Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

NELS1031 wrote:
He may be referring to outbreaks of violence with Balochistan separatists which has been going on for some time, including an incident in 2006 and still ongoing.

That's what I thought of first, but I don't consider that a war by any stretch.

dogma wrote:

NELS1031 wrote:
He may be referring to outbreaks of violence with Balochistan separatists which has been going on for some time, including an incident in 2006 and still ongoing.

That's what I thought of first, but I don't consider that a war by any stretch.

idk, something happened over there recently. I thought India and Pakistan got going over Kashmir again but I guess they didn't.

biccat wrote:
It's the one on the right, labeled "Pakistan."

I missed this, though I shouldn't have.

Thanks for biting.

Why is Pakistan often considered a Middle Eastern Country while Georgia, a country typically displayed in maps of the Middle East (or even, in this case, Russia), not considered in that light?

And before "They're majority Muslim!" comes into play, why not Indonesia? why not Kazakhstan?

Skin tone and possibly culture/language.

Then there's also the fact that there used to be a Near East, Middle East, and Far East but now people usually refer to the Near and Middle Easts as the Middle East. Regions like Turkey, Iraq, and Iran are included in the Near East while Pakistan comprises part of the Middle East. But when we clump the term Middle East we clump Pakistan in with the rest of them.

As far as I know Georgia is counted as being a Near Eastern Country, but not part of the Middle Eastern countries because of its latitude. Countries like China and the Philippines comprise the Far East,

Actually to make this all easier;

Ottoman Empire= Near East
East of Ottoman Empire= Middle East
East of Middle East= Far East

It wasn't until Dulles said that the Middle East was from Libya to Pakistan that the Middle East comprised of those countries. And then latitude is brought in to determine some sort of boundary.

This could probably have been avoided if NATO had apologised for shooting up that Pakistani army post a couple of weeks ago.

We need Pakistan "on side" if we want any hope of getting a reasonable result from the Afghan imbroglio.

I agree with Biicat that the US is unlikely to do anything if Pakistan shoots down a US drone. I also feel it's like the US will continue drone flights over their airspace, both now and even in the event one does get shot down.

Mr Hyena wrote:Its kinda funny that Pakistan thinks its got any weight it can throw around.

Even after letting one of the biggest head of terrorism live right on their doorstep.

So its ok to be a trigger happy idiot and blow up a platoon of their soldiers. Thats ok, they are only Pakistanis after all, plenty more where they come from. No biggie just aim a little better next time, if you can be bothered.

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
It's the one on the right, labeled "Pakistan."

I missed this, though I shouldn't have.

Thanks for biting.

Why is Pakistan often considered a Middle Eastern Country while Georgia, a country typically displayed in maps of the Middle East (or even, in this case, Russia), not considered in that light?

And before "They're majority Muslim!" comes into play, why not Indonesia? why not Kazakhstan?

Excellent catch sir. Pakistan is 'Indian Subcontinent', not 'Middle East'.

Can't really blame Pakistan for this move. There is outrage there over the 24 soldiers gunned down by the people who were supposed to be their allies. The government had to respond.

Also America have a notoriously poor record for these kind of friendly fire incidents. Pakistan would't be the first of America's allies to consider shooting down american planes for their own safety.

Did the US ever have permission to fly in pakistan?

From the government probably, but remember that Iran isn't that much of a government of the people...

Smacks wrote:Can't really blame Pakistan for this move. There is outrage there over the 24 soldiers gunned down by the people who were supposed to be their allies. The government had to respond.

Also America have a notoriously poor record for these kind of friendly fire incidents. Pakistan would't be the first of America's allies to consider shooting down american planes for their own safety.

They fire at us all the damn time (literally or otherwise) and and we are supposed to be their premier allies, white and Christian, with a great deal of shared culture and history, "Western" as well. What hope does an ally have when its all "brown people" of suspect religion, with inscrutable aims and wildly different cultural mores and perspectives?

Kilkrazy wrote:This could probably have been avoided if NATO had apologised for shooting up that Pakistani army post a couple of weeks ago.

We need Pakistan "on side" if we want any hope of getting a reasonable result from the Afghan imbroglio.

This. Without Pakistan, you may as well pull out of Afghanistan now, you need them to help maintain stability

Orlanth wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Its kinda funny that Pakistan thinks its got any weight it can throw around.

Even after letting one of the biggest head of terrorism live right on their doorstep.

So its ok to be a trigger happy idiot and blow up a platoon of their soldiers. Thats ok, they are only Pakistanis after all, plenty more where they come from. No biggie just aim a little better next time, if you can be bothered.

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

Hooray for common sense!

Lots of people seem to have missed the fact that the Americans managed to kill 24 Pakistani soldiers, and a bad history of friendly fire incidents. If you can't hit the right target, I wouldn't want you flying missions in my country and killing my soldiers. The Pakistani government has made the right move on this one IMHO.

I imagine it makes the Pakistani air defence people's job a hell of a lot more difficult, if the US insists on flying things through their airspace without warning. They wouldn't look very good if they let an unidentified intruder through so as not to nark the Yanks, and it turned out to be an Indian first strike (or something). Surely the Pakistanis are just enacting sensible principles of air defence? Even more so of those "friendly" unidentified air craft go on to actually kill more Pakistanis than the Indians have in years.

As much as I think Pakistan is a hole, they have the right to defend their airspace and their citizens.

If the Mexican police force chased some drug runners over into America, in the process gunned down a whole load of American border guards/soldiers/police, or if the Canadians chased a moose down into America and were accidentally polite to someone, how much do you think America would stand for it?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
It's the one on the right, labeled "Pakistan."

I missed this, though I shouldn't have.

Thanks for biting.

What do you mean "biting"? You posted a map and said "point to Pakistan." Presumably you're having difficulty reading the map you posted, so I figured I'd help you out. Here's a hint: Pakistan borders Iran (the big one in the middle) and Afghanistan.

dogma wrote:Why is Pakistan often considered a Middle Eastern Country while Georgia, a country typically displayed in maps of the Middle East (or even, in this case, Russia), not considered in that light?

Because the term "Middle East" isn't geographically precise. And most people are bad at geography. Similarly, one could ask why some people refer to Idaho or Montana as part of the "Midwest."

dogma wrote:And before "They're majority Muslim!" comes into play, why not Indonesia? why not Kazakhstan?

Hopefully you understand that Kazakhstan is pretty far north (entirely (?) north of Turkey) and Indonesia is a few thousand miles east of even Pakistan.

Most people probably wouldn't immediately think of Russia as an Asian nation, they're usually considered European, despite most of the country being east of the Urals.

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base? This is the real reason they did this; they are trying to save face and they will never be forgotten for it. Asking pakistan for clearance just gives their military time to inform the terrorists and get them out of the blast zone. So its completely pointless.

Maybe if Pakistan actually acted like an Ally, we wouldn't need to run missions in their area.

Mr Hyena wrote:

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?

You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.

Castiel wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?

You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.

Your seriously suggesting he lived right next door to a military base and nobody knew he was there? One of the most wanted men in the world? Thats either a case of knowingly harbouring him or of the biggest case of stupidity.

Our intelligence agency found him there. Does Pakistan have a proper intelligence agency?

Mr Hyena wrote:

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base? This is the real reason they did this; they are trying to save face and they will never be forgotten for it. Asking pakistan for clearance just gives their military time to inform the terrorists and get them out of the blast zone. So its completely pointless.

Maybe if Pakistan actually acted like an Ally, we wouldn't need to run missions in their area.

What evidence do you have that they knowingly harboured him?

Apart from "Osama was muslim, Pakistan is muslim, Pakistan must have been helping because they're both muslim!".

Mr Hyena wrote:The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base? This is the real reason they did this; they are trying to save face and they will never be forgotten for it. Asking pakistan for clearance just gives their military time to inform the terrorists and get them out of the blast zone. So its completely pointless.

Maybe if Pakistan actually acted like an Ally, we wouldn't need to run missions in their area.

Regardless of what they do and do not do, even if they were not "allies" of the USA, they still have the right to defend their airspace and citizens. The USA has been accused of sending people out to be tortured - does that mean it is fair game to send aircraft to bomb things as they please, and the USA has no right to protest and defend itself if civilians and "innocent" soldiers are killed?

Mr Hyena wrote:

Castiel wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?

You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.

Your seriously suggesting he lived right next door to a military base and nobody knew he was there? One of the most wanted men in the world? Thats either a case of knowingly harbouring him or of the biggest case of stupidity.

Our intelligence agency found him there. Does Pakistan have a proper intelligence agency?

Yes. Because he is the most wanted man in the world hiding beside a military base is a great idea. Why would the most wated man in the world hide that close to the miltary? He'd have to be mad. We can rule that out as a hiding place. Not to mention that, while Pakistan has an intelligence agency, I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.

Castiel wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Castiel wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.

The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?

You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.

Your seriously suggesting he lived right next door to a military base and nobody knew he was there? One of the most wanted men in the world? Thats either a case of knowingly harbouring him or of the biggest case of stupidity.

Our intelligence agency found him there. Does Pakistan have a proper intelligence agency?

Yes. Because he is the most wanted man in the world hiding beside a military base is a great idea. Why would the most wated man in the world hide that close to the miltary? He'd have to be mad. We can rule that out as a hiding place. Not to mention that, while Pakistan has an intelligence agency, I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.

What better place to hide? Hell, Bin Laden could have have had home in London, or Birmingham, or Bradford, or Leicester. A clever man could wind up in Washington DC.

Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.

Kilkrazy wrote:This could probably have been avoided if NATO had apologised for shooting up that Pakistani army post a couple of weeks ago.

We need Pakistan "on side" if we want any hope of getting a reasonable result from the Afghan imbroglio.

This really sums it up, cant say I blame the Pakestani for not wanting to have the citizens killed by so called "allied" drones. I think the end result of this mess Afganistan and to a lesser degree Pakistan is that we will have even more hostile region to contend with.

Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.

Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.

I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.

Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.

Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.

He didn't have to leave the house though, he probably had servants to do that for him.

I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.

Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.

And I'm sure they're working to mitigate that.

SilverMK2 wrote:If the Mexican police force chased some drug runners over into America, in the process gunned down a whole load of American border guards/soldiers/police, or if the Canadians chased a moose down into America and were accidentally polite to someone, how much do you think America would stand for it?

You should really, really try to remember some of the earlier threads concerning this. We have arrested and imprisoned our own border agents for shooting drug runners.

The statement read: 'Earlier today the president placed a phone call to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to personally express his condolences on the tragic loss of twenty-four Pakistani soldiers this past week along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

'The president made clear that this regrettable incident was not a deliberate attack on Pakistan and reiterated the United States' strong commitment to a full investigation.'

Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression - an accusation the United States has rejected.

Two U.S. officials have told Reuters that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination center had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.

halonachos wrote:You should really, really try to remember some of the earlier threads concerning this. We have arrested and imprisoned our own border agents for shooting drug runners.

You should really, really try to read what I have written

biccat wrote:
What do you mean "biting"? You posted a map and said "point to Pakistan." Presumably you're having difficulty reading the map you posted, so I figured I'd help you out. Here's a hint: Pakistan borders Iran (the big one in the middle) and Afghanistan.

It was a map of the Middle East. It included all states typically considered as parts of the Middle East, and some states that Americans like to associate with the Middle East. One of those states was Pakistan. Pakistan had roughly the same amount of land area on the map as Russia, a state that no one, anywhere, ever would call Middle Eastern. It also included, in totality, the states of Georgia and Azerbaijan, also states that no one would ever call Middle Eastern.

The point was that Pakistan is exactly as Middle Eastern as Russia.

biccat wrote:
Because the term "Middle East" isn't geographically precise. And most people are bad at geography. Similarly, one could ask why some people refer to Idaho or Montana as part of the "Midwest."

As usual, you're wrong. The term "Middle East" is one of the more precise geographic terms, and it wasn't until young Bush coined the term "Greater Middle East" (ie. Here Be Muslims That Are Sort Of Arab) that controversy came about.

biccat wrote:
Hopefully you understand that Kazakhstan is pretty far north (entirely (?) north of Turkey) and Indonesia is a few thousand miles east of even Pakistan.

And Pakistan is, bar Balochistan, entirely South of Turkey, is Turkey not part of the Middle East, or is Pakistan not relevant to the question?

The US didn't notify the Pakistani government because the information would have been given directly to the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency). The ISI has a history of working with Al Qaeda (google it if you don't believe me), and if the information was given to the ISI prior to the strike, Bin laden surely would have been tipped off.

I'm not faulting the entirety of the ISI here, just the certain untrustworthy individuals that work there.

The Bin Laden incident was more of a "It's easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission" instance.

EDIT: Spelling