Who attacked the shrine in Samarra?

[bemildred]

Since the occupation, the mosque was an “available target” but nothing happened so why now and how will benefit from such attack?.

We have two suspects:

Iran

Iran wants to see a civil war waged between Sunnis and Shiites, the outcome of this civil war will be an independent Shiites region which is in conclusion will be an Iranian region.

US

Samarra is a failure to the US, they attacked it many times but brought no results, the city is still an accessible for the Americans, gunmen attack the Americans daily in Samarra and the surrounding areas, so intensive that few weeks ago I read on an Iraqi newspaper that American checkpoints outside the city are seizing telephones with build-in cameras from Samarra citizens so the attacks are not filmed and distributed through the internet.

Baghdad Dweller

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Iran is clearing out Sufis

in Qom and saying they aren't really Muslim. Could be that they are out to have a vast Shia state with no one else allowed in it. BUT I can't imagine Iranians who are pious destroying this very important shrine. It would be like the IRA bombing the Vatican. US? There's a possibility, but what is the point? Why stir up sectarian violence? Don't see how this fosters our interests there.

[bemildred]

2. About the shrine ...

I am inclined to defer to your knowledge in this, but I have read that there is a certain "competitiveness" between Qom and Najaf, and I suspect for many the attractions of power might override the restraints of piousness. It was very interesting to me that the mosque bombing was done without casualties. And it does make perfect sense to me that Iran would find this "useful", what better way to stave off the potential for an attack on their enrichment facilities than to create a big military distraction next door? It makes their influence more necessary, it might tend to weaken al Sadr who has been thwarting Iran's will, makes a strong united Iraq less likely, there is just no downside for Iran in this.

But this is all speculation, of course.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. The Sufi problem

had nothing to do with any Shia shrine in Qom but rather with the destruction of their house of worship and the house of their spiritual teacher. Sufis have orders to which they belong, and in each order are spiritual teachers. It is often the case that the students of said teacher will meet at his/her home or worship nearby. It is not usually a place where others go. If anything, I would say the Iranians wish to be rid of Sufis, and are going after them via their teachers, as a student would come to stand by their teacher if the teacher was having trouble, which was the case here.

[bemildred]

8. Oh, I did not think the Sufi had anything to do with it.

I am saying that the Ayats in Qom are in competition with al Sistani in Najaf for influence.

Edit: The repression of the Sufi is telling, but I would suspect that is more of an internal issue, the current Iranian political leadership has a stong authoritarian tendency, and thus needs enemies, both internal and external.

[bemildred]

14. Iranian reformist speaks out against sectarian violence

Mehdi Karrubi, Iran’s former parliamentary speaker and a veteran of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has criticised Shia Muslim radicals who last week destroyed a religious building belonging to Islamic mystics in the holy city of Qom.

His comments – prominent in reformist newspapers – reflect concern about Shia militants stirring conflict as Iran’s fundamentalist president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, tries to radicalise Islam at home and abroad, and as Sunni militants provoke sectarian violence in neighbouring Iraq with attacks like Wednesday’s on the Askariyeh holy Shia shrine in Samarra.

Mr Karrubi was responding to violence in Qom last week when radicals destroyed a meeting house used by Sufis, an Islamic order viewed with suspicion by some Shia.

The clashes – which led to hundreds of arrests and the use of tear gas by police – arose from a four-year dispute over ownership of the building, where Sufis practised religious rites.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8f2f2078-a3ce-11da-83cc-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=de095590-c8f4-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

[cali]

3. Cui bono?

Iran, Al Qaeda and perhaps certain Iraqi Sunni factions. The US? Sorry bushco stands to gain nothing from this. I mean, c'mon, this is a quy who's monstrous hubris and quasi messianic tendencies initiated this war. Overarching the greed, the favors for cronies, the corruption, is the vision that bush had; remaking the mideast in his demented version of democracy. He may lie and say he doesn't care about his legacy, but the actions he's taken demonstrate otherwise. The worsening civil war in Iraq doesn't help him.

The tendency by some posters to immediately ascribe any horror that occurs, to bushco, isn't, IMO, a particularly good use of les petit cellules gris. (As Hercule Poirot would say)

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, I would doubt that the Bushites did it, and the insurgency.

OBL and his minions might.

[tocqueville]

6. "petites cellules grises" but that's OK LOL

[cali]

9. Merci!

Alas, I remember my Agatha Christie, better than the years of french.

[K-W]

12. Remaking the midddle east means keeping our troops there,

so yes, Bushco stands to gain a great deal from continued sectarian violence in Iraq, it is the supposed reason for continued occupation. I dont however think the US would need to stage events to accomplish this... but you really cant put anything past the US military/intelligence community.

US policy is not crafted by George W. Bush thinking of his legacy, its crafted by lobbyists, thinktankers and industry/military strategists.

This article is simply speculating, nobody, particularly no DU'r on this thread is making accusations about Bush so your post confuses me a bit. I have noticed no such tendency on DU, I have however noticed a tendency of the government to do horrible things to Iraqis.

[tocqueville]

5. Iran is not likely

for religious reasons (they are shiamuslims) but can be an indirect winner of a civil war

others :

1) Baathists/secular Sunnis : very possible, no religious considerations
2) religious Sunni extremists : very possible, consider shiites as heretics

both groups interested in a civil war, specially since the US wanted to incorporate moderate Sunnis in the government and thus thwart the insurgency

3) Al Quaeda : very possible, combine the the political and religious reasons of above
4) Syria : same reasons than the Baathists (which they are) and have already demonstrated in Lebanon how skilled they are with explosives. Besides the job was done by professionals. Maybe they financed and trained the 1 and 2 above...

5) the US : only plausible reason : a flaming civil war gives a reason to depart a now known in advance unresolvable situation. The retreat can be "honorable" in the sense that the failure can be blamed on sectarian stife from people that "don't want our freedom". Very dangerous option, because the US can be a soft target when retreating (the situation is not the same than in Nam).

one thing is sure : the US will be the big loser. And if it turns into a Waterloo for Bush, he may end his day on some remote island...

[mom cat]

10. Good question. I doubt if Shiite Iran would bomb such an important

Shiite shrine. The US power brokers - defense contractors and oil companies, however have the most to gain from continued instability in Iraq and these are the sectors that have the most influence on the administration. Bushco has no plan or any desire to leave Iraq, and the weaker it is, the less able Iraqis will be to throw the US out and reclaim their oilfields. The US did not build all those bases and plan to build the largest embassy ($1 billion)in the world just to walk away. The instability gives the US a reason to delay the exit ... a process that can drag on a long long time. The administration does not care about troop loss, or the financial cost of the war. Ordinary people are bearing those costs. However, the key Bush/Cheney supporters are making a killing and defense spending is riding high, right along with oil company profits as are Halliburton's profits.
The US has a long history of fomenting instability in other countries. Could they perhaps be trying to goad Iran into attacking the US forces in Iraq or the US fleets?

[cali]

11. That doesn't make sense.

Defense contractors and oil execs can't operate in the midst of a civil war. Their assets are under continual threat. I also think you're wrong about bushco. Yes, he'd like to have premanent bases there, but he gains nothing by civil war. And it's devastating to both the repub party and his legacy. Remember, in order to follow through on their grand plans they need to stay in power. Trying to goad Iran into attacking US forces would be an utter disaster for bushco. Even they're not that stupid.

[K-W]

13. You mean the contractors and execs who made deals with the new Govt.

The government that would probably fall if the US were to leave Iraq?
You mean the contractors and execs with lucrative military support deals who only continue to make money if the occupation continues?

Yes, he'd like to have premanent bases there, but he gains nothing by civil war.

How is getting what he wants gaining nothing? It is the civil war that is being used as a justification for an ongoing and long term occupation. The existance of a protracted conflict in Iraq is absolutely vital to the plan for permanant bases.

And it's devastating to both the repub party and his legacy.

I think it is rather obvious that they care more about controlling Iraq than George W. Bush's legacy, and exactly how is it devastating the Republican Party who probably wouldnt be in power now if not for the war on terror?

Remember, in order to follow through on their grand plans they need to stay in power.

Why? Are the democrats calling for withdrawl?

[mom cat]

16. If Iran is goaded into attacking US troops, Bush will be able to justify

an all out attack on Iran and emerge as the tough guy, just in time for the elections. This keeps the whole perpetual war going to the benefit of his cronies. The oil companies do not need to worry about operating in the middle of a civil war. They are making obscene record breaking profits now. The instability only keeps the price up.
Also, he already has the permanent bases built. I can't see him abandoning them any time soon. If he manages to destroy Iran also, Bush and the Saudis and the UAE can take over the oil fields. I think that Bush feels driven to control those fields no matter what the cost.

[Clara T]

15. Strategy of tension

Strategy of tension
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a way to control and manipulate public opinion using propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs and terrorism.
The term was coined in Italy during the trials that followed the 1970s and 1980s terror attacks and murders committed by neofascist terrorists (such as Ordine Nuovo, Avanguardia Nazionale or Fronte Nazionale). The terrorists were backed by intelligence agencies, P2 masonic lodge and Gladio, a NATO secret anti-communist army.
The suspected aim of these crimes was to make the public believe that the bombings were committed by a communist insurgency, to promote the formation of an authoritarian government, and to prevent the growing Italian Communist Party (PCI) from joining the ruling Democrazia Cristiana (DC) in a government of national reconciliation ("historical compromise").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension