Is the U.S. Expanding it's War into Pakistan?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Cuba has as much right to attack USA for wanted men the USA refuses to hand over. :) but oh wait, USA is always right !! tsk tsk tsk.
Please explain the above^. Who have they refused to hand over and for what crime?

I happen to agree with you on the way the US is behaving on this issue - it smacks far too much of "if you won't deal with it then we will, and stuff the international repercussions". Unfortunately the Bush administration is very much the proverbial "bull in a china shop".

I'm willing to bet that the reason why it is US forces rather than european forces involved in these cross border actions is because they disagree with these actions. I'd also think that the euros are probably quite annoyed that the US has violated another nations borders and killed it's citizens regardless of the moral case, because as partners of the US, the european allies reputation in the Islamic world suffers too. I'm sure no european nation wants a Spanish train bombing of their own.

It may have taken time, or it may not even have been possible for the Pakistani forces to totally put a stop to the cross border incursions by the Taliban forces, but it is better to have a Pakistan working with you than one working against you. It's called diplomacy and it seems to be something this administration has forgotten about.
 

John Sansom

New Member
I certainly agree with you, Marc 1, and I'm sorry Aliph Ahmed is so darned bitter about the US and "her puppets". Her who?

The question I asked is: How do we solve this problem and certainly to the end that no more of these air strikes on population concentrations--no matter how small--occur. And how can it be done within the context of controlling or even stopping the trans-border attacks from safe havens in Pakistan?

Not being an American, I must hesitate to respond to the term "gun-toting" except to note that (a) the gun toters are members of the military just like Pakistani solddiers (who are also engaged in the struggle) and (b) that Pakistan is rightly renowned worldwide for its gunsmiths and gun shops; a reality which I'm sure has beeen taken advantage of by the Taleban and like-minded folk. Hey, Id like to take advantage of that kind of craftsmanship, too.

As to denying the US access to Pakistani routes into Afghanistan, that might not be a bad idea...although I'm not sure just what those routes are and how NATO forces may have been using them. Can I assume one such major route would involve Karachi and subsequent trans-shipment road and rail methods?

At the very least, such a decision would spark the development of some really imaginative transportation initiatives and a dispassionate re-assessment of NATO-Pakistan relations. Certainly, NATO wouild be up to the first and could very well benefit from the second.
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
Please explain the above^. Who have they refused to hand over and for what crime?

I happen to agree with you on the way the US is behaving on this issue - it smacks far too much of "if you won't deal with it then we will, and stuff the international repercussions". Unfortunately the Bush administration is very much the proverbial "bull in a china shop".

I'm willing to bet that the reason why it is US forces rather than european forces involved in these cross border actions is because they disagree with these actions. I'd also think that the euros are probably quite annoyed that the US has violated another nations borders and killed it's citizens regardless of the moral case, because as partners of the US, the european allies reputation in the Islamic world suffers too. I'm sure no european nation wants a Spanish train bombing of their own.

It may have taken time, or it may not even have been possible for the Pakistani forces to totally put a stop to the cross border incursions by the Taliban forces, but it is better to have a Pakistan working with you than one working against you. It's called diplomacy and it seems to be something this administration has forgotten about.
I read it in an article mentioning names of Cuban dissenters wanted by Cuba and residing in USA but USA will not extradiate them. I will get back to you on those shortly.

By gun toting, I meant hands with blood from vietnam to Panama to Haiti to Libya to Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to south America to instigating Georgia and etc etc. What the hell ?

I find you a sensible person. See, I am not against Pakistan working with USA or west. I always supported it but I do not support it in its current form. Majority of Pakistanis want this issue to be solved. Majority of us are moderate but when the help of Pakistan (Supposedly frontline ally) is not appreciated and we get to hear/read (and these are from the tip of my mind)

  • USA wont let Pakistan fence the border.
  • USA wont provide drones which are less sophisticated then F-16s.
  • Money provided to support the troops at the border is questioned.
  • Pakistan's airforce is called as Al Qaida's airforce.
  • Unilateral actions are taken where innocent lives are lost and labbeled as collateral damage. CONTINIOUSLY.
  • Better weopons are offered to our foes.
  • Nuclear regime is bended but same deal is not offerred to us.
  • much much more :

Then one starts to wonder a lot of things if they are being taken for a ride and if the USA is really sincere.

