If the muslims don't care about their own "holy" places, why should we?

Posted by: freewoman at April 20, 2006 4:27 PM

My initial reaction is to wonder what kind of holy place it was before the Muslims took it over and turned it into a mosque/weapons cache.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at April 20, 2006 4:45 PM

Personally, I've always thought that each time a civilised (i.e. Western) person was kidnapped and murdered in Iraq we should pick a mosque at random and raze it. The respect we've shown for these so-called 'holy' places is simply being taken advantage of, anyway.

Posted by: Aardvark at April 20, 2006 4:49 PM

the pc cutlure is disgusting, the mosque is only a building which their own has used for a military purpose, therefore logically its has to be destroyed taken down anywhich way. otherwise they will keep using these mosques has a safe haven. this is rocket science, just plain common sense and logic anyone even a child can understand.

Posted by: Lulu at April 20, 2006 4:53 PM

Its like that mosque in Iraq, I forgot the town, where the local Marine contingent was recently attacked for the fourth time in three months! Why in the hell the place wasn't flattened after the first incident is beyond me.

We used to call places like that "enemy positions", and we had all kinds of fun toys with which to deal with such places.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 20, 2006 4:54 PM

"this is rocket science,"
-Lulu at April 20, 2006 04:53 PM

I suspect that you meant to say "this isn't rocket science", but I agree with the way you said it. It involves using the products of rocket science, right through the front doors of these mohammedan ratholes.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 20, 2006 4:58 PM

There is nothing sacred about this building. Before detonating the charges a warning should be given to it's occupants out of courtesy. If Allah doesn't like it let HIM slay the infidels responsible.

Posted by: western infidel at April 20, 2006 5:07 PM

Has anyone else noticed that huge ugly concrete
'Mosques' funded by Saudis and popping up like grotesque toadstools around the world-there is even one in my own backyard in this quiet area of
Kiwiland- looks more like a fortress than a place of worship?
Very convenient for Jihadis,eh.

Posted by: Morgane at April 20, 2006 5:08 PM

-western infidel

If the charges detonate, that would be the will of allah, wouldn't it? I can't imagine that he would have any trouble preventing it if he was as powerful as the mohammedans seem to think.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 20, 2006 5:24 PM

I relly dont get this... why soo much of a sensitivity all of a sudden. Its high time GoI realise that you cant win "hearts & minds" of the blasted heartless populance of Anantnag and Srinagar area (areas where bulk of support for Jehadis comes form) which killed and exiled their Hindu brothers at first sign of Saudi money (basically Kashmiri Muslims and Hindus are one ethnicity). Government of India was not soo hesitant when they stormed Sikh's holiest shrine the Golden Temple waay back in 1984 or when they arrested the Hindu pontiff on the holiest day in Hindu calender last year. Cowering dhimmis all of 'em.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at April 20, 2006 5:32 PM

yes l meant to say"is not rocket science.".l stop inbetween my work, and take a break at the computer.. most of us infidels work for a living,no time to complain and take to the steets for a protest about what the muslim said about Christ! l mean one thing that upsets a muslim, and you find so many men on the streets.. they dont freakin work!

Posted by: Lulu at April 20, 2006 5:42 PM

Simple solution: Obliterate the shithole and all the shit inside it.
No more problem.

Posted by: Baldman at April 20, 2006 6:13 PM

The Geneva Conventions allow the use of whatever force is necessary to neutralize combatants who use a place of worship for military purposes. If that requires the complete destruction of the building, so be it. The United States military has been routinely leveling mosques in Iraq that are used by enemy forces for offensive or defensive purposes.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at April 20, 2006 6:20 PM

Definitions

Mosque: An armory disguised as a place of worship.

Minaret: An artillery observation post and a snipers position.

Muezzin - The mosque employee who stands in the minaret and calls the faithful to prayer. He is also a trainer of suicide bombers.

It is no accident or an Islamic love of concrete that a mosque looks like a fort.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 20, 2006 6:50 PM

Pelayo,

add IMAM - Enemy Commander

Posted by: Infidel33 at April 20, 2006 6:54 PM

The issue this raises dovetails nicely with the rationale underlying the apostasy laws in Islam. Muslims belong to an army - the army of dar-al-Islam fighting permanent war against dar-al-harb. That renders all mosques not "sacred" places, as we infidels understand the concept of "sacred" places but merely "sanctuarys" - or protected safe places, where the armies of dar al-Islam can expect to find refuge. Of course since Islamic theology has incorporated the concept of war and murder itself into its idea of the sacred and holy - mosques ARE in fact "sacred" spaces to Muslims. But unless infidels wish to buy into and give respect to the idea that Muslims are committing a "holy" and "sacred" act when they murder said infidels, infidels themselves should forthwith consider mosques nothing more than military forts - which they are designed to be, as Pelayo points out.

freewoman: "If the muslims don't care about their own "holy" places, why should we?"

We SHOULD care insofar as we wish to demonstrate our tolerance for the theological idea that our own murder, when committed at the hands of a Muslim, is a sacred and holy act. What - you actually object to being a human sacrifice? Tsk tsk. Where is your respect for the "holy" and "sacred" traditions of the Mussulman?

Posted by: Caroline at April 20, 2006 7:57 PM

Morgane posted: Mosques' funded by Saudis and popping up like grotesque toadstools around the world.

It is too depressing. Mosques have always been centres of sedition. In Infidel lands, mosques also act as forts, where Jihadi muslims gather to exchange information, plan and coordinate actions in keeping with the ultimate aim of subjugating the world - the Jihad. This they do in the certainty that the Infidels still regard mosques with the same reverence as they would a church, synagogue or temple. Stupid dhimmis, they will never learn, eh?

In the age of the Internet and modern communications, mosques are now interconnected, much as the defence structures of NATO. As far as I know, NATO is openly a military organisation and does not pretend to be a religion(of peace).

Posted by: DP111 at April 20, 2006 8:09 PM

Carolyn, I'd be for starting new traditions in the sacrificial area. Hastily.

Posted by: freewoman at April 20, 2006 8:17 PM

Do the 'rocket-science'- then watch for the secondary explosions...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 20, 2006 8:25 PM

freewoman - I guess you mean me? There is also a Carolyn2 and a Catherine so it gets confusing sometimes, clearly! But the truth is I read the article and the first thing that occurred to me and I was about to post was this: "If the muslims don't care about their own "holy" places, why should we?"

LOL! You took the words RIGHT out of my mouth - literally! Of course we both know that there is nothing "fair" about Islam and that we infidels are not to be permitted to treat mosques as Muslims themselves so obviously do - as military depots and forts. But the obvious reason for that, to cut to the chase, is that Muslims are everywhere loudly proclaiming in every way (if we only had ears to hear) that they demand RESPECT for the presumably God-given RIGHT to wage eternal war against us and to kill us or subjugate or enslave us. THAT is the respect they are demanding of us. That we should all willingly jump into the volcano and damn those of us who refuse and can see that Islam is the most malevolent and sickest thing on the face of the earth or possibly the most malevolent and sickest thing in all of human history and that it deserves not merely a lack of respect but rather active contempt, disdain and frankly, loathing. For starters, what sort of so-called religion triumphantly builds its "holy" places everywhere on top of the holy places of other human beings it has vanquished and destroyed (including cemetaries). I wouldn't be at all surprised if many mosques are actually haunted by the ghosts of Islam's victims.

Posted by: Caroline at April 20, 2006 8:57 PM

American soldiers have repeatedly been fired upon from mosques in Iraq (and snipers are often in minarets). They have learned, painfully, not to be quite so solicitous of mosques. Of course not only mosques are used as barracks (which is exactly what Erdogan called them: "our mosques are our barracks, our minarets our bayonet"). The "Palestinian" terrorists who seized the Church of the Nativity and proceeded to use it as a place from which to fire with impunity on Israeli soldiers, and in which those "Palestinian" Muslims proceeded to vandalize whatever they could, and to defecate everywhere, in a display of fellow-abrahamic-faith feeling, were merely demonstrating that places that non-Muslims would regard as off-limits is not off-limits for Muslims engaged in violent Jihad. For they are not merely intent on killing Infidels in any way they can, but are eager to exploit the superior behavior of those Infidels, in showing respect for all religious sites.

Thank God that the American soldiers in Iraq have gotten beyond that solicitousness; their own lives are worth more than any mosque, or all of them put together.

Posted by: Hugh at April 20, 2006 9:15 PM

"Thank God that the American soldiers in Iraq have gotten beyond that solicitousness; their own lives are worth more than any mosque, or all of them put together".

Posted by: Hugh at April 20, 2006 09:15 PM

Excellent point Hugh, at least this retired soldier agrees 100%

Posted by: Ronin at April 20, 2006 9:21 PM

How many militants are hiding inside the mosque is not known, Ahmad said. One militant...

militant n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

The use of the word militant is correct, as far the definition goes. But the lexicon used in this article amounts to intentionally misleading reporting. Wouldn't these fine gentlemen shooting from the sacred mosque more accurately be described as jihadists or, my personal favorite, Moslem activists?

You poor Indians out there, it must be a total bummer that the Indian government and MSM suffers from the same lexical self-censorship as here in America. http://www.voi.org

I understand the EU MSM's problem, cuz they're Marxists, and that ideology, much like the ideology of Islam, is predicated on lexical self-deception.

There are key two differences between Marxists and Moslems:

1) The goal of the Marxists self-deceipt is to take other people's money, while the goal of Moslem self-deceipt is for the purpose of taking over the world.

2) Marxism is based on fake statistics (aka dastisticks); Islam is based on an admixture of crime gang organizaitonal techniques and satanic cultism.

What the two have in common is that they share the intense desire to end freedom. Europe man, meet the Arab man.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 20, 2006 9:26 PM

Ooops!! Sorry Caroline, I meant you!

Posted by: freewoman at April 20, 2006 10:25 PM

Oh, Caroline, I too wish their mosques were haunted with poltergeists.

Posted by: freewoman at April 20, 2006 10:27 PM

huge ugly concrete 'Mosques'

Probably reinforced concrete to be hardened for military operations, one of the 5 components of Islam:

1) World takeover gang cult
2) Military
3) Government
4) System of jurisprudence
5) Public relations operation

See any religion in this list?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 20, 2006 10:39 PM

Years ago I naively dreamed of fleeing to New Zealand to escape Islam. I figured they wouldn't let Moslems in cuz, as an Iro-American, I had heard they wouldn't let Irish in.

Wrong. They were nixing Micks in favor of your scowling Moslem. Mistake. Our cheap labor is not suicidal.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 20, 2006 10:41 PM

Mosque being used as cover= goodbye Mosque
Crowd of muslims being used as cover=Goodbye crowd.
This is increasingly becomming a very unPC war. And it needs to be fought as such. These muslim fanatics are shaping opinion by being ruthless and daring us not to be. Time to take the gloves off. If they see we are as ruthless in war time as they are all the time, the general populous will not be where the fighting is, The Immams might even issue a fatwa against Mosque's being used.
As far as the saudi's supply of mosque's Who cares. We can destroy them faster than they can rebuild them.

Posted by: Bushwack1 at April 20, 2006 10:53 PM

Shoot at an American from a mosque, destroy the mosque and all in it.

After a while there will be no using mosques for ware for ther will be not mosques left.

Suits me.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at April 21, 2006 12:25 AM

Taking special care not to damage a mosque during a military or policed siege against militants is almost as incredibly stupid as handing out Korans to Gitmo prisoners (the primary thing that encourages & sustains them). The mosque is not like a church, which is basically just a place for service & prayer, but a central command headquarters for policy, planning, and storage of weapons & tools for Jihad. If authorities in the West would raid all the mosques they would find a tremendous cache of such.

“Anti-terrorist police who burst into the Finsbury Park mosque in north London early yesterday found weapons including a stun gun and hundreds of suspected forged or stolen passports, identity and credit cards.

They also found a CS gas canister and a blank-firing imitation firearm at the building, which security forces believe has been used as a haven and base for Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/21/nmosq21.xml

Posted by: Odysseus at April 21, 2006 11:29 AM

In 1990 or sometime around then, Indian troops had do conduct a similar operation at Hazratbal Mosque (if I remember right). They responded by surrounding and sealing it off, and starving the place until the terrorists surrendered. They may do the same this time.

I agree with most of the above posters - just level the place. Ironically, it may turn out to be good for mosques in the long run, given that terrorists would no longer perceive them as a safe haven.

As an aside, Anantnag is called "Islamabad" by local Kashmiri Muslims. Never mind that that's also the name of Pakistan's capital, situated less than 1000 miles away.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 21, 2006 2:24 PM

Isn't a mosque basically a glorified armed fortress anyway? (Not that any Muslims will tell you that). The US government has been testing mosques in America for traces of radioactivity recently and predictably has stirred up considerable outrage among US Muslims in the process. So I guess I'm not the only one who sees a mosque as something more than a 'religious' edifice.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 22, 2006 5:28 PM