Pakistanis killed in US airstrike

Pakistanis killed in US airstrike

news.bbc.co.uk

Two Pakistani nomad women have been killed after a rocket fired across the border from Afghanistan landed on their tent, Pakistani officials say.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Title spelling edit.



[edit on 13-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Looks like the US millitary have taken their focus off terrorists and started to target civillians.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Title spelling edit.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

This kind of begs the question:
Why are they firing rockets at their "allies" territory?

reply to post by budski

Why are they firing rockets at their "allies" territory?

Because the allies are not killing civillians for them.




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Attari
Looks like the US millitary have taken their focus off terrorists and started to target civillians.

Your own article said that was not the case. They were targeting an area where they (the US) had just taken fire from.

Do people not read the entire article before they put it out with their spin on it?

Originally posted by budski
This kind of begs the question:
Why are they firing rockets at their "allies" territory?

Exactly what I was thinking!

Does anyone know if there has been any statements from either nation?

Simple errors (if it was an error) can have unexpected consequences.

I agree coolhand - my concern is whether they had permission to fire into pakistan.
This is relevant due to the recent news about pakistan warning the US about bringing more troops close to its borders - they told the US not to.

In light of this, and if they had no permission, this could be seen by some as an act of war...

reply to post by budski

"The coalition forces identified this as coming from the border and co-ordinated with the Pakistan military and fired artillery rounds at the point of origin," he told AFP in Kabul.

Read first then ask questions or reach your conclusion.

Fair enough deltaboy - I must have missed that bit

I seem to have forgotten how to read
Fair comment.

Originally posted by budski
I agree coolhand - my concern is whether they had permission to fire into pakistan.
This is relevant due to the recent news about pakistan warning the US about bringing more troops close to its borders - they told the US not to.

In light of this, and if they had no permission, this could be seen by some as an act of war...

They had (and have had) permission to use weapons in Pakistan for some time now. They did threaten or coerce Pakistan into giving this permission.

Course, that won't stop some from accussing them of doing that very thing.

Originally posted by budski
I agree coolhand - my concern is whether they had permission to fire into pakistan.
This is relevant due to the recent news about pakistan warning the US about bringing more troops close to its borders - they told the US not to.

In light of this, and if they had no permission, this could be seen by some as an act of war...

I would assume the forces had permission to retaliate seeing as this was a joint US and Pakistan move, according to the article.

US military spokesman Mike Cody said that a security post on the border in Khost had been attacked from the Pakistani side on Saturday afternoon.

"The coalition forces identified this as coming from the border and co-ordinated with the Pakistan military and fired artillery rounds at the point of origin," he told AFP in Kabul.

Edit to excuse my slow response I see this point has been resolved.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by xSMOKING_GUNx]

reply to post by COOL HAND


I wouldn't dream of it inn this instance

Despite my views on the war, this looks all above board and proper - apart from any collateral damage which I will never excuse.