Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Explosion Destroys Dome of Shiite Shrine

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Explosion Destroys Dome of Shiite Shrine
    Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 17:02

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

No cok it will not be consumed if we still have Ayotallah Al Seyyid Ali Al Sistani,His role is very mportant he pronounced yesterday "he forbid any attack against Sunnis" therefor this  reactions are not huge like the media pictured it,all these irresponsible behaviours are deplored by Sistani and all Shiite leaders,today only peacfully protests in Baghdad and other cities.

I think we should blame the fanatics,Saddam's supporter,US forces for let them free after the fall of Saddam's regime.

Well, someone have to admit that Shiite in Iraq (public) have been under a lot of pressure to ignire a war. Of course when you want to start a civil war, typically you would target the majority that will retaliate against the other groups which will respond back and it creates a circle.
I hope this will end soon, however, these are the updates:

Originally posted by BBC

Scores die amid Iraqi shrine fury
Protesters prevented an Iraqi minister reaching the shrine

More than 100 people have been killed in Iraq in apparent revenge attacks after the bombing of a key Shia shrine.

Scores of bullet-riddled bodies have been found in Baghdad, while in the bloodiest attack 47 factory workers were killed near the capital.

President Jalal Talabani called an emergency summit of Iraq's political leaders to discuss the violence.

Sunni Arab politicians boycotted the meeting and pulled out of coalition talks in protest at reprisal attacks.

"We are suspending our participation in negotiations on the government with the Shia Alliance," said Tareq al-Hashimi, a top official from the Iraqi Accord Front, Iraq's main Sunni Arab alliance.

The Iraqi government has announced a daytime curfew in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces for most of Friday - in a bid to help maintain order around the period of prayers.

Dozens of Sunni mosques have been targeted and several burnt to the ground since bombers blew up the golden dome of the revered al-Askari shrine in Samarra on Wednesday morning, reports say.

In a rare public rebuke, the main Sunni religious authority - the Association of Muslim Scholars - accused Iraq's top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, of fomenting the violence.

I think Iraq is falling apart and there is nothing we can do about it
Fred Mondini, Seattle

Ayatollah Sistani has urged Shias not to attack Sunni mosques, but a spokesman for the cleric said anger might be hard to contain.

"You wouldn't expect an abrupt or sudden calm, because there are some people whose reaction you can't control," London-based Fadel Bahar al-Eloum told the BBC.

In other developments:

  • US President George W Bush calls the bombing of the shrine an "evil act" and appeals for an end to reprisal attacks

  • Tens of thousands of Lebanese Shia Muslims rally in Beirut in protest at the shrine attack

  • An angry crowd prevents Iraqi Housing Minister Jassem Mohammed's convoy from reaching the bombed shrine in Samarra

  • The Iraqi government cancels all police and army leave and extends the curfew in Baghdad.

'No-one safe'

As violence showed no sign of abating, Iraq's leaders have increasingly warned of the dangers of a civil war.

After meeting Shias, Kurds and leaders of a smaller Sunni group, President Talabani said in a televised broadcast if all-out war came "no-one would be safe", Reuters news agency reported.

Atwar Bahjat

The attack on the al-Askari shrine - which will be seen as a direct assault on the identity and rights of an entire community - takes the danger of a civil conflict to a new level, the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says.

A civil war would destroy the chances of the elected Shia-led government which is still being formed following December's election, and could lead to the break-up of the country, he says.

Mounting toll

In the heaviest single loss of life, the 47 factory workers were killed after being dragged out of their vehicles in Nahrawan, on the outskirts of Baghdad.

The victims, aged between 20 and 50, had been travelling home from work in a convoy of buses when they were ambushed and shot dead.

It is not clear whether the murders are linked to the attack on the shrine or whether they are part of the general insurgency.

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.

At least 12 people died in a bomb attack on an Iraqi army patrol in the town of Baquba, while one person died in a gun attack on a Sunni mosque in the city.

In other attacks, four US soldiers were killed near Hawijah, while three died near Balad, when their vehicles were hit by roadside bombs, the US army said on Thursday.


D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 17:10

President Bush said that the US government will be putting money towards restoring the shrine. Do you think that will calm most of the Shia down if it is restored?

Has it been confirmed yet if anyone died inside besides those who blew themselves up?

