Christiaan Briggs stated for the record:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 7:15 pm, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Who is the desecrator:
* the armed men who take refuge inside the mosque and use it as a base
to attack enemies; or,
* those who attack the armed men inside the mosque?
In terms of established law it seems you already have your answer. In
terms of morality, when you're the armed men and women of a government
that has committed the supreme international war crime (according to the
Nuremberg Tribunal), a war of aggression, and illegally occupies that
nation on spurious justification I think those attacking the men inside
the mosque could be regarded as the desecrators.
In your loathing of all things "Western" you are ignoring nearly a
century of international law declaring the exact opposite of what you
think. The moment the first set of armed men occupied the mosque, it
lost all protection under international law, and the attackers became
justified in attacking the mosque. (The question of whether their
presence /near/ the mosque was justified is moot.)
--
Sean Barrett | I got the white stars you wanted, but
sean(a)epoptic.com | I couldn't find any red hearts, yellow
| moons, or green clovers. --Betsy Ross