Talk:Samarra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Iraq Samarra is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Ancient Mesopotamia
EuphratesTigris
Cities / Empires
Sumer: EriduKishUrukUrLagashNippurNgirsu
Elam: Susa
Akkadian Empire: AkkadMari
Amorites: IsinLarsa
Babylonia: BabylonChaldea
HittitesKassitesHurrians/Mitanni
Assyria: AssurNimrudDur-SharrukinNineveh
Chronology
History of Mesopotamia
History of SumerKings of Sumer
Kings of Assyria
Kings of Babylon
Mythology
Enûma ElishGilgamesh
Assyro-Babylonian religion
Language
SumerianElamite
AkkadianAramaic
HurrianHittite

Mention W. Somerset Maugham story?

---

Contents

[edit] 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.



[edit] Bombing raid

"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.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/index.html


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)

[edit] Deleted external links

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 24.119.221.235 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)