If Najaf shrines are attacked, guess who the scapegoats are

[NightOwwl]

Why, the Iraqis of course. That's going to go over very well, don't you think?
*********
U.S. aims to contain militants in holy shrine
The Najaf offensive risked enraging Iraq's Shiite majority -- including those who do not support the uprising -- if it targets the shrine, where many of the insurgents have taken refuge. The shrine, the cemetery, and Najaf's Old City were cordoned off and any attack on them would be led by Iraqis -- some with minimal training -- to deflect anger.
*********
Deflect anger? I think not.

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5455104/

[Trajan]

1. Why am I reminded of ....

The Golden Temple at Amritsar ?? ...

[NightOwwl]

5. Hey, what are a few bodies and the destruction of a couple of

holy shrines? They were really old anyway. /sarcasm

[havocmom]

2. Damaged shrines will = more passionate combat against US troops

The term 'insurgents' really annoys and offends. If a foreign power invaded and occupied the US would those of us who took up arms against it be insurgents? I think not.

Media spin makes me nauseous

And all our troops will face more and more determined resistance if shrines are damaged. It will also serve to increase recruitment for radical Islamic groups and terrorist cells. Is this just one more episode of the malAdministration's shell games? Increased causalities to increase war fervor in the US? Damn stupid and damn criminal.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. assuming some things...

like we were there with a legitimate cause and with the backing of the majority of Iraqis (not saying that is the case...but just go with that assumption for the sake of argument), what would you suggest if the people we are fighting are holed up in a temple/shrine/mosque/church? And what if they are firing on us from there? What should we do then (please keep the previous assumption in mind)?

theProdigal

[Goldmund]

7. Why don't we make it more interesting?

And, say, the insurgents have a 10-megaton H-bomb in the mosque, on top of a missile ready to launch straight at NYC. What would you do then?

You know, for the sake of the argument.

[wtmusic]

10. holy shit, I didn't know

very scary. I think we should give Bush the benefit of the doubt. :silly:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. thanks for actually considering the question...

really, thanks...

theProdigal

[zbdent]

17. Aren't YOU forgetting something?

Like Bush's "tested" anti-missile defense system?

You know, the one where the "defenders" knew exactly when it was going to be launched, exactly where it was heading, the exact trajectory, the exact profile to look for, etc.? It only failed the first few times, but then they did get one good hit to trumpet about!

(okay, sarcasm off)

[frylock]

20. which child would you pick up first?

:shrug:

[NightOwwl]

8. Those shrines should be left untouched. Leave the people and

leave the city. We should not destroy their history.

Why are we there in the 1st place? Seriously. Did I forget something?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. thanks for considering the question

really...thanks

theProdigal

[wtmusic]

9. assuming we had the right to be there in the first place

and that al-Sadr doesn't have the right to defend his country from a foreign invasion, and that the reason we are there is to help the Iraqis, and Halliburton is entitled to vast profits for helping the Iraqi people, and...and...

assumptions are fun! :crazy:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. never mind actually answering...

thanks for you complete lack of consideration...

theProdigal

[wtmusic]

18. Don't take it personally

your assumptions are completely unrealistic, that's all.

Fantasyland.

[progressivejazz]

24. Why should I waste my time....

considering a situation that does not exist?

And your bullshit assumptions describe just such a situation.

[sushi]

4. The 'coalition' has done enough damage

Iraq is destroyed. Saddam is gone. The 'coalition' should leave before the whole country goes up in flames. Moqtada al-Sadr is an Iraqi. He belongs there. The coalition doesn't! Shame on them to hide behind the poorly-trained Iraqi forces. I loathe the Bush administration! He should be removed before he ruins everything for the American people.

[No Mandate Here.]

6. Isn't it Clinton's fault? (satire) <nt>

[NewJeffCT]

15. My thoughts exactly

Somehow, it always comes back to the Big Dog. He was also responsible for Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the USS Maine, the great Influenza pandemic of 1917 and the Russian Revolution, the fall of Chiang-Kai Shekh to the Communists in China, and more. Heck, if it wasn't for Bill Clinton, our society would be a Utopia today.

[No Mandate Here.]

27. Not to mention the

Fall of Washiington and the burning of the White House in 1814, George Washington's loss at Fort Necessity in 1754, and the imposition of a speed limit on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1942 (or whenever).

Also every single imposition on individual liberty ever known. Clearly, he's no Me first sort of guy.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Negroponte. Need I say more? Check this from MotherJones...

Remember when -- it seems eons ago -- the Coalition Provincial Authority was running things in Baghdad, and our man there was the desert-booted L. Paul Bremer? Either he or military spokesman Brig. Gen Mark Kimmett was in front of the cameras hourly, it seemed, making announcements about Iraq's fate. From Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz on down, in fact, the Pentagon hardliners and neocons, whose emissaries arrived in Baghdad ready to rule (and without any Iraqis except Ahmed Chalabi in tow), seemed to love nothing more than face-time in the media.

What the "turning over of sovereignty" at the end of June signaled was the arrival in Baghdad of a new regime from the State Department and the CIA. With new regimes, of course, come new styles and the new style of this desert-bootless one is no-face-time at all. Soft-spoken Ambassador John Negroponte, a man with much brutal counterinsurgency experience in his background, has simply faded into the woodwork, as has his huge staff, while they've put Iraqis forward to do all the talking. Try to remember the last piece you've seen about them or our military high command in Iraq. Try to remember the last piece you've seen in our media even speculating on their strategies, on what they intend in Iraq. It's a simple case of out of sight, out of media mind.



http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/08/08_516.html

[ProfLefty]

16. Over our Heads.

We are definitely in over our heads with this horribly unproductive, devastatingly expensive (in lives and dollars) and apparently unending occupation of Iraq. Destroying or even attacking the most revered mosque in the Shi'a religon will really endear us to a majority of Iraqi citizens not to mention millions of others around the world. This occupation is one careless, ill considered and unfortunate blunder after another. What is taking so long...hasn't "Dickless" Cheney secured enough of the Iraqi oil revenues for his Haliburton masters yet? It is time to leave...it is way past time for us to leave.

[CaTeacher]

19. Yes--we better not harm so much as

one stone at that holy mosque. It is no wonder Americans are resented throughout the world for their imperialistic and short-sighted foreign policy.

You are right "Dickless" Cheney is calling the shots. What a scary world this has become. (Great nickname for Cheney--he so obviously is over compensating for something....)

[Arbustosux]

21. Clinton? Kerry and Edwards??

those seem to be the usual suspects

[Red State Rebel]

22. A Building With Insurgents Shooting at American Soldiers

is just a target as far as I'm concerned. If it were such a holy place, the insurgents wouldn't have gone there to fight the battle.

Yes, I have family over there - 2 now and another going this fall.

[Junkdrawer]

23. Destroy the shrine and the entire region erupts...

Not a good scene for any of the troops there.

[vetwife]

25. Oh man..the consequences are mind boggling ! The Holy war full blown !

If they take down that Mosque, Oh God, we have had it ! Bush will
start WWIII and it won't just be Iraq. There are folks in that region with Nukes and guess where they will be aimed> What happend to his flavor of the week....Peace President?

[theboss]

28. Dogs and cats living together!! Mass hysteria!!!

I don't think we've had it if a mosque gets damaged.

I agree with the previous poster. If you use a holy site for military operations, it becomes just another target.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that we shouldn't be there in the first place. But I don't like the idea that if Canada invades Detroit and sets up sniper nests in Catholic Churces, no one can fire back.

[DrWeird]

31. Osama felt the same way about the WTC.

I'd say the mosque is about as legitimate a target.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. horseshit

pure and unadulterated horseshit. A center of commerce being compared to a place from where hostile fire is taking place...horseshit...as usual

theProdigal

[DrWeird]

34. Funny, there wasn't much hostile fire...

until the Americans attacked.

I'd say a financial center is just as legitimate a target as a place of worship. If Americans didn't want to get shot at they shouldn't have showed up, it's entirely the Americans' fault for this. It's like breaking into somebody's house in the middle of the night and then whining when he shoots you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. continued horseshit

funny...there wasn't much fire from the WTC either...America's fault...yeah...that's it...hate America first...

[DrWeird]

36. So if the people in the WTC had fired at the approach planes...

Osama would have every right to blow the thing up.

Hey, it's your fucked up logic.

"hate America first"

Bill O'Reilly? Is that you? Last I checked it was the Americans who invaded Iraq. Not the other way around.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. yep...those are the same things

you got it...should have known how smart you were...

And by the way, I agree with you on the invasion thing...we should not be there ... but we ARE there and our troops are taking fire...heaven forbid they should defend themselves...

[DrWeird]

38. Well if the nazis are in Warsaw...

And if they're taking fire, then they have every right to put that resistance down.

:eyes:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. actually yes

i don't like it either, but regardless of why you are there, if you are taking fire, the yes, you can shoot back...regardless of which side you are on...

theProdigal

And by the way, glad to see another Nazi comparison...just confirms more about you...

[DrWeird]

42. Good to see you justifiing nazi atrocities.

Just confirms more about you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

43. Nazis...yep...that's the US

i guess we'll get to killing 6million or so Arabs at some point in the future now that we've annexed Austria...keep those comaprisons coming...you obviously have done your homework...

Your (and other persons here) continual comparisons of our government to the Nazis is REALLY helpful to the Democratic Party cause...

[Red State Rebel]

45. The WTC was in the middle of a firefight? I missed that!!

What a ridiculous argument.

[NightOwwl]

26. Bush - in case you haven't noticed

you're being played like a fiddle. This is what they wanted asshole.

The terrorist are winning, all because of you buddy.

Was it worth getting Saddam's gun you big prick?

[Mari333]

29. Call your congressperson and tell them to end it now

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[Alpha Wolf]

30. Hypthetical for NightOwwl

What is the Iraqi government to do, with coalition help or not, if the insurgents are actually firing from within the Mosque as reported?

Just interested in this conundrum: Geneva convention rules state that individuals may take refuge in houses of worship. But what if they are taken aggressive actions from within a house of worship?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. i fear for your answer

prepare to be maligned as if you yourself were pulling the trigger...

theProdigal

[Junkdrawer]

40. The tone of half the posters on this thread has me thinking that...

Negroponte is really going to do it this time.

:scared:

[Tsiyu]

39. Geneva Convention

does not spare places of worship if they are being used as military bases. However, if we destroy this shrine, according to an expert on NPR this AM, America will pay for generations. It would be like blowing up the Vatican.

If you pray, please pray hard for our soldiers right now. Our already exhausted troops are being sent on another of AWOL's bloody missions. We cannot imagine what they are going through. I gave up on prayer, but I sure as hell am sending positive mojo to everyone in this horrific cesspool.

[NightOwwl]

44. We must not destroy these historical shrines.

It's like extinction...when the last of a species dies, a small part of our world dies with it. These building are part of our living history, and we should respect this.


The Barbary Lion killed by greed and selfishness.


The Sacred City of Najef? It's our choice.

As for what the Iraqi government should do, maybe Bush, the "War President", should get his butt off the campaign trail and figure it out himself. It is his job, right?