If you want more of a clue you should see Belmont Club's blog:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
"It now seems clear that Sadr overestimated the degree of protection which the necropolis and its proximity to the shrine afforded him. Yet the shrine itself cannot be so lightly trespassed. It is protected by a boundary civilized men hesitate to cross. In an irony that Sam Harris would appreciate, sanctity, though it be of the Christian Church of the Nativity, has become an object that can always be pressed into service to shield Islamic fundamentalists though it provides none for those they would slay. That becomes the danger itself; for the shameless abuses of Sadr and similar thugs inevitably cheapen and corrode the very restraints upon which civilization depends; that distinguish the civilian from the combatant; the church from the battlefield."

Btw, a scholar was discussing this topic on CSPAN. It was interesting. From the terrorist/islamic fundementalist wackjob perspective, there is nothing immoral about fighting from a mosque- these guys want to literally follow what Muhammad did and during his time there sometimes were miltary activity in places of worship [such as miltary training and arms storage in mosques]. So in this twisted viewpoint, it's actually more proper involving mosques in warfare. This only applies to these Islamic fundementalists- "normal" followers of Islam think it's immoral as does most "normal" followers of other faiths. In fact, the fact that they are using mosques is a kind of proof that they are terrorists/islamic fundementalist wackjobs- 99% of rest of Islamic population wouldn't do this.