What's new

NATO Forces Kill 13 Pak FC's out of a total of 27!

Pakistan blames US coalition for troops' death By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - U.S.-led coalition forces along the volatile Afghan border launched an airstrike that killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops, Pakistan's army said Wednesday. The military condemned it as an act of aggression that "hit at the very basis of cooperation" in the war on terrorism.

ADVERTISEMENT

The incident late Tuesday followed a reported clash between Afghan forces and Taliban militants in the same area. The Taliban said eight of its fighters died in the skirmish.

The Pakistani army launched a strong protest and reserved "the right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression," the military said in a statement. The statement said the clash in the Mohmand tribal region "had hit at the very basis of cooperation" between the two allies in the war on terror.

The U.S. military declined to comment.

The lawless and remote mountain region is difficult for reporters to access and there were conflicting reports over the sequence of events and how many died in the fighting. The region is believed to be used by pro-Taliban militants as a launch pad for attacks into Afghanistan.

That infiltration is a constant source of tension in the counterrorism alliance. Pakistan has deployed tens of thousands of troops to police its tribal regions, but Western and Afghan officials say that has not deterred militants. Afghanistan often accuses Pakistan of abetting the Taliban, whose hardline regime it supported until its ouster in 2001.

Pakistani officials said the fighting broke out Tuesday after Afghan troops tried to set up a mountaintop post in a contested part of the lawless frontier and Pakistani security forces told them to withdraw.

Local tribesman Damagh Khan Mohmand said the Afghan forces had moved into the area around Speena Sooka, or White Peak, on Monday evening and were supported by foreign troops. There was no confirmation of that from the U.S.-led coalition or NATO security force in Afghanistan.

Khan Mohmand said tribesmen traded fire with the Afghan and foreign forces, and said Pakistani security forces also opened fire — although the military disputed that.

The army said the coalition airstrike hit a post of the paramilitary Frontier Corps and was a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act."

Khan Mohmand said he saw drones and that two aircraft had bombed several locations.

Maulvi Umar, a spokesman for an umbrella group of Pakistani Taliban, said militants had resisted an incursion into Pakistan.

He said between 60 and 100 of its fighters attacked NATO and Afghan army troops who had set up bunkers and tents on Pakistani soil. He claimed up to 40 Afghan troops were killed, several captured and that a NATO helicopter was shot down. Eight Taliban troops also died in the fighting, he said.

None of his claims could be independently confirmed.

State-run Pakistan Television said 18 people died in the fighting, including 10 troops and eight civilians. It reported that Afghan and foreign forces had tried to set up a military post and were resisted by tribesmen. A NATO airstrike then struck a Pakistani military post, PTV said.

On Wednesday, two helicopters brought the bodies of 11 troops killed and another 13 soldiers wounded in the fighting to Peshawar, the main city in northwestern Pakistan, a military intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because he is not allowed to comment to the media. Witnesses said seven ambulances shifted the casualties to a military hospital in the city.

Officials in Afghanistan all declined comment.

NATO in Afghanistan referred inquiries to the U.S. military whose spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, referred calls on reports of an airstrike to the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan. The embassy also declined comment. The Afghan Ministry of Defense said it had no information on the incident.

The U.S. has in the past used unmanned drones to attack suspected militants inside Pakistan.

Pakistan does not allow foreign troops to conduct military operations on its territory. It says aerial attacks launched from Afghanistan are a violation of its sovereignty.

Associated Press writer Habibullah Khan in Khar, Munir Ahmad in Islamabad and Jason Straziuso in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.
 
Sure - just like all those wedding parties, and village gatherings that were bombed by USAF were "helping the Taliban".

The idiots probably shoot at anything wearing a Shalwar Kamiz (the FC uniform is shalwar kamiz - traditional dress, instead of regular army camo) and carrying a gun.

Well, I dunno, but I doubt if US intelligence is as bad as you make it out to be.

OTOH, there was a recent report saying that some factions of the Pakistani troops were helping the insurgents:

Pak officers, ISI colluding with Taliban: US think tank- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times
 
BBC Radio says that the Pakistani troops that were attacked might have been helping the Taliban.


:angry: might have been ????? and from where the A$- hole Bhin bhin ceee got the prove of it.


@Agnostic according to my reports the NATO forces enterd the agency yesterday and accoupied a hill and follow up all of you know what happend.

Where are the bug head fi.lthy democraps of PPP and Gunja
 
This is a dangerous precedent.

It can lead to serious consequence since the new govt will have to adopted a posture that does not appear to be weak.
 
Well, I dunno, but I doubt if US intelligence is as bad as you make it out to be.

OTOH, there was a recent report saying that some factions of the Pakistani troops were helping the insurgents:

Pak officers, ISI colluding with Taliban: US think tank- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times



If someone has a brain he would know there is difference between a report and an article.

and as far the standard of the US intellegence is concern the Iraq blunder is enough to prove that
 
:china:


No one is suggesting that the Taliban are good or the MMA is OK - this has very little to do with them -- it is no coincidence that just yesterday The RAND Corp's Seth Jones published a paper "Insurgency in Afghanistan" -- he makes it a point that Pakistan have and are actively supporting Taliban.

