Skip to comments.US refused to kill 190 Taliban at funeral
Posted on 09/13/2006 6:13:58 AM PDT by pabianice
click here to read article
Bush does not write the rules of engagement in Afghanistan. And I'm certain nobody asked him for permission to hit that target.
We have so many scruples, it's ridiculous.
OK, we can't fire in a cemetery.
How about firing WHEN THEY LEAVE IT? ;-)
Seems like it would have been a good opportunity to demonstrate to taxpayers some military efficiency, as they could have killed them and buried them at the same time! Screw honor and integrety!
Didn't R.I.H. (versus R.I.P.) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi blow up a wedding ceremony in Jordan just last year? Yeah, they have honor...
That wasn't funeral, it was a Taliban strategy meeting using the funeral as cover.
The next one is scheduled at the baby milk factory.
I can't imagine why our intelligence assets aren't mentioned, and named... maybe no Democrat on the Intelligence Committees was available to comment before deadline.
I'm sure the omission will be corrected soon.
"we ought to leave him to the tender mercies of the Taliban and get our troops out of there."
And give up a strategic regional position in the ME? Why?
You are probably right about Bush not being aware of that "silver platter". But how about sacking that official who made that decision? Who was it? Military or political? They did it on the Abu-whatever prison, why not here?
When we killed tens of thousands of germans or japanese in a single raid it wasn't "collateral damage". It was done on purpose. It was total war, and civilians were targets.
Back then we fought to win. Today we don't and we won't.
Thanks WV Mountain Mama for the link, it's a nice reminder!
I think in Clinton's day, he would have gone ahead with the strike, but he would have had Madeline Not-So-Bright call the cemetary in advance to get all the women and children out of there first...
"War means fightin', and fightin' means killin'."
~Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA
First of all what decision? The American public (and especially Freepers) need to end this weird fantasy that when they read or hear something from our media it has any bearing on the truth. The first assumption when you see any MSM story should be "This story presents a partial or false picture designed to promote the specific agenda of the person or agency who wrote it." How many forged document, photoshopped photo, "Karl Rove leaked Plame's name", examples do we need before we stop instantly knee jerking ourselves into outrage everytime the MSM releases some anonymously sourced drivel about how screwed up the world is. Ok...off the soapbox
"Military or political?"
The military writes its rules of engagement after consulting with its own lawyers. The rules are based on laws and precedents. But they can flex with regard to the nature of the situation. This has been true since our military was formed. There are always rules and usually there are good reasons for them. Since nobody on this thread really has any idea what happened in this situation outside of some reporter's interpretation, it isn't even worth speculating what really happened here.
"...how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?"
Get a clue.
Can you imagine the world outcry had we gone in? The published "Rules of Engagement" prohibit this type of action. Bush would be put on trial as a war criminal in a minute.
Now, should we alter the RoE? You bet your sweet arse!
Well, I have a simple solution to this...Leave no witnesses. What funeral?
This is what the CIA was designed for.... That was probably a military drone and not a CIA drone or I think we'da had 190 dead talimaniacs.
Wonder if those were Hamas mourners and that was an Israeli armed drone what the end result would be..
I feel sorry to be you. As I understand it, you don't believe ANYTHING!
I wonder how many of our soldiers will have to die because we let these killers go when we could have easily wiped them out?
How many American wives, children, mothers and fathers will weep at the gravesides of their loved ones because of this abominable decision?
What kind of stupid assumption is that? I said I don't believe the MSM. If they are what your world revolves around I am very surprised you are an ex-democrat. As I said before, how many forged documents, photoshopped pictures and phony conspiracies do you need to read before you lose your faith in MSM reporting from "anonymous" sources?