Pakistani army ordered to fire at 'intruding' US troops

http://www.eians.com/stories/2005/02/22/22at.shtml

In what is seen as the first signal of Pakistan's assertion against US policies in its area, Islamabad has ordered the army to shoot at US troops if they intrude into the country from Afghanistan without authorisation.

"Pakistan has issued new rules of engagement permitting its army to fire at US forces that cross the border from Afghanistan without coordinating first," the Daily Times newspaper said Tuesday in a report from Washington.


"President Musharraf has been receiving angry reports from his military that US forces have been engaging in hot pursuit across the border in violation of bilateral agreements," the article said. The Pakistan president is also said to be unhappy about the recent abrupt withdrawal of Predators and other surveillance resources from Pakistan for transfer to Iraq for use against Iran, the report said.

"The US Central Command's January announcement that the drones and other supporting surveillance technologies that were being used against Al Qaeda would be withdrawn to support 'elections in Iraq' was an unpleasant surprise, particularly when 'in Iraq' turned out to be a euphemism for 'against Iran'," it added.

so that little "we have no plans for war with Iran" speech the other day was a replay of the "I have no war plans on my desk" re: Iraq?? Color me NOT surprised.

I wonder when AmeriKa will wake up? In the middle of WWIII perhaps?

...we backed the wrong horse again:wow:. Mushy's gonna share a cell with Noriega if he doesn't watch it.

Here's a question... of all the despots we've backed in the last quarter-century, how many have NOT ultimately doublecrossed us?

The answer is none. None more black...

...just how many did we NOT put into power in the first place?

Saddam...
Noriega...
The Shah...
Etc, etc, etc,....INFINITY!

PAKISTAN:
Unpopular US-Suckup Military Dictatorship +
FERVENTLY Radical Islamic Population +
Unknown Numbers of Modern High-Yeild Atomic Weapons =

You do the math.

never had nukes did he?

Because if he had, the US wouldn't have attacked Panama.

n/t

As you can see, Musharraf is truly _Bush's love slave and puppet!

Mushy's even got the swagger down!:eyes:

http://www.eians.com/stories/2005/02/21/21pak.shtml


Toddler engaged to 40-year-old in Pakistan

Two-year-old Ruby has barely learnt to walk but she finds herself engaged to a 40-year-old man in another shocking verdict by a village council in Pakistan.

Ruby was formally engaged to Rehmat Khan to settle a dispute between the two families, an incident reported by GEO television.

Khan went to court. But when the court could not come up with any decision, he referred the matter to the village council. The council met 11 times in three months and finally on Saturday decided that Sadiq would pay Rs.250,000 rupees to Khan and marry a girl from his family to Khan. Since the only unmarried girl in Sadiq's family was his two-year-old niece, the council recommended that she should be engaged with Khan and marriage would take place when the girl reached puberty.

This is the second such incident in the Seraiki-speaking area of Multan that has drawn national attention. Earlier, such a council in another village ordered the gang rape of a girl as a punishment for her brother.

yet stories like the one I posted are in the news...if this were reported as happening in Iran, Syria, N Korea,etc.. shrub and his cronies would be listing it as a reason why we had to go "rescue" the people and bring democracy to them...instead, because it is Pakistan and Musharraf, we get pics of both of them smiling and being buddy-buddy.
I saw the pics posted here right when I saw the article about the Pakistani 2 yr old. That is why the "little news item" is in this thread.

for the guy that really had a part in attacking the US to be put to use elsewhere.

is Pakistan with us or against us?

:headbang:
rocknation

even answering a skeptical Senator Kerry that our needs (re the Khan network) were "adequately" taken care of. (This was during that end of the first day where Kerry alone grilled her for about a half hour.)

citizens are very much "against us".

The only thing between us and all-out war with Pakistan is Musharraf.

And they do have nukes.

The government is reaping the rewards, and the people still get the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

The US Government still doesn't get it, and I don't think it ever will.

The majority of the rightwingnut morans won't ever get it either.

Although they will get something. And then they'll sit and whine "Why does God hate us???"

In both countries the United States is merely tolerated by the current regimes, the people can't stand the U.S. Economic and military incentives have kept the doors open. A coup in either country with the installation of an Islamic republic, which seems to be on the horizon for both nations, will plummet the region into a theatre wide conflict.

another country if that country doesn't do anything to stop them. (We squashed some such group in Canada way back when, I don't think Canada had a thing to say about it.)

But a bilateral agreement giving up the right ... I can see the rationale for it. Pakistan's an odd country: instead of being founded and being nationalistic about a culture or ethnicity or territory, they've made tribal Islam their particular variety of jingoism, frequently the Deobandi variety. Very uncool, very unstable.

If we sign it, we should abide by it.