It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Afghans: commando unit was attacked before airstrike - Pakistan admits to firing first

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Afghans say commando unit was attacked before airstrike was called on Pakistan


The latest U.S.-Pakistan crisis threatened Monday to undo months of efforts to mend an increasingly frayed relationship and to undermine the Obama administration’s strategy for gradually ending the war in Afghanistan.

Administration officials did not respond to Pakistani demands for an apology for the cross-border U.S. airstrike that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers early Saturday. Instead, they expressed condolences for the loss of life while saying that the facts about what happened were under investigation.



............................


A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
An interesting turn of events. I am curious how, if its even possible now, for Pakistan to walk back their explanation and accusations against NATO / US / Afghanistan? With the violent reactions and anger of the Pakistani people, the closing down of cooperation and supply lines....

This is why the 100 meter rush to judgement is a bad idea.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
An interesting turn of events. I am curious how, if its even possible now, for Pakistan to walk back their explanation and accusations against NATO / US / Afghanistan? With the violent reactions and anger of the Pakistani people, the closing down of cooperation and supply lines....

This is why the 100 meter rush to judgement is a bad idea.


thats the type of reaction i'm sure the authorities in pakistan enticed to drum up support and have some plausible deniability with their subordinates.

none of it worked in natos favour like it has for the pakistanis in such a short time, they have their base soon and their supply route + misguided anger in the general public creating a consensus that the west is an enemy.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You would think that common sense would say that the Afghans/US should have alerted the Pakistanis that this commando group was so close to their outpost..

I find it a little odd. Almost asking for such an event.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustme333
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You would think that common sense would say that the Afghans/US should have alerted the Pakistanis that this commando group was so close to their outpost..

I find it a little odd. Almost asking for such an event.


The article goes into that a bit. Apparently their are mechanisms in place that should have allowed a quick check between the US / Afghans and Pakistanis to see if each other forces were in the area. It looks like the initial action falls into the fog of war column. The airstrikes continued for an hour and during that time a beak down in communications was ever present.

The Pakistanis stated they told Afghan / US commanders their troops were in the area. I am going to guess that even though Pakistan might have been telling NATO command that, their forces most likely continued returning fire. With playing both sides of the road I wouldnt rule out the possibility of engagements occuring where "Pakistani" forces may very well not be pakistani forces.

Its also possible that maybe the group the US / Afghan unit was going after exploited the confrontation by selectively engaging to make it look, to both sides, that neither side may have been what it is claimed.

Other possibilities aside, it doesnt change the reaction by Pakistan. I seriously doubt this info will make it to the Pakistani people to the extent of it being taken seriously by them.

Keep in mind that we have ben burned a few times by sharing intelligence information with Pakistan. With the cooling relations between the 2 countries I doubt we are goin to return to open exchange anytime soon.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


All these apparent mistakes by US/NATO command..
Sounds a little too convenient IMO and is getting all to common.

I note all your possible scenarios put the blame squarely on Pakistan.
Seems your mind is made up.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustme333
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


All these apparent mistakes by US/NATO command..
Sounds a little too convenient IMO and is getting all to common.

I note all your possible scenarios put the blame squarely on Pakistan.
Seems your mind is made up.


In this case Pakistan admitted to firing first. Since thats what this toic is about, so what the hell are you talking about?

Is it not plausible in your mind that a country other than the US could possibly be at fault? Is there any reason you are incapable of joining a conversation without making personal attacks?

What mistakes have NATO command made?
Common? How?
edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I meant no personal attacks.
I was just addressing what was said.
Yes Pakistan admitted to firing first but in fairness to them, it was against a group of unknown fighters moving near the border.
If they were friendly forces then Pakistan could be forgiven for expecting communication from them detailing their movements.
I'd think that is what NATO would want Pakistan to be doing.

So that's why I question why you think Pakistan are the ones playing games.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustme333
I meant no personal attacks.
I was just addressing what was said.

Then respectfully pay more attention to how you respond to posts and your choice of words.



Originally posted by Trustme333
Yes Pakistan admitted to firing first but in fairness to them, it was against a group of unknown fighters moving near the border.

On the Afghan side of the border, not Pakistans side. If that type of actio is acceptable to Pakistan, then they should complain when we hit insurgetns on their side of the border.



Originally posted by Trustme333
If they were friendly forces then Pakistan could be forgiven for expecting communication from them detailing their movements.

If you are engaged in a fire fight, and its been relayed both sides are engaging friendly targets, one would expect the fighting to stop - in this case it did not. They continued to take fire from the Pakistan side of the border.



Originally posted by Trustme333
I'd think that is what NATO would want Pakistan to be doing.

Communication did happen between the sides chain of command.



Originally posted by Trustme333
So that's why I question why you think Pakistan are the ones playing games.

I think Pakistan is playing games because of their actions towards the US and China. The fact they were hiding and protecing Bin Laden. The fact the ISI is assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fact Pakistan has warned terrorists that were being targeted by the US.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


still not sure what personal attacks I posted but anyways..


I think Pakistan is playing games because of their actions towards the US and China. The fact they were hiding and protecing Bin Laden. The fact the ISI is assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fact Pakistan has warned terrorists that were being targeted by the US.


Not sure all those points are actual fact..
Anyways, I'll leave the thread to you rather than disagreeing with your opinions and being told that's a personal attack.That's not what I call a debate.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustme333
still not sure what personal attacks I posted but anyways..

Insinuating my mind has been made up from the begining about Pakistan. You are accusing me of being one sided and not versed on the facts.


Originally posted by Trustme333
Not sure all those points are actual fact..

Maybe some research would be in order then?



Originally posted by Trustme333
Anyways, I'll leave the thread to you rather than disagreeing with your opinions and being told that's a personal attack.That's not what I call a debate.

Ignoring facts / information because it it doesnt support your argument is not a debate either. Without missing a beat your first thought was to blame the US.

I dont mind a free flow of information - What I do have issues with is when people come into a thread, throw out information that is not supported, then get upset when that info is challeneged. You made the accusations about the US so what ae the chances of you also posting your sources that support your accusations?
edit on 29-11-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I dont mind a free flow of information - What I do have issues with is when people come into a thread, throw out information that is not supported, then get upset when that info is challeneged. You made the accusations about the US so what ae the chances of you also posting your sources that support your accusations?

Oh my, kettle/black are the first words that spring to mind..

But your thread...Keep it and enjoy..
Like I said, NOT interested in your style of debate..



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Personally I think this is all related to a possible CIA drug run out through pakistan, the border guards probably confiscated the opium, and the CIA didnt want to leave any witnesses to the drugs when they took it back.




posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
If I'm taking fire and I know that it isn't blue on blue, I'm calling in an airstrike first and sorting things out later.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Afghans say commando unit was attacked before airstrike was called on Pakistan


The latest U.S.-Pakistan crisis threatened Monday to undo months of efforts to mend an increasingly frayed relationship and to undermine the Obama administration’s strategy for gradually ending the war in Afghanistan.

Administration officials did not respond to Pakistani demands for an apology for the cross-border U.S. airstrike that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers early Saturday. Instead, they expressed condolences for the loss of life while saying that the facts about what happened were under investigation.



............................


A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border.


Well, since they admitted to firing first then Pakistan should apologize to the USA.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Good luck getting that appology.

All politics are local.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join