Rage grips Pakistan over NATO attack

Source: Reuters

By Michael Georgy and Emma Graham-Harrison
ISLAMABAD/KABUL | Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:55am EST
(Reuters) - Fury spread in Pakistan on Sunday over a NATO cross-border air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and could undermine the U.S. effort to wind up the war in Afghanistan.

On Sunday night in Pakistan, more than 40 hours after the incident, many questions remained.

NATO described the killings as a "tragic unintended incident" and said an investigation was underway. A Western official and an Afghan security official who requested anonymity said NATO troops were responding to fire from across the border.

. . .


Thousands gathered outside the American consulate in the city of Karachi to protest against the NATO attack.

A Reuters reporter at the scene said the angry crowd shouted "Down with America". One young man climbed on the wall surrounding the heavily fortified compound and attached a Pakistani flag to barbed wire.

"America is attacking our borders. The government should immediately break ties with it," said Naseema Baluch, a housewife attending the demonstration. "America wants to occupy our country but we will not let it do that."


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/27/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE7AP03S20111127

I don't know who is in charge - but they have failed miserably.

And you are right.

Absolutely NOTHING happens in NATO without the active approval and assistance of the Pentagon.

NOTHING.

It sometimes suits the US Military to hide behind "NATO" to obscure our involvement,
but that only fools the fools, and aids the propagandists.

SEE: "NATO" involvement in the Libyan Civil War



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of Canadian Charles Bouchard, and he did an excellent job.

...and did not clear every little detail with the Pentagon!!!
Those cheeky Canucks!
Didn't they know they have to ask first? :shrug:

Your post is exactly what I meant when I said,

"It sometimes suits the US Military to hide behind "NATO" to obscure our involvement..."

Taking sides in an ongoing Civil War in Libya is all on the Canadians!!! :rofl:




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My very first post on this topic was

"I don't know who is in charge - but they have failed miserably."

I never stated that the US was not involved - of course they were involved. There is no question about that.

The success or failure of the undertaking depends on the leader.

And ONE man, a Canadian was in charge of all of NATO forces, no matter what country, US, UK, Italy, France, Norway, Denmark, etc.

I think you need to reread what I said, otherwise your comprehension is a big fat fucking zero.

OTTAWA—A short, portly Canadian general with a chest full of medals was welcomed home with pomp and ceremony Thursday, a reward for his work commanding NATO forces to a victorious end in Libya.

It was a show the likes of which is rarely seen in this country for an honour that normally garners more understated arrangements and less public glare.

The Conservative government and the Canadian Forces borrowed the regal Senate chamber in the Parliament Buildings to present Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard with the Meritorious Service Cross one month after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was captured and killed by rebel forces.

The affair featured the firing of cannons and an overflight of CF-18 fighter jets, along with other aircraft that flew the skies over the North African country from March to October.

Hundreds of military personnel also showed up, including an honour guard of sailors, pilots and soldiers who participated in the mission.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1092068

It should get half of the Pentagon budget...I'm sure-this would make us a bit safer.

we VOTE to put the folks in office that insist on perpetuating these Imperialistic lunacies! Can you IMAGINE what our founding fathers would think about the idiots we've now got holding the reins???

Imperialistic wars? The Founding Fathers knew how expensive all the European military adventures were to the average person in the street.

And Eisenhower said something to the effect that some day the people of the world would unite to force their governments to stand aside and let the earth live in peace.

While we've had war veteran presidents since Ike's reign, they'd only been bit players in combat - enough of a taste to where they could see a worth to conflict. Ike, on the other hand - he had seen the vast, overall carnage and knew that NO ONE truly "wins" in those stupid conflicts.
The rethugs worship their icon Reagan, but I'd vote in a heartbeat for Eisenhower over Obama.

Eisenhower had the huge task of seeing to it that all the GI's returning home from the fray (In both WWII and Korea) had jobs.

So he saw to it that almost every community built community colleges, community hospitals, and of course,t he entire highway system that sprang up.

And he wasn't afraid to explain to the rich why they needed to be taxed at rates far exceeding what the rich pay today.

All these construction projects mean that the economy was stimulated full tilt. People had jobs and had money in their pockets. And that money created more jobs.

...but America had something useful and beautiful to show for all the money that was spent,
unlike Tax Breaks and Military Spending which are Dead Ends.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's probably a lesson somewhere in all this about firing "warning shots."

I can't say I agree: someone was just lecturing us all here on DU on how such concepts simply are not valid. The name of the poster slips my mind, but the content of their argument is worth re-examining:

"Protest civil rights loss over property rights? Yes, I have no problem with that. Property rights are secondary, and ultimately the property isn't yours anyways, as eminent domain demonstrates.

I have as much right to interfere with their use of the streets as their consumerism has a right to interfere with my air, water, and food. No less. They are threatening to kill me.

Block the access to a business or institution? Yep. That's the whole purpose of a strike - it's to make it clear that to SEEK access to the business or institution is a personal attack on every protester or striker there, and they are as fallible and easy to anger as any other humans.

Local NOISE laws? It depends. If they're not objective, based in decibel measurements, based in health concerns and not the tastes of the wealthy, and equally applied to everyone and everything, including construction machinery and commercial establishments, then yes, they're both corrupt AND unimportant.

Likewise with health laws - they have to be REASONABLE. Bogus laws clearly used to discriminate are UNWORTHY OF RESPECT. It is FALSE respect for our legal system to pretend that clearly unconstitutional laws and interpretations are legitimate. It is all of our responsibility to challenge such laws, every time.

Likewise fire safety, which is infamously used to harass social phenomena that TPTB disapprove of - usually these laws are written in such a way that it's impossible - not merely difficult but impossible - for anything but a large corporate enterprise to obey them.

I would expect officers enforcing health and safety laws to be counseling people on better alternatives - that is, actually doing their jobs as public servants - rather than using those problems as excuses for psychotically violent attacks.

I have yet to see a single case where an officer who violently attacked a nonviolent protester deserves anything less than felon status - permanently losing the right to have a gun, to enforce the law, to have physical power over others. Nothing about any of the laws involved would be an excuse for these attacks - NOT EVEN THE VIOLENCE AND BOMBINGS OF 1960's PROTESTS."

"NOT EVEN THE VIOLENCE AND BOMBINGS OF 1960'S (Sic) PROTESTS"!

See how that makes sense? So what is all this heartache over an (alleged) violation of "soveriegn (Sic) air space"?





(:eyes:)

Right the US is Always right and never wrong.It is always the victims fault,
because America always tells gives us the facts and give us the truth.
Thats why we found that massive quantity of WMD's in Iraq, and
also thats why they would like wikileaks founder julian assange dead or in prison,for exposing all the truth to the world.They want to make sure sure that their tracks are always covered, and that no one is there to expose and refute wrongdoings and whatever they give us as truth and fact

This approach wasn't in it.

You had no trouble hiding Bin Laden all those years. WFW.:nopity:

... was inevitable, as soon as the bin Laden incident occured.

The Pakistanis were "hurt" that we didn't involve them, we were pretty sure that if we had he would have been tipped off and helped to "escape".

The Pakistanis have been acting like they are our friends but they have not been for a long time. Maybe among political leaders, but they don't matter, the country is effectively ruled by the military and all they want is our money.

They are rightly afraid of India and to some extent of Afghanistan, but being dishonest about their motives and intentions has not worked out too well for them. I don't see this relationship ever healing now, it was on life support already, now it is a corpse.

Bush played footsie with Pakistan to the very end.It still curdles my blood remembering him, when asked about the whereabouts of Bin Laden, making his cute little jokes. Obama did the right thing. He found Osama, knew the Pakis couldn't be trusted, and took care of business. And the next time they take pot shots at NATO forces, I hope they find out what a REAL attack looks like.