Now, please consider what it took -- the location of tghe Pakistani troops was or had to be first ascertained, a conscious decision would then have to be taken out to take the position out -- all the time the commanders would have to consider the implications of killing Pakistani soldiers on Pakistani territory --- and even then the order was given, consciously, cold - they mean business -- and if the alliance ought not be snapped just because one incident, how bout testing that, what would the US or NAto response be to their soldiers being targetted by Pakistani military -- you wanna test??


:pakistan:
 
If someone has a brain he would know there is difference between a report and an article.

and as far the standard of the US intellegence is concern the Iraq blunder is enough to prove that

Er...the article is based on a REPORT by a US Thinktank.

And btw, the 'Iraq blunder' was a deliberate deception by the US govt, not a failure of intelligence.
 
Well, I dunno, but I doubt if US intelligence is as bad as you make it out to be.

OTOH, there was a recent report saying that some factions of the Pakistani troops were helping the insurgents:

Pak officers, ISI colluding with Taliban: US think tank- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

Wake up and go research please!

Now you want to deny all the incidents of collateral damage that ISAF has itself admitted to? I am not the one accusing them of having poor intel - their actions pretty much validate that.

What was the evidence behind the RAND study? Are we looking at institutional support or rogue soldiers/FC?

Given the current atmosphere of US dislike with GoP policy of negotiations, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this study wasn't another on the lines of what came out in the run up to the Iraq war -deliberately targeted to increase pressure and project a certain view. In this case designed to pressure the GoP to back off from negotiations.
 
@Agnostic according to my reports the NATO forces enterd the agency yesterday and accoupied a hill and follow up all of you know what happend.

Jana,

the AP and BBC report suggest the same thing - that Afghan forces tried to set up a post on Pakistani territory and came under attack, possibly from both Taliban and FC, and then had ISAF involved.

From AP:
State-run Pakistan Television said 18 people died in the fighting, including 10 troops and eight civilians. It reported that Afghan and foreign forces had tried to set up a military post and were resisted by tribesmen. A NATO airstrike then struck a Pakistani military post, PTV said.

From BBC:
Other reports say the fighting broke out after Afghan troops tried to set up a mountain top post in territory claimed by Pakistan - the Pakistani Taleban claim to have then attacked these Afghan forces, prompting Nato to respond with air strikes.
 
Wake up and go research please!

LOL i guess you're right.

Now you want to deny all the incidents of collateral damage that ISAF has itself admitted to? I am not the one accusing them of having poor intel - their actions pretty much validate that.

Well you know, its collateral damage, not a mistake.

Collateral damage happens when civilians die inadvertently in an attack.

What was the evidence behind the RAND study? Are we looking at institutional support or rogue soldiers/FC?

It says that a part of the Pakistani establishment is sympathetic to the Taliban.
Now, with the history of PA-Taliban cooperation, I wouldn't consider it a far-fetched claim.


Given the current atmosphere of US dislike with GoP policy of negotiations, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this study wasn't another on the lines of what came out in the run up to the Iraq war -deliberately targeted to increase pressure and project a certain view. In this case designed to pressure the GoP to back off from negotiations.


It could be deception.

On the other hand, it could also be true.

How can we know for sure?
 
And given the US dislike for GoP policy currently what prevents them from "deliberately piling up pressure" through crap like this?

It might be a pressure tactic for all you know.

It might also be a partial truth that has been exaggerated.

It might also be completely true!
 
Either way - it was a conscious decision to target Pakistani soldier -- now what are Pakistani going to do about it?
 
Well you know, its collateral damage, not a mistake.


Collateral damage happens when civilians die inadvertently in an attack.

Stealth,

we are talking about wedding parties and village gatherings being bombed despite being nowhere close to the scene of a firefight. These were massive failures of intel primarily because too much reliance was placed on "eyes in the sky".

It says that a part of the Pakistani establishment is sympathetic to the Taliban.
Now, with the history of PA-Taliban cooperation, I wouldn't consider it a far-fetched claim.

It could be deception.

On the other hand, it could also be true.

How can we know for sure?



The first part I do not think you need a RAND study to conclude. However, being sympathetic is different from actively supporting i.e. providing intel on NATO movements, weapons, training, funding etc.

Even if part of the Pakistani establishment wanted to do that, the fact is that this kind of support could not be delivered without institutional and leadership approval - and there is no question of what the policies of the military, ISI, and GoP are with respect to the Taliban.

The head of the ISI is a Musharraf confidante, the COAS is a liberal, and soldier the Americans think highly off, the GoP is led by parties that are as close to secular as they can be in Pakistan, and who have had their leader assassinated in a suicide bombing.

I would like to know how despite all this the Taliban are able to get meaningful support from the "establishment". Its nothing but bad extrapolation and a bogeyman created to put pressure on Pakistan.

Its not hard to analyze the situation on the ground and figure out how flawed the RAND report is.
 
Either way - it was a conscious decision to target Pakistani soldier -- now what are Pakistani going to do about it?

We protest strongly, which we have, and wait to see what the NATO response and explanation will be. We then wait to see what future actions undertaken n the part of NATO will be, and if this will be repeated.

The key is to make a big fuss about it and ensure that the Pakistani public gets riled up about it.

What do you think will happen to public sentiment if this happens again? Nothing like unity in the face of adversity, especially if the adversary is perceived to be America, who not many Pakistanis trust or care for currently anyway.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom