Article

2006-09-13 Afghanistan

'Rules of Engagement' prevent US from killing hundreds of Taliban at Funeral

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-13 12:27|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Jags who wrote this rule should be boiled in oil.

Posted by 3dc 2006-09-13 12:30|| 2006-09-13 12:30|| Front Page Top

#2 I'll bet my next few retirement checks that this policy will be "revised" before the sun sets today.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-09-13 12:39|| 2006-09-13 12:39|| Front Page Top

#3 3dc, fair nuff, as long as we can also toss in the pantywaist commander who couldn't bring himself to ignore it.

Posted by exJAG 2006-09-13 12:42|| 2006-09-13 12:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Stuff like this makes me want my son out of the military.

Posted by Marine dad">Marine dad 2006-09-13 12:47|| 2006-09-13 12:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Meanwhile, leftest donk anti-war protestors picket the funerals of brave GI's killed in the GWOT..... and our own gummit says virtually nothing.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-13 12:50|| 2006-09-13 12:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Notice the Taliban had no "Rules of Engagement" preventing them from suicide bombing relatives at the funeral of a governor.

Posted by ed 2006-09-13 12:51|| 2006-09-13 12:51|| Front Page Top

#7 We are at war with these guys, right?
Could the thing have dropped hundreds of subpeonas on them? Is that in the ROE?

Posted by tu3031 2006-09-13 12:55|| 2006-09-13 12:55|| Front Page Top

#8 LOL, tu3031. Sounds like US origami...

Posted by flyover 2006-09-13 12:57|| 2006-09-13 12:57|| Front Page Top

#9 So instead of fixing the problem, the US way is to leak information, giving a heads up to the enemy, so that even if we change the rules, the targets won't be stupid enough now to go to funnerals in mass.

Posted by plainslow 2006-09-13 13:03|| 2006-09-13 13:03|| Front Page Top

#10 Ya know, I remember that the old Squad Leader game had a map set dedicated to cemeteries (light cover from gravestones, AFAICR), which suggests that fighting DID happen in cemeteries during WWII. The SL designers were, to put it mildly, anal about their research.

So this is a new policy, one of those invented during the last few decades during the orgy of "how not to fight wars" "laws", right?

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-09-13 13:07|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-09-13 13:07|| Front Page Top

#11 If they've not done so already......wonder how long it will take the bad guys to exploit this "get outta jail free card" and use "funerals" as staff meetings and bombing details.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-13 13:14|| 2006-09-13 13:14|| Front Page Top

#12 Actually, the Najaf campaign which almost bagged Tater was largely fought in the gigantic cemetary next to the Ali moskkk. Imagery

Posted by flyover 2006-09-13 13:16|| 2006-09-13 13:16|| Front Page Top

#13 As much as I hate to say it again...this administration apparently does not have the cajones to do what it takes to get the job done. The ROEs are there to protect our guys as well as indiscriminant or excess use of force. However, it is BS ROEs that will allow dozens of terrorist-fighters to live becasue they are among "civilians". The "civilians" are terror supporters because they are at the funeral for gosh sakes.

I say again, we too often do not have the cajones to do the hard things...and it is compounded by hand wringing associated with Murtha-itis and November-itis.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2006-09-13 13:31|| 2006-09-13 13:31|| Front Page Top

#14 Its bullshit like this that drove me out of "the business" in the 90's.

We are at WAR - and we just passed up a chance to blow out their main leadership? Who is the jackass that made this rule - he woudl have prevented us from strafing Rommel or nailing Yammamoto. Jackass lawyers.

Whoever made this decision needs to be rousted from his Pentagon desk, issued a full set of gear and put on the next transport over to Kabul. Then have him put as a patrol leader the ass-end provinces where these terrs operate. Humping a pack and a rifle, seeing the innocent civilians the Talib butcher in the name of Allah. Bit of reality might wake him up if he doesnt get himself killed first.

NOBODY should be involved in making ROE if they havent commanded an infantry platoon or other combat arms unit FIRST.

gaddam REMFs.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-09-13 13:32|| 2006-09-13 13:32|| Front Page Top

#15 Bin Laden in sights. Mullah Omar in sights. Same old, same old. Even the military has developed a law enforcement, spitting legalistic hairs, ass covering mentality to fighting head choppers and genociders.

Posted by ed 2006-09-13 13:42|| 2006-09-13 13:42|| Front Page Top

#16 Although the argument is that we don't want to offend the locals and therefore make them hate us, the argument is dead wrong. What matters is they fear us. These people don't sit around over tea afterwards and appreciate how sentitive we were to not kill them. They see it as weakness. Kill them early and often. Michaiavelli was right.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2006-09-13 13:45|| 2006-09-13 13:45|| Front Page Top

#17 I'll merely paraphrase .com.

Before the war on terrorism is over we're going to drop all this "Order of the Garter" shit like a live grenade.

Right after 9-11 mullah Omar had a huge assemblage of Taliban in Kandahar. That we didn't lob in several cruise missiles was a crime against the Afghni people. The same applies here. Whoever it was that restrained our forces from blowing this scum to hell and back again should be drummed out of the service with reduction in rank and half pension.

Allowing these slimeballs to live means the death of more American soldiers. There is no other way to read the equation. I mean, hell!

THEY WERE ALREADY IN A FRICKIN' CEMETERY

No extra funerals, no extra processions, no extra wreaths, just lots of dead terrorists. Applying the rules of engagement to an enemy who routinely pisses on same is suicidal treason.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 13:52|| 2006-09-13 13:52|| Front Page Top

#18 Notice the Taliban had no "Rules of Engagement" preventing them from suicide bombing relatives at the funeral of a governor.

BINGO, ed!

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 13:53|| 2006-09-13 13:53|| Front Page Top

#19 While I take a seat to nobody in my disdain for allowing JAG types to overrule real soldiers in the field, this particular situation might have a diffferent dimension to it. Here's a verbatim copy of an email sent to K-Lo at The Corner:

Don't underestimate the Taliban's capability to round up a bunch of non-combatants and have them stand at attention begging for a Hellfire. The media whirlwind that would have stemmed from an American "massacre" at a funeral would have been worth it's weight in gold. Don't think that the Taliban didn't learn a lot from Qana.

Unless the leaker can prove that there were eyes-on intelligence and not just a flyover, I think that the military might have made a good call.

Given the above, I'd personally be inclined to invoke the 48-Hour Rule before heating up the big pot for the JAGs.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2006-09-13 13:58|| 2006-09-13 13:58|| Front Page Top

#20 We should've honored their dead by creating more of the them

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-13 14:00|| 2006-09-13 14:00|| Front Page Top

#21 I respectfully disagree, Abu Babaloo (love that nym!). Even if the Taleban had merely set up these attendees for a publicity coup, we still would have nailed a few hundred Taleban collaborators. Screw the negative publicity. We'd still have sent the vital message that following Taleban advice gets you killed.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 14:04|| 2006-09-13 14:04|| Front Page Top

#22 Well, it's too bad our troops, or at least a few SF, couldn't mobilze to the area quickly enough and wait for the funeral to be over. As Taliban exited the cemetary, it'd be a turkey shoot.

Also--I'm SURE the Taliban knows full well about our Rules of Engagement, and that we tend to abide by our word, so I'd look ahead to lots more "funerals."

Posted by ex-lib 2006-09-13 14:04|| 2006-09-13 14:04|| Front Page Top

#23 Ricky, it seems readily apparent from the context and the photos that these were indeed Talibs, who felt secure in congregating because they too are aware of the 'rules of engagement'. They all probably had a good laugh about it back in their caves. Non-talibs already know not to congregate with combatants in the areas with combat activity. We need a rules revision now. They'll just start burying their dead in secret and not in large groups in broad daylight, but at least we'll be sending the message that they have NO safe haven.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-13 14:07|| 2006-09-13 14:07|| Front Page Top

#24 Because they scattered in small groups back to their mountain hideouts?

