American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[53fd]

No one knows what exactly happened on the dead of the night in Mohmand.

Everything floating around are just 'versions' and this is one such.

Pakistan knows exactly what happened, & Major Athar has explained Pakistan's position quite clearly. It corresponds to the facts of the ground. NATO has given both of its accounts, & nothing like you said transpired. There is no evidence to suggest such a situation happened. Please stop making up stories.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

That is NATO's problem and fault - it is not an excuse for an illegal military operation inside Pakistani territory.

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

Again NATO's fault and problem - while the border might be poorly demarcated, the locations of Pakistani posts have been communicated to NATO multiple times, and there are lines of communication and liaison officers on both sides. NATO would have/should have known that it was conducting operations in the vicinity of Pakistani positions, and therefore should have ensured that it was in constant communication with Pakistani authorities to avoid potential 'friendly fire'.

Therefore this argument does not excuse NATO's actions either.

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

See above, not a good excuse. Communication channels exist precisely to avoid these kinds of events.

 

[Bhairava]

Pakistan knows exactly what happened, & Major Athar has explained Pakistan's position quite clearly. NATO has given both of its accounts, & nothing like you said transpired. There is no evidence to suggest such a situation happened. Please stop making up stories.

NATO has given enough hints to suggest how it's final report will be. It doesn't take much to figure 2+2 = 4.

Again I stand my my comment, there is no authoritative announcement of what happened exactly on the ground in Mohmand. Everything floating around are versions and this is one such.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There were no injuries on their side because the Apaches were not shooting them.

Or perhaps no one was shooting them ...

If NATO speculation is true, then 'gunfire' from the insurgents they were tracking would be completely expected - how that translated to 'gunfire from a Pakistani post 2.5KM deep inside Pakistani territory' and a sustained '1 plus hour assault' against two Pakistani posts, remains inexplicable, other than by 'complete incompetence or collusion' by NATO.

---------- Post added at 12:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

NATO has given enough hints to suggest how it's final report will be. It doesn't take much to figure 2+2 = 4.

There version, based on the alleged 'anonymous sources' has been exposed to be pretty weak on this thread - nothing they have argued so far makes a lot of sense or excuses their actions.

 

[Bhairava]

That is NATO's problem and fault - it is not an excuse for an illegal military operation inside Pakistani territory.


Again NATO's fault and problem - while the border might be poorly demarcated, the locations of Pakistani posts have been communicated to NATO multiple times, and there are lines of communication and liaison officers on both sides. NATO would have/should have known that it was conducting operations in the vicinity of Pakistani positions, and therefore should have ensured that it was in constant communication with Pakistani authorities to avoid potential 'friendly fire'.

Therefore this argument does not excuse NATO's actions either.

See above, not a good excuse. Communication channels exist precisely to avoid these kinds of events.

It could be well be interpreted as Pakistan's fault for not properly demarcating its border. Can such things happen on the India-Pak border for example ?
MOD EDIT: Trolling

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It could be well be interpreted as Pakistan's fault for not properly demarcating its border. Can such things happen on the India-Pak border for example ?

It is not Pakistan that is refusing to accept the border .... if you want to use 'poor demarcation' as an excuse, go blame the Afghans.

BTW did we not have posters saying Mumbai was part India's fault for not properly guarding her maritime borders ?

Keep up off topic trolling and see how quickly you get banned.

 

[Bhairava]

Or perhaps no one was shooting them ...

If NATO speculation is true, then 'gunfire' from the insurgents they were tracking would be completely expected - how that translated to 'gunfire from a Pakistani post 2.5KM deep inside Pakistani territory' and a sustained '1 plus hour assault' against two Pakistani posts, remains inexplicable, other than by 'complete incompetence or collusion' by NATO.

Or perhaps....

That is why I'm repeatedly saying no one knows what exactly transpired that fateful day for any of us to make conclusive judgements.

Let us just wait for the final report. Or is it too much to ask ?

There version, based on the alleged 'anonymous sources' has been exposed to be pretty weak on this thread - nothing they have argued so far makes a lot of sense or excuses their actions.

On this thread - lol. When did PDF become the final authority on these things. Everything here is just our own version of events. Not necessarily what actually happened on ground.

 

[53fd]

NATO has given enough hints to suggest how it's final report will be. It doesn't take much to figure 2+2 = 4.

Yes, it is full of logical fallacies as shown on this thread.

Again I stand my my comment, there is no authoritative announcement of what happened exactly on the ground in Mohmand. Everything floating around are versions and this is one such.

You're wrong. This is the authoritative announcement of what happened:

 

[Bhairava]

It is not Pakistan that is refusing to accept the border .... if you want to use 'poor demarcation' as an excuse, go blame the Afghans.

Ok should have worded it more properly. 'Part' Pakistani, part Afghan problem. ok ?

Keep up off topic trolling and see how quickly you get banned.

I was not trolling. Just giving an analogy where my kind of argument was given.

 

[53fd]

I was not trolling. Just giving an analogy where my kind of argument was given.

You are giving analogies that do not have any association with the realities & facts on the ground. I am asking you for a source that states that Afghan troops crossed 2.5kms into Pakistani territory like the NATO helicopters did. Any article would suffice. If you can't produce that, then you are posting off-topic, & that does come under trolling.

 

[Bhairava]

Yes, it is full of logical fallacies as shown on this thread.

Perfectly logical. But just branded 'fallacy' as it goes against the popular narrative.

You're wrong. This is the authoritative announcement of what happened:

I bet you did not watch it. Watch it fully. It fully supports my theory. Without saying as much the gen indicated that this was a strike in self-defence and called in by the Afghan/Coalition forced indulged in operation in the poorly demarcated border region in close vicinity of the posts and that NATO is fully investigating the incident.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

You are giving analogies that do not have any association with the realities & facts on the ground. I am asking you for a source that states that Afghan troops crossed 2.5kms into Pakistani territory like the NATO helicopters did. Any article would suffice. If you can't produce that, then you are posting off-topic, & that does come under trolling.

The post was 2.5 km from the border, not the helis. They could have been 1 -1.5 km from the border. And that is a very short distance friend. There is no need for any article. The video you posted would suffice. Just wait to see how the NATO version of events shape up.

 

[53fd]

Perfectly logical. But just branded 'fallacy' as it goes against the popular narrative.

No, it is against every narrative.

I bet you did no watch it. Watch it fully. It fully supports my theory. Without saying as much the gen indicated that this was a strike in self-defence and called in by the Afghan/Coalition forced indulged in operation in the poorly demarcated border region in close vicinity of the posts.

I watched it completely. He said that the Afghan & NATO troops were involved close to the border regions in Eastern Afghanistan, not 2.5kms inside Pakistan. He did not say Afghan troops crossed into Pakistani territory. The attacks NATO helicopters did were on two posts 2.5kms inside Pakistani territory, not close to the AfPak border. A poorly demarcated border does not mean you can cross 2.5kms into Pakistani territory. They had been given the locations & co-ordinates of the Pakistani outposts as well by Pakistan, so such an attack cannot be justified in anyway.

 

[Mav3rick]

There were no injuries on their side because the Apaches were not shooting them.

So the choppers were Apaches? Where is the link?

But air support was called in because ISAF/Afghan force was allegedly under severe fire, right? Despite that no loss or life or property on either side? You don't really have to be smart to figure out what's going on.

 

[karan.1970]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/28/pakistan-fire-may-have-prompted-nato-strike-wsj.html

WASHINGTON: Fire from a Pakistani military outpost into Afghanistan prompted the Nato cross-border air strikes that left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead, a report said Sunday, citing Afghan and Western officials.

The Wall Street Journal, citing three unnamed Afghan officials and one Western official, said the attack —which has prompted fury in Islamabad —was called in to shield Nato and Afghan forces targeting Taliban fighters.

The fire came from remote outposts in the Mohmand region.

“There was firing coming from the position against Afghan army soldiers who requested support and this is what happened,” an Afghan official in Kabul said on condition of anonymity.

The official added that the government in Kabul believes the fire came from the Pakistani military base —and not from insurgents in the area.

That version was corroborated by two Afghan officials working in the border zone.

One border police official said Pakistani officials were informed of the Nato operation ahead of time.
================================================
hmm.. getting murkier by the minute ....

Specially the Red part.. Another possibility emerging is that Pakistan was informed of the operation and tried to disrupt the same by firing on the NATO/Afghan forces resulting in the incident in question.. I guess another 24 hours, as the US gets back to work after the long weekend, will make this a little clearer

 

[Bhairava]

I watched it completely. He said that the Afghan & NATO troops were involved close to the border regions in Eastern Afghanistan, not 2.5kms inside Pakistan. He did not say Afghan troops crossed into Pakistani territory. The attacks NATO helicopters did were on two posts 2.5kms inside Pakistani territory, not close to the AfPak border. A poorly demarcated border does not mean you can cross 2.5kms into Pakistani territory. They had been given the locations & co-ordinates of the Pakistani outposts as well by Pakistan, so such an attack cannot be justified in anyway.

As I said he has left enough hints to suggest how the final report will look like. You are just not willing to accept it. It will closed as a grave and sad incident, but one which was caused by self-defence.

For the record 2.5 kms is not such a great distance.

I gave just one version of the events. Again let's wait for the investigation to complete and the report be submitted. We need not act the judge & jury.

EDIT:- Look up the previous post. Did I not say how this incident will shape up ? It;s just too early.