Deadly NATO attack in Pakistan

[funk de fino]

A seemingly unprovoked attack by NATO (unknown at this time if it was just US forces) on two Pakistan miltary posts has led to the death of at least 24 Pakistani military personnel.

I know the borders are not the best defined but his is pretty shocking and even worse I haven't seen it mentioned in this forum at all.

I can just imagine the outcry if it had been the flip side.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/27/world/asia/pakistan-nato-attack/index.html?eref=rss_world&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_world+%28RSS%3A+World%29

 

[commandlinegamer]

It's hard to know what to say beyond the obvious that it's tragic when you bomb civilians or allied forces, especially in an already very tense situation.

 

[WildCat]

It's hard to know what to say beyond the obvious that it's tragic when you bomb civilians or allied forces, especially in an already very tense situation.

There's no indication that civilians or allied forces were bombed.

Frankly, I don't think this is accidental. Everyone knows that Pakistan is supporting the Haqqani network.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Pakistan has given the US 15 days to vacate an airbase used as a key launchpad for drone strikes in Afghanistan in retaliation for a mistaken attack on a Pakistani border outpost that killed at least 24 soldiers and injured 13.

American forces were told to leave the remote Shamsi airbase, secretly given over to the US after 9/11, following an emergency meeting of Pakistan's top civilian and military leadership late on Saturday. Pakistan has also blocked supply routes for US-led troops in Afghanistan.

Doubleplusungood.

 

[funk de fino]

There's no indication that civilians or allied forces were bombed.

Frankly, I don't think this is accidental. Everyone knows that Pakistan is supporting the Haqqani network.

Pakistan and NATO are not allies?

 

[WildCat]

Pakistan and NATO are not allies?

Only in diplomat-speak. In real life it's much more complicated. Pakistan has been granting safe haven to the Haqqani network at best, and arming and training them at worst.

 

[funk de fino]

Only in diplomat-speak. In real life it's much more complicated. Pakistan has been granting safe haven to the Haqqani network at best, and arming and training them at worst.

So an unprovoked attack that has killed a lot of Pakistan soldiers is justified?

NATO can just do what they want to sovereign nations?

 

[bikerdruid]

So an unprovoked attack that has killed a lot of Pakistan soldiers is justified?

NATO can just do what they want to sovereign nations?

it's the american way!

 

[WildCat]

So an unprovoked attack that has killed a lot of Pakistan soldiers is justified?

NATO can just do what they want to sovereign nations?

You have no evidence it was unprovoked, and NATO will do what's in the best interests of NATO. Just like Pakistan is doing what's in their interests.

 

[Pardalis]

Pakistan and NATO are not allies?

We should call them and remind them of that, they seem to forget quite often, like when they forgot they were harboring OBL.

 

[funk de fino]

We should call them and remind them of that, they seem to forget quite often, like when they forgot they were harboring OBL.

The Pakistan militray were?

You do not condem this attack?

 

[Pardalis]

The Pakistan militray were?

OBL was hiding in a complex near an army base.

You do not condem this attack?

I haven't read the details, but I think we should refocus our friendship on India, who deserve it, we should never had allied ourselves with Pakistan.

 

[funk de fino]

You have no evidence it was unprovoked, and NATO will do what's in the best interests of NATO. Just like Pakistan is doing what's in their interests.

I am going with what has been reported so far. Seems many on this forum didnt even care enough to mention any of it over the weekend. And up to now it seems that it was US forces although I need to see more on that and dont want to jump to conclusions

When did NATO declare war on Pakistan that gives them the right to attack military posts in that country?

 

[funk de fino]

OBL was hiding in a complex near an army base.

Were the Pakistan military harboring UBL? Yes or no? If yes, then back it up.

I haven't read the details, but I think we should refocus our friendship on India, who deserve it, we should never had allied ourselves with Pakistan.

You do not think attacking the military of an ally in their own country is bad form? I knew you wouldnt condem it because we have a good idea what type of people died and you dont have much time for them eh?

 

[Pardalis]

Were the Pakistan military harboring UBL? Yes or no? If yes, then back it up.

The most wanted terrorist was a few feet away and they didn't notice anything, yeah right...

You do not think attacking the military of an ally in their own country is bad form?

As I said, I haven't read the details, and it seems to have been a mistake.

I knew you wouldnt condem it because we have a good idea what type of people died and you dont have much time for them eh?

Your nostrils are flaring again.

BTW, there are about as many Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan.

 

[bikerdruid]

we have a good idea what type of people died and you dont have much time for them eh?

anglos?

 

[WildCat]

When did NATO declare war on Pakistan that gives them the right to attack military posts in that country?

You're making assumptions you don't have enough information to make.

How do you know the Pakistanis weren't firing on NATO assets to protect the Taliban (Haqqani?) fighters they were engaged in a firefight with at the time? You don;t know that, yet your question certainly makes that assumption.

 

[Childlike Empress]

How do you know the Pakistanis weren't firing on NATO assets to protect the Taliban (Haqqani?) fighters they were engaged in a firefight with at the time?

You have sunken to the level of self-parody, kitten. "Haqqani", is that the new label for the islamotistical world conspiracy after Al-CIAda are the good guys again?

 

[Johny2x4]

The most wanted terrorist was a few feet away and they didn't notice anything, yeah right...

It´s that imposable. The ISI is pretty powerful (and more inclined to collaborate with the Taliban and islamists). It´s not that big of a stretch that the army o r at least a good portion of the military never knew about this.

 

[funk de fino]

You're making assumptions you don't have enough information to make.

How do you know the Pakistanis weren't firing on NATO assets to protect the Taliban (Haqqani?) fighters they were engaged in a firefight with at the time? You don;t know that, yet your question certainly makes that assumption.

This guy knows better than you. And it's not like US forces havent got a blue on blue history.

A spokesman for the NATO-led ISAF, Gen. Carsten Jacobson, said close air support had been called in during an operation with Afghan national security forces and ISAF in the rugged border area in the east of Pakistan, where the border is not always clear.

"A technical situation developed on the ground that caused the force to call for close air support and it is this close air support that highly likely caused the soldiers that perished on the Pakistani side," he told CNN. He said he could not discuss casualty numbers, since "they can only come at the moment from the Pakistani side."