What's new

200 Terrorists Attack Pakistan Post from Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
1101257087-2.gif
 
Primarily for security purposes against Iran. May be smooth drone attacks and raids in Pakistan. They do not want to have fighters.


I got you. hahaha

Please treat this forum with respect as a platform for sharing composite dialogue on military and defence matters. The fact here remains that by endorsing pursuit operations the US and Israel have set a very interesting precedent, one that can be challenged in the UN and the mantle taken by any nation feeling the urge to do so.

Hot pursuit can and should work both ways. Personally it is only a matter of time after the US leaves Afghanistan that you will see this policy come bite the US in the rear.

Come on... A taliban presence in Khost, Nuristan, Kunar, Orūzgān... There is a reason the US and the UK have been pushing for "peace talks" with the TALIBAN. Whatever happened to "We will not negotiate with terrorists"?

Hey look fella's... When we talk about talks with the Taliban you complain we are not doing enough, when you want to initiate talks with the taliban you feel it justified to say "yeah but there are good taliban"... :undecided:

And is it just me or did the UK and US not only ask for negotiations but also for sanctions on the Taliban to be lifted... :cheesy:
Making peace with the Taliban? UN pressed to lift Afghan sanctions | World news | The Guardian

Sorry again but the only "Good Taliban" is a "DEAD TALIBAN".
 
Primarily for security purposes against Iran. May be smooth drone attacks and raids in Pakistan. They do not want to have fighters.


I got you. hahaha

So you're suggesting that by placing SAMs in Afghanistan, the US is focused on Iran and not Taliban. Doesn't it lend more credibility to Pres. Ahmedinejad ??

...And is it just me or did the UK and US not only ask for negotiations but also for sanctions on the Taliban to be lifted... :cheesy:
Making peace with the Taliban? UN pressed to lift Afghan sanctions | World news | The Guardian...

I believe that it has been extended to those individuals who are willing to work with the US and UK. And may even prove helpful in negotiating a peace accord.
But there is no denying the fact that NATO considers certain people as good and bad Taliban and it is morally wrong for them to criticize a similar move by Pakistan (if there is one).
 
interesting tidal changes.....

real question is -- should NATO ''do more'' or ''do less'' ??
 
Today DAWN TV is showing the footage of the attack on dir check post, the militants from Afghan side attacked the post, after 12-14 hours of initial fight, Pak security forces ran out of ammunation. Upon then they were captured, blind folded and their hands and legs tied, and were executed mercilessly.
If someone has access to the clip please post.

Now I dont understand what Pak military is doing. You plant these posts in such remote frontier areas and leave the soldier by themselves there? cuz that's how it appears. During the initial phase of attack, I'm sure the soldiers must've radioed back for help and backup, how far was the back up that they couldn't get there in time? more importantly, where was the air support? isn't there a protocol that some amount of air and ground back up support must be near by such check posts so in case of such attack help could be sent to the soldiers in a timely manner? these brave soldiers fight these terrorists for hours, on their own, then get captured and killed by these janwars and none in the top ranks of the army seem to care. what the heck is going on with Pak army?
 
There posts are hours away frm the main bases........ with no roads and electricity............... and there is a shortage of helis.......and even if they have helis they dnt have feul.
 
I'm sure they can put another post or two closer to outer posts so that way they don't have to rely on the main base way back. And as short as they are on helis they should still have some available for these areas and a gunship or two.
 
I'm sure they can put another post or two closer to outer posts so that way they don't have to rely on the main base way back. And as short as they are on helis they should still have some available for these areas and a gunship or two.


Iphone, The Post was close to Afghanistan frontier, surrounded by hilly and forest areas, when terrorists attacked in midnight, there was no way Air support could be provided, because how air support guys could identify terrorists and our guys in Forest areas until or unless they were provided specific and precise coordinates? Which means, we are lacking in terms of technology and hi tech gadgets.

Second thing is ground support. As some one pointed out. The lack of infrastructure plus main bases were ours away, but these are secondary concerns, Primary concern is Jumping into a firefight without any prior knowledge of enemy strength, and when reinforcements are send they are encircled and instead of helping them they have to worry about their own and in result increasing your causality rate as well, this happened before in April i think, Pakistani reinforcements were send in one instance hastily and they were attacked too. Thanks to Heli support at that time, they were saved timely, but all this thing happened in Day time.

In this upper Dir attack, initially 200-300 were attackers, and final estimates were put at 500-600, if one or two posts are put near to outposts then attackers will definately attack them too plus the outer post, thus creating a bigger mess
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom