Skip to comments.US refused to kill 190 Taliban at funeral
Posted on 09/13/2006 6:13:58 AM PDT by pabianice
Haven't seen this posted yet. Fox is reporting that recently one of our UAVs filmed in live time a Taliban funeral in Afghanistan at which 190 Taliban leaders were shown lined-up in ranks. Fox is showing the photo and reporting that US policy forbids the killing of Taliban in cemetaries and thus the US watched the funeral but took no action to kill the 190 murderers attending. If this is true -- tough question here -- how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?
You can ask if Bush is doing enough, but you can't seriously ask if Bush is no different from Clinton, can you?
This is stupid. Almost hard to believe...
If US policy is to forswear attacks in cemeteries, then obviously the terrorists will hold all future meetings around an open grave.
Gee it seems like I just saw a similar situation in a movie over the weekend.
Bill on the other hand, has no other guide but "what's good for me".
The difference is actually pretty clear even if you don't like the occasional similarity in the results.
The comparison this story tries to mak is ridculous on ite surface.
This same POS who is trying to make this comparison would be the first to call President Bush a monster if he had bombed that funeral.
Now whay they didnt wait and bomb them on the way home is another question.
Obviously, ROE is a liberal idea and what beats all is the liberals themselves will politicize this even though they would do much less then just not shoot... No in fact they would warn them that we were going to shoot that spot in a half hour from now.... Damned if you do damned if you don't...
They pointed out that also just recently the terrorists had BOMBED a funeral being held by the good guys in Afghanistan. I know your statement was facetious, but no, they would not grant us the same treatment. They don't care where we are they want to kidnap us, kill us, mutilate us, and throw our bodies in the street.
It said they scattered quick and there was no way to get a good shot at them.
We'll keep treading down this "kinder, gentler" road of PC war until we've reached the brink of defeat...maybe not even then.
I honestly can't get my mind around how we came to this. I know that it is the left and their "ideals" that brought us to where we are, but I can't understand how we allowed it to happen. Incrementalism, I suppose. I don't believe we can "increment" our way back, either.
Think of em as Orcs.
I can understand your disappointment, but clearly there is no comparison.
I was being sarcastic. They also cry torture when a dog barks at them and they have underwear on their heads. Meanwhile they kidnap 2 of our soldiers, torture them in the most hideous of ways and nothing is done, and of coures the media barely touches it. Meanwhile our soldiers are in jail and abu ghraib was the lead story for weeks on the news broadcasts. I was looking for some of their names when Bush was recently handing out pardons. Maybe next round...
Clinton was not prevented by from taking Osama because of 'rules of engagement'; but rather, Osama, despite being offered to Clinton, 'on a platter'. . .was insead saved by Clinton's fear; as an already 'engaged' President declined the opportunity. And for sure. . . Monica was just more 'pressing. . .
U.S. Military, OTOH. . .could not bomb the Taliban; because it would be a 'war crime' - prohibited because of Military's 'Rules of Engagement'.
Imagine the Dems howl over that one. . .would they say 'i m p e a c h m e n t'. . .faster than we can print it.P> And sure, why not change them. . .and sure. . .why not have 'real' prisons in Gitmo? Or why not call them 'terrorists' instead of criminals. . .or can we even say. ..Islamo Fascists. . .the list goes on.
. . .as does the nasty politics of war - right here at home.
I suspect that a funeral would include women, children, etc. It is a tempting target, but the bad publicity, collateral damage might be worse that the benefit to taking out the bad guys.