Hizballah starts shooting in mosque

When a mosque is used as a base where there is shooting, the IDF has no choice to return fire because it is no longer a place of worship. The IDF would be acting in self defense.

Mow 'em down. Mosque and all. A mosque is just a fort.

Israeli soldiers must take the mosque. It's long been established that Islamofascists use their "holy places" to stash weapons and troops. I wouldn't be surprised if there if this was a central destination of some of their tunnels.

Muslims themselves have no problem blowing a mosque (fortress) away. We didn't hear much about the destroyed mosque in Baghdad.

Well to the rules of war the Israelis have a right to defend themselves!!

But the best thing is to have flim of the islamic terrorist useing the mousqe before they send in the airstrick!!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTOY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE US VICTORY OVER THESE EVIL MONSTERS AMEN

PS
Nothing like flim at 11!!

The self-absorbed muslim cretins must think it absolutely comical that Israel would still regard attacking a mosque as somehow 'immoral' and would hesitate, even for a moment. No wonder they think all infidels are idiots.

Of course, a mosque has already been attacked in this current stage of the war .... in Israel, by muslims.

If the Israelis do level the mosque, they will be hated by all muslims forever. On the other hand, if the Israelis unconditionally surrender and place themselves at the perpetual mercy of the savages, they will be hated by all muslims forever. Major decision, right?

It is the will of Allah.

If the cowards want to hide in a mosque and shoot from a mosque, then blow the building up. As someone said earlier, it's not a place of worship...it's a fort!

They could do themselves another favor and blow that golden abomination off the temple mount while they're at it!

The Muslims have shot at, defiled, ransacked, and destroyed synagogues, churches, mosques, temples …if there’s a group of people who consider something holy and/or sacred, the Muslims have gone out of their way in the past to sh*t all over it and the cultures attached to it.

Level it. Kill them. Places of worship for the Muslims shouldn’t be considered off limits to the Israelis when the very people they’re at war with don’t respect the places of worship of other cultures.

They don’t even respect life. Send them to Allah first-class.

Excerpt from the Geneva Conventions of 1925 -

Acts of hostility towards places of worship in international conflicts are prohibited. Places of worship may not be used in support of the military effort, and they cannot be the objects of reprisals. (Protocol I, Art. 53)

These prohibitions also apply in non-international conflicts. (Protocol II, Art. 16)

If there is any doubt as to whether a place of worship is being used to help the military action, then it will be presumed not to be so used. (Protocol I, Art. 52, Sec. 3)

You know MaxInfidel, you speak good sense! In fact, it's probably not commonly known - well it probably is on this board - but whenever islam would conquer an area, they would build their crap mosques right smack over top of the existing religious structures. Thus the golden abomination on the temple mount. It was their way of preventing worship and forcing Islam down people's throats. Blow up a few mosques, you never know WHAT you might find beneath them.

Echo all the sentiments here:

Send Muslims (and the dhimmi Lebanese) a clear message - stage violent strikes from Mosques and those Mosques will be leveled to dust.

No negotiation, no asskissing, no mercy - never again.

Their classic hideaway. Indian forces in Kashmir can't shoot or blow up mosques, so that is where they hide and store their weapons. And Conventions and Amnesty at al ensure that they remain just "holy places". I would like to know of one religion that allows blood of any creature flow in its holy place. In all mosques, creatures are butchered. Holy place, indeed.

On a related subject, retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie had the following to say on the subject of the IDF bombing of the UN observation team this morning on CBC Radio. For those of you who don't know of his reputation, he was recently awarded the Order of Canada for his peace-keeping activities via Nato. He will be speaking tonight (Wed. July 26) at the Toronto Centre for the Arts at the invitation of the local "Stand with Israel" organization, but noted that he would also speak on behalf on behalf of the people of Lebanon.

Apparently, only days ago, MacKenzie received an e-mail from the Canadian member of the UN Observor team that was killed yesterday, who was a member of MacKenzie's former battalion. Essentially, the message indicated that Hezbollah were using the UN base as a cover for their activities, and MacKenzie indicated that that was likely how it came to be bombed. He further noted that this is only an extention of the way Hezbollah uses civilian shields, and does so with impunity as they know that, as non-members of the UN, they face no resolutions, let alone actions, for endangering the lives of unarmed UN observers.

MacKenzie decried the idea that you could be impartial or "even-handed" in a war between a normal state that operates under the rule of law and a designated terrorist organization committed to destroying a recognized member nation of the UN. He said the solution was not to send more UN troups in as so far UNIFIL has done nothing, but rather that the solution was for Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to put pressure on Syria and Iran to withdraw support from Hezbollah and Hamas as neither Hezbollah nor Hamas were entitled to be parties to any ceasefire negotiations.

MacKenzie also noted how the media was playing into the hands of the propagandists for the terrorists' side, by misreporting what was happening on the ground. He cited CNN in particular for misdescribing the aerial bombing as "saturation bombing" as the rate at which the IDF was dropping bombs was well below "saturation", and that far from devastating Beirut, let alone the whole country, bombing in Beirut was largely confined to a 12 block area that might as well be called Hezbollah City and only after leafletting the area to give civilians fair warning in advance to flee. He also pointed out that although 400 lives is no small loss of life, the fact that there were only 400 civilian deaths reported despite the level of bombing indicted that in fact, the IDF were going to great lengths to keep such non-combatant deaths to a minimum.

