View Full Version : Taliban Funeral Targetting
Monsoon65
09-13-2006, 16:49
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/afghan_taliban_photo
I don't even know what to say about this.
The Reaper
09-13-2006, 17:36
It would appear to be insane, but remember the wedding party that was hit?
All it takes is for the Taliban to show up for the funeral with their families and if we strike, the MSM has their anti-US news for two weeks.
Frankly, it makes me wonder why we did not anticpate this and swoop in with an armed reception committee about 30 seconds after they finish shoveling. Then we could sort out the good from the bad and send more people to Gitmo after we vacuum their brains.
TR
That article just shows that we (the military) can never do anything right by the media! If there is big group of US-hating Taliban and we don't bomb them we are incompetent...if we do bomb them and it in a "Holy" site we are bad guys. I say we should bombed the hell of them as they were already at the cemetery (no transportation issues to worry about), taken the bad press (we're going to get it way or the other), and have the world less a bunch of Tally-Bans!
Another point that gets my goat is these damn "un-named Military Officers” that keep flappin’ their pie-holes to reporters that only want to make us look stupid later, as always is the case when they are “not identified”. My rule is, “Don’t talk to freaking reporters, ever!” Send ‘em to PAO!
incommin
09-13-2006, 18:01
It makes as much sense as some of the rules we had in Vietnam.....No fire zones, free fire zones, no fire during daylight-free fire at night and having to get permission to return fire under some circumstances. Politics on the battlefield!
Monsoon65
09-13-2006, 18:39
It would appear to be insane, but remember the wedding party that was hit?
All it takes is for the Taliban to show up for the funeral with their families and if we strike, the MSM has their anti-US news for two weeks.
Frankly, it makes me wonder why we did not anticpate this and swoop in with an armed reception committee about 30 seconds after they finish shoveling. Then we could sort out the good from the bad and send more people to Gitmo after we vacuum their brains.
TR
I was thinking about just schwacking them as soon as they stepped out the front gate of the graveyard.
More info with pictures!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823099/
Bravo1-3
09-14-2006, 01:45
It would appear to be insane, but remember the wedding party that was hit?
All it takes is for the Taliban to show up for the funeral with their families and if we strike, the MSM has their anti-US news for two weeks.
Frankly, it makes me wonder why we did not anticpate this and swoop in with an armed reception committee about 30 seconds after they finish shoveling. Then we could sort out the good from the bad and send more people to Gitmo after we vacuum their brains.
TR
I hear what you're saying sir, but all the same: Now they're using this as ammo. It would have been better to have dropped a few thousand pounds of TNT on them. The military and administration would still get flak over it, but at least there would have been a hundred dead Taliban.
Also, now that it's public that we're not going to be hitting Taliban funerals, I think we've given them a propaganda weapon to use against us later. Every group of Talibans we bomb will have suddenly been involved in some funeral rite and we'll be the bad guys for violating our own ROE's.
Also, since when do we not wage war in cemeteries? Did we not blow the crap out the insurgents in the Najaf cemetery a year or two ago? Is this an Afghanistan only ROE?
Maybe that group contained an asset in it and the tactical comander put the safety on to preserve and information source? Maybe we could not get an aircraft there in time? Hope the ROE's were not the reason.
BMT (RIP)
09-14-2006, 06:54
Get the F_ing JAG out of the TOC. :munchin
BMT
Get the F_ing JAG out of the TOC.
100% Agree
NousDefionsDoc
09-14-2006, 17:23
Get the F_ing JAG out of the TOC. :munchin
BMT
Here! Here!
or is it
Hear! Hear!
This is your SF JAG speaking.
- JAG's belong in the TOC.
- They are the commander's immediate source of battlefield law.
- They don't make the shoot-don't shoot decision, the commander does.
- And any good commander will have no problem whatsoever making that clear to his JAG staff if they don't know it.
This looks to me like a C.A.R.V.E. evaluation was made, and probably with the knowledge that a Pred can't carry what was really needed (a few PGM's in the 500 - 1,000 lb class) a COMMANDER, not a JAG, made the decision to hold fire. And later he could release the photo and maybe score some propaganda points.
deanwells
09-15-2006, 23:42
Or it could be a weak commander in conjunction with a pushy career threatening JAG right behind him. No offense meant to any of the JAGS who frequent this site unless the shoe fits.
Just my thoughts on the matter. I don't think that loss of rapport would have been a major issue if we had dropped whatever ordinance we had. Some insurgents gone is way better than none. In case anyone didn't notice, Insurgent ranks are swelling at a phenominal rate worldwide.
Basenshukai
09-16-2006, 21:44
Maybe that group contained an asset in it and the tactical comander put the safety on to preserve and information source? Maybe we could not get an aircraft there in time? Hope the ROE's were not the reason.
No. That was not the case.
This is a mixture of several things. But, I can't get into it.
My opinion is that we could have hit it. That's all that can be said; there is far more that meets the eye, however.