Posted by ed 2006-09-13 14:08|| 2006-09-13 14:08|| Front Page Top

#25 Again, while that target was tempting and perhaps we could have dispatched something to engage the bad guys, the commander on the ground can not be faulted for following the ROE. Yes we like commanders who take the initiative but given the politics of the day no commanders going to disregard them no matter how juicy the target seems at the time. We had a phrase in the service Do you bet your stripes? because sometimes you were literally betting your career on you decision. Now if we explicitly forbid attacking bad guys in a cemetery we might want to amend that to state Unless there is a high concentration of bad guys (10 or more or HAVA targets). Or perhaps after careful contemplation maybe we need ditch the rule entirely and state if you find them kill them. FYI this type of policy is not new and happens under Democrats as well as Republican presidents. Just remember that in 1984 the Marines in Beirut were ordered to carry there weapons unloaded by the Reagan administration.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-09-13 14:22|| 2006-09-13 14:22|| Front Page Top

#26 This time, I might grudgingly agree with the JAG.

The reason being that funerals are culturally sensitive anywhere in the world. Imagine the public response if one of Fred Phelps family went to a military funeral in Kentucky and blew themselves up, killing and wounding dozens? The whole family would be lucky of the authorities caught them before they were lynched, even by little old ladies. The public would go mad.

So the question becomes, did the JAG order it out of general principles, or did he do it because he was advised that tens or hundreds of thousands of Aghans would get totally bent out of shape about it?

There are people who would know, one way or another. Ask some Special Forces type about the Afghan personality.

So far, the Taliban have horribly mucked up the PR battle with the typical Afghan. This has helped us enormously in defeating them, because we get vast amounts of help from the Afghans who hate and fear the Taliban.

We *don't* want to muck that relationship up.

Sure, it's a heck of a lot harder to hunt down and whack that hundred Taliban when they are far afield. But sometimes slow and steady wins the race.

Again, this is not not a hypothetical. Someone who knows the Afghan mind would know if the JAG is solid and right-on, or if he is a pencil pushing weenie.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-09-13 14:24|| 2006-09-13 14:24|| Front Page Top

#27 Or perhaps after careful contemplation maybe we need ditch the rule entirely and state if you find them kill them.

Works for me, Cyber Sarge.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 14:24|| 2006-09-13 14:24|| Front Page Top

#28
So the question becomes, did the JAG order it out of general principles, or did he do it because he was advised that tens or hundreds of thousands of Aghans would get totally bent out of shape about it?

'tain't a JAGs job to make decisions based on the potential PR. JAGs are only supposed to make judgements based on the laws of war.

If the laws of war prevented this, we need to rethink them. If a JAG prevented this for a reason other than the laws of war, we need to court-martial that JAG.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-09-13 14:32|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-09-13 14:32|| Front Page Top

#29 With all due respect, 'moose, the time to be "culturally sensitive" is long past. We are now in a fight for the Western world's survival. Shitholes like Afghanistan have no real value to us except as enemy shooting galleries. At the risk of trotting out and old saw, only killing the enemy swiftly and in large numbers will get us any respect.

I no longer care what the enemy thinks of us so long as they are titsup. We need to begin applying overwhelming military force whever we go. This is no longer about hearts and minds. It is about grabbing the short-and-curlies until they scream in pain, then squeeze some more until they pass out.

Islam gives not a fig about what we think of them. They also do not care how many of them we kill or in what way. They are a death cult whose deepest wish must be granted by us wholesale if we are to survive. Nothing else matters except dispatching these maggots to their paradise whenever the opportunity presents itself.

To hell with their funerals, their mosques and their stinking Koran. At days end, these will all be historical artifacts, not any part of functioning society. Islam has to be eliminated. This is the only operative guideline required until all Muslims around the world begin offing the terrorists like the blood-sucking parasites that they are.

Until then, we keep offing any and all who rise up against us. Their culture means nothing so long as it harbors the enemy. Muslims must be made to realize that their tacit consent to terrorism is a death sentence that will be carried out with all due haste. They must be confronted with simple extermination as the alternative to an immediate and authentic reformation of Islam. Only the threat of extinction will inspire Muslims with sufficient alarm and fear to begin revising their priorities.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 14:40|| 2006-09-13 14:40|| Front Page Top

#30 too bad the Afghan Govt didn't have a spare helo gun ship in the vicinity; they could have taken out the taliban and blamed it on a rouge commander; the rouge commander could then be temporarily put on the shelf and then brought back with a new identification for the next funeral

Posted by mhw 2006-09-13 14:41|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2006-09-13 14:41|| Front Page Top

#31 This is so idiotic. If we follow laws of war, we can never drop a nuke....never.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-13 14:51|| 2006-09-13 14:51|| Front Page Top

#32 This is a case of the ROE not being overruled when the reward far outweighs the risk.

THAT is where they have made the error - so enamoured with the process, they have forgotten about RESULTS. The process is the most important thing to the REMFs in the rear with the gear, or sitting a desk far away from the action.

ROE are supposed to be general guidelines for normal situations, but this can and should be overruled in extreme situations - and done so quickly - such as in cases such as this.

If they are worried about bad publicity, simply bomb it again then napalm the remains then bomb that again. By the time that burns down there will be no survivors nor any "evidence" of civilians. And send in the Rangers to clear the site for intelligence gathering.

Tell the world the truth - we saw talib leadership there, and wanted to be sure they were dead dead dead. We are at war - and it was THEY who started it and declared it back inthe 1990's. IT wa THEY who set the rules by their attacks on civilians and funerals. They've called the tune, so its their turn to pay the piper.

People in the Pentagon, Press and Politics need to remember this isnt a prize fight - there is no reward for being more humane if you "finish in second place". No sportsmanship award for not kicking your pooponents ass when you have the chance to obliterate him.

Just ask the people in Afghanistan, and the victims of 9/11:

Slavery under the bootheel of Islamists we "spared for humane reasons" is still slavery, and dead by terrorists we were "culturally sensitive to" is still dead.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-09-13 15:19|| 2006-09-13 15:19|| Front Page Top

#33 Being culturally sensitive is the job of the looser.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-09-13 15:31|| 2006-09-13 15:31|| Front Page Top

#34 We're still not serious.

Of course we weren't serious in fall of '01, either, when Franks let a JAG stop us from zapping Mullah Omar.

WTH?

Posted by JSU 2006-09-13 15:32|| 2006-09-13 15:32|| Front Page Top

#35 AP is reporting the military are going after whoever it was that released the photo. Guess the legal Fu*&s are ass covering.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-09-13 15:34|| 2006-09-13 15:34|| Front Page Top

#36 JSU, You are correct. We don't have the will. I am firmly convinced it won't change till a city is nuked.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-13 15:44|| 2006-09-13 15:44|| Front Page Top

#37 Do they prevent the US from striking the Taliban as they exit into open territory?

Posted by Jules in the Hinterlands 2006-09-13 16:31|| 2006-09-13 16:31|| Front Page Top

#38 SO
GAS them with a sleeping gas
sort
kill

Posted by 3dc 2006-09-13 17:49|| 2006-09-13 17:49|| Front Page Top

#39 Zenster: Enough of the Us and Them attitude, unless you really do mean to wipe out 1 BILLION Moslems.

I am getting real tired of the "drop a nuke on 'em and be done with it" crowd. That is too stupid an idea to even be used in frustrated jest anymore. It's just not funny, or wry, or witty.

Industrial total warfare today could be carried out in ways repulsive to the einsatzgruppen. We could do everything they did and ever so much more. We could spray chemical weapons or biological weapons. We could drop a nuke whenever we *felt* like it, spreading death and contamination enough to make Hell appear on Earth. It is EASY to do.

Bodies piled as high as skyscrapers, crawling with millions of rats and billions of flies. Death, death, death! All EASY.

Bush could order it, and screw the treaties. Wipe out whole peoples from the face of the Earth. Kill as if we were worshippers of Kali. No one would stand in our way.

Spare no one, for they are all to die. Women, children, all exterminated.

It's just not funny anymore.

Our civilization is not going to fall for many centuries at the earliest. This entire WoT is a mosquito on an elephant. It does not threaten us. It never has. The barbarians were defeated 75 years ago. They just don't know it yet. They have fought and lost the Darwinistic struggle, and are becoming extinct.

So drop a nuke on 'em. Drop a nuke on 'em.

All that comment warrants anymore is a hearty:

STFU. Just STFU.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-09-13 17:50|| 2006-09-13 17:50|| Front Page Top

#40 It does not threaten us. It never has.

Would you be so quick to say that if Europe went Islamic/dhimmi?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-13 18:10|| 2006-09-13 18:10|| Front Page Top

#41 Our civilization is not going to fall for many centuries at the earliest. This entire WoT is a mosquito on an elephant. It does not threaten us. It never has.

