NATO Forces Kill 13 Pak FC's out of a total of 27!

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Maqsad,

At this point the UAV was used (whose partial video has been released) for surveillance and targeting, not actual attack.

Per the US, the bombings were in fact carried out by the aircraft mentioned by Keys.

Whether this was deliberate, or whether they got hoodwinked by the ANA into bombing Pakistani positions because the Afghans couldn't hold their own, remains to be seen.

I think the consensus is that the US relied on the ANA to ID the targets, hence mistaking the FC for Taliban.

However the poor attempt with the video release (Conflicting and contradicting statements) does put a question mark over US intentions.

 

[maqsad]

He regretted that the US government had given no assurance that it would not do it again. “US drones are daily flying in tribal areas. It has become a daily routine and our airspace is being violated continuously,” he said, adding the planes had even come to Bannu and feared that “tomorrow they may come to Peshawar”.

This is what I was also saying before about the predators in a couple of older threads. In a decade they could make smaller, stealthier ones that can reach houses in Karachi and Lahore and blow them up at random and then inform the Pak military as an afterthought. Don't think that there aren't any people in the pak military who would even give permission for that. These have to be stopped and stopped now, they should have never been allowed in the first place. It is totally disgraceful to "outsource" the killing of your own civilians to psychopathic lunatics sitting in Langley.

And AM, the video is a joke, I didn't even bother watching it because obviously it is released as an emergency scrap of meat for spindoctors in the media to twist around and try and give credibility to the US. I think it failed in that regard.

 

[Keysersoze]

This is what I was also saying before about the predators in a couple of older threads. In a decade they could make smaller, stealthier ones that can reach houses in Karachi and Lahore and blow them up at random and then inform the Pak military as an afterthought. Don't think that there aren't any people in the pak military who would even give permission for that. These have to be stopped and stopped now, they should have never been allowed in the first place. It is totally disgraceful to "outsource" the killing of your own civilians to psychopathic lunatics sitting in Langley.

And AM, the video is a joke, I didn't even bother watching it because obviously it is released as an emergency scrap of meat for spindoctors in the media to twist around and try and give credibility to the US. I think it failed in that regard.

AHH i see it was colonel mustard in the dining room with the candlestick!!! You are now in the territory of conspiracy again (a favoured area of yours it seems) IT MUST BE THE CIA because no one else would fit into your fantasies!!! YOu of course have no other proof and luckily the fact that the CIAis a covert agency falls neatly into your conspiracies.

Before you bring your ideas out think them through and bring some reason and evidence that don't involve your personal prejudices.

Try to think like a lawyer and provide some proof.

Otherwise I might start writing how it was YOU that dropped those bombs and now are trying to cover up your guilt by trying to blame the CIA. And in saying that I have as much proof as you have presented.

 

[maqsad]

AHH i see it was colonel mustard in the dining room with the candlestick!!! You are now in the territory of conspiracy again (a favoured area of yours it seems) IT MUST BE THE CIA because no one else would fit into your fantasies!!! YOu of course have no other proof and luckily the fact that the CIAis a covert agency falls neatly into your conspiracies.

Before you bring your ideas out think them through and bring some reason and evidence that don't involve your personal prejudices.

Try to think like a lawyer and provide some proof.

Otherwise I might start writing how it was YOU that dropped those bombs and now are trying to cover up your guilt by trying to blame the CIA. And in saying that I have as much proof as you have presented.

You actually want me to prove that the CIA operates armed predator drones around the pak-afghan border? We already know that they do so after it came out after a couple of years of secrecy. Do you want me to dig up the news reports for that, since you must have missed them? It's not my personal prejudice but it is fact that:

* The CIA operated armed drones in pakistan.

* Special forces conduct covert missions which involve sabotage of enemy installations.

* Both the CIA and military special ops often conduct false flag attacks even going so far as to impersonate another nation in order to further covert agendas. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine they would "flare up" an already occuring exchange.

The above are not fantasies but the bread and butter daily run of the mill assignements given to these agencies. These agencies do not go around making peanut butter sandwitches for everyone, they don't go around painting buildings, drilling holes in walls to install cabinets etc etc. They do what I listed above as their standard duty(some of them).

Now we know that the US govt denied any knowledge of Pakistani troops being fired upon and killed during the three hour skirmish. Even a child with some basic general knowledge about military tactics, special ops and intelligence agencies that it is plausible some fringe lunatic group COULD have been responsible. And that could very possibly involve the CIA since eyewitnesses say they saw a predator.


Of course there is also the possibility that the pentagon and the white house gave the order to kill pakistani troops, I never said that was not possible I just didn't mention it here because it has already been mentioned. But if you want to assume the white house is not full of pathalogical liars, or at least that they weren't lying about this from the start then you have to consider other possibilities.

 

[maqsad]

Its not F-16 but the will to fight that saves one. If we demonstrate our will to fight this will end. As long as we remain on the receiving end this will continue. We need to retaliate.

The FC corps showed incredible will to fight and defend to the last breath against overwhelming odds. The ghairat is definately there in the lower rungs. Something else is wrong though..it is the technology and training which is lacking and I also have as suspicion that people higher up in the military are just being overly cautious and overly diplomatic. But if I am not mistaken the FC core did not lose territory and nor did they run away, in the end they won the battle.

 

[Interceptor]

 

[muse]

A method to the American madness - one that deserves a beftting response


U.S. strike aggravates alliance with Pakistan
Tuesday's deadly US incursion is under investigation, but it points up the contrast between the two nations' approaches to militants along the Afghanistan border.
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the June 13, 2008 edition

Washington - This week's controversial American incursion into Pakistan is prompting new questions about whether the US must change its strategy in the war on terrorism and is putting the shaky US-Pakistan alliance under even greater pressure.

On Tuesday, the US dropped at least three precision bombs just inside Pakistan on the Afghanistan border, reportedly killing 11 people. US forces had been fighting a group of militants in Afghanistan's Kunar Province near the border, pursuing them when they fled into Pakistan, the Pentagon said. Pakistan's government strongly condemned the attack; the Pentagon maintained that the operation had been coordinated with the Pakistanis beforehand and that US forces had successfully targeted militants. But US officials left open the possibility that members of the Pakistani military were among those killed.

Complicating the picture were statements from the US State Department regretting the loss of life, suggesting the operation had occurred in error. Military officials were still investigating the incident on Thursday.

In some military circles, recognition is growing that security in Afghanistan is tied to Pakistan's ability to rein in militants within its own borders. Groups that have fomented unrest across the border continue to seek refuge inside Pakistan, they say. The NATO alliance has been limited in its response to the problem by its inability to take the fight across the border and inside a sovereign country that has been an important US ally.

American officials have been urging Pakistan to do it for them. But as Pakistan realigns itself under new political leadership, its government has approached the war on terrorism in its own way. Its motivations for containing violence in Pakistan are not necessarily aligned with the US desire to rid the region of violence coming from inside the border region, say analysts.

Moreover, not everyone believes Pakistan holds the key to security in Afghanistan in the first place.

US officials are wrong to blame Pakistan for instability and violence in Afghanistan, says Christine Fair, a senior political analyst at RAND Corp., a public policy group in Washington. Pakistan's border region, known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, will always be a sanctuary for terrorists that will want to target the US, she says, but to assign blame to Pakistan is to deny the real problem.

"It's become a bromide to externalize the failures in Afghanistan and blame them on Pakistan," says Ms. Fair. The US, she adds, must send a signal to Pakistan that it is serious about security by beefing up its own contribution of forces in Afghanistan. "It is a joke how few troops we have in Afghanistan," she says.

Currently about 60,000 forces are in Afghanistan, a combination of about 33,000 American and 28,000 non-US NATO forces. With its forces tied to the mission in Iraq, the US has resisted sending many more of its own troops to Afghanistan.

The US airstrikes come as the Pakistan government tries to reach peace accords with tribal leaders in a region in Pakistan along the Afghan border known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, home to many of the militant groups that have given refuge to the Taliban and other groups. American officials decry Pakistan's approach, in which the government has said it will negotiate with tribal leaders in an effott to bring peace to that region. The US, which does not support negotiating with terrorists, says such peace agreements are unenforceable and in the past have led to even more violence. Militants such as Baitullah Mehsud, suspected of assassinating former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last year, operate in the region.

American military officials still aren't sure what to make of the incident until it is more thoroughly investigated. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, told the Monitor the US and Pakistan have agreed to a joint investigation of the incident that will generate the information needed to better assess the situation for both sides.

"Based on the information we have, it is a very well-executed mission, well within the bounds of the rules of engagement. And in fact our forces were being fired on by forces across the border, and we responded," he says.

Earlier this week, Admiral Mullen had noted the importance of "strategic patience" when it comes to US impatience over Pakistan's approach, calling it "an enormously complex problem."

"There is a thirst to solve it overnight, but we're just not going to solve it overnight," he told defense reporters Tuesday.

Mullen, who has traveled to Pakistan three times since his appointment as Joint Chiefs chairman last fall, says he has struggled to find solutions to the problem and compares groups in tribal areas there with insurgencies in other parts of the world.

Mullen expects that any attack against the US will originate in the FATA region and recognizes the need to address the violence to bring security to Afghanistan. "At the same time, we cannot have Pakistanis who support insurgents coming across the border [into Afghanistan]. That is not going to be acceptable in the long run."

The uproar over the bombings points up the difficulty for the US and Pakistan as they attempt to unite against a common enemy. For internal political purposes, Pakistan's government must be perceived by its people as standing apart from the US. But in a fight in which public perception is as important as combat operations, the different approaches Islamabad and Washington are taking to the militants don't bode well for the alliance.

Ahmad Idrees Rahmani, director of Afghanistan's Center for Research and Policy Studies in Kabul, says the incident Wednesday runs the risk of angering a critical ally but also sends an important message.

"It is good to show the Pakistanis that the US is serious when it comes to fighting terrorism," he says. "On the other hand, as you push Pakistanis to the corner to deliver more, you always have to draw a line on how far you can push."

 

[EagleEyes]

Official: Pakistan should reconsider its ties to US

By STEPHEN GRAHAM – 9 hours ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — The top elected official in northwest Pakistan said Thursday the country should rethink its relationship with America after a U.S. airstrike that reportedly killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.

The U.S. and Pakistan remained at odds in their versions of a Tuesday night clash on the Afghan border that led to American planes dropping bombs on insurgents who had staged an attack inside Afghanistan.

President Bush's national security adviser said it was not clear exactly what happened and American officials "have not been able to corroborate" Pakistani troops died. The U.S. "would be very saddened" if that were true, Stephen Hadley told reporters traveling with Bush in Europe.

The incident is presenting a stiff test for an already-strained alliance, a partnership many here say has cost many Pakistani lives with limited recognition for their cooperation in the U.S. campaign against international extremist groups.

Haider Khan Hoti, chief minister of North West Frontier Province, a restive region next to Afghanistan where Islamic militants are strong, said the airstrike was "absolutely naked aggression."

"After condemnation, we should do some serious rethinking of the ties that we have, because on the one side in the war on terror we are expected to offer them cooperation and on the other hand our security forces are being targeted," Hoti said in Peshawar, the area's main city.

Some Pakistanis directed their anger over the airstrike at President Pervez Musharraf, who allied the country with the United States after the Sept. 11 terror attack.

In Peshawar, about 50 Islamic students brandished banners with slogans such as "America is the most terrorist country in the world" and "U.S. ally Musharraf, resign immediately."

A similar gathering in the southern city of Karachi carried a sign saying "Rulers and generals of Pakistan, give a tit-for-tat response to American missile attack."

In the Mohmand tribal area, where the disputed bombing occurred, tribal elder Malik Mazal Mahmood said Musharraf's "wrong policies" were to blame.

"If the Americans really consider themselves brave, then they should use ground forces, and if they do it, we will be happy to face them," he said. "Musharraf allowed Americans to kill our people, and now Americans have started killing the soldiers of Pakistan."

Others expressed satisfaction that the new government — led by opponents of Musharraf — had quickly protested the attack.

"Musharraf's government used to hide such things in the past, but the new government at least didn't do it, and rather it took a bold step by openly opposing and criticizing America," said Kawanar Sadique, a clerk at a garment factory near Lahore.

The border clash comes at an especially sensitive time.

Pakistan's government is negotiating with tribal elders trying to secure peace with militants along the Afghan border in hopes of curbing violence. It is a step back from the military offensives pursued by Musharraf.

Western officials fear the peace deals could give more space for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters to operate freely, but Pakistan insists the negotiations are not with terrorists but with Pakistani militants willing to lay down their arms.

Pakistan has called the airstrike "completely unprovoked and cowardly" and lodged a diplomatic protest. The Pentagon maintains it was a "legitimate strike" against militants who attacked U.S.-led coalition forces just over the border in Afghanistan.

On Thursday, the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan released video to support its account. The excerpts, however, do not show the Gorparai border post where Pakistan said its troops died, and one explosion occurs off screen without explanation.

The grainy, monochrome images show about a half-dozen men firing rifles and rocket-propelled grenades from a ridge at coalition troops off camera in the valley below. According to the voiceover, the ridge is in Afghanistan's Kunar province, about 200 yards from the Pakistan border and close to the checkpoint.

Neither the border post nor any other structures are visible in the video excerpts, which were shot by a surveillance drone circling above the mountainous battle zone.

The video shows "anti-Afghan militants" moving to a position identified as inside Pakistan and the impact of a bomb that the voiceover says killed two of them. The survivors fled into a ravine, where three more bombs fell. The voiceover said all the militants were killed and U.S. officials said 13 bombs were dropped in all.

According to a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the reports are not public, a B-1 bomber dropped nine bombs, including three 2,000-pound precision-guided "smart bombs." At least one of the three larger bombs was launched early on and is shown in the initial part of the video, but the bulk of the B-1 bombings are not shown.

F-15E fighter jets dropped the four bombs fired after the militants had moved further inside Pakistan, killing a number of the militants, the official said.

The video does not show the nine 105 mm cannon rounds that were fired from a nearby coalition base before the B-1 and the fighter jets arrived.

Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, spokesman for Pakistan's army, said the military was analyzing the coalition video and statements by U.S. officials. On Wednesday, he said all the Pakistani troops killed and injured were in bunkers and buildings destroyed by the airstrike. He said the soldiers had reported no nearby militant activity.

But he did say Afghan troops were attacked by insurgents before the airstrike was called in. An organization of Pakistani Taliban groups also said eight of its fighters were killed in the battle.

The Associated Press: Official: Pakistan should reconsider its ties to US

 

[mujahideen]

We have a democratic government in Pakistan they know how the people feel about this attack they should take action. Well unless the same old excuse is going to be used, just blame Musharraf.

 

[Comet]

Musharaf or no Musharaf
We have proved our selves pathetic by not doing any thing.
There have been incidents like these in the past with india and we did hell of job both at diplomatic levels and militarily but what has happen to us now?
Because its the U S A thats why our politicians cannot condemn it?
We are pathetic. We always chose the wrong people.

 

[mujahideen]

^^^^Wht can we do. We were slaves and are still slaves. I mean if we want to be strong diplomatically then we must not be dependent on anyone. I mean we get politicians from America, we get oney from America and last I checked we were on the verge on getting wheat from them.

 

[muse]

An editorial from the IHT -- please do note the tone, note the title - It's not American Berserkers who are dangerous, it's their vitims who are dangerous --Notice how it Mr.Musharraf and also the new govt who are to blame for people taking exceptio to the killing of their soldiers and citizens fby American berserkers - notice it is not the US that has squandered it's goodwill, but rather Musharraf, the new got and Pakistan -- then the libel, the big lie, the US$10 Billion, that exist as transfers on paper for amounts owned for use of facilities -- imagine that, paying your bills and charging that you have done a favor by paying your bills -- And if you had any doubt about the American's appetite for war, the editorial, offers that it has to be a "long war" against "terrorism", the kind the 11 Shaheed were commiting huddled inside their bunkers. Blood for Blood

A dangerous place
Published: June 13, 2008


There is enormous confusion about what happened Tuesday night on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. Pakistani officials say that U.S. artillery and airstrikes killed 11 of their paramilitary troops, and some are angrily demanding an end to all military cooperation. The Bush administration says U.S. forces were firing in self-defense against Taliban fighters crossing into Afghanistan.

The incident is an urgent reminder of the terrible state of relations between the two countries - relations essential to the fight against terrorism - and how much needs to be done to salvage them.

Pakistanis have a host of grievances against the Americans, all made far worse by the Bush administration's decision to back President Pervez Musharraf long after he had squandered all of his popular support. Musharraf and Pakistan's new democratically elected leaders have also failed to tell their people that the fight against extremists is essential for their own country's stability and security.

