US responsible for the Murder of Pakistani Troops - Pak Rejects NATO Probe

[lem34]

For firing back in self defence ??? Because thats what USA believes its troops did..

Crime occurred the moment the Americans admit to not following first sop re: informing PA. Doesn't matter what happened after that. Go read a law book

 

[TaimiKhan]

For firing back in self defence ??? Because thats what USA believes its troops did..

Indians and their pathetic mentality.

You guys are disgusting. Even with so much facts available, you Indians still think it was self defence. Unbelievable. But since you guys are Indians, its understandable.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Pakistan really should ask for 2-5 billion dollars in damage , and "apology" , we don't need a "breifing or letter" or a news release

for 28 soliders who were martyred

USA should man up and donate the apology funds for the families of the soldiers who will be effected and to help look after education and welfare of the slain soldiers

Meanwhile the personnel involved should be court marshaled, what happens to soldiers who throw a granade at fellow soliders "exactly" that kind of punishment is needed

 

[lem34]

Pakistan really should ask for 2-5 billion dollars in damage , and "apology"

for 28 soliders who were martyred

and no Indian consulates in Afghanistan

 

[BATMAN]

For firing back in self defence ??? Because thats what USA believes its troops did..

Firing back at what?

Had US ever killed a single Taliban along the borders of Pakistan?

 

[lem34]

Firing back at what?

Had US ever killed a single Taliban along the borders of Pakistan?

they will soon because they are saying taleban is no enemy. they are only good blue on blue

 

[Chogy]

Xeric, you are one of the guys here I can have a conversation with. Thank you.

No, but this was an ample evidence that 'something was wrong'. This is known as 'reading of the battle', a must have quality for every military commander, which yours evidently seemed to be lacking. The commander ordering or allowing a strike dont just shut down his coms and go for out for a beer break, but keeps on 'listening' to the battle reports and then continuously modify his plans basing on the received info.

Was there an "itchy feeling" on the back of the battle commanders' necks during this engagement? At first, probably not. After some period of time, I think it's likely. But a battle that is not ordinary, not standard Taliban fare, does not by itself indicate a cease fire or withdrawal. You'd need more data, and at this point, what data they had is sketchy.

Not every battle is 'fire and forget', it's not like 'hey, take these 10000 rounds, 400 artillery shells and 200 bombs, just dump them over the target and let me know when your are finished, i am out taking a nap'. i dont say that the US military is unprofessional like this, but what your military did on Nov 26 only strengthen my fears.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. Standard for any such contact is locate, identify, and engage until neutralized or there is simply nothing left to engage. Obviously the elephant in the room is identify. The communications between Pakistan and the U.S. was inaccurate, lacking, or both.

As for the firepower, or "overkill", there isn't a force in the world that can match the USA for precision. Forum readers right now are choking, laughing, or both, but it is the truth. What other country takes its standard iron bombs and ignores them, using instead a 100 kilo JDAM bomb or the new 20 kilo 1 meter long Griffin guided air to ground missile by Raytheon to be excellent due to the precision guidance?

Both the Spectre Gunship and the Apache have like performance. Some might say it's "overkill" vs. troops with only machine guns, but those that do still think romantic thoughts of battle. That sort of thought process - "not a fair fight" - are naive. When the enemy presents himself, and you can attack with impunity with stand-off weapons, you do so. You don't leave your tank behind if the enemy has none to make it "honorable or fair." You know this.

Exactly!

Is it because of this approach of yours the US is shyt-slinged by every weak Nation?

Is it because of this approach that 100% of Pakistanis are calling you guys murderers and butchers?

And expansionist and terrorist america are otherwise a norm these days.

Do you believe we'd be in Afghanistan at this moment if those idiots hadn't hijacked those four Boeing airliners and did what they did?

"US is shyt-slinged by every weak Nation?" --> meaning, "We hate the USA when they use stuff like JDAM, thermal night vision, F-15E's and F-117's, and Spectre gunships, because we don't have any counter to those lethal platforms? Or are those sentiments aimed at U.S. foreign policy in general? Both?

Question: Would Pakistan's reaction (murderers and butchers) be the same if Pakistani soldiers had shot the AC-130 and 2 Apaches down with MANPADs? Let's say there are 24 Pakistani KIA, but also 35 U.S. Airmen and 3 aircraft downed... would that change the national reaction, make the whole incident more palatable? But it wouldn't change the fact that 24 soldiers won't be going home.

i agree that there isnt anything fair about war, but we are living in 2011 arent we? What happened to Liddell Hart's "Indirect Approach" (lower causalities, upsetting the equilibrium of the enemy, not by excessive force but superior strategy - Clausewitz in English: Chapter 15) as opposed to Napoleon's "Absolute War" and Clausewitz's "Total War"

Come now - both Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, and the initial stages of the Afghanistan campaign, all demostrated the epitome of the military arts, using warfighting methodologies that make Hart or anybody else seem like schoolchildren by comparison. The speed, precision, and yes lack of destruction have never before been seen in modern war.

Please Read about Col. John Boyd and his theories on war - Sun Tzu couldn't tie that guy's shoes.

The New American Way of War

The OODA loop

I understand about 10% of what Boyd used to teach in detail. The man was an immensely deep thinker who stepped on a lot of shoes, and thus is not famous. He also has a dedicated display in the U.S. Marine Corps School of Land Warfare. His warfighting strategems were what allowed General Franks to invade Iraq in 2003 with less than 1/2 of the manpower that Schwartzkopf had in Desert Storm. And those 2003 forces were rolling tanks through Baghdad while the Iraqi generals were insisting they were winning the fight.

Summary -- Victories with a miniscule (by comparison to past campaigns) cost.

(civilian populations should not be safe from abuse from warring armies, total war, in the Clausewitzian vision, pitted entire societies against one another. All an enemy's territory, property, and citizens were potential targets. Indeed, the more ruthless, merciless and complete an army's tactics, the more likely Clausewitz believed their victory to be. Total War)

As far as i know (after studying in a few US military institutions), you guys follow Hart, not Clausewitz, until you guys proved it otherwise on Nov 26!

The current conflict is so far from "total war" it's not comparable. To do so is to ignore reality.

BTW, as it seems you have been away from the military for quite sometime now, i must tell you that the world (not only the US) as of today has shifted AWAY from Clasewitzian school of thought of Total/Absolute War.


i dont doubt that. The recent history (in Iraq and Afg War) bears testimony to excessive use of force by the US military.

Both of these I have already addressed. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you did. U.S. maneuvering and warfare is based primarily upon Boyd's matured warfighting vision.

 

[A1Kaid]

Come now - both Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, and the initial stages of the Afghanistan campaign, all demostrated the epitome of the military arts, using warfighting methodologies that make Hart or anybody else seem like schoolchildren by comparison. The speed, precision, and yes lack of destruction have never before been seen in modern war. -Chogy

I actually brought this point up in another thread. In fact the US's Desert Storm was an awesome display of modern warfare. Be sure the Pakistan military was impressed by it and they studied US operations and strategy. I would say it was one of the first displays of true modern military super power at display, a true mechanized assault and destroy in lightning fashion.

In fact here's the thread I referred to the Gulf War in...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/150340-expect-attack-chinese-military-3.html#post2448002

 

[pakdefender]

Yesterday there was a UFC fight between Brock Lesner and Alastair Overeem and the thing that struck me was that Brock Lesner personifies all things American.

He's Big , He's Strong , He' Arrogant and Boorish he can beat up the little guy any day any time BUT he doesn’t have the heart to take a beating and when he finally meets somewhat of a match then he ducks and covers and runs away like a coward!
That’s the same story with the American aggression that they will keep showing aggressions and will keep on murdering and killing people until they are spoken to and dealt with in the same way as they do with others

 

[Donatello]

Xeric, you are one of the guys here I can have a conversation with. Thank you.



Was there an "itchy feeling" on the back of the battle commanders' necks during this engagement? At first, probably not. After some period of time, I think it's likely. But a battle that is not ordinary, not standard Taliban fare, does not by itself indicate a cease fire or withdrawal. You'd need more data, and at this point, what data they had is sketchy.



I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. Standard for any such contact is locate, identify, and engage until neutralized or there is simply nothing left to engage. Obviously the elephant in the room is identify. The communications between Pakistan and the U.S. was inaccurate, lacking, or both.

As for the firepower, or "overkill", there isn't a force in the world that can match the USA for precision. Forum readers right now are choking, laughing, or both, but it is the truth. What other country takes its standard iron bombs and ignores them, using instead a 100 kilo JDAM bomb or the new 20 kilo 1 meter long Griffin guided air to ground missile by Raytheon to be excellent due to the precision guidance?

Both the Spectre Gunship and the Apache have like performance. Some might say it's "overkill" vs. troops with only machine guns, but those that do still think romantic thoughts of battle. That sort of thought process - "not a fair fight" - are naive. When the enemy presents himself, and you can attack with impunity with stand-off weapons, you do so. You don't leave your tank behind if the enemy has none to make it "honorable or fair." You know this.



Do you believe we'd be in Afghanistan at this moment if those idiots hadn't hijacked those four Boeing airliners and did what they did?

"US is shyt-slinged by every weak Nation?" --> meaning, "We hate the USA when they use stuff like JDAM, thermal night vision, F-15E's and F-117's, and Spectre gunships, because we don't have any counter to those lethal platforms? Or are those sentiments aimed at U.S. foreign policy in general? Both?

Question: Would Pakistan's reaction (murderers and butchers) be the same if Pakistani soldiers had shot the AC-130 and 2 Apaches down with MANPADs? Let's say there are 24 Pakistani KIA, but also 35 U.S. Airmen and 3 aircraft downed... would that change the national reaction, make the whole incident more palatable? But it wouldn't change the fact that 24 soldiers won't be going home.



Come now - both Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, and the initial stages of the Afghanistan campaign, all demostrated the epitome of the military arts, using warfighting methodologies that make Hart or anybody else seem like schoolchildren by comparison. The speed, precision, and yes lack of destruction have never before been seen in modern war.

Please Read about Col. John Boyd and his theories on war - Sun Tzu couldn't tie that guy's shoes.

The New American Way of War

The OODA loop

I understand about 10% of what Boyd used to teach in detail. The man was an immensely deep thinker who stepped on a lot of shoes, and thus is not famous. He also has a dedicated display in the U.S. Marine Corps School of Land Warfare. His warfighting strategems were what allowed General Franks to invade Iraq in 2003 with less than 1/2 of the manpower that Schwartzkopf had in Desert Storm. And those 2003 forces were rolling tanks through Baghdad while the Iraqi generals were insisting they were winning the fight.

Summary -- Victories with a miniscule (by comparison to past campaigns) cost.




The current conflict is so far from "total war" it's not comparable. To do so is to ignore reality.



Both of these I have already addressed. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you did. U.S. maneuvering and warfare is based primarily upon Boyd's matured warfighting vision.

I am sorry, but the hijackers.....almost all of them were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Lebanon.....not Afghanistan. Your geography and history is flawed. But you don't have balls to say or do anything to Saudis, yet.

I didn't bother reading your complete post, as there are bound to me more factual errors.

 

[53fd]

Of course, this will be painted as a "great" victory due to the "strong" and "principled" stand of Pakistan. Yeah, right.

The last time I checked, you said the supply lines would be opened in a month. What's up with that?

 

[T-Rex]

Yesterday there was a UFC fight between Brock Lesner and Alastair Overeem and the thing that struck me was that Brock Lesner personifies all things American.

He's Big , He's Strong , He' Arrogant and Boorish he can beat up the little guy any day any time BUT he doesn’t have the heart to take a beating and when he finally meets somewhat of a match then he ducks and covers and runs away like a coward!
That’s the same story with the American aggression that they will keep showing aggressions and will keep on murdering and killing people until they are spoken to and dealt with in the same way as they do with others

Must you portray uncle sam so harshly? Now, don't hurt the feelings of uncle sam, a stealth UAV might be on its way to deliver a message of love to you by now!

 

[notsuperstitious]

and no Indian consulates in Afghanistan

You have no writ in parts bordering Afghanistan that you claim sovereignty over, but you would tell others how they conduct heir international affairs?

This obsession with India has lead to this mess in the first place.

 

[SMC]

^ Nah, what's lead to this mess is Bush starting a war when he could've made a deal with Taliban in 2001.

 

[MastanKhan]

Xeric, you are one of the guys here I can have a conversation with. Thank you.



Was there an "itchy feeling" on the back of the battle commanders' necks during this engagement? At first, probably not. After some period of time, I think it's likely. But a battle that is not ordinary, not standard Taliban fare, does not by itself indicate a cease fire or withdrawal. You'd need more data, and at this point, what data they had is sketchy.



I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. Standard for any such contact is locate, identify, and engage until neutralized or there is simply nothing left to engage. Obviously the elephant in the room is identify. The communications between Pakistan and the U.S. was inaccurate, lacking, or both.

As for the firepower, or "overkill", there isn't a force in the world that can match the USA for precision. Forum readers right now are choking, laughing, or both, but it is the truth. What other country takes its standard iron bombs and ignores them, using instead a 100 kilo JDAM bomb or the new 20 kilo 1 meter long Griffin guided air to ground missile by Raytheon to be excellent due to the precision guidance?