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 17:18

"We are suspending our participation in negotiations on the government with the Shia Alliance," said Tareq al-Hashimi, a top official from the Iraqi Accord Front, Iraq's main Sunni Arab alliance.

What are they hoping to achieve by doing this?!  And that article brings tears to my eyes, those poor people, trying to earn a living and suppor ttheir families in that god damned hell-hole



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Loknar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2005
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
  Quote Loknar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 17:29

I am starting to wonder if the Shia and Sunni should go their separate ways and each form their own independent governments. Iraq after all is an artificial country.

Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 17:31
Originally posted by Zagros

"We are suspending our participation in negotiations on the government with the Shia Alliance," said Tareq al-Hashimi, a top official from the Iraqi Accord Front, Iraq's main Sunni Arab alliance.

What are they hoping to achieve by doing this?!  And that article brings tears to my eyes, those poor people, trying to earn a living and suppor ttheir families in that god damned hell-hole

same wondering.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 17:33

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Has it been confirmed yet if anyone died inside besides those who blew themselves up?

Hmm, did i miss anything while following the story? I cannot recall there were suicide bombers there? is it?

Iraq is upside down for the shrine explosion. Someone mentioned here already that human life is more important than stones and shrines. Even the Kabah itself for all Muslims. But I guess ignorance prevail in such a confusing time. Shiite hits back and probably some Sunnis will hit back again though the government has imposed a curfew. Just think what will happen if those responsible groups took the chance and made a second hit shortly on another Shrine?

The start of a civil war usually is the disintegration of the Army and Police force and its split. There has been already accounts of Iraqi police involvement in such chaos. The Iraqi government has to work hard to keep up order, even inside its housing authority chambers.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 20:01
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

This is really shocking. I really hope this doesn't start a civil war. Thats exactly what the English want. It is what they did in the subcontinent, divide and conquer.

You can hardly blame the English for the divisions between Shia and Sunni, or the divisions between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in India.

They (we) may have taken advantage of the divisions but they didn't do the dividing.


The history of Iraq is still being written, but they definitely did it in India. They wanted each Maharaja fighting their neighbouring Nawab, so England could come in and play the peace bringer, promising protection to both sides against the other. They deliberately encouraged rivalries in order to divide and conquer. Many of the nations on the subcontinent were much stronger than the English but not as nearly as cunning. The British's best weapon is subterfuge and diplomacy.
Remember Doudley Bradstreet, the saviour of all england

P.S. Before someone says I'm being anti-english. I am 1/4 english.


Edited by Omar al Hashim
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 20:03
Originally posted by Genghis

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by Leonidas

i dont think the shiites can hold it any longer

Well then I hope they direct their anger towards the real culprits: the invaders, and not their fellow Iraqis. I want to see all the evidence for this attack so I can figure out exactly how the british were involved

We didn't blow up the shrine, the insurgents did, blame them.


How do you know insurgents blew up the shrine?
Why would insurgents even want to blow up a shrine?
A civil war is in the interests of the occupiers.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 20:24
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by Genghis

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by Leonidas

i dont think the shiites can hold it any longer

Well then I hope they direct their anger towards the real culprits: the invaders, and not their fellow Iraqis. I want to see all the evidence for this attack so I can figure out exactly how the british were involved

We didn't blow up the shrine, the insurgents did, blame them.


How do you know insurgents blew up the shrine?
Why would insurgents even want to blow up a shrine?
A civil war is in the interests of the occupiers.

No, a civil war is in the interests of Iran, and Syria and Saudi Arabia and probably numerous factions (political, religious and criminal) indigenous to Iraq.  The last thing any of those entities want is an Iraq that succeeds and by doing so threatens their perceived vital interests.....i.e. their power to monopolize control of their respective populations and the wealth of their countries.

 

Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 20:44

And a Civil War won't help the US in any shape or form. Infact they are saying if a civil war lasts more then a month or two they will have to pull out all US soldiers.

Watching the news today, the only thing they said that had a upside was in the city of Basra where both Shiites and Sunnis together protested against the US. Though the US government doesn't want the populace against the US, they were happy to see the two groups together, and with good reason.

The US also decided that they will not get into the conflicts in this situation and are allowing the Iraqi army to take care of it, "Unless" the problems are to much for the Iraqi army and they need the help. The reason why they are staying on the sidelines is because some cities will with the civil problems will actually create a bigger backlash if the US make a move in them.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 21:10

The Iraq war has been a mistake.  We meant well, but we didn't get it right.

If the country descends into what appears likely, it is time to withdraw to the "places d'arms" of Kuwait and the Gulf States and wait upon events.  The West can still intervene in the oil areas of the Gulf if they need to.  Plenty of amphibious and air capability.

An Iraq paralyzed by civil conflict really does not threaten U.S. security.  It probably threatens the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria more.  Those idiots are just trying to survive short term by disrupting the U.S. effort.  Short term it may well work, but we don't have to remain in the middle.

If it is so important for religious sects to kill each other, fine.  Have at it for all I care.

 

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2006 at 21:25

On another point, a civil war may disrupt oil supplies and increase oil prices just as Nigeria is doing.  I am in favor of this.

The higher the price of a barrel of crude, and the higher fuel prices go, the more the economic benefit of alternative and hybrid energy sources can be appreciated.  Good.  The West can absorb some increase in oil prices.  Buy stock in Exxon and BP for god's sake.

Beyond that, if the production of reliable fuels from ethanol is something that can be done economically in relation to the price of oil, a large part of Western needs can be met.  The raw material for some of it can be grown every year in North America and Argentina and Australia.  Oil is then reduced to lubricants and petrochemicals.  Other sources can provide much of that.  

The West is already experienced at producing power from nuclear reactors, and has untapped souces of hydro-electric power.  Other technologies as well.  What is needed is economic viability.  The best way to accomplish that is by higher oil prices. 

The necessity is there; the realization is there.  Technology has a way of surprising us all.

Once that engine gets running, what is the Middle East going to export, sand?

 

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 02:52
Well Pikeshot, you just answered your own question

Originally posted by Pikeshot1600

No, a civil war is in the interests of Iran, and Syria and Saudi Arabia and probably numerous factions (political, religious and criminal) indigenous to Iraq.  The last thing any of those entities want is an Iraq that succeeds and by doing so threatens their perceived vital interests.....i.e. their power to monopolize control of their respective populations and the wealth of their countries.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

It probably threatens the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria more.

Originally posted by Pikeshot1600

economic benefit of alternative and hybrid energy sources can be appreciated.


Divide and conquer is the oldest page in the book, I can probably look up a Sun Tzu quote for you. A united Iraq all fighting america is against americas interests, a divided Iraq fighting each other as well as america is an improvement from the american point of view.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 03:29
I agree with omar that divide and conquer is a typical imperialist policy. But im not to sure that this is the case. And this just doesnt make sense.

The USA would suffer more casulties and have a large part of its forces in a bigger mess. If this strife spirals out of control you will have weaker Iraq divided and even more vulnerable to its neighbours. The US are really trying to get a exit stragey in place: minimise their presence and have a freindly central government to fight the war and within a united border.

THis divide and conquer theory would only work on a smaller more subtle (controled) level, a civil war or open/violent division is something they simply cannot control.

Who would benefit?
Wahibi extremists: zahawiri has long espouse killing shiites
Turkey: it has been eyeing northern Iraq (kurdistan) and kirkuk as soon as this war became a reality
Iran : A split Iraq would favour its own attempt to penetrate the country and keep the USA busy
Syria: just to keep the americans off their arse



Edited by Leonidas
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 03:39
Israel: If a united Iraq defeated america it would provide a base free from american influence from which mount a serious threat towards Israels existance.

A stable Iraq free from american influence would aid Syria and Iran against their greater enemies Israel and America.
Kurdistan is already autonomous so a Arab civil war isn't going to make turkeys position better


Edited by Omar al Hashim
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 03:45
Omar al Hashim wrote:
" How do you know insurgents blew up the shrine?"
Al qaeda's franchise in Iraq has long targeted and denounced the shiites, who co-operate by and large with the USA

how can you prove anyone else did it instead?

" A civil war is in the interests of the occupiers."
No, the USA and the shiites are ok with each other (just OK), since the US  have handed over to the shiites the basic control of the country along with the Kurds. Its a marriage of conveniance. The longer this cements in place the harder it would be for the wahabi's to f*ck it up. Once the shiites and kurds divide the spoils the sunnis get stuff all. So stability is not in sunni best interests.

 A civil war would mean
  1. a failed and unsustanaible security situation
  2. economy cannot recover
  3. US investment in the country gets blown up
  4. and most importanatly Oil cant come out.
Hence the answer to this,
" Why would insurgents even want to blow up a shrine?"

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 03:52
Originally posted by Leonidas

" A civil war is in the interests of the occupiers."
No, the USA and the shiites are ok with each other (just OK), since the US  have handed over to the shiites the basic control of the country along with the Kurds. Its a marriage of conveniance. The longer this cements in place the harder it would be for the wahabi's to f*ck it up. Once the shiites and kurds divide the spoils the sunnis get stuff all. So stability is not in sunni best interests.

1 name Moktadar al Sadr.


 A civil war would mean
  1. a failed and unsustanaible security situation
  2. economy cannot recover
  3. US investment in the country gets blown up
  4. and most importanatly Oil cant come out.
Hence the answer to this,
" Why would insurgents even want to blow up a shrine?"

Yes your right. That is the right question.
Although 3 & 4 are happening without a civil war.


Edited by Omar al Hashim
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 04:09
Omar al Hashim wrote:
" Israel: If a united Iraq defeated america it would provide a base free from american influence from which mount a serious threat towards Israels existance."
And when was Iraq united peacefully? Under Saddam, sunnis had the control and the majority shiites and kurds suffered. What you are seeing is a sunni backlash at the loss of power, prestige and control.

 Sunnis only ever lived in the crap part of iraq before saddam and not in any area that has oil, so what happens when they see the shiites/ kurds take back what was theirs in the first place?

C'mon, They know a stable shiite dominated Iraq is not for them

" A stable Iraq free from american influence would aid Syria and Iran against their greater enemies Israel and America."

Iraqs neighbours have not helped Iraq but just their own favourite sections against other sections. Syria with saddam and the sunni's, Tukey with the turkomen, Iran with the Shiites.

Common sense would tell you a unified Iraq would including the same victims of such (splitist) policies and therefore would not see these neighbours as freindly or trustworthy. Kurds wont trust turkey, shiites wont trust wahabistan (shameless ripp off from Zargros) and sunni's Iran.

Kurdistan is already autonomous so a Arab civil war isn't going to make turkeys position better"
yes it would, infact if the USA wasnt there right know, they would. Making full sure that Kirkuk oil is pumped out safley, kurdistan is no longer and turkemen are 'protected' cyprus style.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 06:54

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Well Pikeshot, you just answered your own question

Originally posted by Pikeshot1600

No, a civil war is in the interests of Iran, and Syria and Saudi Arabia and probably numerous factions (political, religious and criminal) indigenous to Iraq.  The last thing any of those entities want is an Iraq that succeeds and by doing so threatens their perceived vital interests.....i.e. their power to monopolize control of their respective populations and the wealth of their countries.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

It probably threatens the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria more.

Originally posted by Pikeshot1600

economic benefit of alternative and hybrid energy sources can be appreciated.


Divide and conquer is the oldest page in the book, I can probably look up a Sun Tzu quote for you. A united Iraq all fighting america is against americas interests, a divided Iraq fighting each other as well as america is an improvement from the american point of view.

Omar:  Your interpretation of the probable scenario and its result is different than mine.  No problem.  It is just as probable that we are both wrong.

 

 

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 07:13

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Israel: If a united Iraq defeated america it would provide a base free from american influence from which mount a serious threat towards Israels existance.

A stable Iraq free from american influence would aid Syria and Iran against their greater enemies Israel and America.
Kurdistan is already autonomous so a Arab civil war isn't going to make turkeys position better

And you think these are desireable things?

Syria and Iran as role models in a struggle against Israel.....I would not put a bet on either of those regimes being around long.  Plus, is that the first priority of those governments?  If so, it reflects their bankruptcy at home.  They can't provide for their populations so they menace a state that succeeds, deflecting attention abroad. 

Kurdistan is autonomous.  Right.  Kurdistan will soon to be in the UN.   Come on, any opportunity Turkey has to dominate the Kurds and control their aspirations will be taken.  If the U.S. does withdraw from Iraq, there is no influence there to counteract Turkey's, either politically or in terms of a military presence.  What do you think might happen there?

 

 

 



Edited by pikeshot1600
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.