PDA

View Full Version : NATO and Pakistani forces trade heavy artillary fire.


ghostman1960
11-30-11, 11:38
Can someone explain to me why we still consider them to be allies?
a0cake
11-30-11, 12:11
Source? I assume you're not talking about the border outpost / attack helicopter incident??
ghostman1960
11-30-11, 12:19
Source? I assume you're not talking about the border outpost / attack helicopter incident??

This occurred earlier today and could still be going on. Apparently the Pakistanis began shelling NATO positions across the border and NATO forces are or did retaliate with counter fire. This was reported on FOX.
a0cake
11-30-11, 12:52
Yours is the second report I've heard today about a large scale exchange between Pakistan and Afghan based coalition forces occuring this morning. But I've not seen it mentioned on the news once. The scope of the exchange has either been greatly exaggerated, or it did not happen, or news organizations are not aware of it yet.
Kchen986
11-30-11, 13:48
Did a quick google search and this came up on the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/asia/border-clash-tests-nato-pakistan-ties.html

Let's see what happens.
turdbocharged
11-30-11, 14:04
After reading your link it said there were zero casualties after an artillery exchange. Now I'm not in the military but I would assume you'd have to be a terrible shot to miss with artillery right? Sounds like this has settled down after reading the article.
C-grunt
11-30-11, 14:17
After reading your link it said there were zero casualties after an artillery exchange. Now I'm not in the military but I would assume you'd have to be a terrible shot to miss with artillery right? Sounds like this has settled down after reading the article.

Without forward observers the gunners wouldnt know where their shells are landing and where the bad guys are. Our counterfire was probably based off the counter battery radar which isnt always super accurate.
chadbag
11-30-11, 14:21
Could be they didn't want to hit too, and create even more of a "problem" with an "ally" :rolleyes:
turdbocharged
11-30-11, 14:33
Ok that makes sense. I guess I figured it was all super techno driven laser beams from space stuff but if they need forward observers still then I can see how missing would be easy. Also chadbag could be right maybe they didn't want to.
Kfgk14
11-30-11, 16:12
Can someone explain to me why we still consider them to be allies?

Because of the assholes in office who wouldn't want to hurt any Muslim feelings...don't get me started.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-30-11, 17:23
Because of the assholes in office who wouldn't want to hurt any FELLOW Muslim's feelings...don't get me started.

Fixed it for you.
variablebinary
11-30-11, 17:55
Could be they didn't want to hit too, and create even more of a "problem" with an "ally" :rolleyes:

Their armor would be toast if we wanted it to be so.

I'm betting NATO hit a patch of dirt just to show some type of response.
JSantoro
11-30-11, 17:59
Oh, for the love of.....

The OP couldn't be bothered to maybe check the FOX website for a freaking link to the story, but could come here...

...to a subforum NOT named "Fishing For News"....

....and get somebody to do his work for him.

Not only no, but hell no.