Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

On destroying weapons-laden mosques

This is from the New York Times article on the Goldstone report:
Israel repeatedly accused Hamas of using mosques to shelter armed men or munitions, and a report by Israel said an attack against the Maqadmah mosque in Jabaliya had killed six known militants.

But the Human Rights Council report said the attack came during evening prayers, when some 300 men and women were in the mosque, and killed 15 people. There were no secondary explosions to indicate the presence of an arms cache.

If Israel wanted to destroy a mosque suspected as an arms cache, it should have done so in the middle of the night, Mr. Goldstone said.
If Israel destroyed a mosque full of weapons with more than 300 people inside, and only 15 people died, they must have done something to ensure that there would not be a large number of casualties. Something about this story doesn't make sense (it's paragraph 348 in the Goldstone report).

And if the 'Palestinians' were sleeping in the mosque every night (which they probably were), when would Goldstone propose that it be attacked? Of course, since Goldstone says in paragraph 36 of the report that he doesn't believe mosques were used to store weapons anyway, maybe it doesn't matter.

Let's go to the videotape and see a mosque full of weapons.

Here's another one:

Let's go to the videotape and then I'll have some details about what you're about to see.

Here's more about this mosque.
Channel 10 reported that the IAF had received high-level orders to hit the mosque after Hamas terror operatives had run there with several rockets and Grad-type missiles.

The army said that the mosque, located in the western part of Gaza City, was used to store weapons and explosives and that terrorists had been using the building as cover when firing rockets at southern Israel.

The most recent rocket launch from the mosque occurred on Wednesday morning, the military said in a statement.

The strike set off numerous secondary explosions, caused by the munitions stockpiled in the mosque. In recent days joint IDF and ISA intelligence efforts produced information that terrorists were hoarding weapons in the mosque and carrying out rocket attacks against Israeli communities from its grounds, as well as using it as a place of hiding, the IDF said.
For those of you who have closely followed the American battles in Iraq, this should sound familiar from Fallujah. The Muslims rant and rave about their 'holy mosques' and then they go ahead and use them for purposes that have nothing to do with the worship of God.

Unfortunately, I cannot locate a video of the specific mosque cited by the Times. I don't believe it's either of the ones above.

But by the way, if the mosque was being used to fire weapons while the evening prayers were going on (entirely conceivable), on what basis did Goldstone determine that it was unreasonable for an IDF commander under the circumstances to conclude that the mosque should be taken out immediately?


At 6:32 PM, Blogger Geoffrey Carman said...

Carl, You wrote
The Muslims rant and rave about their 'holy mosques' and then they go ahead and use them for purposes that have nothing to do with the worship of God.

I wonder if you are exhibiting a very western perspective, based on a Judeo-Christian culture...

I.e. That killing or attacking others has "nothing to do with the worship of God."

PS: I happen to agree, and think your assumption is correct.

But recall that for the follower of the Islamic religion, that assumption may not be the same as for the Western world.

Spreading Islam around the world, until all is submitted to it, is "everything to do with the worship of God" for a Muslim.

Therefore, from their perspective, the use of a mosque to attack Isreal and kill Isrealis is possibly within that purview.

What does that mean of consequence? I dunno. But it is worth remembering that our base assumptions are just that. Others do not always share our assumptions.

(Ignoring commentary on what assumption is correct or incorrect. I have my personal opinions on that topic and happen to think the Western approach is the better one).

At 6:58 PM, Blogger Carl in Jerusalem said...

Geoffrey Carman,

That's actually a comment from an old post that I linked, but you are correct that under Islam, killing or attacking others may be connected to the worship of God.

But if that's the case, it's disingenuous for them to claim immunity from attack because they are located in a 'holy mosque.' You can't use a facility for warlike purposes and then claim that your interlocutor may not respond because of the nature of the facility in which you are located.

At 9:00 PM, Blogger Captain.H said...

I'm not a lawyer but I've read the Geneva Conventions online. They clearly state that when one party to a conflict uses for military purposes otherwise protected buildings, facilities, etc. (such as hospitals, schools OR HOUSES OF WORSHIP OR AMBULANCES), that building, facility or vehicle loses it's protected status and the other party may use whatever military action is "reasonably" militarily necessary for self-defense.

Moreover, the party using the building, facility, vehicle is legally responsible for this loss of protected status, any damage to it and any civilian casualties. That's regardless of whichever combatant party causes the damage or civilian casualties.

AND under the Geneva Conventions, this use of protected buildings, facilities, etc. for any military purpose is in itself a war crime, regardless of whether or not the other party militarily acts in response or not.

Of course, we don't hear about the Islamofascists' systematic use of mosques, hospitals, schools, ambulances, etc. (against Israel AND in Iraq and Afghanistan) from most of the West's MSM (or the Israel-hating, anti-Semitic UN). They're too lazy, too afraid of angering domestic Muslims and/or too biased against Israel or Jews in general.

At 9:30 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Carl - holy sites and hospitals do have protected status under international law as long as their evident function is maintained. If they enlist in a conflict on the side of a belligerent, they lose that status. Hiding weapons and explosives there is a good way to bring that about - something the clueless Goldstone doesn't appear to grasp.


Post a Comment

<< Home