dear sir,
can u back your theory with facts?
You mean my speculative scenario? The assertions I have made with asteriks, stars are the facts which I was trying to verify to give support to my theory. Lets look at them one by one.
* Hours before the crash was reported, Taliban militants based in Pakistan said they were going to initiate a ceasefire on the Pakistani side. This decision was made due to the Pakistan Army's own recent policy of deliberate restraint and good judgement from it's side.
I read this somewhere else and asked for confirmation here. I have read many times before of how the pak army negotiates ceasefires with tribals in order to stop retaliation against itself and pakistani civilians by the tribals/taliban and many times this seems to anger NATO/US. It is partly because of US pressure that military operations are conducted against tribal areas and whenever the pak army makes a ceasefire deal with the tribals we hear angry and dissapointed complaints being expressed in western media. Am I right about that? If I am wrong then correct me but it is my belief that the US/UK/NATO alliance gets quite angry at pakistan if the army is "nice" to the tribals. They complain that this way it gives them more leeway to plan attacks against their own positions in Afghanistan.
* FATA is well within range of NATO radar and SAM batteries as well as EMF jamming equipment which can induce a total communications blackout on an ordinary chopper. Also that area can be easily used on the afghan side by a special ops group with similar equipment which can sabotage choppers with stealth.
Well Waziristan is obviously right near the border with Afghanistan and the Pakistani army is not allowed in there obviously. We do know that NATO has posession of advanced AWACS type of planes and sophisticated surface to air missiles. At least that is the impression that I have got. From what I gather there are also some F-22 stealth fighters in Afghanistan. I don't know much about the standard issue equipment of any military actually but I think it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that any air force would keep communications jamming gear at hand. This so far I believe to be fact, correct me if I am wrong about any of this.
Now on to the second part of my speculation. I theorize that there are various special ops groups operating in Afghanistan itself, groups like the Delta Force, rangers, SAS etc who have specialized and advanced weaponry available to them that the standard AF or army person will not have. We know India and Russia both have very strong interest and curiosity in Afghanistan post 2001. In fact India has 14 consulates operating in afghanistan now, right? We know how innovative and technically adept the russians are and we know India has access to russian as well as Israeli military technology. So it is not too unreasonable to assume that Russian and Indian special force ops in Afghanistan can get their hands on mobile SAM launchers and jamming equipment, is it? So now we have special ops from a half dozen countries potentially ready for a sabotage mission on a chopper to "send a message" and simultaneously demoralize the pak army. Also...these are the kinds of missions that special ops do right? Sabotage etc etc with standard and non-standard issue weapons? Also special services are famous for conducting false flag operations at certain times. So any of these agencies could have sneaked in there and done the sabotage and blamed it on someone else or on random "taliban" or "al qaida".
Do I have to remind anyone of how badly Russians and Indians might want to get revenge by shooting down a chopper just at the right time? And by timing it right they can blame NATO(false flag op). Or it could be a special forces attack from within NATO itself. Like a covert op or even some splinter group that operates outside the regular military.
* The official press release by the army seemed overanxious to emphasize no foul play was suspected whilst providing absolutely no hint of the "technical fault" which allegedly caused the crash. This hints at extreme pressure being applied from above to discount any suggestion of foul play from the earliest.
Well here I am going by what I had heard originally in the news report. That it was an accident but no further details were given. In other words foul play was RULED OUT but the reason it was ruled out was not given. Usually in situations like that they say "cause is unclear but as yet no foul play has been established". Then later on they decide if foul play was involved or not. But here in the news report it was stated as being an accident but absolutely no reason was given for that assumption! This looks very odd to me. Only recently have I heard that some plant went into the machinery on liftoff. I had no idea the chopper did not get a chance to fly around much.
Yeah so anyway these were the facts I built my theory around. It's a suspicion and obviously I cannot provide any proof because I am not the one collecting and gathering evidence, I am jut making an observation. Like I said these are all coincidences but you can see the logic in connecting the dots for the suspicion, right?
