It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pakistan defending terrorist?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:17 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - 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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Shouldn't they be assisting US troops if terrorist are crossing into Pakistan or am I reading this wrong?

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:45 AM
The Intelligence Service of Pakistan has been anti-USA for decades, they harbor and console the terrorists. If the government there goes 'taliban' on us, you can expect to see a very quick rise in global terrorism.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:43 AM
Geee....I seem to remember GW saying "If you harbor terrorists, you will be targeted" or some claptrap like that. I always wonder why we don't do surgical strikes in Pakistan. It's where the terrorist are!

Well, other than all the other places we ignore to focus on Iraq!


posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:08 PM
I'm starting to see a pattern here somewhere, muslim countries and terrorism. Has this been investigated? I think I even remember seeing video of pakistanis celebrating in the streets the morning of 9-11. It think it could be a deep conspiracy because I've asked muslims if they knew about this and got a very hateful reaction. Some have called me "insensitive" and a "hate monger". I've done some simple math to see the percentage of terrorist attacks carried out by muslims compared to non-muslims, the results were staggering...99.12%

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:49 AM
reply to post by Cuhail

Of course it couldn't possibly be because pakistan has nukes as well could it?

No picking on the little kid here - these people can actually fight back.

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:00 AM
I'm not sure if this is related, but I swear I read another thread stating that pakistan was warning the USA to back off, because "The USA bombed somewhere inside Pakistan killing civillians including children" ?

Did I imagine that?

[edit on 18-9-2008 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:10 PM
_Phoenix_: you are right, and remember

1- Arround 400 trucks load of Supplies For International Forces in Afghanistan passes daily under prtection of Pakistani Security Agencies from Karachi to Kabul..........about 1200KM distance.

2- USA may be viewing from air/space the movements over the ground but Pakistan is feeling the pulse and listening to the talks of the people living there on the ground.

3_ Pakistan has a strong army, nuke capable, and a well esttablished intelligence network of its own.

4- A population of about 1.8 million.

5- A newly elected popular Government, very patriotic and keen for integrity and sovereignity of Pakistan.

6- A status of Non-Nato ally.

7- And if Pakistan are its army are weakened.....the whole region will destabilize

8- Without a strong Pakistan Army USA or NAto can never win the war in Afghanistan

9- Attacks on pakistan are/shall be never rewarding but helping the teerorists to replenish there human resource.

Decision is USA's...........WINLOSE

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:35 PM
Think about it, the attacks in the tribal region by Predator drones in which the Pakistani govt. has no control of and Pakistani govt. is pissed off and willing to defend something they do not control. Peace treaties with the the supposed local militants which led to increased attacks on Afghanistan. And the Taliban which originated from Pakistan in 1994 where Pakistan would have influence on Afghanistan. I wonder.........

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by budski

Oh, damn straight, brudda! (There was more than a bit of sarcasm up there, I could have noted or made more obvious.)
I do, indeed, know exactly why we don't just plow in. Especially now that Mushariff isn't at the reins. But, the Predators are still goin' in an making selected strikes now. It seems we must keep up appearances.


posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by budski

Is nuking the U.S. worth it in the name of protecting the Taliban? After many years of firing missiles in Pakistan, I guess thats their response.

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by deltaboy

Is becoming the worlds pariah worth it, just to chase dubya's agenda?

Is it worth it, just so that he can get over his daddy issues?

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by budski

Thats your best response about Pakistan and my opinion?

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by deltaboy

Well, I'd just come home from the pub after going to a gig, and I was a little the worse for wear

I think what I said still holds true, although I could have phrased it better.

And while we're on the subject of harbouring terrorists, what about Saudi?

Couldn't anything to do with the oil and the fact they are friends of the bush family could it?

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:30 AM
If they are:

a. Unwilling to attack the terrorists holed up in the NWFP and Waziristan (as budski put it "just to chase dubya's agenda")

and b. Claiming sovereignty over those areas

then de-facto they are harbouring terrorists. Its that clean cut.

The reason they wont deal with the terrorists is that there would be a violent uprising from the pakistani people themselves, who give tacit support to the taliban.

Why else would Pakistan risk angering the West over a couple of terrorists? They would attack them if it were viable to do so, but their population wont let them.

top topics


log in