What's new

American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

Any attacks on Americans will be Pakistan's biggest mistake ever. They can decimate the war fighting capability of any military on the planet, (yes that includes the Indian/Russian/Chinese).

You guys seriously underestimate the awesome power of the American military. I got to see a little bit of it during Talisman Sabre 11 over here in Aus, my uncle was in the IA and he was truly impressed by my recount.

Picking a fight with the Americans is the worst idea ever. There is no organised military in the world that can stand up to them.

True.

Pakistan vs USA War would resemble the first gulf war when Saddam's Army was decimated in 100 hours.

We are fully capable of engaging the Indians in a Land War, but USA is a totally different story.

However, if we wage a Guerrilla War, that's a different story.
 
A very smart and cunning move by the US to fool and trap Pakistan again.......:smokin:
 
if you have seen the video and audio conversation of 2 American A-10 pilots that engaged a British column in Iraq, they did ask if there were any friendly units in the area and then they started the attack after getting the negative, despite the fact that British firing distress flares and clear NATO/ British markings on their vehicles (same as the Pakistani flag over the post) the giggles of the pilots over the injured crumbing over and falling from burning vehicles is changed in to cries and sobbing when the operator tells them that they hit a British convey.


So here either the Americans knowingly or by mistake gave wrong coordinates, got the negative answer from Pakistani HQ and then gave the go ahead to their pilots to attack. But I don’t know how clear were they in their questions about any Pakistani check posts, also any Pakistani troops within 3 or 4 KM of their requested area would have been communicated to them as part of procedure so there is a chance that Americans would have asked about something too far away that the answer from Pakistani HQ had to be a no that they had nothing there in that area.



Despite all this what is troubling is

They continued to attack when they received the blue on blue and ceasefire requests.
They, then returned and attacked both posts and levelled them to the ground.

This only points towards disregard towards ceasefire requests and a a premeditated attack with full knowledge of who actually were their target.


Should the American pilots have clarified with their HQ that the suspected locations appear to be well dug in positions that appear to be established posts with a flag and communication antennas and aerials? (not a characteristic of terrorists and that too on a hilltop with no civilian population nearby). Maybe not if they had the same average intellect & attitude of the pilots over Baghdad who decided that the Associated press reporter was a terrorist and his video camera a rocket launcher and on that bases they killed him all other civilains around him and then celebrated the death of the children in a van by saying wow look one went right through the windshield haha, now Julian Assuage faces a possible death penalty (over “espionage” ) if he is extradited to America due to leaking videos like these.

No wonder Pakistan army refused to be part of their investigation farce because of the past experiences and deliberately dragging the date to end of December so that the story dies down and they can mount the pressure again with the usual premix of Haqqani support allegations and end it with “do more” bickering. Maybe such actions will help in showing the democrats as tough guys for the up coming elections against the Republicans but this attitude is hardly going to help in their plan to exit from Afghanistan in next 2 years time

Quick question.. In the above case of American pilots accidently attacking British soldiers, did the British soldiers fire back.. Because in a blue on blue friendly fire incident, when the attacked blue hits back, it's a little too optimistic to expect the other guy to stop.. But again, lets see what 23rd December brings..
 
truly the height of arrogance shown by obama calling eight days later. that too only due to Pak's strong stance on not attending the bonn conference and stopping supplies. It's becommin evident the US needs Pak's presence badly in this conference.
 
Quick question.. In the above case of American pilots accidently attacking British soldiers, did the British soldiers fire back.. Because in a blue on blue friendly fire incident, when the attacked blue hits back, it's a little too optimistic to expect the other guy to stop.. But again, lets see what 23rd December brings..

In case of the British attack the A-10s attacked in broad daylight, thus ground forces could easily identify it was their own jet which is attacking them, thus no need to fire back.

And our case is different, we have been attacked before also many times, with no successful outcome of any investigation.

And first attack can be termed mistake, but the second one with full might even when situation had been clearly communicated is hard to understand.
 
Otherwise, for so many years, the TTP, housed and headquartered in those tribal areas has killed many more and senior Pakistan Army members, but the Army did not make such strong statements or any aggressive moves in those areas to crush the terrorists, until the last few months -

it's one thing to be killed by your enemy, it's totally another to be killed by your ally. And not at one occassion but at multiple occassions, this being the most brutal one.

Regardless of what you think that Pak army's position is becoming weaker, there are reports emerging from the western media highlighting us/nato's complicit or irrisponsible role in this strike.
 
I feel as if you want the Pakistan Army's stand to weakened, but no, it has not been weakened. The supply routes are closed, & will continue to remain closed. The Shamsi airbase is being vacated right now.



Man, if someone had a gun to your head and said: "You gotta tell me what's goin' on with that person across the street, there, what they think, who they are, how they feel, or I will kill you"... they'd have to kill you...wouldn't they...? 'Cause you don't have a clue about anyone. ...I don't think you, you have a clue, period.

Crux: You do not know what I want. What I desire. Where I come from. What are my feelings.

There is no pro-US policy in the Army, the Army does things in the national interests of Pakistan. I think you try to analyze things too deeply & try to find meanings in things that don't really have any.

National interests of Pakistan, and pro-US policy of PA have often walked together, hand in hand. I am not analyzing anything here. I am offering my point of view, based on certain facts that I clearly mentioned in my post. Feel free to take it, feel free to discard it.

Rest of your post is completely out of scope because you ended up defending a stand that I did not even mention.

When in a debate, please try not to get personal in your approach.
 
Crux: You do not know what I want. What I desire. Where I come from. What are my feelings.

Fine, I was giving my opinion as well. No need to get sentimental about it. I have never stopped anyone from expressing their views.

National interests of Pakistan, and pro-US policy of PA have often walked together, hand in hand. I am not analyzing anything here. I am offering my point of view, based on certain facts that I clearly mentioned in my post.

What do you mean "pro-US policy of the PA"? You tell the Americans this, & they'd think otherwise. National interests of Pakistan are national interests of Pakistan. Period. Sometimes they were in collusion with pro-US policy, sometimes they weren't. The Army had a pro-US policy on things that corresponded to Pakistan national interests, & did not do things that did not correspond to Pakistan's national interests (operation in North Waziristan). Now it's becoming increasingly clear with the passing day that a pro-US policy will be detrimental to Pakistan & its national interests.

Rest of your post is completely out of scope because you ended up defending a stand that I did not even mention.

I'm not getting personal, I'm just saying your opinions have no basis to them, & you are trying to find meanings in things that don't have any.
 
Quick question.. In the above case of American pilots accidently attacking British soldiers, did the British soldiers fire back.. Because in a blue on blue friendly fire incident, when the attacked blue hits back, it's a little too optimistic to expect the other guy to stop.. But again, lets see what 23rd December brings..


Quick Answer
No they didn’t, the A-10s made 2 Strafe runs and there was nothing left of the British Armour column to respond with except a distress flair in the first pass.

The only difference is that the pilots didn’t decide to return back to finish the job once they were communicated about their blunder.

Same was the case with the Canadian soldiers that were blown to bits by the Americans in Afghanistan and the grieving commander couldn’t help but say that it looked like the American pilot was influenced by Topgun movie. The Canadians too didn’t fire back.

So I understand your point you are trying to make, don’t fire back at Americans when they don’t understand and cant decide if you are friend, Ally or enemy because the fate is going to be the same regardless. So Pakistanis should have accepted their fate after communicating the attack to the Americans.

I don’t know if someone who is being pounded has the luxury like you to ponder over the optimism of surviving if the culprit is not heeding the ceasefire calls.

As far as 23 December surprise is concerned, it wont be any different from their last investigation farces so we are not banking on anything we don’t already know.

Thanks but no thanks
 
it's one thing to be killed by your enemy, it's totally another thing to be killed by your ally. And not at one occassion but at multiple occassions, this being the most brutal one.

Regardless of what you think that Pak army's position is becoming weaker, there are reports emerging from the western media highlighting us/nato's complicit or irrisponsible role in this strike.

See iPhone, I have not ever talked about whether NATO attack was a deliberate action, or just a mistake.

I am trying to put forth a point that does not go along with the sentiments of the majority in here.

Having cleared that, I want you to consider this: In what war, have there not been casualties resulting from friendly fires?

The NATO may be complicit, may be incompetent, irresponsible, or anything you say. But tell me honestly, have we seen the Army taking actions of similar magnitude against the terrorists, apart from relying mostly on drone attacks?

The Taliban regime was not brought down by drones, or incessant bombings. The Taliban regime fell flat right after the fuel supply to Afghanistan was blocked from Pakistani side.

Pakistan is making exactly the same move against NATO forces. It has not only blocked the NATO supplies, but has also blocked the commercial fuel supply to Afghanistan, lest the NATO shall buy any fuel from within Afghanistan.

Such ingenious, and courageous actions on part of the Army were not to be seen throughout the years of WoT.

Who do you think needed continuous supply of fuel and fertilizers in the FATA area more, the general public living on bare necessities, or the full-tank Prado driving extremist Mullahs and their fertilizer laden buildings housed with their bomb engineers?

I am just making a comparison here ya know, between the actions of the Army against enemies of Pakistan in the past, and actions of the Army against the enemies of Pakistan at present.

The seriousness shown by the Army at this hour, was nowhere to be seen in the past when the toll was much, much higher.
 
lol kayani’s Cigars Dried UP ????

Pakistanis burn American flags while America burns the country of Pakistan.

Peace
 
In case of the British attack the A-10s attacked in broad daylight, thus ground forces could easily identify it was their own jet which is attacking them, thus no need to fire back.

And our case is different, we have been attacked before also many times, with no successful outcome of any investigation.

And first attack can be termed mistake, but the second one with full might even when situation had been clearly communicated is hard to understand.

May be the second attack was a result of Pakistani retaliation. Since in most truly blue on blue incidents, the receiver of friendly fire doesnt hit back..
 
Some facts about the TTP Taliban, & why they split up (most of it had to do with the work of the ISI in creating splits & divisions between the TTP, & very little had to do with drones. After the excellent work done by the ISI, it's become 'easy pickings' for the Army, which is why they haven't had to hit as 'hard' as they can & are capable of):

The drone strikes have taken place mostly in North Waziristan & South Waziristan. Mullah Nazir of the TTP was in South Waziristan, the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group of the TTP in North Waziristan, the Mehsud group of the TTP in North Waziristan (& also some in South Waziristan & Orakzai Agency), & the Haqqani group in North Waziristan & Kurram Agency. Mullah Nazir & Hafiz Gul Bahadur split from the Mehsud group TTP. The Mehsud group in North Waziristan was the only main threat to the Pakistan Army. In other words, the only drone strike that helped Pakistan was the one that killed Baitullah Mehsud.

However, the biggest threat to Pakistan came from the Malakand, Mohmand, Bajaur, Dir (corresponding to the Kunar & Nuristan provinces of Afghanistan). Mullah Fazlullah (working in collusion with the dead Sufi Mohammad of the TSNM) has his strongholds in Kunar after being driven out by the Pakistan Army after being driven out of the Swat & Malakand regions of Pakistan. Qari Zia Rehman was a threat to Pakistan's Bajaur region, & it is not clear whether he got killed by the Pakistan Army, or by something else. Maulvi Faqir Muhammad & Omar Khalid were a threat to the Mohmand region of Pakistan. Notice that none of these regions have drone strikes going on, & it is the efforts of the Pakistan Army that has resulted in the weakening of the TTP. Even more than the Pakistan Army, it is the efforts of the ISI that have caused splits & divides in the TTP. As the territory held by terrorists diminishes, there are clashes & conflicts between various terrorist groups (a few days ago, between the Afridi Taliban group & the Lashkr-e-Islam Mangal Bagh group in the Tirah Valley, Khyber Agency).
 
Back
Top Bottom