The obscene violence continues in Iraq. No matter what one's position is on the war, any so called "resistance" that slaughters innocents with such gusto and relish and does this kind of destruction is criminal.
Two related asides:
This morning on Al Jazeera TV, a Shi'at leader speaking in Lebanon said that the blowing up of the dome of one of the holiest sights for Shi'at is a continuation of the attacks on Islam which we have been witnessing lately as in the cartoon insults to the prophet. (shall we blame this on the Danes too?)
He doesn't believe that, of course. But why would he say it? Perhaps in the hope of moblizing the same crowds that protested the cartoons so they would protest this criminal attack? Good luck. To mobilize Al Jazeera since it's been a cheerleader for that crisis? Fat chance. He knows that some of the people behind the cartoon protests will not shed a tear for the destruction of Shi'at holy places. In fact, they may even cheer.
The New York Times article about the blowing up of the Samerra' Shi'at site does not miss the occasion to remind us who is a good and who is a bad Shi'at; I bolded the clues just in case:
"militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who is a fervent believer in the prophecy of the Imam Mahdi," versus "Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, called for a period of mourning..."
For Moktada al Sadr to be singled out as "fervent believer" is silly. Is Sistani less of a "fervent believer" in the prophecy? Not as far as I know. But, hey, I'm not the New York Times.