Washington and Islamabad must now do everything they can to repair relations, starting with a joint investigation and a full and public report of its findings.

The Pentagon already bars U.S. forces in Afghanistan from crossing or firing into Pakistan except to protect themselves. The investigation must determine whether those procedures were followed and if not, why not.

The administration should quietly discuss with Pakistan the creation of a small, unpublicized buffer zone in which the United States would not conduct attacks unless it had hard intelligence that top Al Qaeda figures were hiding there. That could lessen the chances of more friendly fire incidents - if that is what happened.

The effort must go far beyond that. Since Sept. 11, the United States has poured $10 billion into Pakistan, mostly for the army of Musharraf, a former general. But it has not crushed Al Qaeda or shut down Taliban safe havens.

Seven years later, the administration still needs a comprehensive plan - integrating diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and economic aid. That is the only way to help stabilize Pakistan, and tamp down anti-American furies. It is also the only chance of truly enlisting its support in the long fight against terrorism.

 

[Tang0]

Besides the statement:

"Musharraf and Pakistan's new democratically elected leaders have also failed to tell their people that the fight against extremists is essential for their own country's stability and security."

The whole thing struck me as relatively conciliatory. The Taliban does in fact use the northern frontier provinces as an operating base to attack and kill US and Afghan forces. To allow the enemy a base of operations free of harassment is a terrible idea in any military conflict. If you do in fact view the US and NATO as illegal invaders in Afghanistan, then there is nothing to discuss, since US policy is therefore inherently evil. But nowhere in that Editorial did it indicate that Pakistani citizens did not have a right to be angry, it in fact stated that a great many changes to US policy would have to be made in order to regain some semblance of trust. Also, the US really did give 10 billion dollars to the PA, and I can assure you, that is a great deal more than "Services Rendered" would require. (Look at the annual budget of the entire nation of Pakistan to see what I mean... Approx. 30 Billion)

 

[EagleEyes]

Nawaz Sharif, if given power. Will put an end to this for sure.

But i dont want him. Even if he can do it.

 

[muse]

Tango

Perhaps you expand on your point that the editorial is “conciliatory” – because I can’t see how “conciliatory” is relevant – they have killed Pakistani uniformed personnel.

It is not a problem that Us forces are operating in Afghanistan, rather what interests me, is the purpose behind all this – after all, 6 years on, what are they doing there and why and have these 6 years of American experience in Afghanistan been good for Pakistan? If yes, how so?

The editorial suggests that the US has a role in the security and stabilization of Pakistan – do we need reminding that the US has been intimately involved in the destabilization of Pakistan? Was it not Mr. Musharraf himself who publically asked on CNN, that the US not destabilize Pakistan and that it does not understand the consequences?.

In fact the 6 years of the US in Afghanistan has had a terribly destabilizing effect on Pakistan and in fact the US ahs contributed greatly to the insecurity in Pakistan with the assistance it has given to the Indian and at the same time restricting Pakistani acces to US markets.

Your point about the US$10 billion is, in point of view, a misrepresentation, the US and Pakistan had a agreement and the US congress hassed bills to support Pakistan with aid, none of which was contingent on allowing Americans to kill Pakistani uniformed personnel.

I will try and explain, so that the chance of misunderstanding is reduced – I am not suggesting that Talib are good or supporting the civil war in Afghanistan is good or that that Islamist terrorists are good – all of these are negative not only for Pakistan but also for Afghanistan, however; these objects do not become good or worthy of support and right by killing Pakistani uniformed personnel.

Ought we not be asking why the US finds itself in such a position? Is it not the act of concerned friends to ask such a question? Unfortunately, among so many, it seems to question the US policy and motives is by itself seen as a unfriendly act – seems to me that such an attitude is itself a reflection of defensiveness.

What will happen if the US decides to impose like it has on Iraq, the idea that US forces will have to be stationed in Afghanistan for decades to come, will that bring peace, will that be acceptable, will that be good for Pakistan or for China and is that not a guarantee that peace will not exist in this region?? And therefore, is it not duplicity to argue that US can stabilize Pakistan, while it is US policy to in fact destabilize Pakistan and to change it’s orientation from alliance within it’s region to servitude to policy that makes Pakistan a puppet on strings?

I am all for excellent, warm, cordial relations with the US, but one way street friendship with the US is a recipe for disaster for both US and Pakistan