You are talking of legal justification, not moral justification. This
is not a response to my arguments of morality.
Christiaan
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:38 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
Christiaan Briggs stated for the record:
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:17 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
you are ignoring nearly a century of
international law declaring the
exact opposite of what you think.
I'm hardly ignoring it, I started my
sentence with it. I'm certainly
disputing its morality however. If you'd like to respond to my
argument you're welcome.
I -- or rather, the signatories of the Hague Convention of 1907 --
have already responded to your argument. To repeat: mosques, like all
other religious edifices, are to be spared by any attacker "provided
they are not being used at the time for military purposes." The
moment the Iraqis -- however noble their cause -- took weapons into
their mosque the Americans -- however despicable their cause -- became
justified in attacking it. The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal has
no bearing on this principle.