By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Pakistan says it fired on US helicopter

Pakistan troop fire turns back U.S. helicopters

By Zeeshan Haider 

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Firing by Pakistani troops forced U.S. military helicopters to turn back to Afghanistan after they crossed into Pakistani territory in the early hours of Monday, Pakistani security officials said.

The incident took place near Angor Adda, a village in the tribal region of South Waziristan where U.S. commandos in helicopters raided a suspected al Qaeda and Taliban camp earlier this month.

"The U.S. choppers came into Pakistan by just 100 to 150 meters at Angor Adda. Even then our troops did not spare them, opened fire on them and they turned away," said one security official.

Pakistan is a crucial U.S. ally in its war on terrorism, and its support is key to the success of Western forces trying to stabilize Afghanistan. But Washington has become impatient over Islamabad's response to the threat from al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Pakistan's tribal regions on the border.

At least 20 people, including women and children, were killed in the South Waziristan raid earlier this month, sparking outrage in Pakistan and prompting a diplomatic protest.

Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kayani said in a strongly worded statement last week that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops onto its soil and Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all costs.

Another security official said on Monday that U.S. armored vehicles were also seen moving on the Afghan side of the border, while U.S. warplanes were seen overhead.

He said Pakistani soldiers sounded a bugle call and fired in the air, forcing the helicopters to return to Afghan territory.

Military spokesman Major Murad Khan confirmed that there had been shooting. But he said the American helicopters had not crossed into Pakistani airspace and Pakistani troops were not responsible for the firing.

"The U.S. choppers were there at the border, but they did not violate our airspace," Khan said.

"We confirm that there was a firing incident at the time when the helicopters were there, but our forces were not involved."

The New York Times newspaper reported last week that U.S. President George W. Bush has given clearance for U.S. raids across the border.

The raid on Angor Adda on September 3 was the first overt ground incursion by U.S. troops into Pakistan since the deployment of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in late 2001.

The United States has intensified attacks by missile-firing drone aircraft on suspected al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistani tribal lands in the past few weeks.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network

Wow, the doom doesn't stop flooding in today...

It's Lehman, it's Lynch, it's AIG, it's Ike, gas shortages, Nigerian oil wars and now this. Buckle up, guys.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Wonder if this will change Obama's stance on "Sending troops into pakistan without Pakistan's approval."

That was one thing he was cirtical on Bush for not doing... now that it turns out Bush has been doing that....

I expect his position to change.... if it's ever brought up.



NJ5 said:
Wow, the doom doesn't stop flooding in today...

It's Lehman, it's Lynch, it's AIG, it's Ike, gas shortages, Nigerian oil wars and now this. Buckle up, guys.

And according to the BBC.  Iran sending weapons to Afghanistan terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7616429.stm



Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Wow, the doom doesn't stop flooding in today...

It's Lehman, it's Lynch, it's AIG, it's Ike, gas shortages, Nigerian oil wars and now this. Buckle up, guys.

And according to the BBC.  Iran sending weapons to Afghanistan terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7616429.stm

 

it was already known that iran was doing that.  infact john mccain mentioned it a while back and the Left then called him a liar and said he was confused.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
MrBubbles said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Wow, the doom doesn't stop flooding in today...

It's Lehman, it's Lynch, it's AIG, it's Ike, gas shortages, Nigerian oil wars and now this. Buckle up, guys.

And according to the BBC.  Iran sending weapons to Afghanistan terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7616429.stm

 

it was already known that iran was doing that.  infact john mccain mentioned it a while back and the Left then called him a liar and said he was confused.

 

Actually, McCain tried to make the assertion that Iran was training and harboring Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. That is why people called him a liar and said he was confused. Also, that article only confirms what was long suspected. Secretary Gates postulated last year that the level of weapons flowing into Afghanistan from Iran had reached high enough levels that Tehran likely knew about it.



We should respect Pakistan's wishes. Pakistan has a large number of citizens who are not pro-West, so the Pakistan government has to balance how much they can help America with how much their population will let the government get away with. America attacking of Pakstani towns puts a lot of pressure on the Pakstani government, so the government has to take a stance against America here to save face.

It would be much worse to let Paksitan's fragile government be overthrown by extremists than it is to let a few beaten terrorists retreat into uncontrolled Pakistani territory. One should be remined that the northwest terriroty of Pakistan is under tribal rule and currently is not controlled by the Pakistan government.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so we must do everything we can to ensure that Pakistan's friendly government is as stable as possible.



ManusJustus said:

We should respect Pakistan's wishes. Pakistan has a large number of citizens who are not pro-West, so the Pakistan government has to balance how much they can help America with how much their population will let the government get away with. America attacking of Pakstani towns puts a lot of pressure on the Pakstani government, so the government has to take a stance against America here to save face.

It would be much worse to let Paksitan's fragile government be overthrown by extremists than it is to let a few beaten terrorists retreat into uncontrolled Pakistani territory. One should be remined that the northwest terriroty of Pakistan is under tribal rule and currently is not controlled by the Pakistan government.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so we must do everything we can to ensure that Pakistan's friendly government is as stable as possible.

 

Which is why I'm against Obama's policy of supporting such manuevers.  John McCain on the other hand I believe would work with the government since he has nothing but respect for democratically elected governments.

Though the main "Pro-American" guy was forced to step down already from what I know.  Hence the chiller attitude.



Kasz216 said:

Which is why I'm against Obama's policy of supporting such manuevers.  John McCain on the other hand I believe would work with the government since he has nothing but respect for democratically elected governments.

Though the main "Pro-American" guy was forced to step down already from what I know.  Hence the chiller attitude.

If Obama said that I'm against it too.  I'd say Obama is probably trying to make himself look tougher on terrorism though, being that this is a more hawkish stance which is more in line with the current Republican Party.  The economy is my main worry though, and Obama wins that category hands down.

The main pro-American guy was a military dictator, and he was forced to step down so that a more democratic government could come into power.  Its disheartening to the cause of global democracy when our actions are viewed as so hostile that the more democratic a country gets the more they oppose us.



ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:

Which is why I'm against Obama's policy of supporting such manuevers.  John McCain on the other hand I believe would work with the government since he has nothing but respect for democratically elected governments.

Though the main "Pro-American" guy was forced to step down already from what I know.  Hence the chiller attitude.

If Obama said that I'm against it too.  I'd say Obama is probably trying to make himself look tougher on terrorism though, being that this is a more hawkish stance which is more in line with the current Republican Party.  The economy is my main worry though, and Obama wins that category hands down.

The main pro-American guy was a military dictator, and he was forced to step down so that a more democratic government could come into power.  Its disheartening to the cause of global democracy when our actions are viewed as so hostile that the more democratic a country gets the more they oppose us.

Obama said it during the democratic primaries.  So i doubt he was trying to appeal to republicans.