American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[VCheng]

Either you are delibrately trying to be cute or simply playing with us.
...................

Neither.

I am merely being factual and rational, and shall continue to do so.

 

[Hulk]

The US has too many levers it can press to open the supply routes.

On the other hand, I agree with AM. It was deliberate not by mistake. It maybe that like ISI uses Haqqni against NATO, they use mistakes to reply back. Just thinking loud.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, using a firefinder radar system, the source of unfriendly fire can be located, often even before the first round hits.

Fire finder radars would not be operated by troops actually conducting the operations, and they are used to detect mortar, artillery and rocket attacks - all indirect fire - which would be pretty inaccurate in mountainous terrain, 2.5KM away in complete darkness.

Secondly, the WSJ quotes Afghan officials as claiming that soldiers conducting the ops called in the strikes on Pakistani positions.

Third, given that Pakistani post locations have been provided to ISAF and ISAF has Pakistan Army liaisons deployed at various ISAF bases, this should have been cleared with Pakistani authorities before launching the strikes.

Keep trying to find excuses to justify atrocities by your beloved West.

 

[CallsignAlzaeem]

Sab dramaybaazi everything will be back in a few days.

 

[regular]

Capt Usman Shaheed ...Age of his Daughter 2.5 month ......

see how sweet looking daughter is she.....she didn't even get chance to see her daddy.....realli makes pplz feel very sorry for her now......what she will think about her daddy when she will growup.......

 

[karan.1970]

There simple is no justification for NATO's actions here - they were either 'completely incompetent or completely complicit'.

Unless they had reason to believe that the terrorists were using the Pak check posts to stage attacks on them on the Afg side of the border.. Which we have seen in interviews with NATO commanders in the famous BBC documentary..

---------- Post added at 01:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 AM ----------

The Daily Telegraph spoke to wounded survivors of the raid, who insisted they were victims of an unprovoked attack.

Amirzeb Khan, 23, said the area around the checkpoints, about two miles from the border, had been cleared of militants and the night had been quiet.

The attack, he said, came at about 2am. They counted four helicopters.

"Initially, we thought that the attackers were Taliban and we took positions to retaliate but then saw that at least four helicopters were shelling from above," he said from his bed at the Combined Military Hospital in Peshawar, where he was being treated for shrapnel injuries to his abdomen.

Hameedullah Wazir described a scene of chaos as an apparently indiscriminate rain of rockets exploded around the checkpoint, waking sleeping troops. He said the survivors simply ran.

"We didn't find time to respond as everything took place so quickly that we were unable to fight back," he said.

Pakistani soldiers who survived Nato attack say it was unprovoked attack - Telegraph

So they were helicopters

 

[President Camacho]

There simple is no justification for NATO's actions here - they were either 'completely incompetent or completely complicit'.

What if neither?

In the latest incident, a Western official and a senior Afghan security official said NATO and Afghan forces had come under fire from across the border with Pakistan before NATO aircraft attacked a Pakistani army post, killing the soldiers.

“They came under cross-border fire,” the Western official said, without identifying the source of the fire.

The Afghan official said troops had come under fire from inside Pakistan as they were descending from helicopters, which had returned fire.

Both officials asked not to be named because the attack is so sensitive.

Pakistan has said the attack was an unprovoked assault and has said it reserves the right to retaliate.

Don't you think AM that we should let the results of the investigation out?

For now we are all hearing only one sided story - Pakistan's story. Let us wait for the other side too before accepting such emotive conclusions, what do you say?

About 2.5 KM range, mortars can get there, and many times in the past NATO choppers (troops) have complained of being targeted by mortars fired from Pakistani border post areas.

Remember, I am not declaring any of the sides a saint or a devil. I am just pointing out that there are many holes in all the stories we have heard yet, and you are too quick in getting to the conclusions when you should exercise a bit of patience to let it all come out.

If only such vague signs and the opaque end results were sufficient for such conclusions as you are reaching up to, then man, you don't want to know where Pakistan would stand.

 

[VCheng]

Fire finder radars would not be operated by troops actually conducting the operations, and they are used to detect mortar, artillery and rocket attacks - all indirect fire - which would be pretty inaccurate in mountainous terrain, 2.5KM away in complete darkness.

Secondly, the WSJ quotes Afghan officials as claiming that soldiers conducting the ops called in the strikes on Pakistani positions.

Third, given that Pakistani post locations have been provided to ISAF and ISAF has Pakistan Army liaisons deployed at various ISAF bases, this should have been cleared with Pakistani authorities before launching the strikes.

Keep trying to find excuses to justify atrocities by your beloved West.

1. Troops in those areas always have firefinder coverage during operations, and they work in the light or dark, in that type of terrain just fine.

2. The strikes were called, but only to a perceived attack. The investigation is not yet complete.

3. If the troops are under direct fire, there is no time for that type of clearance.

4. The incident is a terrible tragedy for sure, and should be regarded as such.

 

[illusion8]

Yes, using a firefinder radar system, the source of unfriendly fire can be located, often even before the first round hits.

The terrain where this incident happened is one of the most difficult and rugged, also Pakistan has most of its equipment stationed on its Eastern border against India.

 

[VCheng]

The terrain where this incident happened is one of the most difficult and rugged, also Pakistan has most of its equipment stationed on its Eastern border against India.

I was referring to NATO firefinder units. The response that led to the Pakistani casualties is presently thought to be the result of fire emanating from those locations, but that matter is under investigation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Unless they had reason to believe that the terrorists were using the Pak check posts to stage attacks on them on the Afg side of the border.. Which we have seen in interviews with NATO commanders in the famous BBC documentary..

Many of the same officials also pointed out that they had no actual evidence that Pakistani forces were either providing cover for militants or firing themselves.

So they were helicopters

It would appear so, though it does not rule out fighter jets as well.

 

[unicorn]

Two US senators call for tough line with Pakistan

Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, says ''tough diplomacy'' is needed and US aid must be contingent upon Pakistan's cooperation in fighting al-Qaida. -Reuters File Photo

WASHINGTON: Senior lawmakers suggested Sunday that the US take a harder line with Pakistan, after Islamabad retaliated for Nato’s deadly misfire by closing parts of its border with Afghanistan and demanding the US vacate a drone base.

Two US senators call for tough line with Pakistan | World | DAWN.COM

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. Troops in those areas always have firefinder coverage during operations, and they work in the light or dark, in that type of terrain just fine.

2. The strikes were called, but only to a perceived attack. The investigation is not yet complete.

3. If the troops are under direct fire, there is no time for that type of clearance.

4. The incident is a terrible tragedy for sure, and should be regarded as such.

Darkness would have an impact on the troops on the ground pinpointing the location of fire in the middle of combat - I was not referring to the radar, and the quotes from Afghan officials do not refer to the radar operators determining the location of the fire, but the Afghan troops on the ground. Don't invent your own facts to excuse NATO atrocities please.

Second, with respect to 'no time for clearance' - that is precisely what ISAF-PA liaisons and communication channels are for. For NATO to not use those channels is 'complete incompetence or collusion'.

 

[American Pakistani]

NATO is taking time to make up story thats it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. Troops in those areas always have firefinder coverage during operations, and they work in the light or dark, in that type of terrain just fine.

2. The strikes were called, but only to a perceived attack. The investigation is not yet complete.

3. If the troops are under direct fire, there is no time for that type of clearance.

4. The incident is a terrible tragedy for sure, and should be regarded as such.

Darkness would have an impact on the troops on the ground pinpointing the location of fire in the middle of combat - I was not referring to the radar, and the quotes from Afghan officials do not refer to the radar operators determining the location of the fire, but the Afghan troops on the ground. Don't invent your own facts to excuse NATO atrocities please.

Second, with respect to 'no time for clearance' - that is precisely what ISAF-PA liaisons and communication channels are for. For NATO to not use those channels is 'complete incompetence or collusion'.