As a start If it were to me, I would get the border heavily mined on war footing just like Pakistan did in 2002 when the tensions were high with India and let Afghanistan cry all they want !!
 

cheetah

New Member
Chris Floyd
Sunday, 14 September 2008

This week another gate swung open in the multi-chambered hell that is the "War on Terror." George W. Bush has authorized the invasion of Pakistan by American ground forces, and the armed incursions have already begun. The implications of this move -- which largely corresponds with the strategy that Barack Obama has said he would employ in the region -- are disturbing in the extreme.

William Pfaff takes up this subject with his usual clarity and good sense in a new article at Truthdig.

In a telling insight, he produces the historical analogy most relevant to the current situation:

The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it’s the same story as in Indochina in 1970.

An American army, deeply frustrated by its inability to defeat an anti-American insurgent movement despite years of struggle, decides that the key to victory lies in a neighboring country. In 1970, the problem was the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Today it is Taliban and al-Qaida bases inside Pakistan, which the United States has been attacking from the air for some time, with controversial “collateral damage.”...

Washington’s decision was made known just in time for the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that opened the first phase of the “war on terror,” after which “nothing could ever be the same.” We no doubt have now begun phase two.

Pfaff notes that the result of that previous "surge" was not a happy one:

The eventual outcome of the American intervention in Cambodia in 1970 was Communist overthrow of the American-sponsored military government in that country, followed by genocide...

In the Vietnamese case, the American military command held that it could win the war by invading Cambodia to cut the so-called Ho Chi Minh Trail, along which supplies and arms for the Viet Cong Communist insurrection were being transported. The argument made was that cutting this route would starve the Viet Cong of supplies.

Initially, the unhappy Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, desperately trying to keep his country out of the Vietnam War, was persuaded to turn a blind eye to U.S. bombing of the trail. A military coup followed in 1970, installing an American puppet general. B-52 saturation bombing ensued, without the desired military effect, but killing many Cambodians.

The joint U.S. and South Vietnamese “incursion” to cut the trail came in April 1970; it simply pushed the supply operations deeper into Cambodia. Richard Nixon said he acted to prove that the United States was not “a second-rate power.” “If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation acts like a pitiful helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world.”

Or to translate this into our modern idiom: "The terrorists would win." To forestall the terrible fate of looking like a "second-rate power" -- a persistent anxiety of our national leaders; which is not surprising, given how second-rate they are -- Nixon opted for the usual method employed by presidents in such circumstances: mass murder.

It's 1970. Nixon is angry: The Air Force is not killing enough people in Cambodia, the country he has just illegally invaded without the slightest pretence of Congressional approval. The flyboys are doing "milk runs," their intelligence-gathering is too by-the-book: There are "other methods" of getting intelligence, he tells Kissinger. "You understand what I mean?" "Yes, I do," pipes the loyal retainer.

Nixon then orders Kissinger to send every available plane into Cambodia -- bombers, fighters, helicopters, prop planes -- to "crack the hell out of them," smother the entire country with deadly fire: "I want them to hit everything." Kissinger tells his own top aide, General Alexander Haig, to try to implement the plan: "He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia," Kissinger says. "It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves."

That's how the system works, beneath the mask. A blustering fool issues an order, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people die. An entire country is ripped to shreds, and into the smoking ruins steps a fanatical band of crazed extremists -- the Khmer Rouge -- who murder two million more..

Years later, of course, George W. Bush -- another little second-rater anxious about his manhood -- would "crack the hell" out of Iraq: an operation that is already nearing Khmer Rouge proportions, with more than a million dead so far. The new Bush-McCain-Obama move into Pakistan could presage an even greater orgy of death and ruin, especially if Pakistan's nuclear arsenal comes into play. As Pfaff notes:

The future consequences in (nuclear-armed) Pakistan await. There is every reason to think they may include civil protest and disorder in the country, political crisis, a major rise in the strength of Pakistan’s own Islamic fundamentalist movement and, conceivably, a small war between the United States and the Pakistan army, which is the central institution in the country, has a mind of its own and is not a negligible military force.

Pfaff also references one of the most salient -- and almost universally ignored -- facts about the current crisis: Washington's direct hand in creating it:

Pakistan’s military intelligence services created the Taliban while they were collaborating with the CIA to form the mujahadeen that drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Many in the service still support the Taliban as a useful instrument against India, and to keep Afghanistan out of the hands of more dangerous enemies.

Those Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries that threaten American forces would not exist if Afghanistan was not a massively failed state, ravaged to pieces by 30 years of sectarian war. And that sectarian war would not have raged so long and so virulently if the American government (and its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) had not decided to arm, train, fund and organize the world's most violent, retrograde religious extremists into a worldwide movement. And why did Washington do such a "notably wrong-headed" thing? Because the American elite -- stung and emasculated by their defeat in Indochina -- wanted to "give the Soviets their own Vietnam," in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski. And so Jimmy Carter -- yes, mild-mannered ole Jimmuh -- greenlighted the covert op to build up a jihad army that would destabilize the secular government of Afghanistan and provoke the Soviets to intervene to save their clients there.

The fact that America's support of violent religious extremists in Afghanistan pre-dated the Soviet invasion there -- and was actually a cause of the invasion -- is of course virtually unknown in the land of the free (free of any useful information about what their overlords are getting up to, that is). At almost every turn, American policies have created more violence and more extremism in the region, either by design, or through neglect, or as the inevitable result of heavy-handed, blood-sodden massive military intervention.

Expanding the war to Pakistan...would certainly be in keeping with the long, bipartisan tradition of American policy there. And it would undoubtedly produce the same bitter fruit: more decades of hatred, extremism, poverty, ruin and suffering.

Now that expansion has begun. It will doubtless continue no matter who is president next year, for both major candidates and their running mates have enthusiastically pledged their allegiance to the Terror War -- despite the fact, as I wrote more than two years ago:

...What matters most now is ending the so-called "war on terror," this dance of death led by two small factions whose ambitions and principles are depraved, inhuman and obscene.

Naturally, we should apprehend anyone who commits a crime--murder, destruction, looting, extortion, intimidation--and subject them to the rule of law. And this should of course be done no matter what kind of organization the criminal belongs to: a religious sect, a mafia clan, a corporation--or a national government. All such criminals should be subjected to the judicial process--either domestically, in the countries where they commit their crimes, or internationally--no matter what grand abstraction they claim as "justification" for their misdeeds: "freedom and democracy," "national security," "defense of the ummah," "God's will."

"Stateless criminals" like the terrorists of al Qaeda are just that: criminals. They should be dealt with as criminals, and not inflated and glorified into gigantic figures of world-historical import. The perpetrators of state terrorism are somewhat different, because they are far more powerful and wreak far more damage than the freebooters on the fringe of society. But of course they too should be held accountable, as individuals, not only for the crimes they commit, but also for the crimes they order to be committed, and the crimes that arise indirectly from circumstances they have deliberately created with their great power.

Both sides need the other in this insane global conflict--but ironically, only one side can actually stop the "war." Only the United States can cease to respond with massive military force all over the world to provocations from criminals on the fringe. Only the United States can say, "We are not fighting a war; we are dealing with criminal actions as they arise--while working feverishly on the diplomatic, social, political, cultural and economic fronts to address the conditions in which the particular set of crimes known as 'terrorism' are apt to arise. It is a complicated business, to be sure: hard work, often unrewarding, full of pitfalls and reverses--but we are wise enough and strong enough as a nation to see it through."

