NEWS: Explosion Rocks Shi'ite holiest site

At 06:55AM , a explosion tore through the mosque at Sammarra . The site is one of the Shi'ite holiest shrines , where 2 of thier most revered leaders are burried

---

external image external image


No indication of who is responsible yet , but authrorites believe that victims could be trapped in the debris .

Things can only get worse if such mosques are going to be targeted , as reprisal will follow.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by John bull 1]

[edit on 24-2-2006 by John bull 1]

I think this is Most Interesting - please Read:


One Wearing a Military Uniform?

Also Interesting, that this is the third major attack against Shiite targets this week and threatened to enflame sectarian tensions.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[edit on 22/2/06 by Souljah]

This is very dangerous news...if Iraq is not having a civil war yet, this could spark it especially if there is a tit for tat attack on a Sunni shrine.

According to Sky the Sunnis were responseble,and a leading Sunni imam has been asking for calm.

What a sad day. An attack on a house of G'd.

so what? Osama bin laden wears a camo uniform.....

stop incinuating the US did this......damn, get a new MO for once!

[edit on 22-2-2006 by XphilesPhan]

al-Sadr is apparently blaming this on the US. The US probably should've killed him during his insurrection months ago, if he isn't going to cooperate now.

From what I understand, Shia Islam beleives that the 12th Imam, not recognized by the Sunnis, is Mohammed Mahdi. They beleive that he went into Occultation, became hidden, and never died, and will return to take command of an army and bring about the apocalypse. The Sunnis too beleive that a man called the Mahdi will appear at the apocalypse, but they don't beleive that he is the man named Mohammed Mahdi.

al-Sadr's army is, famously, named c.f the Army fo the Mahdi, iow he expects, should Imam Mahdi un-occult now, that this is the army that he will take command of.

The Mahdi will fight against the 'great shaitan' and the forces of evil. Clearly, in terms of Shia religious thought, whoever did this has to be an agent of Shaitan. Previously, the attacks could've, I suspect, been rationalized as attacks against large numbers of people, the mosque simply being the reason why there are the large numbers of people. But this is an attack on the mosque itself, its an attack against Shia Islam.

I have a terribly hard time seeing any Shia beleiving that the US is the one doing this, that the US's interests would be for the Shia to polarize, unify, and recognize the US as Shaitan. It seems rather unlikely. Rather, I'd expect, and of course this is only the opinion of an outsider, that they will see this as clearly the work of the Sunnis. al-Sadr blames the US, but perhaps he blames the US for not doing enough to protect the mosque.

As far as the perpetrators wearing uniforms, it is my understanding that the Iraqi Police and Army have been infiltrated by jihadis and insurgents, from various sects, and that there are units associated with the various government ministries that are effectively private militaries for their commanders. One would think that the perpretrators of this are thus either insurgent infiltrators or these other groups that are part of the official government. However, since these private armies are almost exlcusively shia, it seems unlikely then that this was something commited by powerful though unpatriotic members of the Iraqi government.

I read Souljah's posting and link and there is absolutely nothing in it insinuating that the U.S. did this so give him a break...all it says is that one of the men was in a military uniform...thats a detail not an insinuation.

The fundamental difference between Sunni and Shia (and neither are monolithic, both have many different sects, (in Shia its (12ers (Iran) and 7ers, (mostly Egyptian...see the Aga Khan), the differences being in the number of Imams they recognize the type in question here are the 12ers) is the prophetic succession from Muhammad. The Sunni, believe that the faithful should chose their leaders and the Shia felt that it should pass through the family of the Prophet. There was about 100 years of bloodshed around this that led among other things to the elimination of the bloodline of the prophet. Some families connected to him still exist and in Iran are noted by a green turban and the title Siyyad. With the murder of Hussain and his brother Hysan, the last actual Imans were killed, Hussains son went into hiding and kept in contact with his folloeres by an emmisary that was called the Ba'b, or gate to the Iman. Eventually all contact between the Iman and his followers ceased, and is a mystery to this day whether he was also murdered. This is the source of the notion of the hidden Iman. As time went on the notion that this was a mystical event became current. It is not an uncommon idea...the greeks believed Alexander the Great would return to them, there is also King Arthur and let us not forget Jesus, the Christ as well. Since these religions form the Judo/Christian/Islamic complex, they share alot of the same motifs (and myths) including a Messiah and a judgement day. For most of its history Shia dominated in what is now whats left of Iraq and the Arabian pennisula. Iran for the most part was Sunni, then in the late 18th century, a series of political desicions switched this and with Wahabism Arabia became Sunni, and in Iran, the Shia who had always shunned politics came into power with a new dynasty of Shah's, one of whom embraced Shia and imposed it on his country, just like medieval kings, both east and west were wont to do...people didn't chose their religions, their leaders did (the protestant/catholic division of Europe reflects this). Not all Shia or Sunni are fundamentalists or have a radical agenda that includes the end of the world...unfortunately like alot of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, they have the biggest mouths.

Hey d00d - do not put word in my mouth, mmmkey?

Did I say the US are behind this?

I just POINTED out that a man in an Military Uniform was Seen at the spot before the Explosion. Tell me, does only US wear uniforms in Iraq? What about the IDF? Or the Iraqi Police? I am just saying, that this Explosion comes amidst a Troubeling Times for the Iraqi goverment and the Shiite Majority, which has come to conflicts with the US and UK forces (remember those UK troops beating the crap out of teenagers?).

So what about US threatens to cut aid to Iraq if new government is sectarian?

Perfect Timing - yet again.

The rest of the Story you can make it up yourself.

[edit on 22/2/06 by Souljah]

Who do you think you are kidding he does ti all the time. The little hmmm on the end says it all. It is very clear that he was insinuating US involvement, just as it does in the majority of his posts. That is his modus operandi.

I remember somewhere back then that Souljah believes that the U.S. had something to do with the divide and conquer thing, that the U.S. is the one inciting the violence between Sunnis and Shiites, even though there is no proof. Thats why he say hmmmmmm like letting us wonder. So my question is when his first post on this thread about this is the third major attack this time this week on Shiites...why is this significant Souljah...compare to the other attacks on Shiites in the previous years?

Ok, let's regroup and focus, here.
Regardless of Souljah's possible insinuation, it is a possibility. Another possibility is that maybe someone wore a uniform in order to make people think this. Or, maybe they will think it is an Iraqi soldier. Maybe it was an Iraqi soldier. Could it have been an American GI, possiblilly operating on his own accord?

Fact of the matter is, we find after looking back in history that some really quirky things have happend.

Finding the truth isn't done by coming in with a closed mind. No matter what side one is on.

US are not stupid enough to spark Civil War in Iraq, to think that the US would bomb Shi'te holiest site, is crazy thinking. The area is full of sectarian(sp?) violence. im not suprised this happened.

This attack would be like protestants bombing the vatican

This is terrible!

Sky News



I feel so sad for the people who have such attachments to this shrine. And for all Muslims who are hurting after this terrible attack.

What a shame, such a beautiful temple and one hundred years old, is just a shame.

It seems that attacking such place was to actually bring a desirable result for the Sunni population.

Is this a way to keep the fire burning in Iraq? and to keep the tribal rivalries going?

What a shame.

A civil war's been brewing in the region for eons... Only Saddam's power grip kept a handle on it before. While no fan of Saddam, I've said it before and I'll say it again...you can't force democracy on people who, in their hearts, really don't want it. These folks have grown up with a history of strong singular rulers, and the political structure of other arab nations seems to show this preference.

The only way to prevent the inevitable here, is to install a singular powerful ruler there. Unfortunately, to do so would be politically incorrect, and of course, wouldn't be accepted by the world at large, regardless of who this was.

This is likely only the beginning. The Shiites and the Sunnis have been itching to go at each other for ages....

While tragic, it's got an upside for us....as they'll be too busy at each other's throats to worry about ours...

Hmm....maybe the US is behind it after all? Nope....can't be....Bush simply isn't that clever....

Do you think whoever did it is trying to break Iraq up into different states? This thing is definitely causing tensions between the sects to rise. Who knows, Iraq could explode like Yugoslavia.

That was the very first thing that came to mind when I first read the article. GMTA



Certainly another possibility when you consider that many of the Iraqi army are also members of al qaeda who want a civil war to break out.




Highly doubtful unless of course he was a Muslim convert.

-------

infinite I totally agree with you. Americans do not go around blowing up Shrines and Churches. That kind of activity is only done by extremist minorities.

I couldn't agree more with everything you said. Except the motive for the US to be involved. I don't think it would be to keep them occupied with each other, rather to cause more strife in the region so we have to stay there longer and perhaps get even more involved. In the whole region.

I agree Bush isn't that clever, but I would not put it past Cheney and Rumsfeld. Not for a second.

Yes, I'm insinuating, even speculating the possibility that the US could be involved. I doubt it, but it's certainly a possibility. After what I've seen over the past 5 years, it would not surprise me at all.