AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
4 to 5, not 45
GHQ Check-Post Attackers Killed - Hostages Rescued!
- Thread starter XYON
- Start date
4 to 5, not 45
ohh, probably I misread or heard.
PakShaheen79
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
All these news about operation are speculations.Army has shutdown lights poles on the roads near GHQ. There is nothing but black that one can see in and around GHQ.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Calm down SSG viper - you are using derogatory language, and if it continues you will be banned.
The 'blame game' can wait for later.
The 'blame game' can wait for later.
H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
wats taking them so long , they should have cleared the issue by now ....
Beskar
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,176
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
The primary concern for the army right now are the hostages.They are probably draining out their energy to resist back. If your enemy is not in the right state of mind, your enemy is not prepared to tackle any aggression.
If the terrorists would know that after they do anything nasty, WHOLE of their families are going to hell with them!!
Well kill their motivation, which at the moment is to earn money for their families after their suicidal trip to hell!
Well kill their motivation, which at the moment is to earn money for their families after their suicidal trip to hell!
H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
are there any high profile men among hostages or they include regular security officers.
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
very commando style as they have done in past kind of operations. They come in hi ace vans, slam the brakes -- and all get out of the car running and taking cover and firing shots. In this case, GHQ proper is NOT close to the entrance gate, theres other checkpoints also. Thats why they were forced to flee and take cover elsewhere
SSGPA1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,632
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Pakistan Hostage Standoff Looms Over Obama's War Deliberations
An ongoing hostage standoff in Pakistan highlights growing concerns about the stability of that nuclear-armed country and could influence President Obama's war deliberations.
By Stephen Clark
FOXNews.com
An ongoing hostage standoff in Pakistan is adding to growing concerns about the stability of that nuclear-armed country as President Obama decides whether to shift U.S. focus to Pakistan or ramp up the war in Afghanistan.
Further complicating U.S. relations with Pakistan, a key ally in the region, is the Pakistani military's hostility toward conditions recently attached to a nearly $2 billion aid package.
Military advisers are pushing Obama to increase manpower in Afghanistan to battle the Taliban, but some other advisers reportedly are suggesting that the U.S. should consider allowing the Taliban into a political role in Afghanistan's future so that the U.S. can turn its attention toward eliminating roots of the Al Qaeda threat in Pakistan.
But the new violence in Pakistan could undercut any concessions being considered for the Taliban.
"What happened today in Pakistan should encourage [Obama] to follow the advice of the military because they know better the strength of the Taliban," Walid Phares, a terrorism analyst and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told FOXNews.com.
"This is a new model that the Taliban will take and multiply in Afghanistan and Pakistan," unless additional U.S. troops are sent, he said.
Heavily armed militants were holding up to 15 soldiers hostage inside Pakistan's army headquarters early Sunday after they stormed the complex in an audacious assault on the heart of the most powerful institution in the nuclear-armed country.
The attack, which left 10 people dead -- including two ranking officers -- was the third major militant strike in Pakistan in a week. It came as the army was planning an imminent offensive against the insurgents in their strongholds in the rugged mountains along the border with Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Obama is conducting war deliberations to determine which strategy to pursue in Afghanistan, an 8-year-old conflict that military commanders are pressing him to escalate.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, would like an additional 40,000 troops to fight the Taliban and pursue Al Qaeda while some White House officials, including Vice President Biden, prefer to scale back the war effort and focus on defeating Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Phares said Obama should view Saturday's attack as a signal.
"It is a very strong signal to President Obama and he will have to take it into consideration," he said. "And if he doesn't take it into consideration, then the Taliban will escalate it further."
Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney told FOX News that Obama should shift more resources to Pakistan despite the hostage standoff.
"We need to be targeting more in Pakistan, there's no question," he said. "But what most of all we need to do is get the Pakistani army commander, Gen. Kayani, but we need to get the Pakistani army, which is a very capable army, to be attacking those areas in south and north Waziristan where Al Qaeda is hiding out right now."
McInerney said U.S. counterterrorism forces need to continue their unmanned pilot attacks.
"But that will not solve the problem until the Pakistan army gets on the ground," he said.
Yet shifting the focus of the war to Pakistan may pose more challenges and problems than Afghanistan.
On Wednesday, Pakistan's powerful military raised "serious concern" over the strings attached to U.S. legislation that would provide $1.5 billion a year over the next five years, tripling nonmilitary assistance to the country.
The bill authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for counterterrorism assistance, but only if Pakistan cracks down on militancy and meets other conditions.
The army brass said in an unusual public statement that the conditions would lead to U.S. meddling in Pakistan's affairs -- comments that could bolster opponents of the weak U.S.-backed civilian administration in Islamabad.
The aid bill, U.S. officials say, is meant to alleviate widespread poverty. But many Pakistanis see it as a sign of unwanted U.S. influence.
Phares told FOXNews.com that the Pakistan army does not want to been seen as openly receiving aid from the U.S. because that plays into the hands of the Taliban.
"The Taliban propaganda machine will say this army is receiving help from the enemy, which is killing our brothers," he said.
Phares should the U.S. should be publicly supporting McChrystal and privately sending support to Pakistan, not the other way around.
Pakistan "wants us to send support without bragging about it," he said. "The propaganda machine of the Taliban is making this into a big issue because they want to create a problem between Pakistan and us."
Pakistan Hostage Standoff Looms Over Obama's War Deliberations - Political News - FOXNews.com
An ongoing hostage standoff in Pakistan highlights growing concerns about the stability of that nuclear-armed country and could influence President Obama's war deliberations.
By Stephen Clark
FOXNews.com
An ongoing hostage standoff in Pakistan is adding to growing concerns about the stability of that nuclear-armed country as President Obama decides whether to shift U.S. focus to Pakistan or ramp up the war in Afghanistan.
Further complicating U.S. relations with Pakistan, a key ally in the region, is the Pakistani military's hostility toward conditions recently attached to a nearly $2 billion aid package.
Military advisers are pushing Obama to increase manpower in Afghanistan to battle the Taliban, but some other advisers reportedly are suggesting that the U.S. should consider allowing the Taliban into a political role in Afghanistan's future so that the U.S. can turn its attention toward eliminating roots of the Al Qaeda threat in Pakistan.
But the new violence in Pakistan could undercut any concessions being considered for the Taliban.
"What happened today in Pakistan should encourage [Obama] to follow the advice of the military because they know better the strength of the Taliban," Walid Phares, a terrorism analyst and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told FOXNews.com.
"This is a new model that the Taliban will take and multiply in Afghanistan and Pakistan," unless additional U.S. troops are sent, he said.
Heavily armed militants were holding up to 15 soldiers hostage inside Pakistan's army headquarters early Sunday after they stormed the complex in an audacious assault on the heart of the most powerful institution in the nuclear-armed country.
The attack, which left 10 people dead -- including two ranking officers -- was the third major militant strike in Pakistan in a week. It came as the army was planning an imminent offensive against the insurgents in their strongholds in the rugged mountains along the border with Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Obama is conducting war deliberations to determine which strategy to pursue in Afghanistan, an 8-year-old conflict that military commanders are pressing him to escalate.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, would like an additional 40,000 troops to fight the Taliban and pursue Al Qaeda while some White House officials, including Vice President Biden, prefer to scale back the war effort and focus on defeating Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Phares said Obama should view Saturday's attack as a signal.
"It is a very strong signal to President Obama and he will have to take it into consideration," he said. "And if he doesn't take it into consideration, then the Taliban will escalate it further."
Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney told FOX News that Obama should shift more resources to Pakistan despite the hostage standoff.
"We need to be targeting more in Pakistan, there's no question," he said. "But what most of all we need to do is get the Pakistani army commander, Gen. Kayani, but we need to get the Pakistani army, which is a very capable army, to be attacking those areas in south and north Waziristan where Al Qaeda is hiding out right now."
McInerney said U.S. counterterrorism forces need to continue their unmanned pilot attacks.
"But that will not solve the problem until the Pakistan army gets on the ground," he said.
Yet shifting the focus of the war to Pakistan may pose more challenges and problems than Afghanistan.
On Wednesday, Pakistan's powerful military raised "serious concern" over the strings attached to U.S. legislation that would provide $1.5 billion a year over the next five years, tripling nonmilitary assistance to the country.
The bill authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for counterterrorism assistance, but only if Pakistan cracks down on militancy and meets other conditions.
The army brass said in an unusual public statement that the conditions would lead to U.S. meddling in Pakistan's affairs -- comments that could bolster opponents of the weak U.S.-backed civilian administration in Islamabad.
The aid bill, U.S. officials say, is meant to alleviate widespread poverty. But many Pakistanis see it as a sign of unwanted U.S. influence.
Phares told FOXNews.com that the Pakistan army does not want to been seen as openly receiving aid from the U.S. because that plays into the hands of the Taliban.
"The Taliban propaganda machine will say this army is receiving help from the enemy, which is killing our brothers," he said.
Phares should the U.S. should be publicly supporting McChrystal and privately sending support to Pakistan, not the other way around.
Pakistan "wants us to send support without bragging about it," he said. "The propaganda machine of the Taliban is making this into a big issue because they want to create a problem between Pakistan and us."
Pakistan Hostage Standoff Looms Over Obama's War Deliberations - Political News - FOXNews.com
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Going by the 'hostage taking' in the Mumbai attacks and the fact that they were unable to take any high level personality hostage, I have doubts about whether the terrorists might actually 'negotiate'.
They might do so to extend the standoff for publicity reasons, but given they killed the hostages at the Israeli Center, why would they do differently here?
Of course I understand the SF's have to operate to minimize casualties, but I suspect that the terrorists are in this to die and kill, not negotiate.
Similar threads
