American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[Rig Vedic]

He doesn't mince his words.

He is saying Pakistan should withdraw from the war on terror.

However the consensus in Pakistan Army seems to be that Pakistan should continue fighting with full vigor until a friendly government in Afghanistan is installed.

 

[Mercenary]

One of the most sensible posts.

A unfortunate things has happened. Now you can respond in two ways - if it had been a weaker country, respond militarily..since this is a stronger country emotionally blackmail them & extort concessions. Just like how Israel is doing to Germany. But then you need intelligent,pragmatic leaders for that.

I think there needs to be a skills test before someone can open an account on this forum. A person needs to be knowledgable on history, military, geo-politics.

there are way to many fan boys here who are really degrading the quality of debate over here with their nationalist fervor and really conspriacy laden facts.

 

[President Camacho]

He is saying Pakistan should withdraw from the war on terror.

However the consensus in Pakistan Army seems to be that Pakistan should continue fighting with full vigor until a friendly government in Afghanistan is installed.

Pakistan opting out of War on Terror - I cannot figure out the meaning of that statement

And Pakistan is fighting war on terror... in whose territory?

 

[Bhairava]

I think there needs to be a skills test before someone can open an account on this forum. A person needs to be knowledgable on history, military, geo-politics.

there are way to many fan boys here who are really degrading the quality of debate over here with their nationalist fervor and really conspriacy laden facts.

Are you saying about me ?

 

[Mercenary]

Are you saying about me ?

No, some of the Pakistani nationalist fan boys I have had a fun time debating

 

[sur]

Real face of The North American Terrorist Organisation (NATO)
-
-
-

 

[Roybot]

Thats the aftermath of a TTP attack!

 

[53fd]

Real face of The North American Terrorist Organisation (NATO)
-
-
-

It's not a NATO attack, I believe I saw this video at least a few (1-2) months ago.

 

[Hulk]

It's Time To End Our Relationship With Pakistan | Fox News

 

[53fd]

It's Time To End Our Relationship With Pakistan | Fox News

The article considers the US to the battered wife, & Pakistan to be the abusive husband. It's not surprising such a poor article is coming from Fox News, symptomatic of the US mentality these days.

 

[karan.1970]

For one, the fact that NATO did not follow proper protocol, mislead the Pakistani liaison officer by providing him the wrong coordinates, and continuing the attack for two hours, does support the Pakistani position.

Has NATO agreed to the above faults in an official statement? If not, then again its one side of the story..

Consider this - assuming all this was a mistake, somehow the insurgents managed to get a couple of rounds off from close to the Pakistani position, NATO somehow managed to botch their maps and SOP's to contact Pakistan, and attacked the two posts - Pakistani officials at that point contacted NATO as soon as they got wind of the attack, then why did the attack continue for another hour?

Again, no confirmation of these points from NATO yet.. There is no reason to take this on the face value till there is clarity on the other side of the story as well..

An attack for 15 minutes to half an hour, given the delay in the posts communicating to PA commanders, and the PA Commanders calling NATO, would be understandable as a 'mistake'. A two hour assault in two waves is not understandable by any means, given that there are lines of communication in place and liaison officers deployed for precisely that reason.

While we are discussing hypothetical and now given the distance of 300 yrds, I wont be surprised if after the initial attack Pakistan posts responded to the attack by hitting at the heli as well as firing across the border on a NATO post which resulted in the second wave. Again, we need to wait for NATO's version of the story before we can assert that to be right or wrong..

 

[karan.1970]

Quit the BS Karan - the DG ISPR is basing his comments on the investigation conducted by the PA, on the statements of the surviving soldiers, the liaison officer with ISAF, and communications records between the Pakistani commanders and NATO after the attacks began.

Arguing your position is one thing - trying to defend it in the manner above is inflammatory and nonsense.

Read again the post I was responding to and the context.. One doesnt need to be sitting on the border to offer his assessment based on the information made available..

The arguments yesterday were not based on the official Pakistani report - these are.

And the arguments tomorrow(23rd Dec) will be based on official Pakistani and NATO reports which may again have additional information that we dont have today.. Just like we were all considering 2.5 km as sacrosanct yesterday and have a different view today, there will be other aspects that we dont know today and will be known on 23rd..

 

[sur]

It's not a NATO attack, I believe I saw this video at least a few (1-2) months ago.

I see, my bad...didn't have any way to confirm it... I replaced the video.

 

[karan.1970]

Why aren't you listening?

NATO had the location, had made contact with oak and still engaged in sustained attack, more than sufficient to still put the same argument, that is if you listen.

Secondly 2.5km or 250 yards, still an incursion and you still need a reason to be there!!!

And again.. I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY NATO ATTACK... Only suggesting that NATO's official report on this will provide important insight into the incident that needs to be factored in before a final understanding can be arrived at on this issue.. We at defence.pk may decide not to, but Pakistani govt surely will

 

[bdslph]

ahh ok so the video is old then