Think about it logically, the mosque in samara was there centuries ago, never been assaulted, attacked or any harm done to the building before.
Since the occupation, the mosque was an “available target” but nothing happened so why now and how will benefit from such attack?.
We have two suspects:
Iran
Iran wants to see a civil war waged between Sunnis and Shiites, the outcome of this civil war will be an independent Shiites region which is in conclusion will be an Iranian region.
US
Samarra is a failure to the US, they attacked it many times but brought no results, the city is still an accessible for the Americans, gunmen attack the Americans daily in Samarra and the surrounding areas, so intensive that few weeks ago I read on an Iraqi newspaper that American checkpoints outside the city are seizing telephones with build-in cameras from Samarra citizens so the attacks are not filmed and distributed through the internet.
This is an article about the US failure in Samarra (US point of view)
Explanations for failure in Samarra vary
US troops are so desperate to enter the city that Rumsfeld said:
you cannot allow a series of safe havens or a consistent pattern of misbehavior…..So you have to do something about it …
Comments from U.S. leaders about retaking Samarra
Creating this assault on the mosque is just one of their attempts, this time they want to enter the city but in a different way, not as occupiers but as saviors, an old trick but it works (sometimes).
If you need some information about the history of Samarra, then visit this link.
“Think about it logically, the mosque in samara was there centuries ago, never been assaulted, attacked or any harm done to the building before.”
Logic? This post is your logic? The mosque has been there for centuries and Americans did not attack it. The mosque was not attacked in the war…either of them. The mosque has not been attacked in the 2 plus years since the war, but you read some subjective reporters opinion about something that is not even the subject of the post; and that where your logic takes you.
LB, your logic is well, illogical.
M, there’s nothing wrong with LB’s logic. Both the Sunnis and the Shiites have been there for centuries, but despite many conflicts among them, the shrine has remained unharmed.
I think the Tehran Times offers a rather plausible interpretation of the incident:
It shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out who those terrorists are, I think. Who benefits…?
LB,
A few minor points:
1 — the golden dome was built in the early 20th century.
2 — we all know that insurgents have used mosques before as safe houses, weapons storage, and even sniping positions. So don’t pretend that this isn’t the case. Oooooops! Too late!
3 — trying to blame the US for this is nutty. If its not the Iraqi sunni extremists themselves, then it is probably AQ trying to disrupt things during tense political negotiations. Political consensus does not serve their purposes.
4 — Iran or even Iraqi shia extremists may do this to unite shia majority during formation of government. We have heard of potential splits. This will bring them back under one roof. It will also be more awkward for sunni/secular groups to put undue pressure on shia after this tragedy.
Even though 4 is plausible, I lean towards 3.
Here are your points busted
1– So???, What’s this have to do with the mosque bombing???, the mosque existed long time ago, doesn’t matter if the dom is gold or silver.
2– We all know, US troops destroyed Iraq’s historical and religious sites before.
3– 3– OK, but you didn’t gave me one reason not to blame the US. give me just one reason.
4– Same as 3
Holy cow, Ladybird, busted my points. Get real, LB. All you have provided is more subjective drivel with no basis in fact. You must have read Keld’s Tehran Times after he was done with it. The fact of the matter is you make things up to suit yourself. You have no basis in fact as to WHO blew the mosque up, but that doesn’t stop you from accusing people. These, however, are the facts….
The mosque can be silver, gold or sky blue pink; it is irrelvant.
The mosque has been untouched by the US in the first Gulf War.
The mosque has been untouched in the second war.
The mosque has been untouched by the occupying invaders, aka evil empire up, until the bombing.
The US may have destroyed some Iraqi artifacts and historical sites before; so have a lot of people including Iraqis so perhaps you might want to bring this one up.
I do not HAVE to give you a reason NOT to blame the US; you have to provide proof for your accusations.
Anyone or any group or any government inside or outside Iraq could be responsible for the bombing.
It could be agreed upon by most people, that there are many groups who would benefit from the bombing and instigating more hostility between the different ethnic groups. Until I know, I am not going to blame any one particular group, because I have no logical basis to do so. Baseless accusations that help to instigate hate or the violence seen across Iraq today are inexcusable.
My heart and prayers go out to the Iraqi people with such a tragic loss to their culture and religion. And to the families of those who were killed. To attack a holy place is to my thinking pure evil. ANY holy place. Those ultimately responsible should live out a long life. In shame and regret for what they have done today. I have read some truly disgusting comments on this from the pro death and destruction “people”. You make me ashamed of my own species.
Thanksgiving For A National Victory
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks?
To murder men and give God thanks!
Desist, for shame!-proceed no further;
God won’t accept your thanks for Murther!
–Rober Burns
1793
LB,
I just know what a stickler for fact checking you are. So, I thought I would give you a ‘fact’ (this one is actually real though). The structure that was bombed is not hundreds of years old (as you claimed).
Name one that was destroyed. You can bitch and moan about IRAQIS looting museums and archeological sites, and you can bitch and moan about the US/mnf building bases around those sites TO SECURE THEM FROM IRAQI LOOTERS, and you can bitch and moan about IRAQIS using religious/cultural sites as military positions. The US has exercised far more restraint, obviously, then your freedom fighters ever would to preserve and protect sites of religious and cultural heritage.
Um. Do you have ANY evidence that would support such conjecture? Any evidence that balances out the fact that WE KNOW freedom fighters conduct attacks on mosques, attacks on people inside and outside of mosques, and use mosques as military positions?
This is stupid beyond words. If the Americans wanted to enter the city they could have done it (see:Fallujah). Destroying the Mosque did not serve Amercan interests in any way. To understand the most likely scenario look to history. Anyone familiar with the German Reichstag fire? The Germans were forming a government in anticipation of choosing a Chancellor. The Nazis were far from assured that they would succeed in putting Hitler in that position. Suddenly, the Reichstag burns to the ground and Nazi brown shirts catch a retarded Dutchman with matches in one hand, a gas can in the other, and a communist party membership card in his pocket. So look to see who comes up with a retarded Danish American Sunni with cartoons of Mohhamed tattoed on his chest and a detonator in his hand (metaphorically speaking, of course—maybe). That will give you the likely perpetrator. (see the Tehran Times for the answer)
Riverbend has quite a good post about the current situation: Tensions…:
X accused the U.S and Iran of providing weapons, training and support to different Iraqi militia. At a news conference, X criticized what she called U.S’s and Iran’s “negative role” in Iraqi affairs. X added that there was evidence the U.S and Iran provided “indirect help” to different militias who attack Iraqis. The U.S and Iranian aid was part of a “comprehensive strategy” by a “player seeking regional pre-eminence,” X said.
I think the same standard of proof towards any accusations this writer makes against the coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan should be the same standard of proof which the U.S. used to invade.
The U.S. acted upon rumours from drunks and despots!
This writer has more credibility then any of the Bush cronies!
A perponderance of the evidence was the standard used by Bush and the Clowns to invade. Therefore; the proponderance of the evidence pointing towards the fact that the U.S. is deliberately formenting a civil war is quite accurate. The only way the U.S. can realize it’s goals inside Iraq is to divide and conquer. That is what they did in Latin America and anyplace else they committed military forces to.
Before the November elections, the U.S. will move it’s forces up North into Kurdish held areas and continue bombing the South until the population is brought to it’s knees.
Further; sanctions and special op’s will be used against Iran so that they are not able to help the south financially or supply the South of Iraq with cash and oil infrastructure parts.
It’s all part of the strategy. The U.S. has spent 3 trillion dollars and they are not about to walk away. They claim to be reducing forces but have 100 thousand private “security forces” inside Iraq. Security forces are just American soldiers who tossed away their uniforms and wrapped themselves in an American corporate flag.
Calm
Lets not forget Negroponte’s death squads in Nigaragua and Panama.
Let’s not forget the British soldiers who were found in civilian clothes in Basra late last year.
Calm
I know that this is not the time for logic. There is no emotional gratification in logic and this is a time when need to clear their emotions. Nonetheless -
Al Queda — doubtful. They are not known for dramatically changing tactics. They like to blow up people. Blowing up the mosque is only consistent if there was not a chance to blow up some kafir shia along with it. If AQ has changed tactics, then they will have similar operations in the future where they make an effort to avoid killing people.
Insurgents — doubtful. The insurgents primarily operate near to where they live. They fight in order to control Iraq’s power and money. The shrine was a major source of revenue for the locals. It remains possible that some insurgents became inflamed enough about death squads that they sought blind vengance.
Americans — doubtful. Although there is the possibility of regional gains the outcome is not clear enough to warrant the risks. Additionally, the timing of such an operation would be different. The ambassadors were confident that they were making great headway with the political process. Such an operation would not go against their wishes.
Iranian factions: doubtful. Their power is based upon the religous beliefs. If they are caught attacking that power then they lose legitimacy down to the very roots. Again the possible gain does not justify the risk.
indigenous shia militia — less doubtful than others. They do not risk loss of power or money and therefore their risk/benefit ratio is the most favorable. Also adding to their suspicous nature is that they have been fracturing in recent weeks with a very real possibility of being politically overpowered by a new accord. This bombing came at a most opportune time to re-unite the shia factions.
Summary:
There are no likely suspects and there are no suspects who are above suspicion. There is one suspect who is slightly less unlikely than the others but, at this time, the reasons are hardly convincing. Being angry at any group has a 1 in five chance of being correct. So if you have to be angry then at least be responsibly angry. Don’t resort to violence and/or take it out on someone else. It could be the wrong group and then they have reason to seek revenge against you.
I agree, Calm. You don’t throw in an enormous amount of effort and money to invade a country — just to leave it again. This occupation is part of a much larger plan.
Returning to my theory that the U.S. is deliberately causing the sectarian violence inside Iraq in order to divide and conquer.
It was the U.S. who set up the political system where elections and negotiations were always concerning “ethnic” or “religious” affiliation. It was the U.S. who set the election up where there were three parties .… the Sunnis, Shiite and Kurds. Prior the U.S. arrival, Iraqi’s always considered themselves to be Arab or Iraqi and that Iraq was one country and not a federation. They even married without thought to ethnic or religion.
Divide and conquer.
And never forget that the U.S. did not want the elections. They brag about bringing democracy to Iraq and to give them the right to vote. The U.S, was against any type of voting for months and months. Elections would never of been held if it were not for Sistani bringing out 200 thousand people onto the streets and demanding elections.
The elections Bush didn’t want
By Swopa
January 30, 2005
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
I have little doubt that the bombing of the shrine inside Iraq this past week was “policy” of the U.S.
Pentagon-Controlled Iraqi National Guard Implicated in Samarra Mosque Bombing
By Kurt Nimmo
February 23, 2006
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=244
The U.S. did the same thing in Latin America with CIA death squads during the 80’s.
The tactics? Very similar to those used in El Salvador: summary execution, torture, indefinite imprisonment without specific charges and certainly without trial, holding family members responsible, destroying homes, and so on and so forth. On whose watch was this effort organized? Why on none other than that of the former third American Pro-Counsel in Iraq, John Negroponte. He just happened to be the US Ambassador in El Salvador when the “dirty war” against the “leftists” (which led to an estimated 70,000 deaths, mainly civilian) was being carried out there.
Even The New York Times credits Negroponte with “carrying out the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinista government in Nicaragua” — an effort which the paper fails to note was illegal, and which ultimately included the trading of guns for drugs on CIA-financed aircraft. Negroponte helped with this massively corrupt and illegal war effort of the Reagan administration even after it had been expressly banned by the U.S. Congress.
In 1995, The Baltimore Sun broke the Negroponte story in a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation. “Time and time again during his tour of duty in Honduras from 1981 to 1985,” wrote reporters Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, “Negroponte was confronted with evidence that a Honduran Army intelligence unit, trained by the CIA, was stalking, kidnapping, torturing, and killing suspected subversives.”
The Negroponte File
The 392 cables and memos record Negroponte’s daily, and even hourly, activities as the powerful Ambassador to Honduras during the contra war in the early 1980s
Negroponte’s CHRON File From Tenure In Honduras
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 151 — Part 1
Edited by Peter Kornbluh
April 12 , 2005
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/index.htm
The U.S. is now attempting to do the same thing in Iran.
US marines probe tensions among Iran’s ethnic minorities
By Guy Dinmore
February 23 2006
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ed436938-a49d-11da-897c-0000779e2340.html
Calm,
So if someone could prove that ethnic/religious affiliations existing now in Iraq were not created by the US, would you reconsider?
So if someone could prove that the US did not set limitations on the number of parties, and in fact during elections the Iraqis voted for dozens of different parties that established mutual affiliations with one another outside of US control, would you reconsider?
While ethnic/religious affiliations are certainly much more apparent now, that has more to do with the removal of dictatorship and ethnicity (among other things), being used as a targeting mechanism by terrorists and ‘freedom fighters.’
The US did not want to rush elections and wanted to wait until situation stabilized. When it was clear that the shia tasted power and didn’t want to wait, the US went to extraordinary lengths to support the electoral process.
Well, since all of your above statements are wrong, you may want to reconsider…
I’m just sayin …
Coping with Crumbling States:
A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant
James Wurmser
1997
[I]“The residual unity of the nation is an illusion projected by the extreme repression of the state.” After Saddam, Iraq would “be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,” he wrote. “Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression, [Iraq’s] politics is defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism, and gang/clan-like competition.” Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to “expedite” such a collapse. “The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.“[/I]
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm
(PDF Document)
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/1996_12_Wurmser_Crumbling_Iraq.pdf
Why didn;t you include the third, and most obvious possibility? Zarqawi and company. We know full well his thoughts on shi’is, and has been quoted as saying he wants a civil war there, takfiring shi’is all the way. Personally, I think it’s his guys.
Iran wouldn’t do it. period. It’s the Imams’ shrine. You’ve GOT to be kidding me
The US– I doubt it (though I don’t discount it)– reason why– why not do it before eh? Why not bomb Karbala, that’d really freak ‘em out. No, instead the shrine that’s bombed is in Samarra, where control has been tenuous at BEST, and where there’s a very large non-shi’i population (hence, far easier to penetrate, unlike Karbala or Najaf)
In the end, this isn’t a sunni-shia thing. Most average sunnis would never do such a horrific thing.
As for shrines never being attacked in Iraq in history– that is not true. Look at Wahhab’s followers trying to take over Karbala in the 1800s. It’s not a new thing.
You people all seem pretty anti-American in my book, you better watch who you talk about, I mean the U.S. is the most powerful country on earth, and if they wanted to, the U.S. could destroy Iraq. Thats not what they are trying to do, they are trying to rebuild it strong, that way no one has to live in fear like when Hussein was in charge. Doesnt anyone see that they are only trying to help. Open your eyes people, most of you who are against the U.S. occupation have A: never been to Iraq and are college students trying to rebel against a cause that you know very little about, or B: terrorists! That is from someone who has been to Iraq and wanted to help the Iraqi people. Good does conquer all and those who plant IED’s, Suicide bombers, or blow up Holy site’s are not what is known as the good, they are evil and will be punished in due time.
G!
Wow, another ethnocentric bigot. Welcome, welcome, we promise to put you back in your place.
You said: nn
nn
Who is ‘you people’? You mean the ones who oppose this war? Yes, we oppose this illegal invasion and occupation of our country. In fact most people around the world opposed this war because they knew the Iraqi citizenry would pay the price in the end. And we have.
If by ‘you people’ you mean those who stand up to the lies in the US media which have obviously stripped you of a spine, sure, yes, that’s us.
Anti-American? Hell, no. America is as vast and expansive as it is diverse. There many wonderful American people, some I would defend with my life. Do not make the imbecilic mistake of equating criticism of US foreign policy with anti-Americanism. That is the same pathetic argument used against those who criticize the occupation policies of Israel — that they are anti-semites.
We condemn the vile terrorist attack on the US in 9–11 as readily and as passionately as we condemn the barbaric invasion of Iraq.
And please, veiled threats? Pffffft … 3afit youba 3afit.
Secondly, the rebuilding of Iraq as you put it was never on the agenda. Must we yet again educate this simpleton and review the corruption, the embezzelment and thievery of Iraqi money by Bremer’s people?
Go look up Order 39, please. Also, I would suggest you review the history of Iraq before talking — it seems being stuck in the Green Zone taught you nothing.
I am Iraqi, get it, bra? Mislawi. I am not a terrorist but I am here to bury YOUR terrorist lies. Aight? I finished college long ago and never want to take another course.
If you really wanted to help Iraqis then you would put aside your ethnocentric drivel and listen. Listen to us. We are telling you, you have ruined our country.
Yes, Iraq under Saddam was difficult but it was safe, and it was stable. And our children could go to school without fear of a mortar shell falling on them, or a suicide bomber attacking a police convoy, or kidnap.
Brookings Institute has just revised its figures — up to 30 kidnappings in Baghdad alone. Thirty! That was unheard of before.
Most young Iraqis — young professionals who can rebuild their country are leaving. Half the Iraqi bloggers in Iraq now have already made preparations to leave?
Blame someone else for the carnage. You always do. Never look to your own mistakes. Your own greed, your own bigotry.
Leila, do Sunnis have mosques of their own in Iran? No, it is prohibited.
Sorry to burst your bubble of historical innaccuracy, but the Samarra shrine was attacked, and by Sunni fanatics in the 19th Century. I do agree that Iran may have been behind the attack, or at least that it was not unhappy with it.
TAI — “Wow, another ethnocentric bigot. Welcome, welcome, we promise to put you back in your place.”
Outstanding (and darkly humorous) post.
Alex — “the Samarra shrine was attacked, and by Sunni fanatics in the 19th Century”
So, you’re saying that it’s been over a century since the last sectarian attack on the shrine. Interesting. If Bush hadn’t waged an illegal war of aggression, that record would still be growing.