*Either you are with us, or against us

Big P

Well-Known Member
Poeple can be nieve, if anyone thinks we are at too much war right now, they have no idea how much worse it can get and most probably will get sooner or later depending on the actions of the enemy forces or thier appeasers

Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids

By STEPHEN GRAHAM – 1 hour ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.

The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos, are certain to heighten tensions between Washington and a key ally against terrorism. Although the ground attack was rare, there have been repeated reports of U.S. drone aircraft striking militant targets, most recently on Sept. 12.

Pakistani officials warn that stepped-up cross-border raids will accomplish little while fueling violent religious extremism in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Some complain that the country is a scapegoat for the failure to stabilize Afghanistan.

Pakistan's civilian leaders, who have taken a hard line against Islamic militants since forcing Pervez Musharraf to resign as president last month, have insisted that Pakistan must resolve the dispute with Washington through diplomatic channels.

However, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that after U.S. helicopters ferried troops into a militant stronghold in the South Waziristan tribal region, the military told field commanders to prevent any similar raids.

"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

U.S. military commanders accuse Islamabad of doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from recruiting, training and resupplying in Pakistan's wild tribal belt.

Pakistan acknowledges the presence of al-Qaida fugitives and its difficulties in preventing militants from seeping through the mountainous border into Afghanistan.

However, it insists it is doing what it can and paying a heavy price, pointing to its deployment of more then 100,000 troops in its increasingly restive northwest and a wave of suicide bombings across the country.
After talks Tuesday with British officials in London, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said he did not "think there will be any more" cross-border raids by the U.S. He declined to comment on the order to use lethal force against American troops.

Instead, he and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a joint statement saying Afghanistan and Pakistan should lead the efforts to battle border militancy. The joint statement left out any mention of the United States.

American officials have confirmed their forces carried out the Sept. 3 raid near the town of Angoor Ada but given few details of what happened.
Abbas said that Pakistan's military had asked for an explanation but received only a "half-page" of "very vague" information that failed to identify the intended target.

Pakistani officials have said the raid killed about 15 people, and Abbas said they all appeared to be civilians.

"These were truck drivers, local traders and their families," he said.
How to reverse a surge in Taliban violence in Afghanistan has become a major issue in the U.S. presidential campaign and refocused attention on the porous border with Pakistan.

Pakistan's military has won American praise for a six-week offensive against militants in the Bajur tribal region that officials here say has killed 700 suspected insurgents and about 40 troops. Troops backed by warplanes killed eight more alleged militants Tuesday, officials said.
In the same timeframe, there has been a surge in missile strikes apparently carried out by unmanned U.S. drones. Such attacks killed at least two senior al-Qaida commanders earlier this year.

Abbas did not say when exactly the orders for Pakistani troops to open fire to prevent cross-border raids by U.S. troops were issued. He wouldn't discuss whether Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who replaced Musharraf as army chief last year, personally took the decision or if the orders had been discussed with American officials.

The spokesman also played down suggestions that the instructions had
been put into practice before dawn on Monday, when U.S. helicopters reportedly landed near Angoor Ada only to fly away after troops fired warning shots.

Abbas insisted no foreign troops had crossed the border and that "trigger-happy tribesmen" had fired the shots. Pakistani troops based nearby fired flares to see what was going on, he said.

The U.S. military in Afghanistan said none of its troops were involved.
In a rare public statement last week, Kayani said Pakistan's sovereignty would be defended "at all cost." Abbas said Pakistani officials had to consider public opinion, which is skeptical of American goals in the region and harbors sympathy for rebels fighting in the name of Islam.

"Please look at the public reaction to this kind of adventure or incursion," Abbas said. "The army is also an extension of the public and you can only satisfy the public when you match your words with your actions."
 

medicineman

New Member
Well, I am certainly not against the good old USA, but this administration has stolen my USA and replaced it with one that openly advocates pre-emptive wars, cross border incursions, and killing and torturing civilians. Yes I am against that USA. If someone doesn't like my position, Fuck-em!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Well, I am certainly not against the good old USA, but this administration has stolen my USA and replaced it with one that openly advocates pre-emptive wars, cross border incursions, and killing and torturing civilians. Yes I am against that USA. If someone doesn't like my position, Fuck-em!
You and O'Bama make a good team.

Vi
 

ViRedd

New Member
So, VI, you are for pre-emptive wars, killing and torturing civilians, and cross border strikes on soverign nations, Eh?
Here's what I would do:

1. If there is an eminent threat ... yes, attack first. Exactly what you would do if confronted by five thugs in an alley late at night.

2. If there is information to be had that would save thousands of lives, yes ... cut their nuts off if necessary. Exactly what you would do if a family member was threatened with death.

3. Yes, if the killers of my family were sitting in a cave across the Mexican border, I'd go across the border to save them, as opposed to trying to get through the massive red tape of Mexican bureaucrats who most likely would be a major hinderance ... same thing you would do.

And by the way ... define what you mean by "preemptive."

Vi
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
excilent post.


if your niebor was letting the thugs that burned your house down and killed your dog hang out in his yard and not doing anything about it


I would go into his yard and fuckem up, if there was no cops, or the cops were useless (I.E. The UN)


so ofcoarse,


mexico is coming across our border all the time with thier bribed troops

i never saw u say a word against it and they are a tottally different counrty than yours who are doing incursions into you country


but when your own country does it, you are the first to complain?


why is that?
 

Inneedofbuds

Well-Known Member
Here's what I would do:

1. If there is an eminent threat ... yes, attack first. Exactly what you would do if confronted by five thugs in an alley late at night.

2. If there is information to be had that would save thousands of lives, yes ... cut their nuts off if necessary. Exactly what you would do if a family member was threatened with death.

3. Yes, if the killers of my family were sitting in a cave across the Mexican border, I'd go across the border to save them, as opposed to trying to get through the massive red tape of Mexican bureaucrats who most likely would be a major hinderance ... same thing you would do.

And by the way ... define what you mean by "preemptive."

Vi
What if you were kicked in the shins by a 4 year old who poses you absolutely no threat? Would you beat the shit out him?
 

medicineman

New Member
Here's what I would do:

1. If there is an eminent threat ... yes, attack first. Exactly what you would do if confronted by five thugs in an alley late at night.

2. If there is information to be had that would save thousands of lives, yes ... cut their nuts off if necessary. Exactly what you would do if a family member was threatened with death.

3. Yes, if the killers of my family were sitting in a cave across the Mexican border, I'd go across the border to save them, as opposed to trying to get through the massive red tape of Mexican bureaucrats who most likely would be a major hinderance ... same thing you would do.

And by the way ... define what you mean by "preemptive."

Vi
1.of or pertaining to preemption. 2.taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival, Or country 3.preempting or possessing the power to preempt; appropriative; privileged: a commander's preemptive

Pretty much it means do what the fuck you want without regards for consequences, NO?
So you are OK with Bombing civilians then, women and children, using napalm and cluster bombs and DU munitions?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
What if you were kicked in the shins by a 4 year old who poses you absolutely no threat? Would you beat the shit out him?

its not a 4 year old boy, its osama bin ladin, al queada and all thier fuckers are sittin pretty in wazirastan which is insinde the country of pakistan, and bush been playin footsy's with musharaf for the last fuckin 7 years its time to fuck that place up. i cant understand why we havnt carpet bomded the whole fucking place. there must be a good reason


i think they got the whole place wired and survailed
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
you wanna know the first place on the nucleur target list if a terroist
a-bomb was smuggled and detonated in washington





its waziristan my freinds. maybe we should just wait to make sure they wanna kill us let them get the a-bomb so half the world gets nuked in the retaliation strike that you know will me mandetory by the usa by popular demand.

that sounds like a bettter plan that killing our enemies in a country that will not or cannot even stop them

 

Stoney McFried

Well-Known Member
Let's all remember what exactly a nuke does to the innocent people who had the misfortune of being born in a country we're targeting.It should be the very last resort.
 

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
its not a 4 year old boy, its osama bin ladin, al queada and all thier fuckers are sittin pretty in wazirastan which is insinde the country of pakistan, and bush been playin footsy's with musharaf for the last fuckin 7 years its time to fuck that place up. i cant understand why we havnt carpet bomded the whole fucking place. there must be a good reason


i think they got the whole place wired and survailed
A good reason? Maybe because the entire population of Pakistan isn't Al Qaeda, and we don't have the right to endanger their lives, disrupt their economy, and destroy their country to progress American imperialism. And lest we forget; McCain:"in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
A good reason? Maybe because the entire population of Pakistan isn't Al Qaeda, and we don't have the right to endanger their lives, disrupt their economy, and destroy their country to progress American imperialism. And lest we forget; McCain:"in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."

please read the post im talking about waziristan i put a huge map of it up for you see. its a haven for our enemies


thank you
 

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
please read the post im talking about waziristan i put a huge map of it up for you see. its a haven for our enemies


thank you
Waziristan has a population of 500,000; less than 2 percent of those are honest to goodness terrorists. And really, it doesn't matter what region of Pakistan you're talking about, terrorist aren't bound by geographic locals. They will simply go elsewhere in Pakistan or abroad.

You're talking about attacking a sovereign democratic nation, a part of the U.N., a U.S. ally, who we have been selling billions in weapons to for years now. I doubt even the staunchest neo-con would agree with you.
 

Spitzered

Well-Known Member
Pakistan is a tricky situation. The Pakistani army isn't strong enough to root out the bad guys. They have tried before when trying to stop opium traffic. But to allow the US to raid inside Pakistan is to empower Islamic extremists to influence the public to a hard line stance. I don't know about the new govt. If they will lean with us or against us.
Why do you think Bin Laden is there? It is the safest place on earth for him. (except for maybe Berkley California). And its only semi-safe.

Alexander the Great was the last one to fully quell the region, and he did it thru a policy of 'depopulation'. We call it genocide these days. Not an option in my book.
So......the answer is.....? Borrow some money from China and buy em?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
i think we see the answer in the story at the begining


we are making incurrsions



then they said they will shoot at us so we sent our admiral there to talk to them



on goes the game




but im just saying if the al queda network managed to get nukes and smuggled them in washingtom and new york city and destroyed both locations and killed millions this time instead of thousands

its a plain fact the usa will strike back with nukes

as you will not be able to keep back the hords of americans that will demand it

trust me,


so im just thinking what our gov has on thier target list incase such an event occurs

you know they already have a plan for every scenario



so i am guessing that Waziristan is probably at the top of thier list
 

cleatis

Well-Known Member
Ok, so they used to be in Afghanistan, then they went to Iraq, now they are in Pakistan and Iran... We have almost gone broke fighting terrorism, killed people by amounts near genocide, how many times do we have to do this? This is McCarthy's dream with different bad guys. Plus, I see how the middle east might start looking at nukes because we won't quit fucking with themand we all know they have less military might; I don't blame Pakistan for being pissed off, we have bombed all their neighbors and our crusade has headed from their TV to their back yard. Do we really need to bomb a whole country and invade it just to get terrorists that will just hop the next border. It is approaching the mark of assinine, how much further must we go?
 
Top