Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mo1

"They fail to mention that firing on a cemetery is against the military rule book of engagement"

I find it interesting that this story is coming out after the "Path to 9/11" movie - and using it as a counter-attack against our current administration and warriers (or at least the desk-bound officers).

I read a book about our Revolutionary War and one story (actually letters from the troops) told of how we shelled a group of British officers that were standing on a hill. We only wounded one I think. It was later found out that the officers were attending a funeral for one of their own. We sent the British a note apologizing for the firing as we didn't know that it was a funeral.

Of course later in the war Washington went into the enemy camp returning the British general's hunting dog that had got lost during the day's battle (and that Washington had recognized). After drinks and talking about their dogs the two parted company.

I understand that rules for warfare exist. I guess I sort of recognize that they need to be followed. But it would seem to me that when we KNOW the enemy will not follow the "rules" - then we need to make our standards a bit less lofty.


71 posted on 09/13/2006 9:52:48 PM PDT by geopyg (If the carrot doesn't work, use the stick. Don't wish for peace, pray for Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: geopyg
I find it interesting that this story is coming out after the "Path to 9/11" movie - and using it as a counter-attack against our current administration and warriers (or at least the desk-bound officers).

Yea .. the timing of this is noted

Though the difference with this and during Clinton's term is Bin Laden wasn't in a cemetery and there weren't rules of engagement violation

I understand that rules for warfare exist. I guess I sort of recognize that they need to be followed. But it would seem to me that when we KNOW the enemy will not follow the "rules" - then we need to make our standards a bit less lofty.

I don't disagree.. this is a new kind of war we are fighting ... but the rules need to be changed .. otherwise it will be the Soldiers who will end up before military Court with the likes of Murtha trying them in the press

75 posted on 09/13/2006 10:18:06 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: geopyg
just an FYI ... Fox & Friends just reported that this drone was not armed with a missile
76 posted on 09/14/2006 5:48:35 AM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: geopyg

>>Of course later in the war Washington went into the enemy camp returning the British general's hunting dog that had got lost during the day's battle (and that Washington had recognized). After drinks and talking about their dogs the two parted company.
<<

The British General wasn't fighting to win the war, or he would have arrested General Washington. No wonder the British lost.

That was about as bright as letting the insurgents go.


91 posted on 09/14/2006 8:15:54 PM PDT by SerpentDove (It's not rocket surgery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson