Pak Army issues detailed report on NATO attack

[fd24]

Brilliant release by the ISPR, the moronic reaction from the US would be expected, giving Pakistan more room to do what it is currently doing as a response to that unprovoked attack.

Good thinking...to see Pakistani Perspective and expose US lies.

It is difficult to digest when the US attempt to issue a report when it is themselves on trial. Its like a mass murderer in the dock and defending himself, being the prosecution services himself and of course being the judge and jury. Its simply a not a report that can be taken seriously. It is clear for all to see their report is clearly flawed and not worth the paper its written on.
I am pleased by the release from ISPR and no doubt the US response is to be expected. Only a fool would defend their position.

 

[BATMAN]

Well they did not expect the attack, right? The top generals and all politicians blindly trusted and are still blindly trusting US, correct? Just answer Yes or No

Why shall some one expect attack from US or any one just at once! and the incidences you quoted are strikes and US had never said that their strikes were intentional.
Even today, US will not agree that TTP and their strikes have common objective.

In the end civilians loose nothing and only the army face US, what ever it is.
While anti army civilians may have congratulated the Americans (read Hussain Haqqani)

Was it the first time the soldiers at the western border were targeted by US/NATO/or any other party?

No.. but it only happens in period of 2009-2011.

And after the last event how many drones were downed? How much was kept of the words of downing any intruding craft? Or well maybe the drones attacks this month were not intruding the airspace. Probably they took off from some place inside Pakistan with the knowledge of Generals and Politicians. Yes or No?

Where did you heard the words? I hope you know, no notifications is valid, until it is routed through proper channel!

------

Nato soldiers and helicopters have penetrated into Pakistan on several occasions prior to the November 26 attack

26 November, 2011 Saturday, Mohmand Agency

Nato helicopters killed 24 Pakistani military personnel in blistering air strikes on two Pakistani positions in the Mohmand tribal region. An army major and a captain were among the dead

17 May, 2011 Tuesday, North Waziristan

A Nato helicopter from Afghanistan intruded into Pakistan’s North Waziristan region, wounding two troops, local intelligence officials said.

“It happened early morning,” an intelligence official in the region, who declined to be identified, told Reuters. “The helicopter hit a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area.”

The Pakistan army lodged a “strong protest” with Nato in Afghanistan over what it said was a violation of Pakistani air space by two helicopters, a military statement said

26 November, 2010 Friday, North Waziristan’s Datta Khel area

At least three people were wounded when two Nato gunship helicopters opened fire in North Waziristan’s Dattakhel area after violating Pakistani airspace on Friday, reports said.

The helicopters, incurring several kilometres into Pakistani territory, struck the Lowara Mandi village in Dattakhel.

30 September, 2010 Thursday, Kurram Agency

Three personnel of the Frontier Corps were killed in an attack by two Nato helicopters on a security post in Kurram Agency.

The two helicopters intruded into the Kurram Agency from Afghanistan’s Paktia province before dawn and when security personnel deployed at the Mandato Kandaou post, 15 kilometres west of Parachinar, fired warning shots the helicopters fired missiles.

26 September, 2010 Sunday, North Waziristan

US helicopters killed more than 30 people – alleged Haqqani Network fighters – during a hot pursuit, according to diplomatic sources.

The militants had attacked Combat Outpost Narizah, an Afghan base eight miles from the Pakistani border in Tani district of Khost.

US forces repelled the attack and pursued the militants to their post just across the border in North Waziristan.

US officials say that Isaf forces are permitted to pursue Taliban forces across the border if they are engaged in fighting or are under attack. (Open permission by the government and generals to trespass the sovereignty of Pakistan (by Air, Land or Sea))

Timeline

----

In all the above mentioned attacks Nato/ISAF/Us were intruding on foot with just some guns and bullets and few grenades and did not enter Pakistan by Air, so that is why we were still expecting that no one will fly in by air and committing the violation of trespassing Pakistan's sovereignty and then committing another violation of firing/killing our soldiers.

Never on single incidence your govt. was bothered by the dead army men and continue to do bussines with master minds.

Why not your loving govt. erect fence on Afghan border or break diplomatic ties with Afghanistan or what ever?

Why do you think zardari is requesting US for extension in his rule?

 

[Asian.Century]

 

[Asian.Century]

 

[Asian.Century]

This should be advertised discussed at all major international media and also on all major international Forums to bring forward the "actual" version of the incident and show the extreme propaganda twists/lies that US/ISAF are advertising to make a public opinion against Pakistan Army.


Ref: (Pakistani Report)

 

[Asian.Century]

Rejection of US report by the GHQ

JANUARY 25, 2012

Having given the United States investigation report on the Salala checkpost attack due thought, the General Headquarters (GHQ) has rejected it as it finds it contrary to facts and self-serving. Ref: (Pakistani Report)

The 24-page document released by the ISPR on Monday as the Pakistan military's perspective on that incident so completely exposes the element of partiality underlying the report that the GHQ seems to have been left with no option but to reject it.

The question why Pakistan had refused to be part of the investigation from day one finds a highly plausible answer in this document.

The raid on the checkpost on the night of November 26, 2011, causing death of 24 soldiers and injuries to many, had lasted for such a length of time to merit description as accidental or unintentional.

But for Army Chief General Kayani's warning of 'enhanced level of response' it could probably have gone on and on.

The attack was conducted well inside the Pakistan territory and the Pakistani side was protesting as long as it lasted, no one should be expected to buy the convoluted argument that the raiders acted in self-defence.

The US/Isaf forces had been on that path of unannounced aggression for quite some time, as we always suspected, but that we know now first hand.

The current incident was the fifth since June 2008 in which Pakistan had lost 18 soldiers besides numerous incursions by Afghanistan-based terrorists in the Chitral-Dir salient which couldn't have been possible without the active connivance of the coalition forces.

What could be more deceptive, if not hypocritical, on the part of the US/Isaf high command that General Allen was in the GHQ only a few hours prior to the Salala attack to 'co-ordinate and share' details about joint operations in the border areas and had not given the slightest hint of this action?
Even when the GHQ did not agree with the US investigators' findings when made public on December 22, 2011 it took one full month to come up with its perspective.

The GHQ didn't trash it; on the other hand, it sought 'additional details' to complete its analysis/assessment.

It wants 'full and complete classified version' of the US investigation report as well as 'intelligence surveillance picture of the incident along with all 'aerial platform videos and record of radio transmissions and communications between the crew(s)' of the aircraft involved in the attack.

In a way the GHQ hasn't shut the door on US-led coalition.

Will that help restore trust, there is not much hope - given that both the Pentagon and the State Department have promptly rejected the Pakistani perspective, of course the latter being a little less harsh.

That the US side is trying to affix the responsibility of the killer attack on Salala checkpost on the Pakistan military high command, that's not going to help.

The US should come clean, admit its mistake and make an open public apology at the highest level.

That done, the two sides should sit together and decide on the terms of engagement as to how and to what extent the two should cooperate.

The days are gone when Islamabad was at the Washington's beck and call as an unrewarded partner in this so-called war on terror.

Imagine, ex-president General Musharraf has earned the Senate's unanimous verdict demanding his trial for high treason for compromising 'vital national security interests through clandestine deals and unwritten agreements with foreign governments'.
Any hope of fuller revival of Pak-US anti-terrorism co-operative partnership that is not going to happen, particularly after publication of the ISPR document - making it all the more challenging for quarters who are thinking of winning parliamentary support to lift ban on Nato supplies.

PML (N) won't support any resolution 'giving the government a free hand to restore Nato supplies' at the joint session expected to be held early next month.

Even harder position has been taken by the Defence of Pakistan Council, which in its rally in Rawalpindi on Sunday vowed to resist any attempt to restore Nato supplies.

For all practical purposes the UN-mandated foreign military presence in Afghanistan has lost its justification; they should leave Afghanistan and let Kabul stew in its own juice.

Of course, victory eluded the coalition generalship and they need to find scapegoats for its failure.

We believe let that be the part of history instead of their ego standing in the way to bring the war in Afghanistan to its close.

If the Pentagon says it is 100 percent behind the US report and the GHQ says the Salala raid was deliberate and unprovoked then the two are on two different planets.

If there is still to be some kind of relationship between them, it has to be clearly defined.

But, certainly, it won't have the warmth and comradeship of the original.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2012

Rejection of US report by the GHQ | Business Recorder

 

[Asian.Century]

Salala deadlock

Why did Nato forces kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers in an air raid on a border post in the Mohmandregion late last November?

Islamabad and Washington continue to trade claims and counter-claims over the incident and in its latest statement Pakistan has called the attack unprovoked and declared it unacceptable that responsibility for the attack be affixed on Pakistan. This comes in response to the report coming out of an investigation conducted by Brigadier-General Stephen Clark, released on Dec 22.

Pakistan had refused to be a part of that investigation, not least because it found it problematic for the accused party to be leading an investigation into its own actions. Clark’s report alleges that Pakistani troops first opened fire, provoking a US response. A series of mistakes by both Isaf and Pakistani troops as well as mutual distrust between the parties led to the deadly firefight, goes the US version.

On the Pakistani side(ISPR Report), the army has categorically called Clark’s report “factually not correct” and said the fundamental cause of the attack was the failure of Nato and Isaf to share their near-border operation with Pakistan at any level and their violation of “all mutually agreed procedures” for such operations. “Sustained aggression which continued for as long as 90 minutes despite the US and Isaf being informed about the incident at multiple levels within minutes of initiation of US-Isaf fire belies the ‘self defence’ and ‘proportional use of force’ contention (in Clark’s report),” the army concludes.

Importantly, the US has yet to share with the Pakistani side the full and classified version of Clark’s report, something the army has reiterated in its latest statement. As expected, the Pentagon has said it stands by the US military report and that the “statement that this was an unprovoked attack by American forces is simply false.”

So where do we go from here? There is no doubt that Washington and Islamabad need to work together so that the troubled relationship can be sensibly refashioned.

However, as things stand at the moment, the onus is on the US to decide which way it wants the relationship to go.

There is much documented evidence to suggest that the US can make, and indeed has made, deadly mistakes in the past and, for all its technical mastery and tremendous military capability, does not have perfect intelligence on the ground. A US Air Force investigation into the killing of 23 civilians in Uruzgan province in Feb 2010 concluded that it was a tragic mistake. In the same month Nato admitted killing 12 civilians in Helmand; it was followed by another admission of killing five civilians in Zhari district of Kandahar. Just a week before the deadly attack in Mohmand agency, Nato killed seven civilians, most of them children, in the same district. The fog of war often leads to fatal errors. But the biggest error the US is making now is adding insult to injury by refusing to acknowledge the full extent of its mistake and hence turning what many thought would be a temporary impasse into a permanent deadlock.

Salala deadlock

 

[Asian.Century]

Nato strike report

THE Pakistan military has issued its reaction report to the American analysis of the Nov 26 Nato strike in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed.

The technical details and sequence of events it contains are interesting enough, but their implications were already well-known: the military believes its men were intentionally targeted and does not accept the American assertion that US soldiers came under fire first. What is more striking about this reply is its tone, which goes far beyond frustration at a difficult relationship.

Pakistan’s perspective in it is that of a so-called ally that no longer believes the other side is a friendly one. With a tone that can only be described as one of outrage, the response states that the US hides information about operations and must have known about the location of the Pakistani posts, directly accuses the Americans of being dishonest about the sequence of events and indirectly implies that the US meant to target Pakistani soldiers.

An introduction that recalls previous incidents of cross-border fire indicates that frustration has been building over the issue for some time, and that the November incident was seen as the last straw. The Pentagon’s response the same day did not help, coming as early as it did and categorically rejecting the claim that the attack was unprovoked.

In sum, one does not come away with the impression that these two militaries are fighting on the same side. An apology from the US might have helped, but the situation has now degenerated into a he-said, she-said scenario.

And the real problem it highlights, beyond communication failures and chain-of-command issues, is just how deeply suspicious the two sides are of each other, at least at the military level. The US report acknowledges that because of mistrust Pakistan was not informed of the American operation as per standard operating procedure, and Pakistan clearly believes the American report is an exercise in duplicity.

Nato strike report | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

 

[VCheng]

Vcheng,

Whats up with this derogatory signature of yours!!!!

You know---sometimes the words are a 'double edged sword'----.

There is nothing derogatory about it, merely a very apt old adage from the Punjab. Anyways, I have changed it.

Back on topic, is there any expectation in Pakistan of a response by NATO to the "reaction report"?

 

[Al Bhatti]

Why shall some one expect attack from US or any one just at once! and the incidences you quoted are strikes and US had never said that their strikes were intentional.
Even today, US will not agree that TTP and their strikes have common objective.

So if they never said that the trikes are intentional (they will never say it is intentional), What did the govt. adn army do? NOTHING, just released some words for public consumption.

In the end civilians loose nothing and only the army face US, what ever it is.
While anti army civilians may have congratulated the Americans (read Hussain Haqqani)

Even the Generals are now as "honest" as the politicians.

No.. but it only happens in period of 2009-2011.

And during all that period what measures were taken apart from press releases by the army and govt. to avoid any future strike.

Where did you heard the words? I hope you know, no notifications is valid, until it is routed through proper channel!

The proper channel is not made in effect due to $ome reason and will not be made effective also.

Never on single incidence your govt. was bothered by the dead army men and continue to do bussines with master minds.

Why not your loving govt. erect fence on Afghan border or break diplomatic ties with Afghanistan or what ever?

Since when the politicians were honest and patriotic for Pakistan?

Why do you think zardari is requesting US for extension in his rule?

For the better of P A K I $ T AN.

 

[haviZsultan]

Nato strike report

THE Pakistan military has issued its reaction report to the American analysis of the Nov 26 Nato strike in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed.

The technical details and sequence of events it contains are interesting enough, but their implications were already well-known: the military believes its men were intentionally targeted and does not accept the American assertion that US soldiers came under fire first. What is more striking about this reply is its tone, which goes far beyond frustration at a difficult relationship.

Pakistan’s perspective in it is that of a so-called ally that no longer believes the other side is a friendly one. With a tone that can only be described as one of outrage, the response states that the US hides information about operations and must have known about the location of the Pakistani posts, directly accuses the Americans of being dishonest about the sequence of events and indirectly implies that the US meant to target Pakistani soldiers.

An introduction that recalls previous incidents of cross-border fire indicates that frustration has been building over the issue for some time, and that the November incident was seen as the last straw. The Pentagon’s response the same day did not help, coming as early as it did and categorically rejecting the claim that the attack was unprovoked.

In sum, one does not come away with the impression that these two militaries are fighting on the same side. An apology from the US might have helped, but the situation has now degenerated into a he-said, she-said scenario.

And the real problem it highlights, beyond communication failures and chain-of-command issues, is just how deeply suspicious the two sides are of each other, at least at the military level. The US report acknowledges that because of mistrust Pakistan was not informed of the American operation as per standard operating procedure, and Pakistan clearly believes the American report is an exercise in duplicity.

Nato strike report | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

I think US is just preparing to abandon us like it did in the 1980's. After they used us to fight the Soviets in 80's then came the presler amendment. Our nuclear program was sanctioned though they turned a blind eye to the smiling budha test of india in 1974/ When we responded we were sanctioned. We are the ones taking action against terrorists with 30000 dead yet we are treated as terrorists in their country. Seen it myself in Canada.

We should have expected this all along. How could we expect these backstabbers to be allies. They abandoned Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Iranian Shah, everyone.

We should have been neutral all along. Now we're paying the price.
Look at Iran sanctioned to the gills but still living with some form of honor.

 

[ziaulislam]

US is taking a calculated risk..they clearly know that the govt will allow them in the end anyway..
had it been a clear strong reponse , US would have came out with different results..

they know that pakistan will eventually cooperate with US for three reasons.
1.Corrupt and stupid leadership, that has put us in compromising "position" internationally
2. our economically poor situation; poor in terms that fighting the boarder incursions from afghn is an expensive war we cant easily afford
3.The TTp will continue its attacks regardless of our stance regarding to USA..i am one of the few who think that even we hadnt been invovlled in US war on terror ..we would still be facing the TTP.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

So if they never said that the trikes are intentional (they will never say it is intentional), What did the govt. adn army do? NOTHING, just released some words for public consumption.



Even the Generals are now as "honest" as the politicians.




And during all that period what measures were taken apart from press releases by the army and govt. to avoid any future strike.



The proper channel is not made in effect due to $ome reason and will not be made effective also.




Since when the politicians were honest and patriotic for Pakistan?



For the better of P A K I $ T AN.

you $eem to be ob$e$$ed with $omething

 

[Irfan Baloch]

This should be advertised discussed at all major international media and also on all major international Forums to bring forward the "actual" version of the incident and show the extreme propaganda twists/lies that US/ISAF are advertising to make a public opinion against Pakistan Army.


Ref: (Pakistani Report)

I agree.
the Pakistani report mentions that the American ariel footage and radio comm between their pilots and base will clear a lot of things and should be made public. but I think they would have deleted that already.

 

[lem34]

A press release issued by ISPR stated that Pakistan does not agree with several portions and findings of the Investigation Report as these are factually not correct. The fundamental cause of the incident of 26th November 2011 was the failure of US / ISAF to share its near-border operation with Pakistan at any level.

My understanding is that both American and Pakistani reports agree that American soldiers did not follow the first SOP Americans should have informed Pakistanis of their troop movements so near the border. There was no break in causation from this one action and the actions that lead to the killing of Pakistani soldiers. Under English law a crime has been committed.

I really find it an insult to the memory of our fallen doing their duty that some people who are trying after all this time to make excuses and offer mitigation for murderers and killer Americans who cant even be bothered to apologize for their actions