American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[BATMAN]

because Nato are the self appointed global police officers of the world. Whatever your facts are they wont be the true facts unless the USA and Nato have spoken.
BTW these are the same people that had so many different versions of the same story when they caught OBL. They cant even lie properly. Their version will change. Apart from Cheng and one or two trolls may not believe the Pakistani version - thats because they are blinded by big Sam.

No Sir, it is against the charter of NATO to operate out side the territory of EU.

 

[VelocuR]

There is not much to investigate on our side.....we were attacked by NATO helis well inside border its as simple as that..

what else is there to investigate ?

it is inside Pakistan border between 1-2.5 km, I thought?

 

[Cent4]

Not at all.

My point is that both sides need to produce final reports that can form the basis for not only understanding what happened, but also help reduce the likelihood of any such future incidents.

Throwing tantrums will not help anybody.

Even when NATO were contacted and told that its blue on blue that did not stop the helis from firing then what else can reduce the likelyhood of such attacks happening again

 

[Rank]

Many parties in USA Isreal and India interested that war between NATO US and PAKISTAN. The best solution is to talk with CHINA and RUSSIA and take this issue in UN. Russia and China already interested to oppose everything which US want... especially in this WOT issue and if Russia China support Pakistan USA cant do anything and puppet US organization cant do anything because this isssue against USA so 4 veto powers are left China, Russia, UK and France. 2 X 2 win win situation for Pakistan.

 

[Polemos]

secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings… a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.

Nice article.. And a good premise for the next Dan Brown novel.

 

[maverick1977]

Wasnt some initial reports saying that most of the Pakistani soldiers died while they were asleep..

Also did the confusion around 2.5 Km and 300 yards get sorted out?

Most of the soldiers died during their sleep and left over who manned the guns were killed in due process.... ensuing combat between couple of alive soldiers who came to take down the chopper with 12.7mm guns were also killed. i love how indians are looking for a reason to find inconsistencies in pakistani story, forgetting that their masters gora decieved them again and again when they ruled the sub-continent. you are now slated a new "B" of west, wait and see what will happen to you. welcome to slavery 401.

 

[Adnan Faruqi]

Not an wise decision.

It will be pakistan's loss if it isolates itself from the world and neighborhood.

 

[VCheng]

No Sir, it is against the charter of NATO to operate out side the territory of EU.

That is INCORRECT.

 

[Cent4]

it is inside Pakistan border between 1-2.5 km, I thought?

It doesn't matter whether the post was 1.5 mile inside the border or 1.5 mm inside the border.
they were contacted and told its BLUE ON BLUE attack still continued.
And according to DG MO it lasted 5-6 hours that is no joke

 

[Creder]

US military chief declines to apologise for airstrike deaths

Video: US military chief declines to apologise for airstrike deaths - Telegraph

 

[fd24]

It doesn't matter whether the post was 1.5 mile inside the border or 1.5 mm inside the border.
they were contacted and told its BLUE ON BLUE attack still continued.
And according to DG MO it lasted 5-6 hours that is no joke

Yet Cheng wants to wait for his beloved white man to come down from planet mars and give his version to passify his thoughts. The more we here blue on blue yet the continuation of hostility is making our bloods boil. The time lapse just adds icing on the cake

 

[BATMAN]

U.S. suspects NATO forces lured into deadly raid
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-29/pakistan-attack-nato/51460636/1
WASHINGTON (AP) – NATO forces may have been lured into attacking friendly Pakistani border posts in a calculated maneuver by the Taliban, according to preliminary U.S. military reports on the deadliest friendly fire incident with Pakistan since the Afghanistan war began.

The NATO airstrike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers over the weekend in an apparent case of mistaken identity, The Associated Press has learned.
A joint U.S.-Afghan patrol was attacked by the Taliban early Saturday morning. While pursuing the enemy in the poorly marked border area, the patrol seems to have mistaken one of the Pakistan troop outposts for a militant encampment and called in a NATO gunship and attack helicopters to open fire.

U.S. officials say the reports suggest the Taliban may have deliberately tried to provoke a cross-border firefight that would set back fragile partnerships between the U.S. and NATO forces and Pakistani soldiers at the ill-defined border. Officials described the records on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters.
The incident has sent the perpetually difficult U.S.-Pakistan relationship into a tailspin.
On Tuesday, Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem called the incident a "deliberate act of aggression" and said it was "next to impossible that NATO" did not know it was attacking Pakistani forces.
Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, announced Monday he has appointed Brig. Gen. Stephen Clark, an Air Force special operations officer, to lead the probe of the incident, and said he must include input from the NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, as well as representatives from the Afghan and Pakistani governments.
Nadeem said the Pakistani army had little faith that any investigation will get to the bottom of the incident and may not cooperate with it. He said other joint inquiries into at least two other similar — if less deadly — incidents over the last three years had "come to nothing."
Nadeem made the remarks during a briefing with Pakistani journalists and defense analysts in army headquarters. Foreign media were not invited, but two attendees relayed Nadeem's comments to The Associated Press.
According to the U.S. military records described to the AP, the joint U.S. and Afghan patrol requested backup after being hit by mortar and small arms fire by Taliban militants.
Before responding, the joint U.S.-Afghan patrol first checked with the Pakistani army, which reported it had no troops in the area, the military account said.
Some two hours later, still hunting the insurgents — who had by then apparently fled in the direction of Pakistani border posts — the U.S. commander spotted what he thought was a militant encampment, with heavy weapons mounted on tripods.
The joint patrol called for the airstrikes at around 2:21 a.m. Pakistani time, not realizing the encampment was apparently the Pakistani border post.
Records show the aerial response included Apache attack helicopters and an AC-130 gunship.
U.S. officials are working on the assumption the Taliban chose the location for the first attack to create just such confusion and draw U.S. and Pakistani forces into firing on each other, according to U.S. officials briefed on the operation.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said President Barack Obama considers the Pakistani deaths a tragedy, and said the administration is determined to investigate.
The Pentagon released a four-page memo from Mattis directing Clark to determine what happened, which units were involved, which ones did or did not cross the border, how the operation was coordinated, and what caused the deaths and injuries.
Mattis also asked Clark to develop recommendations about how border operations could be improved, and said the final report should be submitted by December 23.
The details of the airstrike emerged as aftershocks were reverberating across the U.S. military and diplomatic landscape Monday, threatening communications and supply lines for the Afghan war and the success of an upcoming international conference.
While U.S. officials expressed regret and sympathy over the cross-border incident, they are not acknowledging blame, amid conflicting reports about who fired first.
The airstrike was politically explosive as well as deadly, coming as U.S. officials were working to repair relations with the Pakistanis after a series of major setbacks, including the U.S. commando raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden in May.
In recent weeks, military leaders had begun expressing some optimism that U.S.-Pakistan military cooperation along the border was beginning to improve. U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Daniel Allyn told Pentagon reporters just last Tuesday that incidents of firing from Pakistan territory had tapered off somewhat in recent weeks.
Speaking to reporters Monday, Pentagon press secretary George Little stressed the need for a strong military relationship with Pakistan.
"The Pakistani government knows our position on that, and that is we do regret the loss of life in this incident, and we are investigating it," said Little.
The military fallout began almost immediately.
Pakistan has blocked vital supply routes for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan and demanded Washington vacate a base used by American drones. Pakistan ordered CIA employees to mothball their drone operation at Pakistan's Shamsi air base within two weeks, a senior Pakistani official said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
On the diplomatic front, Pakistan said Tuesday it will boycott an international conference on Afghanistan next week to protest the incident.
The decision to boycott the Bonn, Germany, conference was made during a Pakistani Cabinet meeting in the city of Lahore, said three officials who attended the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media ahead of an official announcement.
The State Department also issued a new warning for U.S. citizens in Pakistan. It said some U.S. government personnel working in Pakistan were being recalled to Islamabad and warned Americans to be on guard for possible retaliation. U.S. citizens in Pakistan are being told to travel in pairs, avoid crowds and demonstrations and keep a low profile.
———
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Bradley Klapper and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.
———
AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier can be followed on Twitter (at)kimberlydozier.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[iPhone]

hopefully they keep a similar strong stance against resuming nato supply routes. the one that matters. even if Pak had decided to attend this meeting , ppl would have been largely ok with it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For those with so much 'faith' in NATO capabilities:

Should we allow Nato free rein to attack and kill people?

The airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers is just the latest in a series of mistakes that raise doubts about Nato's credibility


Pratap Chatterjee
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 08.30 EST


An unmanned Predator drone of the type operating along the Afhanistan-Pakistan border. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex
Why did Nato forces kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border post in the Mohmand region, some 300 yards across the frontier from Afghanistan early on Saturday morning? The US military claims the attack was in response to hostile fire, and the Pakistanis are demanding proof of that.

There is a very simple explanation of what happened: the US military makes deadly mistakes all the time, and for all its technological wizardry and tremendous firepower, it has very little intelligence on the ground.

"There are many questions that need to be answered," an editorial in the New York Times pronounced:

"Who first fired on the American-Afghan force? Pakistan's army is far too cozy with the Taliban. Were fighters sheltering near the Pakistani outposts? What about Pakistan's claim that the Nato strikes continued for two hours even after Pakistan alerted allied officials? What needs to be done differently going forward?"

In New York and Washington, this is standard fare. We can't trust the Pakistanis, they are with the terrorists. But can we trust Nato or the US military? There are numerous examples of firing on civilians, killing children and even deliberately targeting and assassinating individuals who turn out not to have been the people they were claimed to be. And that is in Afghanistan, a country where the US has easy access.

A US air force investigation into the killing of 23 civilians in Uruzgan province in February 2010 concluded that it was a tragic mistake. "Information that the convoy was anything other than an attacking force was ignored or downplayed" by the Predator crew, whose reporting was "inaccurate and unprofessional", the investigation by a two-star army general reported.

In September 2010 Nato claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin – the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan – in a drone strike. Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, and Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, have confirmed that Amin is alive and well and that the dead man was Zabet Amanullah.

Those are just two of the better documented examples: In February 2010 Nato admitted killing 12 civilians in Helmand. The following day it admitted to killing five civilians in Zhari district of Kandahar. Just last week, it admitted killing seven civilians, most of them children, in the same district of Kandahar.

In Pakistan, the US record is even murkier. I work at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism where we have documented the killing of more than 175 children and as many as 600 other civilians inside Pakistan by the CIA.

So before we jump to conclusions that the Mohmand strike was a result of the Pakistani military's relationship the Taliban, we need to ask ourselves a much more basic question: should we be allowing Nato, let alone the CIA, free rein to attack people and kill them – especially when their attacks are based on what is clearly very poor intelligence in the field?

Should we allow Nato free rein to attack and kill people? | Pratap Chatterjee | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Cent4]

Yet Cheng wants to wait for his beloved white man to come down from planet mars and give his version to passify his thoughts. The more we here blue on blue yet the continuation of hostility is making our bloods boil. The time lapse just adds icing on the cake

Everyone has his/her own opinion but for me and the majority its crystal clear.

See everyone is saying the same thing even our corrupt politicians are saying the same thing for the first time( which they were not on 2 may ).