What's new

Pak Army ordered to open fire if the US raids!

Ok Mr Batman please tell me where your fuel will come from when the so called war with US starts. Please remember there is difference between fuel and black gold.

Regards

Dear Always Neutral, sir
Sory, to intrup your interaction with hounrble ELITE BATMAN, simple answer to your question is IRAN. i am sure, if our president, ASIF(ghad-dari) any how, tries to have good talks with iraninans, they willbe 1000% backing pakistan's position, because they understand it better, what ever ALLIES were trying to get, by attacking pakistan has very much to do with IRAN too.:enjoy:
Yes you are right , that SAUDI ARABIA wouldbe fully backing up the allies, but its the time to tell these saudi's that they had to play a role for the muslims of the world, and they have to come out of thier selfish charcter.:angry::agree::tup:

Regards
 
.
Dear Always Neutral, sir
Sory, to intrup your interaction with hounrble ELITE BATMAN, simple answer to your question is IRAN. i am sure, if our president, ASIF(ghad-dari) any how, tries to have good talks with iraninans, they willbe 1000% backing pakistan's position, because they understand it better, what ever ALLIES were trying to get, by attacking pakistan has very much to do with IRAN too.:enjoy:
Yes you are right , that SAUDI ARABIA wouldbe fully backing up the allies, but its the time to tell these saudi's that they had to play a role for the muslims of the world, and they have to come out of thier selfish charcter.:angry::agree::tup:

Regards

Dear Batmannow,

How wrong you are. While the Iranians maybe tempted to help covertly they will not help openly.

Also poor Iran has no export capacity for fuels and only can export crude oil.

Regards
 
.

ISLAMABAD, Sept 16: The army has ordered its forces to fire on US troops if they carry out another raid from across the Afghan border.

An army spokesman said on Tuesday that field commanders had been asked to prevent any further raid after US helicopters recently ferried troops into the South Waziristan tribal region.

ISPR director-general Maj-Gen Athar Abbas was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: “The orders are clear.”

He said: “In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire.”

But talking to Dawn, Maj-Gen Abbas downplayed the report and said there was nothing new about it. “Our policy is that we reserve the right to defend our soldiers and people against any incursion from across the border.”

He said he had been quoted out of context by the AP. He said he had been asked how would Pakistan retaliate. The answer was that it would be done by engaging those who violated the sovereignty of the country.

He said that the engagement would mean opening fire if a similar raid was carried out.

When asked if the retaliation did not mean opening fire, he said that would depend on the situation, adding that a decision would have to be taken by the respective commanders. Although the prime minister and the army chief have been saying that the government and the army had similar position on the question of foreign incursions, observers point out dissimilarities in their stance. While the army chief rejected the US claim that it had the right to conduct raids inside Pakistan and declared that no more incursions would be allowed in future, the prime minister said the issue would be resolved through diplomatic channels and stressed that Pakistan could not afford a war with the United States.

According to the AP report, the orders to retaliate, which came in the wake of an unusual Sept 3 ground attack by US commandos in Waziristan, are certain to heighten tensions between the US and its key ally in war against terrorism.

Although the ground attack was rare, there have been repeated reports of US drone aircraft striking militant targets inside Pakistan.

Pakistani officials warn that stepped-up cross-border raids will not help and fuel militancy in the region. Some complain that the country is a scapegoat for the failure to stabilise Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s new civilian leaders, who have taken a hard line against militants since forcing Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf to resign as president last month, have insisted that Pakistan must resolve the dispute with Washington through diplomatic channels.

Maj-Gen Abbas, according to the AP report, said that Pakistan’s military had asked for an explanation about the Sept 3 incursion but received only a ‘half page’ of ‘very vague’ information that failed to identify the intended target.

Officials said the raid had killed about 15 people. Maj-Gen Abbas said they all appeared to be civilians. “These were truck drivers, local traders and their families.”

He did not say when the orders to fire on US troops were issued. He also did not say whether Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani personally took the decision or it had been discussed with American officials.

The ISPR spokesman also played down suggestions that the instructions had been put into
 
.
He said he had been asked how would Pakistan retaliate. The answer was that it would be done by engaging those who violated the sovereignty of the country.

He said that the engagement would mean opening fire if a similar raid was carried out.

I think he just reiterated what he said before.
Although the prime minister and the army chief have been saying that the government and the army had similar position on the question of foreign incursions, observers point out dissimilarities in their stance. While the army chief rejected the US claim that it had the right to conduct raids inside Pakistan and declared that no more incursions would be allowed in future, the prime minister said the issue would be resolved through diplomatic channels and stressed that Pakistan could not afford a war with the United States.

I disagree that there is a dichotomy in the two positions.

It is not the Army's job to conduct diplomacy, so that would obviously fall on the shoulders of the GoP.

The Army merely stated what its reaction would be in case of another raid, which does not mean that it wishes to start a war with the US or end cooperation. It is the job of the GoP to diplomatically ensure that such a situation does not come to pass.
 
.
I think he just reiterated what he said before.


I disagree that there is a dichotomy in the two positions.

It is not the Army's job to conduct diplomacy, so that would obviously fall on the shoulders of the GoP.

The Army merely stated what its reaction would be in case of another raid, which does not mean that it wishes to start a war with the US or end cooperation. It is the job of the GoP to diplomatically ensure that such a situation does not come to pass.

Exactly! Army should not be taken out of the context. They are soliders and are ready to stand up once the nation calls for them too, its the job of the GOP and the US government to ensure that things do not turn to be in the direction they were a few days back. Stakes were too high and any thing could have been possible, a single bullet fired would have triggered a war.
But i dont think the clouds of war are yet over, if any one has read Obama remarks over it, he said he supported Bush in his decision to carry out raids inside Pakistan. Time is running out and he will be in the white house, then what? We do need to prepare ourself for the unseen.
 
.
It is not the Army's job to conduct diplomacy, so that would obviously fall on the shoulders of the GoP.

The Army merely stated what its reaction would be in case of another raid, which does not mean that it wishes to start a war with the US or end cooperation. It is the job of the GoP to diplomatically ensure that such a situation does not come to pass.

That doesn't really make sense Agno. That simply means that the army will conduct its actions independently and the GoP will try to tiptoe around them and/or clean up the mess.
 
.
That doesn't really make sense Agno. That simply means that the army will conduct its actions independently and the GoP will try to tiptoe around them and/or clean up the mess.

The way I read it - a 'cost' for US violations had to be presented. Call it a bluff if you will, but by stating that incursions would be resisted militarily, Pakistan initiated a mini-crisis that forced diplomacy to be resorted to.

Had the PA not done so, no one would have cared, and things would have continued as they were. It is precisely because the situation was escalating that Adm. Mullen rushed to Islamabad, and other meetings with world leaders were arranged, and diplomacy got a chance to work - though how long and how good the results, remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
.
No Batman,

I am talking on taking on the United States when Pakistan is already so dependant on them and the most unreliable Ummah.

Regards
Hey man!
U people cannot even win a war in afghanistan where according to NATO 50-70% area is out of their control.
Have you succeded in Iraq? I hear you yelling to be pulled out of there.
Is somebody blasting yor *** off?
Shame on you.Biased u people were and biased u r.
 
.
There's a difference.

We're not taking on the United States, rather they are jumping about in our business.

The attitude in Pakistan is, "They are going to keep killing us anyway, might as well take plenty down with us".

If it ever comes down to losing a war to an American invasion, nukes would be flying around much sooner. Sure that would invite the wrath of America, but whats the difference at that point?

Pakistan has a publicly stated first use policy. Just like the United States.

Very frank words, but this is the real picture, indeed. :agree:
War among Pakistan and US will not be limited due to the fact that both posses nuclear weapons and would never like to give each other the luxury of first strike, especially when they have clear cut policy of first strike.
It is useless to go into the fine details.
Let’s assume a situation if Pakistani missiles or mirages carrying nuke are intercepted over gulf or miss their target few hundred meters! Does this help our technologically advance adversary?
World economy will come to a standstill with no oil. Not because oil would be dried out, but because no one will be willing to travel to this region. May be some low cast would be lured in but first they would need educationa to develop the know how to run complex show.
I wonder what Russia, China and EU will do with US after the dust settels!
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom