Mosque Bombing: "Specialist Job"

[file83]

Put your :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: on.

From the AFP (source: Yahoo News)

The bombing of a revered Shiite shrine which sparked a wave of violence in Iraq was the work of specialists, Construction Minister Jassem Mohammed Jaafar said Friday, adding that the placing of the explosives must have taken at least 12 hours.

"According to initial reports, the bombing was technically well conceived and could only have been carried out by specialists," the minister told Iraqia state television.

Jaafar, who toured the devastated thousand-year-old shrine on Thursday a day after the bombing which brought down its golden dome, said "holes were dug into the mausoleum's four main pillars and packed with explosives."

"Then the charges were connected together and linked to another charge placed just under the dome. The wires were then linked to a detonator which was triggered at a distance," the minister added.

To drill into the pillars would have taken at least four hours per pillar, he also estimated.

Damage to the mausoleum, holding the tombs of the 10th and 11th Shiite Imams, was extensive.

"The dome was completely wrecked and collapsed on the tombs which were covered over by debris. The shrine's foundations were also affected as 40 percent of the power of the blast was directed inwards," he added.

Yesterday we learned that 5 of the people arrested were Iraqi Police that were supposed to guard the Mosque. 4 of the others were dressed in black commando gear. Now these details of the bombing indicate "specialists" were involved using highly sophisticated electronically controlled, carefully placed charges.

My opinion is that this bombing is getting more and more suspicious. We are still not being told "who" the 10 people were that were arrested yesterday as suspects in the bombing. But it is obvious now more than ever that this bombing was not the work of your average roadside IED Jihad flunky.

I've been watching experts on CNN declaring that this bombing is a major "turning point" in this war. From the reaction of citizens in Iraq, I would have to agree. I simply want to know who did this and have them exposed. So why the silence on this subject and why is no one in the media asking this question that the authorities obviously have the answer to?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. I wonder where the goons that did this worked before

they decided to blow up mosques in Iraq? Maybe they got their on the job experience in NYC?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Another MIHOP?

Maybe Bush thinks we'll believe that these 10 operatives did it without help, just like the Twin Towers collapsed because planes ran into them.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

3. A "shaped charge"?

Gee, who does those really well?

I seem to recall Ben Burch noting a day or so ago that this looked like an American job, and he was hammered for it, if my recollection is correct.

Would Dear Leader's people do such a thing to get the Arabs fighting each other when they appeared close to a Shi'a/Sunni entente, the first since the 7th century C.E., when they were getting more and more emboldened to tell the U.S. to get the hell out of their country?

No, the Sunnis weren't happy with the direction of the governmental organization, but they *were* happy they could almost see the end of our occupation.

I don't think there's quite as much tinfoil in this as some folks would like to believe.

[Just Me]

8. PNACers aim for permanent U.S. military presence.

Exactly how many ways are they to accomplish that without looking like they were lying to congress and the American people about their intentions to go in, get the job done and get out?

:shrug:

Moreover, PNACers want to spread this war throughout the M.E., particularly to Iran and Syria. How many ways are there for them to accomplish that end (keeping in mind their firm belief that utilizing Machiavellian ways is completely legitimate).

:shrug:

On the other hand, how would blowing up a revered religious site benefit Iraqis or Muslims or Arabs or other members of the M.E. (Israel excluded)?

:shrug:

I supposed an argument could be made that, such an action would further inflame anger and the masses would rise up against and drive out the U.S.

I just don't know the real answer. I do see the possibility that the PNACers may be behind this event as legitimate.

[benburch]

11. Well... As somebody who has engineered and set off shaped charges...

The simple sort like I did are easy. You simply have a thick clay barrier to tamp one side of the charge (in this case commercial blasting dynamite) and since force goes along the path of least resistance you constrain a fair amount of the energy to the boulder or stump you are blasting rather than to the nearby meadow you are not.

Now, a sophisticated shaped charge is another matter and requires special materials and some actual computation. Sometimes these are shaped by blast effect where you detonate multiple small charges to create a pressure wall to push the main charge to the work piece.

So, some sophistication is needed for that sort of shaped charge, and would point to a military organization that knew its stuff.

Was that the USA? Maybe. Though I wager any modern military has one or two guys who know how, and many mining engineers would too.

[Igel]

12. On the other hand, there was much said a few months ago

as to how the kill rate of American soldiers from IEDs had increased.

The insurgents had taken to making shaped charges. But this was merely the spread of technology that militants in the Middle East already had.

For the USS Cole was damaged so extensively by a boat-bomb ... that was a shaped charge.

[Mythsaje]

4. Last time I checked

the Iraqis were getting VERY good at using explosives.

[pocket]

5. SF or SAS false flag op?

Remember those SAS commandos caught dressed as Arabs setting car bombs?

[megatherium]

6. Why would the US do this, when all it would accomplish is to force us out

of Iraq when the terrible civil war it is meant to provoke does happen? The Adminstration wants a stable Iraq -- as a base of operations in the upcoming war against Iran.

[file83]

14. Quite the contrary -

Escalating violence in Iraq would mean that the US is required to stick around to keep the peace. This, in turn, would help justify the 14 permanent bases they have/are constructing. If the Iraq became a "stable" place, then the US would have no more reason to be there. This bombing makes sure this doesn't happen.

[megatherium]

20. If your theory is correct, they better calibrate things carefully.

The US might want to stick around to keep the peace, but if there is a real civil war, a runaway conflagration, we wouldn't be able to keep the peace. Not with 130,000 troops. All we would be able to do is either get the hell out, or just hunker down in our own bases, helpless against the violence.

[maxsolomon]

7. show me the motive, tin foilers

who benefits?

1. baathists seeking to prevent a coalition govt.
2. foreigh jihadis (sunnis) seeking to prevent a coalition govt.

the US is not machiavellian enough. if we were, we wouldn't be in iraq in the first place. we're the ones that GET tricked into doing stupid shit.

[TahitiNut]

9. What would happen if Iran were to offer "security assistance" ...

... to Iraq? The majority-Shiite Iraqi legislature might (presumably) be inclined to accept an Iranian offer of assistance in safe-guarding the holiest of shrines to Shiism that exist in southeastern Iraq. Iran would be very shrewd indeed to make such an offer, even to the point of placing Iranian unit commanders under the command authority of the Iraqi National Guard. Clearly, acceptance of such an offer would be contrary to US 'interests' - but refusal would be (presumably) opposed by the Shiia majority in Iraq. Why wouldn't the Chalabi faction support such a move?

Maybe more interesting, why hasn't Iran made such an offer yet? (Or have they?)

[tatertop]

10. The plot thickens!

Good questions.

[Swede]

13. Sounds like the work of the Pazdaran.

Iran has the most to gain.

[megatherium]

21. I suspect it's not Iran. Iranians would not destroy an important Shiite

shrine. Al Qaeda, which tends to be anti-Shiite, would. Al Qaeda has a good motive for such an outrage: provoke a civil war that would push us out of Iraq. Also, if the Iranians wanted to force us out, they would merely tell their Shiite allies to join the insurgency -- that would be very difficult for us to deal with. Al Qaeda has few links to Sunni or Shiite factions in Iraq, so they're the ones resorting to awful shit like blowing up Shiite holy sites. I recall US forces some months ago observed "red on red" gun battles: local insurgents fighting al Qaeda.

[nashville_brook]

15. outsourced.

[file83]

18. yes, but outsourced to "who"?

Iran?
Pakistan?
Israel?
US?
Brit?
Your guess is as good mine.

[951-Riverside]

16. These two up their their old antics again?

[burythehatchet]

17. Since the start I have suspected a false flag op

[file83]

19. Me too, and I was completely ridiculed for voicing that. But now

the evidence is beginning to point in that direction. I'm not saying that there IS evidence that conclusively proves it - No. - only that all the information that has come to light so far supports that as a possibility.

That, plus the fact there is so much "silence" on this issue of "who did it", both from the Pentagon and the MSM. Everyone is focusing on the results of the explosion (rioting, questions of Civil War, etc) but not on the most important issue: Who are the people they arrested?

On 9/11, everyone in America wanted to know who was responsible for destroying the buildings.

But when the Golden Mosque comes down, suddenly no one is interested in who is responsible (even after 10 people were arrested as suspects!).

It's my opinion that these are just smoke and mirrors tactics. That bothers me and raises a red flag.