Re: Karbala
nope. a lot of sunnis distanced themselves from his actions, a minoritry of scholars tried to defend him or take his side then, a minority tries to defend him now.
a lot of Muslims both sunni and shia failed to back Imam Hussain when the time came though.
The sunni version of history differs in matters of Yazeed’s culpability. A minority view takes his regret (during the time that the family of Hussain was improsined in his court) and blaming the ruler of Kufa as evidence that he didnt actually know what was going on. Largely dismissed by most scholars, simply because theres too much evidence to backup the fact that he had sent ibn ziyad for that purpose, and had displayed Imam Hussain’s head in his court and imprisoned his family, some of which is still buried in Syria.
Yes Sunnies also believe in the ransacking of medina and attack on mecca. Google waqiya e Harra, and also see the first link I posted. That has references from sunni books and is a sunni book itself by a very famous sunni deobandi alim named Moudoodi.
Sunnies in the Hijaz region at that time were largely neutral, as far as I know (as far as i know!). A significant number of Yazeed’s forces were from the province of Syria and also Iraq that had developed as a psuedo state during the time of Muawiya, and had warred with Hazrat Ali before. The rest of the sunnies, sunni scholars etc back then too, and over a period of time have distanced themselves from his acitons, especially over the attack on the Kaaba and the ransacking of medina.
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/history/rule-of-yazid.html
Finally about what tribe he belonged to, he was the son of Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufyan and Hinda(?).