US Sponsored Cross Border Attacks on Pakistan`s Soil

[Emmie]

The reality is open on this forum

You "Indians" always defend Americans and Isreali's. and whenever anything against you from these countries you guys start bashing against Americans British etc. Which kind of mentality you have atleast we stick on 1 agenda we hate American govt either there Media bashing against Pakistan or say something good against Pakistan we damn care! we like China and neva bash against Chinese because they never harm us simple. As your "INDIAN LOGIC" you don't have any single point agenda. One side defend americans more then Americans lol and when American govt or any kind of report against India from American Media or any American organization you start bashing and hate Americans more then Pakistani's lol

"sahi baat hey paisa aaa janay say okaat nahe badalti na he demaag badalta hey, ub tu economy bohat achi tumhare .... ub tu Americanoon kay uthana choordo" lol

You are absolutely RIGHT...

Me and my friends call every Indian an attorney who conducts lawsuits for USA and Israel for free.

 

[niazifighter]

Routine cross border , flag meeting , whats the big deal in it ?[/QUOTE]

routine flag meeting
read these two pieces maybe you will be able to wake up

Spec ops raids into Pakistan halted
By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Sep 26, 2008 20:10:54 EDT
U.S. special operations forces have paused ground operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas, but military and civilian government officials differ over why the cross-border raids have been halted.

The issue of U.S. raids into the tribal areas was thrust into the international spotlight by a Sept. 3 raid in Angor Adda, in the South Waziristan tribal agency, by Navy SEALs working for a Joint Special Operations Command task force. (JSOC is the secretive military organization that oversees the military’s special mission units such as the Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment–Delta and the Navy’s Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DevGru, also known as SEAL Team 6.)

“We have shown a willingness starting this year to pursue those kinds of missions,” said a Pentagon official. However, he said, after temporarily granting JSOC greater latitude to conduct cross-border missions, U.S. leaders had decided to again restrain the command, at least as far as raids using ground troops are concerned, to allow Pakistani forces to press home their attacks on militants in the tribal areas.

“We are now working with the Pakistanis to make sure that those type of ground-type insertions do not happen, at least for a period of time to give them an opportunity to do what they claim they are desiring to do,” the Pentagon official said, adding that this did not apply to air strikes launched from unmanned aerial vehicles at targets inside the tribal areas.

Although JSOC is the organization tasked, along with the Central Intelligence Agency, with finding and killing or capturing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Sept. 3 raid was not aimed at “a huge type of target,” the Pentagon official said. “There were just consistent problems in that area that had come to a point where there was significant evidence that there was complicity on the part of the [Pakistani military’s] Frontier Corps and others in allowing repetitive raids and activities to go on. And there was a firm desire to, one, send a message, and two, also establish any intelligence audit that could be established that would be useful to respond to a frequent question that we get from the other side of the border, which is, ‘Well, show us and tell us where the problem is, then we’ll deal with it.’”

But a U.S. government official closely involved with policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region said the military had underestimated the Pakistani response and was reconsidering its options.

The official’s comments were echoed by a field grade special operations officer with Afghanistan experience. The Sept. 3 raid “was an opportunity to see how the new Pakistani government reacted,” the officer said. “If they didn’t do anything, they were just kind of fairly passive, like [former Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf was … then we felt like, okay, we can slowly up the ante, we can do maybe some more of these ops. But the backlash that happened, and especially the backlash in the diplomatic channels, was pretty severe.”

The raid represented “a strategic miscalculation,” the U.S. government official said. “We did not fully appreciate the vehemence of the Pakistani response,” which included the Pakistan government’s implication that it was willing to cut the coalition’s supply lines through Pakistan. “I don’t think we really believed it was going to go to that level,” the government official said.

The military’s comments about the Sept. 3 raid sending a message represented a smokescreen, said the government official, who added that the mission “was meant to be the beginning of a campaign.” “We miscalculated, and now we’re trying to figure out how to walk the dog back. One way to do that is to say, ‘Oh well, we wanted to send a message; we’ve now sent that message, and so we’re going to not send it as much in the future, yet we’re still sort of leaving it on the table, because as we all know, we never admit to a mistake.’

“Once the Pakistanis started talking about closing down our supply routes, and actually demonstrated they could do it, once they started talking about shooting American helicopters, we obviously had to take seriously that maybe this [approach] was not going to be good enough,” the government official said. “We can’t sustain ourselves in Afghanistan without the Pakistani supply routes. At the end of the day, we had to not let our tactics get in the way of our strategy. … As much as it may be good to get some of these bad guys, we can’t do it at the expense of being able to sustain ourselves in Afghanistan, obviously.

“Senior uniformed people recognize that,” as do senior officials in the State Department and the intelligence agencies, the U.S. government official said. In the latter categories, the official said, “People are looking at this in terms of its propensity for destabilizing the situation in Pakistan and unifying all these disparate anti-this and anti-that elements into one anti-American element in Pakistan.”

“The raid got a lot more attention than they expected,” a Washington source in government said. “They do have to walk it back and go about it a different way, because obviously that didn’t work. … We can’t afford these backlashes every time a raid occurs.” However, the Washington source added, “I don’t think there’s been another strategic decision to back off.” Instead, JSOC would “go about it a different way.”

U.S. Central Command spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith declined to comment for this story.

Under questioning on Capitol Hill on Sept. 23, Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not deny that U.S. forces had made cross-border strikes.

“We will do what is necessary to protect our troops,” he said, acknowledging the Pentagon had been granted “authorities” for such action.

INTO TRIBAL AREAS
The Sept. 3 raid was not the first time JSOC forces have launched into the tribal areas. In the past, small JSOC elements have operated with the Pakistani Special Services Group in the tribal areas, and the special operations officer with Afghanistan experience said he was aware of “two or three” cross-border operations similar to the Angor Adda raid. “They have happened, but it was by no means a common occurrence,” he said.

However, said the government official closely involved with Afghanistan/Pakistan policy, JSOC “has been pushing hard for several years” to step up their raids into the tribal areas, said the U.S. government official closely involved with policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. JSOC’s argument has been “Give us greater latitude, we’ve got to hit where their sanctuaries are,” the official said.

“In the wake of the increased Taliban attacks we’ve seen over the last several months and the sense of frustration that we haven’t been more successful, their point of view has finally gained traction,” the government official said.

Two government sources identified the Taliban’s July 13 attack on a U.S. outpost in the Korengal valley as a turning point in the debate.

“Clearly we saw what happened in the Korengal valley as a watershed moment,” said the government official closely involved with policy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Together with the Taliban’s July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy and their Jan. 14 attack on the Serena hotel (both in Kabul city) and the June 13 escape of an estimated 900 inmates, including perhaps 400 Taliban from a Kandahar jail, the Korengal fight gave the impression that things were spinning out of control.

“Suddenly you have an American outpost — not Canadian or British or Dutch — that is almost overrun,” the official said.

BUSIER OP TEMPO, MORE TARGETS
The Sept. 3 raid into Pakistan is part of a heightened operational tempo for JSOC forces based in Afghanistan, several sources said. JSOC’s target list has expanded from the original “big three” of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar to a broader list that includes figures in the Taliban-allied network of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i-Islami group (sometimes referred to as HiG by the U.S. military).

The U.S. government official involved with policy in the area described JSOC’s targets as fitting into two categories: the “big guys” with whom the U.S. has “unfinished business” and “those people that threaten us operationally and tactically on the ground right now.”

Several sources said the Sept. 3 raid appeared to have been aimed at the Haqqani network, along with some of its Uzbek allies.

“Because of the nature of those types of operations, there generally has to be — and in this case there was — an involvement of a foreign fighter element,” the Pentagon official said. “And the traditional ones in that area are the Uzbeks and the Chechens. Their interpenetration with Talibs in that area is the mixture that is most at play.”

JSOC is “targeting a range of actors, but one of the big ones is Haqqani,” said a civilian expert on Afghanistan, adding that targeting the Haqqani network represented “payback” for its alleged involvement in the Indian embassy bombing, the hotel attack in Kabul and an assassination attempt against Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The U.S. government official closely involved with policy in the region agreed that U.S. forces were targeting Haqqani as “payback,” but also because the network — now mostly controlled by Haqqani’s son, Sirajuddin — “is seen as … the low-hanging fruit,” because its bases in Waziristan are more easily accessible than the mountainous terrain of the Bajaur tribal agency where Hekmatyar’s fighters operate.

“None of the JSOC activity has been going on in the areas around the sanctuary for Mullah Omar’s Taliban,” which is located in and around the Pakistani city of Quetta, the civilian expert on Afghanistan said. “It’s all happening in the tribal areas… The target has not been the Omar Taliban.”

The government official closely involved with policy in the region agreed that the change in the rules of engagement that allowed JSOC to operate more freely across the border applied only to the tribal areas, and not to “Pakistan proper.”

As a result, he said “The cross-border activity, by virtue of where these target sets are located, favors actions against HiG and against the Haqqani network, and not against the Quetta Shura [of Mullah Omar].”

A senior military official said that the JSOC task force was using a similar approach along the border to that which served JSOC so well in Iraq: a combination of technical and human intelligence driving multiple missions per night, with each target quickly exploited for intelligence that then prompts further missions.

But the Taliban are not standing still, according to the government official involved with policy in the region. “Both sides have taken the gloves off and are going at it hard,” the official said.

The increased pace of operations has come with a significant cost: Three DevGru SEALs have died in Afghanistan in recent weeks: Petty Officer 1st Class Joshua Harris, who drowned while crossing a river Aug. 30, and Senior Chief Petty Officer John Wayne Marcum and Chief Petty Officer (select) Jason Richard Freiwald, who both died Sept. 12 of injuries suffered in combat Sept. 11.

The two DevGru casualties who died Sept. 12 were killed “on the Afghan side of the border in one of those small, minor ambush-type things,” the Pentagon official said.

When JSOC forces cross the border into Pakistan, they do so only after receiving clearances from the highest levels of the U.S. government, sources said. However, exactly who has the authority to approve JSOC’s missions into Pakistan is shrouded in secrecy.

Asked at what level JSOC’s cross-border missions must be authorized, the Pentagon official said he knew the answer, but added, “I can’t talk to you about that, given the level of classification.” However, he said, the authority rested far above the JSOC task force commander in Afghanistan.

“It’s long been that way,” the Pentagon official said. “That’s not done in a cavalier [way] or without a very high level of authority. … Neither the aerial-type missions nor the ground-type missions, short of hot pursuit, which has some very finite restrictions on it, can take place without there being a high level of authority.”

The Washington source in government said the issue’s sensitivity was related to diplomacy. “There’s a very linear chain of command … but it can make things diplomatically stressful if these things are made public,” the source said.

“Even a missile strike requires the highest level of authority,” a special operations officer with Afghanistan experience said.

Asked who would have to sign off on a mission into Pakistan, he replied: “The president, no doubt in my mind. The president

US forces mounted secret Pakistan raids in hunt for al-Qaida
Former Nato officer reveals secret night operations in border region which America kept quiet
Declan Walsh in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 21.18 GMT

Demonstrators in Quetta protest against US threats to extend drone strikes into the Balochistan region, which US military chiefs fear is becoming a Taliban ‘hub'. Photograph: Banaras Khan/AFP/Getty Images
American special forces have conducted multiple clandestine raids into Pakistan's tribal areas as part of a secret war in the border region where Washington is pressing to expand its drone assassination programme.

A former Nato officer said the incursions, only one of which has been previously reported, occurred between 2003 and 2008, involved helicopter-borne elite soldiers stealing across the border at night, and were never declared to the Pakistani government.

"The Pakistanis were kept entirely in the dark about it. It was one of those things we wouldn't confirm officially with them," said the source, who had detailed knowledge of the operations.

Such operations are a matter of sensitivity in Pakistan. While public opinion has grudgingly tolerated CIA-led drone strikes in the tribal areas, any hint of American "boots on the ground" is greeted with virulent condemnation.

After the only publicly acknowledged special forces raid in September 2008, Pakistan's foreign office condemned it as "a grave provocation" while the military threatened retaliatory action.

The military source said that was the fourth raid of previous years. Two of the others targeted Taliban and al-Qaida "high-value targets" near the border, while the third was to rescue a crashed Predator drone. He said that one of the capture raids succeeded, the other failed and the US sent elite soldiers to the downed Predator because they did not trust Pakistani forces. "People were afraid they would take the parts and reverse- engineer its components," he said.

The secretive nature of the raids underscores the suspicious nature of the relationship between the two allies as they argue about Washington's latest demands.

Disrupting the Taliban safe haven inside Pakistan is the unspoken part of Barack Obama's "surge" announced this month. Although 30,000 troops will be deployed to Afghanistan by next summer, the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership is believed to be sheltering on the Pakistani side of the 1,600-mile border.

In recent weeks Washington has sent a stream of senior officials to Islamabad seeking Pakistani action on at least two fronts: attacks on Sirajuddin Haqqani, a warlord with strong al-Qaida ties based in North Waziristan, and an expansion of the CIA-led drone strikes into the western province of Balochistan.

"This is crunch time," said a senior Pakistani official. "The tone of the Obama administration is growing more ominous. The message is 'you do it, or we will'."

In a recent New York Times article titled Take the war to Pakistan, Seth Jones, a senior civilian adviser to America's special forces commander in Afghanistan, said the Afghan war was "run and organised out of Balochistan" by the Quetta shura, a 15-man war council led by the Taliban leader Mullah Omar. "Virtually all significant meetings of the Taliban take place in that province, and many of the group's senior leaders and military commanders are based there," he said.

The US demands have drawn an angry reaction from Pakistan's military. A senior official with the ISI, Pakistan's premier spy agency, said it was hunting the Taliban in Balochistan, citing 60 joint operations between the CIA and ISI in the province over the past year. "They are going in for kills, they are apprehending people. CIA and ISI operatives depend on each other for their lives in these operations," he said. The official, who spoke anonymously but with official sanction, said Pakistan's military were overstretched. "We can't fight everywhere at once," he said. Since October the army has been at war in South Waziristan, stronghold of the "Pakistani Taliban" whose suicide bombers have killed more than 500 people in cities over the past two months.

US generals say the army is playing a "double game", turning a blind eye to "Afghan Taliban" sheltering in Balochistan because it considers them strategic assets as part of a wider gambit to check Indian influence in Afghanistan.

The ISI official denied such links and accused the US of "scapegoating" Pakistan for its own failures. "During the past year there has been zilch actionable intelligence about the Quetta shura or Haqqani," he said. "If they are so sure Mullah Omar is in Quetta or Karachi, why don't they tell us where he is?"

The CIA declined to comment. "We don't as a rule comment on the agency's relationship with foreign partners or on reports of our operational activities," it said.

The aggressive American approach to Balochistan contrasts with the low-key British tone, despite the fact Balochistan lies across the border from Helmand, where 9,000 British troops are fighting the Taliban.

A British official said the government was reluctant to publicly criticise Pakistan for fear of endangering the relationship between MI6 and ISI in tracking suspected extremists moving between Britain and Pakistan. "That's our priority. It's a matter of national security," he said.

But SAS soldiers have been active in the province. The former Nato officer said SAS units were active in Balochistan in 2002, 2003 and possibly beyond, attacking drug traffickers. "It was of strategic concern to the UK at the time," he said. Until now the US has heeded Pakistani objections to drone strikes in Balochistan. But that could change, if troop casualties mount, a former senior US official warned. "We could get tired and say 'you know what, we are sending in Predators to take out Mullah Omar and his gang in Quetta'. And then we'll see what happens."

 

[KHIte]

all i have to say get ready for some **** *** whooping, for to long time you pakis have claimed that to be friend of ours but you have awaken the wrong people, and the picked the wrong people as your enemy.

---------- Post added at 04:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 AM ----------

INFERIORITY COMPLEX OF PAKISTAN……… THE REASONS
Posted: Sep 25, 2009

Pakistan’s inferiority complex is an understandable. A country created out of blue, with no history of it’s own, no cultural back ground or a history of struggle for freedom. It was the joint political conspiracy of British and Indian national congress to deliver it, to the Muslim leaders. Both powers had its own political interest. Indian national congress was not ready to give in so much to Muslim demands and secondly to have such a huge minority of Muslims, always acting as a constant irritant.

For Britain it was important to have a country, which can toe their line even after their departure. They knew about the freedom fighter Indian leaders that they cannot be expected the same service.

Pakistan was a hollow country in its intrinsic nature. Soon after its creation they always tried to seek refuge in the history of others. They were using the history of Arabs, Indian Muslim Rulers and Afghan history. It was a search for self-identity, which was not really in existence. It was the craftsmanship of British to graft religion to the genesis of a country.

That proved to be wrong, not after a long time; but the country was split in two after 23 years of its creation. The graft of religion could not hold it to gather. It was an incompatible transplant in the globe. The rejection phenomenon could be delayed but not stopped. The process is still going on and the world has realised that the country is non viable, after all. But it is needed for some time, if not forever, by the global powers for their strategic interests.

It is up to Pakistani rulers to ignore it, but international fraternity cannot ignore deep cultural, historical and financial breeches in the body of Pakistan . The inflow of anti-rejection drugs, in this case; aid in the form of Dollars and Riyals, are being pumped in to the country to hold it together; till the strategic ultimate end is achieved in South West Asia and Central Asia.

Pakistan sensitivity is understandable. At times it starts screaming to be treated equally with India. At present they are gripped with fear by the terminology used by Mr.Obama, AfPak. They are grumbling that they have been equated with Afghanistan, being a nuclear power. They are forgetting that the nuclear facility holding by Pakistan , is the basic reason of anxiety and worry for the international powers, who matter in maintaining world peace. A non-viable country having non-viable state with nuclear facility; is always a threat to world peace, in case it falls in to irresponsible hands, as in the case of disintegration of U.S.S.R.

Pakistan is a Balkan state like Yugoslavia and others. The Soviet might kept them together, as the mentor melted away the Balkan states crumbled one after the other.

The international world has started to understand the difference between, ”WATAN” (the mother land) and a country. The counties are made and disintegrated by men. The motherland is more near to the nature and has the intrinsic strength of the Mother Nature.

Afghanistan is going through a bloody drama for the last three decades, completely destroyed having nothing except land, no infra structure or a system of government or an army like Pakistan of seven million men in uniform. It is the intrinsic strength of the Mother Nature, holding it together.

In East Pakistan crisis it was the lack of this bond that the country could not be held together even for two years. Geographically also, if Afghanistan is restored to its originality, will be holder of the key to the stability of the region. Even now the present truncated Afghanistan is geo-politically more important to the world than Pakistan. As I mentioned in one of my article before that if Afghanistan is gateway to India, it is a gang way to central Asia. Afghanistan cannot be ignored any more. It was the US policy in early 50’s to ignore Afghanistan, and now paying the price for its folly. British always considered it, the Heart of Asia. It was the corner stone of their policy, that the peace in this region is closely intertwined with the peace in Afghanistan.

Pakistan with all its intrinsic contradiction is a liability for the world, not an asset. The liability has to be protected till it serves its purpose and this exactly US is doing to day. The aid flowing to Pakistan is to improve the chances to stabilize Afghanistan. The big or small powers are fighting the wars for economical interests and the hub of interest is Afghanistan not Pakistan. The logic lies in the peace and stability of Afghanistan,

No one has the treatment for Pakistan’s complex. It is a genetic disease they have to live with it.

