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

[VelocuR]

I think the americans would be foolish. their actions seem to be having the opposite effect they are trying to have. It is no secret that they cant launch an all out war and all the other skirmishes etc suggest that americans have underestimated pakistan and overplayed their hand.

Reduced CIA operations, US training grounds, free foreign visa allow by Haqqani, 'do more' pressures, Shasmi Airbase closed, suspense drones attacks and bad public opinion will make US harder no doubt.

Next three years, we will be anxious to watch it closely since RQ-170 UAV, AC gunships, Stealth helicopters and others machines have been into Pakistan without knowledges.

Pakistan's response at this juncture would be crucial no doubt. I am sure it will be cognizant of its national interests above all.

NATO will continue to attack on Pakistan soldiers, they will not stopped. Their best interest long-term is to degrade Pakistan, you should be happy to hear it.

You still believe in both blames sides of miscommunication, 27th days is now passed.

 

[VCheng]

...................
NATO will continue to attack on Pakistan soldiers, they will not stopped. Their best interest long-term is to degrade Pakistan, you should be happy to hear it.

You still believe in both blames sides of miscommunication, 27th days is now passed.

It does not matter to me anymore Sir. I am happy to let Pakistanis decide what they see fit. Who am I to say anything here?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Does the report explain WHY there was a delay of almost an hour and a half in conveying the Pakistani communication regarding its troops being under attack to higher level officers by the US?

Surely once the US officer received the call from Pakistan indicating a 'friendly fire incident', he/she should have immediately contacted higher level officers - why did that not happen? What was the officer's excuse/reason?

 

[VCheng]

Does the report explain WHY there was a delay of almost an hour and a half in conveying the Pakistani communication regarding its troops being under attack to higher level officers by the US?

Surely once the US officer received the call from Pakistan indicating a 'friendly fire incident', he/she should have immediately contacted higher level officers - why did that not happen? What was the officer's excuse/reason?

That is part of the classified report; it is indeed a serious lapse.

 

[Safriz]

Does the report explain WHY there was a delay of almost an hour and a half in conveying the Pakistani communication regarding its troops being under attack to higher level officers by the US?

Surely once the US officer received the call from Pakistan indicating a 'friendly fire incident', he/she should have immediately contacted higher level officers - why did that not happen? What was the officer's excuse/reason?

lack of propper training is one explaination.
may be the americans are taught how to raise alarm but arent taught how to cancel a false alarm.
And PA is being asked to collaborate with an ill trained army.

 

[Safriz]

i can imagine US military men running around like headless chicken...not knowing.who to vontact after the Pakistani side made them aware that they are wrongly being attacked.
Can headless chicken with big guns be trusted? Dont think so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is part of the classified report; it is indeed a serious lapse.

Those questions go to the heart of the matter, in terms of the Pakistani accusation that the attack was 'deliberate'.

Was the US officer/officers acting out of prejudice and/or hatred and deliberately delaying communication to higher officials in order to keep bombing and killing Pakistani soldiers?

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

lack of propper training is one explaination.
may be the americans are taught how to raise alarm but arent taught how to cancel a false alarm.
And PA is being asked to collaborate with an ill trained army.

How was this 'lack of proper training'?

The US officer/s knew enough to eventually contact higher officials and stop the bombing - or did he spend an hour and a half 'reading the SOP manual' before figuring out on chapter 12 that he had to contact Gen. XYZ?

 

[VCheng]

Those questions go to the heart of the matter, in terms of the Pakistani accusation that the attack was 'deliberate'............................

This is one of the reasons why I still feel Pakistan should have participated in the investigation so as to be able to press home these points for maximum advantage.

A sure way not to have one's voice heard is to leave the table, after all. Yes, I know you are convinced of the futility of participation, but I disagree with that contention.

 

[Safriz]

Those questions go to the heart of the matter, in terms of the Pakistani accusation that the attack was 'deliberate'.

Was the US officer/officers acting out of prejudice and/or hatred and deliberately delaying communication to higher officials in order to keep bombing and killing Pakistani soldiers?

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------


How was this 'lack of proper training'?

The US officer/s knew enough to eventually contact higher officials and stop the bombing - or did he spend an hour and a half 'reading the SOP manual' before figuring out on chapter 12 that he had to contact Gen. XYZ?

a willful and deliberate delay in conveying the message cannot be ruled out.
but other than that if we look into other factors..
first thing...what mode of communication was used between the two sides?
was it voice communication or telex/fax ?
for two parties speaking english in different accents undrstanding each other on radio can be tricky at times..but as a normal procedure both sides are to repeat the message until it is established beyond doubt that the receiving station has understood the message.

 

[VCheng]

a willful and deliberate delay in conveying the message cannot be ruled out.
but other than that if we look into other factors..
first thing...what mode of communication was used between the two sides?
was it voice communication or telex/fax ?
for two parties speaking english in different accents undrstanding each other on radio can be tricky at times..but as a normal procedure both sides are to repeat the message until it is established beyond doubt that the receiving station has understood the message.

All those questions were rendered moot after Pakistan's categorical rejection of the report I think. Now the emphasis should be on a response and counter-response, all well thought out with regards to implications.

 

[Safriz]

the soldiers in the pakistani post must have contacted their superiors on pakistan.side and somebody outside the checkpost being attavked..must have contacted the americans. So this possibility that the pakustan side was in a haste and did not transmit the message propperly can be ruled out.
Now the responsibility falls on the americans.
after the messagecwas conveyed.what steps did they take?
did they sit around being suspivious about the message?
or did they have a procedure in place for such situations?
Looking at the length of time it toom them to pass on he message to the aplropreate personnel...it is evident that they dont have a procedure in place to cancel erronious strikes..
So who is to blame for lapse in communication?..once again its th americans..as they came to a war without propper training and propper procedures in place.

 

[VCheng]

the soldiers in the pakistani post must have contacted their superiors on pakistan.side and somebody outside the checkpost being attavked..must have contacted the americans. So this possibility that the pakustan side was in a haste and did not transmit the message propperly can be ruled out.
Now the responsibility falls on the americans.
after the messagecwas conveyed.what steps did they take?
did they sit around being suspivious about the message?
or did they have a procedure in place for such situations?
Looking at the length of time it toom them to pass on he message to the aplropreate personnel...it is evident that they dont have a procedure in place to cancel erronious strikes..
So who is ti bkame for lapse in communication..once again its th americans..as they came to acwar without propper training and propper procedures in place.

I think that Pakistanis have made it clear they blame it all on the US side; reiterating that will not achieve anything more at this point, or will it?

 

[Safriz]

I think that Pakistanis have made it clear they blame it all on the US side; reiterating that will not achieve anything more at this point, or will it?

well there can be two things...either the pakistanis are hard nosed idiots or they have very valid reasons to blame the americans.....and we are trying to establish those reasons?

 

[araz]

I think that Pakistanis have made it clear they blame it all on the US side; reiterating that will not achieve anything more at this point, or will it?

I think we have a poker table and each player is trying to guess what the next move from the other side will be. It is a tussle between how long Pakistan can hold out on the trucks and commodities and how costly is it going to be for the US. Whichever party hurts the most will capitulate and discussions will then start as to how to resume. The other possibility is that PA sees that as an ideal opportunity to disengage from the whole process to re establish the communication lines with the parties that will eventually take control in Afghanistan. However, what arrangements if any we will have in future with the US, if any needs to be seen. I suspect we will restore food supplies and possibly fuel supply through Afghanistan and symbolically take a stance that no machines of war will pass through Pakistan. A duty may also be levied if the US is sufficiently compromised.
Araz

 

[Safriz]

I think we have a poker table and each player is trying to guess what the next move from the other side will be. It is a tussle between how long Pakistan can hold out on the trucks and commodities and how costly is it going to be for the US. Whichever party hurts the most will capitulate and discussions will then start as to how to resume. The other possibility is that PA sees that as an ideal opportunity to disengage from the whole process to re establish the communication lines with the parties that will eventually take control in Afghanistan. However, what arrangements if any we will have in future with the US, if any needs to be seen. I suspect we will restore food supplies and possibly fuel supply through Afghanistan and symbolically take a stance that no machines of war will pass through Pakistan. A duty may also be levied if the US is sufficiently compromised.
Araz

this transit trade has always hurt pakistan.
remember the acute "atta shortage" wheat flour shortage?
we all know why the shortage happened ?
all.wheat was smuggled to afghanistan.as they were paying higher prices...
but i agree that eventuallu pakistan will have to restart food supplies.as yoi cant starve a country due to political disagreements.