[WikiEN-l] Mosque as military target

Fri Aug 27 21:54:53 UTC 2004

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:27:53 +0100, Christiaan Briggs
<christiaan at yurkycross.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:17 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:

> > you are ignoring nearly a century of international law declaring the
> > exact opposite of what you think.
> 
> I'm hardly ignoring it, I started my sentence with it. I'm certainly
> disputing its morality however. If you'd like to respond to my argument
> you're welcome.

(at the risk of needlessly prolongnig an off topic discussion)

It seems to me that, having decided the US is on the morally wrong
side in this war, the US should be held to a stricter standard than
international law / convention calls for, while their armed opponents
should be held to a lesser standard.

If a detachment of US troops was occupying a mosque or other structure
of religious or cultural significance -- and was still engaging in
active conflict from there, rather than seeking sanctuary or
attempting surrender or truce -- would their opponents be justified in
firing upon them?

I'm curious as to where your moral logic goes here.  Are you arguing
that mosques and other sacred or significant places should not be
harmed no matter what?  Or are you arguing simply that nothing the US
does in Iraq can be right, because they are already in the wrong for
being the aggressor?

-Morven