What's new

Emboldened militants set sights on Peshawar

For the record. Pakistan's tilt towards USA goes back to Liaqat Ali Khan. He declined the US offer and instead went to US on officail trip.

It is a fallacy to think that USSR could have been a better friend or could have helped more.

I still am for a Pakistan - Russia friendship it would have brought colossal improvement in the geopolitical dynamics of the region, the Russians gave the invitation to Quaid and he wanted to join them, this was before independence, but our foolish PM Liaquat pulled a blunder, sir, before China was our friend it was a our foe, and it stated that it would clearly attack us with India, but what made them change there views it was Dialogue, ZAB gave reassurances and commitment to a friendship, and Pakistan received the ultimate friend, ZAB debated in the UN to make China a member and by that China has become a major player in the Security council. What the dynamics of USSR are were with Pakistan during ZAB's tenure are infornt of you, look Niaz the Russian were not found of Pakistan they saw us as enemy, but ZAB turned those differences a side, if he just were given a little more time, Russia would have been a major ally of Pakistan, the Russians supported India during 71 and 65 war and it costed us, tough knowing that history, ZAB made convincing steps for them to commit a bridge of understanding, and the reward you can see the Karachi Steal Mill Mega project, the Port Qasim Mega Project all initiated by ZAB influence in the dialogue, we heavily rely on these organs. I feel there will always be difference of opinion of what side Pakistan should have taken, but my political analysis says we should have joined with Russian block they had basically received support from all muslim countries accept Pakistan during that crucial period.
 
For the record. Pakistan's tilt towards USA goes back to Liaqat Ali Khan. He declined the US offer and instead went to US on officail trip.
It is a fallacy to think that USSR could have been a better friend or could have helped more.

You are right, but when Laiquat Ali found out we were being used by the U.S. he broke off the friendship and as soon as that happened he was killed. The story of why he was killed is very complex. Four countries were involved including two superpowers and two neighbouring countries.
The story goes that the U.S want more bases in Pakistan, Laiquat Ali said "NO." The U.S. told him we will not help you liberate Kashmir, Laiquat Ali told them "We got half of Kashmir without your help and we will get the other half." Now the U.S. got on his bad side. The Soviet Union, Afghanistan and India were aready on his bad side for obvious reason. Together they came up with a plan to kill him. They found no one in Pakistan so an Afghan was hired to do the job.
As he was dying his last words were "Oh Allah save Pakistan." What did he mean by this? Did he know of what was ahead for us? Who were we asked to be saved from? What was the real danger? Was it internal or external?
 
The story of why he was killed is very complex. Four countries were involved including two superpowers and two neighbouring countries.

Which ones and why?
 
Mangal Bagh willing to accept Jirga decision

Sunday, July 06, 2008

By Javed Afridi

PESHAWAR: Lashkar-e-Islam chief Mangal Bagh has expressed his willingness to accept the decision of the 35-member tribal jirga negotiating peace between him and the government.

The tribal Jirga, consisting of two elders from each of the eight sub-tribes of Afridis at its inception and which has now swelled to 35 members, met the political authorities of Khyber Agency and informed them about their talks with Mangal Bagh in the remote Tirah Valley.

Satisfied with the development, the administrative head of the Khyber Agency Tariq Hayat Khan announced suspension of the ongoing operation 'Sirat-i-Mustaqeem' in the tribal agency on the 8th day of its commencement.

Speaking to reporters, head of the tribal jirga, Haji Amal Gul said that Mangal Bagh had expressed his willingness to resolve outstanding disputes with the government through talks. "He has extended his complete support to the ongoing peace efforts in Khyber Agency," Gul said.

He dispelled the impression that the Jirga was formed by the government. "The jirga members are not assigned by the government or by Mangal Bagh. It is truly an outcome of our tribal tradition that asks for talks to resolve any dispute," he said.

He appreciated the political authorities for announcing suspension of the ongoing operation after the Jirga requested for the same until negotiations were held.

Another Jirga member Haji Shaukat of the Qambarkhel tribe said the LI head did express his displeasure over the demolition of various structures in the agency and wanted the Jirga to ask the government as to why the operation was unavoidable.

He said that Mangal Bagh viewed himself to be a helper of the government agencies for he had initiated a movement against anti-social elements. "Even when the operation was being conducted against LI activists, the organisation succeeded in recovering a child kidnapped from the Kohat Road in Peshawar. The kidnappers were demanding Rs70 million as ransom for his release," the jirga member quoted Mangal Bagh as saying.

When asked if the LI men would resist forces moving towards the remote Tirah Valley, Shaukat said they did not discuss the issue with him. He, however, said that the LI chief threatened to retaliate if forces continued to push him to the wall.

The Jirga members were tight-lipped about the conditions put forth by either of the conflicting parties, but a source privy to the development said each of the side had put at least three conditions for each other.

On the government side, it wanted the defiant LI head to accept writ of the government, surrender those wanted to the authorities and furnish surety bonds for good conduct in future.

On LI's part, they demanded of the government to end the operation in the tribal agency forthwith, release all the detainees of the organisation and compensate for the structures demolished during the operation.

According to a handout issued here by Media Cell, Fata Secretariat Peshawar, the 18 members tribal jirga of the elders which returned from Tirah, where they held talks Friday with the concerned elements, Saturday met with APA Bara at Narai Khwar.

The jirga said the concerned elements were ready to deposit security with the political administration and demolish their remaining centres themselves, if any.

Moreover, the jirga also requested the administration to open Bara bazaar and remove checkpoints. The issues will be discussed again by a jirga scheduled to meet at Khyber House today (Sunday).

Meanwhile, curfew imposed at Bara subdivision since June 28, was relaxed since Friday and Saturday. However, the ban on display of arms and provisions of Section 38 of the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) would remain in force till further orders.

The law enforcing agencies were patrolling the area and routine checkpoints/nakabandis at various points were intact. Till now, 92 persons have been arrested. No untoward incident was reported on Saturday, added the official communication.

Mangal Bagh willing to accept Jirga decision
 
Bara operation freeze extended

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Lashkar-e-Islam ‘agrees to disarm’

* Official monitoring operation claims offensive not fully over
* Jirga member denies receiving list of demands by either side

By Iqbal Khattak and Qazi Rauf
PESHAWAR/BARA: The government has extended the suspension of the operation in Bara region for an indefinite period as Mangal Bagh – head of Lashkar-e-Islam (LI) – “surrendered” to government demands, Khyber Agency Political Agent (PA) Tariq Hayat Khan said on Saturday.

“He (Bagh) has surrendered to all our demands and the operation shall now remain suspended,” Hayat told Daily Times following talks with jirga members who returned from a meeting with the LI chief in the remote Tirah Valley on Friday.

The demands include a guarantee in writing by Bagh to maintain good behaviour along with a payment of cash, surrender of weapons, release of all hostages and a ban on the display of weapons in public.

Hayat said his administration would hold further talks with the jirga members on Sunday (today) to work out modalities for the implementation of security in the area.

Denial: Muhammad Ali, an official in charge of a crisis management centre set up by the government in Peshawar to monitor the offensive, said however it was still under way, though “in a mild tone”, reported AP.

No list of demands: Hayat’s statement that Bagh had “surrendered to the government terms” was however in conflict with a jirga member’s statement, which said no side had given them, as intermediaries, any list of demands.

“The government gave the jirga no list of demands for Bagh,” jirga member Shaukat Khan Afridi told a news conference in Bara, adding, “Nor had Bagh preconditioned talks with the government.”

Afridi said both sides had authorised the jirga to negotiate a settlement to the issue.

Hayat said the government had not held any talks, direct or indirect, with Bagh. “The Afridi tribe’s jirga did not negotiate for a settlement nor did the government.”

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
Which ones and why?

US, USSR, India and Afghanistan.

US wanted him dead because he didn't allow the US to open bases in Pakistan.
Russia because hey they hated him for ignoring the USSR and going to the US.
Afghanistan because well they have hated every Pakistani leader who is unwilling to give them Pushtun lands.
And India because quite honestly we blame India for everything and they blame us, so why not this one.
 
Press reports say that the Frontier Corps has been using APCs and Artillary in these operations.

Which ones are they using?
 
Laiquat Ali told them "We got half of Kashmir without your help and we will get the other half."

How come it has become Liáquat Ali's famous last words?
 
dabong1, then who has occupied the lal masjid? ?

The students of lal masjid....dont recall any "foreign fighters" bodies being put on display by mushy.


Can you please tell your definition of terrorists?

Anybody that kills a innocent person/Non-combatant.


Can you tell me the definition of a militant,insurgent,guerilla fighter,freedom fighter ect.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom