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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Have you heard of something called,

"the geneva conventions".


Yes I heard of it but it's not that simple. Play by the rules and nobody gets hurt doctrine is in reality of warfare practicaly impossible. So sometimes IMO the officers and soldiers in the field can use some discretionary powers. I'm not happy about it but that's a reality of armed conflict.



cjf

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Is that the best you could find?


No.

What part of ‘Here is a start” are you having difficulty understanding?.....I’ll repeat it for you.


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



Originally posted by ArchAngel
An American interpretation instead of a document reference?


You have provided nothing but rhetoric, insults, exaggerations and fallacious statements.

The application of logic, history, precedence, trials, letter of the law and spirit of the law etc etc etc is fully being missed.

The laws that you so freely wield are "conventions", agreements, guidelines (if you will) to agreed international law(s) and have been hashed-out over time in various tribunals….all of which you have failed to recognize. It is the totality of the 'Law' which will be argued not one article. And to spew the Geneva Conventions have a lesser application…well?.


Originally posted by ArchAngel
The Mosque not all Mosques.


What is your point?

I never made a reference to all mosques as a generality, just ones by militants and insurgents. (Even though the number of mosques used by militants has approached more than half inside some regions).


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


That was not my point, now was it?



Under international law the improper use of privileged buildings to include churches
and mosques, is a war crime
-[snip]-
Mosques used for military purposes lose protected according to the Law of War
National Review (pdf)



AP Article

UPI

Iraqi Forces Raid Ramadi Mosques

Coalition Provisional Authority

Military Headines


I'll repeat....



Hague IV 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.


Here is a quote, luckily found on line from the works of P. Maass.



Article 53 also prohibits the use of cultural property “in support of the military effort”—for example, using a national historical building as a command center. In such cases, destruction or damage of cultural property is not necessarily a war crime. The 1954 convention states that the obligation to not harm cultural property “may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.” The phrase “military necessity” is not defined in the convention, though it would likely apply, for example, to a church damaged during a bombing raid on an adjacent weapons factory, or a museum destroyed because it was being used as an arms depot.
Crimes of War





.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
bwhahaha i once pissed against a mosque and a friend of mine pooped in front of the door!



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wintermorg
bwhahaha i once pissed against a mosque and a friend of mine pooped in front of the door!

why? mommy didn't potty train you?....sucks to be you.

:shk:


[edit on 12/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB

Originally posted by Wintermorg
bwhahaha i once pissed against a mosque and a friend of mine pooped in front of the door!

why? mommy didn't potty train you?....sucks to be you.

:shk:


[edit on 12/10/2005 by SportyMB]


They messed with the wrong guy



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wintermorg

Originally posted by SportyMB

Originally posted by Wintermorg
bwhahaha i once pissed against a mosque and a friend of mine pooped in front of the door!

why? mommy didn't potty train you?....sucks to be you.

:shk:


[edit on 12/10/2005 by SportyMB]


They messed with the wrong guy


what did they do to you?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wintermorg
They messed with the wrong guy

is that right, so you pissed on a Mosque and your friend took a crap by the door


And all that because they "messed" with the wrong guy?

again, WHY?

I doubt you have the testicular fortitude to commit such an act


And if you did...well that just shows what a coward you are.

you suck


NOTE: Attn all...I think we found the link in human evolution!

[edit on 12/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
cjf you're using a strawman argument.
The links you are providing cover the destruction of religious sites not their seizure by a military force.

No where have you proven that religious sites lose their status permanently under international law, instead of the more logical assumption that they regain their status after enemy forces have been routed.


cjf

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
cjf you're using a strawman argument.


Incorrect, don't be so quick to throw claims of logical fallicies when you are speaking around the premise and adding/assuming content.

I am supporting my premise and have been supporting my premise, of which I have stated to the point of redundancy:

Once a mosque is used by militants/insurgents it looses it status as a ‘protected’ site and may become a military target, period.


Originally posted by boogyman
The links you are providing cover the destruction of religious sites not their seizure by a military force.


Please read the links as provided previously: From the above UPI link….you will find many more on your own.



Mosques, like hospitals and schools, are protected by the Geneva Convention. However, the agreement allows mosques and other houses of worship to be targeted for attack if they are being used by an enemy military force "whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
(link)



Originally posted by boogyman
No where have you proven that religious sites lose their status permanently under international law, instead of the more logical assumption that they regain their status after enemy forces have been routed.


Never have I stated through the many, many posts I have made in this thread that a ‘mosque’ will permanently loose its’ status…??

Quite the contrary, I have provided basic links via articles showing that the coalition forces intend to restore the mosques to the original status after the mosques are liberated.

Once the area is secured, properly re-annotated and re-designated…it will go back (unless you can prove otherwise concerning the Coalition Forces in Iraq.)

.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join