Will you be willing to say that after a nuclear terrorist attack on American soil?

Although I have adopted a "Us and Them" attitude, I'm not totally advocating nuclear annihilation of Islam, just yet. Quarantine the Islamic countries? You bet. Deport Muslims back to their countries of origin? That too.

What sort of hits are you willing for America to take, 'moose?

Do you deny that one single nuclear terrorist attack could set the American economy back a solid decade?

Is that a risk you're willing to take? If it is, I'm here to tell you that I'm sure as hell not willing to take that kind of risk.

Nowhere in post #29 did I advocate the use of nuclear weapons. While I've mentioned their possible use many times, I am also a strong proponent of using conventional force at all times and reserving atomic bombs for use as a response in kind. I'm pretty sure that you're aware of that.

What I am sick of is using limited war against an enemy that has essentially declared unlimited war against us and feels free to use any sort of weapon they can lay their hands upon, right down to nuclear arms.

We need to spell out the consequences to Islam in no uncertain terms.

Do you argue that another 3,000 people die needlessly every single day due to how so much funding is being diverted to the fight against Islamic terrorism?

How long should we be willing to put up with this monstrous loss of human life because Islam has foisted their housecleaning duties upon us?

Do you ever foresee a tipping point where it will be more trouble to live with Islam than to simply exterminate it?

Do you agree or disagree with Wretchard's "The Three Conjectures"?

I'm curious.

PS: STFU is not an acceptable answer.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 18:42|| 2006-09-13 18:42|| Front Page Top

#42 The total war approach is a theoretical exercise at this point. We have no idea of either the short or long term effect of such an approach, other than lots of people will be dead.

We really don't know how the locals will react if the collatoral damage rate skyrockets and towns are turned to rubble. Will that scare off those funding terror or will every muzzie in the world send all their disposable cash to aid the fight? Will their fear cause them to reflect and say this kaka ain't worth it, that izzzzzlam needs to change because its led them to ruin? Who knows. The comparative experiment has not been done yet. We haven't fought with a focus on wanton destruction on any front in this war. Personally I think it will be near impossible to justify without our getting hit and hit hard again.

Posted by remoteman 2006-09-13 19:43|| 2006-09-13 19:43|| Front Page Top

#43 Any threat can be made to seem impressive.

"But what if the Hottentots are marching down Wall Street, and waving their spears? Will you think America is threatened by them *then*?"

What ifs don't win wars. My point is that as soon as America realized there was a threat, we began to kick their ass. And we haven't stopped. We have not had a single defeat, or even a single major reversal. In fact, the only way we could lose at this point would be for a democrat to withdrawl all our forces from around the world, and to order them not to fight anymore.

And even then, we would not lose civilization. The barbarians would still have lost. Though they might be annoying in parts of the rest of the world, they would not matter. In fact, only one country could even be pestiferous, and that is Iran. And then only to Europe.

Even if they got a nuke, it would probably max out at under 5kt. Enough to destroy a few buildings. But not enough to destroy civilization, by any stretch of the imagination.

So the bottom line is that there is no *reason* to behave like monsters. We don't have to "bomb Islam back to the stone age". We can still choose what amount of force we want to use, we are in such control.

As far as a "send them back to their own country" attitude, were you aware that lots of Moslems come to the US precisely to *escape* the oppression they had back home. No different than most of the Germans who came here in 1848. We send them home and their own government will kill them.

There *are* lots of different kinds of Moslems. And yes, Islam as a whole does need a reformation.

But it was only 70 years ago in the US when there were enormous protests to kick out Catholic immigrants "because they only had loyalty to the Vatican, and kept guns in their basement to prepare for the overthrow of the US government."

Early on in the Iraq war there were lots of cries to slaughter the Iraqis. But now we are soon to have an Iraqi Corps of 10 Divisions, supporting a democracy, where before there was a dictator's cesspit and WMD factory. Other democratic change is everywhere in the ME.

