Pakistan bans nato supply convoys

[routan]

.. interpret it? That's how you presented it. You didn't leave any room for interpretation. You're calling this man/woman a liar after he presents his first hand account. Sure you shouldn't take everything everyone says on the internet as truth, but I like to think the people on this forum are a bit above that.

bfdd, in that case, the first person you should jump to defend is JoS. He's being ridiculed a few posts before

 

[werepossum]

Well, there is a dispute of fact between what the Interior Minister is now saying and what the U.S. helicopter crews said. You don't characterize warning shots, which should be wide of the mark, as "effective small arms fire." Anyway, did the Minister say that there was a standing policy of firing warning shots, or did he simply say these were warning shots? I suspect that there was no such policy, that the units fired on the helicopters, and now the the beloved patriot government is trying to whitewash the incident because they don't want to make it look like they don't have control of their military.

This incident aside, do you honestly think the civilian government there has a firm grip on its military and intelligence communities?

- wolf

I'm not sure I'd necessarily believe that the crew KNEW they were taking "effective small arms fire" unless the choppers were actually struck. We've had blue-on-blue incidents in the past where pilots have mistaken IR strobes designed to prevent friendly fire for "effective small arms fire." When your life and mission depend on split-second decisions those decisions will inevitably sometimes be tragically wrong, and with tracers it would be difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between fire intended to warn, and fire intended to kill but not yet corrected onto target. Only a complete idiot - or someone willing to risk his life to aid the other side - fires anywhere near an attack helicopter unless that chopper is in direct support of him, or he means to bring it down. Since you are absolutely correct that Pakistan's civilian government has only a tenuous control over elements of its military, this could equally have been an intentional attack to defend the escaping fighters, or an intentional attack to defend Pakistani borders, or ill-considered warning shots up into the air as a matter of official policy, or ill-considered warning shots up into the air in spite of official policy or lack thereof. The only thing we know for sure is that "spray'n'pray" with small arms against an American attack helicopter is a losing proposition. LOL

 

[Nebor]

Oh, we call them a "Walt" do we? Well that is fucking news to me, son.

We usually call them leckers but obviously you are more British than me too, right?

Anything i have stated is nothing more than you can read in news articles published by the BBC, i should know, I FUCKING CLEARED THE INFORMATION and the ONLY reason i ever told anyone about anything before it was published was because it was relevant information that was over and done with for a good amount of time and cleared for publishing.

If you have a problem with anything, you can send a request for an investigation to the SAS.

You'll get the same response everyone else gets.

Of course the best kind of organization to claim to be a member of is a clandestine one, where membership can't be verified. But having met actual British and Kiwi SAS members, as well as a variety of US and coalition special operations personnel, I've never heard any of them run off at the mouth like you, personally attack others like you, speak in such a condescending manner or generally engage in your brand of ass-hattery.

I mean, this is a simple matter to clear up, just scribble "Hello AT P&N 1 OCT 2010" on your waterproof notepad, lay it on your rifle and take a picture for us. That would at the very least establish that you're in the UK military. This shouldn't be a problem even if you're not in Afghanistan, since you've repeatedly claimed that you're allowed to take your military weapons home and keep them in your safe (because we all know THAT happens.)

 

[werepossum]

werepossum, this post is flawed beyond measure. Afghanistan was in quite a decent spot before the USSR invasion. Flooding the nation with arms, training kids to shed blood for our cause, and then leaving them to fend for themselves is not at all what "providing freedom" is. Millions became refugees during the war. Thats your definition of freedom? ha.ha.ha.

