Mosks legitimite targets for millitary action?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Vortexx, Apr 10, 2004.

?

A dangerous question for your concious

  1. No, have respect for every holy building of every religion, its sacred dont touch it

    11 vote(s)
    45.8%
  2. If proven, some church act as a scapegoat for terrorists or opponents in war, single out that specif

    4 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. yes, burn them mosks, I don't believe in any god anyway, so get rid of the cristian churches and oth

    4 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. yes, the followers of the islam have declared an all out Jihad against the west targetting all it's

    5 vote(s)
    20.8%
  1. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    Some people see mosks as churches, others as commandcenters / trainingcenters from where the the Jihad is planned and waged and leaders and weapons are hidden protected by some unwritten law not to attack holy buildings.

    Now irony, enough, weren't the twin towers not some of our holy capitalist building from where financial world domination was arranged??

    But first, burn the mosks, or praise the mosks, gentlemen your votes plz.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    If they house the resistance, cleanse them or burn them.

    What else can be done?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vienna Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    Eradicate the Islamic buildings with fire - take no chances.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    ... but only if they house the enemy, correct, Vienna?
     
  8. Vienna Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    Yes, only fire them when they are full of vermin
     
  9. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Attacking mosques, even for seemingly valid tactical reasons, will in every case create far more popular backlash and strategic threat than any mosque can present. There is no faster way to destroy acceptance for US administration than to allow the resistance to exploit religious and cultural rage, which is the clear intent of fighters drawing occupation forces toward these symbolic structures- Attacking a mosque, occupiers play utterly into the hands of the resistance, even in killing every combattant within.

    I am of the opinion that the entire occupation cannot be salvaged in the interest of the US from this point- But that aside: In cases of resistance within mosques, the only reasonable military response, in keeping with the primary mission of creating an Iraq that is not entirely hostile to the US, is to isolate such a standoff: Starve them out, but never enter or damage these places of worship, especially shrines. Underestimating the political implications of mosque sweeps is extremely ignorant and dangerous. Iraqi radicals are taunting America to attack mosques, because they know that in this assymetrical warfare, it is in the minds of the public, not the real estate, and not the bodycount, that the final victory will be secured.
     
  10. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    Starving them out is a good idea. Definitely better than burning the building right off the bat.

    However, if a siege should prove problematic, it is probably wise to simplify the matter and, well, flatten the mosque.
     
  11. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Everything Americans do in Iraq from now on is very problematic. All of these problems are explosively exacerbated by inflaming religious rage. "Flattening" a mosque is the fastest, most indelible possible way to fatally stigmatize the occupation.
     
  12. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Personally I say get rid of all religions, but politcally it would probably be best to leave the mosques alone. Too bad it seems that militant muslims so often attempt to draw fire to the mosques.
     
  13. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    Yassin was supposed to be off limits because he was a poor elderly cripple, and now al-Sadr is off limits because he is hiding behind a minaret. I wonder how far this can be taken.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    if you don't want the mosque to be hurt, don't hide in the mosque
    there are million and one other places you can hide
     
  14. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Funny, pothead. But the glasses wouldn't have been a comparable problem. Osama was killed 2 years ago, and nobody noticed because it was done correctly.
     
  15. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    That's the truest thing I've read in awhile, hyperwaders.


    As for the hypothetical inflammation of the Iraqis' anti-American sentiment, it seems to me that it can't get much worse, anyhow. We might as well live up to our disreputation and display a little machismo, no?

    I kid, of course, but, seriously, what left is there for the Administration to do when hesitation costs American lives?
     
  16. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    The same thing as any individual must do whenever an unredeemable error has been made: Correct it. Iraq will never form a western-friendly government, provide secure US military bases, or produce significant export of oil, at American gunpoint.
     
  17. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    I think, that there is no man who will not do what he is told to do at gun point.

    However, if what you describe is true, then we must either leave them to war with one another, or shoot them all, at gun point.

    Don't you think that's a little romantic, a little exaggerated?
     
  18. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    No. Shooting them all at gunpoint is too passion-driven and exaggerated. US forces very simply must - and inevitably will - leave Iraq. In that process, the US should allow for all possible international peacekeeping and aid, and that Iraq's religious leaders should be encouraged to devote maximum effort to avoid sectarian fighting. Because the question of the political viability of a unified Iraq is an independent problem to the occupation, and because in fact the likelihood of civil war is increased by further prolonging of the occupation, there is no justification for delaying US withdrawal.
     
  19. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    hypewaders,
    I wouldn't be surprised to see bin Laden pop up in the fall, a couple of months before the election. Ace in the hole so to speak. If dead maybe he's in a freezer somewhere right now.
     
  20. Vienna Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    Bring our troops home now and let the buggers fight it out among themselves. Our presence makes no difference to peace in Iraq.
     
  21. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "I wouldn't be surprised to see bin Laden pop up in the fall"
    We'll see. I'm 99.99% convinced that the Bush Administration's would-be trophy and overpersonification of terrorism was crushed into irretrievable pulp under a shattered Afghan mountaintop in mid-April, 2002.
     
  22. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    Nice photo otheahp, true, can I have a photo next to that of Sharon with the text: "you wouldn't hit a man wearing the american flag would you?"

    Sorry Vienna, we want to but we can't pull out, because we have strict orders not to let the Iranians jump in the vacume and takeover the south, which would make it possible for instance to station their medium range missiles (nuclear armed coming soon?) hundreds of miles towards the mediterranian sea , if you know what I mean

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Looking in hindsight it would have maybe played out better if America invaded iran instead of iraq, because that's maybe where the real WMD are

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and a lot less mixed ethnic soup, a lot of iranians were ready for democarazy and want to get rid of the ayatollahs....
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2004
  23. Vienna Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    So who's gonna stop the Iranians from taking over the south anyway when all the troops have gone?

    Surely Iraq would welcome Iran and make their own coalition against the west. Or maybe Iran will just take over Iraq?

    We (Me & you) are a closer target for such missiles than the States - aren't we?
     

Share This Page