what do you think about US rules about not attacking 150 Taliban at a funeral?

Question

in July, the news story that NBC broke this week

Answer 1

Because by attacking our enemies while they honor their dead would make us no better than they are. We should never stoop to that level.

Answer 2

I think those 150 Taliban are dead. The predator drone, although armed with missiles was there to find Taliban, not to kill them. Chances are there was a quick response team in the air or ready to go on the ground that was sent to the area and killed outside the cemetery. If anything the predator could have shot missiles as they left the cemetery. They defiantly are not still camped out at the cemetery.

As for the U.S. military, not killing people in a cemetary is not true. When going after a cleric in Iraq, they had a big fire fight in a cemetary.

Answer 3

Remember, we are never allowed to attack someone just because of what they believe (that's why stupid organizations like the KKK get to have rallies etc, even though they have committed crimes.)

The times we can do something about the Taliban are when they are fighting us in whatever form that is. But simply "being" taliban at a funeral would not have been enough - that's what the guy they harbored did to us, remember? Killed thousands of us for being Americans.

When we stoop to their level, we become no better than they are.

Answer 4

Because that would’ve been ‘mean’. It probably violated some ‘human rights’ groups policy. “Can’t kill the enemy if they’re sad”. (It was a funeral). If they’re dancing in the streets because they’ve just slaughtered 3000 innocent people, then and ONLY then can you send them a polite note (taking extra care not to hurt their feelings) informing them that you didn’t feel that was a nice thing to do, and to please stop. Make sure you follow up with flowers and a candy gram to or you will be prosecuted for torturing the innocent terrorists.

Answer to carpediem: Yes

Answer 5

If it weren't for the liberal news media reporting every little detail about our military operations to our enemies, we could have bombed the funeral and nobody would have known about it. This is what we would have done 50 years ago, but we didn't have "war correspondents" back then.

This whole Iraq thing would have been over in three months if the news media weren't broadvasting our every move to everyone on the globe. Now we're worried about how the terrorists feel while they're in prison. It's sick.

Answer 6

i think that it shows some compassion for mankind and that is an admirable quality. It shows a little spark that there may be hope for our future as a species on this planet. Was that the end of the world warmongers? Was that the ultimate test of the war marathon?

Answer 7

It was the right thing to do, morally, legally, and politically. Can you imagine how pisst off the UN would be if we slaughtered those guys? Personally, I think the Geneva Convention and LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) rules are fukkin gay. No one else follows the rules, and it's retarded that we have to. We should've paid guerillas to slaughter 'em.

Answer 8

It is the right thing to do. One of the rare moments during the Bush adminstrations war on islam that they have actually done the right thing.

Answer 9

I would have dropped a arsenal of bombs right in the middle of them. 150 is very many when you consider the thousands that the killed.

Answer 10

They should have blown them into a million pieces. They have no respect for their lives to begin with.