Nov
29
2011
5

Pakistanis admit to firing first on NATO troops.

Via Drudge comes the beginnings of clarity on this issue: it’s now being tacitly admitted by the Pakistan government that Saturday’s conflict was initiated by their own troops.  Essentially, Afghan/American troops were raiding Taliban in Afghanistan when Pakistan troops fired on them (the Pakistan government maintains that their troops were attacking on what they thought were insurgents).  NATO airstrikes were the result, which shot up two military posts and killed over twenty Pakistani troops.

The Pakistanis’ claim here is that they alerted NATO forces that it was their military posts that were being shot up (although they apparently informed NATO earlier that they had no troops in the area); one Afghan response to that was that the insurgents that NATO/Afghan troops were hunting had retreated to said posts and continued to shoot from there.  Which, if true, more or less illustrates the reason why you do not offer tactical shelter to people who are shooting at United States troops.  The end result will be the local real estate getting reconfigured into a state best described as ‘lunar landscape.’ (more…)

Nov
27
2011
3

The rapidly-decaying Pakistan situation.

A quick review of the recent breakdown in Pakistani-American relations:

Last Saturday a NATO airstrike reportedly killed 24 Pakistani troops located in military bases on Pakistani soil. The exact details of the situation are still unknown: the Pakistanis are claiming that the assault was completely unprovoked, while (admittedly anonymous) Afghan sources claim that NATO troops were returning fire. Either way, the population of Pakistan is enraged – to the point where they’re burning the President in effigy* – and NATO forces are worried about our allies the Pakistanis taking this opportunity as an excuse to step up reprisal attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan. Which, if true, would be even more offensive than the burning in effigy. (more…)

Written by in: Politics | Tags:
Jan
24
2009
14

The curious incident of the antiwar movement in the night-time.

Please, by all means: assume that I’m equating them with dogs.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Interested in DC School Choice Rally videos?

Whipped ones, in fact, as Environmental Republican demonstrates (via Glenn Reynolds). You see, he went looking for the Usual Antiwar Suspects’ outrage at the drone strikes in Pakistan, and discovered… well, that apparently it wasn’t really worth noting at all, really. His conclusion?

So what con we surmise from this little investigation? How about the left-wing of this country is populated with hypocritical ideologues who not only hated Bush but had a severe dislike for America. Now that they have a leader who they feel a kinship with, well, it’s all good.

You shouldn’t be surprised: the terrorists that got attacked weren’t Europeans – which is my polite way of saying that they weren’t sufficiently white and Western for the groups running the antiwar movement to particularly care, especially since caring might embarrass a President who isn’t a Republican. Was that too harsh? No? OK, let’s try again: the antiwar movement is run by racists who only like brown people when they can be used as clubs with which to beat anybody to the antiwar movement’s Right.

Well, anyone to their Right, and Jews. A quick perusal of the major players in question indicates that they’re all really upset that Israel isn’t baring its collective neck for the knife.

Moe Lane

PS: If you won’t respect yourself, don’t expect me to respect you, either.

Crossposted to RedState.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com