What's new

US responsible for the Murder of Pakistani Troops - Pak Rejects NATO Probe

.
Is it traitorous, or is it that the economic pressures are simply too great to resist long term?

It's traitorous if you accept the premise that the WOT in Afghanistan is a smoke screen and America's regional goals are inimical to Pakistan's long term interests. Pakistani politicians are doing what they do best: pocket the immediate payout and let posterity worry about the long term consequences.
 
.
It's traitorous if you accept the premise that the WOT in Afghanistan is a smoke screen and America's regional goals are inimical to Pakistan's long term interests. Pakistani politicians are doing what they do best: pocket the immediate payout and let posterity worry about the long term consequences.

Okay, if the premise is true, then I can follow your subsequent logic better now.
 
.
It's worse. These traitors are just itching to resume NATO supplies.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...imited-relationship-pakistan.html#post2428532

Any new security framework will also require increased transit fees for the thousands of trucks that supply NATO troops in Afghanistan, a bill that allied officials say could run into the tens of millions of dollars.

Limited relationship was always going to happen.

And it should happen , if we want some success in the war.

But it should be limited, and we should not be slaves.
 
.
This is one of the reasons why I still feel Pakistan should have participated in the investigation so as to be able to press home these points for maximum advantage.

A sure way not to have one's voice heard is to leave the table, after all. Yes, I know you are convinced of the futility of participation, but I disagree with that contention.
The Brian Cloughley article posted earlier indicated that the offer to participate in the US investigation would have made Pakistani participants akin to 'observers' - Pakistani officials would not have had the authority to summon and question anyone involved that they wished.

This question of 'why the delay' is one that the US investigators should address in any case, they don't need Pakistani observers to do so.
 
.
What I don't understand is what was the big deal they accept at the very least that mistakes were made by their people why cant they apologise?
 
.
What I don't understand is what was the big deal they accept at the very least that mistakes were made by their people why cant they apologise?

If you see the long report published by DoD, there is no shirking away from mistakes.. However some mistakes have also been pointed towards Pakistan army, like the first fire and continued attack even after display of air assets.. That I believe is where the point of contention lies..
 
.
The Brian Cloughley article posted earlier indicated that the offer to participate in the US investigation would have made Pakistani participants akin to 'observers' - Pakistani officials would not have had the authority to summon and question anyone involved that they wished.

This question of 'why the delay' is one that the US investigators should address in any case, they don't need Pakistani observers to do so.

Even as observers, there are ways to ensure projecting one's PoV and questions into the process. The delay issue is an important one and is leading to a review of all RoE, top to bottom, including a new procedure for time-sensitive engagements, which was previously lacking.

If you see the long report published by DoD, there is no shirking away from mistakes.. However some mistakes have also been pointed towards Pakistan army, like the first fire and continued attack even after display of air assets.. That I believe is where the point of contention lies..

The US DoD runs a tight ship; all mistakes will be pinpointed and rectified pronto.
 
.
If you see the long report published by DoD, there is no shirking away from mistakes.. However some mistakes have also been pointed towards Pakistan army, like the first fire and continued attack even after display of air assets.. That I believe is where the point of contention lies..

They started the whole act by not informing Pakistan what they were doing on that border which they admit they should have. The chain of causation is not broken therefore legally they are still culpable and blame lies with them. They dont need me to tell them I am sure they have JAGs who would tell them. So why cant Obama appologise. Surely you would call me a cynic that Obama may be being influenced by his forthcoming election and he doesnt want to look weak. See this is the crux 26 pakistanis dead is less important to americans than their damn election
 
. .
Under that Brigadier Stevens i believe, maybe I got his name wrong, the investigation will never be the truth.

He commands the formation that attacked the post after all!!!
 
.
Yahya, you are too old man. You have post old informations many times we already discussed, why??
 
.
guys i tell u from real credible source that it was a planned attack.the americans were given coordinates of all the post along the Pakistan afg border well in time.where the hell was all that tech once they crossed thr intl border.it was no mistake.it was a sheer act of blunt aggression.
 
.
guys i tell u from real credible source that it was a planned attack.the americans were given coordinates of all the post along the Pakistan afg border well in time.where the hell was all that tech once they crossed thr intl border.it was no mistake.it was a sheer act of blunt aggression.

It's new, how you know that?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom