Members of their government have said America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty, handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop
and "saying that the United States had made “an unauthorized unilateral action” that would be not be tolerated in the future. The foreign ministry further said “Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States.”
They are essentially saying that our actions taken were against their sovereignty, which makes no sense because we were taking out another military force acting illegally on their land (Al Qaeda, if you dont follow). Not to mention the fact that the military force that we took action against is also one that we have been giving them 1.3 billion a year to resist.
The only reason that we haven't taken action against Pakistan (for their blatant misuse of our funds and housing of our enemy that we pay them to keep out) is that we have already seen what happens in the case of Iraq. If we were to have a war with Pakistan, the terrorist numbers there would multiply like wildfire. Instead, it would be more effective to use our forces to kill terrorists in Pakistan without engaging the country.
My question then is where does Pakistan get off telling us that our raid leading to the capture of Osama was a violation of their rights? This essentially says that we are more concerned with you violating our sovereignty than Al Qaeda, because they know as well as we do that they can't be trusted to "be in the loop" with us.
Are they really just that arrogant, or is it possible that they are so allied with Al Qaeda that they actually WANT a war with us (they are already calling our raid a violation of their sovereignty(about 1 millimeter away from saying "act of war"), and saying future such actions would not be tolerated), or is it something else?