By Dr. Khurshid Alam

i can only laugh at this, awaken the wrong people ROFL, the puppet doesnt know who is pulling his strings

 

[53fd]

Attacks from Afghanistan worrisome development:

ISLAMABAD: There is no let-up in cross-border attacks from Afghanistan with militants attacking Pakistani defence installations and civilians from the neighbouring Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. Scores of Pakistani civilians and security forces personnel have been killed in such attacks in Dir and Chitral region of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

On April 21, 2011 militants belonging to Malakand, Mohmand and Bajaur, who had taken up residence in Afghanistan, crossed the international border and attacked the Kharki border post in Lower Dir district. The post was manned by the Dir Levies and police, who resisted the attackers. Nevertheless, 16 Pakistani security personnel were killed.

The deadliest attack came on the Shaltalo village of Upper Dir on June 1. The terrorists, after crossing the border, attacked the jointly manned post, killing 45 security personnel. The attack, especially the gory footage of 16 policemen being lined up and shot dead by terrorists, echoed throughout the country. The reverberations of the attack are still felt today.

Meanwhile, the TTP terrorists then tried to hit Bajaur and Mohmand agencies but security forces and local tribal lashkars thwarted the attacks. On July 19, four Pakistani soldiers died in one such cross border attack, which are still continuing.

A report, quoting a senior defence ministry official, recently claimed that the attacks were sponsored by foreign forces in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the role of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan in such attacks cannot be overlooked. Meanwhile, the role of third elements also cannot be ignored in the gory episode.

Significantly, the Afghan Taliban have categorically denied their involvement in such attacks. A Taliban spokesman has told the Afghan Islamic Press that in such attacks, no Afghan Talib took part; especially the deadly attacks launched in Dir and Chitral areas of Pakistan. He said that they were facing a big enemy in Afghanistan and were not carrying out operations anywhere in the world, including Pakistan.

Not surprisingly, dozens of such incidents have increased tension between the two neighbouring countries, with Pakistan raising the issue with Kabul and Nato in bilateral meetings. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has already stated that Pakistan has been forced to retaliate against such cross-border attacks.

Pakistani security officials have recommended to the Afghan government and the Nato authorities to set up more posts at the border to stop such attacks. The ISPR chief, Maj Gen Athar Abbas, recently told the media that the issue was discussed at a joint US-Pakistan-Afghanistan military commission meeting in Peshawar. Against 900 border posts set up by Pakistan on the Durand Line, Afghanistan and ISAF have only 100 such posts, allowing the terrorists to cross the border with relative ease.

While Pakistan has boosted the security at the Afghan border, it is important the issue of cross-border incursions is adequately highlighted at all fora. The Karzai government in Kabul should be informed that such attacks would not help improve the brotherly ties between the two countries. Failure at the political landscape could introduce unnecessary strain in the relationship.

Attacks from Afghanistan worrisome development

 

[Bobshouse]

Wow where to start. You will find a lot of photos like that of a white faces with Afghan fellows in intensive situations. The training of Afghan personnel has been years in the making. I have seen situations and scenes like this involving Australian troops with Afghan forces working together in the heat of battle. It like me posting a photo from a scene from the movie "Free Willy" and putting a caption on it saying a killer whale is trying to eat a child.
The most important point is this
Dont trust news from a journalist who has a bias view or works for a company that has a biased or a controlled affiliated environment in which to work within.
If people would actually stop and think of the strategic and socio political actions that are reported on, and then applied known logic and facts into the situation, people will start to get a clearer picture.
I dont want to write an essay here but if you believe US troops and Taliban fighters would collaborate an attack on Pakistan then you have rocks in your head

 

[Fracker]

I always use to say that "The war against terrorism is actually war to raise terrorism" and always used to get bashing from everyone in the forum, So what happen Now?