|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Mention W. Somerset Maugham story?
Golden Mosque Bombing
"For centuries, people from the 7 tribes of Samarra have guarded the shrine. These guards are also called "gayaameen" in Arabic. According to gayaameen from the Darraji tribe of samarra, a few hours prior to the fist bombing that occured, ICDC troops (Iraqi Civil Defence Corps) accompanied by coalition troops, temporarly relieved the Gayaameem of their duty. As a result of the bombings coinciding with the duty relief of the gayaameen just prior to the bombing, scepticism grew as to what level of involvement the ICDC or coalition troops had in the tragic event. Prior to the second bombing, the gayaameen where also relieved, except this time it was done by Internal Ministry officers (AKA: Maghaweer al-dakhiliah) accompanied by coalition troops. The gayaameen this time where instructed to mobilize to the bridge (connects Samarra proper with the Gal'a)and establish a check point there. Soon after, the bombings occured, destroying the shrine for a second time."
This is a complete fabrication. The gayaameen were not relieved and coalition forces were not in any way involved with the bombings. Coalition forces were not allowed to enter any part of the mosque. The primary suspects in the 2006 bombing were Hamadi al-Takhi al-Nissani, al-Qaeda's "emir" in Samarra and Haitham al-Badri http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?pagewanted=print.
Samarra is a complete cesspool that is controled by corrupt tribes that earn their living through extortion, murder, and corruption. The United States government and Iraqi goverment have spent ove $400 million in revitalization projects since 2003 and there is not a single indicator within the city that points towards improvement. The money has been pocketed by the criminal gangs and insurgent groups who live in the area. Samarra has a history of security problems that pre-date the Ba'athist regime. I know no one wants to know this but my name is samarra dayshaun just saying thank you graciously for looking at this and i love you all and stop destroying samarra i plan on going there someday even though im only 11 years old.
"On 16 March 2006, the US air force conducted a major bombing raid over the city. It was claimed to be the biggest attack of it's kind in Iraq since the invasion of 2003." Shouldn't this particular passage be listed as an "event in progress", since this particular campaign will probably continue for at least a few days? See the article below.
The operation dubbed "largest since the invasion of 2003" referred to air assault, not bombing. Which means the US Army, not the US Air Force. And it was north of Samarra, I believe. Oh, and half the troops were Iraqi Army, not US. Who was doing the bombing?
- "Operation Swarmer has yielded significant amounts of weapons and IED-making materials, as well as terrorist training materials. Caches include rockets and mortar rounds of varying sizes, rocket-propelled grenades, SA-7 surface-to-air missile components, hand grenades, machine guns, assault rifles and nearly 2,000 rounds of armor-piercing rifle ammunition.
- "Troops also discovered more than 500-feet of detonating cord, blasting caps, artillery rounds packed with plastic explosive, and remote initiation devices such as cordless phone base stations and washing machine timers – materials all used to make IEDs.
- "Other terrorist supplies included training publications, Iraqi Army uniforms, and video tapes. The tapes show U.S. troop locations in Iraq, the rigging and detonation of a car bomb, a suicide bomber and equipment taken from Iraqi Police." http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Daily/Mar/060319.htm
Other than that this section was ok.
- OK; my mistake. But it takes nothing away from my main point - since the campaign was announced as stretching over several days, it should have been listed as an "event in progress". Jonas Liljeström 11:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Link for comment about Shiite travelling to Samarra?
The article states that no Shiite had problems travelling to Samarra for pilgrimage - is there a link? I have read that Saddam suppressed most Shiite rituals during his rule.
As an eyewitness I can say that we were free in performing pilgrimage to Samarra during Saddam's era. The last time I have visited the city was in 1992. I went to the holy places and found that significant maintainance effort was ongoing and everybody was doing his worshipping freely. Generally speaking, no one encountered difficulties in visiting Shia holey places in Iraq at that time. Only large events (like Ashura) were treated suspeciously by Saddam regime. Even during such events only fanatic people were taken a way.
Modern Era section question
In the same paragraph it is stated that Iraq was invaded in 2003 by the United States of America, and in 2003 by Coalition Forces. Which one is it? While the USA did have by far the largest force, there were many other nations involved, therefore the "first" invasion statement might be considered either untrue, divisive, politically motivated, or emotional, depending on point-of-view. I do not know a whole lot about WikiPedia editing, but I would think that points-of-view need to be clearly marked as such, and referenced as to who holds that point. - J Kulacz 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
“Sarr min ra’a” "سر من رأى"
I'd have thought this would transliterate as "sarr man ra'a", as min = from and man = who. Can any arabic speakers confirm this?
It is supposedly "surra man ra'â" which turned into "sâ'a man ra'â" (the opposit meaning of the first one)... These are falk etymologies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Fairly nonsense statement about MI 16 blowing up mosque. Britain would seem to have no motive and besides does not engage in such bombings. Britain uses soldiers and is part of a force trying however badly to stabilise the area. Very unlikely any western government would engage in such demolition but plenty of evidence that disempowered Arab organisation do so so. This is therefore POV with little basis for inclusion. JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
swastika on Samarra bowl
REF 3: "The Samarra bowl, at the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. The swastika in the center of the design is a reconstruction." REF 3: Stanley A. Freed, Research Pitfalls as a Result of the Restoration of Museum Specimens, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 376, The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections pages 229–245, December 1981. This implies the swastika was painted on to the bowl by someone at the Pergamon Museum.
I'd like to query this because swastika symbols were commonplace all over the ancient world (vast amount of data on this on wikipedia); why is it a surprise to find one in Ancient Sumer!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaeroveritatem (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your point. It is a reconstruction. That's not the same thing as an unhistorical ornament. I mean, no further information given, I'd be inclined to believe that the people at the Pergamon Museum had something to go upon for their reconstruction. If their integrity is being disputed, this should be made clear. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\b.co\.cc\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.