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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
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?

Isn't it just TOO Obvious that is in Interest of Washington, London and Tel Aviv, that Iraq - and the entire Middle Eastern area, remains FRAGMENTED into smaller religious/ethnic units, which are far EASY to control, then a United Iraq.

Let me Quote yet again the Isreali plan for Iraq:

"The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part"

Nobody wants an United Iraq, where Shiite, Sunnis and Kurds get to do things United, as One - because, what would happen, if that United Iraq then says to the Coalition Troops - Thank you, but you can go Home, we do not need you anymore.

And all those History Classes that you people are always trying to pull out of the sleeve, like - hey, these people have been fighting for 1000 years and more! - is simply pathetic. You want to look the History of the WHITE man, and how his PEACEFUL and DEMOCRATIC ways of Colonization have helped to create many Brothers killing Brothers? It's just two Questions:

1. How many WESTERN Soldiders are there in the Arab/Muslim world?
2. How many Arab/Muslim Soldiers are there in the WESTERN world?

Exactly!

To me it looks like the entire Area is under occupation for several decades, and it looks like the ONLY thing keeping these soldiers STILL on Foreign Soil, is the Fact that Muslim countries and states remian Fragmented, Divided, at War with each other, at war within itself - basicly DIVIDED and RULED.




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Askariya Shrine Bombing: Black Op?

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



Is your memory that short that you cannot remember from one day to the next what you said? On page one you stated you were not insinuating the US did it. Lets see you wiggle your way out of this one. Seems you have a big problem
your statement above can only be taken one way.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
You know, despite Souljah's vehement anti-US stance, he does have a point. I've wondered myself what benefit could Sunni insurgents gain from blowing up the holiest of the holy shi'ite shrine.

Having said that, there's still not much evidence to back any assertion one way or the other at this point of time. All theories at this point of time are just that -- opinion and conjecture.

However, the divide and conquer / divide and rule idea shouldn't be dismissed as pure fantasy. I mean imagine a United Middle-East. That would be an utterly scary prospect for the bigwigs in Washington. Not only will you have a 'Scary Islamic Superstate', this superstate would also be sitting on the world's gasoline pump. I don't think The Powers That Be would want that.

Souljah may be highly biased, but don't dismiss his theory on this one just because you don't like his character.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

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.


So you think we should be discussing ?what? instead of who did this, how and why? I don't get it. What's so terrible about working with other intelligent people to speculate about all the possibilities of who did this, why they did it, the possible motivations and the repercussions? That (in my mind anyway) is a perfectly rational, reasonable line of thinking.

We've said it was terrible. I've even cried for those affected.



The bigger point here is that for the first time in centuries, an Islamic holy site has been leveled.


How much can we say about this? It's an event that's going to change the situation drastically. And as someone else said, it's just speeding up the inevitable.


Originally posted by shots
Is your memory that short that you cannot remember from one day to the next what you said? On page one you stated you were not insinuating the US did it.


It's 6 pages later. People can change their minds or become clearer in their opinion after reading 6 pages and doing research. Not everyone 'picks a team' without any supporting information and stays with it regardless of the information that comes to light.

I'm still keeping my mind open to the possibilities. It doesn't make sense to me that Muslims would destroy this shrine at this time. Why haven't they done it before?

Who benefits?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

It doesn't make sense to me that Muslims would destroy this shrine at this time. Why haven't they done it before?

Who benefits?




Al qaeda of course has the most to benefit here, they do not want a stable region. Check either pg 3 or 4 and you will find several links I posted that shows al qaeda blows up mosques all the time.

As for Souljah changing his mind, give me a break;
we all know where he stands and how anti American and British he is. Yesterday he clearly denied he was not implying the us was involved and Grover backed him up as he usually does. There is no mistaking that.

For anyone to assume the US or British forces are behind the bombing is ridiculous, doing so would only put our forces in more danger then they already are.

Al qaeda on the other hand has a lot to gain because they do not want a new united government to form, which in the end would leave them in a jail out out of the country.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Check either pg 3 or 4 and you will find several links I posted that shows al qaeda blows up mosques all the time.


I saw them.



For anyone to assume the US or British forces are behind the bombing is ridiculous...


No more ridiculous than assuming 'Al Qaeda' did it. Neither is more valid than the other at this point. We're all assuming and likely will never know the truth. But we will form opinions. And that's ok.


My point is, instead of ragging on someone else, present information that supports your opinion. That's about all any of us can do. When you harrass other posters for what they believe, instead of showing validation for what you believe it actually weakens your position.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

3. WHO will BENEFIT from such an attack?



Most likely Iran.

Such a attack would not benefit the Iraqi people or the US in anyway infact it would be the complete opposite for both of them.

Iran has its own future goals for Iran and they dont include the US having a easy time or two democratic neighbors on its borders.

Iran not only has the motive for trying to spark a Iraqi civil war but also the resources to carry out such a bombing in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Is your memory that short that you cannot remember from one day to the next what you said? On page one you stated you were not insinuating the US did it. Lets see you wiggle your way out of this one. Seems you have a big problem
your statement above can only be taken one way.

Well it's interesting to observe, members like yourself, how they can never ever even consider the Options that I present. Those are simply IMPOSSIBLE! Yet, we all saw, how the SAS special agents, or whatever they were, were caught with their Pants down, in a car laden with explosives and equipment for bomb attacks. How many AGENTS - of Whatever Nation - which are NOT from Iraq are Currently OPERATING in Iraq? You ever ask yourself that? Maybe they are Isreali, maybe they are British, maybe they are Russian, maybe they are French, maybe they are German, maybe they are Saudi, maybe they are American.

I DO NOT KNOW!

All I know is, that this certain Event was carefully planned and executed and was done so, to create a Certain Effect, which you all have seen yesterday - the effect called REVENGE.

Whats Logical is not always NICE and BEAUTIFUL.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Souljah

3. WHO will BENEFIT from such an attack?



Most likely Iran.



But Iran is run by Shi'ites. It would be like Pakistanis or Yemenis (Sunni) blowing up Masjidil Haraam, the Sunni equivalent (I think).

Edit: to put the quote so people won't be confused at what I'm talking about.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I am sorry if you do not want to beleive history, but we are not talking about the expansion of North America, we are talking about Iraq. We are not talking about the 1700's, it is the 21st century.

This is a WAR that the Shia/Sunnis have have for 1400 years Souljah. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US!!! There is nothing for the US to gain. Read a history book yourself and try to understand and believe it without putting a twist to it.

I am sorry if you hate America so much that you want to blame every problem on the US, but frankly, these hardliners are acting like animals. This is nothing new in the region, but attacking the holy site was a step over the edge.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Souljah

3. WHO will BENEFIT from such an attack?



Most likely Iran.



But Iran is run by Shi'ites. It would be like Pakistanis or Yemenis (Sunni) blowing up Masjidil Haraam, the Sunni equivalent (I think).

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Beachcoma]


No it would be blowing up Iraqis which Iran had a bloody war with for about a decade. They didnt have any problem killing thousands of other Shi'ites then.

Iran serves to gain the most from chaos of a civil war in Iraq and the US pulling out in such chaos.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This is a WAR that the Shia/Sunnis have have for 1400 years Souljah.

And the Neo-Cons have Skilfully EXPLOITED this situation I must admit. What better Story for your Conquest of Democracy, then to tear the nation apart for centuries old conflicts. It has all been planned.



IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US!!!

OH YES it does Now - if you did not notice there are aroud 150.000 AMERIACAN men and women in Iraq - dying on weekly basis. And the way things are looking, the US armed forces are NOT going anywhere for a Long, LONG time.

So, you BET it has to do with the US!



There is nothing for the US to gain.



You are Funny!

I won't even comment this one.



I am sorry if you hate America so much that you want to blame every problem on the US, but frankly, these hardliners are acting like animals. This is nothing new in the region, but attacking the holy site was a step over the edge.

I am sorry that you do not take ANY criticism at all, and immediatly label everybody that is not blindly patriotic, a terrorist-lover and an American hater. Well, I guess Blind Patriotism is something that the US goverment is counting on - and it is something that the Nazi German also counted on.

Apparently you do not see ANYTHING wrong with your goverment and their foreign policies and the effects of it on the world conflicts.

I do.


Tell me, what was the simple lesson of Vietnam that you have learned?

Stay out of Vietnam! - right?



Well, that ain't stopping the Bush Legion not to stay out of Middle East!

And as far things are looking, it will just get UGLIER!



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Iran serves to gain the most from chaos of a civil war in Iraq and the US pulling out in such chaos.


Can you elaborate on what specifically Iran has to gain? Sorry I'm not getting this angle.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Beachcoma

But Iran is run by Shi'ites. It would be like Pakistanis or Yemenis (Sunni) blowing up Masjidil Haraam, the Sunni equivalent (I think).



No it would be blowing up Iraqis which Iran had a bloody war with for about a decade. They didnt have any problem killing thousands of other Shi'ites then.


