Indians To Deploy Apaches on Pakistan Border

[Foxtrot Delta]

About time some weatern weapons came against us. Will force us to think link israeliz and british

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

That’s why I think PAF needs to Improve JF 17 into true 4+ Gen fighter and than start pumping affordable JF-17 to 2x to 3x Current numbers.

supplement it with stealth fighter in near future, for turn Air dominance.

The best thing about the Indian strategists and leadership is they never fail to back down after a couple of initial losses!!! A downed fighter jet is equivalent to the downing of their entire fleet...

 

[Mav3rick]

View attachment 599251

its painful to read, but Apaches picked pakistani troops in salala like animals ..

I recall that those posts were without MANPADS, understandably so, as threat was from ground forces of TTP and/or Afghan forces; not US Air Force!!

Immediately after the Salala incident, most of the posts were armed with ANZA MANPADS with permission to engage hostile Air Forces.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Shame it didnot crash, better luck next time IAF, we all believe it is in you to crash this bird!

 

[graphican]

didn't hillary clinton apologize for that attack ?

No.

 

[Hallian_Khan]

View attachment 624450

will we return the chopper?

 

[nahtanbob]

No.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/...s-afghan-routes-to-nato-after-us-apology.html

By Eric Schmitt
July 3, 2012

WASHINGTON — Pakistan told the United States that it would reopen NATO’s supply routes into neighboring Afghanistan after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was sorry for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers in American airstrikes in November, officials from the two countries said Tuesday.

The agreement ended a bitter seven-month stalemate that threatened to jeopardize counterterrorism cooperation, complicated the American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and cost the United States more than $1 billion in extra shipping fees as a result of having to use an alternative route through Central Asia.

Mrs. Clinton said that in a telephone call on Tuesday morning to Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, they had agreed that both sides made mistakes that led to the fatal airstrikes.

“We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement that the State Department issued but that officials said had been coordinated with her Pakistani counterpart. “We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.”


The accord came together on Monday in Islamabad after weeks of behind-the-scenes phone calls, e-mails and meetings between one of Mrs. Clinton’s deputies, Thomas R. Nides, and a top Pakistani diplomat, American and Pakistani officials said. The agreement reflected a growing realization by Pakistani officials that they had overplayed their hand, misjudging NATO’s resolve, and a recognition on both sides that the impasse risked transforming an often rocky relationship into a permanently toxic one at a critically inopportune time.

Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, working closely with senior White House and Pentagon officials, carefully calibrated what she would say in her phone call to Ms. Khar to avoid an explicit mention of what one top State Department official called “the A-word” — “apology.” Instead, Mrs. Clinton opted for the softer “sorry” to meet Pakistan’s longstanding demand for a more formal apology for the airstrikes.

Still, the deal carries risks for both governments. Critics of Pakistan’s weak civilian leadership assailed the accord as a sellout to the United States, and it offers potential fodder for Republicans who contend that President Obama says “sorry” too readily.

“The apology will lower the temperature on U.S.-Pakistan relations,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a South Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group who served as the director for Pakistan and Afghanistan at the National Security Council. “However, relations are not on the mend. They remain very much broken and will remain so unless the two countries resolve broader policy differences on Afghanistan.”

As part of the agreement, Pakistan dropped its insistence on a higher transit fee for each truck carrying NATO’s nonlethal supplies from Pakistan into Afghanistan, after initially demanding as much as $5,000 for each truck.

weighing an apology when Afghan insurgents hit multiple targets in simultaneous attacks on Kabul in April, officials said. American military officials quickly linked the attacks to the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction that operates out of Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. The apology would wait.

In May, days before a NATO summit meeting in Chicago, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan earned a last-minute invitation to the talks when it looked as if a deal to reopen the supply lines might be at hand. But no deal materialized.

former executive at Morgan Stanley, and Mr. Shaikh hit it off, and began swapping e-mails and phone calls to work out a political deal.

At the same time, according to officials, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani army chief of staff, was pressing his government to resolve the issue, which had put Pakistan at odds with the more than 40 countries with troops in Afghanistan whose supplies were affected.



Pakistani officials said they had misjudged NATO’s ability to adapt to the closing and use an alternative route through Central Asia. That rerouting carried a high price: Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said it was costing up to an extra $100 million a month.

Last weekend, Mrs. Clinton telephoned her congratulations to Pakistan’s new prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf. But it was Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly cordial relationship with the young Pakistani foreign minister, Ms. Khar, 34, that paid dividends in resolving the dispute, American officials said.

Several weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton began working on drafts of the statement she released on Tuesday, and at one point began discussing the language with Ms. Khar, a person with knowledge about the process said. “This was jointly done,” said the person, who, like half a dozen other officials from both countries, spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic protocols.

Also over the weekend, Mr. Nides arrived in Islamabad, joined by Gen. John R. Allen, the American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and James N. Miller, the Pentagon’s top policy official, for meetings with their Pakistani counterparts. On Monday, they put the finishing touches on the agreement. “The Nides visit this past weekend pushed it over the line,” one senior American official said.


In Pakistan on Tuesday, the decision to reopen the supply routes was met with a general sense of befuddlement and muted criticism that the government had given up a much-trumpeted increase in transit fees for NATO trucks.

But government officials were at pains to claim that the accord had never hinged on higher fees. “I am glad that this breakthrough is not part of any transaction,” said Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States. “We are playing our role as responsible global partner in stabilizing the region.”

Still, opposition politicians criticized the move and demanded more of an explanation from the Pakistani government and military.

“Now government should let the people know about the terms and conditions for reopening the NATO supply lines. What were the demands?” said Shah Mehmood Qureshi, a former foreign minister and leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, a popular opposition political party led by the former cricket star Imran Khan.

Enver Baig, an opposition politician belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, referring to the Americans, complained: “They did not apologize. They said ‘sorry.’ ”

Correction: July 5, 2012
An earlier version of this article erroneously summarized Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks as saying she was sorry for the airstrikes.

Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Matthew Rosenberg from Kabul, Afghanistan.

@graphican look at the bottom of the post

 

[graphican]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/...s-afghan-routes-to-nato-after-us-apology.html

By Eric Schmitt
July 3, 2012

WASHINGTON — Pakistan told the United States that it would reopen NATO’s supply routes into neighboring Afghanistan after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was sorry for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers in American airstrikes in November, officials from the two countries said Tuesday.

The agreement ended a bitter seven-month stalemate that threatened to jeopardize counterterrorism cooperation, complicated the American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and cost the United States more than $1 billion in extra shipping fees as a result of having to use an alternative route through Central Asia.

Mrs. Clinton said that in a telephone call on Tuesday morning to Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, they had agreed that both sides made mistakes that led to the fatal airstrikes.

“We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement that the State Department issued but that officials said had been coordinated with her Pakistani counterpart. “We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.”


The accord came together on Monday in Islamabad after weeks of behind-the-scenes phone calls, e-mails and meetings between one of Mrs. Clinton’s deputies, Thomas R. Nides, and a top Pakistani diplomat, American and Pakistani officials said. The agreement reflected a growing realization by Pakistani officials that they had overplayed their hand, misjudging NATO’s resolve, and a recognition on both sides that the impasse risked transforming an often rocky relationship into a permanently toxic one at a critically inopportune time.

Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, working closely with senior White House and Pentagon officials, carefully calibrated what she would say in her phone call to Ms. Khar to avoid an explicit mention of what one top State Department official called “the A-word” — “apology.” Instead, Mrs. Clinton opted for the softer “sorry” to meet Pakistan’s longstanding demand for a more formal apology for the airstrikes.

Still, the deal carries risks for both governments. Critics of Pakistan’s weak civilian leadership assailed the accord as a sellout to the United States, and it offers potential fodder for Republicans who contend that President Obama says “sorry” too readily.

“The apology will lower the temperature on U.S.-Pakistan relations,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a South Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group who served as the director for Pakistan and Afghanistan at the National Security Council. “However, relations are not on the mend. They remain very much broken and will remain so unless the two countries resolve broader policy differences on Afghanistan.”

As part of the agreement, Pakistan dropped its insistence on a higher transit fee for each truck carrying NATO’s nonlethal supplies from Pakistan into Afghanistan, after initially demanding as much as $5,000 for each truck.

weighing an apology when Afghan insurgents hit multiple targets in simultaneous attacks on Kabul in April, officials said. American military officials quickly linked the attacks to the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction that operates out of Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. The apology would wait.

In May, days before a NATO summit meeting in Chicago, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan earned a last-minute invitation to the talks when it looked as if a deal to reopen the supply lines might be at hand. But no deal materialized.

former executive at Morgan Stanley, and Mr. Shaikh hit it off, and began swapping e-mails and phone calls to work out a political deal.

At the same time, according to officials, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani army chief of staff, was pressing his government to resolve the issue, which had put Pakistan at odds with the more than 40 countries with troops in Afghanistan whose supplies were affected.



Pakistani officials said they had misjudged NATO’s ability to adapt to the closing and use an alternative route through Central Asia. That rerouting carried a high price: Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said it was costing up to an extra $100 million a month.

Last weekend, Mrs. Clinton telephoned her congratulations to Pakistan’s new prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf. But it was Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly cordial relationship with the young Pakistani foreign minister, Ms. Khar, 34, that paid dividends in resolving the dispute, American officials said.

Several weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton began working on drafts of the statement she released on Tuesday, and at one point began discussing the language with Ms. Khar, a person with knowledge about the process said. “This was jointly done,” said the person, who, like half a dozen other officials from both countries, spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic protocols.

Also over the weekend, Mr. Nides arrived in Islamabad, joined by Gen. John R. Allen, the American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and James N. Miller, the Pentagon’s top policy official, for meetings with their Pakistani counterparts. On Monday, they put the finishing touches on the agreement. “The Nides visit this past weekend pushed it over the line,” one senior American official said.


