war......with hands tied behind the back....

[Professor]

fuck cultural sensitivity......when an opportunity presents itself, take it. this is some bullshit.

'MORAL' MESS OF A MISS

PENTAGON ADMITS WIMPING OUT ON TALIBAN AS
CONGRESS FUMES

By IAN BISHOP and GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondents
DEAD TO RIGHTS: More than 100 Taliban thugs were caught in this air drone photo at a funeral — and got a free pass.


September 14, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Afghanistan gave a free pass to more than 100 sitting-duck Taliban terrorists because the military has a "higher moral and ethical standard" than the enemy, which prevented it from striking during a funeral, officials admitted yesterday.
The U.S. Central Command in Afghanistan confirmed the Tuesday Post's bombshell front-page story detailing how an unmanned drone had the Taliban fighters in its cross hairs - but Army officers passed on the easy kill because the enemy was gathered in a cemetery.

"Acting on credible intelligence that this group were Taliban insurgents, coalition forces considered attacking this tactically viable enemy target," Central Command said in a statement.

"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day.

"A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.

"Coalition forces do not discuss rules of engagement. However, they hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies," the statement added, citing a recent Taliban suicide-bomber attack on the funeral of Afghan regional governor Abdul Hakim Taniwal.

A picture taken from the drone's video feed two months ago showed a large group of Taliban fighters, including several top leaders, presenting a juicy target for a missile strike as they stood in tight formation.

"That was frustrating. Those individuals lived to fight another day and potentially could cause harm to our soldiers," Army Lt. Colonel David Morrison told NBC in Afghanistan.

The lost opportunity had senior lawmakers up in arms over the failure of U.S. forces to wipe out the top Taliban targets.

"There's a whole series of things that you can't do when it is not a level playing field when you're dealing with terrorists," fumed Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former Marine and chairman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Joe Biden (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said, "I assume rules of engagement [mean] fire when ready."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a high-ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "I never heard of a cemetery shielding somebody under any circumstances."

Roberts said Congress "damn well better should" change U.S. engagement rules to enable American troops to fight on a level playing field with the brutal thugs, who use women, children and mosques as shields.

U.S. Army intelligence officers on the ground were ecstatic when they saw the Taliban group in the drone's cross hairs - but grew despondent when they were barred by the brass from wiping out the terrorists.

Duke law professor Scott Silliman, a retired senior Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps officer, said it was "garbage" that U.S. rules of engagement would prevent an attack on Taliban gathered in a cemetery.

"If you've got a Predator [drone] whose got a visual display that shows 200 Taliban and they are, in fact, gathering there - if they're Taliban, they are legitimate military targets," Silliman told The Post.

He added that said U.S. forces' reluctance to pull the trigger was not dictated by rules of engagement or the laws of war - but a high-level policy choice not to strike culturally sensitive targets.

The story of the lost attack opportunity, initially reported on an NBC News blog, created confusion within the Defense Department and allegations of a classified leak.

Initially, a military spokeswoman in Afghanistan said a probe was being launched into the unauthorized release of the drone's images - but a Pentagon spokesman later told reporters he was not aware of any official request to recall the photo.

ian.bishop@nypost.com

www.nypost.com

[weknowhowtolive]

I dunno dude...it would have been very easy during that christmas eve in WW1 for one side or the other to open up and destroy the other...or in the civil war for one side to say "sure go get your dead" and then open up....there's something fucked up about killing people at a funeral.

[Professor]

I dunno dude...it would have been very easy during that christmas eve in WW1 for one side or the other to open up and destroy the other...or in the civil war for one side to say "sure go get your dead" and then open up....there's something fucked up about killing people at a funeral.

there once was a time when war was fought civilly, or at least as civil as war can be.....people had honor and respect and wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from civillians, and lines of what is acceptable and what is not were drawn and observed. that time is long gone, my friend. i'm more and more of the belief that we need to let the kids in the sandbox loose to do what they do best. don't go targeting civillians, obviously, but if those civillians are in a spot where these chickenshit coward fucks are using them as shields and are dumb enough to stay, or don't rise up and remove them themselves, they deserve to get blown up. we need to make a point that we're done fucking around and playing nice. you want the troops home? let them do their job so they can get home quicker. christ.

besides, they're all in the cemetary, so they can just be buried where they fell.

