About the news stories on the Iraqis storing weapons in mosques....

[Sara Beverley]

If the US was invaded and occupied by a foreign nation that was killing our women and children and destroying our homes and buildings and infrastructure, wouldn't we arm ourselves, fight back, use our churches to hide our resistence and store our weapons? It was done all over Europe during the WWI and WWII. So why must we now think that actions so natural and desparate by occupied Iraqis is something so terrible? You would be surprised at what is stored in some churches in the US and we aren't even under attack by anyone. Yes, the insurgents (I prefer resistence fighters) were launching attacks from mosques against our soldiers but where else where they going to fight from? We have destroyed most other buildings and nothing was off limits to the invading US military, so why should the resistence be limited? This is war damn it!! It was unnecessary, illegal, and based on lies. WE ARE OCCUPIERS! Anything goes. I would fight any way I could if my family were under attack and most of you out there would too. The hypocrisy of the US is maddening!

[ermoore]

1. Missed point.

Yeah, totally. But the reason that this gets headlines is that we tried to be religiously sensitive (or whatever) and keep the mosques out of it. You'll perhaps (probably not) recall no small amount of outrage over some damaged mosques hit early in the war . . .

[Javaman]

2. But it appears to be open season on them now. What changed?

It's because they are Sunni Mosques and not Shi'ite mosques, that's the difference. Mr. Sistani would piss nails if a Shi'ite mosque was hit, but since now the US army is doing the dirty work for him, he could give a flying fuck about the Sunni or their mosques.

[ermoore]

3. Nah,

I think it has a little more to do with that's where the insurgents (and their arms) are hiding and we're not playin' around anymore. I think in the beginning we were willing to overlook some of it, but not anymore.

[Igel]

4. Even in Najaf ...

the US/Iraqis were going to go into the shrine of Ali. But it was going to be Shi'ite Iraqis that entered the building. Meaningless detail to Americans, (allegedly) crucial for Iraqis.

Al-Sadr must have realized that would be a different kettle of fish. The press reports that specify who's been going into the Fallujan and Baghdadi mosques say it's the Iraqis that go in, the US usually stays outside. Even the 3 or however many killed in the raid by "US/Iraqi" troops last week at Hanifa were, in detailed accounts, killed by the Iraqis. Real pieces of work.

I think it also matters that while many Fallujan mosques were historic, they weren't the most holy sites for Sunnis. The shrines Sadr occupied in Najaf were at the top of the specifically Shi'a holiness scale (leaving out the pan-Muslim sites). Oh, and while some media were around to cover the assault, those reporters were also being shot at from the mosques.

Of course, you can't ignore the fact that al-Sistani would have been pissed, too.

[Javaman]

5. Sistani has been really quiet and..

The people protesting the election are predominantly Sunni. The Shi'ites are pressing hard for the elections.
Alawi will be appointed, excuse me, elected and Sistani will be the new Ayatollah for Iraq.
I still maintain, that the Shi'ite authorities are looking the other way as the US attack and invade the various Sunni mosques.
This was such a giant deal a few months ago shi'ite mosques, now it's being treated as something that has to be done.
I recall Sistani saying something to the effect that he would call for a fatwa against the US if they attacked and entered a Shi'ite mosque. So the US sent in Iraqi forces and everyone was happy.
Now the US is attacking and entering Sunni mosques and now everyone is okay with that???? What gives?
It's just more bullshit from the shi'ite alawi(cia)& sistani in their power grab to squash and quell the sunni voice.