If they do hit it, of course, there will be an international outcry. But when the jihadists shoot from the mosque, there is no outcry at all. Of course.

Indeed, when the islamist defiled the Church of the Nativity a few years through waton vandelism and criminal damage, it was a trivial non-issue for the "international community."

Just wait for the rage to boil and explode from the same international group if an errant bullet from the jihadists hiding inside said mosque should shatter a wall or window!

After all, it will be argued, the errant bullet was intented for those damned Jews outside who are trying to protect themselves -- it is they who should have taken the bullet; not the poor walls and windows of the mosque.

Let's not concede to the Islamists that their places of "worship" are deserving of respect if they are not used as firing points. Every mosque in which the jihad ideology is preached is a place of dissemination of anti-infidel propaganda and incitement to murderous hatred. The mosques of South Lebanon assuredly fall in this category. It would be justified to burn them all down. They are an important part of the global jihad military effort.

Of course, there is something to be said for careful consideration before destroying such places. While international opinion is not worthy of respect in many cases, including this, Israel has to fight on political and diplomatic fronts as well as its military fronts. And there is also something to be said for pursuing policies which result in slower radicalization of the currently un- or less-radicalized Muslim masses, provided that these policies don't interfere with the defense of the West.

If civilization survives the 21st century, I think that future historians will have much admiration for the delicacy of Israel's stomping of its adversaries.

Arjun

You forgot year before last, when Palestinian gunmen were holed up with all their weapons in the Church of the Nativity - Christianity's holiest site, before being allowed to leave for Cypress. Not only do Muslims use their own mosques for fortifications, they have no compunctions about doing the same to sites of other religions. It's a shame that Christians worldwide didn't raise a deafening hue and cry over what was a blatant defilation of one of their, if not the, holiest shrines in Christendom.

Oops - Make that 'Cyprus'.

Since when do Islamic terrorists abide by the Geneva convention? Why should we give them any consideration for decency they refuse to accept or believe in.
Islam is wallowing in its own self destruction by the very beliefs it holds so dear.

Lets make these "holy places" of Islam, "holey places."

The entire Muslim conquest resulted in the destruction, or appropriation, of synagogues and temples and churches. Many think it all happened long ago. They flip through a book on Islamic Art, and discover that the first mosque known to have been built in India was built over what remained, after destruction by Muslim conquerors, of a Jain temple. Hindu scholars have compiled a two-volume work, its pages filled merely with a laconic list of the thousands of Hindu temples, and vast temple complexes, with their artwork as well, destroyed by the Muslims, their carved stones quarried for the erection of mosques. All over the Christian world, too, tens of thousands of churches and Christian libraries and other structures destroyed, or turned into mosques, as would happen if the structure was famous enough. Think of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, built partly on what was once the Church of John the Baptist. Think of the Hagia Sophia, its crosses ripped out, its wall-paintings vandalized, itself turned into a mosque until finallly Ataturk managed to make it into a museum (but suggest to even the outwardly most advanced, most secular Turks that Hagia Sophia should be returned to use as a church, and they look at you as if you were completely mad -- and in a sense, they are right). Think of the hundreds of churches in Constantinople alone, destroyed. There is a maquette of Constantinople in 1453, showing all of those churches, on the second floor of the Museum of Greek and Roman Antiquity, in the Topkapi complex. Few visitors ever go there -- the day I went, I was the only one. But there you will see those churches, and a list of all those known to have once existed, and then wiped from the face of the earth, by Muslims.

But that was then, some will say. That was in the bad old days. Those things don't happen now.
Don't they? What about the Hindu temples in present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh? What about the Hindu temple razed just the other day in "moderate" and "forward-looking" Malaysia, the big economic success story in the Muslim world (its success, of course, is owed to the Chinese and Hindus who are forced to pay, through the Bumiputra system, a disguised Jizyah to the Muslims). What about those synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, every single one of them destroyed by the Jordanians when they held that city from 1948 to 1967, in addition to their razing of the entire Jewish Quarter, which is why, when you visit it, you notice that it consists almost entirely of new buildings, though done in the old manner? What about the ancient tombstones in the old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, ripped up and used to line the Jordanian army latrines?

What about the destruction of Orthodox churches and monasteries in Bosnia and Kosovo, wherever Muslims have been able to have their way? And what will happen if they get, as they may, full control of formerly Serbian areas, because of the idiotic appeasement of local Muslims by the American\ and the other Wesetern governments, that should be standing by Serbia, at this point, all the way?

The American soldiers who went off to Iraq did not know that mosques would be centers from which they would be attacked. They did not know that mosques were used as barracks, as places where, the Muslims understood, they could exploit the innocence of the Infidels and their desire not to offend. The choice not to offend, and to treat mosques as merely "houses of worship" then as what they are -- centers for the promotion of the duty of Jihad, places where people are not given sermons using words such as "charity" and "mercy" and "hope" and "love" but rather different words -- "struggle" and "war" and "Infidel" and "umma al-Islamiyya" and "Jihad" and "Jihad" and "Jihad," in so many mosques, in too many mosques, in so many places, in too many places, for it to be merely a matter of this or that singularly fanatical imam.

Start seeing mosques for what they are. They are far more than "houses of worship." Far more, and therefore far less entitled to be treated as if that is what they are. If Hezbollah holds up in a building, that building is not sacrosanct. Sunnis blow up Shi'a mosques, and Shi'a blow up Sunni mosques, in Iraq, and in Pakistan. Mosques are attacked all the time, from those who seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca in November 1979 (which hastily-converted French troops finally managed to dislodge), to those who attack the mosques of their political, sectarian, or ethnic rivals whenever the spirit moves them. And it so often moves them.

American soldiers in, or returning from, Iraq, now know what they should expect from inside those mosques. And so do the security services who have raided, and who have monitored, and who keep under surveillance mosques in England, mosques in France, mosques in Italy, mosques in Germany, mosques everywhere.

Stop pretending that a mosque is merely an innocent "house of worship." Stop fooling yourself, and others.

This goes to show that islam is not a religion. All mosques are, are forts to house weapons and terrorists. A place to plot and plan against humans and civilization. Nothing more. There is nothing holy about a mosque.

Infidel Pride,
I thought so, too.

If the concept of sanctuary doesn't apply from the other side... why should it apply from OUR side?

A simple and just rule of thumb, in my opinion: if projectiles come out of a mosque then projectiles should go into same mosque.

If the enemy doesn't respect it, why should anyone else?

waterdragon52 wrote: "Essentially, the message indicated that Hezbollah were using the UN base as a cover for their activities, and MacKenzie indicated that that was likely how it came to be bombed."

Interesting. Reading 'between the lines', this could be one thing this statement
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/25/D8J39P502.html
was referring to in which Hezbolla said it was surprised by the scope of the Israeli response.

Perhaps they can't believe Isreal is seeing right through their tricks.

Crafty little buggers they are! Seems to me if they don’t have the b____s to fight in the open, away from the civilian population, why not go a small step further and desecrate a place of ‘worship’ such as a mosque. Islam is supposed to be a ‘religion of peas’, right? Make sense to me. The inherent cowardice of these bearded wonders is probably also related to their sexual insecurity concerning their burka-clad babes and having them ‘fixed’ with FGM and such. I hope the IDF levels the mosque!

The Judeo/Christian World calls mosques "Places of Worship".

Whereas, the followers of the worldwide deathcult call them "Weapons Depots" and "Arsenals".

Being multi-purpose facilities, their mosques sometimes double as "Torture Chambers" and "Centers for Execution".

Mahdi Al-Dajjal ,
Whatever they are, they are regarded as 'holy places of worship' by Geneva Conventions.

I don't understand this idea of "restraint" Mr. Bush is urging upon Israel and that appears to be adopted as Israeli fighting policy.

Leaflets were dropped over these Shiite towns and villages in the south, these Hizbullah strongholds. Why are Muslim terrorists hiding and shooting the soldiers from mosques and schools? Shouldn't these villages should be leveled? Why are buildings standing from which snipers can pick off the young Israeli men and from which RPGs can be fired? "Purity of Arms?"

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, days after the September 11, 2001 atrocities, our Northern Alliance allies complained that U.S. air cover was timid. So the U.S. military stepped up it force. Taliban and Al Queda terrorists were decimated; mowed down like so many cattle. Whole towns and villages were razed by American air-power, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children. This is the reality of war forced upon a free nation. We have no choice but to destroy the enemy.

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters wrote the other day: "The IDF is readying a reinforced brigade of armor and 3,000 to 5,000 troops for a "limited incursion" into southern Lebanon. Won't work. Not enough troops. And Hezbollah's had time to get locked and loaded. This is going to be messy - any half-hearted Israeli effort will fall short."

I also wonder. Why a "limited incursion?" Why not overwhelming military power? Is this because of White House pressure? A friend who fought in Jenin after the Netanyah Passover massacre (March 2002) took part in Operation Defensive Shield (early April 2002). Remember, Mr. Bush was on Sharon's back, demanding Israel withdraw? They went house to booby-trapped house in search of terrorist killers. My friend lost buddies to snipers firing from buildings that he believed should have been Hell-Fired. Due to this crazy politically correct notion of restraint, we the lose scores of young men unnecessarily. It's either them or us.

Also, why do we honor the Prime Minister of Iraq at today's joint meeting of Congress when clearly he is with the Hezbollah terrorists? I'm a thirty five year registered Republican. Rush Limbaugh is condemning those who boycotted the speech because they are Democrats. Maybe Democrats are using this for partisan political purposes but I wouldn't have honored him as a Republican. He got standing ovations. Why.

monk

You are right. Charles Krauthammer made the rhetorical argument - does he state that he's a Zionist? - but he has his hands full, and didn't need to say anything about Hizbullah, given that the Sunni world hasn't been supportive of the latter, and he represents an all-Iraqi, not just a Shia government. Contrast it to Allawi, who used such an occasion to thank the US for all it had done.

Actually, last night, the tables were turned - Mara Liasson and Mort Kondracke declined to laud the Dems for bringing this up, while Fred was critical of Maliki for his remarks, although he didn't exactly laud the Dems. But despite being pro-GOP myself and someone who disdains Schumer and dispises Boxer, I laud them for boycotting his address. In fact, if Iraq could join Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in condemning Hizbullah at the Arab League*, why did he have to issue a one-sided statement about this seemingly supporting Hizbullah?

