost its logistical support.
By 2010 the AQI was all but gone. The USA began its withdrawal from Iraqi.
At this point the USA was essentially allowing the Shia government to discriminate/repress the Sunnis in Iraq. It had less to do with the USA liking the Shia and more to do with the USA making extremely poor choices.
Iraq & Syria 2013: Enter Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the formation (or reformation) of what we now know as ISIS.
etc.... etc... etc...
Kurds in Iraq:
> Kurds consider themselves Sunni Muslims.
> Iraqi Kurds were and have been our allies throughout the Second Gulf War and to the present.
Granted we basically stabbed the Syrian Kurds in that back, but that has more to do with our relationship with Turkey than the status of the Kurds being Sunni.
As you can see
your assessment of the Sunni - Shia situation in both the M.E. and Iraq is at best massively over simplified and in actuality incorrect.