Afghans Say Pakistan Fired First.....

reply to post by SLAYER69
I heard on AFN (on the drive home) that Afghani's fired first.

Will try to find the source
beez

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Interesting statement there...

It leaves two options;

Did your leaders know the risk, to your homeland, that using the army for their colonial foreign policy, would bring with it?

Colonial?

Have we colonized either Iraq or Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Iraq asked for and have been given US exit dates a few years back under Bush which Obama has kept to. I also have been following the situation in Afghanistan and I have not read accounts of US citizens "colonizing" Afghanistan either.

In order to be a "Colonial Power" you first have to "Colonize" Something or Someplace, hence the difintion of the term

Also, if the US wanted Iraq's oil all to itself then why has Iraq granted two of the three largest oil development contracts to two supposed US adversaries?

China and Russia?

Or didn't they?

Because if they knew they WILLINGLY put American lives in danger for the financial gain of several individuals and families.

Financial gain for Iraq or China and Russia?
I'm confused because the reality of the situation doesn't fit with this Propaganda or Conspiracy theory.

And if they didn't know these risks(which is a ridiculous position to defend), then one can only guess the blankness of their minds - not to mention the people who tow the line for them.

I wouldn't be so cock sure.

You haven't presented anything of any real substantial or credible value yet to stand upon except some theories and opinions thus far. Also, and for the record simply because someone points out the obvious and glaring holes in your theory doesn't mean they are "Towing the line"

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I heard on AFN (on the drive home) that Afghani's fired first.

Will try to find the source
beez

Thanks for the update.
Hopefully the truth [one way or the other] will come out with full details.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Curses!
Can't find a written source, yet. Checked the AFN site but it isn't listed as a story.

Will follow-up as I find out more, but until I find a source, take it with a grain of salt.

I'd be more worried about Pakistan than any other nation right now! That is I'd be more worried If it wasn't for the fact that should power ever escape the puppet regimes in charge over there, the same puppets that have been handed power since it was created, then Pakistan would be a giant crater within a nanosecond! It would be obliterated from all directions, the world elite can't have a rogue Nuclear power! This stands for any country! Although the chances of it happening in the Western world are remote at best.

It's ok letting Iran and North Korea have some experimental fun with strapping a thousand microwaves to a refurbished Russian missile, but once both these countries discover anything that can be launched beyond their borders, they will suffer the same fate (notice how sanctions get imposed on Iran but not much else, if they ever get close you will know, Tehran will be a sand pit and Russia and China will do nothing but complain about invested business interests), but not an already existing Nuclear nation! Too much is at stake! I bet you any money, I don't care what sides are set up, what words are said, Russia, China, US, India pretty much every country that could get it's most powerful non-nuclear (Nuclear weapons are for threat only nowadays, if truth is known) missiles launched quick enough would wipe Pakistan from the planet if there was any indication that they were about to go ballistic and there was no corrupting the rebel elite.

As it stands, I can't see anything but Pakistan moaning and NATO sticking the middle finger up at them until Pakistan realises that someone mentioned a stop in foreign aid and so stop moaning, while China and Russia shrug their shoulders before getting back to checking investment dividends and building gold plated empty cities, you know, the usual!

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by hp1229
There was no need to create Pakistan but it was created just so to interject the Western Policies and Control in the South East Asian Region way back in 1947.

I'll respectfully disagree here.

I think Pakistani Muslims and India's mostly Hindus would have a word or two to say about that. Need we drag the ugly and violent history between the two out?

Moreover letting them possess Nukes even keeps a check on neighbors China and India and even Cold War adversary Russia. Pakistani Politicians are played like a fiddle and pimped accordingly by the West.

Letting them have Nukes?

So, are you saying the world has a right to limit which nations should have them and which ones shouldn't? If so, doesn't this argument defend the argument that "A Certain nearby country" should be prevented from developing them now?

Needs some clarification from the judges on this one

Well truth is often bitter and hard to swallow however read the book 'The Grand Chessboard'. I'm sure the citizens of India and Pakistan will disagree however its like asking question if California should be made part of Mexico or a Independent country However I agree and I'll try to divert the conversation from drifting away into the ugly past.

