US refused to kill 190 Taliban at funeral

Fox News | 9/13/06

[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?

[lormand]

This is the same constraint put on our Judiciary by the "civil libertarians" when it comes to criminals like the mob. Whenever the mob wants to have a meeting, they go to the doctor or a funeral because they will not be monitored.

[tobyhill]

If Bin Laden had been in an ambulance, ceremonial event, funeral or grave-site then you are correct that Clinton couldn't target him but he wasn't.

[Diggler]

See sig.

[Gordongekko909]

Hey, not only does acting like this make Al Qaeda like us, but it also puts us in Europe's good graces.

[TheCipher]

If we had droped a daisy cutter on them, nobody would have known there WAS a funeral.

[Jeff Gordon]

The UAV was probably under control of the CIA not the US military. These are the same guys who now have to buy insurance in case they get sued by a terrorist.

[SQUIDMACK]

It is because we don't have the right to run around killing terrorist twice. Once is good tactics twice is just mean.[/sarcasm] Once bitten twice shy?

[TheCipher]

droped ++> dropped

[lionheart 247365]

When they burry US they will say how politically correct and humane we were . . .

[Moose4]

Sorry, but if there's 190 Taliban gathered there, out in the wide open? Hose them down with a couple of AC-130s and then drop some GBUs to see how far the body parts bounce.

In World War II we gutted the hearts of some of Europe's greatest and oldest cities and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians as collateral damage. We killed a hundred and thirty thousand in Tokyo and made a million and a half homeless IN ONE NIGHT. War is a nasty, unpleasant, horrible business. But when it is fought, it must be fought to win, and that means civilians will unavoidably die.

}:-)4

[epluribus_2]

This is pure head game ops. The taliban killed a governor at a funeral last week. This report, which may be BS, is to show that we are the good guys. IMHO we should not even try but it is what it is.

[tobyhill]

The terrorist play our system against us like pros but then we have Rats that actually praise the fact they can. Your sig is right on.

[LibLieSlayer]

"how is Bush any better than Clinton regarding the war on terror?"

A friend just told me that Colonel North said that this was a klintoon holdover rule... Bush will sign orders rescinding this rule.!

LLS

[GBA]

I believe that both God and allah know that we are better than the Taliban and this is but one of the many ways we show just how much better we are.

[Jewels1091]

If there is a law against it, then I ask why? When was this law passed and you passed it? The drone was unarmed anyway so could take no action.

[AngryJawa]

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.

I don't doubt that this is indeed the case. But these animals are always going to hide in the presence of innocents. Even when we pick them off one-by-one, we get the sob stories about collateral damage.

We need to have the courage to do what needs to be done to win this war as soom as possible. Taking a media hit in exchange for 190 tangos in a time of war should be a no-brainer.

[Reily]

To all
The practicalities are we need "moderates" in the Islamic world to help us fight the WOT. (Whether there are REAL "moderates" in the Muslim world is another discussion!) We need their access, societal understanding etc. We also need their bodies out their taking the risks and getting killed. For both domestic political reasons & for international political reasons. If Muslims soldiers & policemen participate & die in the WOT, then it isn't a us -vs-them war (Puts a lie to the notion is Islam against Christianity! Again this may really be the case BUT thats another discussion!). It's the world's war, be they Muslim, Christian, Buddhist etc. The domestic political reasons are obvious. I am sure the "rules-of-engagement" were set up maximize concern for Muslim sensitivities regarding attacking religious rites like funerals. I am sure Bush & the JCS's were advised this was vitally important. (Maybe the ad visors are right.) Muslims can of course attack each other with utter disdain & with no regard to religious rites etc. However they are attacking each other as equals (yes there are sects that hate each other!). We are infidels therefore not an equal so I imagine thats much worse, drives the moderates toward the radicals. This is what I think the regarding the rules-of-engagement. I don't know if its actually sensible or not.
Its indicative of a plan, which is better then what the Democrats have. Ignoring it & hoping it goes away is not a plan !

[cripplecreek]

The bombing of Monte Cassino comes to mind. Christian Monastary or not, that's where the nazis were and we took them out.

[Lurking in Kansas]

This is why we will lose.

[ksen]

But just think of cost savings that were lost.....I mean...they were already at the cemetery!