Nato lifting security checkpoints to allow a flood of militants into Bajaur?

[mjnaushad]

Another angle to this, since you are not helping us (NATO) getting AT in NW. Why should we help you.

Yes we are not helping...It was aliens who captured top Taliban and Al-qaeda leaders. Its not an angle of thinking its stupid mindset. When we arrest a guy with a sword in Gilgit this mindset publish an article that that single guy on hunt for Osama might be close thats why we arrest him.

Pakistan is helping NATO more than NATO itself....

 

[jahangeer yousaf]

Another angle to this, since you are not helping us (NATO) getting AT in NW. Why should we help you.

excuse me will you consider your words again .......... even nato should re-thinking if they are thinking in a way you are thinking .........

 

[Hulk]

That is a matter of debate. Every single drop of water Nato soldiers drink, they have to thank Pakistan first.

The H2O running in their bodies is thanks to Pakistan. 70% of their body exists because of Pakistan . So Nato has to think, when we stop helping them, what will happen.

Last I read their non leathal supplies coming from Pakistan is reduced from 80% to 40% another 20% gone and you will be non player.

 

[Hulk]

Bull crap. It will hurt their war more than us.


We also have no responsibility to stop anyone from crossing into Afghanistan. Manning the other side of the border is responsibility of US/NATO invaders currently not ours.

@Jana and others, understand this that I am not putting my personal opinion but what they might think.

It is not about right and wrong, it is more about who is more powerful and who can do what. If you open the checkpoints they will get what they are looking for excuse to attack Pakistan on the basis of supporting terrorist.

I know you can say the same thing for them but can you attack NATO?

There is a general feeling that most of the Taliban belonging to Haqqani are still untouched. So from that angle you are not helping them and they have to get this done either you help them or not.

Could be another pressure building technique by them.

 

[mjnaushad]

@Jana and others, understand this that I am not putting my personal opinion but what they might think.

It is not about right and wrong, it is more about who is more powerful and who can do what. If you open the checkpoints they will get what they are looking for excuse to attack Pakistan on the basis of supporting terrorist.

I know you can say the same thing for them but can you attack NATO?

There is a general feeling that most of the Taliban belonging to Haqqani are still untouched. So from that angle you are not helping them and they have to get this done either you help them or not.

Could be another pressure building technique by them.

You are not putting your personal opinion but what they might think....Isn't that mean you are putting your personal opinion as you are putting your own 'Might Think' Here....

2ndly. Aren't NATO,US and India blaming us for supporting terrorism from last 8 years. So whats the big deal now??? If they wanted to attack they would have done it long ago. But they know the consequences.

 

[Awesome]

Last I read their non leathal supplies coming from Pakistan is reduced from 80% to 40% another 20% gone and you will be non player.

Hmmm according to the reports all the Petrol and Oil flows through Pakistan.

I'm all in favor of reducing their dependency on us. Supplying the US makes us a target for the hometown terrorists.

What does Non-lethal mean anyway?

 

[karan.1970]

You are not putting your personal opinion but what they might think....Isn't that mean you are putting your personal opinion as you are putting your own 'Might Think' Here....

2ndly. Aren't NATO,US and India blaming us for supporting terrorism from last 8 years. So whats the big deal now??? If they wanted to attack they would have done it long ago. But they know the consequences.

Have you seen what has happened to Pakistan, its economy and its security in last 8 years. ? Is that the road you want Pakistan to keep traveling.?

 

[Awesome]

I think if the US and Pakistan both went to "We'll manage our own militants and whoever crosses the borders is the responsibility of the country where they are crossing into" the only beneficiary of this would be the Taliban.

The interesting thing about this is, that Nato built posts close to the Pakistan border for the Taliban and then left it so that they can come in, plan their offensive and be able to resist any attack on them.

It was a very pro-terrorism, overt move on the part of Nato.

 

[Areesh]

That is a matter of debate. Every single drop of water Nato soldiers drink, they have to thank Pakistan first.

The H2O running in their bodies is thanks to Pakistan. 70% of their body exists because of Pakistan . So Nato has to think, when we stop helping them, what will happen.

Hahaha. Nice post Asim.

 

[Indian9]

Clearly, NATO is showing who's really the boss here. Plain as pikestaff.

 

[Hulk]

Hmmm according to the reports all the Petrol and Oil flows through Pakistan.

I'm all in favor of reducing their dependency on us. Supplying the US makes us a target for the hometown terrorists.

What does Non-lethal mean anyway?

I read this on various news when Pakistan blocked the supply. Non leathal should be water, food etc.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Clearly, NATO is showing who's really the boss here. Plain as pikestaff.

Yep! they are, but if we had a good leader instead of these spineless democratic thugs, we could easily choke their supply and then we'll see who's boss.

 

[karan.1970]

Yep! they are, but if we had a good leader instead of these spineless democratic thugs, we could easily choke their supply and then we'll see who's boss.

Guys, its simple. All Pakistan can do is dramatically reduce NATO's ability to launch offensives etc. The absolute essential supplies will still make it thru the other routes and air transport. So its not that with Pakistan route gone, the NATO soldiers will become defenceless in Afghanistan. Its just that the cost of supply will go up.

And NATO just showed you that if their capability is curtailed, they will first cut out the positions that help Pakistan as well. And the result is pretty visible...

 

[prototype]

You are not putting your personal opinion but what they might think....Isn't that mean you are putting your personal opinion as you are putting your own 'Might Think' Here....

2ndly. Aren't NATO,US and India blaming us for supporting terrorism from last 8 years. So whats the big deal now??? If they wanted to attack they would have done it long ago. But they know the consequences.

Put ur nationalism aside and think what can b the possible consequences if u went to a confrontation with NATO

u cant match weapon to weapon even with India and suddenly u people here r talking about teaching NATO a lesson,how

By blocking their supplies,what if eventually they leave Afghan and then turn towards u,then how will u make them pay

how in case of a military conflict,u think u can make them run,non of ur missiles cant even reach Deigo Garcia,leave their mainland

They dont even need to fire a single bullet on u,what if they block all ur supplies,how much capable is ur navy to confront them in such a situation

And finally ur economy is to much dependent on their money,here itself u loose against them

Currently their is no country in the world who can withstand the American might,and u r talking about the entire NATO

 

[Jungibaaz]

Guys, its simple. All Pakistan can do is dramatically reduce NATO's ability to launch offensives etc. The absolute essential supplies will still make it thru the other routes and air transport. So its not that with Pakistan route gone, the NATO soldiers will become defenceless in Afghanistan. Its just that the cost of supply will go up.

And NATO just showed you that if their capability is curtailed, they will first cut out the positions that help Pakistan as well. And the result is pretty visible...

only so many supplies can be brought in by air...land is the easier more sensible option. because other routes are impossible; Iran, Russia, former soviet states.