April 9, 2004
Sacred ground
It was reported on Wednesday (4/07/04) that the US military had dropped two 500 pound bombs on a mosque in Falluja. Under the Geneva Convention, mosques (and churches, temples, etc) cannot be attacked. It makes no differnece if an enemy is in the building or not. There is a provision that it can be attacked if there is a "military necessity" (US army 'will target' mosques, News 24, 4/08/04). Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt (US army) has stated that the military will fire on mosques if they are used as "fire bases or weapon storage depots." He also apparently stated "Iraq’s mosques could be targeted if they offered refuge to resistance fighters" (Plea to lift siege as toll mounts, Al Jazeera, 4/08/04). It is also alleged that a second mosque in Falluja was bombed, but that has not been confirmed by the US (News 24).
I have heard no evidence that the bombed mosque met either of the conditions of fire base or weapons depot. The mosque was suspected of "housing insurgents" though that also has not been confirmed. Unless the "insurgets" were firing at US troops from the mosque, then it should have remained sacred ground. The whole point of seeking refuge in a place of worship is because of the sanctity of sanctuary or refuge.
The US deciding to target mosques because they are "suspected" of housing insurgents is not a good idea. Families have been reported throughout these conflicts to be seeking refuge in the mosques - specifically because they are NOT supposed to be targets of attack. In attacking mosques in Falluja and elsewhere it is highly likely that non-combatants are likely to die.
I would imagine that firing on, or bombing, mosques is likely to enrage people rather than to shift their sympathies away from those fighting the US occupation forces (and their "contracted security"). At the present time, the US has placed Falluja under seige and over 280 Fallujans have been killed and over 400 wounded. Vehicles trying to take the wounded to hospitals have been fired on by US troops - even when they were traveling under a white flag (Al Jazeera report).
This seems a strategy to inflame - not only Iraq, but Muslims worldwide. It should anger all who hold any such place sacred (which should include the "born again" Bush) It also stinks of retaliation for the killing of the four "contract security" people killed earlier this weak. This doesn't seem an appropriate response from a supposedly controlled and disciplined military presence.
Posted by rowan at April 9, 2004 8:09 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |i've read in two different places (can't recall where, now, though, but one was an AP article) that the first mosque was hit after someone fired RPGs at nearby Marines from the mosque, and that the mosque compound is what was hit, doing pretty minimal damage to the mosque building itself.
If insurgents are using mosques to fire on US troops, as i understand it, that is a violation of the Geneva convention. But the "insurgents" don't give a rats butt about the Geneva convention, as now witnessed by the holding of Japanese hostages. The Geneva convention, being a Western construct, holds no water with the people the US is fighting. Those people are using the Geneva Convention against us.
Posted by: pril at April 9, 2004 9:11 AM
Anybody ready for another world war? How long do we really think all of our "allies" will allow this enormous superpower to dominate and destroy whomever it chooses? Sooner or later all of these countries are going to band together to defeat yet another overly powerful country and knock America off its pedestal.
I had a link in Uncommon Thought News about the bombing of the mosque in Falluja. That was an AP article, but interestingly enough, the report has disappeared. I had linked to it through the Independent/UK, and it is no longer htere. A search of th AP archives doesn't turn it up. Every other link I tried used either the Independent or the AP link - so the report has disappeared without a trace. I can't confirm or deny whether US forces were fired on from the mosque. If fired on then those inside have violated the Convention and the US is not bound to the sanctuary stipulations. However, if not fired on that is another issue. The statement by Kimmitt, goes well beyond being fired on.
However, this goes well beyond the issues of sanctuary and the Geneva Convention. The US is supposedly trying to get the people of Iraq on its side. That will not happen if mosques are fired on or bombed. In fact, my guess is that if Iraqui's or others use the mosques to attack from, that will lessen any Iraqi support for them. If I was a commander (and I'm not nor ever have been), and folks were attacking US forces from the sanctuary of a mosque, I would back off and make it very clear that my troops would not engage in such a sacraledge. I would put that on loud speakers, and clearly stand back and stand down. That then clearly put the "insurgents" in the wrong for all to see. It also cannot then be propagandized into "infidels desecrate sacred ground." But what do I know? I'm just a dumb civilian.
Posted by: rowan at April 9, 2004 8:32 PMUpdate:
I have found a "ereappeared copy of the article in question: 4/07/04 Wright, AP, Guardian/UK '40 dead' as US rockets hit Fallujah mosque
I don't see anything in This report that says that US troops were under fire from the mosque.
Posted by: rowan at April 9, 2004 10:12 PMAnd one would think our spin doctors would be all over publicizing that attack was originating from within the mosque.
Posted by: Pamela at April 12, 2004 10:15 AM