It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Explosion Rocks Shi'ite holiest site

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Geez, may I suggest an age-old, readily available, and commonly used explosive [device] such as C-4?


source:
A small amount of C-4 packs a pretty big punch. Less than a pound of C-4 could potentially kill several people, and several military issue M112 blocks of C-4, weighing about 1.25 pounds (half a kilogram) each, could potentially demolish a truck.


On the low-end 40-50# would do the trick rather nicely. Hell, I can easily carry 50+#, at a dead run.

You, obviously, have no comprehension as to the explosive capabilities of commonly used, and readily available, conventional means.

for now ...


I don't think I'm the one lacking an understanding here.

C4 is only 1.2 times more powerful than TNT, which isn't that powerful to begin with.

You think you can strap enough TNT onto you to walk into that place and do that amount of damage?

The only place where C4 will do more damage than it actually does, is a Hollywood movie. Doesn't cause that much damage in real life, I'm afraid to say. If you watch Myth Busters, they've used C4 to blow some stuff up INDOORS, and the amount of damage it does is completely pathetic compared to whatever ripped apart that whole freaking building. C4 was proposed after the Bali Bombing as a magic bullet of sorts as well, but was quickly dropped because no one was buying it. So history repeating itself I guess.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The only reason I could possibly see why the US would do this (and I don't believe that they did, just musing) is that fostering chaos and keeping the "government" there weak and the "nation" divided would be to make it easier to make our bases there permanant, if they aren't already.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by shots
If the bomb was anything other then a conventional one as you are implying more people would have died.


What exactly leads you to believe this?

Hell, they don't even know how many people have died yet.

That was one hell of a bomb.


It is clear you have not followed the story as the rest of us.

1. early reports state there are 6 dead.

2. You are stating that was one hell of a bomb. NewsFlash DUH it was two bombs not one.

Source



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
It is clear you have not followed the story as the rest of us.

1. early reports state there are 6 dead.


And I said they don't even know how many are dead yet. Do you want to use 6 as your final answer? If you do, we'll come back to it a few days from now and see if it's still 6.


13 dead in Iraq as Shiite mosque destruction sparks widespread reprisal attacks


Source.

Maybe we don't even have to wait a few days.


Like I said, we don't even know how many are dead yet. Unless you prefer to present latest available info as necessarily factual, then I'd leave it at that.


2. You are stating that was one hell of a bomb. NewsFlash DUH it was two bombs not one.


They'd still have had to have lined the walls and ceiling with C4/TNT to get that kind of destruction. I'm not buying it as conventional.

Again:




Two bombs detonated from the inside did this? Maybe in Hollywood.

The US is just trying to incite civil unrest to maintain bases, just as others have already suggested. This shouldn't come as any surprise by now anyway, if you've been keeping up with how we've been training the Iraqis to defend themselves, etc.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
errrr, you are? Is it the government or the peoples you are at issue with? And if you are against the government how can you side with the idea that it isn't our fault. If you were truely against us then you'd be foaming at the mouth like most do around here that it is always our fault for everything...my .02


*sighs*
Just cause im against the government does not mean i have to blame them for everything. If i see no evidence of America being behind this, im not going to accuse them of going it. Nothing seems odd about this in my eyes.Give me one valid reason, with evidence, why America would want to attack a holy shrine?

[long day at college and little sleep result in mistakes]

[edit on 22-2-2006 by infinite]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
errrr, you are? Is it the government or the peoples you are at issue with?


Infinite like me and many others are very dissatisfied with the present administrations doings. That has Nothing to do with the people I am an American BTW.



And if you are against the government how can you side with the idea that it isn't our fault. If you were truely against us then you'd be foaming at the mouth like most do around here that it is always our fault for everything...my .02


Hum on this one I will have to say that US is occupying Iraq, so I really thing that it will fall on the US lack of security in that country.

Well how can you not given the blame to an occupying force that their responsibility is the well being of the people of the country they are occupying.

I may have seen many disappointed people in ATS but not Rabid enough to be foaming at the mouth


That one is a good one if I may say.


Now for targeting holy sites that is clearly tribal motivated but the point is that who is benefiting from all this, I am skeptical because if wanting the US out of Iraq the people in Iraq will not be killing each other they should show that they can handle to be on their own.

So actually this violence act are only to delay US departure and ending of the occupation in Iraq.

So who may benefit from all this?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

We should not be there by now, Iraq has an elected government, Iraq has a police force, Iraq has a military force.

I beleive that kosovo and bosnia have all those things and yet the US and Nato remains there, has been there for a while. The US will certainly be in Iraq longer that its been in the balkans.


So, let the government of Iraq deal with their insurgency, tribal rivalry and civil unrest.

American interests wouldn't be served in doing so though. If the US left iraq now, and then there was genocide and death camps and utter chaos, woudl you back the US returning or see the US as having a responsibility to help out, considering that the US removed the regime that was holding those forces at bay?


Occurs. . . . is all for show and US is still the occupying forces in charge. Right?

The iraqi government is sovereign. The US military remains there at its request. True, there are people in their government that want the US out, but the government hasn't asked the US to leave.


grover
and keeping the "government" there weak and the "nation" divided would be to make it easier to make our bases there permanant, if they aren't already.

If the government there is a puppet of the US then why would there be a need to do this? Or to take it to this level? This is a milestone in the civil strife over there. The insurgents have been attacking shia's in their mosques for a while now, trying to provoke sectarian warfare. It hasn't worked, and now they've pulled out the 'big guns' so to speak, destroying the mosque that the Mahdi was occulted at, destroying the tombs of the specifically shia Imams! Its like bombing the vatican, or Westminister Abbey, or, if it were still around the jewish Temple. The Shia's are going to see this as a direct and undisguised attack on their faith and culture. The more religious shia probably will see it as the ultimate work of shaitan, pulling the puppet strings from afar. People can have peace with other human beings, but not when they actually beleive that the other side is Satan. If the shia manage to restrain themselves, well, that'd be historic, for a people to suffer an insult and attack like this and not let loose their wrath and vengence.
So, my point here is, if you want to keep the government there weak, you could do a lot of things, but attacking this shrine, its all out of proportion. You'd have to really hate the Shia to do this, not just be a cold calculating globalist.

The US is just trying to incite civil unrest to maintain bases, just as others have already suggested.

it just doesn't fly. If the US wanted permantent bases in Iraq, who the hell'd stop them? No one on the entire planet stopped the US from going to war in the first place, the Iraqis certainly couldn't prevent the US from establishing permanent bases there.
I mean, this was a conspiracy. And who has the most to benefit from this attack? The US??? The US's interests are for a peaceable iraq, you can't get oil out of a country that is in utter turmoil, or conduct any other business, or attack other countries, when you are constantly fighting slippery insurgent cells? No, this attack was not in the US interests, nor, even if we grant that they exist, the NWO or the Illuminati. Certainly a case for the initial war can be made as being manufactured by any of those entities, but not now.

Its the insurgents who benefit from this. This act will, in all likelyhood, destabilize the iraqi government. Instability is a situation in which the brutal and powerful can solidify their control. Therefore, in the ensuing chaos, the insurgent groups will be able to gain more control because of this. The US already has control. This threatens that control.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Nygdan

I will have to say somebody needs to keep haliburton and subsidiaries safe and secure I guess that is what our troops has been relegated.

Plus the privatization has not been fulfilled yet by the Iraqi government as promise after the last 2005 election without privatization it will be not oil deals.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Similar to the Bali bombing, huh....maybe it was Al-qeada?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Similar to the Bali bombing, huh....maybe it was Al-qeada?


why would Al-Qeada target a holy shrine, which is apart of their religion?
that would be like the IRA bombing the Vatican.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Two bombs detonated from the inside did this?


Seems very possible given the age and construction style of the building. It is not as if it was built with reinforced concrete ya know.



The US is just trying to incite civil unrest to maintain bases, just as others have already suggested.


That is not what other officials/clerics are saying they claim it was done by insurgents who want to incite a civil war.



Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, is blaming foreign insurgents for the attack, saying they are trying to provoke civil war.
Source

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by esdad71
Similar to the Bali bombing, huh....maybe it was Al-qeada?


I am also trying to digest that one, why will they target the holy object of their entire cause.

I don't get it, I see more like tribal rivalry than anything else.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, is blaming foreign insurgents for the attack, saying they are trying to provoke civil war.
Source

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Foreign?
hmmm...
i give you one guess on where they come from



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
why would Al-Qeada target a holy shrine, which is apart of their religion?
that would be like the IRA bombing the Vatican.


Infinite it is a common tactic that al qaeda uses. They have blown several mosques up in the past using car bombs or suicide bombers. I posted several links one or two pages back.

Now why they claim that mosques are supposed to be sacred is beyond me, it is clear they do not care what or who they blow up in the name of Allah :shk:



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Infinite it is a common tactic that al qaeda uses. They have blown several mosques up in the past using car bombs or suicide bombers. I posted several links one or two pages back.


ill check them out


that is a strange tactic though, unless they are aiming to put fear into their own people, who knows.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Foreign?
hmmm...
i give you one guess on where they come from


No No infinite, you already said you doubted the US did it, so lets play fair here; no changing directions in the middle of the race OK?

My guess is they may have come from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Afghanistan, most definately from inside Iraq, but not the US.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
...........
Indeed it is a Conspiracy.

Whoever did it, had a Very Good reason to choose this kind of Target of High Religious Importance - as this exact Mosque.

And whoever did it, knew what results it would have - the ones that you can read in the Article above.

Exactly how hard it is to put the Blame on the regular Public Enemies when the Shiite mosque is attacked - who you gonna blame?

The Sunni's.

OR ofcourse - the Notorious, the Enigmatic, the Phantom, Al-Qaeda.

Choose your Poision.


A conspiracy?....

The conspiracy that I see is you trying to hide the centuries of conflicts between these groups...

The conspiracy I see is you trying to put the blame on the west, yes Souljah, noone falls for your deceptions you were like always trying to blame the west and the U.S. most of all.....


The movement that came to be known as Shi'a first appeared as a political tendency resulting from the conflict between the supporters of the Prophet's son in law, 'Ali, and the Umayyad dynasty over who should have authority over the Muslim community. Following the assassination of 'Ali, his supporters claimed that leadership should go to 'Ali's descendants. The conflict was exacerbated by the assassination in 671 of Ali's son, Husain, at the hands of government troops, an event which gave the movement a distinctively religious, as well as political, impulse.
..........................
The early history of the Shi'ite branch of Islam is characterised by a series of unsuccessful insurrections against the dominant Sunnis and the subsequent persecution of the Shi'is by the Sunnis. However, in the 10th century the Shi'is acquired a substantial measure of self-determination as a result of the establishment of various independent Shi'i dynasties which came to control much of the Muslim world. In Iraq and Iran a dynasty called the Buyids held sway.


Excerpted from.
philtar.ucsm.ac.uk...


Of course Souljah, and a few others, would have everyone believe that the U.S. and the west provoked all of this......

He would have people believe that Shias and Sunnis have always been good to each other until the west came into existance...but history proves otherwise, does it not?

Shi'ites and Sunnis have been in conflicts with each other since the 7th century.....long before the U.S. existed, or the present State of Israel. Of course western Europe existed back then, so i am certain that Souljah would not find it hard trying to blame early Europeans for these conflicts between the Shi'ites and Sunnis....



[edit on 22-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by infinite
Foreign?
hmmm...
i give you one guess on where they come from


No No infinite, you already said you doubted the US did it, so lets play fair here; no changing directions in the middle of the race OK?


i wasn't planning to. I still doubt the US did it

i know it was vage and could be easily misunderstood


i wasnt switching teams

(i wa refering to Iran)

[edit on 22-2-2006 by infinite]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Of course Souljah, and a few others, would have everyone believe that the U.S. and the west provoked all of this......


Some are considering the possibility. It is a possibility. That's all. We don't know who did it and we probably never will.

If you want to shut your mind to the possibility, you're certainly free to do so. But some (me included) are keeping ours open, if you don't mind.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
i wasnt switching teams

(i was refering to Iran)



Really? where would Iran profit or benefit from a civil war inside Iraq? I could see it as a possible diversion to take the heat off of them though. A civil war would sure tie up US forces, but I doubt that is the case. (Meaning Iran wants to start a civil way in Iraq)



[edit on 2/22/2006 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join