What's new

American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

The only sensible justification of an ERROR from NATO is this picture
383270_2471709026852_1076169815_2608990_2038445914  _n.jpg



BAANDARR KAY HAATH MEIN BANDOOQ

Give a gun to a monkey and he will shoot anything and anybody BY ERROR as he doesn't know how to use an gun and under what circumstances and upon whom..
If NATO doesn't know all the above then they too are chimps with guns.

IS THERE ANY NEED FOR APOLOGY?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
again, cost/benefit.

us would have thrown the world media at pakistan if PA made an aggressive move and shot down a heli, now that could really hurt pakistan.


ofcourse any red blooded males natural instincts are to fight back, seek revenge, that too is my inclination, but thats not always sensible, what would be gained?

you can only salvage the situation, i see pakistan are leveraging this a lot more than they have ever done, you can only hope this develops into a more favorable scenario, the us is politically and diplomatically on the back foot.

i have no doubt that the PA are making moves in other areas where they rule the roost :)

This is a slippery slope. We induct manpads, they will go to medium altitude for PGM strikes. This tactical tit-for-tat is not going to help either side. The ISAF know that this is only causing them to become more distracted and Pakistan has to be very clear in terms of its cost/benefit analysis whether it makes sense or not.

Killing of fellow soldiers definitely angers troops. However this is where the discipline comes into picture. You cannot have troops making policies. However you are correct that the response next time from the Pakistani side will be a bit more aggressive (of the sort of fire first, ask questions later) at the tactical level and the two sides will have to figure out if they want to keep going down this path or hold back.
 
Nato attack footage released



The footage showed aerial views of the two destroyed outposts, Boulder and Volcano, and close-ups of the site of an attack that the army described as a “deliberate act of aggression” by NATO helicopters and a war plane.

White smoke could be seen spiraling from large swathes of blackened ground either side of the remote rocky mountaintop where both posts were situated.

Army spokesman Brigadier Syed Azmat Ali said the smoke was a result of the nearly two-hour incident in the early hours of Saturday. The footage was filmed on Sunday morning, he said.It was not clear why it had taken until Wednesday to release.

Scattered sandbags, tarpaulin sheets and corrugated iron sheets can be seen lying around one of the abandoned posts, and Pakistani soldiers wander through the wreckage, one taking photographs.

A single white flag flies from a branch stuck in the soil. In another shot a stone hut can be seen, metres from the remains of a rock wall, next to which magazines of ammunition have been abandoned.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday pledged an investigation “as swiftly and thoroughly as possible” into the “tragic incident” but stopped short of apologising for the deaths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i think US can feel the pain little bit.we should wait until december 13 when NATO is out of fuel food water and toilet paper then they can see the fog of war as well.let the taliban kill them like sitting ducks in their bases.
 
:lol:

I am no "Nadeem Paracha" on ANY of the "qualities" you mention. :D

My views are simply mine, logical and impartial.

========================

To stay on topic, the supply routes should resume within one month. ;)

They should be closed for ever no foreign wars or support for them.
 
............................
Killing of fellow soldiers definitely angers troops. However this is where the discipline comes into picture. You cannot have troops making policies. .................

Great post. I am sure wiser counsel will prevail in this situation. For sure.
 
Artillery was used by own side for air bursts against the helis which withdrew. 30 rounds were fired by the field guns.

As to the positions, these are "border" posts and as such would be fairly close to the actual border and not 2.5km inside. Maybe initially the reporting was incorrect, but the facts are that these are recognized and registered via grid positions known to all sides engaged. While I can understand that some map-reading challenged ANA trooper may not have understood, but the strikes were called in by a US SF operator whose approving chain of command was definitely aware where Pakistanis were posted.

The helicopters appeared near the post around 15 to 20 minutes past midnight, opened fire, then left about 45 minutes later, Nadeem was quoted as saying. They reappeared at 0115 local time and attacked again for another hour, he said.

Nadeem said that, minutes before the first attack, a U.S. sergeant on duty at a communications centre in Afghanistan told a Pakistani major that NATO special forces were receiving indirect fire from a location 15 km (9 miles) from the posts.

The Pakistanis said they needed time to check and asked for coordinates. Nadeem said the unidentified sergeant called back to say "your ... post has been hit." Nadeem concluded that meant NATO knew the locations of the Pakistani posts before attacking, said The News.


Pakistan army says NATO attack was blatant aggression | World | Reuters

The highlighted part would indicate that NATO knew they were attacking the Pakistani post, and yet continued the attack ...

---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

This is a slippery slope. We induct manpads, they will go to medium altitude for PGM strikes. This tactical tit-for-tat is not going to help either side. The ISAF know that this is only causing them to become more distracted and Pakistan has to be very clear in terms of its cost/benefit analysis whether it makes sense or not.

Killing of fellow soldiers definitely angers troops. However this is where the discipline comes into picture. You cannot have troops making policies. However you are correct that the response next time from the Pakistani side will be a bit more aggressive (of the sort of fire first, ask questions later) at the tactical level and the two sides will have to figure out if they want to keep going down this path or hold back.
Same breaking news reports suggesting an artillery/fire exchange between NATO and Pakistani troops (Wednesday) - apparently communication and coordination between the two sides resulted in the incident being defused without any casualties on either side.
 
...................

The highlighted part would indicate that NATO knew they were attacking the Pakistani post, and yet continued the attack .....

If the post was seen or thought to be the source of unfriendly fire, then it would indicate a response.

Same breaking news reports suggesting an artillery/fire exchange between NATO and Pakistani troops (Wednesday) - apparently communication and coordination between the two sides resulted in the incident being defused without any casualties on either side.

Saner minds at work. That is good news.

---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------

is it logical to say pakistan will amend its version of events?

I don't know; all the facts are not known yet.
 
That is why I keep saying to wait for the final report from NATO too, and then analyze it logically and impartially.

we hear you, and there is nothing wrong with that

truth wont "hurt" because the hurt has already been done

all 3 players that are supposed to be on the same side (US, Afghans and Pakistanis) are playing their own game for their own interest smy hope is that this game doest go that far that its difficult to distinguish between each other and taliban. (I.e. who is friend and who is enemy).

i guess the information will come in bits or piecemeal and the story will take a lot of turns, makes little difference to the grieving familes I can imagine some of them will be getting teased by pro-Taliban elements that their sons died at the hands of the Americans they were trying to fight for.

I hate to think what the Molana Abdul Aziz will be talking about in his sermons I can imagine he wont make any effort to hide his glee over this incident. has had already issued a blanket fatwa over all Pakistan armymen that they are apostates and kafirs and dont deserve an Islamic burial. thats a real life troll for you
 
The helicopters appeared near the post around 15 to 20 minutes past midnight, opened fire, then left about 45 minutes later, Nadeem was quoted as saying. They reappeared at 0115 local time and attacked again for another hour, he said.

Nadeem said that, minutes before the first attack, a U.S. sergeant on duty at a communications centre in Afghanistan told a Pakistani major that NATO special forces were receiving indirect fire from a location 15 km (9 miles) from the posts.

The Pakistanis said they needed time to check and asked for coordinates. Nadeem said the unidentified sergeant called back to say "your ... post has been hit." Nadeem concluded that meant NATO knew the locations of the Pakistani posts before attacking, said The News.


Pakistan army says NATO attack was blatant aggression | World | Reuters

The highlighted part would indicate that NATO knew they were attacking the Pakistani post, and yet continued the attack ...

---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------


Same breaking news reports suggesting an artillery/fire exchange between NATO and Pakistani troops (Wednesday) - apparently communication and coordination between the two sides resulted in the incident being defused without any casualties on either side.

AM,

I think its established beyond a shadow of doubt that they knew what they were shooting at. As to what instigated them to do so, I am not sure. I have already stated my thoughts on their motivations.
 
you want us to start a WAR with the US? if they were indian assets, you would have seen a different reaction!

That's going to be the downfall of the PA leadership. If the external forces don't end up routing them out, the internal ones will. You must defend from all threats. Even if Obama was piloting those gunships and they had a big banner of "Yes We Can" painted on it, it still should have been shot down.
 
......................

i guess the information will come in bits or piecemeal and the story will take a lot of turns, makes little difference to the grieving familes I can imagine some of them will be getting teased by pro-Taliban elements that their sons died at the hands of the Americans they were trying to fight for.....................

Thank you for that logical post.

For all my impartiality and cold logic, and being blamed for being disrespectful rather unfairly, I know first hand what families of martyrs go through, including a lifetime of children growing up without their father's help, support, wisdom and guidance. Their torment has only just begun and will last long after the world and the country has moved on.

I know.
 
2(00) meters can be an error, 2 km is NOT; hence it is important to carefully analyze all facts before spouting off, wouldn't you agree?

Let's wait for the final report.

I said CAN be an error, not whether it is, or was.

A location identified as a source of unfriendly fire will be targeted in such a way that a radius of several hundred feet around it is instantly annihilated. It doesn't matter if 2 or 20 or 200 targets fire back, sit, sleep or run. They will be killed. SOP.

VCheng,
The posts were not new ones. Their coordinates were already pointed out to the US/NATO forces at least a year ago, any active pilot operating in the area would witness the boundaries mentioned in map or computer of the aircraft.

The NATO's base is also few hundred meters away from the Pakistani base, according to brother of Maj Mujahid Shaheed it was even visible from Pakistani post. (He gave a detailed interview on phone to Tv one). Pilots not only get information from cockpit, but also follow their maps....its not a computer game where you pick any targets of your choice, getting into an engagement is related to mission load, objectives and exit strategy. If everything is available then a target is engaged.

NATO helicopters attacked, then turned back...visited the same place again and attacked...then visited the second post after one hour. In the meantime PA had contacted the NAO counterparts, if first attack was a mistake was the second one too? Considering these as 'errors' would be the worst interpretation of these events.
 
Back
Top Bottom