It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
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...

You still do not Get it - and you probably Never ever will.

This is not "My Logic" - it is the the Logic of following the Trail of Money; because that is ALWAYS how things work in the world Today. In starts with Money and it Ends with Money. So, no it's not my Logic, it is the Logic of Corporativisim and the Logic of Neo-Liberalism. I did not INVENT this, this is how the Sytem works. Neither did I invent the System.

You want to know how is DESTABILIZING just about ANY country going to help Halliburton? I will tell you how - after the Wars, Buildgs get Destroyed, if you did not notice. The Infrastructure of the Evildoers Terror Regimes gets blow to smithereens, and GUESS WHAT? It has to be RE-built! So, which company will get the Contracts?

Anyway, there are no more Goverments - there are just Corporations. They control this Planet. So, they will do, WHATEVER is Neccessary, to keep the Money flowing, from all possible sources. If that does not happen, the System, installed by these Corporations will Collapse, like a Tower of Cards. Thats why they are in such a Hurry to get this Globalization going - to Merge as many smaller units, into one larger and bigger.

Two Questions:

1. Who Wants War?
2. Who Profits form War?

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:06 PM
For those of you who think iranians are behind this or americans've got nothing to do with this.
I could not resist to post this, long article but certainly worths reading it thoroughly.

Shrine attack deals blow to anti-US unity

KARACHI - Spring is only a month away, and preparations for Nauroz (the Persian new year) are well under way. In Iran this year, however, Nauroz was due to come with a deadly dimension: the start of a new phase of a broad-based anti-US resistance movement stretching from Afghanistan to Jerusalem. .........

Wednesday's attack on a revered shrine in Iraq could change all this. ........

The potentially bloody polarization in the Shi'ite-Sunni world now threatens to unravel the links that have been established between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and radical Sunni groups from Afghanistan and elsewhere.........

The blast in Samarra

Nevertheless, the sanctity of the tombs is of equal importance to Sunnis. Like the tombs of the Prophet Mohammed, Imam Ali and Imam Hussain, no self-respecting Muslim, whether Shi'ite or Sunni, would ever think of attacking such a place.

Further, the custodians of the shrine in Samarra have for many centuries been the descendants of Imam Naqi, called Naqvis, and they believe in Sunni Islam, as does the vast majority of the population of Samarra.

Impact of the attack on the resistance

Read the rest at

It is against islam to make such attack on anyone's tomb, either sunni or shia.

even saddam hussein didn't dare to make such offense on shii'tes' holy sites.

And this one:

Iran: U.S., Israel Destroyed Iraqi Shrine
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the United States and Israel on Thursday for the destruction of a Shiite shrine's golden dome in Iraq, saying it was the work of "defeated Zionists and occupiers."

I remember reading somewhere, (I have already mentioned this in my previous posts) that one of the final signs before re-appearance of Hidden Imam Mehdi (The Promised One) in shi'ite faith is destruction/collapse of a mosque in the OCCUPIED IRAQ. do not recall the exact place but where better than the site Mehdi disappeared.

from the sounds of the first article, I am convinced that the attack/invasion of iran is not far from happening. though, I highly doubt the attack will occur in March as the Hidden Imam is supposed to reappear in one of the FRIDAYS of Month of RAMADHAN. coincidentally, this year, Ramadhan will be held in oct. of 06 exactly 7 lunar years from 2000. may well be the end of 7 years of t*******.
or another possible scenario is that the attack on iran does actually take place in March but Mehdi makes first appearance in Ramadhan to lead his army to utter destruction of evil forces, hiding behind the veil of justice.

God Bless all Truth Seekers


posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:50 PM

Associated Press

Gunmen shot dead 47 civilians and left their bodies in a ditch near Baghdad Thursday as militia battles and sectarian reprisals followed the bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine.

At least 111 people were believed killed in two days of rage unleashed by Wednesday's attack on the Askariya shrine in Samarra, a mostly Sunni Arab city 60 miles north of Baghdad.

The hardline Sunni Clerical Association of Muslim Scholars said 168 Sunni mosques had been attacked around the country, 10 imams killed and 15 abducted since the shrine attack. The Interior Ministry said it could only confirm figures for Baghdad, where it had reports of 19 mosques attacked, one cleric killed and one abducted.

Reuters - Iraq sectarian violence kills 130

Sectarian violence killed more than 130 people across Iraq and left dozens of mosques damaged or in ruins as the United States appealed on Thursday to Sunnis and Shi'ites to step back from the brink of civil war.

"The issue hangs on the next few days. Either the gates of hell open onto a civil war or the Shi'ites will take more power with the excuse that Sunni leaders are unable to rein in increasing terrorist activity," said Hazim al-Naimi, a political science professor at Baghdad's Mustansiriya University.

BBC - Scores die amid Iraqi shrine fury

Elsewhere, the bodies of a prominent al-Arabiya TV reporter and two of her crew, who had gone to cover the attack on the shrine, were discovered on Thursday morning.

Correspondent Atwar Bahjat's body was among the three found about 15km (10 miles) north of Samarra.

And now the Finger Pointing starts:

Iran: U.S., Israel Destroyed Iraqi Shrine

Condoleezza Rice claims, that the only ones who WANT war in Iraq are Terrorists like Al-Mossad-Al-Zarqawi

Well I guess she was right, if you think about that Phantom Al-Qaeda is most likely not what the majority of the people think it is.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Souljah

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.

Funny that you mention this one, I have been keeping close attention as what is going on with the Kurds, and they are the only tribal group that is not interested in Iraq as an unite government.

Since the beginning this tribal group has taken charge of land that doesn't belong to them and has set their own people in those lands and they have actually claim themselves independent inside the Iraqi territories.

What US has said about it? nothing because they have plenty of oil in the lands they had taken over and they are cooperating with the US and has been rewarded financially.

Before the invasion the goal of one of US informants well known as Chalabi gave the choice to the US to divided the Iraqi country into three autonomous

Can it be that this will happen?

Then again after the attacks on the Shiite shrine it has been a spark of violence targeting Sunnis directly.

Taking in consideration that the Sunnis are the nemesis of the US invasion force and the tribal group tag with most of the problems with insurgency I wonder what may be going on.

I believe that a divided Iraq will be better control than what is going on right now in that country.

And I agree not muslin will target a holy site.

Iraq will never have a government that will be equal to all tribal groups, The peoples of Iraq will vote their ethnic or confessional identity, and few will vote as Iraqis. The Kurds will vote almost unanimously for the Kurdistan list and the Shiites will vote for the religious parties, and Sunnis for their old party group that resemble their old regime.This is call division and they will never be united in one common Iraqi nation or vote as Iraqi citizens. That is something that was talk about by the US but they though that could be overcome.

So the chances for any government that is not Shiites will never happen because they are the majority in that country.

Somebody is taking advantage of the problems with ethnic groups in Iraq to start something that can escalate with the only feasible solution.

A divided Iraq in three autonomous states

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:14 PM
You are talking of 2 seperate things. Yes, money makes the world go round. However, corporations in Iraq want it stable so they can work, rebuild, make i safer, I mean, there is no shortage of work, right.

How would destroying a holy site make it easier for the US? That is the fault in your logic.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
How would destroying a holy site make it easier for the US? That is the fault in your logic.

He doesn't want to make it easier for the US.

You are operating under the (I believe mistaken) assumption that what's best of BushCo is what's best for the US and vice versa. Bush doesn't care about what's easier for the US. His loyalty to the people and the country doesn't exist. He's in this for himself and his cronies. He doesn't care who gets killed or how it appears or the future of the country. As long as he can make the bucks, get the power and control of the oil, he doesn't care.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:21 PM
Didn't I mention that Souljah's true intentions would come to life?....

As always, he wants to forget that his brethen Shi'ites and Sunnis have been fighting each other for centuries. They don't even have the same beliefs, at least when it comes to the Imam.....

This is a struggle which has been going on for decades...but Souljah and some of his brethen will try to blame the west and Israel for everything that his own brethen have done for centuries to themselves....

It is not as if Shi'ites and Sunnis have never fought each other in battles, and through terrorist means, and we will see whether or not Muslims use the faith the other muslims have against them in battle...

Let's find out some more facts which Souljah, his brethen, and also some westerners whom are falling for souljah's deceptions.

Ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split which occurred in the decades immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs" (successors to Mohammed (pbuh) as leader of the Muslims) following on from Abu Bakr 632-634, Umar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first caliph and that the caliphate should pass down only to direct descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) via Ali and Fatima, They often refer to themselves as ahl al bayt or "people of the house" [of the prophet].

When Uthman was murdered while at prayer, Ali finally succeeded to the caliphate. Ali was, however, opposed by Aisha, wife of the Prophet (pbuh) and daughter of Abu Bakr, who accused him of being lax in bringing Uthman's killers to justice. After Ali's army defeated Aisha's forces at the Battle of the Camel in 656, she apologized to Ali and was allowed to return to her home in Madinah where she withdrew from public life.

However, Ali was not able to overcome the forces of Mu'awiya Ummayad, Uthman's cousin and governor of Damascus, who also refused to recognize him until Uthman's killers had been apprehended. At the Battle of Suffin Mu'awiya's soldiers stuck verses of the Quran onto the ends of their spears with the result that Ali's pious supporters refused to fight them. Ali was forced to seek a compromise with Mu'awiya, but this so shocked some of his die-hard supporters who regarded it as a betrayal that he was struck down by one of his own men in 661.

Mu'awiya declared himself caliph. Ali's elder son Hassan accepted a pension in return for not pursuing his claim to the caliphate. He died within a year, allegedly poisoned. Ali's younger son Hussein agreed to put his claim to the caliphate on hold until Mu'awiya's death. However, when Mu'awiya finally died in 680, his son Yazid usurped the caliphate. Hussein led an army against Yazid but, hopelessly outnumbered, he and his men were slaughtered at the Battle of Karbala (in modern day Iraq). Hussein's infant son, Ali, survived so the line continued. Yazid formed the hereditary Ummayad dynasty. The division between the Shia and what came to be known as the Sunni was set.

An opportunity for Muslim unity arose in the 750's CE. In 750 except for a few who managed to flee to Spain, almost the entire Ummayad aristocracy was wiped out following the Battle of Zab in Egypt in a revolt led by Abu Al Abbass al-Saffah and aided by considerable Shia support. It was envisaged that the Shia spiritual leader Jafar As-Siddiq, great-grandson of Hussein be installed as Caliph. But when Abbass died in 754, this arrangement had not yet been finalised and Abbas' son Al Mansur murdered Jafar, seized the caliphate for himself and founded the Baghdad-based Abbassid dynasty which prevailed until the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258.

Excerpted from.

As we can see from the above Shi'ite and Sunni conflicts are nothing new, but Souljah and his brethen would try to make people think otherwise, that "it is all the fault of the west, mainly the U.S. and Israel" as he often tries to claim.

Shall we see if all Muslims believe in the Imams, or if they all believe in the Imamas which were supposed to be buried in that srhine which was blown up?

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:55 PM
I am starting to lean more and more to the possibility that Iraq will be divided. . . not into three independent countries but rather independent states within the country.

To make this possible I believe that internal forces that favor this division would have been the ones to plan the attacks and execute them.

But who can benefit from a division of Iraq Beside corporate interest from the US?

I tell you what. . . what if some groups that are trying to hurry up and privatize Iraq and get the economy going with US interest in that country could not wait and decided to make things faster and create all these diversion?.

It could be groups within the own government in Iraq.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:12 PM
If it's not utter ignorance, then it looks like a "Machiavellian gambit" by 3rd parties to plunge Iraq into civil war and watch the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis kill each other off.

Bush Ignored Warnings Of Iraqi Civil War

In September 2004, intelligence officials at the CIA warned that Iraq could dissolve into civil war over the next 18 months (18 months have now elapsed since the report was revealed). “White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and other White House spokesmen, called the intelligence assessment the work of ‘pessimists and naysayers’ after its outlines were disclosed by the New York Times. President Bush called the assessment a guess, which drew the consternation of many intelligence officials.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

By deception thou shalt do war....

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Souljah

Condoleezza Rice claims, that the only ones who WANT war in Iraq are Terrorists like Al-Mossad-Al-Zarqawi


please avoid posting lies intentionally

If YOU think Israel is behind that attack, this would be YOUR opinion and noticed at the boards as this..

But I highly doubt US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice usesd the term "Mossad" when she refered to Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Riwka]

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Riwka
please avoid posting lies intentionaly

If YOU think Israel is behind that attack, this would be YOUR opinion and noticed at the boards as this..

But I highly doubt Condolenca Rice usesd the term "Mossad" when she refered to Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi.

I am sorry Ms. Riwka, but I think that the Phantom and Elusive terrorist network, and the SUPER-Terrorists like Al-Zarqawi, are a product of Other foreign Intelligence Agencies, CIA-NSA-MI6-Mossad.

I remember a while ago, a most Impressive post was made by the respected member of this Board, wecomeinpeace, entitled Al-Zarqawi the Super-Terrorist.

The Results:

1) Prove that a man named al-Zarqawi existed-----> Achieved.
2) Prove that a man named al-Zarqawi was an extremist/terrorist---- Achieved.
3) Prove that al-Zarqawi is still alive-----> Failed.
4) Prove that al-Zarqawi is masterminding global terror-----> Failed.
Compromise stage:
5) Prove that al-Zarqawi masterminded one, single recent terrorist attack----> Failed.
6) Show that evidence presented is not fabricated-----> Failed.
7) Show that evidence has even been presented for reasonable scrutiny-----> Failed.

So I am sorry, if I have insulted the Spotless record of Mossad and its Anti-Terroristic activities around the Middle East, to Accuse them of Working with Al-Qaeda.

As IF it was the FIRST time...

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Souljah

I am sorry Ms. Riwka, but I think that the Phantom and Elusive terrorist network, and the SUPER-Terrorists like Al-Zarqawi, are a product of Other foreign Intelligence Agencies, CIA-NSA-MI6-Mossad.

Yes, I know that YOU think that.

But that does NOT give you the right to lay YOUR opinion on other peoples mouth, right?

There is a "little" difference between YOUR claims and the claims of Condoleezza Rice..

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:25 PM
Opinions are like noses, everyones got one. This does not make it true. Have you ever met a member of Al-qeada? Did he show you his MI- 6 credentials.

The US is not plunging these folks into war. The Moslem confilct is centuries old, and the Iran-Iraq tension goes back decades. Hussien did hold control but by threatening use of WMD's and having his sons kill his opposition.Hussien is now gone, so the religious struggle returns.

Also, i believe in what is best for my family and feel my country is keeping me safe. I don't care if Bush is given a check for 30 million his first day out of office, as long as while he is there there are no terror attacks, I feel it is worth it.

Even the Vatican is condemning these actions. The entire world is looking upon the Moslems in the Middle east, and they are shaking their heads in empathy and fear of what is next.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:55 PM
Does anyone know what Hamas and Iran are saying about this Sunni and Shia thing in Iraq? It seems that they being pretty quiet about this. It's hard to put the blame on the west for this I guess.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by duncanidaho]

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 03:56 PM

They don't call her the Anaconda for nothing,
as in Condi speak with forked tongue.

Who's isolating whom?
-The Economist
Rice grilled over Iraq rebuilding pace, costs -Reuters

Words of the day: Mahdi and Latah

Shrine bombing: Sunnis give a lesson in how to start a civil war -Sydney Morning Herald

The most authoritative Shiite figure in the country, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, appeared to be on the verge of dumping on Washington as he warned that Shiite militias would have to protect the majority Shiites and their holy places if the US-trained and funded new Iraqi security forces were not up to the job - not to mention the US military.

And the most senior Shiite political leadership did dump on Washington, blaming ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's criticism of their refusal to go along with what they perceive as a US attempt to dilute their power in the wake of elections more than two months ago as a "come-on" to the insurgents. The fact that there is no agreement on the make-up of a new government 10 weeks after the poll also confirms a crisis that no amount of US spinning or appeals to national unity can deny - there is no unity in post-Saddam Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

O'Reilly: U.S. should leave Iraq "as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country"

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 07:21 PM
Actually the US is very worry about the instability of having the Shiites instigating protest and retaliations against Sunnis.

The reason of this is that US has not problems with Kurds By the way majority Kurds are Sunni descendants the rest are Turkish.

The Shiites in power has been working toward a stable government.

Sunnis in the other hand at least the ones from the old regime has been very adamant about US invasion and Shiite majority.

US maintained a somewhat control over the country while blaming the attacks on civilians to Foreign fighters and insurgents mostly Sunnis.

If the Shiites become uncontrollable and start more violence all around the country against Sunnis.

US would lose all the control it has or though that it has on Iraq stability.

Because it would not be Allies to help, Shiites were the only ones.

Kurds are very safe and happy in their selfprocaim borders, they will protect their own within those borders.

So who can be benefiting from all this? is not the US unless is some sinister agenda that we could not even think about it in our minds.

I believe that US is the one that will lose from all this.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Regenmacher
O'Reilly: U.S. should leave Iraq "as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country"

Yeah, good old 'Cut-N-Run O'Reilly' as I like to call him...

Originally posted by marg6043
I believe that US is the one that will lose from all this.

Oh, I believe they will, too. I think NOTHING is working out the way this administration thought it would. You might say they 'misunderestimated' the situation.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:20 PM
Ok... Here's a hypothetical situation, maybe Im nuts, but I am not even going to jump on the bandwagon that the US blew up the Mosque, sorry, to deliberately inflict major damage to a cultural icon is no where near as profitable as keeping the troops there and repairing things using our contracts- IE Halliburton, and the whole Shell BP bids for oil rights, that were signed and awarded maybe a year into this.

I believe wholeheartedly that Al quaida blew up the Mosque. Now my conspiracy is this, theyre using the Iraqi's as pawns. What better way to decimate our numbers than by rallying all sides of the middle eastern world against us. Iran is a firm supporter of Alquaida. Iran also is enriching Uranium, has become fast friends with China(After all-theyre now going to be supplying Beijing with oil and fuel)and is pissed at us for even remotely suggesting they stop their enrichment program.

China is also nuclear fortified, and weve had a very delicate relationship with them

Im thinking that the main position of Al Quaida is to start blaming us for the Mosque being blown up. They get the Iraquis ticked at us and we're basically FUBARED, now we've got AlQuaida, Iran, China, Iraq, all together with nuclear capabilities, and I do believe we're pretty much toast here.

OH and need I bring up a small headline thats sweeping across all news-UAE about to start running our main ports. If we do fire them from doing that, then we may as well kiss that friendship bye bye too, I would imagine the wonderful relationship we have with them as far as reliability for being our allies in the war on terror is over.

JUst some food for thought.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, good old 'Cut-N-Run O'Reilly' as I like to call him...

yeah, well, I will use neocon articles (Faux news) in regards to debating other neocon's parrot-speak ludicrousness, or I get the immediate that's leftwinger nutjob kookdom dismissal.

When the horse has his blinders on you have to aim for where he's looking at.

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:19 AM
Mossad is very active in Iraq, especially in Northern Iraq (look at the map, Samera is located in NI, north of baghdad). They have close ties with Kurdish terrorist groups as well as Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq.

Read this:

Israeli defense analysts have long tried to find out about the current capabilities of the Iranian Air Force and has therefore installed highly
sensitive radars in the Iraqi Kurdistan close to Iran in order to better study the Iranian radar grids after the failed US unmanned flights into Iran
which had the purpose to provoke the Iranians to turn on their radars in order for Americans to study the Iranian radar grids.

Once the presence of Israeli experts and equipments inside Iraqi Kurdistan was confirmed in September the Iranians continue to keep their ground radar systems off....

A news released by Mehr News Agency reported that according to an informed local source in northern Iraq, the ill-fated plane was a Falcon which had taken off from a base in Azerbaijan Republic.
It added that the plane, which was heading for an unknown destination, crashed on the Iran-Iraq border, while overflying Kurdestan province.
"No details on the crash, the plane's passengers and mission are available. Investigation into the incident indicated that 3-5 passengers on board were possibly of Israeli origin," added the report.
The local source did not disclose any further details, but told Mehr News Agency that US troops have restricted access of Iraqi Kurdish officials and the interim government to further information.


new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in