American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[SMC]

When you are facing gunfire ,directed at you, you do no stop to think if that is friend or foe. Your reflex is shoot back and if not able to match the firepower call for re-inforcements.

No you don't. That's not how wars work. Secondly, you can't fire on someone from 2.5km away. Do you know what the range of even the most powerful guns are?

They are not contradictory if in case the Pakistani soldiers were giving covering fire for the running Afghan Taliban who were pursued by the Afghan/NATO troops. That would satisfy both 'accounts' of hot pursuit and self-defence.

Ofcourse you have to accept this is one possible scenario.Infact it can be the most plausible scenario.

I'll show you the obvious contradiction in the accounts: the reason why helicopters were called. One account says that the helicopters were called in because Afghan troops were being fired upon. The other says the helicopters were involved in the operation from the go.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

When you are facing gunfire ,directed at you, you do no stop to think if that is friend or foe. Your reflex is shoot back and if not able to match the firepower call for re-inforcements.

Again, this has been argued already, and some of the arguments have been repeated already above by SMC and Bilalhaider.

Once again, given similar instances in the past, coordinates of all posts have been exchanged several times and their are PA liaison officers deployed at various ISAF bases for purposes of communication and coordination.

Since we have heard of no injuries even from NATO troops allegedly conducting these ops and coming 'under fire', the alleged 'gunfire' was not serious or accurate, and the response both disproportionate and inaccurate. These situations are precisely why PA liaisons are present and communication lines established.

And this does not even take into account the fact that if the base was 2.5KM inside Pakistani territory, then NATO forces would have to have been inside Pakistani territory to be within the range of gunfire from the Pakistani base, which means that even if Pakistani forces fired first, they were justified in doing so against forces violating Pakistani territory.

Therefore, no matter what the excuse, NATO is completely at fault here.

 

[53fd]

From Pakistani side it was free. But not from Afghan side. The Taliban were escaping from Afghan side with the NATO in hot pursuit.

No open accusation has yet been made. But already sounds of 'self-defence' are making rounds and I guess this will be the final conclusion that will be given.

Please read my full post. This is my full post. Both the claims are contradictory:

There has been no accusation made by anyone that Pakistani soldiers were giving covering fire for the Taliban to infiltrate into Afghanistan. The area was free from militants from the Pakistani side. There has been no suggestion made of this scenario. And the first scenario (hot pursuit) talks about the militants on the Afghan side of the border, not Pakistan. The second scenario (defense) talks about firing from the Pakistani side, but it is not possible that firing from 2.5km inside Pakistan could hit Afghanistan.

 

[Bhairava]

The second scenario (defense) talks about firing from the Pakistani side, but it is not possible that firing from 2.5km inside Pakistan could hit Afghanistan.

It's common knowledge that the border is poorly demarcated or not at all. So its anybody's guess where the NATO/ANA soldiers were when the firing started. They need not have been 2.5 km from the Pak posts.

They could have well been in Pakistan territory in 'hot pursuit' of the escaping militants when Pakistani troops sensing infiltrators shot back at them causing them to call in air strikes in 'self-defence'.

You can then fault them for crossing over the border, but then you yourself acknowledge that the border is poorly de-marcated.



---------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 AM ----------

Please read my full post. This is my full post. Both the claims are contradictory:

They are not.

 

[53fd]

It's common knowledge that the border is poorly demarcated or not at all. So its anybody's guess where the NATO/ANA soldiers were when the firing started.

They ccould have well been in Pakistan territory in 'hot pursuit' when Pakistani troops sensing infiltrators shot back at them causing them to call in air strikes as 'self-defence'.

If the border is poorly demarcated, & the NATO helicopters accidentally crossed the border 2.5km (not a small distance) into Pakistani territory when they were assisting the Afghan soldiers, why were there no Afghan soldiers found on the Pakistani side of the border for this operation? If the Afghan soldiers, with their own human eyes could figure out where the border was, but the NATO helicopters with night vision could not, there is something wrong here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani military spokesman, stopped short of that characterization, but he said the strike was “inexplicable.” In an interview, he said the two border posts are clearly marked and their locations are known to Afghan and coalition forces. No militant or military firing preceded the NATO assault, nor did coalition troops inform Pakistan that they were receiving fire from the Pakistani side, as is procedure, Abbas said.

Once the strike began, Abbas said, soldiers notified their commanders in the nearby city of Peshawar, who told officials at military headquarters in Rawalpindi, who then informed two trilateral border coordination centers located at the Torkham pass and the border of Pakistan’s North Waziristan region.

“But somehow it continued,” Abbas said of the firing. “Our side believes there is no possibility of confusion. The post location is not where a Taliban would take position.”

NATO airstrike strains U.S.-Pakistan relations - The Washington Post

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

VC and others - the DG ISPR appears to have provided a pretty detailed summary of the events that took place.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's common knowledge that the border is poorly demarcated or not at all. So its anybody's guess where the NATO/ANA soldiers were when the firing started. They need not have been 2.5 km from the Pak posts.

They could have well been in Pakistan territory in 'hot pursuit' of the escaping militants when Pakistani troops sensing infiltrators shot back at them causing them to call in air strikes in 'self-defence'.

You can then fault them for crossing over the border, but then you yourself acknowledge that the border is poorly de-marcated.



---------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 AM ----------



They are not.

Hot pursuit into Pakistani territory is not sanctioned under the UNSC resolutions AFAIK, and Pakistan has not allowed it officially, which makes any argument based on 'hot pursuit' the fault of NATO.

 

[Bhairava]

If the border is poorly demarcated, & the NATO helicopters accidentally crossed the border 2.5km (not a small distance) into Pakistani territory when they were assisting the Afghan soldiers, why were there no Afghan soldiers found on the Pakistani side of the border for this operation? If the Afghan soldiers, with their own human eyes could figure out where the border was, but the NATO helicopters with night vision could not, there is something wrong here.

No one knows which troops were involved or whether the Afghan/NATO soldiers crossed into Pak territory or not.

I just gave you one plausible scenario when the Pak troops mistook the NATO/ANA troops as infiltrators and fired at them causing the NATO/ANA troops to call for air support.

Also the Pak troops could have intentionally given cover fire for the escaping militants with NATO/Afghan soldiers in hot pursuit causing them to call in for air support.

They are all completely plausible scenarios.

---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

Hot pursuit into Pakistani territory is not sanctioned under the UNSC resolutions AFAIK, and Pakistan has not allowed it officially, which makes any argument based on 'hot pursuit' the fault of NATO.

But don't you guys say that the Pak-Afghan border is very poorly demarcated (in some places not even de-marcated). So I guess Afghan/NATO troops crossing over accidentally in 'hot pursuit' is not such a grave crime.

As for the word 'officially', you never know. Remember the Drones, Shamsi airbase ?

 

[53fd]

No one knows which troops were involved or whether the Afghan/NATO soldiers crossed into Pak territory or not.

I just gave you one plausible scenario when the Pak troops mistook the NATO/ANA troops as infiltrators and fired at them causing the NATO/ANA troops to call for air support.

Also the Pak troops could have intentionally given cover fire for the escaping militants with NATO/Afghan soldiers in hot pursuit causing them to call in for air support.

They are all completely plausible scenarios.

No Afghan troops crossed into Pakistani territory. If the Afghan troops were being assisted in an operation in Eastern Afghanistan by the coalition forces, Afghan troops would have been found on Pakistani territory. That did not happen though. It was only the coalition/NATO helicopters that crossed 2.5km into Pakistan, & attacked two different Pakistani outposts. Contradictory & implausible accounts.

 

[AUz]

Pakistan has cut-off NATO supply lines Permanently.


All supplies stopped at source at Karachi port, both border crossings closed.

Source : Ahmed Quraishi.

 

[Bhairava]

No Afghan troops crossed into Pakistani territory. If the Afghan troops were being assisted in an operation in Eastern Afghanistan by the coalition forces, Afghan troops would have been found on Pakistani territory. That did not happen though. It was only the coalition/NATO helicopters that crossed 2.5km into Pakistan, & attacked two different Pakistani outposts.

My question - how are you so sure? Were you there ? They could have crossed and gone back once the choppers came.

These are all possible scenarios along with other scenarios Pak members have said all over the thread.

So that is why I said let us wait for the final investigation to get completed.

Contradictory & implausible accounts.

Perfectly coherent and one of the plausible scenarios. Just you wont accept it because it goes against the theory Pak soldiers were attacked 'unprovoked' by NATO.

 

[53fd]

My question - how are you so sure? Were you there ?

Pakistani soldiers are deployed at the border outposts, & no Afghan forces entered Pakistani territory. Can you even show me one claim made any where that said Afghan soldiers entered into Pakistani territory in this incident? There was no way Afghan soldiers could have crossed into Pakistani territory, because there would have been/encounter a clash there between Pakistani troops & Afghan troops.

There were no Afghan troops injured or killed in this attack, & there is no account that they were even involved in this incident against the Pakistani outposts. Stop making up stories, & stick with the facts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But don't you guys say that the Pak-Afghan border is very poorly demarcated (in some places not even de-marcated). So I guess Afghan/NATO troops crossing over accidentally in 'hot pursuit' is not such a grave crime.

As for the word 'officially', you never know. Remember the Drones, Shamsi airbase ?

It is a 'grave crime' since the posts themselves are clearly demarcated, and 2.5KM is too large a distance to 'cross accidentally'.

"Officially or unofficially' any raids close to the border and/or Pakistani positions should have been carefully coordinated with Pakistani forces and constant communication with the relevant Pakistani authorities maintained during the military operation by NATO.

Again, NATO has no excuse for its actions.

 

[Bhairava]

Pakistani soldiers are deployed at the border outposts, & no Afghan forces entered Pakistani territory.

We, arm-chair generals living in India and US cant be sure of what happened in Mohmand ,on the ground, in the night.

Its entirely possible for Afghan/ISAF troops to be on ground at that time. Just that it has not yet been divulged.

CThere was no way Afghan soldiers could have crossed into Pakistani territory, because there would have been a clash there between Pakistani troops & Afghan troops.

Maybe there was a clash and the Afghan/ISAF troops called out for air support in 'self defence'.

See , I told you this is entirely possible.

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------

It is a 'grave crime' since the posts themselves are clearly demarcated, and 2.5KM is too large a distance to 'cross accidentally'.

In 'hot pursuit' , in the heat of the battle you dont measure distances.

"Officially or unofficially' any raids close to the border and/or Pakistani positions should have been carefully coordinated with Pakistani forces and constant communication with the relevant Pakistani authorities maintained during the military operation by NATO.

Again the border is very poorly demarcated for them to even know that they had crossed over from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

Again, NATO has no excuse for its actions.

In this scenario, they have the excuse of poorly demarcated borders.

 

[Agni5000]

It is a 'grave crime' since the posts themselves are clearly demarcated, and 2.5KM is too large a distance to 'cross accidentally'.

"Officially or unofficially' any raids close to the border and/or Pakistani positions should have been carefully coordinated with Pakistani forces and constant communication with the relevant Pakistani authorities maintained during the military operation by NATO.

Again, NATO has no excuse for its actions.

I think boarder between pak-afg is disputed and not properly demarcated. So it is not wrong to chase some insurgents.