I agree that NATO made a series of errors that should have stopped the initial response, and certainly should have stopped its continuation.
I think that a clear statement by the Pakistani side is important whether they think that they fired first (and if so, why) or NOT.
That would be immeasurably advantageous.
Err you killed everyone from Post #1, Post #2, was left for dead. No survivors, except the murderers. Have you ever seen murderers implicate themselves?
Once the chain of events is determined, accountability will follow too. But it cannot be only on one side.
On the contrary, accountability truly does fall on your side...
1. Series of errors is wrong since you fessed up that firing should have ended after the first notification - this we have as one of the link in the chain of events. So its not a series of error, at best its ONE error.
2. That one error goes down the drain when someone keeps firing that means there was clear intent to deliberately attack Pakistanis.
I feel like you're merry-go-rounding a dead horse and trying to sell us an idea thats just not going to fly... I think I have to put it in a desi language to make you realize the fallacy of what you're saying is a bongi.
Bongi Chain of events according to you/nato report
Humari faujein kareeb ayi apki post k, Pakistani fauj ne firing ki, hum ne Pakistan phone lagaya, aur poocha, ke bhai hum falani jaga attack kardein Taliban par? Pakistan ne kaha kardoh, sau bismillah. Hum ne jaga ghalat batai, maan lia, dekho hum ghalti maan tay hain.
Phir hum ne attack kia!
Phir Pakistanio ne kaha ke bhai, yeh toh hum pe firing kar rahay hain, mat fire karo aur...
Phir bhi hum ne attack kia!
Phir se Pakistanio ne kaha, O bhai jaan yeh toh hum pe bombing ho rahi hai Taliban pe nahi
Phir bhi hum ne attack kia!
Hum pontar gaye thay, humara kasoor nahi!