Nato forces kill 30 ( in ) Pakistan

[SpArK]

Lets not forget the region is such you can usually get lost and dont know whether you are in pakistan or Afghanistan....

They have the most modern helicopters with GPS which says the exact pin point location at all times.. In a sophisticated piece of machine its hard to believe getting lost.

 

[mjnaushad]

They have the most modern helicopters with GPS which says the exact pin point location at all times.. In a sophisticated piece of machine its hard to believe getting lost.

Of course but people usually dont play with GPS when they are having a little shootout down there.....

 

[SpArK]

Of course but people usually dont play with GPS when they are having a little shootout down there.....

In Apaches i think the co pilot is the gunner.

 

[pakdefender]

Off lately the NATO casualties in afghanistan have been increasing at the hands of an invisable enemy so as usual they have set their sites on Pakistan , where they can hit the more conventional military type targets ( like mud compounds ) as they think these mud houses are the reason for their failure.

Their efforts in afghanistan are falterring and they want to blame Pakistan for it and make us bleed for it.

 

[SpArK]

30 killed as 2 NATO helicopters strike inside Pakistan

 

[pakdefender]

The recent admissions by the CIA that they have been backing mercinary forces inside Pakistan to do their dirty work should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the CIA backs covertly/overtly many of the terrorist activites that go on in Pakistan.

 

[karan.1970]

Lets not forget the region is such you can usually get lost and dont know whether you are in pakistan or Afghanistan....

On a state of the art helicopter gunship of NATO?? GPS anyone?

 

[pakdefender]

We are at war at many levels and our respose to attacks ( and attepts to destablise us ) us must also be on that many levels.

 

[sparklingway]

US copters kill 30 inside Pakistan​

By Anwar Iqbal
Monday, 27 Sep, 2010

WASHINGTON: US attack helicopters have killed more than 30 people inside Pakistan, diplomatic sources told Dawn on Sunday.

US military sources say that all 30 – killed during a hot pursuit on Friday – were Haqqani Network fighters.

The militants, the sources said, had attacked Combat Outpost Narizah, an Afghan base eight miles from the Pakistani border in Tani district of Khost.

US forces repelled the attack and pursued the militants to their post just across the border in North Waziristan.

“An air weapons team in the area observed the enemy fire, and following Inter-national Security Assistance Force rules of engagement, crossed into the area of enemy fire,” the International Security Assistance Force stated in a press release.

“The Isaf aircraft then engaged, killing more than 30 insurgents.”

Isaf confirmed that the helicopters struck at the Haqqani Network fighters in Pakistan.

The attack helicopters launched their attack “after following the proper rules of engagement under inherent right of self-defence,” Master Sergeant Matthew Summers, a public affairs official, told reporters.

On Saturday, Isaf launched a second attack against the Haqqani Network, after taking fire in the border area. “Several additional insurgents” were killed in that attack.

The assault on Combat Outpost Narizah is the sixth against outposts in eastern Afghanistan since the end of August.

The US claims that the Haqqani Network is based near Miramshah in North Waziristan, and has close ties to Al Qaeda and other Pakistani and Central Asian militant groups.

US officials say that Isaf forces are permitted to pursue Taliban forces across the border if they are engaged in fighting or are under attack.

They said that US and Pakistani military commanders have agreed to a set of rules for hot pursuit, which says that US forces must be engaged with the Taliban or Al Qaeda as they cross into Pakistan.

US forces, however, not penetrate more than six miles into Pakistani territory.

But they can go deeper inside Pakistan if they identify the location of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri, or Mullah Omar.

Pakistan denies having such an agreement while US officials refuse to offer on the record comments on this issue.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | US copters kill 30 inside Pakistan

 

[SparklingCrescent]

I have no words to describe my anger.

yesterday Drones,
today Copters,
tomarrow foot Soldiers.

 

[Vassnti]

I have no words to describe my anger.

yesterday Drones,
today Copters,
tomarrow foot Soldiers.

Why so angry, does any one seriously expect that the taliban can sit on the Pakistan side of the border and shoot at the Americans or the Afghan army and they wont shoot back?

 

[K^se]

I have no words to describe my anger.

yesterday Drones,
today Copters,
tomarrow foot Soldiers.

You honestly think that Terrorist networks can do cross border attacks on Coalition troops, and go back across the border to re-quip munitions, get more logistics, get more fighters, cross over the boarder and keep doing their attacks? No, I think not if they're trying to cross the boarder we'll take them out permanently if you can't do it..

-Yesterday Drones 'Check'
-Today Attack Helicopter 'Check'
-Tomorrow Foot Soldiers "I believe we already have foot soldiers in Pakistan" so 'Check'

 

[SparklingCrescent]

You honestly think that Terrorist networks can do cross border attacks on Coalition troops, and go back across the border to re-quip munitions, get more logistics, get more fighters, cross over the boarder and keep doing their attacks? No, I think not if they're trying to cross the boarder we'll take them out permanently if you can't do it..

-Yesterday Drones 'Check'
-Today Attack Helicopter 'Check'
-Tomorrow Foot Soldiers "I believe we already have foot soldiers in Pakistan" so 'Check'

True.

But Honestly if U.S trusted us much then I strongly believe this would've been taken care of by us. Dont you think?

 

[gambit]

True.

But Honestly if U.S trusted us much then I strongly believe this would've been taken care of by us. Dont you think?

Trust is a different issue. Before there is trust, there must be...

Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, U.S.T.S. 540, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117, entered into force January 26, 1910.

CHAPTER I

The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents. A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.

The conflict is between US and Afghanistan. Anyone else must declare their neutrality unless they want to take a side. The most urgent responsibilities for declared neutral states are articles 4 and 5.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

As I mentioned last year, you will see ground combat troops in Pakistan.

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 AM ----------

Trust is a different issue. Before there is trust, there must be...

Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, U.S.T.S. 540, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117, entered into force January 26, 1910.

The conflict is between US and Afghanistan. Anyone else must declare their neutrality unless they want to take a side. The most urgent responsibilities for declared neutral states are articles 4 and 5.

What about the concerns our parliament raised?