NATO attack was deliberate: K-P governor
According to Masood, initial investigations into the incident corroborates Nato’s premeditated connivance. Therefore, their claims that the incident was accidental are untrue, he said.
Talking to the media at the University of Peshawar during a convocation of its Law College students, the governor stressed that the country had been fighting the war against terror with the same conviction as other allies and its sufferings were colossal. “We could not anticipate such a brazen attack from our ally after all that we have been through following our involvement in the war against terror,” Kausar said.
The governor also blamed Afghan instability for recent incidents of bomb explosions as well as a suicide attack that occurred in Bannu. “A few incidents that occurred in the region in recent days could be as a consequence of instability in Afghanistan,” the governor said. The governor also gave away bachelor degrees to 249 LLB graduates along with six gold medals to position holders.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 25th, 2011.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725612926-0/Tribune-Pic-(8)1725612926-0-165x106.webp "article")
1725254039-0/Untitled-design-(24)1725254039-0-270x192.webp "no talks currently taking place as dialogue can t be held under threats mohsin naqvi")
@What Cautious?: The most important response from Pakistan was that the American investigation was "Short on Facts", which by coincidence were the same facts that Pakistan refused to supply, avoiding any questioning of its personnel by refusing to join a joint investigation! Also, Pakistan does not supply the location of its outposts on the border to NATO/ISAF, so what good are coordinates for something that appears not to exist! And what of the report from the multiple Pakistani officers in the joint communication center during the "attack"? You would think that they would have been on Urdu TV for weeks now, but their "story" might be "inconvenient" for the Pakistani position!
Cautious I am surprised you r defending Americans more than they defend themselves...
While the NATO attack may not be deliberate it could have availed an opportunity to send a strong message. For years border check posts have been giving covering fire to militants infiltrating into neighbouring countries. With the total destruction of Salala post a message has gone out that infiltration attempts will be repelled. More importantly no soldier at the check post will risk his life by giving covering fire to assist the militants. A brutal way of communicating a message but may prove effective, all else having failed.
@Cautious, I think, you are regular follower of BBC and CNN only. You trust only what is presented to you by the above channels. You haven't read properly the response of Pakistan, Pakistan is saying that the co-ordinates of all the check posts were given to the NATO and still the strike occured. If NATO knows the co-ordinates then surely its not the mistake of Pakistan. Now there can be 2 things, either it was the mistake/inability of NATO to properly manage the strikes OR it was deliberate. Pakistan believes that it was deliberate. Reason can be any might be they need to check if they will come inside paksitan then will pakistan army will fight back or not or might be some other reason which we ll know about after 5 years. Also, If Pakistan would have MISTAKENLY killed 24 soldiers of NATO, then Pakistan would have been greeted with immediate sanctions and attacked on Pakistan was imminent like IRAQ and Pakistan would have been called terror state. So please dont talk about the things you dont know and you cant handle.
What investigation? What evidence do you have that assigns intent/motive? The leadership of Pakistan assigned the entire blame on NATO and American's before they had a chance to debrief their own soldiers. The subsequent refusal to participate in a joint investigation where the soldiers on both sides could be interviewed was turned down - something that would imply that you had no intention of determining who fired first or how this tragedy occurred and could be prevented in the future.