Talk:Gora Prai airstrike

Footage

Footage from the incident has been released, I found it at BBC:[1]

Contralya (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't that be linked at in the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.66.29 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Legality

What's the legality of the strike under international law? --Leladax (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Illegal. I suppose the US will just bully it out the way or lie like they did the Iraq War. LOTRrules (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would dearly wish that for only 24 hours, the 'US' would become the monster that you accuse her of being. At the end of those 24 hours, the planet would be a very different place. And you would be either behind barbed wire, or floating in the stratosphere as a tin film of radioactive dust. But the fact is, the US is not that monster. The fact is, you intentionally lie to yourself about such things, so you can continue in your lazy lifestyle, wallowing in victimhood and blaming others (the US) for your failed societies. Here's a suggestion....read a history book. You ignorant slut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk • contribs)

Hmm...Have I angered you Uncle Sam? Did I say the US is a monster? And have you been soaking up propoganda? Was I below the belt? Good you deserved it. Hmm...do your research the US has been the most belligerent country in the past and still is. I'm allowed my freedom of speech. What are you going to do shoot me? You got all that from the word "bully"??? LOTRrules (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fighting the terrorists that do not obey the international law calls for a stronger approach than what is typically authorized under international law. It is illegal for the Taliban fighters to cross the Afghan/Pakistani border through non-authorized passes without passports and with weapons. As a result, the U.S. military forces must fight this battle because the Pakistani armed forces are not eqipped or willing to do so. Is the U.S. military strike illegal? I would guess that it is. Yet, how can anyone argue that NATO/U.S. forces should take fire from Taliban forces and not respond because of an imaginary line in the middle of the mountains? I sincerely hope the U.S. "bullies" its way right on through to Islamabad. The same way it "bullied" Hitler right out of western Europe in 1944.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no one who has sacrificed more for fighting the taliban than Pakistanis. Fight the taliban just don't kill innocent Pakistanis in the process. Several air strikes in the past have occured over Pakistani air space killing Pakistani civilians and now one air strike has killed allied troops.

What does Islamabad have to do with Hitler? I suggest Americans such as yourself keep their mouths shut on topics they have no knowledge of to avoid sounding like idiots.

The connection is political stability. The Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine, and the Berlin Airlift were all operations designed to stabilize western Europe after Hitler's wrath. If Pakistan can not stabilize the political climate in its own backyard; then the U.S. should take the lead. If armed entry is required, then so be it. By the way your insult only serves to support my suspicion that you are irrational, emotional, and more of an idiot than I.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Edwin. Tell us...is it a great burden to you, being the only person on earth who has a monopoly on the concept of 'truth'?

Nice Cliché. Come original.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not one of legality, the issue is one of violation of sovereign airspace and an unauthorized attack of sovereign soil. Both sides of the border has been bombed, (with friendly fire casualities in the past) but with the permission of the respective country. What you have here is an instance where, without permission, the incident weakens the authority of the violated nation, thus undermining the sitting government. The Pakistani formal response is no doubt required, but I would suspect that in private to response will be far more measured.Cillmore (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're right about the private response being more measured. Pakistan is a country stuck between 2 types of foreign affairs dilemma's when it comes to sovereignty. The first is that it has fought border wars, skirmishes and full blown wars with 2 larger, more powerful neighbours who have used similar reasoning for strikes before. The second is that it is also fighting its own war on terror internally against the Taliban which has at times caused a lot of casualties, among the Taliban, Pakistani civilians and military. Their relations with the USA, while supposedly worsening are quite strong because of this common cause ... but the friction here is that IF Pakistan were to just ignore this and say "oh its ok you killed 11 of our troops by accident ... we don't mind ... heres some more detailed maps of our borders so it doesn't happen next time" then China and India would see Pakistan's control of its territory as weaker and their position as potential aggressors more acceptable. This is basically the way foreign affairs works. If you let a country use military force against you without giving them the hard word, even going so far as to shoot back then your other neighbours potentially less peaceful designs only seem that much closer to fruition. The difference here is that unlike your regular border incursion (such as the US incursions into Iran) it is a disagreement between friends ... so while Pakistan is forced by rule no#1 to complain they are forced by rule no#2 to not shoot back and in fact privately explain why they followed rule no#1 ... because no doubt all this would be lost on someone like Mr. Bush.

However on a side-note I think there is something that must be looked at as an alternative theory here ... not one that should be considered gospel ... but one that is a potential explanation for confusion; Pakistan has a long history of training militia's who've gone on to fight in Afghanistan. They did this as a US ally in the 1980's and 1990's and even trained and equipped the Taliban before coming into conflict with them I believe before Sept 11. Obviously members of their military would've had a role in this and remember this is not Pakistan bashing as the CIA were there right by the Pakistani troops side providing money, weapons and expertise. But whats to stop lets say 11 border guards who used to train Taliban, whom they became friends with, against orders, working with them? Does Pakistan know what their troops were doing at the time of the air strike? Does the US know how far astray their bombs went? I see 3 potential reasons for the Pakistani army casualties. In order of liklihood they would be; 1. Bomb went awray and hit another area, 2. Pakistani border guards saw Taliban coming over border and engaged them (being close enough to be hit by airstrike), 3. Pakistani troops were meeting with Taliban they'd known from past connections.

I'd also like to point out this is all just conjecture ... the reason I'm saying this in the 'discussion' page is it might help someone with the time to do some proper research to document this event given it might point them at the right questions to ask.

War is a never ending symtom of this shallow village tale that we are all a part. NO nation is guiltless of crimes against itself, its neighbors, its citizens, innocents... I suggest that while the US is currently the biggest world aggressor, it certainly does not yet have the storied millenia of history of killing people that Europe has had. And the US did not lie about Iraq. Individuals of the Bush administration lied. Do not attribute the actions and evils of a very few to a whole nation of people. And your rugby team is no good. Comment added by Cillmore (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 June 2008

Well Said

Surely the "instigator" of the incident was the Taliban, the victims of "friendly Fire" the Pakistanis, and the perpetrator the US military.§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cillmore (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe Uncle Sam over there compared his country to Hitlers downfall...Ever heard of Godwin's law?LOTRrules (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Uncle sam over where? And Look at the top of the page and see who started the acrimonyCillmore (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the U.S. fight against Hitler and the reconstruction of Western Europe. Your reference to Godwin's Law does not apply because we are discussing politics, war, history, and etc. "The rule (Godwin's Law) does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable."

Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you people should stop accusing each other of being an idiot since it sounds to me like you are all idiots for not realising this is not the place for such a discussion. If you don't have any suggestions on how to improve the article, then take your discussion somewhere where it is appropriate (BTW the thing Edwin quoted about Godwin's Law states it does apply since Godwin's Law only comments on the probability not on the appropriateness of a comparison) Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not an idiot. And I did make suggestions above, firstly calling for parity on this issue and reasoned temperment. Secondly, as both the Pakistanis and the US cited the Taleban as a central participant (the one thing the two sides both agree on) I would suggest that the instigators be both the US and the Taleban, the victims of "friendly" fire being the Pakistanis. And you (Einne) added nothing to the issue but DISCUSSION.Cillmore (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said Cillmore. "DISCUSSION." As for improving the article? I thought the heading was Legality? Next, Godwin's Law states that the probability of a Hitler reference increases over time. This can also be said for the probability of a reference to homosexuality. The difference here is that I was referring to the U.S. invasion and stabilization of western Europe; in comparison to a U.S. invasion and stabilization of the Taliban strongholds of northern Pakistan. I did not accuse anyone of supporting Hitler, or being a homosexual. So Godwin's Law does not apply. This is especially true since we are talking about U.S. military action, history, political stabilization, and etc.

Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gorpara Checkpoint

I'm not sure if this really occurred near a "Gorpara" checkpoint. (There is a Gorpara in Bangledesh -- not that there cound not be a Gorpara checkpoint here). It just may have been mis-reported. Also, from the AP article: "...the fighting broke out after Afghan government soldiers who had occupied a mountaintop position..." Based on the terrain images of the region, this correlates well with the supposed border. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the area can provide the actual coordinates. Jeff Carr (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gorparai appears to be an alternate spelling of Gora Prai. Or perhaps it's just an AP typo.[2] The claim that Gora Prai is the name of a village is not substantiated in the source given. dab (𒁳) 20:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Goraparai, Goraprai and Goraparay show up as interchangeable in coordinate databases [3]. --dab (𒁳) 20:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I have changed the disignation for the 15E from fighter-bomber to its correct designation as a a strike fighter.Cillmore (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I added links that seemed appropriate from links added by others.Cillmore (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Did someone delete the Bajuar airstrike? Was it a different event?Cillmore (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gora Prai airstrike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article3789916.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612081018/http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-11-voa54.cfm to http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-11-voa54.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)