Civilization is making inroads in places where it has been denied for the better part of 500 years. And it is doing so at the expense of barbarism. And every democrat we create is an ally against non-democrats. And our revolution continues to spread.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-09-13 20:07|| 2006-09-13 20:07|| Front Page Top

#44 And our revolution continues to spread

Wow Moose you sound like Che! LOL

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-09-13 20:19|| 2006-09-13 20:19|| Front Page Top

#45 Moose, the 'revolution' ends as soon as the Donks get power again and the helicopters head to the sunset. It will all go down into another Somalia. Then one day a bright one will indeed light up somewhere in America. Game over. Mongol time.

Posted by Unomomble Thins6414 2006-09-13 20:34|| 2006-09-13 20:34|| Front Page Top

#46 Thank you for making some sort of reply, 'moose. Would you please address some of my questions, particularly:

Do you argue that another 3,000 people die needlessly every single day due to how so much funding is being diverted to the fight against Islamic terrorism?

How long should we be willing to put up with this monstrous loss of human life because Islam has foisted their housecleaning duties upon us?

Do you ever foresee a tipping point where it will be more trouble to live with Islam than to simply exterminate it?

Do you agree or disagree with Wretchard's "The Three Conjectures"?

I'd appreciate your answers to these questions. As for myself, I find it simply outrageous that Islam has somehow shifted the burden of purging jihadis from its ranks over onto the West's shoulders. We have been handed a task that is neither our obligation nor one that we can adequately address. There needs to be some palpable penalty for Islam's refulsal to abandon terrorism.

We need to get back to assisting other nations in time of need. To fighting starvation and famine. To curing disease. To ending illiteracy and preventing female genital mutilation. Many of these things are a direct offshoot of Islamic government. How long should these supremely destructive forces be allowed to remain in place?

Finally, there needs to be some sort of deterrent established. This is something I've tried to address ever since my arrival here at Rantburg. Do you feel there is any way to deter terrorism? If so, please elaborate. If not, please explain why.

You've now taken the position that slow and steady wins the race. Does that include continued negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program or do you advocate its immediate decapitation?

Should or should not that same policy begun to be used against the other Middle East terror sponsors?

Just curious.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 20:35|| 2006-09-13 20:35|| Front Page Top

#47 Wow Moose you sound like Che!

He should. He's talking about the most revolutionary country in the history of man. We threaten the existance of virtually every other country in the world, both literally and figuratively. 400 years ago we didn't exist. 300 years ago we were wilderness settlements less sophisticated than a current Boy Scout Reservation. 200 years ago no one knew if our little experiment in constituional republicanism would last past its founders and 100 years ago we had an army fit to fight stone age aboriginies. Now under the oldest functioning constitutional government around we have enough military power to defeat any nation in the world, we attract the most competent and talented to leave every country to find fulfillment and profit here, for better or worse we entertain the world, we create most of its knowledge and educate it. Do they fear us? You bet! They wonder what we will do in the next 100 years. And it is going to be more than any can imagine.

And they know they can't keep up. If they had any sense they'd apply for statehood. Instead, they just keep sending us their doctors and engineers to get rich and prosper.

Moose is correct there is no way they can win. But I think him naive in the cost their defeat may entail.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-13 20:48|| 2006-09-13 20:48|| Front Page Top

#48 [REDACTED BY REQUEST]

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-09-13 21:09|| 2006-09-13 21:09|| Front Page Top

#49 Mods - I'd bump it, as requested - seems s incere and legit. However, I'm in San Diego and can't do a damn thing.....

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-13 21:25|| 2006-09-13 21:25|| Front Page Top

#50 [REDACTED BY REQUEST]

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-09-13 21:26|| 2006-09-13 21:26|| Front Page Top

#51 I have also been avidly following this thread ( Thank you NS, Zen, Moose).
If you think that you have seen adnan shukrijumah, and it is bothering you this much, you have to use the telephone.
If you are square the FBI won't hurt you.

Posted by J. D. Lux 2006-09-13 21:28|| 2006-09-13 21:28|| Front Page Top

#52 fwd'd it, mjh
thx

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-13 21:30|| 2006-09-13 21:30|| Front Page Top

#53 JD

I'm sure you are right...I will call tomorrow.

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-09-13 21:34|| 2006-09-13 21:34|| Front Page Top

#54 Thx Frank. It's sad that I have more confidence in the power of blogs, than I do in the federal agencies responsible for protecting us.

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-09-13 21:35|| 2006-09-13 21:35|| Front Page Top

#55 JD and Frank are right. Report it. If you get blown off by the FBI go to the DC police. They may not have answers for you but they will take it as real. Be sure to have date time etc... for them.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-09-13 22:06|| 2006-09-13 22:06|| Front Page Top

#56 I'm gonna quote you on this NS. Well said.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-09-13 22:13|| 2006-09-13 22:13|| Front Page Top

#57 report it to the FBI ASAP

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-13 22:15|| 2006-09-13 22:15|| Front Page Top

#58 [REDACTED BY REQUEST]

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-09-13 22:17|| 2006-09-13 22:17|| Front Page Top

#59 With all the ranting about the FBI and their roll in this war, they are good at running stuff to ground. They will take it as real, go to tapes and track him. They will be polite take the info, be noncommital, and never reply to you after, unless they capure him and need you. Just do the right thing.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-09-13 22:22|| 2006-09-13 22:22|| Front Page Top

#60 Reported. Sorry for hijacking. Back to normally scheduled program. Stay safe Rantburgers.

Posted by mjh">mjh 2006-09-13 22:23|| 2006-09-13 22:23|| Front Page Top

#61 np - thx mjh - your duty done!

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-13 22:30|| 2006-09-13 22:30|| Front Page Top

#62 But I think him naive in the cost their defeat may entail.

So do I. How ~~strange~~ ironic that someone should interrupt this thread with the potential sighting of a terorist operative who may be plotting to detonate a nuclear device on American soil.

'moose, I'm quite serious about what sort of answers you have to my questions. You are an extremely well-versed contributor here and I'd like to read your opinions.

Per many of my earlier posts, I feel we really need to put in place some sort of deterrent. Be it the capture or destruction of Mecca, retaliatory bombing (nuclear or conventional) of rogue nations or whatever, there needs to be some sort of program.

Those countries that sponsor terrorism need to be held accountable. Per .com's suggestion, seizing some of Saudi Arabia's oil fields to pay for fighting terrorism makes a lot of sense. Wahabbism is the root cause of a huge percentage of terrorism.

If Islam wants us to solve its problems for it, we should make sure that service comes with a price tag attached.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 22:48|| 2006-09-13 22:48|| Front Page Top

#63 https://tips.fbi.gov/

Asks for a lot of personal information, but you don't have to give it. Just the facts, ma'am.

Zenster: First of all, funding diversion rarely kills people. When it does, in economics it is called "opportunity cost". But it is often deceptive. The democrats frequently use false opportunity costs like "If you don't raise taxes, then old people will have to eat dog food."

So 3,000 people a day die from something. I have no idea who, or how, such data could be collected. Sounds questionable to me.

As far as Islam cleaning its own house. Arabs a long time ago were sick of Islam's corruption and tried to clean their own house. Boy did that backfire. They decided to use socialist Baathism, which proved itself just as worthless as Islamic government. Finally, somebody not only gave them a chance at democracy, but a disciplined democracy. And once that is firmly in place, not only will it be an almighty bitch to uproot, but it will pester every other regime in the ME.

At some point, I expect some Moslem democrat to discover that all along, western style liberal democracy was clearly enunciated in the Koran. Laugh if you will, if it works for them...

The only two Islamic countries left that are totally unmanageable are Syria and Iran. Coming in a close third is Pakistan. However, we are playing them all in an astounding game of Stratego. Unfortunately, it takes a heck of a long time for us to "get our ducks in a row", so that when push comes to shove, we win everything.

That is an interesting American concept, planning a war so thoroughly that we leave *no* advantage to our enemy (see Napoleon), but also none to our allies, the neutrals, and those pretending to be neutral who covertly support our enemy. We want the absolute minimum casualties on our side, and we even try to minimize enemy casualties in getting everything we want. We want it all.

It will never be "us against the Moslem world", because there will be just as many, or more, Moslems quietly rooting for us than for the other side. When the Moslems with us take on the attitude that we, infidels, are helping to "liberate" Moslems, that will be a big step.

Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold

No it hasn't. In the Cold War there was an intense effort all around, an assumption, that everybody was going to try and sneak nukes into everybody else's country. Nobody has mentioned it, but even in the 1980s, our ports of entry were watched big time for gamma signatures.

Small nuclear weapons, while not rare, are problematic to a degree. This is why we are only really concerned about somebody like Iran making one and giving it to terrorists. Radiation bombs are very overrated.

Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam

This should say, "attaining nukes", because both chemical and biological weapons are in their hands and have been since the 1980s. I might add that Pakistan is Islamic, has nukes, and are humming right along. So this conjecture is flawed.

Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' -- the final chance

Again, no. There have been a LOT of Moslem uprisings in the past, and they all settle down after a while. Ask the Brits. Much of the European blase attitude we see today is basically, "Oh look, the Arabs are cutting up rough again."

For them, in might be broader in scale, but the theme is the same. Kipling wrote about the Wahabbis. This is why many of them think the US is overreacting. And yet, at the same time, many of them crack down on the Arabs even harder than does the US, because "that is what you do to Arabs."

In the big picture, the WoT only matters because it has been a golden opportunity for Bush & Co. to totally take to the field, diplomatically, on the other side of the world. We are doing this to prepare for a war with China.

Now *that* will be a real war. And Bush has done astounding things in that region. Made friends and alignment with India. Got access to a Chinese built state of the art deep water port in Pakistan for our Navy. Alerted all of South Asia to the Chinese threat. Boxed China in, in all sorts of ways. Is neutralizing their ballistic missile threat. Etc., etc.

This is where the *real* action is. The ME is just a warm-up, and it's almost over. Once Iran and Syria are cleaned, China will be our bitch.

Bottom line, Moslems we can live with. We've won this one hands down, and implanted the seeds of democracy. Once they are real democrats, living in a stable society, they are our friends.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-09-13 23:03|| 2006-09-13 23:03|| Front Page Top

#64 Thank you for responding, 'moose.

This is where the *real* action is. The ME is just a warm-up, and it's almost over. Once Iran and Syria are cleaned, China will be our bitch.

Here, I could not agree with you more, save for the "almost over" part. The Middle East will take much longer and the duration anticipated makes possible an Islamic atrocity of such dimensions that the nuclear option comes into play.

That said, I have always maintained how the Islamic terrorists are like a bunch of naughty boy scouts in comparison to the "real terrorists", communist China.

Bottom line, Moslems we can live with. We've won this one hands down, and implanted the seeds of democracy. Once they are real democrats, living in a stable society, they are our friends.

I wish that I could be as optimistic as you are. The toxic meme of Islam does not at all promise to be so cooperative as you might hope. Islam is famous for its belief that "silence is consent". Ergo, it is quite difficult for me to believe that the Thundering Silence of Muslims world-wide is actually them "quietly rooting" for America's efforts. This notion is further disspelled by how conspiracy theories continue to abound even now and how they remain so popular, despite repeated al Qaeda videos taking credit for the 9-11 atrocity.

I hope you're right, but as others and myself observe about thwarting Islam, you may be a bit "naive in the cost their defeat may entail."

I will reiterate that I do not relish the thought of incinerating a quarter of this world's population. However, if that is the price of preserving the progress of western civilization, then so be it. Over the last millennia or more, Islam's legacy has been one of constant bloodshed. If it proves unable to abandon this modus operendi, then it is of no further use.

funding diversion rarely kills people.

The 3,000 people a day concept derives from the statistic that some 3,000 African children die each day as it is. Therefore, it is a small leap of imagination to consider how the millions of dollars being spent each day fighting terrorism could be saving some or all of those lives instead. I do not consider this to be a false "opportunity cost".

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-13 23:58|| 2006-09-13 23:58|| Front Page Top

12:52 Stupidwhiteman
09:55 wxjames
23:58 Zenster
23:56 CrazyFool
23:49 Broadhead6
23:47 Broadhead6
23:39 Broadhead6
23:38 BA
23:38 Zenster
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:35 Old Patriot
23:34 Broadhead6
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:31 Grunter
23:31 Ward Churchill
23:28 BA
23:20 BA
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:08 twobyfour
23:06 badanov
23:03 Anonymoose
23:02 BA
23:02 twobyfour
22:59 twobyfour