hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76

Thread: Shooting friends is a good idea c/d?

  1. #41
    Warpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post

    Pakistan might be shitty allies but that doesn't justify in any way all the incidents with NATO.

    Not sure i would describe anyone who funds our enemies, trains our enemies in how to use ied's to kill our troops, harbors our enemies during the winter months, and even sends their inteligence officers on operations with our enemies as an ally personally...

  2. #42

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    448
    they have nukes. we have no choice.

  3. #43
    Donor Rans's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Warpath View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post

    Pakistan might be shitty allies but that doesn't justify in any way all the incidents with NATO.

    Not sure i would describe anyone who funds our enemies, trains our enemies in how to use ied's to kill our troops, harbors our enemies during the winter months, and even sends their inteligence officers on operations with our enemies as an ally personally...
    brah you can't shoot people in the dick then ask them to allow you to use their roads to send hundreds of trucks with supplies to your troops. nomsaying? don't shit where you eat.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    July 22, 2011
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post
    Pakistan might be shitty allies but that doesn't justify in any way all the incidents with NATO. It's a sovereign, you're not at war with them so you can't just shit all over their couch. Also they're a nuclear power so you either go to war with them or stop killing their soldiers then pretend to be sorry and mad because they had the balls to come up to you and ask you why you did it.
    Sort of does: Pakistan can't/won't take care of their own problems, given their neighboring border with a very volatile state (Afghanistan) a moderate amount of expectation from a "sovereign" nation is warranted.

    Pakistan provides refuge for Taliban, and other like-minded fighters. Over the years, we've constantly seen the fight shift Eastward to the Pakistan border, where insurgents can perform their acts, and waltz back across the border without so much as a "by your leave" from the Pakistan military. This is the primary reason we've taken the fighting so close to that border, and is also why we've sent in multitudes of drone strikes into the claimed sovereign soil of a foreign nation.

    Once upon a time, we used to have a high degree of communications with the Pakistan government, regarding what we were doing, where, and why, with regards to anything near the pakistan border. The result of that was almost a complete wash of what one may register as a success, with the only caveat to that being that the number of IED incidents within those operational areas went up.

    When we stopped communicating with Pakistan about things like that, our own success rate increased, and IED incidents dropped. Of course people balked about it. That's a good thing. However, if you utilize success as a measurement for an idea to have merit... it stans/stood to reason that even less communication with Pakistan would lead to even more successes. Which is why we're at where we are today with them.

    We didn't NOT communicate with Pakistan on OBL because we wanted the glory for ourselves. There were multiple reasons for that particular operation going down as it did. IF Pakistan had acted on intel we provided them regarding the subject, and had captured/killed OBL, then there would have been massive uprisings within Pakistan's own society. Probably large enough to topple the government. That's counting on Pakistan to act on that intel, and not for someone, somehow to tip the subject off about a raid only to have the military arrive to an empty house. There was a lot of inherent risk involved in that particular operation, including the interception and destruction of the aircraft.

    Our NATO convoys are attacked fairly routinely at entry points along the border as well. The Pakistani military seems to always be in another place.

    Fast forward to the "Friendly Fire" incident: If the news-reels are correct, and it was a special ops group in the area; I have a very difficult time believing that it was an accident. Joint Tactical Air Controllers are already highly qualified, and have improved greatly over the years. However, the ones that qualify for duty with special forces are selected for their precision, ability to work under high stress, and ability to, quite literally, call a drop on precision ordnance as close as 50 feet away from their own mates. There is already a significant review of every single ordnance drop.

    (Seriously, I know of a guy held back from going home for over a month because he called a precision drop on a sniper, was filming it for review later, and the ordnance went off so precisely that the sniper was caught in the "cone of life", survived disoriented as fuck, and stumbled off a cliff to his death. No bullshit, the JTAC was being held behind because they thought he did that out of some cruel intention. He was being held up from going home because he was more precise than what people would have liked.)

    So, you're left with three options.

    1. The JTAC fucked up, and erroneously identified an encampment as the location where his group were taking fire from. You can identify incoming fire, direction, and distance fairly easily.

    2. The position had no Pakistani military in it, did had some insurgents, but Pakistan is pissed about us breaching their border, and are playing a political card calling them their soldiers.

    3. The position had Pakistani military in it, and a high enough ranking person either went "native" and decided to kill the infidels, or didn't know what the fuck that group of armed guys were doing, and decided to shoot at it.

  5. #45
    Donor EchoEpsilon23's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,472
    I hardly call Pakistani's friendly, or even friends their more like convenient mercenaries.

  6. #46
    Donor Rans's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,288
    yo brah, if what you say is true you should start shelling the mexican army and police force at least 20 times a week. they harbor terrorists, drug dealers, arms dealers and any other type of scum you can think of, hell, their criminal organizations are more powerful than the army. can you start shooting them? of course not. can you shoot pakistan a country 6000 miles from your border? of course, they're sand monkeys.

    you see there are things called "rules and laws" and most of the un countries would agree that what nato does is pretty goddamn illegal. you kill an insurgent here and there in pakistan most politicians will close their eyes and look the other way, you slaughter 24 of them with attack helis and then "offer deepest condoleances" then you piss off a lot of people. you do realize that this will only make pakistan hate nato more and more and more people will be sympathetic with the afgan freedom fighters?

  7. #47
    Movember 2012
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post
    yo brah, if what you say is true you should start shelling the mexican army and police force at least 20 times a week. they harbor terrorists, drug dealers, arms dealers and any other type of scum you can think of, hell, their criminal organizations are more powerful than the army. can you start shooting them? of course not. can you shoot pakistan a country 6000 miles from your border? of course, they're sand monkeys.

    you see there are things called "rules and laws" and most of the un countries would agree that what nato does is pretty goddamn illegal. you kill an insurgent here and there in pakistan most politicians will close their eyes and look the other way, you slaughter 24 of them with attack helis and then "offer deepest condoleances" then you piss off a lot of people. you do realize that this will only make pakistan hate nato more and more and more people will be sympathetic with the afgan freedom fighters?
    Jesus Christ Rans you were doing so well until this one.

    Yup, fuck NATO, briefly espousing a country's sovereignty periodicly in order to weed out the terrorists who hope to escape NATO troops by crossing borders. The poor Pakistani government, unable to even control said border regions, and fully willing to entertain terrorists and insurgents.

    I assume you're the type who also thinks we would all be safe if we just left the terrorists alone right?

  8. #48
    Irion's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Warpath View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post

    Pakistan might be shitty allies but that doesn't justify in any way all the incidents with NATO.

    Not sure i would describe anyone who funds our enemies, trains our enemies in how to use ied's to kill our troops, harbors our enemies during the winter months, and even sends their inteligence officers on operations with our enemies as an ally personally...
    Which side are you refering to?
    D&D is where I learned that a longsword is a one handed slashing weapon.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    918
    Accident? Heh.

  10. #50
    Warpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Irion View Post
    Which side are you refering to?

    Pakistan harbors the Taliban and their friends. They arm them, train them in how to make efficient ied's, how to use rpg's and sniper rifles more efficiently. And fund them. Then send them into Afghanistan to fight against UN troops based there. This has been known and documented for years yet our politicians still fund Pakistan even though a significant portion of that cash is siphoned off to fund the Taliban.

    And on more than one occasion in the past a Pakistani Intelligence agency member has been killed by UN troops whilst fighting alongside Taliban troops. And it is reputed that the ISI has members on the Taliban's ruling council.

  11. #51
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,269
    So darkies fighting each other is causing problems for NATO, is it that simple a problem?

  12. #52
    Donor Rans's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Loire View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post
    yo brah, if what you say is true you should start shelling the mexican army and police force at least 20 times a week. they harbor terrorists, drug dealers, arms dealers and any other type of scum you can think of, hell, their criminal organizations are more powerful than the army. can you start shooting them? of course not. can you shoot pakistan a country 6000 miles from your border? of course, they're sand monkeys.

    you see there are things called "rules and laws" and most of the un countries would agree that what nato does is pretty goddamn illegal. you kill an insurgent here and there in pakistan most politicians will close their eyes and look the other way, you slaughter 24 of them with attack helis and then "offer deepest condoleances" then you piss off a lot of people. you do realize that this will only make pakistan hate nato more and more and more people will be sympathetic with the afgan freedom fighters?
    Jesus Christ Rans you were doing so well until this one.

    Yup, fuck NATO, briefly espousing a country's sovereignty periodicly in order to weed out the terrorists who hope to escape NATO troops by crossing borders. The poor Pakistani government, unable to even control said border regions, and fully willing to entertain terrorists and insurgents.

    I assume you're the type who also thinks we would all be safe if we just left the terrorists alone right?
    No brah, I'm the kind of guy that thinks killing 24 soldiers of a country that you've got a very tense relationship with is a pretty big mistake and you'll have to pay for it. Nato should let paki calm down a fair bit until starting to "statements" once again, they've made a big doodoo this time.

  13. #53
    Shade Millith's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Aus
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Warpath View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post

    Pakistan might be shitty allies but that doesn't justify in any way all the incidents with NATO.

    Not sure i would describe anyone who funds our enemies, trains our enemies in how to use ied's to kill our troops, harbors our enemies during the winter months, and even sends their inteligence officers on operations with our enemies as an ally personally...
    Considering the US's history of doing just this? I don't think the US has a leg to stand on.


  14. #54
    Donor Rans's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaztick View Post
    So darkies fighting each other is causing problems for NATO, is it that simple a problem?
    nope, nato killing the wrong darkies is causing nato problems. it's bad when you kill the darkies that you kind of need to be on your side and that have nukes.

  15. #55
    Warpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,267
    The only reason we currently need them is easier access to get supplies in for our troops. They have provided fuck all intelligence for years.

  16. #56
    Herschel Yamamoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Illuminati derpy herp
    Posts
    3,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    And in other news:

    Iran parliament votes to downgrade relations with UK

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15908525

    Iranian radio reported some MPs chanted "Death to Britain" during the vote, which was approved by 87% of MPs.
    Iran says its nuclear programme has entirely peaceful ends.
    mmhmm.
    And the other 13% will soon get a visit from the local religious police to explain why you don't go against "suggestions" from the Ayatollah.
    Disagree. You need nay votes, or else people will start making fun of you for being undemocratic.
    "Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall View Post
    Herschel Yamamoto is owning in this thread.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    August 18, 2011
    Posts
    2,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Warpath View Post
    The only reason we currently need them is easier access to get supplies in for our troops.
    You say that like it's a minor thing

  18. #58
    Warpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by definatelynotKKassandra View Post

    You say that like it's a minor thing

    Last i heard we also had an agreement with various Russian/Former Russian states to get equipment in via them?

  19. #59

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    UK MK
    Posts
    270
    haha

  20. #60
    Caol's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Nartek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rans View Post
    Pakistan might be shitty allies but that doesn't justify in any way all the incidents with NATO. It's a sovereign, you're not at war with them so you can't just shit all over their couch. Also they're a nuclear power so you either go to war with them or stop killing their soldiers then pretend to be sorry and mad because they had the balls to come up to you and ask you why you did it.
    Sort of does: Pakistan can't/won't take care of their own problems, given their neighboring border with a very volatile state (Afghanistan) a moderate amount of expectation from a "sovereign" nation is warranted.

    Pakistan provides refuge for Taliban, and other like-minded fighters. Over the years, we've constantly seen the fight shift Eastward to the Pakistan border, where insurgents can perform their acts, and waltz back across the border without so much as a "by your leave" from the Pakistan military. This is the primary reason we've taken the fighting so close to that border, and is also why we've sent in multitudes of drone strikes into the claimed sovereign soil of a foreign nation.

    Once upon a time, we used to have a high degree of communications with the Pakistan government, regarding what we were doing, where, and why, with regards to anything near the pakistan border. The result of that was almost a complete wash of what one may register as a success, with the only caveat to that being that the number of IED incidents within those operational areas went up.

    When we stopped communicating with Pakistan about things like that, our own success rate increased, and IED incidents dropped. Of course people balked about it. That's a good thing. However, if you utilize success as a measurement for an idea to have merit... it stans/stood to reason that even less communication with Pakistan would lead to even more successes. Which is why we're at where we are today with them.

    We didn't NOT communicate with Pakistan on OBL because we wanted the glory for ourselves. There were multiple reasons for that particular operation going down as it did. IF Pakistan had acted on intel we provided them regarding the subject, and had captured/killed OBL, then there would have been massive uprisings within Pakistan's own society. Probably large enough to topple the government. That's counting on Pakistan to act on that intel, and not for someone, somehow to tip the subject off about a raid only to have the military arrive to an empty house. There was a lot of inherent risk involved in that particular operation, including the interception and destruction of the aircraft.

    Our NATO convoys are attacked fairly routinely at entry points along the border as well. The Pakistani military seems to always be in another place.

    Fast forward to the "Friendly Fire" incident: If the news-reels are correct, and it was a special ops group in the area; I have a very difficult time believing that it was an accident. Joint Tactical Air Controllers are already highly qualified, and have improved greatly over the years. However, the ones that qualify for duty with special forces are selected for their precision, ability to work under high stress, and ability to, quite literally, call a drop on precision ordnance as close as 50 feet away from their own mates. There is already a significant review of every single ordnance drop.

    (Seriously, I know of a guy held back from going home for over a month because he called a precision drop on a sniper, was filming it for review later, and the ordnance went off so precisely that the sniper was caught in the "cone of life", survived disoriented as fuck, and stumbled off a cliff to his death. No bullshit, the JTAC was being held behind because they thought he did that out of some cruel intention. He was being held up from going home because he was more precise than what people would have liked.)

    So, you're left with three options.

    1. The JTAC fucked up, and erroneously identified an encampment as the location where his group were taking fire from. You can identify incoming fire, direction, and distance fairly easily.

    2. The position had no Pakistani military in it, did had some insurgents, but Pakistan is pissed about us breaching their border, and are playing a political card calling them their soldiers.

    3. The position had Pakistani military in it, and a high enough ranking person either went "native" and decided to kill the infidels, or didn't know what the fuck that group of armed guys were doing, and decided to shoot at it.
    I like the idea that special forces never make mistakes (and also have mythical abilities of combat prowess). Keeps the prols in check.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •