It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Army in Iraq Occupies 7 Mosques in Ramadi and Turns Them into Barracks

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Occuping churches, mosques or other places of worship is well known in history of warfare. Germans during WWII often used chuches for safeheaven from alied bombers. They used churches as field hospitals or even munition depots.

The only problem I see here is that the muslims are more emotionaly attached to their places of worship than the Westerners and they seriously dislike that kind of usage of holly places by "western devils".




posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Have you heard of something called,

"the geneva conventions".



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

I am sure that US Marine Core have Used Mosques a number of times for their improvised Barracks. Here's a pictre from Fallujah. So I guess its OK to hide in Mosques, right?


They look relaxed, and almost happy as if the burden of fear was lifted because the Iraqis are much less likely to attack a Mosque.


staged like a mtf u mean!



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Occuping churches, mosques or other places of worship is well known in history of warfare. Germans during WWII often used chuches for safeheaven from alied bombers. They used churches as field hospitals or even munition depots.


So you are saying that since the Nazis did it that makes it OK for us to do it too?

It is clearly a warcrime and I can't understand how anyone could support it.

The only thing it does is enrage the people even more.


cjf

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
So you are saying that since the Nazis did it that makes it OK for us to do it too?
It is clearly a warcrime and I can't understand how anyone could support it.
The only thing it does is enrage the people even more.


Iraq is currently 'occupied', Yes?

International law is applicable, Yes.

Please explain your statement and explain fully how 'these' actions are ever so ‘clearly’ a war crime perp'd by the US, especially concerning the information as provided by this particular thread.


.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE

Islamic extremist are blowing marines up everyday. Where would they be most likely to be safe from bombs? A mosque. If you go back to the picture they look mighty respectful.

Remember, a major percentage of buildings that are not residentual are mosques, there is one every two blocks!



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
Iraq is currently 'occupied', Yes?

International law is applicable, Yes.

Please explain your statement and explain fully how 'these' actions are ever so ‘clearly’ a war crime perp'd by the US, especially concerning the information as provided by this particular thread.


Yes Iraq is currently occupied, and yes international law is applicable.

The actions of seizing the Mosques violates The Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV).


Article 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.


cjf

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Yes Iraq is currently occupied, and yes international law is applicable.

The actions of seizing the Mosques violates The Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV).


Article 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.


Sure, and protection is given of course; however there are hostilities present and insurgents are using the locations…..but, even if there are no hostilities there are exceptions:

Hague IV



Art. 1. Definition of cultural property (fist paragraph)

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;

Art. 4. section 2

2. The obligations mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present Article may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.


And also relevant: IV Geneva Convention.



Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.


But as hostilities between belligerents exist during the occupational period……

Hague IV



SECTION II HOSTILITIES
CHAPTER I

Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments

Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.


Do you see a pattern emerging here?

Once militants use 'protected' structures for operations, it is no longer a protected site, period.

.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Shall we tit for tat until judgement day comes...

But ofcourse its an outrage to religion to use their site as a rest site, but is it also sacrilidge to bring weapons inside a religous site?

Correct me if its wrong?



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   


but is it also sacrilidge to bring weapons inside a religous site?

IMO, it's not. I know many police law officers on all levels and even a few regular joes that have permits, and the majority of them carry thier guns to church (the ones that go). It's just playing it safe.

Criminals don't discreminate, why should they.


[edit on 11/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
Sure, and protection is given of course; however there are hostilities present and insurgents are using the locations…..but, even if there are no hostilities there are exceptions:

Hague IV



Art. 1. Definition of cultural property (fist paragraph)

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;


Cultural property is independent of religious sites. Religious sites may also be Cultural property, or not, but they never stop being of religious nature.

You also failed to show anything other than the definition of Cultural property.

Were you implying that occupiers are allowed to seize it?


Art. 4. section 2

2. The obligations mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present Article may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.


There was no imperative to seize these Mosques.

You are assuming that there were attacks against us coming from all of them, yet this is not claimed.


And also relevant: IV Geneva Convention.



Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.


The Geneva conventions do not supercede the Hague, and this speaks of destruction, not seizure.


But as hostilities between belligerents exist during the occupational period……

Hague IV



SECTION II HOSTILITIES
CHAPTER I

Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments

Art. 27.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.


How does this apply? They have been siezed, not bombarded.


Do you see a pattern emerging here?


Yes, you don't know what your're talking about, but you have been reading my other posts.

Never would you have used these sources if I had not posted them.


Once militants use 'protected' structures for operations, it is no longer a protected site, period.


PLEASE give a sources for this.

