Many Haqqani Commanders Killed in NW OPS - Pak Army

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

... Briefing reporters from both national and international media at the army headquarters in Mir Ali, North Waziristan on Saturday, Major General Zafarullah Khan Khattak termed the report “baseless, malicious, demoralising and contrary to ground realities”.

“There is no such thing [happening here as is] mentioned in the Pentagon report. Pakistan army is not using militants anywhere for so called proxy wars,” said the senior army officer.

Khattak said that army operation, Zarb-i-Azb was being carried out against all militants group – including the Haqqani network – and that a number of militant commanders belonging to the militant outfit have also been killed in the offensive.

He said that commanders of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a militant organisation working against China, have also been killed and the network destroyed in the operation in North Waziristan.
...
Army snubs ‘malicious’ Pentagon report on Pakistan - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

 

[VCheng]

“There is no such thing [happening here as is] mentioned in the Pentagon report. Pakistan army is not using militants anywhere for so called proxy wars,” said the senior army officer.

Right. We believe you, Sir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

“There is no such thing [happening here as is] mentioned in the Pentagon report. Pakistan army is not using militants anywhere for so called proxy wars,” said the senior army officer.

Right. We believe you, Sir.

The statement was made in the present tense, and I don't see any evidence to support allegations to the contrary, in the present ...

 

[Winchester]

“There is no such thing [happening here as is] mentioned in the Pentagon report. Pakistan army is not using militants anywhere for so called proxy wars,” said the senior army officer.

Right. We believe you, Sir.

Who is the WE here ???

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Who is the WE here ???

People who can't really explain their point of view, but love to throw out random one liners ...

 

[VCheng]

Who is the WE here ???

"We" in this context means all those regard such ISPR denials as being credible.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"We" in this context means all those regard such ISPR denials as being credible.

The statement was made by the military commander responsible for the North Waziristan Operations, not the ISPR.

Unsubstantiated skepticism (such as yours) on the part of commentators who cannot get the basic facts straight does not carry much credibility.

 

[halupridol]

People who can't really explain their point of view, but love to throw out random one liners ...

or maybe ppl who r just not gullible enough to digest this

 

[VCheng]

or maybe ppl who r just not gullible enough to digest this

Oh no, you see a military commander in the field planting a calculated statement as a belated reaction is SO much more believable than being directly from ISPR. I mean, come on, let us not be so cynical due to the past record. This time it must be true.

I, for one, totally believe it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

or maybe ppl who r just not gullible enough to digest this

Which would imply that such people have credible facts and evidence to discredit the statements made by the General - still waiting to see those credible facts and evidence ...

 

[VCheng]

Oh, and what the Pentagon Report says is totally devoid of credible facts and evidence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh no, you see a military commander in the field planting a calculated statement as a belated reaction is SO much more believable than being directly from ISPR. I mean, come on, let us not be so cynical due to the past record. This time it must be true.

I, for one, totally believe it.

What time frame constitutes a "belated" reaction? It's just been a few days since the Pentagon report came out, no? Or did you just feel like throwing that word in there to compensate for your inability to actually provide facts and evidence to support your claims?

And yes, a "military commander in the field" responsible for leading military operations is precisely the person who would have the most credibility in highlighting the casualties inflicted upon various groups that are the target of those military operations. And his claims appear to be supported by yet another "military commander in the field", his American counterpart in Afghanistan who is also combating the same group the Pakistani military commander has claimed to have inflicted casualties upon:

Lt. Gen. Joseph Anderson, a senior commander for US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, noted in a Pentagon-hosted video briefing from Afghanistan on Wednesday that the Haqqani network is now "fractured" like the Taliban.

“They are fractured. They are fractured like the Taliban is. That's based pretty much on the Pakistan [operations] in North Waziristan this entire summer-fall,” he said, acknowledging the effectiveness of Pakistan's continuing military offensive, Zarb-i-Azb.

“That has very much disrupted their efforts [in Afghanistan] and has caused them to be less effective in terms of their ability to pull off an attack in Kabul,” Anderson added.
Operation Zarb-i-Azb disrupted Haqqani network: US general - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

 

[SQ8]

Oh, and what the Pentagon Report says is totally devoid of credible facts and evidence.

These are facts based on what the Pentagon records from intelligence provided to it by its own and more importantly Afghan sources from the AFGHAN side of the border. Of which only the direct troop and SOCOM reports may be deemed reliable. An Afghan commander who sells herion part time is not a reliable source. The last Pentagon reliance on its intelligence led to the death of a general within a secure camp.. that track record makes me doubtful of what intelligence it has on the ground in Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh, and what the Pentagon Report says is totally devoid of credible facts and evidence.

Considering the Pentagon/CIA's role in directly/indirectly bolstering ISIS, their intelligence flop on WMD's in Iraq, and the statement of their own Military Commander in Afghanistan (quoted in my post earlier), yes, we should treat is devoid of credibility unless the "facts and evidence" it used can be reviewed and analyzed.

 

[VCheng]

These are facts based on what the Pentagon records from intelligence provided to it by its own and more importantly Afghan sources from the AFGHAN side of the border. Of which only the direct troop and SOCOM reports may be deemed reliable. An Afghan commander who sells herion part time is not a reliable source. The last Pentagon reliance on its intelligence led to the death of a general within a secure camp.. that track record makes me doubtful of what intelligence it has on the ground in Afghanistan.

So what the Pentagon Report says about Pakistan is incorrect because the information came from afghan heroin dealers? Or is it because ISI remains one of the many foreign spy agencies with their fingers in the dusty pie called Afghanistan?