But this course--the only sensible, and only genuinely effective response to criminal actions of extremist groups -- will never be undertaken by the Bush Faction, no matter who heads it. Nor by anyone else, of whatever political stripe, who buys into the militarist philosophy of an American dominance imposed on the world by force (either directly or through the more subtly implied but ever-present threat of force favored by "liberal" advocates of "soft power").

As long as the Bush Regime -- or some other permutation of "Bushism" [which, as we can see in 2008, includes the Obama-Biden Terror War ticket] -- is in power, the "war on terror" will never end. It will go on spawning new wars, real wars... This blood-dimmed tide will keep rising: thousands, perhaps millions (if the hard-Right's dream of nuking Iran comes true) will be struck down by death and grief, and we will all keep falling deeper into the pit of a lamed and brutal life.

So when they ask why you are so "angry," why you are so "strident" and "shrill," tell them you've been vexed to nightmare by the foul embrace of the "war on terror" factions. Tell them you've had enough of the blood and *****, the power games, the talk of God from murderers' lips. Tell them the war is over -- the war is over -- and you'll have no more senseless killing in your name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I shall be sure to ask the surviving Generals of Saddam's army that very question should I make their acquaintance.
Again conveniently forgetting history lets not forget Iran Iraq war +sanctions after that had practically destroyed Iraq's army.so hitting a man when he is down on his knees don't really count as victory :nutkick but no need to discus this as this only takes our attention away from the topic.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting article Cheetah, although I confess that I'm a tad worried that this guy Chris Floyd hasn't been taking his medication recently. Mind you the parallels between Cambodia and Pakistan were worth noting the entire tone of his article makes him seem frankly like some rabid spit flecked crazed homeless guy...

Another article that seems to support the idea that US troops going into Pakistan is a bad idea:

Pakistani tribal chiefs threaten to join Taliban

· US warned of uprising if armed incursions continue

· New counter-terror policy backfires on Washington
Saeed Shah in Islamabad
The Guardian,
Monday September 15 2008
Article history
A controversial new US tactic to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistan has met with fresh hostility, it emerged yesterday, as Pakistani tribesmen representing half a million people vowed to switch sides and join the Taliban if Washington does not stop cross-border attacks by its forces from Afghanistan.

Reacting to American missile attacks in north Waziristan last week, which followed an unprecedented cross-border ground assault earlier this month, tribal chiefs from the area called an emergency meeting on Saturday.
"If America doesn't stop attacks in tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar [army] to attack US forces in Afghanistan," tribal chief Malik Nasrullah announced in Miran Shah, north Waziristan's largest city. "We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."

The development threatens to widen the conflict, with previously moderate people from Pakistan's tribal border region with Afghanistan in danger of joining Taliban militants based in the area. They have reacted furiously to intensified American missile attacks on targets in the tribal territory in recent weeks.

The issue is likely to feature in talks between Gordon Brown and Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, this week. Zardari, who is on a private visit to Britain, is due to meet Brown tomorrow. The prime minister is likely to press for greater Pakistani action against militants in the tribal area and may go along with US calls to integrate the tribal territory into the conflict in Afghanistan as one theatre of war, an idea Pakistan will fiercely resist.

Zardari and Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said in a joint statement at the weekend: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country should be respected at all cost." During the past month, there have been seven US missile strikes in the tribal area, about the same number as in the whole of last year. A US ground assault in south Waziristan provoked a sharp rebuke from the Pakistan army.

Washington believes that Taliban and al-Qaida militants fighting the western coalition in Afghanistan are using Pakistan's tribal area as a safe haven.

But Ayaz Wazir, a retired Pakistani diplomat who is a tribal chief from south Waziristan, warned: "If the Americans are coming to sort it out with force, they would create more enemies. The Americans might have supersonic jets and we might have to fight with stones in our hands, but we will stand up."

Up to now, only a tiny minority of the tribesmen have joined the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban movements, but incursions by the US could ignite the area.

