Pakistan rejects Panetta's comments on militant safe havens

[Mav3rick]

Obviously you do not believe that, you are a Pakistani citizen who is proud of his/her country and thinks it is beneath him/her that the state would do such a thing. However, it is a known secret that Pakistan has funded many attacks on Indian soil. We are confident of our military which has proved its worth in all the wars we have fought. The decision not to attack was not the army's my dear it was a political decision. We do not have a system where a attack on a country is planned without even the civil establishment knowing about it.

About the reasons, they have been discussed to death on this forum, please be more generous and read the forums and come back.. im not going to repeat each and everything thing to you.. you can read, write and understand English as you stated so you can search too.. Thank you!

My apologies for presuming that you were a supporter of terrorism, I take back my insult.

Since I did not really read any insults, I do not care.

But do you think that a decision to go to war or not to go to war is purely political and that the military has no say in int? Do you really believe that your country amassed hundreds of thousands of troops at our border armed with tanks/APC's/Artillery & related heavy equipment along with Air Force at forward bases and Navy just outside our coast to be just for political reasons? If you really believe that then you seriously need to find out the reasons for the 'Cold Start' doctrine that had to be invented by your military.

Truth is, your military realized that with the slow pace of deployment they had lost any 'advantage' that they considered they had over Pakistan as deployment at our end was much quicker. At the height of tensions, your SU-30MKI's armed with BVR Missiles never dared engage PAF F-16's even though it was a common belief that PAF was not equipped with BVR.

Fact is, your political leadership and military leadership realized that they may be able to start a war and inflict massive damage on Pakistan but that retaliation would just be as massive on the Indian side as well and that India could never win a war against Pakistan. This is why you backed down after all that rhetoric, after all those demands and deadlines!

 

[SamantK]

Since I did not really read any insults, I do not care.

which I appreciate.

But do you think that a decision to go to war or not to go to war is purely political and that the military has no say in int? Do you really believe that your country amassed hundreds of thousands of troops at our border armed with tanks/APC's/Artillery & related heavy equipment along with Air Force at forward bases and Navy just outside our coast to be just for political reasons? If you really believe that then you seriously need to find out the reasons for the 'Cold Start' doctrine that had to be invented by your military.

It is purely political in Indian context, the armed forces can only decide the strategy and give inputs, the decision to go to a war is rightly with our political body.

Truth is, your military realized that with the slow pace of deployment they had lost any 'advantage' that they considered they had over Pakistan as deployment at our end was much quicker. At the height of tensions, your SU-30MKI's armed with BVR Missiles never dared engage PAF F-16's even though it was a common belief that PAF was not equipped with BVR.

Engaging PAF would mean war aren't we discussing the same point here, why that unnecessary jingoism regarding F-16s in between?

Fact is, your political leadership and military leadership realized that they may be able to start a war and inflict massive damage on Pakistan but that retaliation would just be as massive on the Indian side as well and that India could never win a war against Pakistan. This is why you backed down after all that rhetoric, after all those demands and deadlines!

That might have been so, but then again in 26/11 we were not facing the constraints which you mentioned because our armed forces learned their mistakes. We still did not go to war with you, why do you think it happened this time?

Also history is proof to the fact that even when we were attacked at a relatively weak period in 1965 we won the war and have won all the wars with Pakistan, what makes you think that even if we did it, despite the loss of element of surprise we would not be able to achieve our target if we had any other objective other than to bring attention to the world about Pakistan's misadventures?

I would like to quote a person I greatly admire if you can understand it well and good if not we should agree to disagree!

Because we are a status quo power. We do not invite trouble, we do not wage war on our neighbours. What happened in 1962 was an aberration; our political leadership believed that dealing with the Chinese was all about an extremely intellectual game of GO; they did not realize that China was prepared to go to war to enforce its boundary claims. If you look at all the armed conflict that India has been involved in other than that, you will see what I mean. The previous two incidents prior to 1962 were called police actions; nobody really wanted to be associated with anything that smacked of military belligerency.

Look at what being a pacifist power gets you. Sneers, crude, tasteless remarks about our being ruled by banias, and a whole chorus line of Pakistani (and other) fanboys doing high kicks about our not being warlike.

You know something funny?

We aren't warlike. You are. We don't plot the downfall of our neighbours; you do. We don't have funny people coming on TV explaining why a holy war against the neighbour is inevitable; you do. Our religious fanatics are people who shame and embarrass large sections of our society, sections that are committed to secularism; not for you.

That's why we didn't move in and take over the rest of Kashmir, when there were times we could have. But like those two great pacifiers, Inder Gujral and Manmohan Singh, even our most war-like Prime Minister took a chance, hoped against hope, that a magnanimous approach would bring peace.

We still try, even though we know the other side is high on macho jingoism. Just don't think we don't know.

We know, but we still want peace.

Funny lot of buggers, aren't we?

 

[Areesh]

Still you did not talk about the way America justifies and the way you do, aint it something to be though of?

Not related to the thread. Grow up please.

Yes it would not have changed anything,

This. This is the omost important point.

then why do you cry over the dead civilians and the attacks which are termed terrorists? Dont the Afghan aboriginals feel the same way when they were and are killed by Taliban?

Afghan aboriginals should have thought about this when they first started messing with Pakistan back in 1947-48. It's now our national interests that we will try to protect whether you like it or not.

US created Taliban with the help of Pakistan and both should be blamed for it, does not make it right. How convenient when at one instant you blame the US and then in their garb of negotiations accept it with joy!

US should be more blamed. We can't align ourselves completely against Taliban since we would have to live in this region even after America's withdrawal after 2014. We are working for that post 2014 scenario. US however is still confused whether Taliban are terrorists or not.

The same power which is subjugating your citizens to death and suffering has always come in between and represented your lot, otherwise there would have been a war for the blatant attacks, it is proved in our court of law that the Pakistani establishment was indeed involved in the 26/11 attacks, so did we attack you?

You failed to force a country much smaller than you. That's the ground reality. You can't try to give any spin but that's the truth.

Seeing Pakistan being more and more recognized as the exporter of terrorism hence not difficult to see that without the loss of our citizen's lives we have achieved a lot . I would call it a smart move, which you guys in your jingoistic attitude see as a cowardly move.

A I said you can give it whatever spin you like. Won't comment much over it.

Also, with you unclear nuclear arms use policy, your leadership can be as fickle as a child having a gun in his or your hand which is ready to support Taliban for having a friendly relations with a country. No sane leader will take the risk of a nuclear war with an unstable state.

Our nukes are a deterrence. You need to understand what does a deterrence means!

yes then whatever! You are content with a country coming 'inside' your borders and killing civilians and you are comparing the situation of a all out war with India, mate if there was an American F-16 bombing instead of a drone, would you not call it a war 'on' Pakistan? The terminology and technology is used to fool the citizens of Pakistan, which the Pakistani establishment laps up willingly. So much for your leadership..

Again you failed to understand what I wanted to say. It is getting boring now. Facepalm.