Yesterday, a curious thing happened. From Bloomberg news:
“Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Iraq's Golden Mosque in Samarra, sacred to the nation's Shiites, was badly damaged in a bomb attack that may increase tensions with the Sunni community as the country tries to form a government of national unity.

``The dome of the Golden Mosque sustained catastrophic damage caused by two bombs from inside the building this morning,'' Doug Anderson, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad, said in a telephone interview today.
The mosque is one of Shia Islam’s holiest sites, housing the remains of Ali al-Hadi, who died in 868 A.D. and his son Hassan al-Askari, who died in 874 A.D. Both were direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Two bombs ripped the dome from the off the top of the mosque.”

There are many reasons why this event strikes me as curious, not the least of which is that it happened on February 22 (from an occult perspective the number 22 is significant), however there are other more “rational” details which I find curious. Take for example this article From the Melbourne Herald Sun:

“Raging militias fuel Iraqi fearsAgencies24feb06
FEARS of all-out civil war gripped Iraq yesterday as more than 50 bullet-riddled bodies were found in the streets of Baghdad.
The killings followed the bombing by suspected al-Qaida linked militants of the 1000-year-old gold-domed Askariya shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad, on Wednesday.
Three Sunni Muslim clerics were among the dead, as were three journalists for the al-Arabiya satellite television network who had gone to Samarra to report on the bombing and demonstrations that followed.
Elsewhere rampant Shiites, including militia, attacked about 90 Sunni Muslim mosques with bombs, rockets and guns.
There were gun battles in parts of Baghdad and Basra as tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets.
Gunmen loyal to militant Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, armed with AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, took over streets in his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. Sadr blamed Sunni militants for the bombing and vowed revenge.
The US suspects that al-Qaida carried out the attack on the Askariya shrine to drive a new wedge with the Sunni minority and foment religious turmoil.”

Clearly, the attackers had to know that their actions would trigger a civil war, or at the least would spark the possibility of future armed conflicts between the Shia and the Sunni/al-Qaida alliance. It also seems clear that the western media/propoganda machine is playing strongly on the fact that Iraqi Shia militia men believe that Sunni insurgents, with the help of Al-Qaida militants, were responsible for the attack. However, who benefits from such a conflict? Can the Sunni and al-Qaida fight both the Shia and the US? It seems to me that a civil war in Iraq would only further weaken each side and make it less likely that they could ever manage to unite to overthrow the Americans. Therefore, I believe that the real beneficiaries of such a civil war are the US, NATO, and Israel.
Therefore, it seems quite likely that this attack was in fact staged, and it appears to have the fingerprints of the occult all over it. Why would they do it, if they are repsonsible? As a pretext for their war against Iran.
Here are some quotes from our supposed enemy, who smells a rat as well:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has accused Israel and U.S. forces of being behind the attacks: "These heinous acts are committed by a group of Zionists and occupiers that have failed. They have failed in the face of Islam's logic and justice."
** Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "This is a political crime and its origins should be found in the intelligence organisations of the occupiers of Iraq and the Zionists ... There are definitely some plots to force Shi'ites to attack the mosques and other properties respected by the Sunnis. Any measure to contribute to that direction is helping the enemies of Islam and is forbidden by Sharia."

The Iranians know that one of their best strategic weapons against a US led war on their country is the threat of a Shia rebellion in Iraq which would further bog down US forces and create more havoc. However, if the Shia in Iraq are busy in a civil war of vengence, then it further weakens them against the US. Also, if the Shia are engaging the Sunnis and al-Qaida, this would also weaken the Sunni rebellion which must now defend itself against the Shia and the US. Therefore, if there is an attack on Iran anytime soon (and this bombing may be the signal that the attack is coming soon) the US will not likely have to worry about a wider insurgency. In fact, they can let the Iraqis kill each other while they concentrate on killing Iranians.


There are other occult aspects to the bombing which are curious and make me suspicious. Of course, these insights only make sense if you assume that the events happening in the world are the direct result of a groups of esoteric masters called, among other things the illuminati, are in fact behind this war between Islam and the West, and are using it to create a single, fascist world government. I have come to believe that this is in fact the case, and 2006 is the year they will make their move.

First, the bombing happened on February 22. The number 22 is significant to occult practitioners. For example taken from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_(number))

In numerology
The number 22 is significant in many systems of numerology, often called the Master Builder or Spiritual Master in Form. This 'master number' includes all the attributes of the number 2, twice over, and also those of the 4. People who are 22s are said to find themselves feeling as if they live in two worlds, one which is overwhelmed by the mundane, and the other by the fantastic.
In the traditional Tarot, there are 22 major arcana cards (numbered 0-21, however, so it is a matter of interpretation whether The Fool or The World is card 22).
It is almost always associated with hard workers, a red-gold colour, and a rose-gold gemstone.
Interestingly, the digital root of the 22 is the 4, which is the number of hard work.

In terms of the tarot deck, the number 22 corresponds to both the world card and the fool card. From the same source:
The World (Tarot card)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World (XXI)
The World (XXI) is a Major Arcana Tarot card. It is usually the final card of the Major Arcana.
Description
A naked woman or hermaphrodite hovers or dances above the Earth surrounded by a green wreath, being watched by various creatures. In older decks, these are usually a human face or head, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, the symbols of the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is a reference to the all-emcompassing knowledge of the Bible, the Word of God. Later decks avoid such blatant Christian symbolism, or ignore it altogether, chosing to explain these observers as representatives of the natural world, or the kingdom of beasts. In some decks the wreath is a basilisk (crowned snake) biting it's own tail - this basilisk is also sometimes called an Ouroborous.
In some decks, this card is also called 'The Universe'.

XXIst card in Tarot of Marseilles

Interpretation
The World represents an ending to a cycle of life. Everything is complete and as it should be. There is a pause in life before the next big cycle - a cycle beginning with the fool. The figure is at once male and female, above and below, suspended between the heavens and the earth. It is completeness.

Interesting that the world card implies that everything is complete and a new cycle is beginning. Perhaps they believe that the “NEW WORLD ORDER” is just around the corner?

The Fool (Zero)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fool is one of the 78 cards in a Tarot deck. It is part of the major arcana section of the deck.
Symbolism
He is the spirit in search of experience. Many symbols of the Instituted Mysteries are summarized in this card, which reverses, under high warrants, all the confusions that have preceded it.

History
The "History of the Fool" from The Hermitage tells us that in the decks before Waite-Smith, the Fool is almost always unnumbered. There are a few exceptions: some old decks (including the 15th-century Sola Busca and the Rider Waite) label the card with a "0", and the Belgian Tarot designs label the Fool as "XXII". The Fool is almost always completely apart from the sequence of trumps in the historic decks. Still there is historic precedent for regarding it as the lowest trump and as the highest trump!
In the game of tarot, the Fool has a unique role. Playing the Fool is like momentarily exempting yourself from the rules of the game.

(Hmm, perhaps this fits the MO of Bush, who plays the fool to exempt himself from accountability???)

Interpretation
In his Manual of Cartomancy, Grand Orient has a curious suggestion of the office of Mystic Fool, as apart of his process in higher divination; but it might call for more than ordinary gifts to put it into operation. We shall see how the card fares according to the common arts of fortune-telling, and it will be an example, to those who can discern, of the fact, otherwise so evident, that the Trumps Major had no place originally in the arts of psychic gambling, when cards are used as the counters and pretexts. Of the circumstances under which this art arose we know, however, very little.
The conventional explanations say that the Fool signifies the flesh, the sensitive life, and by a peculiar satire its subsidiary name was at one time the alchemist, as depicting folly at the most insensate stage.
Although it cannot be seen in all modern cards, The Fool is often walking off a cliff. This raises the question "Is The Fool making a mistake, or is The Fool making a leap of faith?"
Another issue surrounding the fool is "Who is calling him The Fool?"

Mythopoetic approach
Some authorities suggest The Fool is the Hero of the story, and the Major Arcana is the path the Fool takes through the great mysteries of life.
In stories, the fool is often the youngest son or daughter who accomplishes great feats despite the older siblings apparent better position. Cinderella, Psyche, Cordelia (from King Lear), all the third sons of kings in fairy tales who succeed when their older brothers do not.
The Fool is the Grail Knight who may be destined to locate the Holy Cup, where greater and wiser men have tried and failed.
The Fool is the one teetering at the edge of Nietzsche’s abyss, at the cusp of dreadful knowledge that will pull him or her out of the cave.
He is the one who takes the fateful step into a new world.
The Fool is Hamlet before he decides to embrace his destiny.
He has protectors and advisors. There is a dog who appears in most versions of the card. The dog is the natural world. One path to knowledge, and a valuable ally.
When he appears in a spread, he is a signal to strip down to the irreducible core, and interrogate whether The Querant’s self vision is obscured. It may also be a warning that significant change is coming.
Gandhi said once, “If you would swim on the bosom of the ocean of Truth you must reduce yourself to a zero.” The Fool is that Zero who can swim in the deeper waters.

Again, the symbolism is of change, of taking a leap to accomplish something great, something new, something unkown.
Perhaps that is exactly what is happening? Perhaps this bombing was the start of their bold leap of faith, the creation of their perfect society, their NEW WORLD ORDER?

Lastly, here is a passage form the Holy Quran, chapter 22 (which deals with the Al-Hajj, or pilgrimage which just ended with the death of many Eqyptian Arabs) verse 22:
“22. Every time they wish to get away there from, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Chastisement of Burning!"
Perhaps this is a message to all who oppose them. The chastisement that awaits is a nuclear holocaust.
Of course, it is impossible to know for sure. Perhaps time will tell???

Weapons of Mass Deception

In its rush to war, the Bush administration told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and direct ties to Al Queda. This information, coupled with the still smoldering scars of 9-11 and the fear of a possibly even more deadly attack on the horizon, gave them the tacit permission to pursue their illegal war on a defenseless country (Iraq) that had been bombed into submission since 1991. Today, it is common knowledge that they flat out lied, or believed faulty intelligence; either way they presented as facts conclusions that were not true. As a result, the Bush administration has now claimed the real reason for the war was to establish a democratic government smack in the middle of the Arab world. This would create, according to Bush, a democracy domino effect in which people around the world throw off the mantle of their oppressive regimes and embrace the call of liberty and freedom. Why anyone would believe them now after their failure to tell the truth before is hard to say, however in the interest of being fair lets give them the benefit of the doubt. Certainly it is possible now, in the light of Bush’s inaugural speech of 2005, to see the it has become the official policy of this administration to export its version of democracy to the rest of the planet, whether they like it or not. Therefore, lets examine what they possibly mean by such terms, since what they say is often the exact opposite of what they actually mean.

Bush stated in his 2005 inaugural address:

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Here we see encapsulated what can be named the Bush Doctrine. Where Monroe’s Doctrine was meant to keep the European Powers out of our Hemisphere, the Bush Doctrine is meant to place America directly into every other hemisphere on the planet. However, I am getting ahead of myself. Lets examine what certain terms the president uses might mean on their own, and what they mean to him and those in power.
First, the president presents freedom as a “force of history” one that is capable of breaking the “reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant.”
What is freedom? Perhaps John Locke, one of the men whose philosophies the American Revolution was founded on, can offer a definition:

In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. " (Locke 4) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty which has only the law of nature to restrict it, which is reason. (Locke 5) However Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free.

Locke disagrees with the president when he says that freedom is a “force of history.” Freedom, for Locke, is a fundamental construct of being human. In other words, for Locke all human beings have been given the power by nature, or God, to be free, regardless of whether they live in a western style democracy or a repressive eastern tyranny. It is not a force of history, it is a human capacity. According to Locke, to be human is to be free, and no one has the power to control it except the individual in the good exercise of his or her own conscience.

Victor Frankl, who was imprisoned by the Nazis in Auschwitz, had this to say about freedom:

Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him - mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp.(emphasis mine) (Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning pp 86-87).

Seems that freedom is not a force at all, but a constitutive dimension of every human being.
So what is this “force of history” that president Bush is referring to? The naked force of American Imperialism. It is clear from Bush’s next sentence that is exactly what he is referring to:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world.

Since freedom cannot be expanded (since everyone has it, and in the same amount), he is of course stating that in order for us to retain what we understand to be a western style democracy, we must “expand” into other countries (by force if necessary) and force them to do as we say. We must, then, aggressively attack other countries and make them like us, or else we will not survive and be free.

Freedom, for Bush, is domination.

At least now he is being honest. The reason they went to war with Iraq was CONQUEST. Many people are appalled and exclaim, “What are they doing in my name?” however if you understand the history of the USA, this sort of thing is simply a continuation of our fine tradition of conquest and racial genocide. They have been doing this in our name for a long, long time.And if you had not noticed, they are using the same lies to create a case for war against Iran. Will we fall for it again? Chances are likely, we already have.