NationStates Jolt Archive

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/military-declined-to-bomb-group-of/20060913233809990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001

There they are, all packed together.

And you know what? The US military declined to bomb them, because they figured out that it was a funeral at a cemetary.

Just when you though the US military was killing people wholesale, 365 days a year MCLMM.

Military Declined to Bomb Group of Taliban at Funeral
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, AP

WASHINGTON (Sept. 14) - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.

The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.

NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.

"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," the statement said. "A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."

Smart move, although they could've gotten 100 Taliban, by doing this, it would've probably created enough of a backlash, that 1000 new Taliban would've taken their place.

How the hell is anyone supposed to win a war while playing by rules like "don't bomb a funeral full of enemy troops"?

How the hell is anyone supposed to win a war while playing by rules like "don't bomb a funeral full of enemy troops"?

Ahem. A lot of people don't want us to win.

Yeah, restraint is never a bad idea - in moderation. ... and I'm not about to argue there's too much restraint on the part of teh US in Afghanistan.

Ahem. A lot of people don't want us to win.

So the war grinds on and on and the nation of Afghanistan can't rebuild and modernize. War has gotten so much more humane.

Smart move, although they could've gotten 100 Taliban, by doing this, it would've probably created enough of a backlash, that 1000 new Taliban would've taken their place.

Instead, they have the original, experienced 100, knowing that all they have to do is shoot at things from a cemetery to avoid retaliation.

So the war grinds on and on and the nation of Afghanistan can't rebuild and modernize. War has gotten so much more humane.

And micromanaged. Now that everything is "netcentric warfare", the live video feed from a Predator drone is fed directly to the Pentagon, where they second-guess every decision in committee.

Shoulda dasiy-cuttered their asses.

Shoulda dasiy-cuttered their asses.

I'm waiting for someone to say that Bush isn't tough enough on the Taliban.

If we had bombed them, the same people would probably get up and say Bush is committing atrocities.

How the hell is anyone supposed to win a war while playing by rules like "don't bomb a funeral full of enemy troops"?

Oh yeah, that's why the US keeps repearedly losing wars. You know, I think advanced intelligence gathering techniques, massive logistical advantage and technological superiority can make up for a few humanitarian restraints here and there, no?

So the war grinds on and on and the nation of Afghanistan can't rebuild and modernize. War has gotten so much more humane.

theres a shame:rolleyes:

If they would have bombed it, it would have give the GHF people the right to bomb US soldiers funerals(in their eyes).

And you know what? The US military declined to bomb them, because they figured out that it was a funeral at a cemetary.

Just when you though the US military was killing people wholesale, 365 days a year MCLMM.

Saw that earlier today on the CNNj broadcast of AC 360*, with the mention of a Taliban suicide bombing of a funeral.

*AC 360 - to my ears that sounds more like the next gen aerial gunship rather than a news show... Too much grounding in the militaria from long ago... ;)

Oh yeah, that's why the US keeps repearedly losing wars. You know, I think advanced intelligence gathering techniques, massive logistical advantage and technological superiority can make up for a few humanitarian restraints here and there, no?

No. Afghanistan is dragging on longer than WWII. Iraq, though it's a dumb war and should never have been started, is also showing no signs of being resolved any time soon.

Daisy Cutter? Pfft. The Predator in question already had an anti-armor Hellfire missile or two on it; given how closely they were packed together, it probably would have taken them all out anyway.

I really don't think we've benefitted in any way by not bombing them. The enemy we're facing is so damn determined, it would seem that nothing we do actually gets through to them.

If we're nice and friendly-like, they think we're weak and plot our vulnerabilities.

If we get in their faces and blow the crap out of them, they make a media goatf*ck and their numbers swell.

How the hell do you fight this sort of enemy?

If they would have bombed it, it would have give the GHF people the right to bomb US soldiers funerals(in their eyes).

The Taliban already bombs funerals, albeit not of US soldiers.

How the hell is anyone supposed to win a war while playing by rules like "don't bomb a funeral full of enemy troops"?

We'd catch alot of flak from whiny european nations. Plus, it would probably anger people in other non-extremist muslim nations and cause them to sympathize with the extremists. War is too "civilized" now.

No. Afghanistan is dragging on longer than WWII.

September 1939 -> August 1945 = 6 years.

Are you suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan happened in 2000?

The Taliban already bombs funerals, albeit not of US soldiers.

Not saying the taliban are right for doing so, but really, two wrongs don't make a right. No instead they make a bunch of ticked off new terrorists.

Smart move, although they could've gotten 100 Taliban, by doing this, it would've probably created enough of a backlash, that 1000 new Taliban would've taken their place.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support that statement?

This is a common myth:

1) Enemy attacks us.

2) We devastate the enemy.

3) In response, more people join the enemy we just devastated.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this actually happens on any measurable scale. It sounds like just another excuse for inaction.

I'm waiting for someone to say that Bush isn't tough enough on the Taliban.

He isn't. Should still have 70,000 troops there. If we did, we wouldn't have to make choices like whether or not to bomb a funeral. But there's Iraq...

Do you have a shred of evidence to support that statement?

This is a common myth:

1) Enemy attacks us.

2) We devastate the enemy.

3) In response, more people join the enemy we just devastated.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this actually happens on any measurable scale. It sounds like just another excuse for inaction.

Have you been watching the news in the last 5 years?

He isn't. Should still have 70,000 troops there. If we did, we wouldn't have to make choices like whether or not to bomb a funeral. But there's Iraq...

Maybe we should have been rougher when we first went into Afghanistan, and pursued them into Pakistan.

September 1939 -> August 1945 = 6 years.

Are you suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan happened in 2000?

My bad. Let's say US involvement in WWII.

September 1939 -> August 1945 = 6 years.

Are you suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan happened in 2000?

For the U.S. Dec. 1941 -> August 1945. About 3 1/2 years.

Have you been watching the news in the last 5 years?

Seriously. I am sure the war on terror is actually like the war on drugs, making more of the people they want to get rid of. Thats why its impossible to fight a world wide ideology.

Have you been watching the news in the last 5 years?

Are you saying that if the US would only leave them alone, and give them whatever they want, all this will stop?

Really?

That worked SOOO well on 9/11.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support that statement?

This is a common myth:

1) Enemy attacks us.

2) We devastate the enemy.

3) In response, more people join the enemy we just devastated.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this actually happens on any measurable scale. It sounds like just another excuse for inaction.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2006 – Five years after military recruiting hit the ceiling after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, recruiting remains solid, with every service meeting its active-duty recruiting goal for the 15th consecutive month.

The US Department of Defense seems to have fallen for this myth. I guess they just miscounted the number of new recruits, huh?

For the U.S. Dec. 1941 -> August 1945. About 3 1/2 years.

WWII existed prior to the US involvement.

Maybe we should have been rougher when we first went into Afghanistan, and pursued them into Pakistan.

We were plenty rough when we first went in. It was a great job and it's tragic that Afghanistan isn't the success it looked like it would be just two years ago. But we decided that we needed to go attack someone else so we took out a whole bunch of troops... the rest, as they say, is history.

We were plenty rough when we first went in. It was a great job and it's tragic that Afghanistan isn't the success it looked like it would be just two years ago. But we decided that we needed to go attack someone else so we took out a whole bunch of troops... the rest, as they say, is history.

I still think it was stupid not to invade Pakistan at the time.

Maybe we should have been rougher when we first went into Afghanistan, and pursued them into Pakistan.

So you are suggesting we invaded two nations at once? That would have been cute.

Are you saying that if the US would only leave them alone, and give them whatever they want, all this will stop?

Really?

That worked SOOO well on 9/11.

No, I'm disputing NMs asertation that there is no evidence that the USs actions in the middle east are acting as a recruiting drive for terrorist organisations.

But you already knew that didn't you and you're just trying to score a cheap point.

WWII existed prior to the US involvement.

I understand that or I wouldn't have pointed out the difference. The point is that the length of our involvement is somewhat of a barometer for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My bad. Let's say US involvement in WWII.

No problem. I won't even be pedantic and make mention of the US Navy escorts given to the North Atlantic convoys and their associated losses prior to declaration of war.

No, I'm disputing NMs asertation that there is no evidence that the USs actions in the middle east are acting as a recruiting drive for terrorist organisations.

But you already knew that didn't you and you're just trying to score a cheap point.

It probably does help the recruiting drive, but not to the extent that most believe. I would bet a fair number of people realize that it means an early death if you become a jihadi.

The madrassas are the engine that drive the recruitment. Shut those down, and the engine is going to have trouble with fuel.

No problem. I won't even be pedantic and make mention of the US Navy escorts given to the North Atlantic convoys and their associated losses prior to declaration of war.

Thanks for not being pedantic.

I still think it was stupid not to invade Pakistan at the time.

You really think the US could have pulled that off? Invading two large nations, one of which is a nuclear power?

You're more delusional than I thought :)

It probably does help the recruiting drive, but not to the extent that most believe. I would bet a fair number of people realize that it means an early death if you become a jihadi.

The madrassas are the engine that drive the recruitment. Shut those down, and the engine is going to have trouble with fuel.

But our good buddies, the Saudis, fund those madrassas.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

And micromanaged. Now that everything is "netcentric warfare", the live video feed from a Predator drone is fed directly to the Pentagon, where they second-guess every decision in committee.

They should give the drones to veterans, under command of veterans. Imagine Eutrusca, joystick in hand, piloting his drone over the sands of Afghanistan while he sits on a porch, drinking lemonade. One screen shows the feed from his drone, another shows the face of his CO, who also sits on a porch somewhere in Retirement, USA.

You really think the US could have pulled that off? Invading two large nations, one of which is a nuclear power?

You're more delusional than I thought :)

The nuclear factor is the only real complication. The US military is designed to be able to wipe out most other conventional military forces with ease even if outnumbered.

You really think the US could have pulled that off? Invading two large nations, one of which is a nuclear power?

You're more delusional than I thought :)

1. If we're going to invade a country "because it has WMD" it makes sense to invade one where EVERYONE knows they have WMD. Gee, that's Pakistan, isn't it?

2. I'm sure that surgical strikes by stealth bombers with conventional weapons could reduce the small Pakistani nuclear arsenal to zero overnight.

3. If you're going to be stuck fighting an insurgency for 20 years, get stuck where you're going to find Bin Laden, not in some other country.

Afghanistan wouldn't be as much trouble now if we had immediately pursued the Taliban across the border into Pakistan, where they get their main support.

The problem with this rule is that if it was me I would be holding all my meetings on Graveyard property knowing that I couldn't be attacked there.
So how do we know that the they aren't doing this very thing?

The problem with this rule is that if it was me I would be holding all my meetings on Graveyard property knowing that I couldn't be attacked there.
So how do we know that the they aren't doing this very thing?

Yeah, or meeting and stockpiling weapons in mosques, or using ambulances to move people and weapons. That sort of thing has been done before by Islamists elsewhere in the world. I'm sure we'll see similar things in Afghanistan sooner or later.

The nuclear factor is the only real complication. The US military is designed to be able to wipe out most other conventional military forces with ease even if outnumbered.

And they probably could have done, but then you get to the sticky point of being able to hold what you've taken and that is where the US falls down, it simply doesn't have the man power to hold both of those countries. The aftermath would make the current insergency in Iraq and Afghanistan look like an afternoon paintballing with your friends.

The problem with this rule that if it was me I would be holding all my meetings on Graveyard property knowing that I couldn't be attacked there.
So how do we know that the they aren't doing this very thing?

There's a video of an AC-130 attack on a small built-up area, and you can hear the crew and commander deliberately NOT fire on the mosque.

They kill every other vehicle, person, and building in the area, including chasing down individuals with 105mm cannon fire.

It's why insurgents hold meetings in mosques, store weapons in mosques, etc. Now a graveyard will do.

The British had the same problem with mosques in Aden. And held fire on mosques to avoid upsetting people.

At the battle of Crater, the British solved the problem of mosques with a plethora of snipers. Who shot everyone who walked into or out of a mosque carrying anything resembling a rifle.

And they probably could have done, but then you get to the sticky point of being able to hold what you've taken and that is where the US falls down, it simply doesn't have the man power to hold both of those countries. The aftermath would make the current insergency in Iraq look like an afternoon paintballing with your friends.

Only because the US military shies away from doing things like bombing funerals. I firmly believe that if we choose to make war horrible again it will become possible to eliminate insurgencies.

I firmly believe that if we choose to make war horrible again it will become possible to eliminate insurgencies.

Are you suggesting that war is currently not horrible?

Are you suggesting that war is currently not horrible?

Not as horrible as it used to be.

When we take cities, for example, although infrastructure is targeted, the majority of the civilian population is spared.

Quite unlike WWI, or the Mongol invasions.

If we were to do what the Mongols did, with modern weapons, there wouldn't be an insurgency.

A lot of other nations would be extremely frightened of the US, but I'm not sure they would really care as long as we stopped soon after.

Are you suggesting that war is currently not horrible?

Not horrible enough. Where are the shortages leading to famine in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where are the cities like Dresden and Tokyo consumed in flames?

Only because the US military shies away from doing things like bombing funerals. I firmly believe that if we choose to make war horrible again it will become possible to eliminate insurgencies.

You mean like the nazis did during the second world war? I mean they were evil to anyone who even looked at them funny in the countries they occupied and that would explain why there were no resistances in those countries.....oh wait..

Not horrible enough.

Well I guess we could go back to the days of crucifying people, or maybe even throwing them in ovens. -shrugs- sounds cruel enough to me.

You mean like the nazis did during the second world war? I mean they were evil to anyone who even looked at them funny in the countries they occupied and that would explain why there were no resistances in those countries.....oh wait..

Historical fact:

The French Resistance was NON-EXISTENT until coordinated, initially led, and supplied in full by the Special Operations Executive of the UK.

I'm waiting for someone to say that Bush isn't tough enough on the Taliban.

Within 6 months of 9/11 Bush by his damnable own admissions didn't give a flying eff about the Taliban or the 9/11 culprits, and was off on his ill advised lark in Iraq That bit of idiocy will likely go down in history alongside Pearl harbor and Barbarossa...

Am i the only person glad to hear they had the decency and respect to not bomb them.

Historical fact:

The French Resistance was NON-EXISTENT until coordinated, initially led, and supplied in full by the Special Operations Executive of the UK.

And I suppose the resistances in all the other occupied countries are just a figment of my imagination as well?

Within 6 months of 9/11 Bush by his damnable own admissions didn't give a flying eff about the Taliban or the 9/11 culprits, and was off on his ill advised lark in Iraq That bit of idiocy will likely go down in history alongside Pearl harbor and Barbarossa...

So, should we have bombed the graveyard full of Taliban?

You mean like the nazis did during the second world war? I mean they were evil to anyone who even looked at them funny in the countries they occupied and that would explain why there were no resistances in those countries.....oh wait..

And like the allies did in the same war. Where was the German or Japanese resistence?

And like the allies did in the same war.

Let's not forget "Bomber" Harris.

We certainly didnt gain the Taliban's respect or instill any fear in them by not obliterating this funeral.
More likely, if and when they learn how they were spared, they will laugh at our inaction and plan to exploit this weakness in the future.

Were we right not to incinerate mourners? I dont know- some days I think there should be sacred things that arent desecrated no matter what-other days I want all that oppose us reduced to ash as quickly as possible. And their friends too.

Do we gain any respect from our critics for not dropping a few hellfires on mournring enemies? No- of course not. They'll remain blaise and say there were other reasons we didnt do it, there is some conspriracy and blah, blah blah.
A lot of talk, which is the only way the weak can lash out.

You can be absolutely certain though- If the Taliban ever had any chance to bomb, machine gun or otherwise molest any sort of American funeral, memorial or other sacred assembly, they would take that chance without hesitation and gleefully take full responsibilty for it.

And the rest of the world would shrug and say we had it coming.

And like the allies did in the same war.

Exactly, proving my point that fighting nasty will not stamp out insurgency.

So, should we have bombed the graveyard full of Taliban?


You don't bomb places like that. wait until they leave the graveyard and then bomb them. Not when they are holding a stinkng funeral.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/military-declined-to-bomb-group-of/20060913233809990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001

There they are, all packed together.

And you know what? The US military declined to bomb them, because they figured out that it was a funeral at a cemetary.

Just when you though the US military was killing people wholesale, 365 days a year MCLMM.
Kinda handy for the other side to be able to have a safe haven or a timeout whenever they need it. Just like tag, huh? Base! ...

Exactly, proving my point that fighting nasty will not stamp out insurgency.

Right because the demoralized populations of Germany and Japan put up a hell of an insurgency, oh, wait, no they didin't.

Am i the only person glad to hear they had the decency and respect to not bomb them.

No i am glad too.

No i am glad too.

I'm fine with it as long as someone doesn't come along and say "oh Bush is soft on the Taliban".

Right because the demoralized populations of Germany and Japan put up a hell of an insurgency, oh, wait, no they didin't.

well i think they gave up because they ran out of soldiers. but you see, with terrorists, they can be made from anywhere, anyone, anytime. Unlike ww2, it is not withheld to a group of people in a certain boundry.

Awww... common... a few more deaths won't hurt anyone... right? :rolleyes:

Right because the demoralized populations of Germany and Japan put up a hell of an insurgency, oh, wait, no they didin't.

Werewolves excepted.

You mean like the nazis did during the second world war? I mean they were evil to anyone who even looked at them funny in the countries they occupied and that would explain why there were no resistances in those countries.....oh wait..

The Nazis loved living in France.

You don't bomb places like that. wait until they leave the graveyard and then bomb them. Not when they are holding a stinkng funeral.

Why the hell not? Do you think the Taliban gives a damn about where they attack us next? It's either war or it isn't. War means attacking your enemies when and where you find them. Obviously, we are playing at something else in SWA. One thing I'll guarantee is that the other side isn't confused about what tactics are acceptable.

Right because the demoralized populations of Germany and Japan put up a hell of an insurgency, oh, wait, no they didin't.

The population of Germany didn't continue the fight because the majority of the population no longer believed in the ideals of nazism. The majority never did.

In Japan they were ordered not to continue the fight by the Emperor, their god on earth who knew that the only way for him to survive was to ensure the good behaviour of his people.

well i think they gave up because they ran out of soldiers. but you see, with terrorists, they can be made from anywhere, anyone, anytime. Unlike ww2, it is not withheld to a group of people in a certain boundry.

Um, the Japanese were training kids who were barely old enough to stand to fight an insurgency against US troops if we invaded. It was the fact that we showed the ability and the will to nuke two of their cities that made them submit.

Werewolves excepted.

They didnt really keep the end of the bargain as they promised.

So, should we have bombed the graveyard full of Taliban?

Your reply RE the Brits in Aden answers that. Apply forces as needed. Hold the moral high ground by not attacking mosques or funerals, but snipe the hell out of them on there way out.

If we'd had the forces available, istead of going off into the Iraq stupidity...

They didnt really keep the end of the bargain as they promised.

Possibly, but at least in the West of Germany any victories of insurgents against occupation forces could conceivably trigger transfer of control of the region to the USSR. Lesser of two evils?

Why the hell not? Do you think the Taliban gives a damn about where they attack us next? It's either war or it isn't. War means attacking your enemies when and where you find them. Obviously, we are playing at something else in SWA. One thing I'll guarantee is that the other side isn't confused about what tactics are acceptable.

Sure we could bomb the funeral but it sounds like a great way to win more sympathy for the Taliban.

The point is simple, you don't win when occupying a country, if you can't win the hearts of the people. So how is it winning the hearts of the people when the next day newspaper headlins would have read "Us bombs funeral at "x" cemetary"?

It was the fact that we showed the ability and the will to nuke two of their cities that made them submit.

..aside form the fact that they appear to have tried for a negotiated peace before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it seems to have become lost in red tape when they tried to route it through the Soviet Union.

Sure we could bomb the funeral but it sounds like a great way to win more sympathy for the Taliban.
I don't think it would happen. The Taliban isn't well-loved to begin with. It doesn't matter much, though, I'm not in a position to change the ROE.

I'm gonna risk and say the REAL reason they didn't bomb the funeral was.....*drums* not enough civilians at the scene.:p

Do any of you have a working knowledge of how the military operates, aside from what the media spoon-feeds you? We have something called ROE, or Rules of Engagement (NOT the movie).
Everyone who enters the service goes through basic training, and during basic taining we are taught the Geneva Convention ROE.
In a nutshell:

1. Military may not intentionally fire upon any place of worship or hospital.

2. Both sides cannot use said places for anything other than as a place of worship and a place of medicine ONLY

3. Should, say, one side stockpile weapons in either building, said building loses it's protection and it is legal to fire upon (if said fire is used porportionally according to technology available)
(This is exremely summarized and is no where near the full version. I just can't find my BMT handbook for quick reference)

[A good example is that during the first Gulf War, Saddam parked some of his fighter jets near mosques and hospitals, trying to prevent them from being fired upon.
I don't remember if they were spared or no.]

The funeral wasn't used for conducting any military operations, but had they done so, the US military would've had the full legal right to attack, even though that would've drawn ridiculous amounts of critisim from all over.

I don't think it would happen. The Taliban isn't well-loved to begin with. It doesn't matter much, though, I'm not in a position to change the ROE.

True, let me rephrase. The people in Afghanistan may turn against the U.S. if we show we are willing to bomb funerals.

Do any of you have a working knowledge of how the military operates, aside from what the media spoon-feeds you? We have something called ROE, or Rules of Engagement (NOT the movie).
Everyone who enters the service goes through basic training, and during basic taining we are taught the Geneva Convention ROE.
In a nutshell:

1. Military may not intentionally fire upon any place of worship or hospital.

2. Both sides cannot use said places for anything other than as a place of worship and a place of medicine ONLY

3. Should, say, one side stockpile weapons in either building, said building loses it's protection and it is legal to fire upon (if said fire is used porportionally according to technology available)
(This is exremely summarized and is no where near the full version. I just can't find my BMT handbook for quick reference)

[A good example is that during the first Gulf War, Saddam parked some of his fighter jets near mosques and hospitals, trying to prevent them from being fired upon.
I don't remember if they were spared or no.]

The funeral wasn't used for conducting any military operations, but had they done so, the US military would've had the full legal right to attack, even though that would've drawn ridiculous amounts of critisim from all over.

Exactly so. As I suggested above, having the forces in country to track and kill the Talibs after the funeral would have been ideal.
Siphoning the needed forces into the preparation for an un-necessary and ill advised war was akin to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the German Operation Barbarossa - stupid, wasteful, and detrimental to the real war effort.

I'm waiting for someone to say that Bush isn't tough enough on the Taliban.


I have always maintained that Bush was not tough at all on the taliban. Otherwise he would have never allowed Kunduz airlift to happen. That single event contributed so much for the taliban resurgence that we are seeing today.

Bush's anti-terrorism policies are just a front for PNAC. This is what I have concluded.

He has no interest in actually fighting and reducing/eliminating islamist terror threat as a whole. He continuously preaches that everybody should be against all islamist terrorists (as in when certain EU countries don't think that they should be bothered by the jihadis who are more anti-US) but he fails to stand by his words by ignoring the terrorism concerns of other states when it comes to states supported by his administration (KSA and Pak, for ex).

The same ol' "Do as we say, not as we do" hypocrisy.

True, let me rephrase. The people in Afghanistan may turn against the U.S. if we show we are willing to bomb funerals.

Remember how we were consumed with the opinion of the "Arab Street" before any of this began? The much revered street opinion hasn't really changed much. I just don't think killing a couple hundred Taliban at a funeral or in a mosque is going to change the opinion of those that live there. Those that hate us will continue to do so, those that don't probably hate the Taliban enough that desecration of a religious area isn't all that bad considering the outcome.

Remember how we were consumed with the opinion of the "Arab Street" before any of this began? The much revered street opinion hasn't really changed much. I just don't think killing a couple hundred Taliban at a funeral or in a mosque is going to change the opinion of those that live there. Those that hate us will continue to do so, those that don't probably hate the Taliban enough that desecration of a religious area isn't all that bad considering the outcome.

The ROE appears to not allow this so I guess the point is moot anyway.

We can't be obsessed on how others think of us but it has to be a part of any military planning we make.

Besides, not attacking a funeral or other religious ceremony is what seperates us from terrorists.

The ROE appears to not allow this so I guess the point is moot anyway.

We can't be obsessed on how others think of us but it has to be a part of any military planning we make.

Besides, not attacking a funeral or other religious ceremony is what seperates us from terrorists.

Thank goodness you didn't say "mute". :)

We may want to hold the so-called moral high ground. I'm not sure that really exists in a war. It certainly doesn't exist at the point of impact of my bombs, and I don't think it exists at the point where a bullet terminates it's flight. It's not there on the originating end, either. But if we are going to pretend to be compassionate about the way we wage war, we had better start getting used to losing. Losing a lot. If the enemy can just call time out when he needs it, and time in when he's ready again, then we don't have much of a chance of beating him.

He isn't. Should still have 70,000 troops there. If we did, we wouldn't have to make choices like whether or not to bomb a funeral. But there's Iraq...


Only the US never had 70,000 troops there to begin with. The terrain of Afghanistan makes large forces of conventional troops undesirable. The Soviets had way more than that and look how they fared.

Only the US never had 70,000 troops there to begin with. The terrain of Afghanistan makes large forces of conventional troops undesirable. The Soviets had way more than that and look how they fared.

Actually, the Soviets problem was that they had too few troops. The technological gap between the afghani insurgents and the Soviets was much smaller than the current situations. There were no UAV's to keep everwatching eyes in the sky. They only spotted the enemy after an ambush. This meant that the only way to take the fight to the enemy was to launch large offensives which drew forces from other areas. The areas the forces were taken from then became the new insurgent stronghold. If they had more troops they wouldn't have had to draw down certain areas and might have been able to be more successful.

Besides, not attacking a funeral or other religious ceremony is what seperates us from terrorists.

Despite Nietzche's warning, too many people (and armchair generals especially) today are all too willing to be monsters in order to hunt them down. The second we start bombing funerals and other religious ceremonies- as if we haven't shot up a few weddings to begin with- terrorist attacks like Beirut and Khobar Towers will seem legitimate military strategies in short order.

Despite Nietzche's warning, too many people (and armchair generals especially) today are all too willing to be monsters in order to hunt them down. The second we start bombing funerals and other religious ceremonies- as if we haven't shot up a few weddings to begin with- terrorist attacks like Beirut and Khobar Towers will seem legitimate military strategies in short order.

Yeah, thats the bitch with being a superpower, you got all the power you'll ever need but you have to use it responsibly

Yeah, thats the bitch with being a superpower, you got all the power you'll ever need but you have to use it responsibly

Yet under Dear Leader so far, it's turned out that Peter Griffin instead of Peter Parker got bit by that spider.

Ahem. A lot of people don't want us to win.
The Taliban are running the US military?

Do you have a shred of evidence to support that statement?

This is a common myth:

1) Enemy attacks us.

2) We devastate the enemy.

3) In response, more people join the enemy we just devastated.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this actually happens on any measurable scale. It sounds like just another excuse for inaction.
The continued existence of Islamist terrorism is evidence enough. It also makes logical sense.

If a foreign power is killing your people, damn right you'll feel like fighting them.

Are you saying that if the US would only leave them alone, and give them whatever they want, all this will stop?

Really?

That worked SOOO well on 9/11.
There are actually other choices than "kill 'em all" or "surrender to them". It is odd that someone who claims to "consider all hypotheticals" can't see that.

WWII existed prior to the US involvement.
In that case it went on for eight years. It started in 1937. Europe got involved two years later (really, three years later... very little fighting happened between Sept and December 1939).

I still think it was stupid not to invade Pakistan at the time.
Pakistan has
a) 150 million people who wouldn't need much of an excuse to attack Americans, for either religious or nationalist reasons
b) a very good military
c) the bomb
d) an alliance with the US

If we were to do what the Mongols did, with modern weapons, there wouldn't be an insurgency.
Or people.

Not horrible enough. Where are the shortages leading to famine in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where are the cities like Dresden and Tokyo consumed in flames?
Fallujah!

terrorist attacks like Beirut and Khobar Towers will seem legitimate military strategies in short order.
Beirut (assuming you're talking about the 1983 attack on American and French troops) was a legitimate target. They were military.

It was wrong (as killing people usually is) but it was legal.

Erm... Fallujah is not only still standing, but I believe the insurgents have moved back in and returned to business as usual.

I don't think we'll ever have the opportunity to completely annihilate an entire city again. Pity.

In that case it went on for eight years. It started in 1937. Europe got involved two years later (really, three years later... very little fighting happened between Sept and December 1939).

Possibly, but it was only refered to as WWII by those experiencing it from 1939 onwards.

Describing the invasion of Poland and Finland as 'very little fighting' only makes sense in the context of comparing them to the conflagration that was to come.

More than 100 taliban insurgents in one cemetary!!? Fuck the rules! We've killed 40 people in an Iraqi wedding, why not 100+ in a Afghani funeral?!? Sure, there must've been like twice that in women and children in there (well, if I know anything about funerals), but so what? End the war already. Nobody likes us anyway.

More than 100 taliban insurgents in one cemetary!!? Fuck the rules! We've killed 40 people in an Iraqi wedding, why not 100+ in a Afghani funeral?!? Sure, there must've been like twice that in women and children in there (well, if I know anything about funerals), but so what? End the war already. Nobody likes us anyway.

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/00/05/20060914080509990007

...nope, just insurgents. This one would've been a clean kill, too...

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/00/05/20060914080509990007

...nope, just insurgents. This one would've been a clean kill, too...Ok, thanks. If our military tells us that's 100+ talebans in a cemetary, I'll surely believe them.

...It just looks suspiciously similar to that picture I took of my toy soldiers with my cell phone's vga camera...

I was under the impression we had these cool satellites with very accurate cameras and all. I want the money I paid for taxes back now, please.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/military-declined-to-bomb-group-of/20060913233809990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001

There they are, all packed together.

And you know what? The US military declined to bomb them, because they figured out that it was a funeral at a cemetary.

Just when you though the US military was killing people wholesale, 365 days a year MCLMM.

I'd have bombed them.

Ok, thanks. If our military tells us that's 100+ talebans in a cemetary, I'll surely believe them.

...It just looks suspiciously similar to that picture I took of my toy soldiers with my cell phone's vga camera...

I was under the impression we had these cool satellites with very accurate cameras and all. I want the money I paid for taxes back now, please.

You work for the military now? Good, because then you know exactly what you're talking about.

Or it could be (as was mentioned MUCH earlier in the article) that th picture was taken with a UAV. Last I saw, long-distance visual survielliance systems arn't going to come up like your Kodak EasyShare taking pictures of your family reunion.

Satellites, yeah, we just spent millions of dollars to change the directory to keep an eye on 100 insurgents attending a funeral. A UAV, or even JSTARS isn't a better alternative.


Check your facts next time you try to pull something out of your rear.

You work for the military now? Good, because then you know exactly what you're talking about. I said I was... where?

Or it could be (as was mentioned MUCH earlier in the article) that th picture was taken with a UAV. Last I saw, long-distance visual survielliance systems arn't going to come up like your Kodak EasyShare taking pictures of your family reunion.

Satellites, yeah, we just spent millions of dollars to change the directory to keep an eye on 100 insurgents attending a funeral. A UAV, or even JSTARS isn't a better alternative.Very informative.


Check your facts next time you try to pull something out of your rear.Facts? What are you on about? I suggest you read my post again and try to acquire a funnybone.

I said I was... where?

Very informative.


Facts? What are you on about? I suggest you read my post again and try to acquire a funnybone.

Sorry, I just tend to get a little offended when someone mocks my job. I suggest you not.

Sorry, I just tend to get a little offended when someone mocks my job. I suggest you not.
Hey, you have the right to be offended, i guess. You can't, with a straight face, claim that picture isn't of piss poor quality though, can you? I mean if THAT ended up in your desk and the question was: "shall we bomb these talebans in a cemetary here", what would YOU say?

Hey, you have the right to be offended, i guess. You can't, with a straight face, claim that picture isn't of piss poor quality though, can you? I mean if THAT ended up in your desk and the question was: "shall we bomb these talebans in a cemetary here", what would YOU say?

"Taliban", btw.


I would say, "how about a look at the other images our other surviellience systems brought us, because we have a lot more than you know about with classifications higher than your security level".

"Taliban", btw.


I would say, "how about a look at the other images our other surviellience systems brought us, because we have a lot more than you know about with classifications higher than your security level".
*taliban*, ok, I wrote that down. Thanks.

You completely missed the point, didn't you?

*taliban*, ok, I wrote that down. Thanks.

You completely missed the point, didn't you?

I think YOU missed the point. I would explain my point, but I'm not really comfortable in jeopardizing my service in the military. My advise: try reading.

If the taliban had the chance to blow up a few US generals at a funeral, they would.

We follow the rules, and the Taliban doesn't.

but you know what? that's what makes us better than them

We are fighting because we believe that this world will be a better place when people like them are gone.

But if we start breaking our own rules and the rules of civilized culture, then we've lost as surely as if they had killed every last one of us.

Do you know why?

Because if we torture their people and desecrate their graves in order to defeat them, then when the smoke clears, you'll see a world that's full of horrible, uncivilized people: just like it was at the beginning of the war.

Except that this time, it'll be us

If the taliban had the chance to blow up a few US generals at a funeral, they would.

And they certainly have (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/12/bomber_kills_6_at_funeral_in_afghanistan/).

KABUL, Afghanistan -- In a further assault on the embattled Afghan government, a suicide bomber killed six people yesterday at the funeral of a provincial governor who was assassinated by the Taliban. Four senior Cabinet ministers escaped injury.


I'm not so sure these 'rules' don't exist because we are simply too squeamish to act. I'm mean, since when have there been time-outs in modern warfare. We aren't talking about the days of King Arthur and his knights, you know.


We follow the rules, and the Taliban doesn't.

but you know what? that's what makes us better than them

We are fighting because we believe that this world will be a better place when people like them are gone.

But if we start breaking our own rules and the rules of civilized culture, then we've lost as surely as if they had killed every last one of us.

Do you know why?

Because if we torture their people and desecrate their graves in order to defeat them, then when the smoke clears, you'll see a world that's full of horrible, uncivilized people: just like it was at the beginning of the war.

Except that this time, it'll be us

I'm waiting for someone to say that Bush isn't tough enough on the Taliban.

If we had bombed them, the same people would probably get up and say Bush is committing atrocities.

That's because you're thinking in conservative terms of party allegience above all else. Liberals are more concerned with policy than with who executes it. It is only in the few cases of a politician who seeks to save his career by doing one symbolic piece of political work that contradicts the rest of his career that we get antsy.

I hate Bush, but not bombing a funeral is the right move because as someone else pointed out, if you bomb a hundred mourners, you create a thousand more. And how exactly is it we know that the attendees are terrorists? I'm pretty sure that knowing what they do about our operating habits, if there was supposed to be a large gathering of Taliban members that's the last place I'd be if I were a member.

And they certainly have (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/12/bomber_kills_6_at_funeral_in_afghanistan/).


I'm not so sure these 'rules' don't exist because we are simply too squeamish to act. I'm mean, since when have there been time-outs in modern warfare. We aren't talking about the days of King Arthur and his knights, you know.

Wasn't there a case of German and Allied troops taking Christmas day off in WWI?

Wasn't there a case of German and Allied troops taking Christmas day off in WWI?

Apparently they played football in no-mans-land. I don't know if it's true but if it is I bet the germans were diving :D

Wasn't there a case of German and Allied troops taking Christmas day off in WWI?

Once. It ended with the British officers shooting soldiers on the other side to get the troops interested in fighting again.

Truces for holidays are nothing new. My gripe is that the Islamists seem to have a safe spot to run without the need for a negotiated truce. They just go to the nearest mosque and hang out until they're ready to fight again. There are some things a soldier shouldn't do to his enemy --- mutilating the dead is one thing I can think of -- but that's a practical consideration, one doesn't want to be treated like that either. This enemy doesn't have any concept of the golden rule, so I don't know why we keep giving them safe havens.

Apparently they played football in no-mans-land. I don't know if it's true but if it is I bet the germans were diving :D

I heard there were more yellow cards than in the last World Cup.

Once. It ended with the British officers shooting soldiers on the other side to get the troops interested in fighting again.

Truces for holidays are nothing new. My gripe is that the Islamists seem to have a safe spot to run without the need for a negotiated truce. They just go to the nearest mosque and hang out until they're ready to fight again. There are some things a soldier shouldn't do to his enemy --- mutilating the dead is one thing I can think of -- but that's a practical consideration, one doesn't want to be treated like that either. This enemy doesn't have any concept of the golden rule, so I don't know why we keep giving them safe havens.
If only we were fighting a conventional army that adhired to the rules.


Wait, terrorists? What?! No way.

Apparently they played football in no-mans-land. I don't know if it's true but if it is I bet the germans were diving :D

Indeed. I've seen a couple of the footballs. One is on display at the Royal Fusiliers Museum at the Tower of London. I don't recall where, but I know I've seen another one.

In some places the truce lasted for days. There was genuine worry on both sides that if it continued for awhile that they'd be hard pressed to get the troops fighting again.