Both the Spectre Gunship and the Apache have like performance. Some might say it's "overkill" vs. troops with only machine guns, but those that do still think romantic thoughts of battle. That sort of thought process - "not a fair fight" - are naive. When the enemy presents himself, and you can attack with impunity with stand-off weapons, you do so. You don't leave your tank behind if the enemy has none to make it "honorable or fair." You know this.



Do you believe we'd be in Afghanistan at this moment if those idiots hadn't hijacked those four Boeing airliners and did what they did?

"US is shyt-slinged by every weak Nation?" --> meaning, "We hate the USA when they use stuff like JDAM, thermal night vision, F-15E's and F-117's, and Spectre gunships, because we don't have any counter to those lethal platforms? Or are those sentiments aimed at U.S. foreign policy in general? Both?

Question: Would Pakistan's reaction (murderers and butchers) be the same if Pakistani soldiers had shot the AC-130 and 2 Apaches down with MANPADs? Let's say there are 24 Pakistani KIA, but also 35 U.S. Airmen and 3 aircraft downed... would that change the national reaction, make the whole incident more palatable? But it wouldn't change the fact that 24 soldiers won't be going home.



Come now - both Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, and the initial stages of the Afghanistan campaign, all demostrated the epitome of the military arts, using warfighting methodologies that make Hart or anybody else seem like schoolchildren by comparison. The speed, precision, and yes lack of destruction have never before been seen in modern war.

Please Read about Col. John Boyd and his theories on war - Sun Tzu couldn't tie that guy's shoes.

The New American Way of War

The OODA loop

I understand about 10% of what Boyd used to teach in detail. The man was an immensely deep thinker who stepped on a lot of shoes, and thus is not famous. He also has a dedicated display in the U.S. Marine Corps School of Land Warfare. His warfighting strategems were what allowed General Franks to invade Iraq in 2003 with less than 1/2 of the manpower that Schwartzkopf had in Desert Storm. And those 2003 forces were rolling tanks through Baghdad while the Iraqi generals were insisting they were winning the fight.

Summary -- Victories with a miniscule (by comparison to past campaigns) cost.




The current conflict is so far from "total war" it's not comparable. To do so is to ignore reality.



Both of these I have already addressed. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you did. U.S. maneuvering and warfare is based primarily upon Boyd's matured warfighting vision.

Chogy,

The strategies used by the american generals were third rate and horrendous----if----these were the generals representing Genghis Khan's army and they did the same during his time----he would have tied their bodies to horses and ripped them apart for their incompetence---if these american generals were the generals of the roman forces----the Ceasar would have skewered these generals on a wooden stake right through their behinds----and let them stay there to be made an example of their failure and incompetence---.

Schwarzkopf could have also rolled in with 1/3rd the troops ----taking out baghdad with 1/3rd less troops is not the big deal----don't you american soldiers get it by now---concquering a nation was the easy part----it was after the invasion where you failed---.

Even if there were 1/3rd less of 1/3rd troops invading iraq---they would have succeeded---but where the american millitary failed was in the occupation----they had never concquered a middle eastern nation before and were clueless to what to expect after the conquest----.

Only if they had the common sense to ask ohter nations what to expect after the fact---they would not have ended up killing a million and half more muslims since the take over----.

The american millitary has taken the word stupidity to a newer level---Chogy---when you invade a nation and concquer it---you own it---everything---LOCK STOCK AND BARREL---that is yours---AND THE PEOPLE---THEY ARE YOUR SLAVES NOW----DO YOU GET IT BUDDY----READ MIDDLE EAST HISTORY---THEY ARE YOUR SLAVES NOW---EVERYTHING IN THEIR LANDS BELONGS TO YOU---law and order---govt---millitary rule---civil rule---it is all yours----men---women---children---they are yours.

If you had done the job right from day one---you would not have ended up killing a million and a half muslims---. These iraqis were not looting and plundering their nation after the war----they were technically stealing from you---the american forces---because everything in the land goes to the victor by default in the middle east---.

So---please let us not brag about this victory over a third world nation---please let us not gloat over it----. Those were the plains----the desert sands----no place for the enemy to hide----you start from oneend with a bulldozer and bury them all----like they did in the first GW----.

How about the battle in the high mountains----where there is no helicopter rescue----how about the defeat from a rag tag millitia---where did the ooda loop go in afg---. The comments of the iraqi generals tells you what an incompetent army the americans were fighting against-----.

Winning the battle is no big deal for the U S, Chogy---nobody at present can win a battle with the U S---it is in the winning of a war---where they have been defeated in iraq and now in AFG---it is the war----the americans don't have the heart to win a war---. Their strategists really don't know to win a war----.