Talk:Chenagai airstrike

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / North America / South Asia / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force North American military history task force South Asian military history task force United States military history task force

"Sweet!" 68.152.95.130 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of reaction is more appropriate on your nearest blog - not for WP. Ronnotel 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a declaration of solidarity, not a reaction. 69.138.1.192 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were are the citations for people being related to al-qaeda, especially this local leader? (sorry Im not logged in)143.167.221.116 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... there was a CIA strike in the same region in January -- mentioned here -- Kendrick7 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with 'Future' being here (copied) 50 times??!! 67.172.125.13 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The militants, of course, were granted a fair trial and found guilty by a jury of their peers before being executed.

This article doesn't explicitly state who launched the airstrike. One can infer that the Pakistani Air Force launched it by looking at the box that identifies who was involved in the incident. However, who launched the strike should be in the first paragraph of the article (and probably the first sentence, eg "Aircraft from the Pakistani Air Force launched an offensive...").

ABC reports that the attacks at Chenagai on Monday was a CIA job as well, and according to the BBC website ,witnesses heard drones and 2 blasts 10 NINUTES before the first pakistani helicopter arrived.

>An eyewitness interviewed on the telephone by the BBC News website appeared to corroborate that view.

"We heard two blasts at about 4:50 am, whereas the Pakistani helicopters appeared a good 10 minutes later," the witness, who did not wish to be named, said.< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6099348.stm

There are strong similarities between Mondays attacks in Chenagai and the Damadola airstrike . Therefore these similarities along with obvious CIA involvement this time as well, should feature high in this article, which also should be re-named to 'Chenagai airstrike'. This is logic, since both Damadola and Chenagai are in the Bajur area.

I will ask others to do the editing, I have just pointed some things out, which I think should be included Sir-John-Peters 09:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In January, at the Damadola airstrike, several people spoke out against a deathtoll of 18, this time people tend to go along with the explanation that it was carried out by pakistani troops. But why have the pakistani military dictatorship cordoned off the area around the school, if they have nothing to hide? It is just 2 kilometers away from the scene of the Damadola airstrike, and obviously the same Predator operators, situated at the same spot, would have been perfectly able to direct this attack as well. There is something fishy going on, with CIA carrying out the attacks and pakistani forces arriving 10 minuttes later and cordoning off the area, according to agreed and coordinated plans with the CIA. Cause it is in the interest of both that no journalists are allowed in.

I can only say that such tactics, ie. giving the verdict and carrying out the execution without even speaking a word to the suspects, is a practice not even seen in the old days of the wild west. It cannot be helpful in winning hearts and minds in this proud tribal area, which was a key area for CIA staged attacks on Soviet forces in Aghanistan in the 80'ties, and also saw several Soviet Jet attacks. It seems like yet another expression of the shortsightedness that has guided US policies for the ME and South Asia ever since the US emerged as a superpower after WW2. It is the policies of the extremely inexperienced. When will the US grow up? I mean 2752 got killed at the WTC, and Bush Junior rushes out and has now got a further 2813 killed in Iraq. (not to forget 650.000 iraqie civilians) You gotta be pretty, pretty daft to do such a thing. Sir-John-Peters 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the village of Damadola ,scene of the Damadola airstrike in January 2006, lies 2 kilometres from Mondays attack in the village of Chenagai, and both are in the Bajaur area, it is not logical to refer to Mondays strike as the 'Bajaur airstrike'. It should off course be renamed to the 'Chenagai airstrike' Sir-John-Peters 09:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to distinguish between pakistani and the highly controversiel attacks by the US inside Pakistan, which Pakistan is against. However there is a problem with the width. Perhapos someone can help?Nick Finnsbury (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chenagai 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/30/pakistan.militants.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213144/http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=4099 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=4099

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]