Sure, they may have no qualms killing citizens of another country, which by the way started the aggression towards them, but blowing up a religious shrine that they themselves revere?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Ok do you really think Iran wants two US created democracies on both sides of it? Do you think Iran wants massive US military presence on both sides of it? Of course they dont.

A full scale Iraqi civil war could easily lead to a US military pull out. They dont have nearly enough troops to handle full scale chaos of that type.

The US pulls out bye bye US created democracies and US troops breathing down Irans neck, and best of all a Iraq ripe for the picking would be left for Iran to spread its influnces over covertly or overtly.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Sure, they may have no qualms killing citizens of another country, which by the way started the aggression towards them, but blowing up a religious shrine that they themselves revere?


Does it really matter who the agressor was?

Are you even sure Iraq attacked unprovoked?

Iran publicy announced their intentions of overthrowing Saddams regime months before the Iran-Iraq war.

Iran bombed a Iraqi univeristy killing and wounding many students along with other bombings on border towns. Carried out various assassination attempts on saddams goverment members. Gave the Kurds money and equipment to use to overthrow saddam.

demopedia.democraticunderground.com...

Iran has no love for the Iraqi people they were not above bombing them then and they aint now if its serves their goals.



[edit on 23-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I am stating that we have nothing to do with the Sunni/#e infighting, and we have nothing to gain.

Neo-con conspiracy is fun to talk about, but how is destabilizing Iraq going to help with the Haliburton contracts and the oil contracts that most of you accuse the US of using Iraq for. Your logic sucks. What does the US have to gain? Give me a real example and not a half-baked conspiracy.

This was an attack on a Holy site, something that even in the unwirtten rules of modern warfare is not accepted. The US has been very careful to not destory mosques in Iraq, even if the insurgents use them as shields.

Iran is eating this up...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
A full scale Iraqi civil war could easily lead to a US military pull out. They dont have nearly enough troops to handle full scale chaos of that type.

The US pulls out bye bye US created democracies and US troops breathing down Irans neck, and best of all a Iraq ripe for the picking would be left for Iran to spread its influnces over covertly or overtly.


I'll concede this is a possibility as well. Right now this theory and Souljah's theory sounds quite possible to me. The al-Qaeda theory sounds too flimsy to me...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Thank you ShadowXIX. That does seem logical that Iran would want the US out of the area, especially considering a weakened Iraq. However, it's certainly no guarantee that the US will leave Iran alone. Especially if they attack Iraq. The US is not going to abandon Iraq. BushCo will not allow that.

AND if Iran does go for Iraq, that gives the US the perfect excuse to go after Iran... which we know it wants to do. And the "Iran is making nuclear weapons" story line is failing on many sides. BushCo needs a new, stronger reason to go into Iran.


Originally posted by esdad71
... how is destabilizing Iraq going to help with the Haliburton contracts and the oil contracts that most of you accuse the US of using Iraq for.


Well, for one thing Iraq was destabilized already. This was bound to happen. We have been predicting civil war all along. Because of our presence there. The last time Iraq was stable, Saddam was in charge.

What has the US to gain? Well, more and more people in the US (and the world) are against this war and want to bring our troops home. BushCo wants to stay in the region and gain control of the oil there. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's what I believe. To justify staying there, there would have to be civil unrest. We need to stay there (supposedly) to secure the people, train their forces and provide military control and protection from Iran.

This also pits Muslim against Muslim and takes the focus off of the Muslim against "The West" movement that's about to cause some real problems.



This was an attack on a Holy site, something that even in the unwirtten rules of modern warfare is not accepted. The US has been very careful to not destory mosques in Iraq, even if the insurgents use them as shields.


It's not exactly like the US has been keeping their nose clean as far as war practices and the Geneva Conventions. C'mon, a little rule isn't going to keep a US black ops from blowing up a building to get the result they want. I'm not saying it's a military wide, government-wide decision to blow up a mosque, but all it takes is a few people to decide it's what we need to happen.

And I'm just arguing this side. I don't have an opinion yet. So go ahead and jump on me if you want, but I still don't have a firm opinion on who did it.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Its just a theory I have its what I would do If I was Iran. Best case for Iran if the US pulled out Vietnam style washed its hands of the matter and wasnt comming back. Iran would have free run to spread its power in the ruins of that region. There is other strong powers in the Regoin like Israel but they couldnt dream of occupying Iraq it would rally the Muslim world .

Iran would be the power player and could come in as the Muslim hero to the rescue cleaning up the US created mess. They could even site national security concerns fear of the civil war spreading into Iran for example for a legitimate crossing into Iraq territory.

If they played their cards right in such a scenario they could be welcomed in as heros and be in control of one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq and Iran oil fields combined


[edit on 23-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join