American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[Roybot]

Pakistanis protest at U.S. consulate after NATO attack | Reuters

(Reuters) - Thousands gathered outside the American consulate in the city of Karachi on Sunday to protest against a NATO cross-border air attack that killed 24 Pakistani troops and is threatening a strategic alliance between the countries.

 

[patna_ke_presley]

its not only limited to supply routes. They need us for troops extraction, whenever they do it....

I think troop arrives and will go in planes not through deadly roads of FATA and KP.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Blame game begins: “Nato came under fire from Pakistan before attack” – The Express Tribune

At first they were saying that they came to Mohamand Agency following terrorists. And now this bulcrap...

 

[Roybot]

what is this NATO came under fire and acted in self defense, justification. THey were in Pakistani air space, what were they expecting?

They are claiming that the came under fire from across the border. So they were not in Pakistani airspace.

 

[patna_ke_presley]

Here I found something Interesting, Pakistan is used only for transporting 1/3 of supply, rest 2/3 is done through Northern Distribution Network (NDN)

Factbox: NATO supply routes into Afghanistan
Factbox: NATO supply routes into Afghanistan – some facts

KABUL: There are two routes into Afghanistan from Pakistan, one across the Khyber Pass to the Afghan border town of Torkham and on to Kabul. The other goes through Balochistan to the border town of Chaman and on to the Afghan city of Kandahar.
Between them, these two routes account for just under one third of all cargo that the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) ships into Afghanistan.
Just over one-third of all cargo goes on routes dubbed the “northern distribution network” through Central Asia, and the Caucasus or Russia. The remaining 31% is flown in.
Nato declined to give details of how the shipments through Pakistan are divided between the two routes, but a spokesman said the figures likely change each month.
Some imported supplies for the fledgling Afghan armed forces, which the United States and its allies are building up, also come through the Pakistani routes.
What’s changed
As recently as July, the balance of supplies transiting through Pakistan and the northern distribution network were weighted in Pakistan’s favour, with slightly more than half of ground-transported supplies arriving through Khyber or Chaman.
After disruptions, Nato-led forces decided to push supply networks away from reliance on Pakistan. The US has decided that only 25% of ground cargo should arrive via Pakistan. This was done with the goal of “reducing reliance on any single line of communication to avoid any unnecessary vulnerabilities should that network become unavailable”, according to an Isaf spokeswoman.
Two cross-border attacks by Nato aircraft in autumn 2010, that killed three Pakistani soldiers, closed one supply route through Pakistan for several days. Nato apologised for the incident which it said happened when its gunships mistook warning shots by the Pakistani forces for a militant attack.
In April a rally on a key highway by thousands of people against drone strikes again closed the supply route briefly.
The routes through Pakistan, particularly the northern one, are also vulnerable to insurgent attacks. In May a bomb on a Nato fuel truck killed at least 16 people in the Khyber area.
The alternatives
The northern distribution network threads through either Russia or the Caucasus, across the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and then into northern Afghanistan. It is largely used to bring commercial-type cargo – described by Isaf as “sustainment items like food and spare parts” to troops serving in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan also has a border with Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China – but that is too remote and high-altitude to make a major transit route. What would be a convenient and cheap link through Iran’s port of Chabahar to western Afghanistan is ruled out by hostility between Tehran and Washington.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2011.

 

[pakdefender]

“I have written to the Prime Minister of Pakistan to make it clear that the deaths of Pakistani personnel are as unacceptable and deplorable as the deaths of Afghan and international personnel ,” he said in a statement. “This was a tragic unintended incident.”

Pakistan troop deaths ‘tragic, unintended’: Nato chief | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

In light of the above statement given by the head NATO rat , its now certain that the targeting of the company HQ ( some reports say it was unit level HQ ) was deliberate and intentional.

They blame Pakistan for any casualty they take in Afghanistan hence they have done this , since they have been unable to subdue the afghan insurgency in frustration they are now going to target the visible Pakistan Army deployments near the border.

We have to shut down their supplies indefinitely and also slowly but surely edge them out of Pakistan. This is all part of the broader war against Muslim nations. We have to be ready to pay them back in the same coin, through whatever means that are available to us

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Here I found something Interesting, Pakistan is used only for transporting 1/3 of supply, rest 2/3 is done through Northern Distribution Network (NDN)

Factbox: NATO supply routes into Afghanistan
Factbox: NATO supply routes into Afghanistan – some facts

KABUL: There are two routes into Afghanistan from Pakistan, one across the Khyber Pass to the Afghan border town of Torkham and on to Kabul. The other goes through Balochistan to the border town of Chaman and on to the Afghan city of Kandahar.
Between them, these two routes account for just under one third of all cargo that the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) ships into Afghanistan.
Just over one-third of all cargo goes on routes dubbed the “northern distribution network” through Central Asia, and the Caucasus or Russia. The remaining 31% is flown in.
Nato declined to give details of how the shipments through Pakistan are divided between the two routes, but a spokesman said the figures likely change each month.
Some imported supplies for the fledgling Afghan armed forces, which the United States and its allies are building up, also come through the Pakistani routes.
What’s changed
As recently as July, the balance of supplies transiting through Pakistan and the northern distribution network were weighted in Pakistan’s favour, with slightly more than half of ground-transported supplies arriving through Khyber or Chaman.
After disruptions, Nato-led forces decided to push supply networks away from reliance on Pakistan. The US has decided that only 25% of ground cargo should arrive via Pakistan. This was done with the goal of “reducing reliance on any single line of communication to avoid any unnecessary vulnerabilities should that network become unavailable”, according to an Isaf spokeswoman.
Two cross-border attacks by Nato aircraft in autumn 2010, that killed three Pakistani soldiers, closed one supply route through Pakistan for several days. Nato apologised for the incident which it said happened when its gunships mistook warning shots by the Pakistani forces for a militant attack.
In April a rally on a key highway by thousands of people against drone strikes again closed the supply route briefly.
The routes through Pakistan, particularly the northern one, are also vulnerable to insurgent attacks. In May a bomb on a Nato fuel truck killed at least 16 people in the Khyber area.
The alternatives
The northern distribution network threads through either Russia or the Caucasus, across the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and then into northern Afghanistan. It is largely used to bring commercial-type cargo – described by Isaf as “sustainment items like food and spare parts” to troops serving in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan also has a border with Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China – but that is too remote and high-altitude to make a major transit route. What would be a convenient and cheap link through Iran’s port of Chabahar to western Afghanistan is ruled out by hostility between Tehran and Washington.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2011.

if it really were that easy, they would have changed the route completely already.. Last time when when the supplies were stopped, US/NATO troops were even out of toilet papers and apologized for the incident then...

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Even on the corrollary, UN also asks Pakistani army to cease support to terrorists. But that is justified as "national interest". So UN mandate is worth nothing as is evident.

stop talking Balls,

where did Paksitan say that its supporting the terrorists as a national interest? why are you posting crap?

can you distinguish between keeping links with Haqqanis and actually supporting the Haqqanis?

the Americans have managed to make that distinction now and thats why Americans and Haqqanis have had meetings with ISI's help.

stop posting nonse and misinformation or show the links where Pakistan says that supporting Haqqanis is in its interest.

 

[iPhone]

Look at how Mukhtaran Mai's case eventually turned out, with the acquittal of all but one guy. I rest my case with your analogy.

wow, just wow. if you had an ounce of shame and diginity in you would have thought twice about posting what you did and that too with a shamless emoticon at the end.

P.S. Miss Mai became a symbol of struggle against the elite against all odds. Gained respect of the entire nation as the culprits became reviled. A much better state than remaining silent and being wiped out into oblivion. But a level headed person like you would never understand that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As I already said NATO has declared that it acted in Self Defence.Somebody fired upon them.

BS - the post was deep inside Pakistani territory, and the region was one where militants have launched attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan - initial NATO statements also pointed to 'attacks on NATO bases in Kunar', quite a distance away from the two Pakistani posts.

In addition, did NATO provide Pakistan details of any operations it was conducting along the border that night, to prevent the troops at the posts from mistaking the operations as hostile or Taliban?

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

The meeting decided to ask the United States to vacate Shamsi Air Base in southwestern Balochistan province within 15 days in an apparent protest against NATO strikes.

Pakistan asks US to vacate key air base in 15 days

 

[VCheng]

wow, just wow. if you had an ounce of shame and diginity in you would have thought twice about posting what you did and that too with a shamless emoticon at the end.

P.S. Miss Mai became a symbol of struggle against the elite against all odds. Gained respect of the entire nation as the culprits became reviled. A much better state than remaining silent and being wiped out into oblivion. But a level headed person like you would never understand that.

I suppose it is easier for you to direct your anger at me rather than the Supreme Court that did that?

Similarly, your own leadership will keep on doing the same thing even after this, and you will just get angry at me, who is not the problem.

How typical.

 

[gOtHmOG]

Some friends ( within the higher end of the army) said that COAS is really outraged by the acts of NATO and other countries. And this case will be pursued, definitely. Or else, shame on us. I can see a strong message being sent out to those NATO sc**.

BTW, which NATO country did this?

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------



He has a blockade on 25 Dec if I am not wrong. But that is too late. Get a dharna within 2 days at Peshawar. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

The last time we blocked the NATO routes, they were on their knees.

NATO is the USA. Without the USA the rest of the member countries cannot sustain military operations indefinitely. The US uses NATO as a tool to gain legitimacy. The attacks,I believe have been carried by out by the US military presence there. For me blocking the transit route is not enough. A clear message needs to be sent. They need to know that if they try and cross the border next time, they will get hit.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

there are only 2 possibilities

1. The NATO high command sanctioned the attack knowing what the target was.
2. The NATO troops who called the attack and the pilots who carried out the strike are inept, illiterate and cant use their own NAV systems to see where they are being sent.

The other question apart from the Ariel attack is how far the ground troops had intruded into Pakistan by when they decided to request an air strike on a target 2.5 KM inside Pakistan. What kind of tactical situation is that which needed an attack on a designated post so far away from the border?

Using the air strike as an excuse for coming under fire from the Taliban is also very flimsy, weak and meant for people who are ignorant of the world of military and warfare. What kind of weapons the Taliban were carrying while trying to be as mobile and fast to escape the perusing ISAF/ NATO troops yet be able to fire back at them from miles? Either they were super human who were able to carry medium or heavy mortars and heavy machine guns while running up and down the mountains or they had air transport that was shadowing them to deploy their long range weapons to fire back at the ISAF/ NATO troops? Isn’t it absolute garbage? The best any mobile foot unit can muster is RPGs , light machine guns and light mortars of about 50 mm that cant fire beyond 800 meters. Even the machine gun bullets beyond 1 km and under 2 km will be actually harmlessly falling on the ground. I am not even mentioning RPGs and assault rifles as they don’t go beyond few hundred meters.


Now coming to the excuse of coming under fire from the Pakistani post, same rules apply. Their only long range weapons will be heaver morters or artillery. Had they directed any artillery fire on the NATO forces? If they had then there would have been NATO casualties and people like Glen Beck and O'Reilly would have been chocking blood by now and demanding nuclear strikes on Pakistan.


I will once again highlight the need of the following.

To get the conversation of the pilots and their base that ordered the attack and the conversation during and after the attack. And the conversation of The ground troops that requested the strikes.

How far or close where the NATO troops in the “poorly marked” border?

Now one thing is clear that those air strikes were definitely called upon specifically for those Pakistani posts so again two sub questions

Were the imbeciles on ground aware of the Pakistani posts and deliberately requested their destruction?
Did the dimwits at the NATO mission HQ know what the troops were requesting (attack on Pakistani posts) and then knowingly gave the go ahead?
Did the goons flying the helicopters and the aircraft also know that they were being told to attack 2.5 KM inside Pakistan on the designated posts of their war ally?

The more you think about it and raise questions about it more it seems that either the NATO was reckless, careless and incompetent or overtly vicious and deliberately hostile in its brazen attack. Lets see what the investigations by NATO (for all their worth) show up and if there is any joint team set up to find the facts (I doubt if that will happen) so that its established at which level the mistake was made.
If you ask me, I will put the blame on the mission HQ that took the request and gave the go ahead to the air strikes.

As far as the response of Pakistan is concerned, it should stop the active participation in war on terror and get to the level of support of say Turkey or Russia or say Saudi Arabia. It should fully concentrate on fighting (ONLY) TTP and BLA terrorists and give moral support to the peaceful settlement of the Afghan crises.
Given the circumstances Pakistan is in and the parity of military power between American/ NATO and Pakistan there is nothing much Pakistan can do more than some protests and gearing down the support in WoT. Its not a gang war and a cartel animosity that should lead to reprisal attacks etc so any such suggestions are cheap and stupid. The states don’t work like that no matter how bad the situations get.
When the Soviets shot down the American U2 spy plane that took off from badabir KP, Khrushchev threatened Pakistan by wiping that airbase from the face of the earth for aiding USA. But that’s were it all stopped and the behind the scene diplomacy cooled down the political temperature.

The only positive outcome from this attack is that NATO and the USA are not acting like their characteristic machismo despite what the internet trolls and Fox news fascists wish them to say. Pakistan can ask them what will NATO do to prevent such actions in the future and if its not satisfied it conveys that it will do all it can to protect its land and the lives of its troops from any similar future attacks. Pakistan is already fighting this war on its own expense and the so called aid is not military in nature but the reimbursement for using its facilities and the corridor and that is goin in the government’s pocket so its no longer an incentive to keep it going at the risk of its troops and civilians

 

[pakdefender]

First we have to squeeze them through the supply routes , then follow up on removing their presence from bases like Shamsi , round up their presence within Pakistan and then turn the heat on these murders and make them pay in blood for the loss of our personel.