Japan Today
world

Pakistan troops ordered to open fire on U.S. raiders

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

Whether it's Obama or McCain or bush, just going into Pakistan because we think or even know that there are terrorist someplace, is against any state's sovernty.

We would never put up with it and neither will or should they.

Why after all this time that we've been in Afghanistan, isn't there some kind of working agreement for taking on the Taliban in Pakinstan? Why haven't the administrations gotten some kind of understanding?

Now I can't fought Pakistan for protecting it's own property and state.

I can fought the current administration for not having the understanding or working with Pakistan to get theses guys. Even if we identify the terrorist and then Pakistan took immediate action. But some way of doing this. These are terrorist folks. And george bush and John McCain beat the terrorist drum and I know how to get victory. Why hasn't the war in Afghanistan been completed? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting development however, both will back away. no fear except for India.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet another thorn in the war on terror in AFghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

al-Qaida has a gun to the head of Pakistan so they might say "Yankie Go Home" but they are more than happy that we take out al-Qaida for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's fair enough to be honest, if the Pakistani government were not consulted prior to them happening. Let's switch the tables and imagine what the US reaction would be if Mexican troops kept crossing the US border and attacking people there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No offense, but serves the 'raiders' right, and serves the US government right for deciding they can invade whenever and wherever they choose without contacting the appropriate authorities for permission. Guess perhaps they chose the wrong 'ally' in the supposed war on terror.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Pakistani troops open fire on U.S. troops after January 20, 2009, President Obama will annihilate them, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge:

" If Pakistani troops open fire on U.S. troops after January 20, 2009, President Obama will annihilate them, right? "

Pfffttt.... splutter.... you owe a keyboard. Yes, interesting times ahead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack visited Pakistan way back in 1981. He can heal the rift. He has seen it all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This turned into a worse problem when Pakistan made an agreement with the Taliban to not persue them in Pakistan's north east corridor, so as to quell the violence being directed at them by the Taliban.

This appeasement has allowed the Taliban to regroup and establish safe-havens in which to continue their struggles in Afghanistan.

The US (and their coalition partners) are paying the price for this. The solution is for the US to pressure Pakistan to dissolve this "soft approach" agreement or else lose funding from the US.

This incursion into Pakistan by US forces is definitely the wrong approach to this problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pakistan declared war on US officially!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“No country in the world can allow ground troops—enemy or otherwise—to come into its territory and carry out any unilateral action,” said Ikram Sehgal, a Pakistani defense analyst.

Ah, but you seem them going into India and its ok...

No country has a right to invade, but do other countries have a right in supporting those who blow people up for religous purposes? We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban were assisting AQ, we were not invading Afghanistan just to invade nor was our fight against the people there who were not supportive of AQ (don't bring up accidentals).

How about this: someone kills your family, robs you of everything, I then harbor them and prevent the cops from entering my house/property in their pursuit to capture and arrest them.... Will you support me then? If you don't support me, you are a hypocrite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

talking with a co-worker who is from Pakistan says that the area in question is just that, an area in question. Seems to be that three countries claim the same area and there is nothing but lawlessness there.

We need to get the all mighty UN involved and get the area's ownership resolved and then take the issue from there. Personally, if Pakistan doesn't want to do anything to the Taliban I say don't do nothing.. soon that country too will fall to them...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pakistan has not done their job in preventing the movement in and out of Pakistan. The US should be able to go into that country and do what they want. The reason? simple, when you are giving a country 1B a year to stop this and they are not doing it then you have to do it yourself. or, how about the US stop funding Pakistan?

and if Pakistan troops open fire then they will be decimated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "...talking with a co-worker who is from Pakistan says that the area in question is just that, an area in question. Seems to be that three countries claim the same area and there is nothing but lawlessness there."

That's beside the point... the US has said it reserves the right to enter PAKISTAN on such missions if it deems fit, and has admitted to entering PAKISTAN to conduct the strike.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hmmm hard situation, but if these guys are going into Pakastan to seek saftey after killing American troops... well.. I say follow them and get rid of them by all means. If Pakistan is not waiting there to catch the killers, then American troops I see has the right to go after the murderers that are willing and trying to kill them.

Someone brought up Mexico and US in this situation, well the US would be there on the border to catch these guys. If Pakistan is not there to do such operations these guys have a safe haven as soon as they flee across the border and untouchable after killing troops that are fighting a war, which makes them also militants of this same war and should be tracked down and killed, if not by US forces then by Pakistan. which we see has not the ability. This means they should get away with muder? I say no! If Pakiastan thinks this is wrong then they are harboring fugitives and terroist militants and would also be guilty of helping the terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skipthesong - if the cops plan to go in guns blazing and indiscriminantly killing your kids and rest of your family who have committed no crimes in their bid to capture/kill these criminals, then you can be sure by gods most civilized people would be supporting you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USA will invade another country for the "greater" good

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seems Pakistan could use some help and may be begging for it after some time goes by..

Taliban attack kills three police in Pakistan: official

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080916/wl_asia_afp/pakistanunrestnorthwest;_ylt=Ao1l57bJUow0EFfcjiUf_HwBxg8F

DennisObauer. It is not just in the US interest to fight terroists this is a growing problem in many countries.. You wish to deny the problem?? I guess so by your remark. Just take a look at all international news and past events. These terroists groups are spread out across the word. Just alqaida covers many countries and then the militant groups such as the Taliban that supports alqaida. It is more than just a problem of the US and many countries have to eventually realize the threat posed by these groups and many already understand the problems ahead needing dealt with but do not have the forces to deal with these problems as we see with Pakistan.. but in this case poses the threat to more US casualties in Afganistan along with murders within Pakistan as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No offense, but serves the 'raiders' right, and serves the US government right for deciding they can invade whenever and wherever they choose without contacting the appropriate authorities for permission. Guess perhaps they chose the wrong 'ally' in the supposed war on terror.

So you're OK with the Taliban congregating across the border in Pakistan with impunity? Because that's what's going to happen since Pakistan doesn't have the manpower to deal with them. At some point those troops are going to slip into Afghanistan, kill Canadian troops, then head back to their safe haven while all NATO can do is wave from across the border.

I just wanted to confirm that you're OK with that. In fact, I recommend putting Canadian troops on the border since you guys will obviously respect Pakistan's sovereignty. Then I'll borrow one of your favorite phrases and recommend Canadians invest in coffins and more flags from China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pakistan itself (our "ally") will be a Taliban country sooner or later. And this time one with nuclear weapons. Because for islamic country has no logical reason to oppose the real islam, which is represented by the Taliban and Al Quaida.

Lets see how Obama deals with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This turned into a worse problem when Pakistan made an agreement with the Taliban to not persue them in Pakistan's north east corridor, so as to quell the violence being directed at them by the Taliban.

This appeasement has allowed the Taliban to regroup and establish safe-havens in which to continue their struggles in Afghanistan.

Good point, Speed. Pakistan harboring Talibani is essentially equivalent to Pakistan troops opening fire on US troops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie:

" Pakistan harboring Talibani "

LOL! Nooo.... Pakistan harbouring Talibani --- now, that is really a surprise, considering that the Taliban is a Pakistan created organization, designed and funded by the Pakistani intelligence service.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL! Nooo.... Pakistan harbouring Talibani --- now, that is really a surprise, considering that the Taliban is a Pakistan created organization, designed and funded by the Pakistani intelligence service.

Fine; harboring Afghan Talibani. You know what I'm talking about, Willi. Don't pretend to be more obtuse than necessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great, the bush doctrine starts doomed to fail war number three in the middle east. Dont ask Palin about this doctrine, she doesnt know.

The US military and the CIA in general make bad situations worse. Attacking Pakistan gives power the Taliban, duh! Does anyone on this board not understand this.

Maybe if bush had not invaded Iraq based on lies about WMDs then this problem would not have developed. But no, Bush invaded Iraq and made the whole region worse. It just goes on and on until someone smarter than a fencepost runs the US government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's fair enough to be honest, if the Pakistani government were not consulted prior to them happening.

The problem is that the Pakistan government is so in bed with the Afghan Talibani that it's not safe to give advance notice. Which brings up the question: How much of an ally is Pakistan, and is it worth it to the US to have them as an ally?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's beside the point... the US has said it reserves the right to enter PAKISTAN on such missions if it deems fit, and has admitted to entering PAKISTAN to conduct the strike."

Understood, but hey at least they admitted it.... I didn't see where it was said that the US states that they reserve the right, but in either case why would they not want to allow people who are said to be their "allies" and fight the people, and they do claim its been a heavy burden, who are committing bombings? Something is clearly not being said here and there is more to this story.

