Who bombed the shrines?.

Posted on February 24, 2006 by Sappho

Iraq_shrine

The per­fect con­trolled demo­li­tion.

Take a good look at the pic­ture above because I will tell you what I see.

I see a dam­aged dome caused by an explo­sion set very pro­fes­sion­ally that the two minarets from the both sides weren’t effected by the explosion.

Tell me, Is this work of few ter­ror­ists who wants to fin­ish the job as fast as possible?

The one who did this, entered the mosque com­fort­ably car­ry­ing explo­sions, he had all the time to study the con­struc­tion of the build­ing and find the per­fect angles to set the explo­sions in a way that only the dome will be destroyed.

This is a pro­fes­sional, con­trolled demo­li­tion and the bombs set by demo­li­tion experts.

Attwar, the TV Anchor

Now, let’s talk about the death of the three Iraqi journalists.

TV anchor Attwar, age 26 years is a sig­nif­i­cant young woman born in Samarra, moved to Bagh­dad just 3–4 years ago, Attwar worked for Al-Jazeera first and then she moved to Al-Arbyia.

I am not writ­ing Attwar’s auto­bi­og­ra­phy here but this has con­nec­tion to the events, Attwar (I think you are smart enough to know that she is a Sunni) was well-known of her sup­port for the Iraqi cause and blam­ing the occu­pa­tion for the mess in Iraq.

One ex-Abu Ghraib pris­oner tells this story about Attwar:

When I came out through the gates of Abu-Ghraib there was TV team wait­ing out­side asked me for an inter­view, I said yes, then came TV anchor Attwar and asked “How do you fell no…. “she couldn’t fin­ish her ques­tion because she burst in tears when she saw how do I look like, bare feet, torn clothes….

This is an exam­ple of Attwar mentality.

What the media didn’t told on Attwar’s death is this:

Attwar and her other two col­leagues found dead but the TV team was four mem­bers, bad news four the US but one of the team sur­vived the assas­si­na­tion to tell this:

Attwar being born in Samarra, her rel­a­tives and friends are still there, she man­aged to inter­view eye­wit­nesses on the explo­sion and peo­ple live in the area around the mosque.

Notice, they found the TV-team’s bod­ies later but didn’t found the doc­u­men­tary she made,

Who ben­e­fit from killing Atwwar, Sun­nis? She is a Sunni. Resis­tance? She sym­pa­thise with the resis­tance. Shi­ite riot? Samarra is dom­i­nated by Sunnis.

Zalamy Khalilzad weird message.

Sunni Cler­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion of Mus­lim Schol­ars, issued a 4 points con­dem­na­tion let­ter to the bomb­ing of shrine in Samara, You can see a pic­ture of the let­ter here (Ara­bic), I don’t want go trans­lat­ing the whole let­ter but point 2 in the let­ter is a very impor­tant point.

It says the following:

SCAS are right, Zalamy Khalilzad announce­ment in pub­lic was meant to hit two birds in one stone, first an adver­tise­ment to the world that the US wants a united Iraq (for the pub­lic con­sump­tion only), sec­ond and the mean rea­son is he wanted to remind the Iraq alliances Shi­ites that they still under the US control.

Worth to notice that all news agan­cies wrote Khalilzad announc­ment as: Dur­ing a rare news con­fer­ence, Khalilzad.…exam­ple

By the way today the so called Al-Qaeda in Iraq con­demned the bomb­ing, Baath party con­demned the bomb­ing and many frac­tions of Iraqi resis­tance con­demned it also.

This entry was posted in POLITICS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Who bombed the shrines?.

← Older Comments
  1. Keld Bach says:
    February 27, 2006 at 13:44

    An impor­tant ques­tion to ask: Whose side are we on?

    Our sol­diers now stand with the Shiite-dominated author­ity that they helped to achieve power with the force of our nation’s mil­i­tary. We know that our troops are still being sent out on search and destroy mis­sions and all sorts of ‘anti-insurgent’ raids. Most of these mis­sions and raids are almost cer­tainly directed at Iraqis opposed to the gov­ern­ment our troops are prop­ping up.

    At this point our sol­diers are just muck­rak­ing along with the Shiite-dominated mili­tias we have funded, equipped, and sup­ported. This same band of armed gov­ern­ment loy­al­ists, Shi­ite Kur­dish and Sunni com­bat­ants, is the force that many, in and out of gov­ern­ment, both repub­li­cans and Democ­rats, say they rely on to take over ‘secu­rity’ of Iraq so our sol­diers can withdrawal.

    The real­ity is, the Iraqi mili­tias are using our assis­tance as a wedge against their polit­i­cal oppo­nents. That’s not democ­racy form­ing, it’s a junta, a recipe for per­pet­ual resis­tance to the exist­ing author­ity, and we’re on tyranny’s side.

  2. Charles says:
    February 27, 2006 at 16:30

    KB,

    The US mil­i­tary is sup­port­ing the gov­ern­ment. The gov­ern­ment is made up from groups who chose to par­tic­i­pate in its for­ma­tion. Since the Kurds and Shia chose to par­tic­i­pate, and the Sun­nis did not (until recently), why are you sur­prised that the gov­ern­ment is so ‘flavored?’

    If the sun­nis would throw their weight into the polit­i­cal process, things would be more bal­anced. Sim­ple math shows that sunni/kurd/secular par­ties could bal­ance the shia in terms of sheer elec­toral power.

    There is a clear path for­ward. It has always been there and it was never hid­den. The ques­tion is, when will the sun­nis stop their obsti­nance? Any­one with com­mon sense can real­ize that the US would be happy and eager to pro­tect and pro­mote the inter­ests of non extreme shia groups in Iraq.

  3. Keld Bach says:
    February 27, 2006 at 17:03

    “There is a clear path for­ward. It has always been there and it was never hidden.”

    And that path has s name: “Project for the New Amer­i­can Century”

    I guess the Sun­nis have higher ideals than becom­ing part of a neo­con empire.

  4. Charles says:
    February 27, 2006 at 17:52

    KB,

    Why must you always respond with ide­o­log­i­cal crap?

    Why not use your own head and your own com­mon sense?

    How can you dis­pute that if all par­ties engaged in the demo­c­ra­tic polit­i­cal process that is being estab­lished for the first time in Iraq, it wouldn’t be better?

    That is what has been on the table from day 1. All of your con­spir­acy the­o­ries aside, this is a rea­son­able option. Why shouldn’t the major­ity shia have legit­i­mate polit­i­cal power? why shouldn’t the sunni kurd assyrain turko­man etc. all par­tic­i­pate in a polit­i­cal process that estab­lishes a legit­i­mate rule of law and guar­an­tees minor­ity rights?

    Yap and howl all day long — post con­spir­acy links — but those arent answers.

  5. Keld Bach says:
    February 27, 2006 at 18:16

    Charles, you are using the same ‘mantra’ again and again. I just don’t buy it. This is not a true demo­c­ra­tic process; this is an Amer­i­can con­trolled process designed to suit their own inter­ests — not the Iraqi’s. Just leave the coun­try and let them find their own way.

  6. Charles says:
    February 27, 2006 at 19:19

    KB,

    You are inca­pable of dis­cussing this ‘your­self’ out­side of the con­spir­acy the­o­ries you have swallowed.

    “This is not a true demo­c­ra­tic process”

    Why these neb­u­lous gen­er­al­i­ties? What makes the process ‘untrue’? Are the German/Japanese democ­ra­cies untrue? Bot­tom line is there would be NO demo­c­ra­tic process at all if it weren’t for US/UK. Is that ‘more’ true?

    “an Amer­i­can con­trolled process”

    What are you talk­ing about? Did we limit par­tic­i­pa­tion? Did we set some ground rules incon­sis­tant with a legit­i­mate demo­c­ra­tic process? Give us some facts. How did the US con­trol the process, and what parts of this con­trol have dele­git­imized it. Be spe­cific please.

  7. Keld Bach says:
    February 27, 2006 at 21:33

    “How did the US con­trol the process, and what parts of this con­trol have dele­git­imized it.”

    Bre­mer sim­ply hijacked the Iraqi con­sti­tu­tion:

    Bre­mer orders fun­da­men­tally altered Iraq’s exist­ing laws. For this rea­son, they are also ille­gal. Trans­for­ma­tion of an occu­pied country’s laws vio­lates the Hague reg­u­la­tions of 1907 (rat­i­fied by the United States) and the U.S. Army’s Law of Land Warfare.

    Bre­mer also pri­va­tized the most impor­tant government-owned enter­prises and turned them over to Amer­i­can companies:

    He started with elec­tric­ity. (In Cal­i­for­nia, this was anal­o­gous to dereg­u­la­tion.) Next to go was the pub­lic water sup­ply, and soon the tele­phone sys­tem. New Canaan can iden­tify with this sort of privatization.

    Then came the banks, fol­lowed shortly by the insur­ance com­pa­nies, all quickly gob­bled up by out­side money. Now even farm­ers are not allowed to plant their own seeds, but must buy genet­i­cally mod­i­fied mod­els from Mon­santo, Cargill, or the like.

    Tar­iffs, taxes and cor­po­rate restric­tions were also redrawn for the ben­e­fit of for­eign busi­nesses and investors. And not only were these investor-friendly rules imposed, they were writ­ten into Iraq’s Con­sti­tu­tion. Per­haps you won­dered why Wash­ing­ton felt so obsessed with Iraq’s need for a con­sti­tu­tional democ­racy. There’s more, and the oil indus­try comes next.

    This is not democ­racy. This is colonialism/imperialism.

  8. Charles says:
    February 27, 2006 at 23:10

    KB,

    Yes yes you have posted links and text excerpts here many times — that is great!

    But what did the US actu­ally do to dele­git­imize the process of select­ing a gov­ern­ment, elec­tions, etc.

    Did we con­trol who can form a polit­i­cal party?

    Did we place restric­tions on who could par­tic­i­pate in elections?

    What did we do to limit the polit­i­cal process?

    One point you could make is that the US prob­a­bly didn’t want high level Baathists form­ing polit­i­cal par­ties. But quite frankly I don’t know if that is the case. I think the shia dom­i­nated gov­ern­ment has purged many baathists, but cer­tainly not all of them.

    Did the US enact and enforce some law/decree that con­trolled the polit­i­cal process? If so what was it?

    Give me facts not dogma.

  9. Keld Bach says:
    February 28, 2006 at 00:00

    Charles, it’s use­less to dis­cuss these mat­ters as long as the coun­try is occu­pied. The US neglects that a major­ity (82%) of the pop­u­la­tion want to troops to leave. Fur­ther­more, arti­cle 16 in the con­sti­tu­tion says: “It is for­bid­den to have for­eign mil­i­tary bases in Iraq.” Just pay for all the dam­age you have done and leave the country.

  10. Charles says:
    February 28, 2006 at 02:01

    KB,

    it’s use­less to dis­cuss these mat­ters as long as the coun­try is occupied.

    That’s a really intel­lec­tual state­ment. Let me try to translate:

    It is use­less to dis­cuss any­thing about Iraq and its future dur­ing this crit­i­cal stage in its his­tory as it teeters between a demo­c­ra­tic future and fascism/totalitarianism, because I don’t like the fact that the US is in the country.

    Let’s just stick our heads in the sand and pre­tend it never happened.

  11. Keld Bach says:
    February 28, 2006 at 08:13

    Charles, as I’ve said many times: the US is the prob­lem. You are the one stick­ing your head in the sand.

  12. Pingback: Qlipoth: "Chaos" in Samarra: Good for whom?

  13. Pingback: Investors Hub - Foreign CorrespondencePost #6296

  14. Pingback: Signs of the Times Forum / Who bombed the shrines? The perfect controlled demolition

  15. Pingback: {㕂m?hu?ÕAei - teanotwar - mirror (Japanese fonts required)

  16. Pingback: 0305.htm

  17. Pingback: Who bombed the shrines?. :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - it

  18. Pingback: Falluja, April 2004 - the book

  19. Pingback: Free Iraq: February 2006

  20. Pingback: Daily Kos: Where Have We Heard this Before?

  21. Pingback: The Truth Will Set You Free: February 2006

  22. Pingback: Occupation forces knew of bombing the shrine in advance

  23. Pingback: Falluja, April 2004 - the book

  24. Pingback: Palestinian Pundit: 2006-11-19

← Older Comments