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?

[sheik yerbouty]

I would have thought that a cemetary would be a good place to send the vermin to "Allah". It cuts out the middle man..

[Constitution Day]

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

That's a great historical parallel.

[ChadGore]

Re: brink of defeat. . .I don't believe we can come back.

1) Afghanistan was a military victory in 2002.
2) Iraq was a military victory in 2003.
3) They are both part of the War On Terror.

Do you think the above facts are a good thing?

[GingisK]

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

There are "Rules of Engagement". Following them is simply "taking the high road".

Don't you get a bit angry when Islamic bastards kill people at weddings and funerals? Well, we don't do the same thing because we are "taking the high road".

[right way right]

This could be a "trial Ballon " type of revelation that would lead to the recinding of the rule perhaps or maybe I am having a wishful thought.

[tobyhill]

It's from the Geneva Convention and the USSC ruled that enemy combatants are protected under those rules. The person who would have authorized the strike would have been court marshaled and convicted because it is clearly noted in the rules of engagement about targeting ceremonial events including funerals.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

SCREW THE HIGH ROAD!

Your "fashionable" sentiments are going to get a lot of coalition soliders killed! Just the same as the people who ordered these Taliban murderers to go free are going to get a lot of our soldiers killed!

Please! ... the high road. ROFL!

[coloradan]

Just how many civilians do you think you're going to kill at a Taliban funeral? The living are Taliban, the nearby innocent civilians elsewhere in the cemetary are already dead.

[liberty_lvr]

The upside is that, once fully backed into a corner and survival is at stake, we will finally fore go such niceties we now have the luxury of observing. When annihilation is the end game, we will finally fight to win.

The downside is that, until we reach that point, we will continue to send our finest young Americans into the shredder for little or no gain.

I believe that is what drives most folk's frustration over episodes like these.

[Sender]

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.

Amen brother. I look for future Taliban meetings to be held at "weddings", we have seen how the press treats that one.

[stuartcr]

Similar results, with two different means...sounds relative.

[coloradan]

They don't follow the Geneva convention, why should they be protected by the same document that they don't respect?

[Mister Da]

By not bombing these terrorists, Bush & Co. are complicit in any future deaths these animals cause. It is likely that one of the funeral attendees will commit a heinous crime in the future, & our pols & the MSM will scream about why Bush didn't kill them when we had the chance. Seems like his legacy wont be much better than his predecessor's.

If this is the way Bush & Co. are gonna fight this war, then I say give the muzzies Europe in exchange for leaving the USA alone.

Makes you wonder if Bush is fighting to win, or just prolonging the fight to manipulate the American people. LBJ would be proud.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

A friend just told me that Colonel North said that this was a klintoon holdover rule

Excuse me. I hate Clinton a whole lot more than the average person. But the Clinton administration had absolutely zero to do with writing the ROE for Afghanistan and Iraq which take place almost a year after they left office.

[Rummenigge]

That's why we fight them. We have moral standards we can live with - they don't.

If we don't play by our rules - why fight people willing to bring our rules down ?

[sachem longrifle]

I do think we are fighting a politically correct war, overall. This will change over time

[tobyhill]

As long as there is the likes of Murtha in our Government we will never fight to win. The liberal Kumbaya hippies have destroyed America and any ability we have to win a war.

[coloradan]

The person who would have authorized the strike would have been court marshaled and convicted because it is clearly noted in the rules of engagement about targeting ceremonial events including funerals.

Come to think of it, soldiers are willing to face enemy bullets with grave consequences to their lives. Are there any who are willing to face court martial? I would honor someone who killed 190 senior Taliban, and no innocents, and spent life in prison for the effort. If I were president, I would pardon him.

[WV Mountain Mama]

Forgive me for being a mean, evil person, but I am not sympathetic towards the wives and children of taliban. The women will just make more islamofascists and the children will grow up to make IED's or be homicide bombers.

And why is it that we would get bad publicity from taking out the enemy, and yet homicide bombers get a brief mention in the news but the victims' grieving families and children are never shown? Iraqi army recruits are blown to bits nearly every day, and I have yet to see our journalists doing stories on their brave families or the recruits themselves, who were trying to grab democracy by the horns and trying to make their country a better place?!?!

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Who'd they call for advice on this one, Berger?