NEWS: Explosion Rocks Shi'ite holiest site

According to Sharia "only the goal is important". If in the eyes of some Muslim extremists, civil war in Iraq creates another government, one which is backed by the extremists, then their goal has been achieved.

How many of you have forgotten that Muslim extremists have used Muslim temples as military posts, and to ambush U.S. troops, or as weapon depots, etc, etc?....

Originally posted by chaosrain

2) I agree with prior contentions that Saddam was actually good for Iraq and it was his brutality which ensured that the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds lived in relative peace side-by-side.

A few months before such a statement would have brought a horde of post calling you names.

But now after Iraq has been liberated and so the peoples true natures when it comes to the tribal rivalries in the middle east.

Now many are starting to understand why sometimes a brutal dictator is needed to keep radical sentiments in line.

Saddam was a bad leader but he knew what his own people were capable off if let loose, that is why he kept the religious leaders in house arrest.

To avoid confrontations between groups.

Now they are setting their own borders and making their own rules within those borders.

I am suprised noone has mentioned The Jewish Defense League as a possible culprit of these attacks. I would go as far as saying many of these attacks in unstable Iraq could possibly be the result of a JDL assault on Islam as a supposed means of defense for their homeland from a supposed Muslim onslaught. Many Jews and Arabs look quite similiar and aids in their infiltration of Muslim communities. The languages are also related and share common origins. I personally believe the JDL is responsible for many attacks and bombings in these unstable regions, with the blessing of the Israeli government, as well as some knowledge of operation by the US military and/or government.

They are not too fond of NAZI and white supremecists either, but who is

Good point marg, maybe Saddam HAD to be brutal to keep such a diverse waring group together?

However he and his boys were nasty abusive people personally.

www.breitbart.com...

90 other attacks by Shiites on Sunni mosques following the attacks

In the hours after the attack, more than 90 Sunni mosques were attacked with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, burned or taken over by Shiites, the Iraqi Islamic Party said.

Still think the US did it? 17 dead. Horrible. There is no need for the US to do this with all the trouble they are having after the elections anyways.

Iraw is out of control , Iran is making nukes and the Taliban is coming back. It is going to be a loooooong summer folks.

Noone knows who made the attack, the Shiites are making assumptions, just like everyone on the board. Obviously the attack has fulfilled its goal of stirring secretarian violence and possible civil war. I will hold to my belief that the Jewish Defense League is responsible for this, and many attacks against Islam across the Globe.

[edit on 2/22/2006 by DYepes]

Originally posted by marg6043


But now after Iraq has been liberated and so the peoples true natures when it comes to the tribal rivalries in the middle east.

Now many are starting to understand why sometimes a brutal dictator is needed to keep radical sentiments in line.

Saddam was a bad leader but he knew what his own people were capable off if let loose, that is why he kept the religious leaders in house arrest.

To avoid confrontations between groups.

Now they are setting their own borders and making their own rules within those borders.

This is exactly why I couldn't (and still don't) see the logic in invading Iraq. The country was like Yugoslavia under Tito. Saddam was a secular ruler who was the avowed enemy of Islamic fundamentalists of any type.. this was the very reason we cozied up to him in the 80's. As bad as he was, the realistic thing to do would have been to have kept him where he was. "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer," and all that. Instead, we had the fraudulent sale of "spreading democracy" by idealists with no experience in nation-building (to say nothing of the WMD or 9-11 deceptions).

The sad thing is, any criticism of the Bush administrations plans for Iraq based on simple realism were always sold to the public as coming from the left and based on some form of missing the point. Opponents of invading Iraq were called the "idealists" and we were told that realism demanded otherwise- in the face of history! Well, now we're seeing reality, and it was predicted by people from all political persuasions, and all levels of government. Hopefully next time America will be a little more reflective before invading countries. I think there is an important lesson to be drawn from this, given how some people are talking about invading Iran and other countries already, as if such a thing were even remotely possible.

Not being very old, I never quite understood what older people meant when they said "nothing changes" as regards war and government and folly, but I think I am beginning to learn.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by koji_K]

[edit on 22-2-2006 by koji_K]

I'm absolutly appaulled that this discussion of an event so significant in not only Iraq, but throughout the entire Middle East, has degenerated into a finger pointing and guessing contest.

Yeah, the implacations of such an attack could have been laid out by anyone, and we can all guess on who and how they did it. The bigger point here is that for the first time in centuries, an Islamic holy site has been leveled.

I would imagine reading a post here on ATS considering what this could mean, and the possible fallout of such an event, but I'm mostly reading totally irrelevant conversation and finger pointing. Hell, half of the people pointing fingers havent even research how the bombing went down.