*Incidentally, how did the Arab League pull this off? They require unanomous support to do anything - in the 80's, they failed to support Iraq against Iran, due to the opposition of Syria and Libya. This time, how did Syria not block any resolutions condemning Hizbullah?

"The fighting in Bint Jbeil began when IDF forces, including Golani Brigade soldiers, began searching buildings suspected of being used to provide infrastructures for terrorists."

OK folks, this is not a questions of "moral high ground" or an "arab street PR campaign", this is a question of survival. Buildings suspected of being used to provide infrastructures for terrorists should be LEVELED, and THEN SEARCHED. It isn't rocket science.

That "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" Project, that fools errand forced upon our officers and men, to create an "Iraqi" force, an "Iraqi" army and an "Iraqi" police when the downfall of Saddam Hussein guaranteed, made inevitable, that there was no way to stop those fissiparous forces that, if only the damned Pentagon, and the inflexible, messianic Mr. Bush, and the absent Congress, could understand is all in our favor. A Shi'a-Sunni split in Iraq is good, is to be encouraged. A Shi'a-Sunni split in Iraq is not solvable, because the nature of Islam itself, and the kind of people and societies it creates, will prevent those Sunnis from ever acquiescing in their loos of economic and political power. And the same forces will prevent the Shi'a from not wishing at long last to dominate over the Sunnis, and they have no intention of treating those Sunnis any better than they, the Shi'a were treated.

Is this a surprise? Is this something that cannot possibly be understood? Does the Administration, do the so-far-silent members of Congress, understand that the Sunnis insist that they constitute not 19% of the population, but 42%, and that they will not give up that hallucination, nor ever permit the despised Shi'a to lord it over them? Not to be deplored. And not to be deplored, either, is the threat of unruly Shi'a in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in Saudi Arabia (in the oil-bearing Eastern Province), in Pakistan, in Yemen, and of course in Lebanon, where one would like to see the Sunnis turn a bit more forcefully on the Shi'a. Does no one see why such a war within Iraq over who is to rule and who is to be ruled, if it manages to draw in money, men, and materiel from outside -- from, say, both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia -- can only help us? Since when did the prevention of internecine strife within the Camp of Islam become a foreign policy goal, and on what theory?

And the same is true for wishing that while tuhe various Arabs are fighting with each other, the Kurds in what is still northern Iraq will get that state they were promised after World War I. Such an example, of non-Arab Muslims throwing off an Arab yoke, could inspire others, including Berbers in the Kabyle, to think such daring thoughts as autonomy, or even independence, for themselves (and how many of those "Arabs" in Algeria are simply a few gneerations away from being Berbers, and perhaps can be re-berberized? And what would an independent Kurdistan do to unsettle the Kurdish-populated regions of what is still part of Iran, but need not always be, and also inspire Arabs in Ahwaz, and Baluchis, and Azeris, so that possibly what happened to Turkey after World War I, when it lost its empire, could happen to Iran, or rather, to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is a different thing?

Infidels have no stake in "democracy" if that "democracy" does not further Infidel interests. "Democracy" in Egypt favors the Ikhwan. "Democracy" in Lebanon would destroy what is left of Maronite power. "Democracy" in Syria would bring the "real" Muslims to power, and damage the Christians there (but if the Alawites cannot stop being plus islamiste que les isalmistes, the West should regard the regime, and possibly the Alawites themselves, as expendable). Infidels have no stake in "democracy" in Iraq that merely was the instrument employed by the Shi'a to take power --an instrument that received all kinds of exaggerated attention, with that purple-thumbed display, the subject of so much uncomprehending sentimentality by the Administration, the same Administration that thinks, and still worse actually wants, to create "a new Middle East" that will be equivalent of the Little Engine That Could bringing toys and good things to eat to all the boys and girls on the other side of the mountain. From the point of view of constraining the Jihad, from the point of view of husbanding rather than squandering resources, from the point of view of wishing to divide and demoralize the cdamp of Islam, through whatever conceivable fissures -- ethnic, sectarian, economic -- already exist, just waiting to explode and, merely by inaction on the part of Infidels (we need do nothing, we need only refrain from keeping Sunni and Shi'a Arabsin Iraq from being at one another's throats), exploit it to our advantage.

And then turn our attention to Western Europe, and the campaigns of Da'wa, and the demographic conquest that must be halted, and reversed, whatever it takes, whatever changes in mental makeup are required. Sentimental messianists need not apply.

arjun.sevak said

Whatever they are, they are regarded as 'holy places of worship' by Geneva Conventions.

When I read the text of the Geneva Convention I don't see anything protecting mosques. There is this:

Part II, Article 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary.

One could argue, I suppose, that guns, mortars, and rockets are "objects necessary for religious worship" in Islam, but even Kofi would have a hard time keeping a straight face on that one.

There is also this:

Part III, Article 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Similarly, one could claim that stopping Muslim snipers from firing from a mosque is not "respect[ing] ... their honour, ... their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs".

But I don't see anything stopping, other than our own timidity, the destruction of a mosque being used to store weapons or as a firing place.

Churches used by snipers in WWII were destroyed. I'm not sure when the sanctity of religious places as safehavens for murder came about, but I can guess where the concept came from, and therefore who it applies to, and who it does not apply to.

Kemaste sez: "I wouldn't be surprised if . . . this was a central destination of some of their tunnels."

And neither would I. In fact, I would bet a leather-bound koran that a good percentage of those mosques also have a bunker below them.

'Democracies, throughout history, do not go to war with other Democracies.' -Foreign Policy Mantle

To which could be added: 'Islam, througout history, has not practiced Democracy.'

We're getting some new datapoints.

I'm very confused about the whole Geneva Convention. Maybe someone could clear it up for me.
1. I was under the impression that both parties had to be signatories to this for it to apply. Did Isreal and Hizballah sign on? Hizballah isn't a country.

2. How does this apply if one country is a signatory and the other isn't?

3. If the place of worship calls for Jihad and is comfortable for one of its "chruches" (to carry out this duty of every muslim) is it really a place of worship anymore under the Geneva Convention?

If you believe in the just case that Hagia Sophia should be restored to its proper religious role as a church, for which it was built in the first place, then please support this petition to the EU Parliament that Turkey should not be admitted as a member of the European Union until it restores Hagia Sophia to its original purpose as a church and not a museum.

A minimum of 1.000.000 signatures are needed in order to persuade the European Union to consider this proposal seriously.

As you know, Turkey is doing everything it can today to convince the European Union that it is a worthy country to join it. If you believe that Turkey should not be admitted to the EU before restoring justice to Hagia Sophia, please click on "Your Signature" and send your message.

I would be grateful if you could also tell your friends about this site and its purpose.

Angeliki Papagika

Hagia Sophia

So lets work on it

http://www.hagiasophiablog.com/contact-secure.php

The shooting from mosques and civilian areas stories, of course, receive almost no coverage in the major media, particularly the BBC, where the demonization of Israel has now hit a fever pitch with the bombing of the UN outpost: for three days now on BBC Online the top story has been reporting and speculation on how Israel 'intentionally' bombed UN observers, 'ignoring' UN warnings; and, of course, all sources either come from the UN or locals and no mind is given to the possibility that these reports are biased and distorted.

And, of course, no one raises the question of how Hezbollah could achieve such a strong military presence in the area with UN peacekeepers nearby, peacekeepers who are presumably obligated to enforce UN resolutions cailling for the disarming of Hezbollah.

The BBC exploits to the fullest any opportunity to depict Israel as a nazi-like state, slaughtering civilians and neutrals at will, the enemy of all that is civilized. One should expect this sort of stuff, but I am forever surprised at the depths to which the BBC will go to hang Israel as the enemy, as if the headlines are being writted by those who would take the greatest pleasure in the death of Israel, which, of course, is no doubt the case.

Art. 53. Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited: (a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; (b) to use such objects in support of the military effort; (c) to make such objects the object of reprisals. (Protocol I, Art. 53)

Terrorist penetration in Holy Places - legal perspectives

Israel Foreign Ministry legal advisor, Jerusalem, April 11, 2002

1. In recent days, Palestinian armed combatants and terrorists have been hiding out in churches and other holy places and their vicinity. Places of worship are offered special protection in accordance with international law. The penetration of armed terrorists into churches and other places of a religious character for the purpose of hiding out and/or carrying out acts of hostility, are a gross abuse of the immunity and the special protection granted to such places.
Such acts are grave breaches of the First Additional Protocol (1977) to the Geneva Conventions, and constitute war crimes by any standard of international humanitarian law.

2. The presence of armed combatants and terrorists who do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population, and the deliberate perpetration of hostile acts from within places of worship constitute grave violations of the rights of the clergy residing in such buildings. These actions endanger the protected status of such buildings in which the armed terrorists hide out, and turn the places into a legitimate "military objective", for as long as the armed terrorists continue to abuse the immunity of these buildings. This conduct directly endangers the lives and security of religious personnel and civilians residing, working or worshipping in these areas.
It constitutes a fundamental breach of the requirement that combatants distinguish themselves from civilians, pursuant to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in particular, and international law, in general.

3. Finally, the armed terrorists are holding religious officials in the Church as hostages, to shield themselves from military attacks.
This conduct constitutes a war crime in accordance with international law, and is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols.

All Hizbullah needs to protect them in the Mosque is the presence of a few UN "peace keepers"

UN Peacekeepers As Human Shields?

Mosques are complicit in the Jihad war. Bomb them. UN outposts are complicit in the Jihad war. Bomb them too.

If Kofi doesn't like that, the horrible little African dictator can go whine to his Grand Mufti in whatever mosque or UN outpost this Grand Mufti might be basing his Jihad war operations.

This is interesting, isn't it?

Film of Islamic terrorists using a UN ambulance as a getaway vehicle. Just how much of this is going on?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6079659052676503126

Jihadi's were firing from Mosques in Iraq at American soldiers.Then Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear that if Jihadi's were firing at American troops from Mosques those Mosques were no longer protected places.I would assume the same would apply to Mosques in Gaza and Lebanon.

Oh, blow the building away out of military necessity. As a Christian, I wouldn't have objected had they shot up the Church of the Nativity when the terrorists used it as a lair. Such an action might have provided a convenient excuse to make some needed repairs and maintenance. After all, it was the terrorists who desecrated the place.

Yojimbo,

Palestinians have been using ambulances for years to transport weapons and fighters, in violation of the laws of war.Then Palestinians complain when Isreali's stop ambulances to search them. Of course when people die who really need an ambulance Palestinians blame the Isrealis when they should blame terrorists who violate the laws of war.

I just don't understand how the world can hate Israel WORSE than it could hate what muslims are doing. Israel is the underdog in this fight. They were attacked first (and continually for decades) so why would anyone want to hamper their struggle to live free and safe?

The world doesn't seem to understand that if Israel suceeds in kicking muslim butt, we are ALL a little ahead in this.

Not including the muslims, we , as humans, know the difference in right and wrong. What the muslims did is WRONG. No grey areas. Black and white.

We should rearm Israel as needed, and the world stay out and leave Israel alone to finish what needs to be done. Even if Lebanon is a total loss. And forget rebuilding Lebanon, rebuild Israel. Lebanon was complacent in letting Hessboallah in, and they need to understand that. It's called tough love. There's a lot of countries over there that needs it desperately.

The shooting at Free men is coming from Terrorist supporters in places like CNN, the BBC and the New York Times. They must be considered as eventual targets for extermination also.

IDF forces face a tough road ahead, I just hope all the peacenics fail to stop this. Israel should be backed 100% not hindered in an way.

When it comes down to it, "holy places" and "houses of worship" are just buildings. Just structures. If destroyed, they can be rebuilt.

Soldiers who lose their lives because of a respect for the building, being fired upon by cowards hiding inside, cannot be brought back. Their places can be filled, the numbers replenished, but the men are dead.

No building is worth that.

Now, if I walk into a Quik-E Mart, microwave a burrito and say Grace before I down it, does the store now count as a "place of worship"?

If I pull out my Glock 21 and stand on the rubber mat, wait for the doors to open and start shooting at passers-by, does it now count as a mosque?

A Hizbullah spokesman was asked why do their fighter take refuge in a mosques. The spokesman was very angry and replied, "What business Israelis has for our fighters going to the mosque? They go there to pray!"

Ech. Too many nows.

Ronin, their biggest hinderance at the moment might be their own commanders.

"An IDF source explained that, considering that there are still a few hundred Lebanese citizens in Bint Jbeil, forces cannot attack the town aerially, and, thus, it is necessary to bring in ground troops. He emphasized that fighting in the area will continue. "

The IDF did all they could to warn the residents several days ago, and to ensure safe passage out of the area at that time. Those "few hundred citizens" still there are either hizbollah collaborators or hizbollah hostages. In neither case was or is the IDF responsible for their safety. The IDF is, on the other hand, responsible for the intelligent strategic deployment of its soldiers, and the commanders failed miserably in this instance. Did they learn nothing from Jenin?

"What business Israelis has for our fighters going to the mosque? They go there to pray!"

They NEED to pray! Unfortunately, their demonic moon god can't hear their prayers since he isn't REAL! They are worshiping Satan and are too dumb to know it. However, you can sure know them by their rotten fruit!

Jehovah sees what they are doing and they will answer to HIM right before He sends them to be with their father in hell.

I logged in late to read this. Anyway, in the first few posts some of you have come close to what I keep repeating with my friends and relatives here with respect to muslims. Although I am and most of my friends are Hindus, they keep telling me one of the commandaments (if I am not wrong) - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well don't get me wrong when I say this is a little wrong, I love all religions except Islam. But according to me, in the current scenario with respect to muslims, the rule should be do unto others (muslims) same as they are thinking of doing or saying they would do unto you. Proclaim that this is the single rule that will be applied to any dealings by kafirs with muslims and you will see these 'border between living and non-living' things.

my previous post was incomplete ...

things, may be just may be waking up and correcting themselves.

An example of U.S. treatment of a mosque in Iraq is here.

Some quotes:

Strict discipline among coalition troops and precision weaponry are credited with ensuring minimal damage to mosques and other sacred buildings during anti-insurgent operations in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq, a senior defense official in Baghdad told reporters today. [note: Nov. 20, 2004]

Only after it has been conclusively proven that the mosque is being used to launch attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces — and therefore has lost its "protected status" under established rules of engagement — does it become fair game for attack, the official explained during a conference call interview.

But even having conclusive proof is not good enough:

"We found what we think were enemy that had come out of Fallujah and sought refuge there," the official said. [...] However, the raid, staged after Friday prayers, "could have been timed better," the official said. "We still have after-action critiquing to do," he added.

The official acknowledged that this cautious approach may have added to the coalition's casualty toll. "In many cases, we may have taken additional casualties trying to take a mosque with ground forces instead of destroying it," he said.

To agree with Eisenhund, this is a flawed philosophy. Not one soldiers' life is worth saving a mosque for.

To agree with Eisenhund, this is a flawed philosophy. Not one soldiers' life is worth saving a mosque for.
Posted by: special_guest

I remember the Serbs tore down a mosque and built a garage. They understoood the fight fire with fire rule.

Eisenhund

That is a good point - especially when one is talking about modern buildings. What seems to be more controversial is what if historic temples - ones hundreds or thousands of years old - are involved? Rebuilding them isn't the same in that case, since there is a qualitative difference between the a particular architectural beauty being built 100s of years ago - thereby making it historic, vs the a replica of the same building, if destroyed, being rebuilt using modern technology - much easier, and therefore, much less significant.

All that said, I agree with you - no building is worth losing human lives. Also, if destroying such a building ensures getting rid of inhuman life, it should be done.

Rebuild the replica later, and include a description of how and why it had to replace the original.

shiva, the U.S. refused to ratify the First Additional Protocol (1977) to the Geneva Convention.

But I agree with your point that, if the Protocol was applied anyways, that attacking a mosque used to store or fire weapons would be allowed, and that using a mosque to store or fire weapons would not be allowed.

That is, if the Geneva Convention were applied to these cases, the U.S. and Israel would be in the clear, and it would be the Muslims that would be in breach of the Convention.

"considering whether or not to hit the mosque in which the armed men are hiding"

What is there to consider?

The terrorists are the ones who defiled their OWN place of worship the moment they stepped foot inside those 'sacred walls' and started firing. If the terrorists get upset then they're only being hypocrites.

It is Hamas and Hezbullah who should be careful. Wouldn't it be coincidental if one of their randomly aimed missiles should hit the Dome of the Rock mosque, thus destroying it, thus giving the Israelis and all appocalyptically bent Christians the means to rebuild the Temple, thus issuing in the means to the end... Or, who is to say that the Israelis couldn't simply use captured Hezbullah rockets and aim them themselves at the same... P.S. If Hezbullah is party of God, how do you say party of satan in the same language, because that is what we should start calling them, just like we now call them homicide bombers...

If Hezbullah is party of God, how do you say party of satan in the same language, because that is what we should start calling them, just like we now call them homicide bombers... Posted by: bobjohnson

But really now, lets forget about those palettes full of signed paper that are being stored in Geneva, this whole circus was born out of WW II, it were all the points that had gone wrong in WW II, and it was for...........it was for WW II, which by now has been a long time ago, and the thinking structure of those days can hardly be compared to whats going on today. Why do we constantly adhere to this Idea of Geneva when nowadays enemy fighting forces do not? Why not crap all this paper and use good common sense and instinct for survival?, beats that Geneva-thing anytime!

Film of Islamic terrorists using a UN ambulance as a getaway vehicle. Just how much of this is going on?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6079659052676503126

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 26, 2006 03:05 PM

Gold Star for you today!!

That was the link I was looking for yesterdy put a feather in your cap!!!

Here is some things people might want to remember about history??

http://www.mpvone.co.uk/polish/casino.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
The Battle of Monte Cassino (
The only feasible routes from Naples to Rome led through the Liri valley and along the west coast; the two major roads to Rome took these routes. Blocking the south entrance to this valley was the hill mass around the town of Cassino. Excellent observation from the peaks of several hills allowed the German defenders to detect Allied movement, prevent any advance northward, and direct artillery fire on Allied units.
At the 1100 metre peak of Monte Cassino stood the 1300 year old Benedictine Monastery. It was not clear whether German troops were using the thick stone buildings of the monastery in their defensive position. Some Allied units reported seeing German troops in the monastery; German units denied allowing any of their men into the monastery itself. What is clear is that once the monastery was destroyed, the Germans made use of the rubble to build defensive positions
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011867.php
June 17, 2006
West: A war that isn't

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/romar/72-20.htm
World War II was the largest and most violent armed conflict in the history of mankind. However, the half century that now separates us from that conflict has exacted its toll on our collective knowledge. While World War II continues to absorb the interest of military scholars and historians, as well as its veterans, a generation of Americans has grown to maturity largely unaware of the political, social, and military implications of a war that, more than any other, united us as a people with a common purpose.
Highly relevant today, World War II has much to teach us, not only about the profession of arms, but also about military preparedness, global strategy, and combined operations in the coalition war against fascism. During the next several years, the U.S. Army will participate in the nation's 50th anniversary commemoration of World War II. The commemoration will include the publication of various materials to help educate Americans about that war. The works produced will provide great opportunities to learn about and renew pride in an Army that fought so magnificently in what has been called "the mighty endeavor."
World War II was waged on land, on sea, and in the air over several diverse theaters of operation for approximately six years. The following essay is one of a series of campaign studies highlighting those struggles that, with their accompanying suggestions for further reading, are designed to introduce you to one of the Army's significant military feats from that war.
This brochure was prepared in the U.S. Army Center of Military History by Clayton D. Laurie. I hope this absorbing account of that period will enhance your appreciation of American achievements during World War II.
GORDON R. SULLIVAN
General, United States Army
Chief of Staff
Rome-Arno
22 January-9 September 1944
Rome was quiet on the morning of 4 June 1944. Propaganda leaflets dropped during the early morning hours by order of the commander of the Allied 15th Army Group, General Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander, urged Romans "to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to protect the city from destruction and to defeat our common enemies." Even though the retreating Germans had declared Rome an open city, citizens were urged to do everything possible to protect public services, transportation facilities, and communications. "Citizens of Rome," the leaflets declared, "this is not the time for demonstrations. Obey these directions and go on with your regular work. Rome is yours! Your job is to save the city, ours is to destroy the enemy."

MIGHT WANT TO READ THE WHOLE THING!!
AND DESTROY WE DID IN SOME PLACES!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPOR THEM GIVE US VICTORY OVER THIS ENEMY AMEN

I thought it was the early Egyptians or maybe Romans that said, control the places of worship, and control the peoples. Or you could do as the Americans do, which is leave all places of worship as to not offend the peoples. Pose your presence as a liberating force, and get attacked by the only Muslim strongholds which are Mosques. It is like saying, give the Nazi's a recruiting venue, and see how well the occupation goes. I am beginning to think that these are Gorillas, Guerillas, and we are in the mist. Madrassas, do not hit, Mosques do not hit, what should we hit? The easy button?

Really, what is a mosque anyay but an armed fortress? And, since killing is what comes naturally to Muhammedans, doesn't it makes sense that Hezbollah guerillas would begin shooting from a mosque...

George Bush will spend some more of our money to rebuild the mosques that are destroyed or damaged by the IDF, a consolation prize for not demanding a cease fire. What the hell, we're building them for Wahabbis in Washington, DC and all over Iraq; why not Lebanon? The gratitude of the muslims for our sacrifices, expenditures, and efforts makes them all worthwhile. Maybe GWB will offer to rebuild Beirut, it wouldn't surprise me. We must win those hearts and minds!

When Islam and Hizbullah comes to your town, tell me of the places of worship you hold dear, Church, no more, Mass, no more, Buhdist, no more, Orthodox, Judeo Christian, anything but Muslim associates, NO MORE! Our places of worship will be the first on the agenda. Baptist? Weslyan? Christian? Scientologist's? Catholic, Atheist, Cultist, Voodoo! non admonition? Jehovah's witnesses? Islam will be forced down your ever loving throat! That is it, it is all, say no more. Submit, die, or convert. Those are your only options. I can not stomach the thought.

During the Iraq War, one of the most successful public relations efforts by the U.S. military was to "embed" journalists with the front-line fighting units. Those reporters, with video cameras, got to see and record firsthand the nature of the enemy our troops were fighting. (I'll never forget the video clip of Iraqi terrorists running from one foxhole to another while clutching little children to their chests as human shields.)

Israel should have done the same thing. If "embedded" reporters had been on the scene videotaping how Hezbollah had been shooting at Israeli troops from behind U.N. installations, it would make Israel's action in returning fire much easier to justify in world public opinion. And just having reporters embedded with the troops reassures the reporters that the military has nothing to hide.

Surely the problem her is not bombing the mosques it is the public relation spin the muslims put on it to put Israel in a bad light. All it needs is a bit of ingenuity to turn the tables, doesn't Israel have any rocket battery s that they have captured from Hezbullah. If so fire a salvo in the area of where the mosque is and make sure you target the mosque with a smart bomb at the same time. That will make it look like the Muslims have shot themselves in there own foot. If I was Israel I would also have a plane continuesly in the air with a smart bomb to do the same to the Al Askar mosque in Jerusalem just in case they start using longer range missiles to attack that city. Imagine what a propaganda disaster that would be for Hizbullah. If you can't win in the Jaw Jaw contest you wont win in the War War contest.

The "Golden RULE"...

This is addressed to our Hindu friend, SafetyFirst who posted above concerning the "Do unto others . . ." ethos.

This as known as the "Golden Rule".
All true genuine religions : Hinduiss, Judaism, Zoroastriansim, Buddhism, Christianity contain this moral rule in one form or another.

The only exception is Islam : there is no Golden Rule in this religion. This is a fact.

The well known ex-mulim Ali Sina has provide an in-depth study of this, qouting form all the major religions. He demonstrates categorically that this does not apply to Islam.
see his site Faithfreedom.org

To elucidate, the Golden Rule goes something like this : "I would not like someone to kill/kidnap/rape/rob etc any member of my family/friends/community,THEREFORE, I would not kill/kidnap/rape/rob ANYONE ELSE's family/friends/community"... (or words to that effect)

This patently does not apply to Islamic beliefs.

The principal is quite simple: one does't negotiate with terrorists, one KILLS them. Wherever they are. Should they decide to defile their own so-called holy places, then they must live with the consequences. I have no sympathy for them, but endless respect for the IDF, which has shown more 'humaneness' in war than I have seen before (we americans responded similarly in Iraq in 2003, but the dynamic there is different).

Kill the bastards. Sort out the rest later. Enough of this PC junk.

Destruction of mosques is the best gift we can give the people who are captives of the muslim "religion". We are setting them free from the hatred and puke taught in them. Muslims have such a primitive mindset on how important their places of hatred are. Blow them all up! Along with any of their inhabitants. Free the world of this plague!

If I was Israel I would also have a plane continuesly in the air with a smart bomb to do the same to the Al Askar mosque in Jerusalem just in case they start using longer range missiles to attack that city. Holger Dansker

My god man, you're brilliant! What an idea.

If I was Israel I would also have a plane continuesly in the air with a smart bomb to do the same to the Al Askar mosque in Jerusalem just in case they start using longer range missiles to attack that city. Holger Dansker

My god man, you're brilliant! What an idea.