Pakistan says NATO ignored its pleas during attack

Pakistan says NATO ignored its pleas during attack

www.usatoday.com

Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said the Pakistani troops at two border posts were the victims of an unprovoked aggression. He said the attack lasted almost two hours and that commanders had contacted NATO counterparts while it was going on, asking "they get this fire to cease, but somehow it continued."

(visit the link for the full news article)

unless Pakistan is telling a story just to get their people even more angry at the U.S. this story says pakistan did not attack first and even tried to get the unprovoked attack stopped on not one but two of its bases.

I think they have a right to be angry and are just being hung out to dry by the US a sort of paid patsy doing the dirty work holding our funded terrorist for use at a later date...

though now it looks like Pakistan has either lost its value to the US or is just sick of being used.

the article says a complete breakdown in relations between the US and Pakistan is unlikely due to all of the US funding but the video in the article and the actions on both sides show otherwise, the boiling point is in sight and I only see fuel for the fire not water to put it out.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by -W1LL


unless Pakistan is telling a story just to get their people even more angry at the U.S. this story says pakistan did not attack first and even tried to get the unprovoked attack stopped on not one but two of its bases.

I think they have a right to be angry and are just being hung out to dry by the US a sort of paid patsy doing the dirty work holding our funded terrorist for use at a later date...

though now it looks like Pakistan has either lost its value to the US or is just sick of being used.

the article says a complete breakdown in relations between the US and Pakistan is unlikely due to all of the US funding but the video in the article and the actions on both sides show otherwise, the boiling point is in sight and I only see fuel for the fire not water to put it out.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I agree with you. Pakistan refused to tell the truth they they hid Bin Laden in their country for years.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

I agree with you. Pakistan refused to tell the truth they they hid Bin Laden in their country for years.

thats not entirely true the U.S. knew where he was and were watching him long before the raid... I think pakistan was just being used to keep him there out of the public eye to keep the war machine running.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
I agree with you. Pakistan refused to tell the truth they they hid Bin Laden in their country for years.

Funny how Bin Laden's family was rushed out of the US the day after the 9/11 attacks, when no planes were allowed to fly in American airspace. Perhaps Pakistan is not the only one hiding things?

reply to post by -W1LL


There are some key points in the article that you missed:

The poorly defined, mountainous border has been a constant source of tension between Pakistan and the United States. NATO officials have complained that insurgents fire from across the frontier, often from positions close to Pakistani soldiers who have been accused of tolerating or supporting the militants. NATO and Afghan forces are not allowed to cross over into Pakistan in pursuit of militants.

For Pakistan's weak and much criticized elected government, Saturday's airstrikes provide a rare opportunity to unite the country and a momentary relief from attack by rivals eyeing elections in 2013 or sooner.

By contrast, deaths of soldiers and civilians in attacks by militants, some with alleged links to the country's spy agencies, are often greeted with official silence.

Who knows what the hell actually happened, there.

I would wager that militants or pro-taliban sentries fired upon the NATO force from on/near those posts.

I would have to see a map of the region, but if that squad was taking fire from two separate locations, they could have easily been pinned and unable to maneuver.

The engagement lasted two hours. Why, pray tell, were Pakistan officials aware that this engagement was taking place... and not getting their posts to cease fire!?

That's why the air strike was called in. After two hours of taking "friendly fire."

If we wanted the posts blown up - we could have just sent the airplanes, and not dicked around with the guys on the ground.

People still believe Osama was actually in Pakistan?

Baffles Me, Truly

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by -W1LL

 

There are some key points in the article that you missed:

The poorly defined, mountainous border has been a constant source of tension between Pakistan and the United States. NATO officials have complained that insurgents fire from across the frontier, often from positions close to Pakistani soldiers who have been accused of tolerating or supporting the militants. NATO and Afghan forces are not allowed to cross over into Pakistan in pursuit of militants.

For Pakistan's weak and much criticized elected government, Saturday's airstrikes provide a rare opportunity to unite the country and a momentary relief from attack by rivals eyeing elections in 2013 or sooner.

By contrast, deaths of soldiers and civilians in attacks by militants, some with alleged links to the country's spy agencies, are often greeted with official silence.

Who knows what the hell actually happened, there.

I would wager that militants or pro-taliban sentries fired upon the NATO force from on/near those posts.

I would have to see a map of the region, but if that squad was taking fire from two separate locations, they could have easily been pinned and unable to maneuver.

The engagement lasted two hours. Why, pray tell, were Pakistan officials aware that this engagement was taking place... and not getting their posts to cease fire!?

That's why the air strike was called in. After two hours of taking "friendly fire."

If we wanted the posts blown up - we could have just sent the airplanes, and not dicked around with the guys on the ground.

i didnt miss anything thank you...

and you are dead wrong Nato did send in airstrikes. the details are sketchy for a reason.

Unnamed Afghan officials have said that Afghan commandos and U.S. special forces were conducting a mission on the Afghan side of the border and received incoming fire from the direction of the Pakistani posts. They responded with airstrikes.

if the commandos weren't doing anything wrong then why didnt the pakistani's know they were there and what they were doing. don't go commando into a war-zone without telling your alies.

Reply to post by Darth_Prime

What baffles you about that DARTH? is there evidence that states where he truly was?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Bin Laden died years ago. Dumped at sea my bottom.

I have little sympathy for Pakistan, they have played a double game for far too long and lots of people, on all sides, have died because of it.

However, if, and it's a big if, it is proven that these were unprovoked attacks then those responsible, not just those who carried out the attack but those who issued the orders too, should face a court martial and be punished accordingly

I just can'timagine any trained professional soldiers carrying out a sustained and prolongued attack unless they had come under direct attack themselves, or they had witnessed something very serious or they were directly ordered to by their superiors..

I suspect though that both Pakistan and the US are being less than forthcoming with the truth.

reply to post by -W1LL

i didnt miss anything thank you...

Capitalize the first letter of your sentence (not to mention the pronoun "I" is supposed to be capitalized). "Didn't" is a contraction - it requires an apostrophe between the 'n' and the 't.' You also have a junction in your sentence that is to be indicated by the use of a comma. "Thank you" is a separate idea/thought/concept that is appended to your statement, and should therefor be joined with a comma.

You are an average person. You are not going to see many of the things I do, much less take them into account.

and you are dead wrong Nato did send in airstrikes. the details are sketchy for a reason.

You missed the point of my statement.

If we wanted the posts destroyed, we would have simply blown them to Kingdom Come with air strikes. The commandos were an unnecessary addition.

if the commandos weren't doing anything wrong then why didnt the pakistani's know they were there and what they were doing. don't go commando into a war-zone without telling your alies.

Our forces regularly operate along the border against Taliban forces who use the caves to base their operations.

Generally speaking, the people in Pakistan whom we are responsible for contacting when we operate near their border are contacted. Whether or not the people actually sitting behind the guns at their border know, or not, is Pakistan's prerogative.

I ask again. Why were they still firing at our soldiers for two hours?

reply to post by Aim64C


srry I didnt know this was a spelling BEE.

aye already addressed your statements. you can what if all day im not going to feed hypothetical situations.

who is to say the Pakistanis kept firing, for 2hrs they were the only ones calling NATO trying to stop it.

a bit clearer now... territorial border dispute.

From independent Pajhwok Afghan News

Pak posts built on Afghan soil, claim officials
by Abdul Mueed Hashimi on 28 November, 2011 - 14:26

www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/11/28/pak-posts-built-afghan-soil-claim-officials

JALALABAD (PAN): The Pakistani check-posts struck by International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) helicopters three days ago were built on Afghanistan soil, residents and official said on Monday.

At least 24 soldiers were killed and 13 others wounded in the predawn raid on a Pakistan Army post in the Mohmand tribal region near the Afghanistan border, a military spokesman confirmed to Pajhwok Afghan News.

The land in Ilzaisar and Kabul Sapar in the Salala mountain, on which the checkpoints were constructed, belonged to the Esakhel tribe of Afghanistan, said the administrative head of Goshta district.

Haji Syed Rahman said the Pakistan military had occupied almost 48 square meters of land of the district eight years ago.

A Tribal elder, Malik Abdul Karim Khan, said Dorkhel, Khogakhel and Mamakhel tribes of the district had sporadically been fighting against Pakistani troops since 2004. He added six Afghans had been killed and wounded in the clashes.

Khan alleged: "As the tribes resisted, international troops and former governor Din Mohammad did not take any action."

Another tribal elder, Malik Tahir Khan, also claimed that Anargi and Salala areas belonged to Goshta district. Pakistani troops would make Kunar River a new border if the Afghan tribes did not resist their efforts, he warned.

He said NATO-led troops bombarded the check-posts after their joint patrol came under attack from the Pakistani military dressed like Taliban. He insisted rockets were regularly fired into the district from the posts.

Another elder, Syed Omar, feared Pakistani troops could occupy Khapakh, Khogakhel, Mayakhel, Kandaw and Anargi areas.

A statement from ISAF said the airstrike was launched after a joint Afghan-international patrol came under attack.

But Pakistan military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, rejected the claim as baseless, saying almost 72 Pakistani soldiers had been killed and 150 others wounded in ISAF attacks over the past 10 years.

mm/mud

reply to post by -W1LL

who is to say the Pakistanis kept firing, for 2hrs they were the only ones calling NATO trying to stop it.

He said commanders were. Who they were, where they sit in the chain of command, etc is not expounded upon.

Rambo and Leeroy Jenkins could have still been tearing away at the NATO force with their .50 cals - for whatever reason.

Two hours for an air strike is ridiculous. There are assets on alert for that sort of thing - the air strike was called in as a last resort because our forces were still pinned down.

aye already addressed your statements. you can what if all day im not going to feed hypothetical situations.

Does it make sense for a highly mobile force to pack enough firepower to siege two posts for two hours?

reply to post by ulfcoyd


Everything about your story sounds reasonable...

except for this statement:

"Haji Syed Rahman said the Pakistan military had occupied almost 48 square meters of land of the district eight years ago. "

48 square meters isn't exactly a large piece of land. In fact, I think my back yard is larger than that. Perhaps a translation problem?

reply to post by Aim64C


Two hours of an airstrike in this perspective is not two hours of air strikes.

They probably strafed 2 or 3 times and began orbiting the outposts for the next hour and a half.

People continue to think Pakistan is the one being picked on , in which they are NOT being picked on. They are not upholding military agreements and have openly engaged US aircraft before while they had permission to conduct air strikes near the border.

Originally posted by milkyway12
People continue to think Pakistan is the one being picked on , in which they are NOT being picked on. They are not upholding military agreements and have openly engaged US aircraft before while they had permission to conduct air strikes near the border.

edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Yet the US military and CIA have been sending in drones to assassinate and kill within Pakistan, at a much higher frequency under Obama than Bush. Pakistan has stated many times before that they would not tolerate this violation of airspace or the terrorism carried out by American forces. So how do they suddenly become the aggressors when they fire at American aircraft within their territory? And obviously they consider it to be their territory if they have military outposts there.

reply to post by milkyway12


Get off NATO's jimmy stick...

It's a criminal alliance that aids the assassination of sitting leaders, and violates as many sections of war etiquette as possible. Get over it.

reply to post by milkyway12

Two hours of an airstrike in this perspective is not two hours of air strikes.

No, I mean two hours for the air strike to arrive.

The air strike was the terminal factor in the engagement, as far as I understand it. That force would have been packing far too light to press an engagement on those posts.

The fact that it took two hours for that air strike to conclude much of the engagement points to considerable restraint on the ones calling it.

Against a hostile force, I'd have called it after being pinned for more than a minute - and the assets on standby should have been able to deliver within 15 minutes. I'll even allow for some mix-ups and give them an hour.... that's still roughly an hour of "friendly fire" being exchanged.