WTF? We did nothing in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, it was merely another infected anus on the world's buttocks, sparsely settled with violent dirty barbarians and good for nothing more than the VERY occasional hot cover chick for National Geographic. Our support for Afghanistan was completely due to our perceived need to protect Pakistan, who was an American ally (as a hedge against Soviet-leaning socialist India) from invasion to provide the USSR with a warm water port. As far as "flooding the nation with arms", all we provided were Stinger missiles to bring down aircraft and Dragon missiles and LAW rockets to stop armor. Every other bit of Afghanistan kit is Soviet or (usually Chinese or Pakistani) copies of Soviet weapons. When a heavy machine gun is fired at our helicopters it is invariably a DshK or KPV, NOT a Browning, unless they have been lucky enough to capture a Browning and ammo from a Western force since our invasion.

As far as training "kids" for "our cause", we trained the fighters the warlords provided on basic tactics and on our weapons systems. All other training, and the fighters themselves, were the province of the warlords or tribal leaders. Our cause was their cause - an Afghanistan free of Soviet occupation. They were fighting for it before we came, we merely helped them fight a bit more effectively.

Your need to keep Muslims blameless and America responsible for all the world's ills is borderline psychotic. Leaving one to fend for one's self IS freedom.

 

[routan]

WTF? We did nothing in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion, it was merely another infected anus on the world's buttocks, sparsely settled with violent dirty barbarians and good for nothing more than the VERY occasional hot cover chick for National Geographic. Our support for Afghanistan was completely due to our perceived need to protect Pakistan, who was an American ally (as a hedge against Soviet-leaning socialist India) from invasion to provide the USSR with a warm water port. As far as "flooding the nation with arms", all we provided were Stinger missiles to bring down aircraft and Dragon missiles and LAW rockets to stop armor. Every other bit of Afghanistan kit is Soviet or (usually Chinese or Pakistani) copies of Soviet weapons. When a heavy machine gun is fired at our helicopters it is invariably a DshK or KPV, NOT a Browning, unless they have been lucky enough to capture a Browning and ammo from a Western force since our invasion.

As far as training "kids" for "our cause", we trained the fighters the warlords provided on basic tactics and on our weapons systems. All other training, and the fighters themselves, were the province of the warlords or tribal leaders. Our cause was their cause - an Afghanistan free of Soviet occupation. They were fighting for it before we came, we merely helped them fight a bit more effectively.

Your need to keep Muslims blameless and America responsible for all the world's ills is borderline psychotic. Leaving one to fend for one's self IS freedom.

werepossum, hahahaha. Please read up a bit and then come back to post.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Of course the best kind of organization to claim to be a member of is a clandestine one, where membership can't be verified. But having met actual British and Kiwi SAS members, as well as a variety of US and coalition special operations personnel, I've never heard any of them run off at the mouth like you, personally attack others like you, speak in such a condescending manner or generally engage in your brand of ass-hattery.

I mean, this is a simple matter to clear up, just scribble "Hello AT P&N 1 OCT 2010" on your waterproof notepad, lay it on your rifle and take a picture for us. That would at the very least establish that you're in the UK military. This shouldn't be a problem even if you're not in Afghanistan, since you've repeatedly claimed that you're allowed to take your military weapons home and keep them in your safe (because we all know THAT happens.)

From what i remember of what you have written, you have never been in an area where either four of our TF's have been located in your timeframe so how the fuck did you meet us? NZ SAS might be a different issue, to be honest, i haven't been keeping much track of them since they are working mostly with Rangers.

I won't be supplying you with any pics.

You have the choice to believe me or not, i don't really care enough to prove sheit to you, those who know already know and there is a reason why you are not one of them.

I'm sure you can figure out why.

 

[Nebor]

From what i remember of what you have written, you have never been in an area where either four of our TF's have been located in your timeframe so how the fuck did you meet us? NZ SAS might be a different issue, to be honest, i haven't been keeping much track of them since they are working mostly with Rangers.

I won't be supplying you with any pics.

You have the choice to believe me or not, i don't really care enough to prove sheit to you, those who know already know and there is a reason why you are not one of them.

I'm sure you can figure out why.

Um, I don't know anyone that believes you once they take the time to click "other posts by JohnOfSheffield." The bullshit never ends. You can take your automatic weapons home in the UK, you can fire quarter sized groups at 700m with your 30-06 rifle, etc etc.

The Brit SAS I met weren't part of a task force, they were a couple individuals working alongside many other coalition special operations personnel to mentor and develop the ANA Commandos. I'm sure you know what camp that program is located at, right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Um, I don't know anyone that believes you once they take the time to click "other posts by JohnOfSheffield." The bullshit never ends. You can take your automatic weapons home in the UK, you can fire quarter sized groups at 700m with your 30-06 rifle, etc etc.

The Brit SAS I met weren't part of a task force, they were a couple individuals working alongside many other coalition special operations personnel to mentor and develop the ANA Commandos. I'm sure you know what camp that program is located at, right?

First part is a strawman, i never said EVERYONE can take home their weapon in the UK but the SAS is also part of what you could call the UK national guard, we own our own weapons and are personally responsible for them.

Second part, I don't know who they were, actually but i assume they are Rangers or BB's?

I don't know what base they were on because the only interaction i've ever been involved with regarding the ANA's was in Marjah.

 

[Lemon law]

I may argue with JOS as we get along like cat and dogs, but I do not doubt the military credentials of JOS.

 

[woolfe9999]

wolf, while your solution is fair, it is a tad bit idealistic.

To my knowledge, the figure is $1.5 billion a year in military aid, not billions. The monthly cost of JUST OUR presence in Aghanistan is over $5 billion. With that much expenses, do you have any reasons why militants are able to cross INTO Pakistan and create havoc there?

Last year, direct military aid was $1.64 billion, economic aid another $1.365 billion, total=$3.035. This year the military aid is projected at over $1.9 billion, economic about $1.5 billion. It's beein going up for several years. And honestly, I don't see much distinction between military and economic aid since every dollar we provide in economic assistance is a dollar the government there doesn't have to spend on butter and hence can spend on guns instead. It all goes into the same pot.

Anyway, militants are roaming all over Afghanistan. Militants in Pakistan (the ones crossing the border) are in relatively small, and well known, geographical areas. The US needs Pakistan to take direct military action against those areas. People wonder why almost every offensive they have conducted ends with the beloved patriot military making some sort of deal with the local militants then pulling out.

I don't think anyone expects that Pakistan can totally shut this down. The real issue here is that people wonder if they are trying as hard as they can. And they wonder, justifiably, whose side they are really on. There seems to be some schizophrenia there, with a populace that is very anti-U.S., and many in their military and intelligence communities who favor the militants, and the ones who aren't don't seem to have firm control.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, in that case, the first person you should jump to defend is JoS. He's being ridiculed a few posts before

While I personally don't have anything against JoS and I actually like him I don't know enough about the situation to form an opinion either way. I just take him at his word until people prove otherwise.

 

[PeshakJang]

werepossum, hahahaha. Please read up a bit and then come back to post.

I'm going to suggest again that you do the same. You are blissfully ignorant.

 

[ichy]

I may argue with JOS as we get along like cat and dogs, but I do not doubt the military credentials of JOS.

In that case you're a naive fool. Real SAS members absolutely do not go around blabbing about what they do.

 

[nobodyknows]

did all of you miss that THREE PAKISTANI SOLDIERS were killed by a NATO attack, which caused this blockage?

Jeez, you guys are quite clueless!

I guesss you missed the part where we lost 3000 people, noit to mention a couplke of skyscrapers. We may not have been totally justified in going into Iraq, but Afghanistan is where they were training these guys and we need to finish mowing the weeds before we leave.

Who gives a shit about 3 guys. Friendly fire happens all the time, get off your high horse and get over it.

 

[Lemon law]

Why is this thread being deflected to the identity of one soldier when Nato is now really getting on Pakistan last nerve with. --------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakis...wb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9y

One one would think Nato would patch things up with Pakistan before going ahead with a bunch of hew drone strikes on Pakistani soil. On one hand it may be a Nato tactic designed to humiliate Pakistan or it could result in Pakistan totally instead of partially severing the Nato supply line into Afghanistan.

As it is, the most likely way the Afghan war will end, because already Karzai and to some extent Pakistan are negotiating some sort of peace deal with the Taliban. And if those talks bear fruit, its likely Pakistan will simply tell Nato to get their shit and git.

At least that would reduce the violence level in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, and as far as the modern areas of Pakistan were most of the population is,
the Taliban ideas have no appeal.

As it is, for Pakistan and Afghanistan, all Nato has done in nine years is create anarchy, corruption, violence, and uncertainty, and as long as Nato stays, without radical changes, that looks like a non-tolerable choice for the entire region.

 

[5150Joker]

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/20...o-supply-convoys-after-troop-deaths/?hpt=Sbin


Based on a disputed incident along the border where beloved patriot's claim coalition forces crossed the border and killed 3 beloved patriot military.

How long are we going to pretend these guys are our allies?

I say cut off all aid immediately if they don't reopen this critical supply route.

NATO forces killed 3 of their soldiers after they fired WARNING shots for crossing into their territory. If the roles were reversed, NATO/US would be crying loudly about it. I think Pakistan is fully within it's right to defend it's territory like any other sovereign nation. Doesn't matter what kind of strategic alliance they have with the US.

 

[Lemon law]

NATO forces killed 3 of their soldiers. If the roles were reversed, NATO/US would be crying loudly about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5150Joker, I think we all get no where by looking at this as a isolated single incident.

When its in fact a pattern of behavior by Nato who is not supposed operate militarily on Pakistani soil in any way.

 

[5150Joker]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5150Joker, I think we all get no where by looking at this as a isolated single incident.

When its in fact a pattern of behavior by Nato who is not supposed operate militarily on Pakistani soil in any way.

I can see why NATO forces cross into their territory to attack militants but firing on their soldiers is blatantly arrogant and asking for trouble. Despite what people here may think, Pakistan is more than capable of defending itself if it ever had to.

 

[PeshakJang]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5150Joker, I think we all get no where by looking at this as a isolated single incident.

When its in fact a pattern of behavior by Nato who is not supposed operate militarily on Pakistani soil in any way.

So what would be the appropriate response when Pakistani army soldiers actively aid militants in crossing the border, conducting attacks, and when they directly engage NATO forces across the border? I would bet money that these "warning shots" were fired directly at our helicopters, and if they succeeded in downing them, those Pakistani soldiers would be given medals.

Question 2: If a PAK helicopter crossed into Afghanistan near the border, do you think NATO troops would open fire on it as "warning shots"? Do you think they wouldn't happily engage anybody shooting at them?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This seems to be getting more serious by the day. As the Nato tankers sit stalled because of this blockage they are becoming easy targets for the insurgents with at least 20 destroyed over the weekend.

 

[nobodyknows]

This seems to be getting more serious by the day. As the Nato tankers sit stalled because of this blockage they are becoming easy targets for the insurgents with at least 20 destroyed over the weekend.

This is what happens when you trust people whose main stock in trade is backstabbing.

I'm tired of seeing our American boys being sacraficed and die and am becoming more and more convinced we should just glass the place over, starting ewith Tehran.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This is what happens when you trust people whose main stock in trade is backstabbing.

I'm tired of seeing our American boys being sacraficed and die and am becoming more and more convinced we should just glass the place over, starting ewith Tehran.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 but we should have focused all of our resources against Afghanistan in the early days and taken the war into Pakistan if necessary instead of letting the AQ leadership escape into Pakistan and making the huge mistake of invading Iraq. Iraq under Saddam was no threat to the US and was a huge equalizing factor against Iran. But instead we did a half assed job and totally destabilized the entire region.