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

[Abu Zolfiqar]

We tried to become the mediator right at the start of the conflict, Americans refused since they wanted war and wanted to occupy a country. Pakistan is the only country which has lost more then what any western nation has lost in Afghanistan.

And kindly update your knowledge, there is no Turmoil in the Gulf part, no regime changes have happened. Tunisia, Egypt & Libya are all in Africa and Middle East can be used also for that. Gulf states are fit and fine and are funding the Taliban much more then anyone can else. And US is the only country which is the attacker, occupier, fighting the Taliban, leading the occupational forces and in the end the same US tax payers money/ $$$$s are trickling down to the Taliban who are fighting the US. Heck US is the only country which is fighting the Taliban as well as funds them too. Ironic.

the war on terrorism is like the war on drugs....

 

[VCheng]

AIPAC operates a monopoly in america and it is impossible for any lobby group to breakthrough. Furthermore AIPAC makes the rules. Read the following interesting article.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt · The Israel Lobby: the Israel Lobby · LRB 23 March 2006

I am well aware of the points raised by that article. However, any group motivated enough and intelligent enough can get started just the same.

 

[lem34]

I am well aware of the points raised by that article. However, any group motivated enough and intelligent enough can get started just the same.

no you are wrong . AIPAC makes the rules its that simple, you and I will have to disagree others can read the link I put up and make their own mind up. Now lets try to stay on topic.

Pakistan was right in my opinion to reject Nato report

 

[VCheng]

.................

Pakistan was right in my opinion to reject Nato report

Of course, what Pakistan does after the rejection is perhaps more important since ti will determine future direction. When is Pakistan's formal response expected and what might it be?

 

[cyphercide]

Of course, what Pakistan does after the rejection is perhaps more important since ti will determine future direction. When is Pakistan's formal response expected and what might it be?

Forgive me if I'm wrong,The formal response from Pakistani forces was one of rejection of the state of events as narrated by NATO.Ergo,we can draw the minimum conclusion on the disconnect between the allied forces and the excesses committed singularly by the the West.You are trying to pin the consequences on the governance of Pakistan which you very well know will buckle under American heat on the turn of events.

 

[VCheng]

Forgive me if I'm wrong,The formal response from Pakistani forces was one of rejection of the state of events as narrated by NATO.Ergo,we can draw the minimum conclusion on the disconnect between the allied forces and the excesses committed singularly by the the West.You are trying to pin the consequences on the governance of Pakistan which you very well know will buckle under American heat on the turn of events.

No Sir. The NATO report was delivered to Pindi GHQ only recently, and Pakistan still has not officially responded to it, as far as I can make out. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Safriz]

No Sir. The NATO report was delivered to Pindi GHQ only recently, and Pakistan still has not officially responded to it, as far as I can make out. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Americans have been unusually Courteous this time..Seding a "Major" to submit report to a "General" , but this has been due to Pakistan's consistency.

 

[cyphercide]

No Sir. The NATO report was delivered to Pindi GHQ only recently, and Pakistan still has not officially responded to it, as far as I can make out. Please correct me if I am wrong.

My earnest apologies if I did offend your sensitivities dear Sir, but conflicting news reports is all I have to move along on this unsavory episode;

Pakistan rejects NATO strike probe report - Yahoo!

 

[VCheng]

The Americans have been unusually Courteous this time..Seding a "Major" to submit report to a "General" , but this has been due to Pakistan's consistency.

Courtesies aside, when the official Pakistani response is likely to be forthcoming was the question, Sir.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

My earnest apologies if I did offend your sensitivities dear Sir, but conflicting news reports is all I have to move along on this unsavory episode;

Pakistan rejects NATO strike probe report - Yahoo!

Mere "rejection" is not enough by itself; there has to be a "response" too. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Safriz]

I think Vcheng has a point here..Although i agree with Pakistani defiance and statement that NATO done it on purpose,but all this should be given to them in well documented form with interviews from victims and a time line plus other evidence.

 

[cyphercide]

Mere "rejection" is not enough by itself; there has to be a "response" too. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

I might have been deluded in considering the blockage of supplies as a verified response from Pakistan.Where lies the thaw in the ice from the American side? Isn't the onus on them to stabilize further engagements?

 

[VCheng]

I might have been deluded in considering the blockage of supplies as a verified response from Pakistan.Where lies the thaw in the ice from the American side? Isn't the onus on them to stabilize further engagements?

I think the onus lies on both sides to come up with a workable arrangement, keeping in mind Pakistan's newfound spine, as long as it lasts.

 

[Meengla]

i didn't mean that......pakistan showed no co operation in diplomacy too, they refused to open the blockade....now US will source its supplies from outside and pakistan will get nothing.......pakistan should have pushed for a public apology and compensation, and could have used the blockade to obtain more favourable terms from the US, but they did nothing, and now pakistan is left with nothing.......war in afghanistan remain unaffected......

Your arguments are not without weight.
However, what if--and a very likely 'if'--Pakistani strategic planners had decided that this was no longer Sept. 12, 2001, and that America is not the same diplomatically/politically/militarily and that Pakistan is going to be merely delaying the inevitable by continuing to be an American 'ally' when a 'contain-China-by-propping-up-India' is the real game in the region? Also factor in the huge loss to Pakistan's economy--not to mention 30,000+ dead--then PROBABLY a national-consensus has developed in Pakistan to limit its role in now-the-so-called-war-against-terrorism.
I still don't think NATO would necessarily want to kill the Pakistani soldiers. My reaction was that some kids brought-up in video games went gung-ho and went on the killing spree for two hours.
Too bad for Americans: Pakistanis were looking to get out of the American-embrace by then. With one stupid, cruel move, NATOnot only will lose Afghanistan to at least a blood-letting chaos for all but will also be at the mercy of the Russians for the supplies (who, unlike Pakistan, really know how to milk the situation). Not to mention, the security establishment in Pakistan has washed-off the stigma of the (false claim) of 'harboring' OBL.
Even Pakistan's President Zardari was compelled to defy the Americans a couple of days ago in his Garhi Khuda Bux speech when he alluded to Pakistan's right to trade with anyone--he was referring to the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline.

Way to go NATO!! Nothing short of a big false-flag can put Pakistan on the backfoot now.

 

[53fd]

Your arguments are not without weight.
However, what if--and a very likely 'if'--Pakistani strategic planners had decided that this was no longer Sept. 12, 2001, and that America is not the same diplomatically/politically/militarily and that Pakistan is going to be merely delaying the inevitable by continuing to be an American 'ally' when a 'contain-China-by-propping-up-India' is the real game in the region? Also factor in the huge loss to Pakistan's economy--not to mention 30,000+ dead--then PROBABLY a national-consensus has developed in Pakistan to limit its role in now-the-so-called-war-against-terrorism.
I still don't think NATO would necessarily want to kill the Pakistani soldiers. My reaction was that some kids brought-up in video games went gung-ho and went on the killing spree for two hours.
Too bad for Americans: Pakistanis were looking to get out of the American-embrace by then. With one stupid, cruel move, NATOnot only will lose Afghanistan to at least a blood-letting chaos for all but will also be at the mercy of the Russians for the supplies (who, unlike Pakistan, really know how to milk the situation). Not to mention, the security establishment in Pakistan has washed-off the stigma of the (false claim) of 'harboring' OBL.
Even Pakistan's President Zardari was compelled to defy the Americans a couple of days ago in his Garhi Khuda Bux speech when he alluded to Pakistan's right to trade with anyone--he was referring to the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline.

Way to go NATO!! Nothing short of a big false-flag can put Pakistan on the backfoot now.

Very well analyzed. Although I believe that not even a big false flag can 'salvage' the situation.

 

[VCheng]

Very well analyzed. Although I believe that not even a big false flag can 'salvage' the situation.

Pakistan is far more likely to lose its present upper hand by poor follow-through by its own leadership rather than a false flag operation, if past history is anything to go by.