In Pakistan on Tuesday, the decision to reopen the supply routes was met with a general sense of befuddlement and muted criticism that the government had given up a much-trumpeted increase in transit fees for NATO trucks.

But government officials were at pains to claim that the accord had never hinged on higher fees. “I am glad that this breakthrough is not part of any transaction,” said Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States. “We are playing our role as responsible global partner in stabilizing the region.”

Still, opposition politicians criticized the move and demanded more of an explanation from the Pakistani government and military.

“Now government should let the people know about the terms and conditions for reopening the NATO supply lines. What were the demands?” said Shah Mehmood Qureshi, a former foreign minister and leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, a popular opposition political party led by the former cricket star Imran Khan.

Enver Baig, an opposition politician belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, referring to the Americans, complained: “They did not apologize. They said ‘sorry.’ ”

Correction: July 5, 2012
An earlier version of this article erroneously summarized Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks as saying she was sorry for the airstrikes.

Salman Masood contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Matthew Rosenberg from Kabul, Afghanistan.

@graphican look at the bottom of the post

Good, I never found these words - or that you take these words so powerful to compensate for the loss of 40 soldiers you killed deliberately. Let the world put this back on you, kill 40 American soldiers and say "Ops! We are sorry, we are committed to working closely with Americans".?

Can you kill 40 sheep and say "Ops" and get away with it? Can you kill 40 cats and say "Ops" and get away with it? LOL.

There are ways to be sorry, a sorry which is public in a video addressed to people of Paksitan, by reaching out to families of soldiers you killed. You announce what measures you have taken to prevent such insanity in the future and what would you do to those American people who deliberately did so. Does that make scenes?

Or are you thinking "Oh no Pakistanis, you are not that important actually, we do not need to put this much to say sorry for killing 40 of your soldiers"? If this is your sorry, I am sorry we have not taken it.

 

[nahtanbob]

Good, I never found these words - or that you take these words so powerful to compensate for the loss of 40 soldiers you killed deliberately. Let the world put this back on you, kill 40 American soldiers and say "Ops! We are sorry, we are committed to working closely with Americans".?

Can you kill 40 sheep and say "Ops" and get away with it? Can you kill 40 cats and say "Ops" and get away with it? LOL.

There are ways to be sorry, a sorry which is public in a video addressed to people of Paksitan, by reaching out to families of soldiers you killed. You announce what measures you have taken to prevent such insanity in the future and what would you do to those American people who deliberately did so. Does that make scenes?

Or are you thinking "Oh no Pakistanis, you are not that important actually, we do not need to put this much to say sorry for killing 40 of your soldiers"? If this is your sorry, I am sorry we have not taken it.

I do not mean to be rude. I thought she apologized and Pakistani government allowed the convoy traffic to be resume. If you are skimming the headlines that is the impression you get

 

[graphican]

I do not mean to be rude. I thought she apologized and Pakistani government allowed the convoy traffic to be resume. If you are skimming the headlines that is the impression you get

So the answer to your asking is No. America has not yet apologized to Paksitan for killing 40 soldiers in a deliberate act.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Lol again no source no data just your personal opinion... Su-30 is much better Air Superiority fighter than F-16 BLK 52... proven again and again in numerous exercises with much better equipped Air Forces than PAF

And what about in 27/2/2019 they are only for to dodge AMRAAM, and not for destroying enemy

 

[nahtanbob]

So the answer to your asking is No. America has not yet apologized to Paksitan for killing 40 soldiers in a deliberate act.

NY Times article makes it sound like she apologized

 

[graphican]

NY Times article makes it sound like she apologized

By murmuring in your newspaper this is not how you apologize to another Nation, and surely "apology" is not a word mentioned anywhere. If this is what you call an apology, it neither reached Pakistan nor it accepted it. Pakistan would have opened the supply route as strategy expecting positive future outcome - but not because it accepted an apology or forgave USA.

Some revenge a state takes against the other are silent and deep, and I believe USA has paid a good price for its crimes against the state of Pakistan - yet it is thankful and still dependent on its cooperation in Afghanistan.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

With time the need need and relevance for Pakistan to have it's own helicopter family program whether it be with Turks, Russian, Italians, Airbus or Chinese. We need it and we need it now.

 

[nahtanbob]

By murmuring in your newspaper this is not how you apologize to another Nation, and surely "apology" is not a word mentioned anywhere. If this is what you call an apology, it neither reached Pakistan nor it accepted it. Pakistan would have opened the supply route as strategy expecting positive future outcome - but not because it accepted an apology or forgave USA.

Some revenge a state takes against the other are silent and deep, and I believe USA has paid a good price for its crimes against the state of Pakistan - yet it is thankful and still dependent on its cooperation in Afghanistan.

The newspaper states Hillary offered apology to the counterpart in the Pakistani government
"Mrs. Clinton said that in a telephone call on Tuesday morning to Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, they had agreed that both sides made mistakes that led to the fatal airstrikes."