Pakistan Orders Troops To Fire on Americans

Jake Blues · 09-16-08, 10:06 PM

Pakistan has ordered its troops to fire on American troops if they violate the home turf of Osama Bin Laden and Imad Zawahiri.I only have a four letter response for any Pakistanis who fire on American troops in pursuit,MOAB.

Close the border once and for all and tell Pakistan to get stuffed.
Take Pakistan's aid and give it to Afghanistan.
Sign a new treaty with India giving them MFN status.

Simon W. Moon · 09-16-08, 10:10 PM

Can we get source for this?

Jake Blues · 09-16-08, 10:23 PM

Pick a news channel.I read it on Yahoo news but every channel has carried the story.

You at the 82nd?

ARealConservative · 09-16-08, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake Blues

Pick a news channel.I read it on Yahoo news but every channel has carried the story.

Pakistan troops ordered to open fire on US raiders - Yahoo! News

John1234 · 09-17-08, 01:20 AM

I also heard that we just did a strike and that the Pakistan military fired warning shots.
Also that the Pentegon denied it.
But i do not trust the source, it was on Countdown

bhkad · 09-17-08, 01:30 AM

I believe there are people who intentionally try to start rumors and to spread falsehoods in order to drive a wedge between us here at home and between us and our allies.

Al Qaeda sympathizers would like nothing better than to have American hot heads calling for the military to attack our allies.

If we can prevent doing this, we should.

Infinite Chaos · 09-17-08, 02:07 AM

This story is a result of 6-7 years simplistic US policy in Pakistan, reminiscent of the bad old days of the cold war when the US supported unpopular dictators using rhetoric about "democracy" and "people's will" while those same dictators ruthlessly oppressed their own peoples.

Musharraf was corrupt and a dictator, he was propped up by the military against the wishes of the people and eventually civic pressure has changed Pakistan - for good or bad.

Quote:

Since 2001 American officials have treasured their close relationship with Musharraf because he offered a "one-stop shop" for cooperation in hunting al-Qaida fugitives hiding in Pakistan.

But since the crushing electoral defeat of Musharraf's party last month, and talk that the new parliament may hobble the president's powers, that equation has changed. Now the US finds itself dealing with politicians it previously spurned.

The body language between Negroponte and Sharif during their meeting on Tuesday spoke volumes: the Pakistani greeted the American with a starched handshake, and sat at a distance .

In blunt remarks afterwards, Sharif said he told Negroponte that Pakistan was no longer a one-man show. "Since 9/11, all decisions were taken by one man," he said. "Now we have a sovereign parliament and everything will be debated in the parliament."

It was "unacceptable that while giving peace to the world we make our own country a killing field," Sharif said, echoing widespread public anger at US-funded military operations in the tribal belt.

"If America wants to see itself clean of terrorism, we also want our villages and towns not to be bombed," he said.

US officials have long paid tribute to the virtues of democracy in Pakistan. But, as happened in the Palestinian Authority after the 2006 Hamas victory, policymakers are racing to catch up with the consequences of a result that challenges American priorities.

Guardian: We are no longer your killing field.

As the article states, the US spurned the politicians who are now in power and these same politicians now want the US to demonstrate a little respect (and probably some humble pie). After all - these US incursions into foreign sovereign territory were not agreed with that same foreign territory.

Quote:

It emerged last week that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says there is a growing American conviction that Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to eliminate militant sanctuaries in its border area.

There have been a number of missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistan territory in recent weeks.

Pakistan reacted with diplomatic fury when US helicopters landed troops in South Waziristan on 3 September. It was the first ground assault by US troops in Pakistan.

Locals in the Musa Nikeh area said American soldiers attacked a target with gunfire and bombs, and said women and children were among some 20 civilians who died in the attack.

In the latest incident, the tribesmen say they grabbed their guns and took up defensive positions after placing their women and children out of harm's way.

Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting the tribesmen with the Taleban.

How would the US react if Mexico sent armed troops across the border after some domestic terrorists / rebels? It never fails to surprise me that the US cannot or will not see the hypocrisy in some of its actions - the same Pakistan army that kept Musharraf in power and was in favour of US relations is now prepared to fire at US troops.

Will anyone in Washington (all those highly paid Foreign Relations Analysts) ever start to explore why?

***** EDIT****

Source for the last quote

obvious Child · 09-17-08, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

If we can prevent doing this, we should.

The question becomes can we?

Pakistan is a prickly thorn. On one hand we need them, their intel, their support their not open support of terrorism. Yet on the other hand they are an obstacle, allowing terrorists to run wild in the north. Bush last week authorized an attack into Pakistan without Pakistani knowledge or approval. Which do we need more? To kill the terrorists in northern Pakistan or Pakistani support against terrorism? It appears we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Infinite Chaos · 09-17-08, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

The question becomes can we?

Recent events suggest "not."

Attacking local tribesmen who - as the BBC article states - where trying to protect their women and children is NOT the way to stop support for the Taleban.

Sergeant Stinger1 · 09-17-08, 03:03 AM

Its so easy to get rid of them. Lets just ask bush to 'liberate' them.