US responsible for the Murder of Pakistani Troops - Pak Rejects NATO Probe

[longbrained]

i dont think so its applicable on ground forces too . may be someone can shed a light on this . warning shots are usually fired

Warning shots are only used as a last resort and usually not by an army against another army. It is used to deal with non-military forces for example insurgents which do not have communication gear. Armies have emergency tactical frequencies and I hope some one with knowledge sheds light on it. Anyways it is not only that. The MC-12W was listening to all frequencies active there and they knew from the first second when Pakistani troops tried to contact their command, that they are firing on Pakistani troops. They kept on shooting for two hours after that as well.

 

[lem34]

So tell me guys was abama and his admin in on this or is it rogue elements in american admin. i think isaw an article i will go look for it that suggested american army was going rogue let me see if i can find it

 

[VCheng]

Warning shots are only used as a last resort and usually not by an army against another army. It is used to deal with non-military forces for example insurgents which do not have communication gear. Armies have emergency tactical frequencies and I hope some one with knowledge sheds light on it. Anyways it is not only that. The MC-12W was listening to all frequencies active there and they knew from the first second when Pakistani troops tried to contact their command, that they are firing on Pakistani troops. They kept on shooting for two hours after that as well.

Warning shots are not the issue here probably. Like Santro said above, other actors may have played a role:

The Pentagon report, based on about 60 interviews with coalition officials, "draws some connections that may not have been obvious in the immediate aftermath of the incident," said Brig. Gen. Stephen A. Clark, who led the investigation.

According to Clark, a coalition team heading toward an Afghan village near the Pakistani border came under attack from "very direct and heavy" machine gun fire, as well as to incoming mortars.

The ground commander responded with a "show of force," with an F-15 jet and AC-130 gunship making their presence known and dropped flares illuminating the area, Clark said.

"This is key for the ground tactical leader's mindset in that there should be no doubt in anybody's minds that these are coalition forces in the area," he said.

When the firing and mortars didn't stop, the airstrike was called in.

Two Pakistani intelligence officials told CNN Thursday their country's investigation into the incident contradicts the findings of the U.S. report.

"Every Pakistani soldier knows that the Taliban doesn't have gunships and AC-130s," one high-ranking official close to the investigation said. "But that's not the point. The point is that they contend that we fired first. They're wrong. They fired first. We responded. And then they called in the air support, and proceeded to attack us at length."

So who fired first? May be a third party?

 

[F.O.X]

Right .
So this is the thorough investigation that took almost 1 month to finish .

Well lets see what we found out .

Day 1.
Pakistan = Attack was NATO's fault
NATO= We are investigating but it was in self defence


1 Month later

Pakistan = It is NATO's Fault
NATO(after thorough investigation) = It was in self defense


Great Investigation , Good result. who knew NATO/US can be this professional .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From the CNN article:

Two Pakistani intelligence officials told CNN Thursday their country's investigation into the incident contradicts the findings of the U.S. report.

"Every Pakistani soldier knows that the Taliban doesn't have gunships and AC-130s," one high-ranking official close to the investigation said. "But that's not the point. The point is that they contend that we fired first. They're wrong. They fired first. We responded. And then they called in the air support, and proceeded to attack us at length."

"The (Department of Defense's) findings are strange, and contradict what we have communicated so far to the Americans. This report is not good news," a second intelligence official added.

Stephen Clark's statement makes no sense - he said in his press statement that when Pakistan contacted US authorities about Pakistani troops the Pakistani liaison officer was given 'general coordinates' (which were also incorrect) because of 'distrust'.

How the heck can you provide the other side 'general coordinates' when the other side is indicating that it is under attack by your troops?

 

[idune]

International geopolitics is a never-ending process by definition.

And Pakistan or any other nation should not fall for that line of US excuse, no matter how narrative comes out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So who fired first? May be a third party?

Still not an excuse for what happened next, and failure after failure in following the correct procedures and communicating the correct coordinates to Pakistani officials, while somehow communicating the correct coordinates for the air-strikes, for over two hours, during which Pakistani officials were in repeated contact with US officials calling for a cessation to the attacks.

The US account sounds like red-neck BS, smells like red-neck BS, and is therefore most likely red-neck BS ...

 

[VCheng]

Still not an excuse for what happened next, and failure after failure in following the correct procedures .....................

I agree. The multitude of mistakes that followed is a shame for NATO for sure.

 

[idune]

It is expected that US will come up with excuse to justify their killing. Anyone wants trails of proof should look into history book. It's not even worth to give any credibility to what US has to say now. And so its pointless to even engage with vcheng, centcom like.

 

[lem34]

So tell me guys was abama and his admin in on this or is it rogue elements in american admin. i think isaw an article i will go look for it that suggested american army was going rogue let me see if i can find it

CIA And Pentagon Itching For Pakistan War

Submitted by Aurangzeb on July 15, 2011 – 5:28 pm3 Comments.


25Share







Someone is working overtime in Washington to scuttle President Obama’s and the American people’s wish to end the war in Afghanistan.

The more America gets closer to that goal, CIA and US military in Afghanistan do something stupid to raise tensions with Pakistan. The drones have been doing that job for some time now. But recently CIA operatives have joined hands with likeminded rogue elements inside NDS [the National Directorate of Security, the Afghan spy service] to train, arm and send hundreds of terrorists across international borders into Pakistan to kill Pakistani civilians and soldiers. When Pakistan protests, US and NATO officers have a ready answer: It’s the Taliban, what can we say.


The purpose of these antics is nothing but to harass Pakistani citizens and military and just avenge Pakistan’s refusal to submit to CIA demands.

There is another reason for CIA’s rude awakening in Pakistan.

Pakistanis have misled the agency hotshots for some time into believing that dealing with Pakistanis is like dealing with the defeated and conquered Iraqis and the Northern Alliance puppets in Afghanistan.

Why Pakistanis did this? I don’t honestly know. Maybe for US aid, or maybe to cooperate with the Americans in the hope that this time the United States will not prove to be a two-timing untrustworthy ally.

But when CIA went too far in treating Pakistan as a conquered territory, someone in Islamabad had to give Langley a wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee call.

The bottom line is that now CIA is trying hard to cause a military standoff between the United States and Pakistan in the hope of derailing Mr. Obama’s plans for a drawdown.

The CIA and US commanders in Afghanistan are doing everything they can to provoke Pakistani military into armed retaliation.

I am not sure what messages Pakistani military commanders are sending to the peeved Americans. But those messages are certainly not good because Admiral Mike Mullen was so angry the other day he accused ISI of murdering a Pakistani journalist.

Imagine this: a US Chairman Joint Chiefs turning into a homicide detective for a day!

If I had the liberty of sending a message to the honchos at Bagram base, it would be this:

The Soviets were smarter.

Looks like this guy knew well before must have inide contacts in PA.

 

[foxbat]

I think the fault lies with us from day one. The minute that americans have allowed indians to have several consulates in afghanistan we should have told them no. we have been coy with them and then the likes of benazir and her corrupt XXXX husband aka president of pakistan types gave them the impression that they might be able to get away with their nefarious plot to upgrade india and down grade us for a few bill us dollars

How can Pakistan say no to a second country opening consulates in a third country??

 

[Doctor09]

Warning shots are not the issue here probably. Like Santro said above, other actors may have played a role:



So who fired first? May be a third party?

Third party ? now is it another story ?
BTW US report is totally opposite to ground realities . they did mistakes in a sequence and that is most suspicious thing . they break every Protocol that night

 

[VCheng]

Third party ? now is it another story ?
..................

I merely asked the question whether it could be a third party given the different accounts by both sides as to who fired first.

 

[foxbat]

I merely asked the question whether it could be a third party given the different accounts by both sides as to who fired first.

I do remember a story doing rounds about RAW backed Afghan warlord from a couple days back ...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do remember a story doing rounds about RAW backed Afghan warlord from a couple days back ...

That was a BBC brain-fart, and was almost immediately denied by the Pakistani Military.

Perhaps a 'plant' by the US to see if the 'RAW & Afghan Conspiracy' might gain traction in Pakistan and therefore hide their own culpability.

The US has no qualms about throwing anyone 'under the bus'.