What's new

Pakistan to use force to stop violations of its territory

i think, i have no say in your internal matters. But please do enlighten us about the intentions and outcomes of the video.

I would really want to see the results of this event!

Take 4 minutes time and check the Video than you will know what are the "intentions and outcomes of the video. " And when you know it than write plz your thoughts about the point of this Video here in pakdefence.com thx a lot bye
 
.
Take 4 minutes time and check the Video than you will know what are the "intentions and outcomes of the video. " And when you know it than write plz your thoughts about the point of this Video here in pakdefence.com thx a lot bye

i spent my 4 minutes as you suggested on the video and couldn't find a reason for your upload from youtube.>..? It didn't make any sense...? Where is the missing link.?
 
.
Guys have a look at this reaction from a US senator in the wake of Pakistan stopping the supply routes..

Key senator lashes out at Pakistan government
From Charley Keyes, CNN Senior Producer
October 2, 2010 -- Updated 0127 GMT (0927 HKT)


Washington (CNN) -- A top senator slammed Pakistan Friday, urging more action against terrorists and less complaining about American drone strikes.
"They have gone after some terrorist targets inside Pakistan but the ones they go after are the ones that threaten the Pakistan government," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said.
Levin's criticism of Pakistan is fresh evidence of U.S. frustration with Pakistan's efforts in the terror fight, nine years after the 9/11 attacks and after billions of dollars of U.S. military and other aid to Pakistan. The United States considers Pakistan's fight against insurgent crucial to the war in Afghanistan strategy.
Levin's criticism comes days after Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent to Congressional leaders a letter warning of "a very tough fight" in Afghanistan and "more casualties as we increase our operational tempo and take on the insurgents in their strongholds." The letter, sent September 22, was provided to CNN by a congressional source.
Gates said U.S. efforts were hindered by corruption in Afghanistan, admitting the United States may be partly to blame.
"We have acknowledged that we may be part of the problem, through some of our own contracting practices and the amount of money we are injecting into the Afghan system," Gates wrote in the memo to Senate and House Armed Services Committees about his recent trip to Afghanistan.
Levin met Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and other officials Thursday. They discussed improved accuracy of U.S. drone attacks on terrorists targets inside Pakistan, Levin told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. The United States has intensified attacks on terrorists but while also increasing efforts to limit civilian casualties.
"There is a significant improvement in the accuracy. The minister, the foreign minister of Pakistan, acknowledged this yesterday to me," Levin said. "There are mistakes made but there is a huge improvement in the accuracy and the reduction of mistakes."
Amidst popular outcry in Pakistan against the U.S. attacks, Levin said the United States has the right to target terrorists coming across the Pakistan border to attack U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
"It is legitimate to target the people who are targeting you," Levin said in a question and answer session the speech.
He said he objected to Pakistani officials making different statements in public and private.
"I had real problems with the Pakistan government publicly attacking us when we accurately hit a target, when it is clear they don't object privately. They don't object," Levin said.
Levin said some Pakistan criticism is understandable.
"They object when we make mistakes," Levin said. "I mean we hit some Pakistani troops by mistake the other day and there is some strong blowback on that," he said. "This is understandable."
But the senator criticized Pakistan for failing to take the fight to the militants crossing their border into Afghanistan and attacking U.S., NATO and Afghan forces.
"Those folks are attacking across the border, they have some responsibility to go after them, and they haven't carried out that responsibility," Levin said.
"It is when a mistake is not made, and a target is hit accurately that I've got problems with the public attack which then creates that huge animosity against us, when number one it is done at least with the acquiescence of the Pakistan government and number two when they are failing to go after those targets." Levin said.
On the Obama administration plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July next year, Levin said sticking to that day is essential to success.
"Standing by that July 2011 date is the key to that progress, the crucial incentive for the Afghans to approach their task with urgency. If the date wobbles, so does the sense of urgency," Levin said. "I am convinced, after talking to President Obama and to administration officials that the president will not waffle in his decision to begin reducing our force levels by July 2011. I'm sure there will be lots of pressure to do so."
Levin echoed that concern about contractors in his speech Friday. "While private contractors are a necessary part of operations in Afghanistan, our contracting practices have often detracted from our mission by empowering warlords and power brokers," Levin said. "The Armed Services Committee will soon release a report addressing just that issue."

Key senator lashes out at Pakistan government - CNN.com
 
Last edited:
.
I don't understand why the GoP is half heartedly fighting this war on terror?.... If it supports the rationale behind fighting the war against terror, why not join the coalition forces and operate alongside them in eradicating the radicalist strongholds within its soil. Is it just an eyewash infront of US to garner economic bargains for filling its politicians' coffers?
 
.
I don't understand why the GoP is half heartedly fighting this war on terror?.... If it supports the rationale behind fighting the war against terror, why not join the coalition forces and operate alongside them in eradicating the radicalist strongholds within its soil. Is it just an eyewash infront of US to garner economic bargains for filling its politicians' coffers?

Please come without your Indian mentality then we can talk.....Those border post in one of the most difficult terrains in the world is our commitment to this war, More than 100,000 troops fighting is our commitment to this war, The number of civilian died for this war shows our commitment, the number of Our soldiers killed are more than US and NATO together, Capturing high number of Al-Qaeda and taliban members is our commitment to this war, If fighting this war was so easy then why US and NATO left it posts in the rural areas and it is more focused on cities. How about making a series of outpost themselves on the border? Or how about mining the border and fencing it. So please do little research before ranting.
 
.
Please come without your Indian mentality then we can talk.....
No can't do. How can I change the fact that I an Indian? Can you change your identity?

Those border post in one of the most difficult terrains in the world is our commitment to this war, ...., Capturing high number of Al-Qaeda and taliban members is our commitment to this war, If fighting this war was so easy then why US and NATO left it posts.

I am not denying the sacrifice that the soldiers have made towards this objective and respect to any lives that have been lost due to this war on terror. What I wanted to ask was why is the govt trying to go loggerheads with NATO. Why can't missions be conducted in a more co-ordinated way?

If you say that the border areas are tough terrains, then why wasn't there extra forces guarding the same. You claim why US and NATO left their posts when your army was flushing out the border areas, but aren't you repeating the same mistake?
 
.
No can't do. How can I change the fact that I an Indian? Can you change your identity?



I am not denying the sacrifice that the soldiers have made towards this objective and respect to any lives that have been lost due to this war on terror. What I wanted to ask was why is the govt trying to go loggerheads with NATO. Why can't missions be conducted in a more co-ordinated way?

If you say that the border areas are tough terrains, then why wasn't there extra forces guarding the same. You claim why US and NATO left their posts when your army was flushing out the border areas, but aren't you repeating the same mistake?
I didn't say NATO forces left the area when we were flushing the taliban, Infact the posts they left had no effect on that operation whatsoever. I am saying that for teh most trained army in the world it becomes difficult to operate in such terrain but we are doing it. If someone dont trust us he can put his own soldier on his side of border to stop such intrusions. Then they'll know that even if we put whole army on that border it will not seal completely. and we also have Indian threat to deal with too. so putting more soldiers is not an option.

Border between US and Mexico is much like a plain desert, Clear visibility still people get to US illegally from Mexico dont they?

We are not leaving any outpost. so i didn't get what you want you mean by "Repeating the same mistake".
 
.
I didn't say NATO forces left the area when we were flushing the taliban, Infact the posts they left had no effect on that operation whatsoever.
We are not leaving any outpost. so i didn't get what you want you mean by "Repeating the same mistake".

You said in your previous post, "If fighting this war was so easy then why US and NATO left it posts in the rural areas and it is more focused on cities" and now you say NATO forces didn't leave their posts.

If you realize the problems operating in the harsh terrain, then can't you discount the fact that it is also tough for the NATO forces to operate in those conditions. So what if they made a mistake operating in these terrains? I wanted to point out that if PA is serious about its operation against these fanatics, it can either try to work out its logistics issues with NATO or operate with them as a team.
 
.

You said in your previous post, "If fighting this war was so easy then why US and NATO left it posts in the rural areas and it is more focused on cities" and now you say NATO forces didn't leave their posts.

I dont know whos post are you reading....Let me quote myself

i said
If fighting this war was so easy then why US and NATO left it posts in the rural areas and it is more focused on cities.

It was part of their strategy as they were getting much more damage on the country side....

in my second post i said.

I didn't say NATO forces left the area when we were flushing the taliban, Infact the posts they left had no effect on that operation whatsoever.

So nowhere i said things which were different. Maybe you understood wrong.
 
.
Shoot the choppers down, should be fairly straightforward to do so.

What will the US do? Escalate it further by using its air force?
 
. .
Shoot the choppers down, should be fairly straightforward to do so.

What will the US do? Escalate it further by using its air force?

No.. May be, it will just dry up the taps of military assistence. No more new blk F 16s. No MLU.. Kayani is never going to risk it..
 
.
Do you seriously think Pakistan can do that?

I am not doubting the ability, but the will?
No I don't think the will is there with the government. But I think the public opinion is there. Slaughter of Pakistanis must be stopped.

You perfectly know that military escalation is not the only weapon US has.

It's a necessity that has to be done because the US has shown no signs of relenting upon using the military option which can't be tolerated.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom