US Apologizes to Pakistan For Salala Attack

[W.11]

This is also US media.. stating that it was an apology...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/w...-routes-to-nato-after-us-apology.html?_r=1&hp

apology is just a mislead term there has been no word 'apology' in clinton statements

this is our media and government yelling 'apologised' thing, i have just quoted USA Today which is also a very strong source

 

[SamranAli]

What about drone attacks? One of the Pakistan major irritant with US is it going to stop?

Surprized! nothing heard about drone issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"Pakistan had refused to reopen the border absent an explicit apology from the United States. Although the State Department has long urged the use of what one official called ”the sorry word,” both the White House and the Pentagon had insisted that it was not merited because both countries were at fault in the deaths, which a U.S. military investigation said resulted from a skirmish in which the Pakistanis fired first at U.S. ground forces on the border."

Pakistan agrees to open supply lines after U.S. apology - The Washington Post

Any way you look at it (sorry vs apology), the White House and Pentagon had to back down.

 

[MM_Haider]

apology is just a mislead term there has been no word 'apology' in clinton statements

this is our media and government yelling 'apologised' thing, i have just quoted USA Today which is also a very strong source

so you are essentially saying that rothschild zionists are using media to propagate that they apologized but in fact it was sorry and (or) regret? lolzz

 

[foxbat]

"Pakistan had refused to reopen the border absent an explicit apology from the United States. Although the State Department has long urged the use of what one official called ”the sorry word,” both the White House and the Pentagon had insisted that it was not merited because both countries were at fault in the deaths, which a U.S. military investigation said resulted from a skirmish in which the Pakistanis fired first at U.S. ground forces on the border."

Pakistan agrees to open supply lines after U.S. apology - The Washington Post

Any way you look at it (sorry vs apology), the White House and Pentagon had to back down.

Has it?? Read Caine's post on page 5.. There is no apology for American actions. Only sorry for the loss.. Saying I am sorry for your loss does not mean I am apologizing for my actions that caused that loss. If you believe it still, then either you are victim or part of the spin Pakistan and USA is trying to put on this..

btw, from the same article

In a conversation Tuesday morning with Pakistan’s foreign minister, Clinton said, she again offered “our sincere condolences to the families” of 24 Pakistani soldiers who were killed in a cross-border U.S. air assault in November.

Focus on the word AGAIN offered, which means that what was offered today was no different from the what was offered earlier.

 

[W.11]

"Pakistan had refused to reopen the border absent an explicit apology from the United States. Although the State Department has long urged the use of what one official called ”the sorry word,” both the White House and the Pentagon had insisted that it was not merited because both countries were at fault in the deaths, which a U.S. military investigation said resulted from a skirmish in which the Pakistanis fired first at U.S. ground forces on the border."

Pakistan agrees to open supply lines after U.S. apology - The Washington Post

Any way you look at it (sorry vs apology), the White House and Pentagon had to back down.

its the american asumption they pakistan was at fault and not pakistan itself admits that, in any case they killed our soldiers even by mistake even then for which a definite apology is still due, if we consider the moral grounds

 

[MM_Haider]

No sister brother.

then i hope sorry is that sister which america has offered to pakistan hence america becomes pakistan's 'sala'...

 

[W.11]

so you are essentially saying that rothschild zionists are using media to propagate that they apologized but in fact it was sorry and (or) regret? lolzz

im not saying anything, read hilary's statement and you be the judge yourself if you are intelligent

 

[Imran Khan]

its the american asumption they pakistan was at fault and not pakistan itself admits that, in any case they killed our soldiers even by mistake even then for which a definite apology is still due, if we consider the moral grounds

you forget here you are dealing with a super power USA . also NATO of 34 countries . pakistan is not on that seat as china is .they are our largest trade partners arms suppliers donors and supporters in world . we have no oil like iran or less population like NK . we are not in great position now even in economics . today they said sorry accept it otherwise you have to say sorry when we will have no money and go to IMF -WB then we will do it with their terms . first make a strong economical country make good gov and better country with good voice in world politics then say whatever my brother its not good time for pak already . god know what they agreed on money TTP BLA and others its just secrets between kiyani and john .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Has it??

Yes, given the adamant refusal to use the word 'sorry' at all.

After all, this could have been done months ago if there was no distinction between the two statements.

Public perception is a very big part of the whole issue.

 

[DGMO]

Not sure how we can celebrate this as some sort of victory, as the apology is non-existent.

The U.S. is "sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military."

That is a whole lot different to:

The U.S. is "sorry for its actions which resulted in the losses suffered by the Pakistani military."

They have not apologised for their actions which led to the deaths of our soldiers.

Therefore, the title of this very thread is incorrect as they haven't apologised for the Salala attack, they have said sorry for the losses. Two totally different things.

They offered their 'regret' for the losses previously, so this new statement doesn't change a thing. If anything, it's a victory for the US and a diplomatic failure for us.

I can't see it in any other way. Others can if they want to.

 

[foxbat]

Yes, given the adamant refusal to use the word 'sorry' at all.

After all, this could have been done months ago if there was no distinction between the two statements.

Public perception is a very big part of the whole issue.

I dont see that adament refusal to use the word sorry.. It was a plain and simple refusal to apologize which means accepting full responsibility for the incident and asking for forgiveness (the base tenant of an apology). Do you really see a request for forgiveness in Clinton's statement.

Net Net you are saying that as long as Pakistani people are fooled into believing that USA has apologized, you are ok with whether they really do or not. So this basically amounts to Pakistani govt pandering to the local sentiment to save the govt and not really being upset on its army men being killed in Salala

 

[MM_Haider]

im not saying anything, read hilary's statement and you be the judge yourself if you are intelligent

the thumb rule of diplomacy is that things are to be understood as those are meant to be! not what one party understands (differently).. i hope you get it if your are wise..

 

[W.11]

Not sure how we can celebrate this as some sort of victory, as the apology is non-existent.

The U.S. is "sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military."

That is a whole lot different to:

The U.S. is "sorry for its actions which resulted in the losses suffered by the Pakistani military."

They have not apologised for their actions which led to the deaths of our soldiers.

Therefore, the title of this very thread is incorrect as they haven't apologised for the Salala attack, they have said sorry for the losses. Two totally different things.

They offered their 'regret' for the losses previously, so this new statement doesn't change a thing. If anything, it's a victory for the US and a diplomatic failure for us.

I can't see it in any other way. Others can if they want to.

sor·ry/ˈsärē/
Adjective:
Feeling distress, esp. through sympathy with someone else's misfortune.
Filled with compassion for.
Synonyms:
sad - sorrowful - miserable - rueful - woeful

 

[foxbat]

Not sure how we can celebrate this as some sort of victory, as the apology is non-existent.

The U.S. is "sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military."

That is a whole lot different to:

The U.S. is "sorry for its actions which resulted in the losses suffered by the Pakistani military."

They have not apologised for their actions which led to the deaths of our soldiers.

Therefore, the title of this very thread is incorrect as they haven't apologised for the Salala attack, they have said sorry for the losses. Two totally different things.

They offered their 'regret' for the losses previously, so this new statement doesn't change a thing. If anything, it's a victory for the US and a diplomatic failure for us.

I can't see it in any other way. Others can if they want to.

Thank You.. I was sure there will be atleast some Pakistanis who can read this statement in context and not just latch on to the buzz words. I am surprised at people like AM who are becoming an active party to the spin being created by USA state department and Pakistani Foreign office..