American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[waraich66]

It is not Pakistans war, We should declare it and block all land routes and air bases for NATO .

 

[Patriot]

Per the reports of the 'anonymous' sources...

Afghan soldiers were the first ones that got into firefight with PA troops... each claim they were in their own territory, although Pakistani claim sounds more solid because they were deep inside - 1-2 KM. Afghan troops called in NATO reinforcement, probably presuming that they were ambushed by Taliban. NATO came in to give a blunt response to the "Taliban" fighters. The firefight lasted for a little more than an hour. It has not yet been cleared for precisely how long the choppers remained engaged in the fight.

I also suspect that Afghan Intel and Armed Forces could be behind this however i doubt that NATO has given them such a free hand that they can call in air strikes whenever they want without verification of targets by US Armed Forces Personnel.If indeed Afghan Intel and Armed Force is behind this then it would not be hard to pay them back in the same coin.

 

[iPhone]

Yes, it was a rant directed against me, and entirely irrelevant.

No diversions, I am still here, aren't I?

It was an accurate observation about you for which you got caught off guard.

 

[pakistanitarzan]

Being an Indian I don't know if I should butt in in the conversation but I just feel Pakistan should do the following:

1. Realize that America is out for a war with Pakistan. I have no doubt about it. America is penetrated by Indian and Israeli advisers and they want war with Pakistan. Probably they are after your nukes.......Pakistan should realize this and prepare for a war.

2. Right now Pakistan should ask China and join in this war against America. If China guarantees help to Pakistan then America cannot do anything to Pakistan.

As much as I would hate to say this and please don't question my love for Pakistan but if things remain the way they are (current leadership, laziness of COAS etc), Pakistan will die a very slow death (Nauzubillah)

Pakistan Zindabaad!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

NEWSFLASH: Slavery is STILL a reality.

... and those who suffer from it should merely 'accept the ground realities' and 'EARN their freedom, rather than DEMAND it'.

Again, you can be be as snide and flippant as you wish, but as pointed out a while back, the positions you support and promote are unethical, immoral and designed to weaken and perhaps even destroy those who challenge them.

Are there any updates on the Pakistani side of the investigation? I assume there is one, right?

The statements from the PA/ISPR have made clear Pakistan's position on the issue, and the official position is supported by eyewitness accounts of wounded survivors from the NATO attack.

 

[Quasar]

My condolences to my pakistani brothers.

 

[Bhairava]

It was 2.5km (1.5 miles) inside Pakistani territory, not 1-2 km. There are two distinct claims coming out of Afghanistan right now: one says there was a hot pursuit of terrorists in Eastern Afghanistan by the ANA & the coalition forces, & with the poorly marked border, they accidentally crossed the border, & the Pakistani soldiers were killed accidentally.

The other claims says that there was fire from the Pakistani soldiers first close to the border, & the Afghan Forces thought it was coming from the terrorists. So they asked the NATO helicopters to join in on the attack. This is their claim of firing in defense. The Afghan Forces could not have known where the fire was coming from to Afghanistan 2.5km into Pakistan.

Both the accounts need not be self-contradictory. In fact both taken together make a logical scenario. If you think about it & willing to accept it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kabul, Western Officials Say NATO and Afghan Forces Came Under Fire Before Deadly Attack; Relations Further Imperiled

Airstrike Ravages U.S.-Pakistan Ties - WSJ.com

It has already been argued in the past several pages - the 'self defence under Pakistani fire' claim does not add up given the location of the base as reported in some accounts (2.5km inside Pakistan), claims of 'gunfire' (which would not be possible from 2.5KM away), claims of 'Commandos on the ground calling in air strikes', which would indicate incompetence on the part of NATO since the coordinates of the base were known to NATO and the proper procedure should have been contacting Pakistani authorities to clear confusion if gunfire was indeed coming from the Pakistani base.

There is nothing so far that suggests NATO was not completely at fault here.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

they were fast asleep out in the open; no such fire came from Pakistani side.....it was an unwarranted act and now if they dont understand why there is OUTRAGE in Pakistan, then they are not just blind but they are also dangerously STUPID

 

[53fd]

Both the accounts need not be self-contradictory. If you think about it.

One said there was an on-going operation against the militants in Eastern Afghanistan, in which coalition forces were assisting the ANA, & with the poorly marked border, the helicopters crossed 2.5km into Pakistani territory, & attacked a Pakistani outpost. This claim was their 'hot pursuit' one.

The other claim was that there was firing from 2.5km inside Pakistani territory, the ANA asked the coalition forces to reign in, & they attacked 2 Pakistani outposts. This claim is shooting in 'defense' one.

Both of them are inherently contradictory, & both of them are implausible scenarios.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Helicopter has night vision, they might have seen it coming from pak army post so they fired back.

That is not the account your own source (WSJ) details - they quote Afghan officials as claiming that the troops on the ground called in airstrikes - SMC's point remains valid.

 

[Bhairava]

It has already been argued in the past several pages - the 'self defence under Pakistani fire' claim does not add up given the location of the base as reported in some accounts (2.5km inside Pakistan), claims of 'gunfire' (which would not be possible from 2.5KM away), claims of 'Commandos on the ground calling in air strikes', which would indicate incompetence on the part of NATO since the coordinates of the base were known to NATO and the proper procedure should have been contacting Pakistani authorities to clear confusion if gunfire was indeed coming from the Pakistani base.

There is nothing so far that suggests NATO was not completely at fault here.

When you are facing gunfire ,directed at you, you do no stop to think if that is friend or foe. Your reflex is shoot back and if not able to match the firepower call for re-inforcements.

---------- Post added at 09:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

One said there was an on-going operation in Eastern Afghanistan, in which coalition forces were assisting the ANA, & with the poorly marked border, the helicopters crossed 2.5km into Pakistani territory, & attacked a Pakistani outpost. This claim was their 'hot pursuit' one.

The other claim was that there was firing from 2.5km inside Pakistani territory, the ANA asked the coalition forces to reign in, & they attacked 2 Pakistani outposts. This claim is shooting in 'defense' one.

Both of them are inherently contradictory, & both of them are implausible scenarios.

They are not contradictory if in case the Pakistani soldiers were giving covering fire for the running Afghan Taliban who were pursued by the Afghan/NATO troops. That would satisfy both 'accounts' of hot pursuit and self-defence.

Ofcourse you have to accept this is one possible scenario.Infact it can be the most plausible scenario.

 

[Roybot]

I for one find it hard to buy that this was an accident or a mistake.

 

[53fd]

They are not contradictory if in case the Pakistani soldiers were giving covering fire for the running Afghan Taliban who were pursued by the Afghan/NATO troops. That would satisfy both 'accounts' of hot pursuit and self-defence.

There has been no accusation made by anyone that Pakistani soldiers were giving covering fire for the Taliban to infiltrate into Afghanistan. The area was free from militants from the Pakistani side. There has been no suggestion made of this scenario. And the first scenario (hot pursuit) talks about the militants on the Afghan side of the border, not Pakistan. The second scenario (defense) talks about firing from the Pakistani side, but it is not possible that firing from 2.5km inside Pakistan could hit Afghanistan.

 

[Bhairava]

There has been no accusation made by anyone that Pakistani soldiers were giving covering fire for the Taliban to infiltrate into Afghanistan. The area was free from militants from the Pakistani side.

From Pakistani side it was free. But not from Afghan side. The Taliban were escaping from Afghan side with the NATO in hot pursuit.

No open accusation has yet been made. But already sounds of 'self-defence' are making rounds and I guess this will be the final conclusion that will be given.