U.S. Hits Mosque Compound; 40 Said Killed

[Cloud]

By BASSEM MROUE and ABDUL-QADER SAADI, Associated Press Writers

FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in the third day of a battle to pacify this Sunni Muslim city fired rockets that hit a mosque compound Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to key cities in Iraq (news - web sites).

The fighting in Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi has killed 15 Marines dead since Monday and was part of an intensified uprising involving both Sunni and Shiites that now stretched from Kirkuk in the north to the far south.

An Associated Press reporter in Fallujah saw cars ferrying the dead and wounded from the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque. Witnesses said a helicopter fired three missiles into the compound, destroying part of a wall surrounding the mosque but not damaging the main building.

The strike came as worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers, witnesses said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


I am at a loss for words. :( Hello shit meet fan.

[Beetwasher]

1. Ladies and Gentlemen, I Give You, JIHAD!

n/t

[saigon68]

40. Hearts and minds Halliburton scores a contract

An Iraqi woman sits beneath a defaced billboard advertising the new police force, in central Baghdad April 7, 2004. Despite Iraq (news - web sites)'s spiraling violence, its U.S.-led occupiers insist the transition to democracy they have planned is the best thing to happen to the country for decades. And with three months to go until the transition begins, they hope a $5.8 million advertising campaign will help convince Iraqis they are right. TO MOVE WITH FEATURE STORY BC-IRAQ-ADVERTISING REUTERS/Laszlo Balogh

[Barkley]

69. We dropped a 500-lb bomb on a mosque killing 40 people

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - U.S. Marines in the third day of a battle to pacify this Sunni Muslim city fired a rocket and dropped a 500-pound, laser-guided bomb on a mosque compound Wednesday, and witnesses said dozens were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to key cities in Iraq.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040407%2F1738483403.htm&sc=1107

The racism in the media is astonding: "Shiite-inspired violence" is spreading. The correct headline should read "anti-occupation violence is spreading".


and look what happens:



Muslim rivals unite in Baghdad uprising
Shiites, Sunnis join forces against U.S. troops
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4679155/


That ain't no civil war -- that a war against occupation!

Although I don't believe that the divisions between the two groups
were as extreme and rivalrous as our media claims, they're clearly against being occupied.


I wonder what the rest of the Arab world thinks about our deliberate attack on a holy place. I know that the Geneva Accords forbid it but our president 'doesn't need permission to protect America'!


I bet Sharon is very happy!


"God Bless America, And No Place Else"
- Chris Rock's Movie:
"The Head of State"

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Continuation thread of Mosque bombing story...

:kick:

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Hi Cloud

Your thread gets to be the continuation thread for the Mosque bombing.

Thanks! :hi:

[Cloud]

7. Okay

I just logged on and I always check the Yahoo news site when I get on. I just saw the other thread right after I posted this. Oh well.

This has not been a good week for our troops and the Iraqis. I fear that this is going to explode into something big. I hope I am wrong.

[maddezmom]

3. "..third day of a battle to pacify this Sunni Muslim city fired rockets."

Who writes this stuff? Battle + pacify = fired rockets :mad:

[maddezmom]

5. so looks like the Marines fired rockets and dropped a bomb n/t

[wickerwoman]

79. My favorite: "Kills marines dead!"

Makes it sound like a friggin pest spray.

[papau]

6. BBC limits the excuse to "gunfire from within Falluja mosque"

BBC ticker - 5 US Marines wounded by gunfire from within Falluja mosque

http://news.bbc.co.uk /

[lightbulb]

8. This is the beginning of the end

But a lot more are going to die on both sides before the US pulls out. I feel sick.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Did everyone just see Kimmett (& Dan Senor) on CNN?

Kimmett: "They will have to come to the realization that they are Iraqis first, Shi'as, Suunis and Kurds second."

Are they that ignorant of Iraq culture? Do they really believe it's that easy? :scared::crazy:

[Beetwasher]

10. And Dammit! They'll Realize it if it Takes Killing Every Last One!

n/t

[saigon68]

17. That's what they want --- A CRUSADE

"Kill the Rag Heads" Screamed the Drooling Clueless Sock Puppet

[mmm]

11. THAT is scary

[jimshoes]

12. I'm convinced

good luck with the 25 million Iraqi's though!

[northzax]

16. actually, that's exactly what needs to happen

Just as Southerners in the US needed to come to the realization that they were Americans first, and Virginians second. If Iraq will ever be a functional state, people need to come to that realization. Every multi-ethnic state is based on this assumption, some do it better than others, true, but that is the whole idea.

or do you not believe that those living in the once-fertile crescent are evolved enough to make that choice? interesting that you use the term 'iraqi' culture, but don't believe there is one.

[TankLV]

64. I think they alread have - there's a beautiful "Declaration Of

Independence" floating around here somewhere, written by one of the groups.

The main point stresses that they are all part of a "united" and "sovereign" Iraq.

It's really beautiful.

[Jazzgirl]

18. Interesting...

I notice many people (not just Senor and co.) really think Iraqi's should just "get over it" and "come around". Many Americans still try to define Iraqi's within their own narrow understanding. The imposition of western values and culture will fail!

[lightbulb]

23. How would the Christians and Jews of America

like to be told by an invading Islamic army that they were Americans before they were Christians and Jews? That their obligation to accept the new America envisioned by the Arabs was more important than their allegiance to their God(s)?

[kera]

70. how about the neocon

who are first and formost jews first and spilling americain blood for the grand isreail

[malachi]

32. Military Spin + CNN = A migraine

CNN reporting that our military only bombed the outer wall of the mosque to gain access and kill those inside. What a relief! I'm glad they cleared that one up. A complete and utter cluster fuck aided and abetted by the liberal media.

[saigon68]

34. Did they then just GO INSIDE the Mosque and kill People?

Inquiring minds want to know?

[lumpy]

72. Kimmet

has come to the realization that he has to kill to get people in line.
Of course the people know they are Iraqis, religion is a most important part of Iraqi daily life unlike most Americans who may go once a year on Easter. Kimmet is showing his incompetency and bloodlust.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

14. So, When Are You Signing Up?

Get going soldier!

Pathetic...

[northzax]

22. so we should allow Iraq to devolve into a fundamentalist state?

we should allow a minority of armed Iraqis determine the fate of the rest of the country?

Perhaps you are willing to move to Fallujah and don a burka? have your daughters forced to drop out of school at age 8 based on a fucked up reading of a religious text?

oh, that's right, we should have cultural relativism, and allow the few thousand followers of al-Sadr to determine the fate of 25 million iraqis, just as the few thousand followers of Saddam Hussein determined their fate 30 years ago, and the few thousand dedicated followers of the Ayatollah ruined Iran and the few thousand taliban ruined afghanistan (even more than it already was, shockingly)

or do you like al-Sadr, and think clerics should be allowed to use their religious sites to preach violence without repercussions? What is one of Pat Robertson's followers takes him literally and goes out and kills a bunch of gay people? and then hides in Robertson's "church"? you support the Reverend's right to incite violence, for whatever ends? and you dare call someone else pathetic.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

35. well, since you had nothing to say but personal attacks

I figured that meant you had nothing else to say. and it looks like I was right.

You don't really think Iraqis should choose, you think the iraqi with the most guns should choose. That would be al-Sadr. super.

What is your solution? arbitrarily leave? just because our entrance into Iraq was idiotic and wasteful doesn't mean our exit has to be. And I'll put my ignorance up against yours anytime you'd like. I assume you have, in fact, BEEN to Iraq? met Iraqis, talked to them. You do read Arabic, so you can get the actual news from Iraq unfiltered by the US media, right? if you say no to that, then you are the ignorant one, my friend. People are so wrapped up in the hatred of this administration that they don't remember that we are responsible for our mistakes, and yes, that is a "we" I am an american citizen, which makes me responsible for helping to clean up the mistakes made in my name by my government. I will have to pay the tab for the huge deficit, I will have to face the anti-americanism generated by this administration's policies, I will have to deal with all that. And frankly, one of the problems we have right now is our de facto ownership of Iraq. We have it, and we can't exactly give it back to the person we took it from, can we? So what do we do? leave and allow a power vacuum to be filled by a small population with the biggest guns?

What is your solution? don't say that we never should have gone in, that is obviously true, but we cannot change the past unless you have some sort of time machine (in which case go back to 1990 and buy microsoft for me, will you?) do you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it.
on edit: on edit: the correct homonym is "there"

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

41. oh, you do have a point. excellent

I never put a single word into your mouth, I was simply taking the opportunity to comment on several solutions that you MAY have cited, to save you the trouble of going back and defending ridiculous positions.

and since we're there. and we agree that we cannot leave without leaving something solid behind besides corpses, we have no choice but to respond to the use of violence by a small faction interested in siezing control of the country to further a misguided reading of an ancient book. We are the law in Iraq right now, I'm sorry to say, and we must enforce that law. Bombing this particular building may have been misguided personally, but since there were soldiers inside using it as shelter to shoot the law, you can see why destroying it was the correct answer. Perhaps next time the criminals (the possession of firearms is illegal in Iraq, and shooting at the law is certainly illegal) won't take refuge in a place where there are non-combatant women and children. people who use human shields are the lowest level of scum, in my opinion, so they probably will continue to use non-combatants as shields. When that happens, what should we do? let them go to kill more?

[Beetwasher]

47. Bombing Mosques Is Wrong, Inflammatory and Idiotic

End of story.

Several solutions I MAY have cited? Yeah, nice euphamism for PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. How silly and, yes, once again, pathetic.

"...we have no choice but to respond to the use of violence by a small faction interested in siezing control of the country to further a misguided reading of an ancient book."

Give me a break. You have no idea how small or large this faction is. All you know is the regurgitate that you lap up from the US media, which ridiculously suspect.

Enforce the law???? What law? Who's law? WTF are you talking about? The country is in Chaos, there is no law. The US is the law because they have the most guns??? Don't you think the upholders of the "law" should be upholding it from some sort of moral highground??? We CAN'T enforce ANY law because we are the purveyors and directly responsible for the lawlessness to begin with and then we go and blow up mosques and indiscriminately kill civilians. Uh huh, we illegally invade another country to steal their resources and then we claim to enforce laws that aren't applied to us. How hypocritical. Those insurgents were firing at soldier who were, at least in their eyes, repressing them and killing their families and stealing their country's resources. We respond by blowing a mosque to hell to kill a handfull of insurgents and 40 other people.

Destroying that mosque was not the correct answer. Watch the results.

Other options include pulling back to more secure positions so the troops can't be shot at from the mosque, smoking out the mosque with tear gas, cutting off supplies and/or launching a commando assault. All better than blowing up a mosque and killing 40 people, most of whom may not have even been insurgents.

Oh and btw, Sadr wasn't even in that mosque.

[northzax]

51. wow, you got to keep this post for almost 15 minutes!

I'm so proud of you.

[Beetwasher]

52. So, You Can't Take the Heat?

So you have my posts deleted. Yes, it must suck to look so foolish.

Nothing to say? I guess you agree w/ me.

Pathetic.

I'll wait for the obligatory "I didn't alert you"...Uh huh...

[northzax]

54. for the record

you are right that I didn't alert on you, I have never, in fact, hit the Alert button, the mods have enough work to do. I am not in a position to comment on why a moderator may or may not have deleted those posts, and I am not foolish enough to state my opinion besides saying that the mods do an excellent job 99 percent of the time.

and you may, in fact, be correct that this particular attack was not a wise move politically, and I have never claimed it was, only that it was legitimate militarily and legally. I find it interesting that poeple on this board hold the insurgents to a lower standard morally than the US military. I have seen no one (including notably you) except myself (on this thread, others have mentioned it elsewhere) question the act of taking refuge in a place where there are non-combatants while continuing to fight, thereby endangering non-combatants. It is a direct violation of the Geneva Accords to use non-combatants as shields. I'm sure that was just an oversight.

And can you be so kind as to cite the controlling legal authority that forbid the US-led invasion of Iraq? chapter and verse please. There was a figleaf resolution by the UN to continue the conflict of 1991, from which there was never a peace treaty, only a cease fire. You may not like the invasion of Iraq, I don't, but that doesn't mean it was illegal. Immoral, perhaps, but not illegal.

Do you know how big this faction is? do you have a better source? and even if this faction is 100,000 people, do they get to militarily impose their will on the rest of Iraq? can two wrongs make a right?

And once again, you speak for the criminals, saying that they see the US as stealing their resources, perhaps they are simply upset that their pet dictator was overthrown and upset that in the new Iraq, they will not have the numbers to dominate the rest of the population as they have to the past 30 years? your twisted justifications for violence are remarkable. One of the rules of modern society is that violence is reserved for the state, not for individual militias, and that state, right now, in Iraq is the CPA. The CPA is a tool, obivously, but that does not excuse the use of violence against it, civil disobediance has been proven, time and time again, to be more effective.

[Beetwasher]

58. Twisted Justifications

Oh, that's rich! Cite chapter and verse the illegality of the war? How about the US constitution that leaves that decision to the congress. We are at war, no matter what you want to call it, and yet the congress never declared one. If you want to get all stupid and wiley and bogged down in semantics, go ahead, but I'll leave it at that. You continue to defend the indefensible and spout right wing talking point bullshit. Why is that?

"I have seen no one (including notably you) except myself (on this thread, others have mentioned it elsewhere) question the act of taking refuge in a place where there are non-combatants while continuing to fight, thereby endangering non-combatants. It is a direct violation of the Geneva Accords to use non-combatants as shields. I'm sure that was just an oversight."

Nice strawman. So because I didn't denounce something, I'm defending it? Another idiotic right-wing, Rush Limbaugh tactic. Your good at that.

"Do you know how big this faction is? do you have a better source? and even if this faction is 100,000 people, do they get to militarily impose their will on the rest of Iraq? can two wrongs make a right?"

I can't believe you don't see the amazing, ignornace and hypocricy in this bullshit. People who live in the country have no right to militarily impose their will and defend themselves BUT WE DO????? Talk about twisted justifications.

"And once again, you speak for the criminals, saying that they see the US as stealing their resources, perhaps they are simply upset that their pet dictator was overthrown and upset that in the new Iraq, they will not have the numbers to dominate the rest of the population as they have to the past 30 years? your twisted justifications for violence are remarkable. One of the rules of modern society is that violence is reserved for the state, not for individual militias, and that state, right now, in Iraq is the CPA. The CPA is a tool, obivously, but that does not excuse the use of violence against it, civil disobediance has been proven, time and time again, to be more effective."

Perhaps aliens are influencing their minds, perhaps demons or they're channeling Hitler. Who knows? I don't speak for them, I only know human nature. If the US were invaded and occupied, how do you think the people in this country would react? Idiots who defend this atrocity never seem to have an answer for me on that question and always run away or ignore it completely. Got an answer?

Your ignorance is also showing, these are SHIITES, Saddam was a SUNNI, you do know the difference don't you? Shiites are over 60% of the population.


The only one making twisted justifications is you, twisting and justifying the oppression and rape of Iraq. Motive and intention matter. Unfortunately, our intentions for invading were less than pure and we're now paying the price. Please provide the evidence we're their to liberate these people. You think their so stupid that they really think we mean to liberate them and give them autonomy and the resistance is all just a buch of malcontents? You think they don't know we're trying to auction off their country to the highest bidder? Once again, I'll show you closed newspapers, no elections and hand-picked US stooges who you claim are the official "state" of Iraq. Obviously the people disagree (Neither you or I know how many, though I suspect it's NOT a minority), which is why our soldiers are dying.

I suppose you would have denounced the American Rebels in 1776 as well for not lining up all neat and tidy to be slaughtered by the British and their equivalent of the CPA.

For the record indeed. I'm sure you'll alert me again.

[northzax]

61. strawmen, get your strawmen here! only tuppence!

It is a generally accepted rule of debate that if you accuse one side of something and not the other, when both are guilty, you favour one side. I don't believe you are an attorney representing the locals in Fallujah, and yet you have nothing negative to say about them. Interesting that I seem to be able to condemn actions on both sides, and you only attack one. huh. I'll give you another opportunity to denounce the use of human shields, surely you'll take it on your fifth post. right?

and I know you don't like the 'american media' so I found you a link fro mthe BBC patiently explaining that the Muslims in Falluja are Sunni Muslims, as I said. Wow, me ignorant, just like the bbc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608315.stm so you still have fifteen minutes to edit that foolishness out. I'll post it here, so you know which section to get rid of:

Your ignorance is also showing, these are SHIITES, Saddam was a SUNNI, you do know the difference don't you? Shiites are over 60% of the population.

You know how you find out if the people disagree with something? you take a vote, you don't listen to the rioting crowds, you don't negotiate with those who have so little regard to their fellow citizens that they would put them in harms way. And that is, after all, what the CPA was nominally trying to do.

And I refer you to the same bbc article claiming that the Mehdi militia is comprised of fewer than ten thousand men.

Homonyms really are a bitch, ain't they?

[Beetwasher]

63. No Need To Edit

I can admit a mistake. So they were Sunni, it doesn't change anything. I had thought I had seen them referred to as supporters of Sadr, who is Shiite. My mistake. They are still defending their country and while I may not agree with their tactics from my safe distance and am heartbroken at the loss of our troops and all the dead Iraqi civilians, I'm honest enough to say that if I were in their situation, I might do the same. I don't know. It's easy to denounce them when your tucked away safely behind your computer. Again, when you suit up to fight for YOUR ideals and put YOUR life at risk for what you believe in, let me know.

I notice you ignored exactly what I said you would. Why is that? You would much rather try to put me on the defensive w/ your strawman bullshit I see. Won't work w/ me, I stick the points.

"You know how you find out if the people disagree with something? you take a vote, you don't listen to the rioting crowds, you don't negotiate with those who have so little regard to their fellow citizens that they would put them in harms way. And that is, after all, what the CPA was nominally trying to do."

Oh, that's what the CPA was nominally trying to do? Really? Why, because they told you that? I guess maybe you expected them to be honest and say "We're just puppets here to steal your oil". Show me the evidence. Show me the Democracy. Yes, a vote would be nice, let me know when the US will allow them to do that and allow the 60% of the Shiite's in the country to elect an anti-US ayatollah. You're either deluded or naive. Sure sucks for you that there is exactly ZERO evidence that we're ever going to allow them any kind of vote or that we were ever there to liberate them. Sort makes your whole argument a complete load of crap.

Once again, just so you know which part you're cowardly running away from:

Perhaps aliens are influencing their minds, perhaps demons or they're channeling Hitler. Who knows? I don't speak for them, I only know human nature. If the US were invaded and occupied, how do you think the people in this country would react? Idiots who defend this atrocity never seem to have an answer for me on that question and always run away or ignore it completely. Got an answer?

[northzax]

90. I can tell you one thing

if this country were invaded I would never use noncombatants as human shields while I fought back. I would never shoot my gun at someone and then run into a church where my neighbors were seeking sanctuary. I could not live with myself if I knew I had helped cause the deaths of non-combatant civilians. you?

[Beetwasher]

91. I'm Honest Enough To Admit

that I don't know what I'd do. Obviously, you're not honest, because you also don't know what you would do if this country were invaded and your family and friends were slaughtered, you're home destroyed, you're land occupied and you're people oppressed. To say for certain that you would not act in such in such a way tells me you are full of shit. You have no moral highground to judge the actions of the Iraqi's in this atrocity until you find yourself in the same position. To make moral proclamations about their actions is the height of hypocrisy as you sit safely tucked away thousands of miles from the action, safe and sound. Your family is safe, your friends are safe, you have food in your belly and a roof over your head. You are in no position to judge these people who's lives you are responsible for making miserable. As a US citizen, I too am responsible, and I cannot judge them. I can however pass judgement on the actions of MY gov't and military who are bombing mosques in MY name w/ MY tax dollars. It is my duty to judge those actions and I judge them reprehensible.

Hypocrisy is legion as armchair moralists judge the actions of others who's misery and desperation is their fault.

You also have no clue what is really going on and neither do I. Were they using human shields? I don't really know, but I do know that our gov't would definitely like us to believe stories like that, just like they wanted us to believe that Hussein was running around throwing infants out of incubators, and we all know what a total lie that was. But you go ahead and believe all the supposed "atrocities" as reported by CNN. It's you're perogative to be naive enough to believe propoganda and lap up CNN regurgitate.

[northzax]

93. so there are no moral absolutes?

I spend my life protecting and helping children. If I endangered them to save my own life it would destroy everything I have based my entire existence on. That is my faith that I would not deliberatly endanger children. It is, to me, one of the few moral absolutes that I hold to. If I were somehow in this situation, where I has to choose between my own life and the lives of innocent children, and I chose them to die rather than me, I would have nothing left to believe in. You are right, I cannot tell you how I would act in that moment in time, no one can, but if I acted contrary to my deepest held personal beliefs, which include the protection of children, that my life might as well be foreit, as I would be dead.

Yes, there are some things worth dying for, and I prefer to believe that I would make the right choice, rather than blithely excuse it away.

[Beetwasher]

95. That's a Noble Sentiment

I would hope I would behave in the same way, but I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know.

The insurgents in Iraq also believe there are things that are worth dying for and they are dying in great numbers for those beliefs. Are they committing atrocities? Using human shields? Killing children? I don't know and neither do you.

I do know that the US is DEFINITELY bombing indiscriminately and killing children. If you're supporting the indiscriminate actions of the US troops, then you ARE supporting the murder of innocent children.

When faced with a situation where some insurgents run into a mosque filled w/ innocents you have several options. Option 1 is to just bomb the whole mosque and kill everyone. Option 2 is to be more discriminate and possibly endanger US soldiers lives by directly engaging the enemy and hopefully sparing many of the innocents. In my opinion, the moral imperative is option 2. The US soldiers lives must be the ones to take the risk in order to safeguard the lives of the innocents. Option 1 is the easy way, but also the immoral way.

[mallard]

78. Re: not that interesting

QUOTE: northzax:

"Interesting that I seem to be able to condemn actions on both sides, and you only attack me."

Too twisted to come from a forked tongue!

This arrogant claim to the moral high ground is also a direct personal attack on the other poster (nearest available detractor). So, you do exactly what you condemn and admit to be wrong!

QUOTE: northzax:

".... be correct that THIS PARTICULAR ATTACK was not a wise move politically, and I have never claimed it was, only that it was LEGITIMATE militarily and legally."


You'd have to be a fairly dedicated racist - with particular anti-Arab leanings - to come to such a conclusion, or to want to condone these attacks as legally sound.

You are NOT assuming a morally balanced show of concern for the human condition. You portray the Iraqis as cultuarlly inferior, even on their own turf.

I wish I could get a hold of some of your pre-war 'spiel'. Now, you say it may have been a bad idea, but we have to 'carry through'. Back then, I doubt you were on the 'fair warning' side at all.

This situation has been created by well-informed neocon advisors to the Bush admit-its-stray-shun, by choice, and there is no moral guidepost or compass for dealing with the aftermath of what was plainly an immoral assault - even for you psy-ops types telling us things are going OK.

We know who you are (too).

[northzax]

92. I too, wish you could get hold of my writings from before the war

when I spoke of a divided civilian population that would not welcome integration at anything but the point of the sword.

When I spoke of the lack of anything resembling an imminent threat from Iraq to the US and the wastefulness of an invasion.

When I spoke of the thousands of lives that would be lost, on both sides, to try and win an unwinnablew war.

When I spoke of the dangers of getting involved in conflicts that have been raging since before even Leif Ericson set foot on these shores.

But our warnings were not heeded. The President, backed by the Senate and the UN (somewhat tortuously, albiet) continued a war against a soverign state that posed no threat to us. Perhaps you are mistaken in thinking that there is, in fact, applicable international law on this matter. Really, since the UN signed off, or at least didn't cry foul (which, of course, it couldn't since the US could veto it, but blame the law, not the lawyers for that one) And US law was satisfied by the original resolution in 1990 approving conflict against Iraq (remember, there was a Cease Fire, not a peace treaty to end GWI) you can argue that the Congress was bullied into it, that it was the same party as the President, whatever you want, but the Senate never acted against war with Iraq, indeed they approved the use of force at the discretion of the President. The invasion itself was legal, distasteful, stupid and incredibly wasteful, but legal. You may not like that law, fine, I don't like the laws against Marijuana, but I know that it is perfectly legal for the state to lock me up if I am caught with it. There is no big international legal regime that applies in this situation. Every analysis I have seen of this issue from the perspective of international law determines that there was a legal causa belli for this conflict.

Legal doesn't mean smart, legal doesn't mean right even, but it is, in fact legal. sorry about that. I would welcome any analysis of international law, by a lawyer, you can post that would argue that this was illegal.

Second point, this particular attack on the mosque wall. That too, if the facts as being reported are correct, was perfectly legal. If you are a combatant, be you on any side, you cannot use civilian populations or structures as cover for military activities. Under the Geneva Convention (which the US, by the way, never ratified and certainly doesn't apply to irregulars such as the local militia) you cannot do this. If you use a civilian population as cover while continuing to engage in acts of violence, the other side is perfectly legaly entitled to return fire. Again, it is distasteful, andpolitically foolish to do so in this situation, but it is not a war crime under current international law. sorry, i guess that makes me a racist for applying the law to everyone. In case you're wondering, which I'm sure you're not, attacks by the militia on US military targets are also perfectly legitimate, if more questionable legally. An organised Militia can, in fact, wage war on an occupying army.

Final point. Yes, anyone who would use noncombatants as shields while continuning to fight, knowing that it was then likely that the noncombatants would be killed along side them is morally and culturally inferior. The milita who ran, firing their weapons, into a crowded mosque and continued to fight deliberatly endangered the lives of non-combatants and children for their own selfish purposes. In my world that person is morally and culturally inferior, and if that person does not hold that status in your little corner of reality, then we should stop this discussion before I ask your opiinion of paedophiles. (in case you are wondering, they too, are inferior beings in my world, yours?)

[Capt_Nemo]

42. Geography lesson for Northzax and Fire_Wire

The bombed mosque is in Fallujah and Sadr is in Najaf.
They are separated by a couple of hundred miles.
But arabs must all look alike to both of you, don't they?
You say Sadr terrorist I say US aggressor.
The US wanted a war. In a war you kill and you GET KILLED.
Didn't want dead americans, tough luck! shouldn't have started the war!

[northzax]

44. so why are you complaining?

<Sadr, by the way, is in the former Saddam City, a Baghdad suburb>

if you kill and get killed in a war, then you should have no problem with this attack, right? since the people involved should have known they might get killed.

righto.

[Cooley Hurd]

49. Actually, al-Sadr is in Najaf now...

...according to all sources.

[northzax]

50. ok, but his stronghold is in Baghdad

or thereabouts. I stand corrected on his actual location at this time.

[Capt_Nemo]

87. I'm not complaining about nothing

It's you that call people terrorists simply because they kill
the soldiers of an invading country so who is complaining here? :eyes:

[kera]

74. you are shielding your arrogance and aggressiveness

under the guise of false and hypocritical concern

first of all it is not your business how people who have never harmed you live their live

second be adviced that these people who you are so eager to protect from sliding into the dark ages ,were the cradle of humanity when your ancestor were still riding the stone age

humility is the first step toward knowledge and wisdom

[lumpy]

75. Bush and his military leaders have

turned Iraq into a cesspool. Better it be a fundementalist state instead a graveyard. It is non of your, or anyone elses business what the Iraqis choose to believe, at any rate. Before Bush's War Iraqs daughters were being educated. Iraq was run as more as a secular state under Saddam. The reason the US invaded Iraq was not to fight fundamentalism, if you recall the US invaded on the pretext that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US and to the world. The purpose was not to bring so-called democracy and religious reformation to Iraq.
Really don't think you add anything of value here by apologizing for the US occupation and "restructuring" of Iraq. Yes, restruct by destruct.

[nolabels]

98. What they say and what the do are two different things

I cannot imagine they are helping this Pipes fellow out a whole lot, but one should always hold in check looking for logic with the *co

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2273
Neocons Seek Islamic 'Reformation'
by Jim Lobe

One thing that can be said about U.S. neo-conservatives is they do not lack for ambition.

"We need an Islamic reformation," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confided on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq last year, "and I think there is real hope for one."

Echoing those views one year later, another prominent neo-conservative, Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), recently declared that the "ultimate goal" of the war on terrorism had to be Islam's modernization, or, as he put it, "religion-building."

Such an effort needs to be waged not only in the Islamic world, geographically speaking, added Pipes, who last year was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the US Institute for Peace (USIP), but also among Muslims in the West, where, in his view, they are too often represented by "Islamist (or militant Islamic)" organizations.

Pipes is currently seeking funding for a new organization, tentatively named the "Islamic Progress Institute" (IPI), which "can articulate a moderate, modern and pro-American viewpoint" on behalf of US Muslims and that, according to a grant proposal by Pipes and two New York-based foundations obtained by IPS, can "go head-to-head with the established Islamist institutions."
(snip)

[mallard]

76. So the point you're making is...

.... we have no other choice but to go ahead with violent conflict now because these armed (nationalist/ID'd as Shi-ai) Iraqis haven't the moral integrity to be left to work it out for themselves (the only way it EVER works out) and that they therefore NEED US NOW.

Bush & Co have created this situation, by choice, in the name of America - and taken this war back onto the civilian population. This explains the numerous reports of genuine nausea by posters here. But that's not the problem for you.

It also explains why troop levels will get boosted pronto. People who think like you - who fabricated the war against all available wisdom - will continue to do what you guys want them to - until sensibilty somehow enters the formula (ie: possibly never).

You are apparently on that shadowy pro-war team, too - and a staunch Israel backer, no doubt.

[Zhade]

88. Two words: "sleeper agent."

It it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[northzax]

94. wow, that's the second time in a week

someone has called me a sleeper agent. interesting. would you like to try and guess my freeper name?

[northzax]

96. no, the point I'm making is the same one from kindergarten

you break it, you fix it.

Andguess what, I am an American, and we are a democracy, so I cannot wash my hands of the wrongs done my by the current administration. It was done in my name, asa a full citizen,and I am therefore 2/270,000,000 responsible for it. And frankly, since I love four blocks from the White House and eight from the Capitol, I have good reason to want to ensure that the US, stupidly caught in an intractable situation, does our best to fix the situation. It may well take twenty years to get Iraq back into some semblance of a finctional state, that was my prediction before the war, I wouldn't be suprised to see it take a full generation. That's what I thought before the war, that's what I think now. Sucks, it really does, that the US will be spending lives and capital fixing a mistake for the rest of my life, but that's what you get for electing a fuck up in the first place. Part of living in a Democracy is that you bear the burden of past mistakes together, it's the lesson the South had to learn at the end of a cannon.

You are correct that groups have to work their issues out by themselves, but often an intervening army can help keep the peace while this happens. It's the whole concept of peacekeepers (no, the US military are not peacekeepers, obviously) but with luck and skill that is what we can transition into. We demilitarised the state of Iraq by force, it would be unconsionable to leave it ripe for the picking by someone else while the state puts itselfback together. Yes, the next administration is a puppet. fine, democracy takes time, and, especially if we get the bastards currently running this country into the ground out of control, perhaps it can stabalise itself enough to allow for legitimate elctions in say, two years. It takes time and money to build the insitutions of democracy, afuncitonal police force, a transit system, local administrations. These things cannot be done over night.

By the way, do you believe that the world was correct in allowing the Hutus and the Tutsis to "work it out for themselves" in 1994?

[leftchick]

19. well you know what Fire Wire?

It is not a war on terra it is a war on the Iraqis for their natural resources. The Iraqis don't want any stinkin AmuriKanization either!

:puke:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

25. a bit of advice

use the spell check

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

37. Being brainwashed and mislead ain't too funny though, huh.

This war is about power/imperialism. The world rejects another nation warring for imperialistic purposes. The people, all people, have quite enough of that shit.

[leftchick]

26. uh, they do not scream for the death of America....

Try death to the US Occupiers! You watch way too much faux don't you....

[northzax]

30. hmm, al-Sadr has publically allied himself

with Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, two groups that certainly do scream 'death to america' so if you can judge a man by hte company he voluntarily keeps...

[leftchick]

39. let me see... did that happen?

before or after The US INVADED their Fucking country and Killed Thousands of their people. This was predicted to happen by many of us. You reap what you sow. Don't bother replying, your arguments are not working with me... :eyes:

[northzax]

43. why does he get a free pass from you?

really, he labels himself a terrorist, and you blame the US. interesting.

Also, please let me get into my time machine and go back 18 months, and we won't invade Iraq. oh, that's right, I'm out of D cell batteries, can't do it. We can recognize that mistakes were made in the past, but that doesn't change the present, does it? A man has declared himself a terrorist, declared war on the US, and you would have our soldiers on the ground do nothing. nice.

[lumpy]

82. Why don't you saddle up your time machine

and go back to the dark ages where your way of thinking was more acceptable.

[TankLV]

65. No he hasn't - that's what bushco claim now.

Got any proof, or do you just like to spew your opinions and lies as facts?

The only one who have made this claim, for the first time today, are all bunkerboys gang of thugs and criminals.

[Zhade]

67. Actually, if you pay attention, they are more about "death to Israel".

But they aren't fond of America for supporting fascist war criminals like Ariel Sharon, either.

Just wanted to clarify your mis-aimed point.

[lumpy]

73. At least most people here

do not keep company with Bushco/ Kimmel apologists.

[northzax]

29. al-Sadr is a terrorist, or he wants to be

he allies himself with terrorist groups (Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad) and urges his followers to use violence to bring about the changing of a secular state into a religious one. He's a violent Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

Like it or not, and I don't, we are stuck in Iraq, and we cannot allow it to devolve further into a religous state dominated by a small minority of believers.

And I find it interesting that you now speak for Iraqis, Seems the Kurds are plenty happy with the situation, so there's a third of your "iraqis" who might disagree with your statement. And the other Shiite leaders are not joining this revolt, they don't seem to mind. This is a violent insurrection by a small minority of Iraqis who fear that they will be oppressed in the next regime as they oppressed in the past. But what does that matter? you have already painted the "iraqis" with a broad brush and condemmed them to twenty years of religous oppression. enjoy.

[lumpy]

83. The Kurds are not happy with the situation

if you'd bother to read the reports about the Kurd's frustration
Shiites are not happy with the situation

The Sunnis are not happy with the situation
Iraqi mothers, fathers and grandparents are not happy with the situation
Humanitarians are not happy with the situation
And I venture Bush is not happy with the situation that he has fostered.

[lumpy]

85. alSadr is an Iraqi, a religious leader

who wants revenge for the killing and destruction of his countrymen and country by military sent to Iraq to destroy and kill based on a pack of lies by the Bush administration. So who is doing the terrorizing here?
Through his eyes he must consider the US forces terrorists or are you so blind you cannot see from some other perspective?

[northzax]

97. al-sadr is a religious leader

who wants to, in his own words (read the account of his speeches if you'd like) who believes that Iraq should be run as a fundamentalist Islamic state. READ HIS SPEECHES. His role model is the Ayatollah khomenei. He says so himself. READ HIS SPEECHES. He believes that the government of Iraq should be run based on a literal reading of his version of hte Quaran. but don't take my word for it, READ HIS SPEECHES.

I'm sure he's just kidding, right? and he won't force women to wear restrictive clothing, and won't force women to be subsruvient to men, and he's kidding when he says that women shouldn't be educated, right? it's all a joke, cause he's a religious leader that's his religion. he wants power, and he knows that by becoming a revolutionary leader, he can get the support of every Iraqi who is miserable and frustrated. READ HIS SPEECHES. or would that interfere with your easy-world view of everything I saw being wrong? Let me rephrase that.


READ HIS SPEECHES. if you don't read Arabic, find someone you trust to translate them for you. I'm glad you give al-sadr the benefit of the doubt, but read up on him, turns out that I might not need that time machine to go back to the middle ages, al-Sadr, if he gains control of Iraq will do it for me. maybe it can be kind of a theme park "see the world the way it was before electricity! see the world when women were property of men! See the world when the only eduction given to the people was religious indoctrination! fun for the whole family!"

[maveric]

20. You really believe that this is a "war on terror"?

Gimme a fucking break pal! Iraq was never about terror. Or have you spent the last year and a half locked in a closet listening to Rush, Karen Hughes and Hannity.

[saigon68]

24. "Well done" for who?

The only thing "WELL DONE" recently were the 4 mercenaries barbecued to a "WELL DONE" condition by the local Resistance Forces in Fallujah,

and that my friend was the defining moment, in what has led up to this point in the last week.

[Jazzgirl]

15. The term "pacify" pisses me off everytime I see it!

What the heck does that mean? I have visions of troops running around sticking pacifiers in peoples mouths. The terms the people in this misadministration come up with are Orwellian at best.

[saigon68]

27. Like this?

[m-jean03]

99. I wish that the "pacified" babies

I have been seeing pictures of lately looked more like your animation. . .

:cry:

[lightbulb]

33. Agreed - "liberators" shouldn't be obligated to "pacify"

the populous which being liberated. If pacification is necessary, it's not a liberation.

[Barkley]

45. To "pacify" sounds innocuous but it means to "conquer"

Rudyard Kipling said it best in 1899*

Take up the White Man's burden--

Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

...

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

...


*This famous poem, written by Britain's imperial poet was a response to the American take over of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War

[lumpy]

86. Barkley your Kipling

post is appreciated and just as valid in these modern times.

[JoFerret]

36. Time to run the Mission Accomplished

footage on a loop. Bush prancing in his dress-up costume. Then, as a follow-up: Bring it on voice-over. just too sickening. And it wasn't as if intelligent people did not warn Bushco of all of this.

[JCMach1]

46. SKYtv had Al Jazeera footage of a dead abandoned GI being stripped

of body armor by boys...

chilling... :(

[Ripley]

53. WHAT...DEAD SOLDIER STRIPPED?????

Do you have a link for that? That will only make things extremely worse...since the Marines supposedly went in there in response to the 4 mercs hung up.

Where did this happen?

[Ripley]

55. Where was the dead abandoned GI located?

That's a HUGE story especially if there's video. I didn't think our soldiers ever "abandoned" a downed man.

Did you actually see this or is it another rumor like the 130 dead Americans story from yesterday? I'm beginning to think SkyTv is not at all reliable.

[daleo]

59. Maybe they just wanted relics of a saint to be

According to a few posters here, the "liberated" Iraqis will want to venerate their liberators, that are saving them from the fate of organizing their own society, in their own manner.

[tlcandie]

48. Update on deaths from Aljazeera... warning GRAPHIC Pics with article!

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A73529F1-1554-4C68-8774-BA478D565B02.htm

<snip>
"More than 200 Iraqis, including women and children, have been injured in the past 24 hours," said Aljazeera correspondent in Falluja, Ahmad Mansur.
<snip>

<snip>
"The situation is getting worse," he said. "An ambulance carrying casualties was attacked on its way to the medical centre.

The American forces closed the road leading to the city's hospital and everybody walking in the streets of Falluja is now becoming a target."
<snip>

<snip>
"They are attacking residential neighbourhoods," he said as US warplanes swooped over the area and fired rockets. Intense gunfire could be heard from the streets.

"The residents of Falluja are asking 'where is the (US-appointed) Iraqi Governing Council?'," said the visibily shaken correspondent. "They are asking why the Iraqis are not protecting them."
<snip>

[Akuma007]

56. Give me a break

The Iraqi insurgents are trying to gain an advantage over the American forces by trying to use a religious site for military purposes. The Marine commander on the ground was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in firing upon the mosque. Plain and simple. Yes, it ain't pretty, but as soon as that mosque was being used for military purpose, it ceases to be a protected asset.

Read the Geneva Conventions yourself: Article 52.

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.

[WillyT]

57. Christ... Every Time I Think We Can't Get Any More STUPID...

I am proven wrong !!!

Powder keg, meet match!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[maddezmom]

60. another link: One Killed, 6 Wounded in Mosque Bombing

~snip~
One Marine was killed and six were wounded by rifle and grenade fire, while news services quoted witnesses who said more than two dozen Iraqis were killed when U.S. aircraft attacked a mosque compound where insurgents had taken shelter and fired on U.S. forces. Marine officers said, however, that there was no sign of casualties at the mosque. The conflicting accounts were not immediately reconcilable.
~snip~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57805-2004Apr7.html

[alcuno]

62. Canadian Press says it happened during afternoon prayers

Witnesses said the strike came as worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers.

An Associated Press reporter saw cars ferrying the dead and wounded from the mosque. Witnesses said part of a wall surrounding the mosque compound was destroyed but the main building had not been damaged.

Temporary hospitals were set up in private homes to treat the wounded and prepare the dead for burial. There was no immediate confirmation of the number killed.

The attack was launched after a marine vehicle was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired from the mosque, wounding five marines, Byrne said.

Elsewhere in Fallujah, U.S. forces seized another mosque, the al-Muadidi mosque, and a marine climbed its minaret and fired down on gunmen, witnesses said. Insurgents hit the minaret with rocket-propelled grenades, causing it to partly collapse, The AP reporter said.

Insurgents also blew up two highway overpasses into the city to prevent U.S. troops from using them. A U.S. helicopter rocketed three houses, and the reporter saw at least five wounded people, including a young boy, being pulled out of one them.

[unionpaid]

66. Turns out it was not a Mosque that was bombed. It was a wall.

Insurgents were hiding behind a wall and our troops blew up the wall. The Mosque was not harmed. Now bring the troops home before we have to fight against someone hiding in a Mosque.

[Zhade]

68. Evidence, please.

I'd like to believe you.

I don't.

Some links to evidence that backs up your statement would help convince me.

[lumpy]

71. Yes, officials said no civilians died.

Those pictures of the dead babies and women are all fake. *sarcasm*

[lostnfound]

77. "Death toll of 40 revised down to 1" according to skynews..

Bizarre. Of course I don't believe it.
Last paragraph: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13050605,00.html
The Pentagon has defended its use of precision-guided bombs against a mosque compound in the city of Fallujah. Early reports put the death toll at 40 but that has now been revised down to one.

[Aidoneus]

80. that's misleading.. Sky is getting sloppy mixing up Iraqi/US losses

That's one Marine reported as killed. Dozens of Iraqis were murdered in the bombing.

[lostnfound]

81. Thanks. I was beginning to doubt my sanity.

Didn't really count them as reliable but information from Iraq is so sketchy.

[Chicago Democrat]

84. Woops Nobody died!

Gee, if -I- know its army policy to get "commander permission" to bomb a mosque, dontcha think that they know that?

See more mosques go up in smoke in the Arab version of "bait and switch".

The enemy is far more savvy than the boobs in charge.

[cleofus1]

89. oooooops....

very few Americans can visualize 40 dead bodies...much less 40 dismembered corpses...the carnage is sanatized and the ignorant march on.

[methinks2]

100. Good Grief !!!

We're attacking peoples churches now. If we won't respect people who are worshipping then they certainly won't respect us doing the same thing. Is there anyone with measureable brain waves to run this war? Did no one running the US side ever hear of cause and effect. Dumbasses! :dunce:

[dArKeR]

101. US TROOPS ORDERED: DESTROY SADR'S ARMY - Mirror

Apr 8 2004

America vows to snare Iraqi cleric blamed for rising wave of attacks

By Mike Swain

AMERICA vowed yesterday to destroy wanted Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's private army - and told the man blamed for the uprising against coalition forces to surrender.

But the wave of attacks and street fighting continued to spread across the country, with 40 people killed when US planes bombed a mosque and scores dead in gun battles.

The escalation caused alarm among politicians in Washington and the Arab world and threatened to become a major problem for President George Bush as he campaigns for re-election.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14128062%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=us%2dtroops%2dordered%2d%2ddestroy%2dsadr%2ds%2darmy-name_page.html