Full Analysis Summary
Pakistan strikes in Afghanistan
Pakistan's military said it carried out multiple overnight air strikes on seven sites inside Afghanistan on Feb. 22.
It described the operations as "intelligence-based" or "intelligence-based selective" targeting Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) camps and an Islamic State affiliate.
Pakistani statements said the strikes were in retaliation for recent suicide bombings, including a Feb. 6 mosque attack in Islamabad, and other deadly attacks in Bajaur and Bannu.
Pakistani statements framed the strikes as a necessary response to militants it says are plotting attacks from Afghan soil.
Coverage Differences
Narrative framing
Pakistan sources and reports emphasise a security‑justification frame, quoting Islamabad’s language such as “intelligence‑based” or “conclusive evidence” that militants were directed from Afghanistan; Afghan and Taliban sources describe the same strikes as violations of sovereignty and crimes that hit civilians. This contrast is visible across West Asian and Asian outlets reporting both sides’ statements.
Strikes in Nangarhar, Paktika
Afghan officials and multiple on-the-ground reports say the strikes hit civilian homes, a religious school or seminary, and residential neighbourhoods in Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.
They say the strikes caused "dozens" of deaths and injuries, including women and children.
Local reporting and Afghan ministry statements put confirmed tolls in Bihsud/Behsud and other districts at numbers ranging from at least 17 fatalities to claims that whole families were buried under rubble.
Journalists and rescuers described using bulldozers and digging to recover victims from damaged homes.
Coverage Differences
Casualty figures
Sources differ on casualty totals and which specific sites were hit: several outlets report a confirmed toll of at least 17 in Bihsud/Behsud, while BBC and News9live reference higher family‑level tolls (about 20 or 23 family members) and many outlets use the broader phrase “dozens.” These differences reflect reporting from different local officials, AFP and on‑scene reporters.
Reactions to cross-border strikes
Officials on both sides warned of escalation and framed the strikes within a wider, tense context.
Islamabad said the operation followed a string of militant attacks inside Pakistan — including a mosque suicide bombing in Islamabad claimed by Islamic State that killed at least 31 people — and warned it would keep "all options on the table."
Afghan authorities and the Taliban’s defence ministry condemned the strikes as severe violations of sovereignty and vowed a measured or "appropriate and calculated" response.
Analysts and some reports warned the strikes risk undermining a fragile ceasefire brokered after October border clashes that killed scores.
Coverage Differences
Escalation risk
Some sources foreground Pakistan’s domestic security rationale and portray the strikes as retaliation for specific attacks (e.g., Islamabad mosque bombing), while others emphasise the risk to ceasefires, previous casualties from cross‑border actions, and warnings from Afghan authorities. This creates different emphases on justification versus regional stability.
Media coverage differences
Coverage differs between outlets in tone, detail and what each highlights.
West Asian outlets (Al Jazeera, Khaleej Times, Asharq) foreground local casualty accounts and ministry statements.
Western mainstream outlets (BBC) balance Pakistani claims and Afghan condemnation while noting family-level tolls.
Asian and local Western outlets (Malay Mail, TimelineDaily, Views Bangladesh) emphasise Pakistan’s justification and the immediate link to recent attacks in Pakistan.
Some fringe or non-news items (El-Balad entry) add no reporting.
These differences affect readers’ perception of whether the strikes are a counterterror operation or a cross-border attack on civilians.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Different source types adopt distinct tones: West Asian sources stress humanitarian impact and vivid on‑the‑ground detail; Western mainstream stresses legal/sovereignty implications and balance of claims; Asian/local sources give more prominence to Pakistan’s security rhetoric. The result is variation in empathy and attribution across reports.