American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[53fd]

It's not a hard question ,yes. But just not the right time to answer it.

So you shouldn't be assuming that your position is correct, especially when you choose to cherry pick & accept one piece of information allegedly coming out from a particular source (& reject another piece of information coming out from that source).

 

[Bhairava]

So you shouldn't be assuming that your position is correct, especially when you choose to cherry pick & accept one piece of information allegedly coming out from a particular source (& reject another piece of information coming out from that source).

. .

BTW I know what you are arriving at. Remember the versions, as of now, can and will vary according to the sides, but the actual physical position of the posts cannot vary and is a constant.So while I can say for sure about the latter, it's not the right time to speculate about the former.

Clear enough ?

 

[53fd]

. .


Clear enough ?

If you want to wait for further investigations, why did you accept Major Abbas's statement about the posts being 300 yards from the Afghan border as truth?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I wonder if anyone can provide clarity on this matter. There were consistent reports of 28 soldiers dead initially. This number kept up for a good amount of time, but now it seems that the number is being rolled back to 24. So who were the other 4 caualities that were counted amongst the 28?

I believe ISPR has stated 24 for while now (if not all along) - the 28 number was provided by media outlets quoting local sources in the region who had observed the casualties.

 

[Bhairava]

If you want to wait for further investigations, why did you accept Major Abbas's statement about the posts being 300 yards from the Afghan border as truth?

Because any number of investigations cant change the physical distance of the posts. Once or one million times the posts wouldd measure the same distance from the border.If he says this is the distnace , that is it.

Its like no matter how many times you watch the replay, the catch is a catch. It wont be dropped in the replay.

OTOH versions of what happened are fluid and are liable to change by the minute.Savvy ?

 

[manojb]

I am late.. Very unfortunate incident . Condolences to soldiers family.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hunting the escaped militants two hours later, the U.S. commander spotted what he thought was a militant encampment, and called for the deadly air strikes. That encampment was apparently the Pakistani base.

If this is true, this is sheer incompetence, and it does not necessarily rule out collusion - how on earth were airstrikes approved on coordinates for a Pakistani base, coordinates that had been specifically provided to ISAF to prevent just that?

 

[53fd]

Because any number of investigations cant change the physical distance of the posts. Once or one million times the posts wouldd measure the same distance from the border.

So you ignore the BBC reports, & all the reports from all reputable sources that say the posts were 1.5 miles from the border. You choose to accept Mr Abbas's alleged statement in this case, but you don't accept his claim when he says that the attack of the NATO Forces on the Pakistan soldiers was an unprovoked act of aggression. You can't cherry pick like this. If you agree with one of the claims by your source, you have to agree with all of them. Did Major Abbas measure the distance himself?

And btw, I am still waiting for you to quote a reliable Pakistani source that says Major Abbas said that. The US media is known for fabrications & prejudice against Pakistan, as was seen in the RD case.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

what about thousands of other non military orphans, who will probably never even receive the allownces and compensation etc??? these guys are paid and insured to give up their live, its their job

in civilian case, the families are literally destroyed because they had their properties/homes destroyed, and in this case the military will shower this orphan will life time allowances that its not even a big deal

Ask/protest against the civilian government to provide similar 'allowances' to non-military orphans that the military provides to its soldiers.

Criticizing the institution of the military for properly caring for its soldiers and officers, because the civilian government cannot do the same, is absurd.

While it is true that the military earns billions of rupees in profit from the businesses it runs (which is largely used to fund these welfare and retirement programs for the troops), the GoP has even larger Public Sector Enterprizes under its control that can offer far more in the way of income, were they run properly - Pakistan Steel, PIA, Pakistan Railways, Oil and Gas, Water and Power etc. etc.

It is rather pathetic to see Pakistanis critiquing the military for being able to run successful businesses in order to provide proper welfare and retirement benefits to its soldiers, who otherwise don't earn much by even Pakistani standards.

 

[Bhairava]

So you ignore the BBC reports, & all the reports from all reputable sources that say the posts were 1.5 miles from the border. You choose to accept Mr Abbas's alleged statement in this case, but you don't accept his claim when he says that the attack of the NATO Forces on the Pakistan soldiers was an unprovoked act of aggression. You can't cherry pick like this. If you agree with one of the claims by your source, you have to agree with all of them. Did Major Abbas measure the distance himself?

The news link I quoted is the latest updated under 10 hrs while the links you have were relatively old. Also it is not alleged, it quotes directly what Gen AA said.

And btw, I am still waiting for you to quote a reliable Pakistani source that says Major Abbas said that. The US media is known for fabrications & prejudice against Pakistan, as was seen in the RD case.

You can wait for few more days when the 'reliable' Pakistani media will be publishing it once the emotion subsides. Also I keep both US media and the PAk media at the same distance. I can't be responsible for your prejudice about certain media.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sadly, this is not the first time, nor the last, that emotionalism cost Pakistan dearly what could have been saved by thinking logically.

What 'emotionalism' cost Pakistan the lives of 24 soldiers, that 'could have been saved by thinking logically'?

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

It will be quite evident soon enough, when a "resolution" will come about and supply routes and drone attacks resume.

How does any of that indicate a 'retraction' of the statements made by the ISPR?

'Retraction' would be to accept that:

1. Pakistani forces did indeed fire on NATO troops
2. Pakistan did not try and contact NATO after the attack started
3. Pakistani soldiers did not die in the attack, or far fewer than 24 died.

---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

I have already predicted that ISPR will slowly retract many of the statements it has made regarding the facts about this incident.

I know the emotions run high and maybe that is why the refusal to look at things that don't support the popular version of events.

However strong hints have already been thrown of what would be the final conclusion of this sad episode. They just need time.

The above two are perfect examples of 'speculation'.

While both of you continue to insist that opinions be reserved till 'final report is released' (BTW, Pakistan's 'final report' has been made clear by the DG ISPR), you have no problems confidently predicting that whatever this 'final report' will be, it will contradict the Pakistani position and somehow be magically true.

Yet again hypocrisy and circular arguments.

 

[President Camacho]

If this is true, this is sheer incompetence, and it does not necessarily rule out collusion - how on earth were airstrikes approved on coordinates for a Pakistani base, coordinates that had been specifically provided to ISAF to prevent just that?

Two things AM,

First - It is just a part of a news piece, quoting an anonymous source (which is why I colored that part in red), and not the conclusion of investigation.

Second - The same news piece contains another part, which you should also consider with same zeal, that the patrol checked with the Pakistanis before returning the fire - If the coordinates were given, as you claim, and the patrol did check with the Pakistani counterparts, as the anonymous source claims, then it seems the the airstrike was ultimately approved by none other than Pakistani forces, right?

You need not be so aggressive AM, no one is calling NATO an angel, and Pakistanis a devil. If it is not a mistaken identity case, then there has to be a motive behind this airstrike. Let us hear their side of the story too. Conducting such an operation on purpose would be a lose-lose situation to both the parties.

The case might be of incompetence at worst, mistaken identity at best, but not of collusion - that is out of scope because that will make this terrible act a deliberate one. Why would the US deliberately jeopardize its relations with Pakistan, that too at this crucial juncture?

And there are so many other ways to jeopardize the relationship rather than take the blame of killing sleeping ground troops. I wonder if the pilot knew beforehand that the Pakistanis did not have SAMs, because had they had SAMs, then it would have been a suicide mission for the chopper troops. Ah well, a lot of things are still unanswered, let us not give too much credence to anonymous sources and save our breath till the report is out.

I posted that news piece just to open doors to newer angles.

 

[Vassnti]

2.5 km to 300 yards. That's a pretty big modification.

I noticed the confusion of 300m and 2.5km in differing reports, this may be due to confusion over the distance the posts were appart 300m and the distance from the border 2.5km?

 

[Desert Fox]

Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes

MOSCOW—Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.

Russia has stepped up its objections to the antimissile system in Europe, threatening last week to deploy its own ballistic missiles on the border of the European Union to counter the move. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization says the shield is meant to thwart an attack from a rogue state such as Iran, that it poses no threat to Russia, and that the alliance will go ahead with the plan despite Moscow's objections.

Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes - WSJ.com

Courtesy of Mr Ogannisyan for posting this article in this thread:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/143551-russia-considers-blocking-nato-supply-routes.html

 

[Desert Fox]

So on one side we have Pakistan closing NATO supply routes due to NATO pissing Pakistan off, and now you have Russia threatening to close whatever NATO supply lines go through its territory or the territory of the countries on which it has a lot of influence, so NATO is screwed.

Russia is not Pakistan, even if NATO shifts all of their supply lines to the north, that would mean more logistical problems due to the harsh cold climate during the winter, transit cost doubles, tripled, or quadrupled and of course they would be under constant pressure from the Russian bear to do as it demands otherwise those 140,000+ troops are stranded in Afghanistan.