I have read every single international treaty, and agreement that America ever signed.

It does not exist.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel


Baghdad. In a one of a kind military operation the US army occupied 7 mosques yesterday in the Western Iraqi town of Ramadi and turned the mosques into barracks, the Iraqi News Agency INA reported.
According to information, the American soldiers have taken the praying out of the mosques, closed them and banned access to the mosques within a range of 1 kilometer.

Source


If Americans were smart, they would bomb every mosque in Iraq to pieces, then kill anyone who tries to rebuild them. That'd get rid of ALL the terrorists very quickly.

The is a warcrime and an attack on Islam that will not be taken lightly by anyone in Iraq.

If its not a war on religion Holy sites must be respected.

I'm sure there are plenty of other places they could setup, and that shutting down the other Mosques will not make them more secure.


cjf

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Were you implying that occupiers are allowed to seize it?


No, I am stating a fact...if it is a military imperative.


Originally posted by ArchAngel
There was no imperative to seize these Mosques.


Prove it.


Originally posted by ArchAngel
You are assuming that there were attacks against us coming from all of them, yet this is not claimed.


You assume too much, not I.


Originally posted by ArchAngel
I have read every single international treaty, and agreement that America ever signed.


I seriously doubt it, but hey...not the first ‘stretch’, eh?


Originally posted by ArchAngel
Yes, you don't know what your're talking about, but you have been reading my other posts.


No it is you that haven’t read mine.... use the ‘find post’ button...you will not be able to repeat your ignorant unsupported statement….


Originally posted by ArchAngel

Once militants use 'protected' structures for operations, it is no longer a protected site, period.


PLEASE give a sources for this.


Here is a start you take it form there…or continue to believe what you believe….it’s really not my problem.



Terrorists used Fallujah mosques as forts, arsenals

"Using mosques as a storage facility for military equipment or weapons or as a fortress to initiate attacks, causes the mosque to lose its protected status under the Law of War," the document says. "Under international law, the improper use of privileged buildings to include churches and mosques, is a war crime."
(link)



Originally posted by ArchAngel
Never would you have used these sources if I had not posted them.


Not only do you not know what the hell you are talking about….. you are not very good at attempts of personal insults....pathetic.


.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Your missing the point.
When religious sites are under the control of military forces they lose their protected status. The moment enemy forces have been driven from the location it goes back to original status as a religious site. Protected status isn't like virginity it can be reattained.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

quote:
Terrorists used Fallujah mosques as forts, arsenals

"Using mosques as a storage facility for military equipment or weapons or as a fortress to initiate attacks, causes the mosque to lose its protected status under the Law of War," the document says. "Under international law, the improper use of privileged buildings to include churches and mosques, is a war crime."


Is that the best you could find?

An American interpretation instead of a document reference?

The Mosque not all Mosques.

Our improper use would be a warcrime.

The author failed to show what article it violates, and ignored the culpability of the occupational forces.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
This is a great idea.

If this saves 1 single drop of US blood it's a good idea. If the "insurgents" refuse to fire on a mosque, then that is exactly where our soldiers should be.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
God I love the double standard. Where was the outrage when the insurgents were attacking Coalition forces from inside the mosques, and they were doing everything they could to keep from destroying them, or even shooting back at them? Oh right, I forgot, it's ok for the "freedom fighters" to do anything they have to do as long as they kill Americans, but the Americans have to fight with both hands tied behind their backs, to be fair.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
God I love the double standard. Where was the outrage when the insurgents were attacking Coalition forces from inside the mosques, and they were doing everything they could to keep from destroying them, or even shooting back at them? Oh right, I forgot, it's ok for the "freedom fighters" to do anything they have to do as long as they kill Americans, but the Americans have to fight with both hands tied behind their backs, to be fair.


Maybe you are missing the point of the thread.

They have taken control of the Mosques, and ordered others to be shut down.

This is not required to maintain security in an occupation.

It is a bold slap in the face of Islam.

Not one single drop of American blood will be saved by this, but much more may be spilled because of it.

As was pointed out earlier the Nazis did this too, so maybe we should reconsider...



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
This is not required to maintain security in an occupation.


Hmm your expert opinion is it



Not one single drop of American blood will be saved by this, but much more may be spilled because of it.


You have alot of bluster, but no fact.



As was pointed out earlier the Nazis did this too, so maybe we should reconsider...


DUH FFS, everyone blew up religious places in WWII - they were just seen as another building.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
all this arguing over an unsubstantiated 8 line report....you all are so eager to argue "war crime victim" that proof doesnt matter it seems.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join