Pivot: Skipthesong - if the cops plan to go in guns blazing and indiscriminantly killing your kids and rest of your family who have committed no crimes in their bid to capture/kill these criminals, then you can be sure by gods most civilized people would be supporting you." I think you meant to write "wouldn't". Oh, but I said if someone did a crime to you and I harboured the scum who did such a crime, you wouldn't want to the cops to enter my property? Why do you say indiscriminately killing? Are you implying that everyone thus killed so far has been indiscriminately killed by US forces? and that the people who have died at the hands of the Taliban and AQ have not?

then it Seems like a catch 22: you have Taliban and AQ on one side killing indiscriminately and the other doing the same... Then, we have a never ending story yet again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurconium:

" Great, the bush doctrine starts doomed to fail war number three in the middle east. Dont ask Palin about this doctrine, she doesnt know. "

Neither do you, or Bush for that matter, or Charles Gibson. Because there are at least 4 different "Bush doctrine", depending on how you define them. Gibson tried to trip up Palin, and only showed his own ignorance and arrogance.

Anyhow, it is correct that the idea of the exporting democracy to islamic countries (and that idea is shared by the Republicans and Democrats alike) has failed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good for you Pakistan. Shoot a few and make your point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Statistician:

" Good for you Pakistan. Shoot a few and make your point. "

The point being that the Islamic Republik of Pakistan is not "ally" in any war against islamic terrorism. I completely agree. I just hope the West will finally get the point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

willi, don't worry about the Islamists. Living in France and obviously already officialy Dhimmi, I'll put in a good word for you for when Islam rules the world!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

simonB, I don't know what you are getting on about, but guess what, there have been a lot of crap coming over the border, not bombings, but murders and what has the US done about it? Nothing! If you get a chance, go to more Spanish sites and check out the news, it has been said on many occasions that drugsters have even disguised themselves as Mexican military and they have come over the border, even killing several border patrolmen. Again, the US has done nothing about it and I bet most haven't even bothered with that type of news.

Now let me ask, if these drug traffickers killed your kind, would you care if people went in a pulled them out of their country and in some cases where that country's uppers were helping them not get caught?

Diplomacy is not a language the Taliban nor AQ are willing to accept, so we are left with two choices - go in and get them or just simply leave them alone. Pakistan has proven that they ain't gonna help. You decide which one is better of the two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" willi, don't worry about the Islamists. Living in France and obviously already officialy Dhimmi, I'll put in a good word for you for when Islam rules the world!! "

Gee, that will impress our mohammedan superiors. A word from one stinking kuffar in favour of another stinking kuffar. Very re-assuring, thanks so much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

willi, you're getting it all wrong again - as long as you have a craft, which the arabs hate doing, then us little dhimmi in your global conspiracy will be fine. I presume you do understand however that I'm joking...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i hope Pakistan and America don't fight, there is too much bovver already. America would win though, those pakistanis couldn't even beat India, and they've got a rubbish army.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Pakistan cannot do the job of reining in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as they promised to do, then, yes, the US and NATO Forces should raid into Pakistani Territory. However, Obama and his idea of a full-scale invasion of Pakistan would be stupid: they do have nukes and are capable of using them...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they do have nukes and are capable of using them..."

forgot all about that........... think they would use them if not fired on first?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" willi, you're getting it all wrong again - as long as you have a craft, which the arabs hate doing, then us little dhimmi in your global conspiracy will be fine. "

Sure. Just like the dhimmis in every islamic state. From the Christians huddled in their enclaves in Bagdad to the shrinking Copts in Egypt to the Hindu population of Pakistan. If you comfortable with Dhimmi existance, good for you. However, many dhimmis will decide it is preferrable to switch and convert to islam. Especially if they are male. From the bottom of the hierarchy to the top... who is to complain? And that is how it works. No conspiracy about it, just a clever and brutal social movement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

willi,

I don't understand how a coherent writer such as yourself can believe in such fantasy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts,

Nope, I only mentioned facts. Read the koran, read history, read what the islamic thinkers say.

What is "fantasy" is the modern Western idea that the past is all forgotten, and we are all one world, just waiting for Western democracy. That is fantasy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is not fact. Jews and Chritians dwelled under Islamic rule as craftsman, but weren't allowed to ride horses etc. Christians at this time were burning/raping/slaughtering other infidels.

But this has nothing to do with the thread, nor your irrational fear of Islam...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adm Mullens has ordered all US troops to obey the sovernty of Pakistan and to not enter the country without permission.

Pakistans orders of shoot anybody illegally entering Pakistan still stands.

The US has finally gottens their act together in this case. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

breaking news from BBC world. The US used a drone to launch an attack inside Pakiston, to kill militants. BTW, this is confirmed report.

So maybe we will launch attacks , where our troops cannot be shot at.

What you gonna do Pakistan? Hee Hee!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites