Shells from Pakistan hit Afghan bases

[palehorse]

Shells from Pakistan hit Afghan bases

KABUL (Reuters) - Artillery shells fired from Pakistan landed in an Afghan army compound and close to an international military base in Afghanistan on Saturday and NATO forces returned fire, the alliance said.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan, an improvised explosive device (IED) killed four U.S.-led coalition soldiers in the southern province of Kandahar, the scene of a large anti-Taliban offensive and an insurgent jail break.

Tension has mounted between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last week after Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened to send troops across the frontier to hunt down Taliban militants based in Pakistan's lawless border region.

"An ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forward operating base and an Afghan National Army compound in northeastern Paktika province were attacked with indirect fire from across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border today," an ISAF statement said. No casualties were reported.

Three artillery rounds landed near the ISAF base and three rounds landed inside an Afghan army compound, it said. "ISAF forces determined the origination of the rounds to be in Pakistan and returned artillery fire in self-defense."

The Pakistani military was notified immediately when ISAF forces came under fire, the statement said. The armies of Pakistan, Afghanistan and ISAF maintain open channels of communication to avoid escalating any conflict.

A suspected Taliban rocket also hit a hospital in the northeastern town of Asadabad close to the Pakistan border on Saturday, killing one man and wounding another man and a woman, provincial Governor Sayed Fazlullah Wahidi said. He said the rocket appeared to have been fired from across the border inside Pakistan.

Taliban insurgents are able to train, equip themselves and launch attacks into Afghanistan from Pakistan's tribal belt before returning to rest and regroup, analysts say.

The Taliban leadership also directs its campaign to oust the pro-Western Afghan government and drive out foreign forces from bases inside Pakistan. Pakistan denies the charges and says it has little power over its autonomous border regions.

In Kandahar, two coalition soldiers were also wounded in the IED blast, a U.S. military statement said, without giving further details.

The Taliban have upped pressure on Kandahar in the past two weeks, freeing at least 300 of their comrades in the jail break, then occupying areas outside the town, forcing Afghan and foreign troops to launch a large offensive to clear them out.

In another incident, an IED killed a Polish soldier from the ISAF and wounded four more on Saturday in Paktika province, the Polish news agency (PAP) said.

As some of you already know, I personally believe that doing so is long overdue.

At least our side fired back... I guess that's a start.

Meanwhile... Taliban 'swept from Kandahar area'

Hundreds of Taliban fighters have been killed or wounded after the group's forces were driven from all the villages around Afghanistan's southern city of Kandahar, the provincial governor has said.

"The Taliban have been cleared totally [by Afghan and Nato forces] from Arghandab district," Assadullah Khalid said on Thursday.

About 800 Afghan government troops, backed by hundreds of mainly Canadian Nato soldiers, fought the Taliban who seized seven villages three days ago.

Khalid said: "The Taliban have suffered hundreds of dead and wounded and many of their casualties are Pakistanis."

Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahlbarra said: "If this is confirmed, it could further strain relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Khalid said the forces have taught a lesson to Baitullah Mahsud [a tribal leader sympathetic to the Taliban] and Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban.

"Some of the people here are returning to their farms as it is harvest season and they want to go back before everything is rotten. It is very quiet, for the moment."

Minor clashes

The Taliban "did choose not to fight" and there had been only minor clashes, said a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Kabul on Thursday.

General Carlos Branco, the Isaf spokesman, said: "During the first 24 hours of operations, only small pockets of insurgents were encountered so only minor incidents occurred and some of them are still going on."

He said the incidents were "mainly exchanges of small arms fire and skirmishes."

Branco played down reports about the number of Taliban killed, adding they had "not engaged decisively, limiting their activity to small disruptive attacks".

"Our assessment is that if the insurgents are there they have not the numbers and the foothold that they previously claimed and, obviously, they did choose not to fight," Branco said.

'Dramatic changes'

He said Afghan and Nato forces "do not expect any dramatic changes in the behavior of the insurgents".

About 5,000 families have fled their homes in Arghandab's lush valley after Nato warned about the launch of the offensive, a provincial official said.

A Taliban spokesman said before the assault started that the the group had set its sights on Kandahar.

The al Qaeda-backed group is largely active in southern and eastern areas along the border region with Pakistan.

Our forced restraint is sickening. We are essentially guaranteeing that the war with the Taliban will never end.

Given the restrictions on our response, and Pakistan's refusal to assist us any further, how is it that Pakistan is not being held responsible for the terror they export to Afghanistan every day?

Also, can someone please explain to me, AGAIN, why we shouldn't be hitting these fuckers where they eat, sleep, train, heal, arm, plan, and launch their attacks?!?

I'll end this post with these words spoken by the great General George S. Patton:

My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either.

I'm absolutely positive that he's been spinning in his grave for years...

 

[ProfJohn]

I agree, we should go after them wherever they are.

But we have to be very careful how we go about doing it. Perhaps we can partner with the Pakistan military and have them on hand to watch and assist limited actions inside Pakistan.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I agree, we should go after them wherever they are.

But we have to be very careful how we go about doing it. Perhaps we can partner with the Pakistan military and have them on hand to watch and assist limited actions inside Pakistan.

That exact option has been on the table with Pakistan for more than six years, but they have consistently refused to allow NATO or Afghan boots on their soil.

 

[Aimster]

We can't even take out the Taliban in Afghanistan and we expect Pakistan to do it? Lol

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Aimster
We can't even take out the Taliban in Afghanistan and we expect Pakistan to do it? Lol

Did you ever think that just maybe the problems we have with them in Afghanistan are because of the base of support they're allowed to exploit in Pakistan???

Chuck

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Aimster
We can't even take out the Taliban in Afghanistan and we expect Pakistan to do it? Lol

Did you ever think that just maybe the problems we have with them in Afghanistan are because of the base of support they're allowed to exploit in Pakistan???

Chuck

We have a small amount of troops in Afghanistan.

Taliban can roam around and do whatever they want. They control villages. We move in 6 months later to clean them out and they move to another village and we dont do anything.

 

[chucky2]

Was that an answer to my question?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Was that an answer to my question?

The answer to your question is the Taliban are in Afghanistan in the thousands. They don't run to Pakistan to hide U.S troops.

They can hide in Afghanistan. There is plenty of open space in Afghanistna where U.S troops aren''t.

U.S doesn't care about Afghanistan.
Bunch of people like to poke the blame at Pakistan because they want someone to blame. U.S is to blame. We sent in few troops.

Pakistan is doing the same amount of effort the U.S is doing. Pakistan fights Taliban on the same level as U.S troops. They attack a village U.S attacks a village. I see no difference in the effort put in by either party.

U.S f'd up in Afghanistan and doesn't care. It's that simple. We care about Iraq and our crap war we started.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: chucky2
Was that an answer to my question?

The answer to your question is the Taliban are in Afghanistan in the thousands. They don't run to Pakistan to hide U.S troops.

They can hide in Afghanistan. There is plenty of open space in Afghanistna where U.S troops aren''t.

U.S doesn't care about Afghanistan.
Bunch of people like to poke the blame at Pakistan because they want someone to blame. U.S is to blame. We sent in few troops.

Pakistan is doing the same amount of effort the U.S is doing. Pakistan fights Taliban on the same level as U.S troops. They attack a village U.S attacks a village. I see no difference in the effort put in by either party.

U.S f'd up in Afghanistan and doesn't care. It's that simple. We care about Iraq and our crap war we started.

QFT

And I see double standards here. Shells from the other side killing our soldiers are justified while when it happens the other way round suddenly we are evil?

MIRAMSHAH, June 21: Tension gripped Miramshah in N. Waziristan on Saturday after clashes broke out between Nato forces and the Taliban in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border.

Sources said the gunbattle took place near the Ghulam Khan checkpost and the area reverberated with loud explosions. They said that artillery shells had landed near the mutual territory which triggered fear among area people.?Correspondent

AFP adds: A spokesman for the Nato-led forces in Kabul said that one of its bases and a local army compound had been attacked from across the border with Pakistan.

 

[Braznor]

Pakistan has been infiltrating terrorists across Indian borders for over three decades as of now. I cannot see the logic or rationale of Pakistan not receiving a few doses of its own medicine.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Pakistan has been infiltrating terrorists across Indian borders for over three decades as of now. I cannot see the logic or rationale of Pakistan not receiving a few doses of its own medicine.

Thanks for starting an Indian versus Pakistan thread. That is exactly what this thread is going to turn into. Bravo.

Where I live Pakistanis and Indians get along just fine. Its the .0005% of the fanatical wackos that let politics get the best of them.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: chucky2
Was that an answer to my question?

The answer to your question is the Taliban are in Afghanistan in the thousands. They don't run to Pakistan to hide U.S troops.

They can hide in Afghanistan. There is plenty of open space in Afghanistna where U.S troops aren''t.

U.S doesn't care about Afghanistan.
Bunch of people like to poke the blame at Pakistan because they want someone to blame. U.S is to blame. We sent in few troops.

Pakistan is doing the same amount of effort the U.S is doing. Pakistan fights Taliban on the same level as U.S troops. They attack a village U.S attacks a village. I see no difference in the effort put in by either party.

U.S f'd up in Afghanistan and doesn't care. It's that simple. We care about Iraq and our crap war we started.

QFT

And I see double standards here. Shells from the other side killing our soldiers are justified while when it happens the other way round suddenly we are evil?

MIRAMSHAH, June 21: Tension gripped Miramshah in N. Waziristan on Saturday after clashes broke out between Nato forces and the Taliban in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border.

Sources said the gunbattle took place near the Ghulam Khan checkpost and the area reverberated with loud explosions. They said that artillery shells had landed near the mutual territory which triggered fear among area people.?Correspondent

AFP adds: A spokesman for the Nato-led forces in Kabul said that one of its bases and a local army compound had been attacked from across the border with Pakistan.

What about Pakistan firing upon Indian command posts? They do that to cover terrorists infiltrating our borders? Is that justified?

Sooner or later, the Pakistani double game of hunting with the wolves and running with the hares will come to end.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Braznor

What about Pakistan firing upon Indian command posts? They do that to cover terrorists infiltrating our borders? Is that justified?

Sooner or later, the Pakistani double game of hunting with the wolves and running with the hares will come to end.

Source?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Braznor
Pakistan has been infiltrating terrorists across Indian borders for over three decades as of now. I cannot see the logic or rationale of Pakistan not receiving a few doses of its own medicine.

Thanks for starting an Indian versus Pakistan thread. That is exactly what this thread is going to turn into. Bravo.

Where I live Pakistanis and Indians get along just fine. Its the .0005% of the fanatical wackos that let politics get the best of them.

What's the matter? :laugh:

Pakistan is playing a double game of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares. Even their military fires upon us to give cover for terrorists crossing over. So where is the Pakistani so called professed moral immunity from cross border crossings?


I guess exposing that is not too agreeable with you?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Braznor

What about Pakistan firing upon Indian command posts? They do that to cover terrorists infiltrating our borders? Is that justified?

Sooner or later, the Pakistani double game of hunting with the wolves and running with the hares will come to end.

Source?

Text

There you go, TGB.

 

[Lemon law]

What we have here in the India v Pakistan dispute is a totally independent issue with what this thread was originally about. Which is border disputes with Afghanistan, alleged taliban infiltration into Afghanistan from Pakistan, and a Nato desire to widen the conflict into Pakistan.

The Afghani issues have Uncle Sam's meddling as somewhat of one of the main root causes.

The India v. Pakistan issue is largely due to the former British empire losing control of India, and in some ways, Pakistan was created as a buffer state and the real ethnic borders are lines on a map that do not reflect reality. Because many hundreds of miles to the east, in central India its self, is where the mid east collides and confronts the
Far East along religious lines. To the West, the dominant religion is Muslim, to the East its Hindu. What Gandhi called the two eyes of India. And the long standing dispute
between India and Pakistan mainly centers on the disputed Kashmir region.

And at the risk of offending The Green Bean, population and power wise, India is the giant and Pakistan is the relative midget. And now the the terrible trump card joker in the deck is that both sides have nukes. But given the fact that Pakistan is threatened by an India to the East, makes it almost imperative for Pakistan to have a friendly and stable Afghanistan to the West. And from a Pakistani view point, Nato just is not getting that job done which is why Musharaf is barely on speaking terms with Karzai. And given the botch and low priority Nato has assigned to Afghanistan, I can understand why Pakistan does not want to see Nato importing instability into Pakistan itself.

Other than that, the two issues have almost nothing in common.

Maybe we should next talk about the US's inability to control its Southern Border with Mexico which is an equally valid issue.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we have here in the India v Pakistan dispute is a totally independent issue with what this thread was originally about. Which is border disputes with Afghanistan, alleged taliban infiltration into Afghanistan from Pakistan, and a Nato desire to widen the conflict into Pakistan.

The Afghani issues have Uncle Sam's meddling as somewhat of one of the main root causes.

The India v. Pakistan issue is largely due to the former British empire losing control of India, and in some ways, Pakistan was created as a buffer state and the real ethnic borders are lines on a map that do not reflect reality. Because many hundreds of miles to the east, in central India its self, is where the mid east collides and confronts the
Far East along religious lines. To the West, the dominant religion is Muslim, to the East its Hindu. What Gandhi called the two eyes of India. And the long standing dispute
between India and Pakistan mainly centers on the disputed Kashmir region.

And at the risk of offending The Green Bean, population and power wise, India is the giant and Pakistan is the relative midget. And now the the terrible trump card joker in the deck is that both sides have nukes. But given the fact that Pakistan is threatened by an India to the East, makes it almost imperative for Pakistan to have a friendly and stable Afghanistan to the West. And from a Pakistani view point, Nato just is not getting that job done which is why Musharaf is barely on speaking terms with Karzai. And given the botch and low priority Nato has assigned to Afghanistan, I can understand why Pakistan does not want to see Nato importing instability into Pakistan itself.

Other than that, the two issues have almost nothing in common.

Maybe we should next talk about the US's inability to control its Southern Border with Mexico which is an equally valid issue.

Pakistan's military spokesman said Pakistani troops had not fired across the frontier. "There was no firing from this side," said Major-General Athar Abbas.

I just think this is more Indian propaganda by taking advantage of what's happening on the other border to put more pressure on us. Why would we start a war with India now when we are having problems in our own territory? :S

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: chucky2
Was that an answer to my question?

The answer to your question is the Taliban are in Afghanistan in the thousands. They don't run to Pakistan to hide U.S troops.

They can hide in Afghanistan. There is plenty of open space in Afghanistna where U.S troops aren''t.

U.S doesn't care about Afghanistan.
Bunch of people like to poke the blame at Pakistan because they want someone to blame. U.S is to blame. We sent in few troops.

Pakistan is doing the same amount of effort the U.S is doing. Pakistan fights Taliban on the same level as U.S troops. They attack a village U.S attacks a village. I see no difference in the effort put in by either party.

U.S f'd up in Afghanistan and doesn't care. It's that simple. We care about Iraq and our crap war we started.

Word. :thumbsup:

Except now that we lost more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq last month, we all of a sudden care about Afghanistan again I laugh every time I think about that GWB "we'll get him, dead or alive" speech. I'm sure Osama is having a good laugh right now, too.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we have here in the India v Pakistan dispute is a totally independent issue with what this thread was originally about. Which is border disputes with Afghanistan, alleged taliban infiltration into Afghanistan from Pakistan, and a Nato desire to widen the conflict into Pakistan.

The Afghani issues have Uncle Sam's meddling as somewhat of one of the main root causes.

The India v. Pakistan issue is largely due to the former British empire losing control of India, and in some ways, Pakistan was created as a buffer state and the real ethnic borders are lines on a map that do not reflect reality. Because many hundreds of miles to the east, in central India its self, is where the mid east collides and confronts the
Far East along religious lines. To the West, the dominant religion is Muslim, to the East its Hindu. What Gandhi called the two eyes of India. And the long standing dispute
between India and Pakistan mainly centers on the disputed Kashmir region.

And at the risk of offending The Green Bean, population and power wise, India is the giant and Pakistan is the relative midget. And now the the terrible trump card joker in the deck is that both sides have nukes. But given the fact that Pakistan is threatened by an India to the East, makes it almost imperative for Pakistan to have a friendly and stable Afghanistan to the West. And from a Pakistani view point, Nato just is not getting that job done which is why Musharaf is barely on speaking terms with Karzai. And given the botch and low priority Nato has assigned to Afghanistan, I can understand why Pakistan does not want to see Nato importing instability into Pakistan itself.

Other than that, the two issues have almost nothing in common.

Maybe we should next talk about the US's inability to control its Southern Border with Mexico which is an equally valid issue.

That's right, Lemon Law and while you are ruling out the point I raised as irrelevant, I'm sure more terrorists are sneaking across Mexico's borders and blowing up stuff in your cities. :roll:

It's funny to see how you'll rather blame the British losing control than Pakistan and its prime export to outside world: radical islamism.

Get this. In the western Pakistan border, the Taliban are infiltrating into Afghanistan. In the East, their ideological brothers are infiltrating Kashmir. The source of both is Pakistan and Islamist terror, but according to you the two issues are not related? :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

To Braznor who has somewhat raised only a semi valid point with-------Get this. In the western Pakistan border, the Taliban are infiltrating into Afghanistan. In the East, their ideological brothers are infiltrating Kashmir. The source of both is Pakistan and Islamist terror, but according to you the two issues are not related?

Only in your mind is the SOURCE Pakistan and Islamic terror. The fact is and remains, the ethnic makeup of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and much of the Kashmir region is Muslim
and its popular with the local inhabitants to expel the hated foreigner. Which is why the taliban and other islamic terrorists can move like water through the local population.

Funny, we ran into the same problem in Vietnam, we just can't blame Islamic terrorists. Columbia is having similar problems and it can't blame Islam either.

Terrorism is an equal opportunity employer, and to address the problem, we need to get to the REAL SOURCES. Pakistan is just caught in the middle and blaming Pakistan is
just a cop out way to deny the real source while being an easy excuse for military failures. And as long as the local populations see terrorists as freedom fighters fighting for them, these type of conflicts will be ongoing.

 

[fskimospy]

We probably don't run our troops into Pakistan because we're afraid that if Musharraf allows that it will cause an already unstable (nuclear armed) government to fall, and that there are a ton of groups in Pakistan that we really really don't want running their government. In fact if you're worried about terrorists getting nukes, the way that our intelligence agencies is by FAR the most likely would be for a nuclear armed government to collapse, and terrorists to either take over the government or get their hands on a nuke in the ensuing chaos.

So yeah since Pakistan's people are HIGHLY anti-us, I can see both why their leadership won't let us in and why we wouldn't go.

 

[Lemon law]

This very subject has been discussed for two years now, and the only common denominator between then and now is that Afghani occupation gets more tenuous by the day as all progress seems to be negative. As each year, taliban strength and the number of its attacks increases.

In contrast, at least the past year, Iraqi violence is significantly reduced. And now Afghanistan has replaced Iraq as having the most combat deaths.

As long as Afghanistan is supplied with so few occupation troops and almost non existent economic development, its hard for me to see any progress occurring.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
This very subject has been discussed for two years now, and the only common denominator between then and now is that Afghani occupation gets more tenuous by the day as all progress seems to be negative. As each year, Taliban strength and the number of its attacks increases.

In contrast, at least the past year, Iraqi violence is significantly reduced. And now Afghanistan has replaced Iraq as having the most combat deaths.

As long as Afghanistan is supplied with so few occupation troops and almost non existent economic development, its hard for me to see any progress occurring.

In Iraq, there is no real safe areas that they can run and be under some other protection.

In Afghanistan, they can run, resupply and plan under the protection of the Pakistani.

Similar to what happened in Vietnam w/ Cambodia.
Eventually, you have to chase the snake into the hole and kill it.

 

[palehorse]

There is simply no decent excuse for allowing the Taliban to have a seemingly untouchable and perpetual base of operations... NONE.

Soft power without its hard power yang is a recipe for defeat, plain and simple.

Half-fought wars FTL.

The Green Bean>>
Recently released information indicates that many of the dead Taliban near Kandahar appear to be Pakistanis... care to comment?

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy seems to ignore past and present propaganda with his trilogy of statements. I shall number them one two and three.

1. In Iraq, there is noreal safe areas taht they can run and be under some other protection. ( nonsense, the Iraqi insurgencies are still in Iraq hiding in plain sight, better armed and better supplied than ever. Meanwhile GWB&co accuses Iran and other States of supplying them and sending in agents, munitions, and training. But at this point the Iraqi insurgencies have gone quiet, IMHO, because they have achieved their objectives, they own the streets at least 16 hours a day, Iraq is ethnically segregated, and the insurgencies are financing themselves with Iraqi corruption. Free enterprise at its finest. )

2. In Afghanistan, they can run, resupply and plan under the protection of the Packistani. ( Only partially true, if not Pakistan there are many Stans to the North they can run and hide in, or they can hide in plain sight among the Afghani people, after all the taliban is a home grown movement with many members being the very sons of Afghani parents. And any resupply the taliban can get is limited to what they can carry on their backs through very difficult terrain. In terms of armaments, the taliban is hopelessly over matched by what Nato has. )

3. Similar to what happened in Vietnam w/ Cambodia.
Eventually, you have to chase the sanke into the hole and kill it. ( That really worked well when Nixon widened the Vietnam war into Cambodia and destabilized another country. The snake of anarchy that trails the US army in its occupations gorged itself fully in the killing fields of Cambodia while the North Vietnamese takeover was far less bloody. We are simply making the same mistakes we made in Vietnam all over again times two, complete with the same myths. )