LINK1

The world doesn't have a right to limit anyone but IAEA does It is evident significantly from the lack of protest against Pakistan back in time during their acquisition of the Nukes and the currently orchestrated one against 'A certain nearby country' Besides Pakistan is the only Islamic Nation with Nukes Think about it They have received support from several countries that are currently opposing 'A Certain nearby country'

LINK2

Pakistan are those friends your Mother warned you about. However they are not alone in wanting a piece of the action, Iran also likes to play its little games and anything that causes trouble for America is a prize in their eyes.

a bit clearer now... territorial border dispute.

From independent Pajhwok Afghan News

Pak posts built on Afghan soil, claim officials
by Abdul Mueed Hashimi on 28 November, 2011 - 14:26

www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/11/28/pak-posts-built-afghan-soil-claim-officials

JALALABAD (PAN): The Pakistani check-posts struck by International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) helicopters three days ago were built on Afghanistan soil, residents and official said on Monday.

At least 24 soldiers were killed and 13 others wounded in the predawn raid on a Pakistan Army post in the Mohmand tribal region near the Afghanistan border, a military spokesman confirmed to Pajhwok Afghan News.

The land in Ilzaisar and Kabul Sapar in the Salala mountain, on which the checkpoints were constructed, belonged to the Esakhel tribe of Afghanistan, said the administrative head of Goshta district.

Haji Syed Rahman said the Pakistan military had occupied almost 48 square meters of land of the district eight years ago.

A Tribal elder, Malik Abdul Karim Khan, said Dorkhel, Khogakhel and Mamakhel tribes of the district had sporadically been fighting against Pakistani troops since 2004. He added six Afghans had been killed and wounded in the clashes.

Khan alleged: "As the tribes resisted, international troops and former governor Din Mohammad did not take any action."

Another tribal elder, Malik Tahir Khan, also claimed that Anargi and Salala areas belonged to Goshta district. Pakistani troops would make Kunar River a new border if the Afghan tribes did not resist their efforts, he warned.

He said NATO-led troops bombarded the check-posts after their joint patrol came under attack from the Pakistani military dressed like Taliban. He insisted rockets were regularly fired into the district from the posts.

Another elder, Syed Omar, feared Pakistani troops could occupy Khapakh, Khogakhel, Mayakhel, Kandaw and Anargi areas.

A statement from ISAF said the airstrike was launched after a joint Afghan-international patrol came under attack.

But Pakistan military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, rejected the claim as baseless, saying almost 72 Pakistani soldiers had been killed and 150 others wounded in ISAF attacks over the past 10 years.

mm/mud

reply to post by SLAYER69

Colonial?

Have we colonized either Iraq or Afghanistan?

Lets not dwell on semantics here shall we? And forgive me for not being the person to keep you up to date, but what is transpiring - not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in Libya for instance, is the new face of colonialism. Also dubbed as 21st century colonialism by some scholars.

The invaded countries are not flying the same flag as the invaders, if that is what you assert under "colonialism", but the siphoning of resources surely is. After all, keeping control over certain areas with these resources is part of the American national security, is it not? You are correct when you imply China in the ordeal, yet they are not invading and bombing nations to get these contracts. The Chinese in contrary, offer to build infrastructure - in trade for resource contracts, however shabby that infrastructure may be.

As to why Russia and China were given contracts? Politics I'd wager. You have to keep in mind the sole reason is not a war for resources, although that would seem like the main objective. A presence in the region to have fronts against both China and Russia is another objective. Also part of "national security". (You can read all about this)

Financial gain for Iraq or China and Russia?
I'm confused because the reality of the situation doesn't fit with this Propaganda or Conspiracy theory.

Why not? Surely China and Russia have not been given everything, I would think a trade-off were to have taken place. Besides that, appeasement comes to mind. Afghanistan is in Russia and China's backyard - can't forget that.

You haven't presented anything of any real substantial or credible value yet to stand upon except some theories and opinions thus far. Also, and for the record simply because someone points out the obvious and glaring holes in your theory doesn't mean they are "Towing the line"

You make it sound as if all of what I say is based on conjecture alone. Couple of days ago, where I live , there was a lecture about 21st century colonialism. Posters were put around in colleges as well, so *the theory does hold some weight. I didn't attend as I'm obviously familiar with the talking points. You can wave this away as fantasy if you wish, it is not my intention to change your mind.

And nowhere did I say you tow the line. Honestly, we all tow their line one way or another. It's about creating a future where none of that is necessary, hence the discourse about colonialism.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Lets not dwell on semantics here shall we?

You brought up Colonialism not I.

And forgive me for not being the person to keep you up to date, but what is transpiring - not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in Libya for instance, is the new face of colonialism. Also dubbed as 21st century colonialism by some scholars.

Or rather the --->New Great Game which is related to and further expanded upon ---> Here.

The invaded countries are not flying the same flag as the invaders, if that is what you assert under "colonialism"

No, again, You asserted "Colonialism" not I

After all, keeping control over certain areas with these resources is part of the American national security, is it not? You are correct when you imply China in the ordeal, yet they are not invading and bombing nations to get these contracts. The Chinese in contrary, offer to build infrastructure - in trade for resource contracts, however shabby that infrastructure may be.

And so has the US/NATO in both Iraq and Afghanistan or haven't you been paying close attention to those details that may not fit into your awareness or view of the situation in both? But then again it's hard to rebuild a country that keeps tearing itself apart. Especially Iraq where we have Both Iran and Saudi Arabia supporting, supplying and sponsoring opposing sides which inflames the ongoing Sectarian Violence there which has needlessly extended the Death and Destruction for the last 3 or 4 years.

Context is everything.

As to why Russia and China were given contracts? Politics I'd wager.

Yeah.. ok

It couldn't be that Iraq is back in business for Iraq. Now could it?

Why not? Surely China and Russia have not been given everything, I would think a trade-off were to have taken place. Besides that, appeasement comes to mind. Afghanistan is in Russia and China's backyard - can't forget that.

AND
Venezuela is in the US's backyard and Libya is in the EU's backyard etc as well.

No?

you make it sound as if all of what I say is based on conjecture alone.

No, But so far I am reading more opinion than points of fact.
So, that raises skepticism.

Couple of days ago, where I live , there was a lecture about 21st century colonialism. Posters were put around in colleges as well, so *the theory does hold some weight. I didn't attend as I'm obviously familiar with the talking points. You can wave this away as fantasy if you wish, it is not my intention to change your mind.

Yet, By your own admission it's still "Theory"

Proceed...

And nowhere did I say you tow the line. Honestly, we all tow their line one way or another. It's about creating a future where none of that is necessary, hence the discourse about colonialism.

Well which is it?

Are you saying they are in fact "Colonial" or not? Because you cant have it both ways. That is to say that according to this "Theory" they are and do not act as such or are they? Which you have not provided any real proof of said activity. I'm glad you enjoyed the lecture. I've attended quite a few myself over the past several decades.

All the while listening objectively.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The way you twist and turn around points made and the ferocious anti-intellectualism and populism in your posts....is yuck.

I have nothing to prove to you and neither do I wish to get in debates with people who lack the intellectual integrity to understand points without feeling threatened or insulted.

PS.

It is still colonialism. I also have trouble believing you over history professors and anthropologists and the likes- people who studied the field, and not just that but also people who hold high positions behind the scenes of your own American politics, so you'll have to forgive me for not taking you serious.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
The way you twist and turn around points made and the ferocious anti-intellectualism and populism in your posts....is yuck.

Figured as much..

--------------Thread update---------------

New thread is available with an update. For further discussion follow the link below
Afghans: commando unit was attacked before airstrike - Pakistan admits to firing first

The latest U.S.-Pakistan crisis threatened Monday to undo months of efforts to mend an increasingly frayed relationship and to undermine the Obama administration’s strategy for gradually ending the war in Afghanistan.

Administration officials did not respond to Pakistani demands for an apology for the cross-border U.S. airstrike that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers early Saturday. Instead, they expressed condolences for the loss of life while saying that the facts about what happened were under investigation.

reply to post by SLAYER69


It is actually both, our meddling caused 9.11 and the government knew information about the event prior to it happening which in turn makes it an inside job even though they may not have directly done it. Certain aspects they were well aware of; like Clinton did not capture osama when he had the chance, that is like leaving a criminal on the streets and waiting for them to do something.

The savagery of the U.S. air attack on the sleeping troops of two Pakistani border outposts, which has now killed 28, has convulsed Pakistan from top to bottom. The U.S. has refused even to apologize. But Washington's off-record hints that the attack was some sort of mistake are laughable, and not worth consideration, given that the attack lasted over an hour (two hours by some reports), that the bases flew Pakistan flags and are marked on all American maps, and that they repeatedly appealed by radio during the massacre.
Anyone serious sees the attack for the naked aggression it was, like the highly-regarded U.S. military expert said "JSOC knocks the Pakistanis over the head like this from time to time," to remind them who's boss. (JSOC is the Joint Special Operations Command, Obama's super-secret "Murder, Inc." in the Pentagon.) But this is far from the whole story, while Pakistani analysts like the retired officer Agha A. Amin see more complicated motivations for the aggression than actually exist.
Responding to some of these detailed source say it's actually a much broader and bigger issue than that. I think the issue is very simple. Admittedly, Pakistan is a complicated country, with all kinds of complications. But the essential thing, is its location is — which is unfortunate for them — is that it's part of Asia. And every significant nation in Asia with any kind of strategic capabilities, is on the target to be destroyed. And we shouldn't look at particular issues, like issues of a country as such. We have to look at the fact that the British and Obama are determined to destroy with thermonuclear weapons, the functioning entirety of Asia. And Pakistan is in Asia. Now, Pakistan is a complicated country. But it has real interests, apart from some of the things that are insane that go on in there. I think in this case, Pakistan is not a culprit in that sense. In this case, that it's really another victim. And its proximity to Iran...
"There are fundamental interests involved here; that is, fundamental interests of peoples and nations. And I think the so-called special political issues, right now, interact with these things. But the real thing is essentially that Pakistan is close to China. Its military capabilities were built up in collaboration with China's. And you have this crazy situation, in which, obviously a quarrel between India and Pakistan at this time, would actually play into the hands of the enemy.
The point is, what you're dealing with: the issue is thermonuclear weapons. It's a strategic blast intending to destroy the entirety of everything that's viable, in terms of industrial capability and similar capabilities in the entire Asia region. What they were planning to do, which in a sense we were able to spoil, because some U.S. military took a stand on some of these things — but the intention was to go directly, immediately, from coming out of Libya, into a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack on Asia. And all parts of Asia that have any kind of technology in them, are going to be wiped out.
That was delayed, and it gets complicated because in the meantime, with the bombs not thrown yet, you have Europe is now disintegrating, because the bailout system in Europe is now disintegrating. So, we have these complications.
The attack leaves Pakistan no room to make any compromise. This goes together with the Iranian sacking of the British embassy. Everything, everything in Asia that has any technological capability whatsoever, is a victim. And what you're looking at, is a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack — which doesn't leave much room for selective treatments.

Ok guys, this is why you like having professionals with experience on here. I worked with OGA's on the border, Pakistan soldiers constantly shoot at not only afghans but american forces as well(me); and yes we shoot back.There was a sof unit attached to the afghanis who called in support. So yes Pakis are dirty bastards who start problems all the time cross-border. I believe with out a doubt pakis fired first.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I don't think the Pakistanis will be trigger happy on the border anymore.

The AC130 will rain down a storm of bullets again if they cause more trouble.

------------
Pakistan is a mess. We should pull out of Pakistan altogether and label them a
terrorist nation.

There are other ways of supplying Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Surfrat
(JSOC is the Joint Special Operations Command, Obama's super-secret "Murder, Inc." in the Pentagon.)

Murder, Inc?

Yeah, right....but keep on, keeping on.