# Choppers fired on on Eastern Afghan by Pakistanis



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

There are reports coming out of NATO that choppers have been fired upon in Eastern Afghanistan by Pakistani forces, as soon as I have a link, I will post it.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

KABUL, Afghanistan    NATO says Pakistani troops fired at their helicopters patrolling eastern Afghanistan. No damage was reported.

In a statement Thursday, NATO says its helicopters did not cross into Pakistan's airspace and that they were shot at near Tanai district of Khost province.

The shooting follows a number of alleged incursions by U.S. aircraft into Pakistan from Afghanistan in recent days. A drone believed to be operated by the CIA crashed inside Pakistan on Wednesday.

FOXNews.com - NATO Says Pakistani Troops Fired at Their Helicopters - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

bump


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 25, 2008)

stop sending them foreign aid. Now.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 25, 2008)

Every country has the right to defend their borders and repell intruders.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 25, 2008)

and we have the right not to send them money if they are killing us. They are supposed to be our allies.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 25, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> and we have the right not to send them money if they are killing us. They are supposed to be our allies.


Even allies don't accept other allied nations violating their soverign borders without permission..


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 25, 2008)

Then you are not going to vote Obama are you? Cause that is exactly what he said he was going to do.




we still have the right to stop sending them money. anyways we are broke and don't have it to spare.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Even allies don't accept other allied nations violating their soverign borders without permission..



You weren't born this stupid so what happened?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 25, 2008)

What did I say that was wrong??


----------



## nukeman (Sep 25, 2008)

You do realize that Pakistan shot at NATO helecopters in *AFGAHAN* air space..


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

nukeman said:


> You do realize that Pakistan shot at NATO helecopters in *AFGAHAN* air space..



  he got it


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 25, 2008)

I am sure Pakistain will claim that the incident took place inside their country.

I would believe them before I would believe NATO.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I am sure Pakistain will claim that the incident took place inside their country.
> 
> I would believe them before I would believe NATO.



Lets just increase the magnification of your supreme idiocy.  You'd believe a man who said dogs could fly as long as he was wearing a turban when he told you.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> Lets just increase the magnification of your supreme idiocy.  You'd believe a man who said dogs could fly


When did Bush say that?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

nukeman said:


> You do realize that Pakistan shot at NATO helecopters in *AFGAHAN* air space..



``At no time did ISAF helicopters cross into Pakistani airspace,'' NATO said. The alliance said it would release more information as it became available. NATO heads the International Security and Assistance Force, or ISAF, in Afghanistan. 

Bloomberg.com: India & Pakistan

Okay, who here believes that Pakistan is a ally of the US or NATO for that matter? someone anyone?  A country that recieves massive amounts of military assistance from the United States and Great Britian, is only a matter of need, why? because we know they harbor and support these groups and cannot control them. So we need the intelligence they provide. You think they don't get military assisatnce from is, take a look.

According to Janes the Pakistan Navy is expected to place a formal request to the U.S for six Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates to augment its surface fleet. These may replace the Type-21s and act as stop-gaps until new-built frigates and corvettes are commissioned. The weapons and systems on the PN FFG-7 have not yet been disclosed, but they could include the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) as well as Mk 32 torpedo tubes for Mk 46 Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) torpedoes.

According to Janes' IDEAS2004 interview with former Pakistan Navy Chief ex-Admiral Karimullah at least 4 additional new-built frigates will be acquired by the navy. The new frigate will be larger and superior to the F-22P; it will likely have a better air defence system and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability; and use more advanced sensors, radar and electronics. Kanwa recently reported that the Pakistan Navy has shown recent interest in the Chinese Type 054 frigate.

Pakistan Navy will request for 6 Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG from U.S - Pakistan Defence Forum


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

We need to send them a few bombs


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> We need to send them a few bombs



I don't think they need them Mr. President,  I believe they have a few of their own. Thanks to this guy.

In January 2004, Khan confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea. On February 5, 2004, the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, announced that he had pardoned Khan, who is widely seen as a national hero.[1] Recently Dr. Qadeer cleared the issue of confession which he said was handed to him by authorities[2].

A. Q. Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> bump


 lol i like that avatar Crimson


----------



## user_name_guest (Sep 25, 2008)

Rules of engagement????  Oh wait, only USA abides by the rules.  Now it is time we open fire on our borders.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> I don't think they need them Mr. President,  I believe they have a few of their own. Thanks to this guy.
> 
> In January 2004, Khan confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea. On February 5, 2004, the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, announced that he had pardoned Khan, who is widely seen as a national hero.[1] Recently Dr. Qadeer cleared the issue of confession which he said was handed to him by authorities[2].
> 
> A. Q. Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I meant fire them out of Jets and have them explode on impact


----------



## doeton (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> I meant fire them out of Jets and have them explode on impact



brilliant strategy.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> I meant fire them out of Jets and have them explode on impact



CRAWFORD, Tex., March 25 -- President Bush rewarded a key ally in the war on terrorism Friday by authorizing the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, a move that reversed 15 years of policy begun under his father and that India warned would destabilize the volatile region. 

Bush: U.S. to Sell F-16s to Pakistan (washingtonpost.com)

I see, well they have plenty of those too. !! 40 F-16's sold to them in the 80's  and  I believe that 30 of them are still flying, and this does not include the one's that Bush approved. So they seem to have plenty of those.  In short, Pakistan cannot control their own borders, and in short harbor  these terrorist organizations and and the same time pay lip service to NATO in order to  receive massive amounts of  aid.  The only thing that NATO or the US gets from this is intelligence on these groups and cheap, sheets and towels, from  the textile industries that were shifted to Pakistan from the US.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> CRAWFORD, Tex., March 25 -- President Bush rewarded a key ally in the war on terrorism Friday by authorizing the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, a move that reversed 15 years of policy begun under his father and that India warned would destabilize the volatile region.
> 
> Bush: U.S. to Sell F-16s to Pakistan (washingtonpost.com)
> 
> I see, well they have plenty of those too. !! 40 F-16's sold to them in the 80's  and  I believe that 30 of them are still flying, and this does not include the one's that Bush approved. So they seem to have plenty of those.  In short, Pakistan cannot control their own borders, and in short harbor  these terrorist organizations and and the same time pay lip service to NATO in order to  receive massive amounts of  aid.  The only thing that NATO or the US gets from this is intelligence on these groups and cheap, sheets and towels, from  the textile industries that were shifted to Pakistan from the US.





I agree and these are all facts that I have known for a while.  However, there is a time and place to cut ties.  It begins with another military firing on your soldiers.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> I agree and these are all facts that I have known for a while.  However, there is a time and place to cut ties.  It begins with another military firing on your soldiers.



The facts are  you have some Pakastani military personel firing most likely small arms at NATO rotary wing aircraft conducting operations close to the border. If I were to make a guess on this, I would venture to say, that these soilders, were acting on their own after hearing on the radio from their leadership about NATO clandestine operations into Pakistan. I rather doubt this came from any Pakastani command structure.  As they know whats at stake and what they are risking by getting into a little indident with NATO and US forces.  Now if it were found out, that they were firing on NATO aircraft cross border, at the direction of Pakastani command structure, then of course, there are plenty of ways to correct that.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

A lack of discipline is no excuse it is a reason not an excuse.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> A lack of discipline is no excuse it is a reason not an excuse.




I completely agree with that, however it would be  upon the Pakistani command structure to instill that discipline on their  people. If however it continues  it may require a modification of the ROE to include weapons release for self defense purposes on any force that fires upon them in the region. Then you get into a slippery area there as you also run the risk of  Blue on Blue incidents increasing too.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Pakistan needs to be held accountable either they are against Terrorists or NATO either way the aid needs to be cut until they make this decision


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> Pakistan needs to be held accountable either they are against Terrorists or NATO either way the aid needs to be cut until they make this decision



I am no supporter of Pakistans harboring terrorists and  they DO NEED to step  up and  get these groups out of their country and not provide them with safe harbor. Thats a good idea, as well, however, I don't see that as likely to happen anytime soon. The risk you run though by cutting them off is a nation that supports  terrorists that has Nuclear Weapons and very little oversight on those weapons. Something to consider.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

I've considered this but we could easily allign ourselves with India who has had many ill relations with pakistan.  This i believe would balance the scales in our favor more.


----------



## doeton (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> I've considered this but we could easily allign ourselves with India who has had many ill relations with pakistan.  This i believe would balance the scales in our favor more.



i'm curious as to how mutually assured destruction is supposed to work on people who want to blow themselves up...


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Kill them before they kill you and themselves.  The enemy is identified and kept safe by the people who are supposed to be destroying it.


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 25, 2008)

Have Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden and Murtha surrendered yet?


----------



## doeton (Sep 25, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Have Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden and Murtha surrendered yet?



fxxx yxx

has the jaXXass caught OBL yet?


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

he's in Pakistan


----------



## doeton (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> he's in Pakistan





then wtf is he waiting for?

come on.

shit.


----------



## doeton (Sep 25, 2008)

do you guys even know the bush doctrine?

heheheeh


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 25, 2008)

doeton said:


> then wtf is he waiting for?
> 
> come on.
> 
> shit.



You want the US to invade Pakistan?