Islam is either about to go to war with the west, or they're about to go to war with their own extremists. The pendallum can fall either way right now and the next "events" will decide that.

Deny Ignorance?

Originally posted by Muaddib
BH.....the mosque was bombed.... so someone attacked it....

But your own logic negates this, because we don't have any evidence on any suspects yet, lol.

Because a civil war will put our troops in even more harms way. We want to stabilize Iraq, not destabilize it. We are there already remember?

Maybe you're having trouble seeing the larger picture. If the US wants to maintain permanent military bases in the Middle East, for wars with Iran, Syria, etc., and maybe even China and whomever may ally with that country, then we NEED instability as an excuse to stay there.

What has been the major reasoning for not pulling out now? Because the country would become unstable, and democrary would fail. Correct? So if we wanted to stay longer, we would further destabilize the country. Only if you think the world is exactly how the major media presents it would this not make a whole lot of sense.


Observing the Damage.

Are there are reports so far as to what kind of bomb it was? Or is that not important enough to think about?

Before the bombing:



Afterwards:




It's apparent that whatever blew, blew straight upwards and took out the top part of the dome in a directed fashion. That means the explosion wasn't just outwards in all directions.

It's also evident that there would be no way to stand directly under that portion of the dome except from the ground, as there were no stairs or etc. built up there, or any platforms, apparently. Just a decorated ceiling with windows to allow in light. In fact, the interior seems to be in much better shape than the exterior of the dome; you can even still make out designs on the walls. On the outside, all of the decorative covering has been blown away, and there seems to be pieces of thin rebar laying across the top. Along the outside is a LOT of pulverized/crumbled material, which may or may not be important depending upon what exactly that material is.

Can anyone here verify what exactly that metal is and where it might have come from? Or can anyone provide any information as to what comprised that building, and if it was ever renovated or reinforced?

I would really like to know what sort of explosive does that from ground level, and exactly how it would be made and who would have access to it.

Edit: I found some info on renovations:

The holy shrine was rebuilt multiple times, including two major renovations in 1053-54 (445 A.H.) by military leader Arslan al-Basasiri and in 1209-10 (606 A.H.) by Abbasid Caliph Al-Nasir li-Din Allah, who is commemorated by an inscription in the sirdab of the adjoining shrine of twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. In 1868-69 (1285 A.H.), the shrine complex was renovated by Qajar ruler Nasir al-Din Shah. Nargis Khatun, mother of Imam al-Mahdi, and Hakima Khatun, a sister of Imam al-Hadi, are also buried under its golden dome.

Source.

And the dome was plated in gold (7.2 thousand pieces, thanks QuietSoul ). Still not sure what material the building itself is constructed from, though. Haven't found anything on what kind of explosive it is supposed to have been, either.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by bsbray11]

Read the history of IMAM ALI AL-NAQI & IMAM HASAN AL-ASKARI, PEACE BE UPON THEM


While I may not agree with Islamic beliefs, I know art and historical relevance when I see it.

The shrine contains the tombs of the 10th and 11th imams, Ali al-Hadi, who died in 868 A.D., and his son Hassan al-Askari, who died in 874 A.D. and was the father of the hidden imam.

Source

Now I want to point out the above quotation. It seems very relevant to those that may not understand the shrine and what it stands for. Why is AP PRESS removing the above information from their news articles?

Updated, Current AP Report
Old Unedited AP Report

Originally posted by QuietSoul
I'm absolutly appaulled that this discussion of an event so significant in not only Iraq, but throughout the entire Middle East, has degenerated into a finger pointing and guessing contest.

Yeah, the implacations of such an attack could have been laid out by anyone, and we can all guess on who and how they did it. The bigger point here is that for the first time in centuries, an Islamic holy site has been leveled.

I would imagine reading a post here on ATS considering what this could mean, and the possible fallout of such an event, but I'm mostly reading totally irrelevant conversation and finger pointing. Hell, half of the people pointing fingers havent even research how the bombing went down.

Islam is either about to go to war with the west, or they're about to go to war with their own extremists. The pendallum can fall either way right now and the next "events" will decide that.

Deny Ignorance?

I agree with your general sentiment, but I'm a little confused what you expect... I mean, this isn't like the WTC attacks, is it? Are we going to get thread after thread about how the bombing might have occured?

I for one don't see this event as changing the course of anything.. just speeding things up. In that sense, it's hardly remarkable. Not to downplay the cultural and religious loss, which is a tragedy and of course significant in its effects, but Iraq has been breaking up ever since Saddam left, and it's only natural to expect its buildings- religious or not- to slowly be levelled, along with its infrastructure. This is one reason why war is bad, folks. It doesn't really care about cultural importance.

Whatever war you are expecting to break out is already happening.. extremists vs. extremists, Islam vs. the West, or moderate Islam vs. radical Islam.. it's all happening and this only changes the intensity.

But I do agree with you in that I am surprised to see people blaming America and Iran for a bombing which really needed neither power to have occured.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
But I do agree with you in that I am surprised to see people blaming America and Iran for a bombing which really needed neither power to have occured.

I understand that there are a lot of civil problems in Iraq between certain sects of Islam that happen to be at odds. But I also understand that the US is in no hurry to leave the Middle East for reasons that should be all but obvious. We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking that the US military and its contributing corporations (or maybe the other way around) would have nothing to gain by instigating further conflict. There are at least two groups here that may very well have been responsible, and we should consider them both. I would like to know wtf kind of explosives were used, and what that building was made of. That would help me get an idea as to what exactly went down, and who made it go down.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by koji_K
But I do agree with you in that I am surprised to see people blaming America and Iran for a bombing which really needed neither power to have occured.

I understand that there are a lot of civil problems in Iraq between certain sects of Islam that happen to be at odds. But I also understand that the US is in no hurry to leave the Middle East for reasons that should be all but obvious. We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking that the US military and its contributing corporations (or maybe the other way around) would have nothing to gain by instigating further conflict. There are at least two groups here that may very well have been responsible, and we should consider them both. I would like to know wtf kind of explosives were used, and what that building was made of. That would help me get an idea as to what exactly went down, and who made it go down.

Hey, as someone who believes in searching for the truth no matter how unpopular that search may be, I don't blame you at all, and I don't discount the possibility that the US (or anyone else aside from sectarian Iraqis) had a hand in it. I just think, the way I see it, that this bombing, or one like it, would have happened sooner or later anyway, judging by how things are going in Iraq. I think anyone who wants to see conflict continue in Iraq doesn't need to do anything out of the ordinary right now.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I would like to know wtf kind of explosives were used, and what that building was made of. That would help me get an idea as to what exactly went down, and who made it go down.

Here's all I can find on the actual construction of the Dome. I searched far and wide and this is the little blurb I could find.. I'll keep searching..

The huge complex was first developed during the 10th and 11th Centuries by the Shia Hamdanid and Buyid dynasties, and soon became an important place of pilgrimage.

The complex was rebuilt several times, most recently in 1905, when a gold-plated dome was erected above the tomb of the two imams. The dome was covered by 7,200 golden pieces and measured roughly 20m wide and 68m high.

A blue-tiled dome also marks the sirdab where Imam al-Mahdi disappeared.

There doesn't seem to be much information available on its construction, but I swear that looks like steel rebar laying on top of the hole in the images above. I'm no structural engineer, but to me that suggests some kind of concrete-like material formed around the rebar, and that's certainly what it looks like.

At any rate, something totally owned the dome while leaving the lower insides of the building just fine, designs and all still intact and very distinct. Considering how high up the dome is from the ground, that seems to me as though it would be a very powerful, shaped blast. The second explosive probably did the remaining damage to the building, which seems to have blown out parts of a wall, but I haven't seen many good images of the damage yet.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There doesn't seem to be much information available on its construction, but I swear that looks like steel rebar laying on top of the hole in the images above. I'm no structural engineer, but to me that suggests some kind of concrete-like material formed around the rebar, and that's certainly what it looks like.

At any rate, something totally owned the dome while leaving the lower insides of the building just fine, designs and all still intact and very distinct. Considering how high up the dome is from the ground, that seems to me as though it would be a very powerful, shaped blast. The second explosive probably did the remaining damage to the building, which seems to have blown out parts of a wall, but I haven't seen many good images of the damage yet.

Just some thoughts- Wouldn't it make sense for the concrete surrounding the gold-plate dome to be stronger than the dome itself? The structure itself looks like it would shape a charge on its own. Also, does it matter if the charge was shaped? I mean, the insurgents can make shaped charges effectively enough to take out tanks, so why not a building? The rebar, if you're referring to the steel lattice-like structure, was probably just the support for whatever was holding the gold platelets in shape (ie, forming the dome itself.)

[edit on 23-2-2006 by koji_K]

It looks to me that the steel sections are not re-bar but a lighter steel framework that would have supported the outer dome. The concrete (or stone) construction seems to have been built with an open top, and the dome mounted something like a regular roof.



It's interesting that the outer cladding (tiles maybe?) was blown right off by the shockwave. Whoever did this, wanted to make an impact and didn't skimp on the explosives.

Well, here is an Opinion, which is closest to mine:

Another Day in the Empire

It makes absolutely no sense for Sunnis to bomb Shia mosques; this would be akin to Baptists bombing Catholic churches. Sectarian violence, dividing Iraqi society, does not serve Iraqis, either Sunni or Shia. It does, however, serve the occupation forces and also begins to realize the plan sketched out in Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” (the balkanization of Arab and Muslim society and culture), an objective shared by Jabotinsky Likudites and Straussian neocons.

Of course, it stands to reason the bombing was carried out by “al-Qaida in Iraq” and the dead Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in other words it was a black op carried out by the Anglo-American occupation forces, designed specifically to create religious violence, the worst sort. Only vicious and crazed Muslims would blow up the remains of descendants of the Prophet Muhammad—or American, British, and Israeli intelligence operatives or their double agent Arab lunatics, or crazies incited by Rumsfeld’s Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), designed to “stimulate” terrorist reaction.

How QUICK people tend to forget, that in Basra region two of the UK special forces members were found, in a car, loaded with explosives, dressed as the local Terrorists. Now tell me - how HARD is it, to create a bomb attack in Iraq? I mean, you just blow up a car, and say it was friggin' "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" - led by the Abu-MOSSAD-Al-Zarqawi, and things are solved! Ofcourse, nobody will think about ANY other FOREIGN agencies, who actually profit from this kind of attacks.

Tell me - if the Sunni rebels REALLY blew up remains of descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, and so that the Shia majority followed their footsteps, and attacked 90 mosques and killed who-knows-how-many-of-them - WHAT DID THEY GAIN FROM THAT?

They are in the Minority already, and the situation will NOT get any Better, if they start blowing up each others Shrines of big religious importance.

Well, I think some Questions arise here:

British prison break and blown covert operation, exposes "war on terrorism" lie

Has the US [and Britain] created as part of a covert intelligence operation, a bogus ‘resistance movement’ made up of its own Al Qaeda sponsored ‘terrorists’?

Their suicide attacks target Iraqi civilians rather than the US military. The suicide bombings tend to encourage sectarian divisions not only within Iraq, but throughout the entire Middle East. They serve Washington's interests. They contribute to undermining the development of a broader resistance movement uniting Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Christians against the illegal occupation of the Iraqi homeland. They also tend to create, at the international level, divisions within the antiwar and peace movements."

Well, thats a Valid Point.

Again, you have to ask yourselfs 3 Important Questions:

1. WHO has the Power to create such an attack?
2. WHO has the Power to COVER it UP?
3. WHO will BENEFIT from such an attack?

It is More then Clear, that the Balkanization of Iraq and the Middle East is Tailor made for Washington, Tel Aviv and London. They prefer to keep this area fragmentized, divided, fighting each other, killing among themselves - instead of UNITED and possibly fighting THEM, and their ILLEGAL Occupations.

Tell me - how many Western soldiers are currently in the Middle East?

Well - A L O T !

Let me End this with a Quote from the Isreali plan, sketched out in Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, to which link you have above - I think it Mostly fits this Scenario of the Askariya Shrine Bombing:

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
   
   
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the "defense of the West" from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

How Interesting, ey?

Bear in mind that those words were written in 1982.

I bet thet the Corporate Media conveniently IGNORED all of the points I made above - just like Certain members of this Board will Deny them and Ignore them and Label them as Anti-Americanism and Pinko-Commie-Propaganda.

Have it any way you want - this is STILL Above Top Secret forum.

Tell me - if the Sunni rebels REALLY blew up remains of descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, and so that the Shia majority followed their footsteps, and attacked 90 mosques and killed who-knows-how-many-of-them - WHAT DID THEY GAIN FROM THAT?

and what would the US or Britan gain? Destabilization?reprisal attacks ona larger scale than they are now? I am sure that the US is more concerned with planning BlackOps in Iraq, not Iran. This is a war between these people that has lasted 1400 years and we are IN THE MIDDLE. Why would the US wait till this far along into the war to do this?

I agree, what does it gain you to attack people with the same beliefs as you? They could at least attack the west or something that makes sense. Not that I'm condoning they do that either... but attacking your own people? Why???

All I have to say is the Shi'ite is about to hit the fan.

Did I also hear a report saying something like them launching "More than 100 retaliations, with 19 dead"

How inaccurate of a terrorist are you that you can only kill 19 people in 100 attacks?!?!?!