[weknowhowtolive]

Agreed, but if that was turned around, we'd take three countries out.

[siobahn]

there once was a time when war was fought civilly, or at least as civil as war can be.....people had honor and respect and wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from civillians, and lines of what is acceptable and what is not were drawn and observed.i agree. fuck "a higher moral and ethical standard", everyone knows that they wouldn't think twice before dropping the bombs (and a lot more) if the situation was reversed.

Roberts said Congress "damn well better should" change U.S. engagement rules to enable American troops to fight on a level playing field with the brutal thugs, who use women, children and mosques as shields.anyone know exactly what he's talking about? i mean is there some sort of legislation or code of conduct which prevents them from doing so?

[Professor]

Agreed, but if that was turned around, we'd take three countries out.

if what was turned around? if we were hiding behind civillians? i don't follow.

[weknowhowtolive]

if what was turned around? if we were hiding behind civillians? i don't follow.

If someone bombed a funeral that was being attended by servicemen, firemen, police, fbi, whatever.

[Professor]

If someone bombed a funeral that was being attended by servicemen, firemen, police, fbi, whatever.

you're comparing taliban leaders to soldiers, police, firemen, and so on? i get your point, but come on man.......that's fucked up.

[weknowhowtolive]

you're comparing taliban leaders to soldiers, police, firemen, and so on? i get your point, but come on man.......that's fucked up.

nononononono im not comparing them, i just couldnt think of anything else...since they arent civilians.

[Professor]

nononononono im not comparing them, i just couldnt think of anything else...since they arent civilians.

that's the whole thing.....there is no comparison because this is an enemy nobody has ever faced before that doesn't play by the accepted rules of warfare. the rules have been re-written, but we're not allowed to play the game the new way.

and yes, i do see that if they were taken out at a funeral, some jerkoff over here may very well target a funeral, because they just don't fucking get it. that would be a terrible thing, and yes, a country would need to be taken out just to prove a point, even if that jerkoff was 'home-grown'.

[weknowhowtolive]

that's the whole thing.....there is no comparison because this is an enemy nobody has ever faced before that doesn't play by the accepted rules of warfare. the rules have been re-written, but we're not allowed to play the game the new way.

and yes, i do see that if they were taken out at a funeral, some jerkoff over here may very well target a funeral, because they just don't fucking get it. that would be a terrible thing, and yes, a country would need to be taken out just to prove a point, even if that jerkoff was 'home-grown'.

Ok agreed, i give. I guess i have too much of a consciance.

[Professor]

Ok agreed, i give. I guess i have too much of a consciance.

it's not about conscience...it's about self-preservation, and protecting our soldiers while we try and help the rest of these momos out of the dark ages.

[militarymite]

Our image in the world and how we are percieved carries great weight whether or not we will win the war on terror in the end. We (the US) are the ones being watched and quick to be blamed for anything immoral. In this case they watched and saw that we respected the rights of the Afgan soldiers to mourn and bury their dead. If we are truly fighting a war on terror then this should be judged a success not a failure. My question is why did'nt the unmanned drones follow them all a suitable distance away from the burial site and shoot them all which would have been acceptable?

[Professor]

Our image in the world and how we are percieved carries great weight whether or not we will win the war on terror in the end. We (the US) are the ones being watched and quick to be blamed for anything immoral. In this case they watched and saw that we respected the rights of the Afgan soldiers to mourn and bury their dead. If we are truly fighting a war on terror then this should be judged a success not a failure. My question is why did'nt the unmanned drones follow them all a suitable distance away from the burial site and shoot them all which would have been acceptable?

i see the point, and perhaps i should have made clear that that was my question all along. actually, my question is "why are these fucks still alive?'
granted, they probably would have scattered at some point, but the most certainly should have been tailed and blown the fuck up.

[LostinKS]

there once was a time when war was fought civilly, or at least as civil as war can be.....people had honor and respect and wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from civillians, and lines of what is acceptable and what is not were drawn and observed. that time is long gone, my friend. i'm more and more of the belief that we need to let the kids in the sandbox loose to do what they do best. don't go targeting civillians, obviously, but if those civillians are in a spot where these chickenshit coward fucks are using them as shields and are dumb enough to stay, or don't rise up and remove them themselves, they deserve to get blown up. we need to make a point that we're done fucking around and playing nice. you want the troops home? let them do their job so they can get home quicker. christ.

besides, they're all in the cemetary, so they can just be buried where they fell.

much agreed. if we could get our colective moral dick out of the grinder and play real hardball....we'd be outta here a fuck of a lot sooner. perhaps. or just cordon off this entire portion of the world and let the kids punch out their differences might be one insane alternative...


Our image in the world and how we are percieved carries great weight whether or not we will win the war on terror in the end. We (the US) are the ones being watched and quick to be blamed for anything immoral. In this case they watched and saw that we respected the rights of the Afgan soldiers to mourn and bury their dead. If we are truly fighting a war on terror then this should be judged a success not a failure. My question is why did'nt the unmanned drones follow them all a suitable distance away from the burial site and shoot them all which would have been acceptable?

our international image and people's considerations for us is already fucked...us taking out several haji's at a apparent funeral would just be another ail in the coffin (no pun intended) i agree with you that somehow the people there should have been able to be engaged...but you know how we gotta abide...basically we're not allowed to shoot until shot at isnt that how it goes? i mean hell...even if they were postively identified as taliban fighters or people of tactical importance....yeah it should have been able to engage them, or what we should have done, is if we had the data and the location where these fuckers were at, sent our boys in to take the ones we want....i cant give an answer for this situation tho. becuase again...ya'll are right...if them assholes saw any grouping of coalition forces, be it at a funeral a chow line a formation hell a fuckin public circle jerk, if they saw a soft target they'd engage and do what they could to prodce themost casualties....bastards.....

[Packratt]

When was war ever civil? When was the art of wrecking havoc and delivering terror by way of unconventional warfare not part and parcel of nation fighting nation?

In ancient times didn't armies raze fields, rape women, blind all men of fighting age, and pillage everything else?
In medieval times weren't the mutilated and disease ridden corpses of a besieged army's soldiers shot over the battlements to cause panic, fear, and death?
Didn't the colonists of America use unconventional tactics during the war of independence?
Didn't Germany gas people by the thousands durring WWI?
Didn't the Allies use terror to end WWII by nuking entire cities?

The list goes on and on and on.

Certainly, it seems that we have tried to make ourselves more civil by doing what makes civilization civil, we put rules in place to govern us and have extended that act to the normally uncivil act of war. Should we shove those rules aside and become the enemy we desire to destroy or should we show our mettle by standing by the principles of our civilization and honor what we proclaim we hold dear while battling those who have no civility or honor?

Are we suffering losses so horrible to the Talliban that we should now turn our backs on who we claim to be in order to kill a few dozen of their numbers? Are things really that dire?

I personally might not think so and would believe Americans are made of stronger stuff than that... But war has always been a game of savagery, not civility. To pretend that this fact has changed is stupidity.

[BleedForYourCause]

anyone know exactly what he's talking about? i mean is there some sort of legislation or code of conduct which prevents them from doing so?

Yeah, its called Rules of Engagement.

[Gut Check]

I dunno dude...it would have been very easy during that christmas eve in WW1 for one side or the other to open up and destroy the other...or in the civil war for one side to say "sure go get your dead" and then open up....there's something fucked up about killing people at a funeral.
It's a different situation, look at how we fought the Japanese during WWII.

[Tokyohoon]

much agreed. if we could get our colective moral dick out of the grinder and play real hardball....

That's the problem.

In WWI, WWII, even Korea, the war wasn't televised. News channels hungry for a morning lead piece didn't undermine their country and military for a sound bite and a ratings blip.

The initial ops in both Iraq wars were swift, dirty, and hard as fuck - and there were no reporters in the area. Now the media are in, and the military's hands are tied. The general public had no idea what went on in most of the operations in WWII, or US and Canadian forces would have probably been pulled back under political pressure. The American public had no idea that American forces in the Phillipines were committing atrocities in order to terrorise the Muslim insurgents of the time (Spanish-American war) into halting their attacks. Hell, the public of today with the coverage of today wouldn't have stood for even the opening salvoes of the Vietnam war.

Why couldn't they hit a funeral? In days gone by, with a guerilla insurgency, there wouldn't have been any hesitation. Now, it would be tomorrow morning's lead - and they wouldn't be saying congratulations.

CNN has got the leaders of NATO by the short and curlies - they fight a war the way wars are fought and WON, and they are out of office.

[King of all Buffets]

Sure lets bomb them at a funeral, I am sure we could spin it to say that there were 0 civillian casualties.....and when they turn around and do the same back to us, we can cry about them being barbaric animals without consciences.

I am not going to say that we shouldnt sink to their level because history has shown us that the west will do anything (imoral/illegal) if it helps to get the job done.

I say bomb the fuckers then get a team to spin it up nice for CNN so Joe lunchbox isnt complaining that "America is better then that"
(http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&hs=BFD&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=conscience&spell=1)

[weknowhowtolive]

It's a different situation, look at how we fought the Japanese during WWII.Agreed, but im not blindly patriotic enough to say that what we do or how we do it is always 100% correct or moral.

[LostinKS]

there ughta come a point where we no longer have to establsih the fact of who's right, who's wrong. the game that's bein played over here is a very off balanced game of chess with no clearly defined progresses bein made in the time that the people want....again fuck it all, lets play til we force them out into checkmate....we got the manpower and the talent, but were sapping away little here, little there...and exhausting resources in the process....eh....more lagter I gotta shit....

[LastRites]

Sure lets bomb them at a funeral, I am sure we could spin it to say that there were 0 civillian casualties.....and when they turn around and do the same back to us, we can cry about them being barbaric animals without consciences.

I am not going to say that we shouldnt sink to their level because history has shown us that the west will do anything (imoral/illegal) if it helps to get the job done.

I say bomb the fuckers then get a team to spin it up nice for CNN so Joe lunchbox isnt complaining that "America is better then that"

In other words...come down to their level and bomb the shit out of them....so they cant ever bomb us again.
We should just make some type of concentration camps aka Auschtwitz...that would solve the probelm.

[LostinKS]

In other words...come down to their level and bomb the shit out of them....so they cant ever bomb us again.
We should just make some type of concentration camps aka Auschtwitz...that would solve the probelm.

hhmmmmm....our final solution, meebee?

ha...I had to...just HAD to....

[LastRites]

hhmmmmm....our final solution, meebee?

ha...I had to...just HAD to....
Hehe.. just think about it...humane or not...problem solved for good.

[King of all Buffets]

In other words...come down to their level and bomb the shit out of them....so they cant ever bomb us again.
We should just make some type of concentration camps aka Auschtwitz...that would solve the probelm.

Dont we already operate at their level?.....havent we always? Listen i am all for doing what it takes to get the job done but lets at least be honest here and call a spade a spade.

[LostinKS]

Hehe.. just think about it...humane or not...problem solved for good.

dude. tough guys don't go ''hehe'' you can't be a tough wp boi and go ''hehe'' omg too much...too much....buuuuttt....bro you do touch on a idea...hell its even been touched on in media, that one damn movie with bruce willis,denzel, the dude from monk...wtf movie was that....new york, muslim terrorists yada yada...but the idea of an arabic detention camp was touched upon pretty well in that movie. now we imagine that in real life on our own soil....hell they just might deploy the un to the usa! ha...don't think thatd go over too well....

[King of all Buffets]

dude. tough guys don't go ''hehe'' you can't be a tough wp boi and go ''hehe'' omg too much...too much....buuuuttt....bro you do touch on a idea...hell its even been touched on in media, that one damn movie with bruce willis,denzel, the dude from monk...wtf movie was that....new york, muslim terrorists yada yada...but the idea of an arabic detention camp was touched upon pretty well in that movie. now we imagine that in real life on our own soil....hell they just might deploy the un to the usa! ha...don't think thatd go over too well....

It was called "The Siege"...It was a good movie and total Deja Vu to the state of the west today.

[BleedForYourCause]

In other words...come down to their level and bomb the shit out of them....so they cant ever bomb us again.
We should just make some type of concentration camps aka Auschtwitz...that would solve the probelm.

Well, if you listen to the media, Gitmo is a concentration camp in the vein of Auschtwitz...

[militarymite]

much agreed. if we could get our colective moral dick out of the grinder and play real hardball....we'd be outta here a fuck of a lot sooner. perhaps. or just cordon off this entire portion of the world and let the kids punch out their differences might be one insane alternative...


Our image in the world and how we are percieved carries great weight whether or not we will win the war on terror in the end. We (the US) are the ones being watched and quick to be blamed for anything immoral. In this case they watched and saw that we respected the rights of the Afgan soldiers to mourn and bury their dead. If we are truly fighting a war on terror then this should be judged a success not a failure. My question is why did'nt the unmanned drones follow them all a suitable distance away from the burial site and shoot them all which would have been acceptable?

our international image and people's considerations for us is already fucked...us taking out several haji's at a apparent funeral would just be another ail in the coffin (no pun intended) i agree with you that somehow the people there should have been able to be engaged...but you know how we gotta abide...basically we're not allowed to shoot until shot at isnt that how it goes? i mean hell...even if they were postively identified as taliban fighters or people of tactical importance....yeah it should have been able to engage them, or what we should have done, is if we had the data and the location where these fuckers were at, sent our boys in to take the ones we want....i cant give an answer for this situation tho. becuase again...ya'll are right...if them assholes saw any grouping of coalition forces, be it at a funeral a chow line a formation hell a fuckin public circle jerk, if they saw a soft target they'd engage and do what they could to prodce themost casualties....bastards.....
Thanks for the plagarism, I guess I should take that as a compliment that you thought enough of what I wrote to make it your own.

[Gut Check]

In other words...come down to their level and bomb the shit out of them....so they cant ever bomb us again.
We should just make some type of concentration camps aka Auschtwitz...that would solve the probelm.
For someone who's WP you sure come off as a hippie at times.:biggrin:

[siobahn]

... CNN has got the leaders of NATO by the short and curlies - they fight a war the way wars are fought and WON, and they are out of office.agreed 100000%. couldn't have said it better.

Sure lets bomb them at a funeral, I am sure we could spin it to say that there were 0 civillian casualties.....the article didn't say anything about civilians, and on the contrary implies that it was only taliban gathered there.
the enemy was gathered in a cemetery... the group was located on the grounds of cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day [why would civilains be around?]... A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents... U.S. forces' reluctance to pull the trigger was not dictated by rules of engagement or the laws of war - but a high-level policy choice not to strike culturally sensitive targets.
and as for killing them, it wouldn't be viewed as a evidence of being unethical or some such shit, but rather hailed as a huge victory. if you don't believe that, you need to start paying more attention to the military's PR tactics.

yes there is vast criticism, which should be countered by politicians taking a strong stance for american interests. the US has to destroy the infrastructure of al-quaeda, and that's it. no whining, no 2000 questions about the mistreatment of prisoners. iraq is a different story.. i believe the US should have to prove why they went in. but that still says nothing for day-to-day operations, which for the most part the media should back the fuck off from. they sensationalize the situation for ratings, people lap it up, and the next thing you know half the world is pussified into thinking it's ok to be proselytizing about "human rights" in the middle of a fucking war.

[shawn P]

I dunno dude...it would have been very easy during that christmas eve in WW1 for one side or the other to open up and destroy the other...or in the civil war for one side to say "sure go get your dead" and then open up....there's something fucked up about killing people at a funeral.
You think they, "the bad guys" would show the same restraint??
I know take the high road. Fuck that, there should be 100 less fucks to fight.

[Tokyohoon]

Dammit, there's the spin they needed....

"An unmanned drone was used today to strike at a gathering of Taliban insurgents. Initial estimates indicate that over one hundred insurgents were killed, with hundreds more bodies expected to be recovered."