----------



## doeton (Sep 25, 2008)

Obama has been the man saying we to actually go after OBL and after pakistan.

while that pathetic idiot in the white twiddles thumb his up aXX


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

In the same token he said he wants peaceful resolutions in the middle east while going to war with Iran??


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> he's in Pakistan



Well, while an alingment with India might offset some of that,it would also increase tensions in a regions like Kashmir not to mention the fact, you have a pipeline in Pakistan where weapons can  be delivered  by unconventional means.  While a MAD doctine makes sense when you have controlled stockpiles on both sides in this case you don't,  in Pakistans case to abandon that you would be  giving them license to run around handing this technology off to rouge states and  terrorists groups if they have not already. In some ways by have a somewhat distant allience with them it serves both our interests and theirs.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Well, while an alingment with India might offset some of that,it would also increase tensions in a regions like Kashmir not to mention the fact, you have a pipeline in Pakistan where weapons can  be delivered  by unconventional means.  While a MAD doctine makes sense when you have controlled stockpiles on both sides in this case you don't,  in Pakistans case to abandon that you would be  giving them license to run around handing this technology off to rouge states and  terrorists groups if they have not already. In some ways by have a somewhat distant allience with them it serves both our interests and theirs.



We would basically be saying we aren't going to do anything because you might help terrorists.  I think that a stern approach is what is necessary.  I completely understand what you are saying but we are sayin no negotiations with terrorists but we will let you stay here and attack us as long as you go back when you are done.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> We would basically be saying we aren't going to do anything because you might help terrorists.  I think that a stern approach is what is necessary.  I completely understand what you are saying but we are sayin no negotiations with terrorists but we will let you stay here and attack us as long as you go back when you are done.



I think in this case, you can have your cake and eat it too, this is just an opinion on the situation now. I think that you can send a message to Pakistan that your forces that are deployed conducting operations in the field that are fired upon have been given permssion to return fire. While at the same time, offering the Pakastani Military the ability to train with NATO and embedded with them on operations against these terrorists groups.  This will have the advantage of teaching them discipline and  also develop working relationships that help get to these groups. This same type of strategy worked well in Iraq in Anbar with the tribes there.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

Im well aware of that as well and the training in Iraq is top notch however the problem lies with Pakistan not wanting us in their border space.  Joint missions in Pakistan would be what strengthened the alliance not us telling them how to do it and hoping they go through with it.  Which so far they have not.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> Im well aware of that as well and the training in Iraq is top notch however the problem lies with Pakistan not wanting us in their border space.  Joint missions in Pakistan would be what strengthened the alliance not us telling them how to do it and hoping they go through with it.  Which so far they have not.



As I mentioned above you can actually do both though in Pakistan, you can take a hard stand on these shootings while at the same time work with the Pakastanis to see to it that they are trained in such a manner as to prevent it from happening.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 25, 2008)

I agree except for the training pakistani's they want to be trained but dont want to be forced to attack the enemy.  We may just be training a future enemy


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> I agree except for the training pakistani's they want to be trained but dont want to be forced to attack the enemy.  We may just be training a future enemy



Perhaps, but sometimes through that training you build alliences on the ground between people. Thats a real important asset for someone conducting operations on the ground. So even if you get that out of it, you have accomplished your goal. That region of Pakistan , btw has traditionally been for lack of a better word the wild wild west. The Pakistani Army has little control of the region as well.


----------



## WhiteLion (Sep 25, 2008)

Maybe something of interest to those watching Afghanistan and Pakistan just recent Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Maybe something of interest to those watching Afghanistan and Pakistan just recent Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com



Thanks for link Lion


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 25, 2008)

If they were firing into Afghani airspace, I have a serious problem with this.  If not, I think it is time we respect the Pakistani border.  My only question would be, how do we know the given information is accurate from either side?  Border disputes are quite common.  I do however think it is unfortunate our relationship with Pakistan has disintegrated into this.  Pretty sad.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 25, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> If they were firing into Afghani airspace, I have a serious problem with this.  If not, I think it is time we respect the Pakistani border.  My only question would be, how do we know the given information is accurate from either side?  Border disputes are quite common.  I do however think it is unfortunate our relationship with Pakistan has disintegrated into this.  Pretty sad.



The Associated Press: Pakistani troops fire on US helicopters at border

Here is another rendition from the A/P


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 25, 2008)

I agree with Willow.  If they are really going to fire on our troops and fight against us to rid their country of terrorists, stop giving them the billion dollars in aid that we are providing.  You would think that with all of the problems with terrorist attacks they are having lately, they would be more interested in getting trouble makers out of their country, but it seems like there is too much support among the populace for them.  We should just cut our losses and say screw 'em.  Hopefully it does not become another Afghanistan under the Taliban.


----------