The heightened US activity comes just as some Pakistani tribes have risen against the Taliban in the border areas of Dir and Bajaur. But hatred of America would far surpass any dislike for Islamic extremists.


The above article was pinched from another forum.

Happy reading.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I read it in an article mentioning names of Cuban dissenters wanted by Cuba and residing in USA but USA will not extradiate them. I will get back to you on those shortly.
Hmm, this info is a bit sketchy here mate but if you are advocating that if you show dissent toward another country then that country should be allowed to extradit you and put you on trial?

If so mate, the Indians have a pretty good case to extradite all Pakistani's and vice versa, Russia swaps populations with America, Australia swaps with Indonesia, hell come State of Origin Football time here in Oz, all of Queensland should be deported to NSW to face charges:D

On the other things the US stands accused of I have no specific info except to comment on collateral damage. In assymetric warfare where the enemy deliberately disguises him/herself to blend in with the population, there will always be innocent victims. In this type of warfare there are no front lines and the bad guys don't wear an established combat uniform. Hell, in that part of the world your average innocent farmer is likely to have the odd AK47 to defend his family further adding to the confusion. So is it surprising that there are innocent victims in this conflict? No.

It is also not surprising that when area weapons are used against structures (Artillery shell being guided onto a particular building for example), that immediately afterwards the Taliban will say that that building was chock full of only women in labour and children inside it, despite a group of armed Talibs being videoed running into the place. It's called propaganda and has been used by each side in warfare to their advantage since Ogg the caveman picked up a club. Then again, some commanders are probably too quick to call in an airstrike on some buildings even if they did see a Talib or two take shelter inside it. It may be better to let say two blokes go than incur massive civillian casualties in killing them. Its a tough call, and just one of the reasons that makes these insurgents so damn hard to defeat.

Ideally, you win the hearts and minds of the population to the degree that they will actively report insurgent activity, so that it can be rooted out before the insurgents can take cover amongst the people and their homes. And that's going to take thousands of coalition deaths and many many years to achieve.

I also hope one of the longer term aims is to get rid of that crook Karzai - the more I read about him the more I believe he is part of the problem not the solution to it..
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
US troops' attempt to enter inside Pakistan's territory foiled

Updated at: 1210 PST, Monday, September 15, 2008

WANA: Pakistan Army and local tribes on Monday foiled an attempt of US troops to enter inside Pakistan’s territory through two American helicopters.

According to sources, US troops boarded on two helicopters were trying to enter onto Pakistan’s areas near Angoor Adda along Pak-Afghan border when local tribes and troops of Pakistan army resisted the move and opened fire, forcing US helicopters to return.

Sources said situation remains tense in the area while local tribals along with Pakistan army are also positioned to face any untoward situation.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=55289

Pak jets scare US planes away

BAGRAM/NORTH WAZIRISTAN: Tribal elders are seriously considering summoning a grand jirga of all tribal areas to form "joint lashkar" to counter any US attack.

It was told after the jirga meeting of local tribal elders, which was called on Sunday to form a 'lashkar' to counter any US-led NATO forces' attack inside Pakistan. Earlier, Pakistan jet fighters have forced the US jet fighters to leave the area near the Pak-Afghan border and North Waziristan. While the US predators' flights continued on Sunday.

Reportedly, the US F-18 Hornet fighters took off from the Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, entered into Pakistan and flew over its territory for 11 minutes. However, two Pakistan F-16 fighters have compelled them to leave the area.

Pakistan jet fighters have started its routine flights to monitor the US spy planes and the Pak-Afghan border. The locals have lauded Pakistan Army for the defence.

The jirga said the US spy planes' movement had increased in areas of the Bajaur Agency, Dama Dola, Shekai, Chena Bandy, Miran Shah and Wana.

The local tribal elders have expressed dissatisfaction over the measures taken by government for their security. They urged the government to take stringent security measures to protect masses' lives and property.

http://www.thepost.com.pk/MainNewsT.aspx?bdtl_id=12643&fb_id=2&catid=14

On SAT, a reaper was intercepted by a PAF Mirage Rose I and was seen leaving the area soon afterwards.

I dont know what the USA is doing but it is surely playing a very dangerous game. Her " reckless " and unilateral actions give moderate Pakistanis very little room to defend PAKISTAN siding USA.
 

JEEHA

Banned Member
Admin:

You've had one private Mod request to change your Avatar
You've had one public Mod request to change your Avatar

Refusal to acknowledge and change it has earnt you a 7 day holiday.

The reasons why we have requested you change it have been articulated clearly.

If you do not change it by the time you come back then you will earn an extension to the ban.

It is not an unreasonable request, and if the shoe was on the other foot, then you would be urging the same treatment dished out to others.

Develop some grace and tact while you're on the enforced holiday

In the interim, we have changed your avatar to something more socially acceptable
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
Unnecessary. /GD

Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'

Pakistani troops have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, local officials say.

Reports say seven US helicopters landed on the Afghan side of the border and US troops then tried to cross the border.

South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

The incident comes amid growing anger in Pakistan over US attacks along the border region.

The confrontation began at around midnight, local officials say.

As the US troops tried to cross the border from the Afghan province of Paktika, Pakistani paramilitary soldiers at a checkpoint opened fire into the air and the US troops decided not to continue forward.

Reports say the firing lasted for several hours. Local people evacuated their homes.

The incident happened close to the town of Angoorada.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
i think pakistan is well on its way for becoming the next iraq!! pak may have been the ally of us in the past(and so was iraq) but almost all of the islamic allys of us has caused headaches for them.... iraq,afganistan,iran...the list goes on....now with so much islamic terrorist training centers inside pakistan and the presence of nukes( and ofcourse long range missiles) in the country..its really a hot spot..
Gee, I wonder why Pakistan is becoming more militant:rolleyes: After all they only have troops from another country with completely different religous and moral values either bombing or firing missiles into their territory, then rubbing salt into the wounds by publicly flaying the Pakistani government about their lack of control of the tribal areas, then sending in ground troops.:crazy

Now I've got a request for you to do something unique for a US citizen, your chance to put yourself in someone else's shoes... A quick question, if the Mexicans bombed a town just inside the US then followed that with a helliborn assault using troops, and killing US citizens (even if they were say a renegade bikkie gang), how do you think Uncle Sam would react...?
 

John Sansom

New Member
Thanks to all for recent posts--a "deeply frustrated" US force, frightened US pilots, shots in the air by Pakistani paramilitary folk and all. And, of course, I'm sorry about the red ink.

Here's a question, though. Whatever happened to that accord between Pakistan's government and tribal area leaders? It didn't work? Oh, okay. What's next?

Well, for any sane person the solution must lie in the world of diplomacy; a diplomacy which allows for clearly defined areas of responsibility and of operational action. Given the nature of a great deal of the terrain involved, that's not as simple as one might think. Another downside factor is the present build-up of situational resentment which can only be dealt with through face-to-face patience.

I am sure that said diplomacy is underway...and I am equally sure that there are very influential personalities on both sides of the fence who are impeding it. George Bush is not one of them. These impediments are more the products of irrational ego than they are of monetary and/or corporate self-interest. My bet is that the current US president recognizes this, but has become powerless to effect change. Pretty much the same appears to have been going on in Pakistan for years.

Ideally, then, well-intentioned diplomats must isolate themselves from the ego maelstrom and, under the direction of a third party (how about Latvia or the like?), must hammer out a publicly disclosed agreement and common modus operandi. Public disclosure, with all its attendant risks, is essential in this matter....but, hey, what do I know?

At any rate, it's some kind of a start...and it's one helluva lot better than digging dead children out of the rubble while grief-stricken and bewildered parents look on.
 

arunmenon

Banned Member
Gee, I wonder why Pakistan is becoming more militant:rolleyes: After all they only have troops from another country with completely different religous and moral values either bombing or firing missiles into their territory, then rubbing salt into the wounds by publicly flaying the Pakistani government about their lack of control of the tribal areas, then sending in ground troops.:crazy

Now I've got a request for you to do something unique for a US citizen, your chance to put yourself in someone else's shoes... A quick question, if the Mexicans bombed a town just inside the US then followed that with a helliborn assault using troops, and killing US citizens (even if they were say a renegade bikkie gang), how do you think Uncle Sam would react...?
i dont get your logic mate!!! u know only a hundredth of the taliban militia where either killed or captured!!! where do u think the rest have disappeared? they are holed up in Pakistan!

now about the mexican bombing what will the Mexicans bomb at in the us?? play schools? dance bars??? or are there any terrorist camps in th us that we don't know about?? if there are any dnt worry mate then the us will bomb those in us
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
i dont get your logic mate!!! u know only a hundredth of the taliban militia where either killed or captured!!! where do u think the rest have disappeared? they are holed up in Pakistan!

now about the mexican bombing what will the Mexicans bomb at in the us?? play schools? dance bars??? or are there any terrorist camps in th us that we don't know about?? if there are any dnt worry mate then the us will bomb those in us
I was being sarcastic mate, Jeeha's opening line was "i think pakistan is well on its way for becoming the next iraq!!" (sic) I was trying to point out to him using sarcasm that one of the reasons why Pakistan is having issues is the way the US has been acting.

Yes, great swathes of the talibs are probably in Pakistan, the Pakistani authorities are the ones best placed to either roll them out of the country (where they can be legitimately engaged in Afghanistan) or hopefully will assist in sealing the border so the talibs cannot use Pakistan to as a refuge to refresh and rearm. The way you gain the cooperation of the Pakistani government is not by invading their country with foreign troops and killing their citizens.

Forget about the Mexicans, it was a hypothetical scenario to try and help Americans understand what Pakistan is experiencing - obviously lost on some.
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids

By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer

Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.

The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos, are certain to heighten tension between Washington and a key ally against terrorism.

Pakistan's civilian leaders have protested the raid but say the dispute should be resolved through diplomatic channels.

However, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal region, the military told field commanders to prevent any similar raids.

"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

U.S. military commanders accuse Islamabad of doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in Pakistan's wild tribal belt.

Pakistan acknowledges the presence of al-Qaida fugitives and its difficulties in preventing militants from seeping through the mountainous border into Afghanistan.

However, it insists it is doing what it can and paying a heavy price, pointing to its deployment of more then 100,000 troops in its increasingly restive northwest and a wave of suicide bombings across the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/16/pakistan.troops.us.ap/index.html

Pakistan to halt oil supply to NATO in case of attack

Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:45 www.daily.pk

Pakistan in unequivocal terms has said that it would halt supply of oil and other commodities to NATO in Afghanistan if the US troops continue to violate country’s border.

Private TV Channel quoted government and defense sources saying Pakistan would also hold fresh talks on agreement struck between Former President Pervez Musharraf and US President George. W. Bush with regard to logistic support to US in war against terrorism.

US would be informed strictly that Pakistan would halt supply of oil, edible items, weapons and other commodities to Afghanistan based US allied forces if US troops counties to violate country’s border.

According to information, more than 400 containers carrying commodities for Afghanistan based US allied forces pass from Torkham to Chaman.

Sources further said that debate on the issue would also be held in the Parliament.

http://www.daily.pk/national/nationalnews/7341-pakistan-to-halt-oil-supply-to-nato-in-case-of-attack.html

Also heard on PTV, news, American Joint Chief Of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen is arriving in Pakistan tonight,

This is the same guy who said cross border raids are Americas divine right.
 

nevidimka

New Member
wow, this is getting interesting. Based on Bush's doctrine, Pakistan is allowed to make preemptive strikes at US forces staging attack on Pakistan across the border. LOL

So how come the US can illegally attack another country with disproportionate force on their territory without any condemnation? :)
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
Pakistan troops 'repel US raid'


Pakistani troops have fired warning shots at two US helicopters forcing them back into Afghanistan, local Pakistani intelligence officials say.

The helicopters flew into the tribal North Waziristan region from Afghanistan's Khost province at around midnight, the reports say.

Tensions have risen after an increase in US attacks targeting militants.

The incident comes amid mounting security fears after a militant bomb attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel.

Pakistan's army has said it will defend the country's sovereignty and reserves the right to retaliate to any border violations.

The government has said it will take targeted action against the militants, promising raids in some "hotspots" near the border with Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in the city of Peshawar, Afghan consul Abdul Khaliq Farahi was kidnapped after six unidentified men ambushed his car, officials say. His driver died in the attack.

'Firing in the air'

Last week Pakistani troops fired into the air to prevent US ground troops crossing the border into South Waziristan.

The latest confrontation between US and Pakistani forces took place in North Waziristan's sparsely populated Ghulam Khan district, west of the main town in the region, Miranshah, local officials say.

They told the BBC that troops at border posts in the mountainous region fired at two US helicopters which crossed into Pakistani territory.

The helicopters returned to Afghanistan without retaliating.

A senior security official based in Islamabad told the AFP news agency that the helicopters had been repelled by both army troops and soldiers from the paramilitary Frontier Corps (FC).

"The helicopters were heading towards our border. We were alert and when they were right on the boundary line we started aerial firing. They hovered for a few minutes and went back," the official said.

"About 30 minutes later they made another attempt. We retaliated again, firing in the air and not in their direction, from both the army position and the FC position, and they went back."




A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj Murad Khan, said he had no information "on border violation by the American helicopters".

The US military in Afghanistan also said it had no information on the incident.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says after increased American incursions this month, the army stressed that it reserved the right to retaliate.

Our correspondent says standard procedure would be to first fire warning shots.

'Crisis in relations'

The two countries held talks last week on anti-militant co-ordination.


Anti-US feelings are on the rise in Pakistan

America's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad to try to calm the crisis in relations but tensions remain high, our correspondent says.

As well as reported incursions, there have been a number of US missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistan territory in recent weeks.

The Americans stepped up their strikes after criticism that Pakistani troops were unable or unwilling to eliminate Taleban sanctuaries along the border.

Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

It emerged earlier this month that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

Pakistan reacted with diplomatic fury when US helicopters landed troops in South Waziristan on 3 September. It was the first ground assault by US troops in Pakistan.

Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting tribesmen with the Taleban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7628890.stm

I am starting to wonder/think if there are US rogue commanders who are willing to test Pakistan/White house and risk taking their country to another war she can ill afford. :shudder
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
It is being reported on ARY a Pakistani news channel that a US drone has been shot down inside Pakistan.

Will be posting the article as soon as it becomes available online.
 

Aliph Ahmed

Banned Member
No US military drone reported down: Pentagon
23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Pentagon has no information that any US military drone was shot down or crashed Tuesday in Pakistan, a spokesman said.

"We have no reports of any loss of DoD (Department of Defense) drones," said Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright.

The CIA declined to comment on the report by Pakistani officials that an unmanned spy plane crashed in South Waziristan.

A senior Pakistani security official told AFP the plane, which was believed to be American, crashed in Pakistani territory without disintegrating. Some residents said it was shot down by tribesmen.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDGp_V...j_e0rMbSOaQisHg


Pakistanis say suspected US drone shot down
38 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani troops and tribesman shot down a suspected U.S. military drone close to the Afghan border Tuesday, three intelligence officials said.

If verified, it apparently would be the first pilotless aircraft brought down over Pakistan and the incident likely would add to tensions between Washington and Islamabad over a spate of recent American cross-border incursions in the lawless tribal regions.

The officials said the unmanned aircraft was shot down late Tuesday in the village of Jalal Khel in South Waziristan after circling over the area for several hours. Its wreckage was strewn on the ground, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQ4KsS-...tJ3AOAD93CL2381

So is it safe to assume that Rogue US commaders are having those drone fly over Pakistan without the knowledge of Pentagon ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top