sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina
The Pentagon has said an air strike by US forces in the Afghan-Pakistani border region, said to have killed 11 Pakistani soldiers, was legitimate.

Scenario: Pakistani forces kill 11 American soldiers in the Afghan-Pakistani border (their border).  What would the US do?
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6327|CA, USA
did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6154|Ireland
Um, the pakistani forces tried to kill American forces in Afghanistan and this IS what happened.

But I will still give you an "A" for effort on your hate the USA thread.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6416|The Land of Scott Walker
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Um, the pakistani forces tried to kill American forces in Afghanistan and this IS what happened.

But I will still give you an "A" for effort on your hate the USA thread.
A country =/= its government.  I give you an F.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6154|Ireland

sergeriver wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
Maybe they were going for the Genuis Book World record for the largest circle jerk and the bush administration wanted to keep the record?

Lots of things happen in liberal maybeland.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

Lotta_Drool wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
Maybe they were going for the Genuis Book World record for the largest circle jerk and the bush administration wanted to keep the record?

Lots of things happen in liberal maybeland.
And a lot more happen in conservative Idontgiveafuckforotherpeopleland.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6154|Ireland

sergeriver wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
Maybe they were going for the Genuis Book World record for the largest circle jerk and the bush administration wanted to keep the record?

Lots of things happen in liberal maybeland.
And a lot more happen in conservative Idontgiveafuckforotherpeopleland.
Yeah, but conservative Idontgiveafuckforotherpeopleland has cookies.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

Lotta_Drool wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:


Maybe they were going for the Genuis Book World record for the largest circle jerk and the bush administration wanted to keep the record?

Lots of things happen in liberal maybeland.
And a lot more happen in conservative Idontgiveafuckforotherpeopleland.
Yeah, but conservative Idontgiveafuckforotherpeopleland has cookies.
Meh, I don't like cookies.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6416|The Land of Scott Walker
Now we all know that the US is the only country whose military has ever had friendly fire.  /sarcasm
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6327|CA, USA

sergeriver wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
a military officer who called in the air strike would have to understand that there will be inquiries if there is blue-on-blue.  So, he'll be darn sure he does the right thing.  If the officer said 'who cares', he's basically kissing his career away when the truth comes out.  Not to mention face punishment in this day and age.  now then, besides saving his own skin, how does killing a friend who is supposed to help fight the enemy (taliban) actually help you?  it doesn't.  I don't see the motivation here.  expendable?  i even don't see that because of the backlash they would get when word gets out of firing on friendlies.  That officer would be relieved of command.

in the past, there have been incidents of blue-on-blue such as those guys getting hit by some bombs during the OIF because the guy calling in the air strike keyed in HIS position.  Also, some brits regretably got killed by errant bomb because of poor friendly indicators on the vehicles.  Those guys for sure were not expendable.  it's very horrible when this happens.  you can hear it in their voices over the coms when they realize what happened.  So, no way was this an argument of 'expendable' troops.  i just don't buy it.

in that part of the world, the taliban enjoys wide support.  it would not be suprising that the pakis were fighting on the side of the taliban AGAINST the coalition forces.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command
"unprovoked and cowardly act".

Who's the coward; the one dropping the bombs or the one making empty threats?
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS
in that part of the world, the taliban enjoys wide support.  it would not be suprising that the pakis were fighting on the side of the taliban AGAINST the coalition forces.
Ever stopped to think that incidents like this makes this fact only more clear?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
JahManRed
wank
+646|6598|IRELAND

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
If they are Taliban sympathizers then perhaps the USA should stop sending them $80million a month in military funding then.

Money well spent?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/fe … kistan.usa
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

ATG wrote:

"unprovoked and cowardly act".

Who's the coward; the one dropping the bombs or the one making empty threats?
The ones dropping the bombs. Sticks and stones?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
a military officer who called in the air strike would have to understand that there will be inquiries if there is blue-on-blue.  So, he'll be darn sure he does the right thing.  If the officer said 'who cares', he's basically kissing his career away when the truth comes out.  Not to mention face punishment in this day and age.  now then, besides saving his own skin, how does killing a friend who is supposed to help fight the enemy (taliban) actually help you?  it doesn't.  I don't see the motivation here.  expendable?  i even don't see that because of the backlash they would get when word gets out of firing on friendlies.  That officer would be relieved of command.

in the past, there have been incidents of blue-on-blue such as those guys getting hit by some bombs during the OIF because the guy calling in the air strike keyed in HIS position.  Also, some brits regretably got killed by errant bomb because of poor friendly indicators on the vehicles.  Those guys for sure were not expendable.  it's very horrible when this happens.  you can hear it in their voices over the coms when they realize what happened.  So, no way was this an argument of 'expendable' troops.  i just don't buy it.

in that part of the world, the taliban enjoys wide support.  it would not be suprising that the pakis were fighting on the side of the taliban AGAINST the coalition forces.
Its like the incident with the Chally 2 I described in the other thread, due to lack of communication they were unaware of the other vehicle's location, mistook it for an enemy flanking manuerve and engaged it.
Happened in the Falklands as well when the SAS and the Paras I think it was, ended up shooting at each other due to lack of knowing where other units were.

Friendly fire happens in every war, and occurs from all sides, only reason the US 'seems' to have more is because

A) They're often more involved i.e. more forces on the ground/in the area
B) The media of any country loves to find something to pass on the US and many other people who generally have limited knowledge of the situation are quick to label them as 'stupid' and only see one side of the action without raising the question of 'what were the other side doing?'
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

Stingray24 wrote:

Now we all know that the US is the only country whose military has ever had friendly fire.  /sarcasm
FF is a always a possibility when you are at war.  Nevertheless, was this the case?  I'm not saying it wasn't.  But the Pakistani version doesn't match the Pentagon's.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

did you ever think the pakistani forces were actually taliban sympathizers?  Perhaps they were shooting at the coalition forces.  it wouldn't suprise me one bit.  we hear stories from Iraq all the time of infiltrations from Al Qaeda and other thug groups in the iraqi forces who kill US soldiers.
Maybe the Pakistani soldiers were fighting the Taliban and they were considered expendable.
a military officer who called in the air strike would have to understand that there will be inquiries if there is blue-on-blue.  So, he'll be darn sure he does the right thing.  If the officer said 'who cares', he's basically kissing his career away when the truth comes out.  Not to mention face punishment in this day and age.  now then, besides saving his own skin, how does killing a friend who is supposed to help fight the enemy (taliban) actually help you?  it doesn't.  I don't see the motivation here.  expendable?  i even don't see that because of the backlash they would get when word gets out of firing on friendlies.  That officer would be relieved of command.

in the past, there have been incidents of blue-on-blue such as those guys getting hit by some bombs during the OIF because the guy calling in the air strike keyed in HIS position.  Also, some brits regretably got killed by errant bomb because of poor friendly indicators on the vehicles.  Those guys for sure were not expendable.  it's very horrible when this happens.  you can hear it in their voices over the coms when they realize what happened.  So, no way was this an argument of 'expendable' troops.  i just don't buy it.

in that part of the world, the taliban enjoys wide support.  it would not be suprising that the pakis were fighting on the side of the taliban AGAINST the coalition forces.
Maybe you are right, after all this kinda shit happens when you are at war.  It's just a sad incident.  I guesswe can't know what really happened.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

ATG wrote:

"unprovoked and cowardly act".

Who's the coward; the one dropping the bombs or the one making empty threats?
Do you have any proof?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
Also the Americans have a much higher KDR than anyone else.
Afghanistan
Americans/British 6/0
Americans/Canadians 6/0
Americans/Kuwaitis 6/0 (training)
Americans/BBC 1/0

Iraq
Americans/British 3/0
Americans/Italians 1/0
Americans/Kurds 8/0

Figures above AFAIK
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6193|Escea

Where's the ratio of Iraqi friendly fire on US forces?

Also, footage of the strike

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7450091.stm

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-06-12 04:52:53)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

M.O.A.B wrote:

Where's the ratio of Iraqi friendly fire on US forces?

Also, footage of the strike

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7450091.stm
Shouldn't the US just apologise and shut the fuck up instead of releasing videos to legitimise what they did? Where's the respect?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-12 05:27:22)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Where's the ratio of Iraqi friendly fire on US forces?

Also, footage of the strike

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7450091.stm
Shouldn't the US just apologise and shut the fuck up instead of releasing videos to legitimise what they did? Where's the respect?
Cam your "Irish" fellow countryman Lotta_Troll will call you anti-American.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6598|IRELAND

sergeriver wrote:

Cam your "Irish" fellow countryman Lotta_Troll will call you anti-American.
No way is he a real Irish man. Probably one of the old banned trollers who re-registered as an Irishman in a vain attempt to................emmm...........I don't really know what.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard