As for the first paragraph, I have not seen the ISPR statement personally myself, nor have I heard it, what I said was exactly what was said to me by a Brigadier in the Armed Forces related to that area. So stop spewing nonsense. The area was cleared, everybody knows it , if you have contacts within. And 2 posts were not eliminated. Rather it was one post, or rather Company HQ , not a post, and it was attacked twice by helis.
As for the bolded part, just shows the respect for UN you guys have. This way, Iran has full rights to deny entry of IAEA people into their country.
And nowhere has it been said that it is national interest, and you have no proof so say other wise. The terrorists that attacked NATO in the first place, were not from across the border, they were on the Afghan side, and then fled into the pakistani side, as said by the NATO chief.
Why did the helis come there?
How did they possibly cross 2.5 km into Pak territory , is NATO so inept?
Was the pilot blind?
Stop spewing BS .
Look, I have also been travelling all day and the information that I gathered has been mostly from this thread. But I have a link here that says that 2 posts were strafed.
Afghans Say Pakistan Fired First in NATO Attack - WSJ.com
Further, it is all murky as to the cause of the incident. The Afghans claim that ISAF came under attack from the posts while they were moving against the terrorists. This modus operandi will not be suprising from PA, as ISAF has earlier too made claims that PA gives cover fire to the terrorists when ISAF moves in against them. So it is as probable that it would be a similar incident in this case too.
Why did they move in 2.5 Kilometers? Well you got to see the daylight once again. It is now an affirmed policy of NATO and US that they will remove people who will try to aid the terrorists. It was stated as clearly by US establishment after the Kabul Embassy sieze. That is in fact when Pakistan Army tried to hold off pressure and the "national interest" arose as the latest of the jargons in this murky saga of bedding with the Haqqanis.
You would ask, and also another member asked earlier, what is the evidence of that. The evidence depends on which side one looks at. The US has been claiming that for long and mullen's statement was tantamount to even more than complicity of aiding and abetting. So take your pick. I took mine right after OBL was found juxtaposed to PMA in Abbottabad.
Re the commission of this act, I do not believe that the Pilot was blind or that this is an error. I also do not believe that this could have been possible without the green wire inputs from NATO/US top brass. This is not a battlefield but more a strategy decision. The fact that the terrorist were chased in to Pakistan and the fact that ISAF claims that they took fire from PA, it futher establishes that ISAF have decided that they will not allow PA to cover for the terrorists anymore.
Someone said that the region is cleared, yet the terrorists were escaping in to Pakistan in that exact region. So I will not give in to the temptation of believing that the region is cleared of the right kind of terrorists by PA.
Re UN mandate and respect for international organizations, let us say that ISAF and US decided that they want to do a few things in the interest of their soldiers / national interest. That will not be an alien concept in the equation. Will it.
Hence my assertion that this is not a localized situation, this reflects larger policy change by US and NATO. They will not tolerate the protection that PA is seeking to provide to Taliban. The ball is now in Pakistan's court. If the Generals are still seeking to harbour the assets then they better now do it with less arrogance and visibility. At least keep the regulars out of harms way and do not put their lives on line. Rawalpindi is a comfortable place to take decisions from since the impact is so far away, however the chain is as strong as the weakest link.