Hakeemullah Mehsud gives rare interview to BBC

[notorious_eagle]

Sir, watching the video I was reminded of Game of Thrones and how I wished to see some peoples heads on our walls: TTP

The problem is that we are pathetic, we are indeed some of the most pathetic people in the world. Even after killing thousands of innocent people, there are actually people in Pakistan and one particular individual on this forum whom defend TTP. According to them, they are soldiers of Allah and carrying on the fight against the infidel Americans. While i have no qualms with the TTP picking up weapons and fighting the Americans, what boils my blood is that these people have turned their guns on Pakistan and have attacked innocent women, children, hell they haven't even spared mosques.

If we as a nation had even a little bit of self respect, we would be marching up an Army right now in their strongholds in Fataville with the intention of giving 'No Quarter'. Members captured of TTP should not have been given any quarter, all members executed in public display. We have the means, the resources and most importantly the firepower to level these Pigs to the ground. The only thing that is lacking is the will, and it is due to this lack of will that terrorists such as Hakimullah Mehsud is talking as an equal.

 

[Oldman1]

So he says he will keep on fighting in Pakistan even if American led coalition pulled out. You hear that?

 

[Anubis]

Thought he would sound scarier....he kinda sounds gay!(no offense to homosexual members of PDF)!

On topic...what kinda talks does he want to hear??Any idea what he would settle for in exchange for stop killing people?

 

[AUz]

His voice is funny...lol

Can't understand how such a dumbass person keep whole Pakistan on toes.

Definitely being supported by CIA/RAW and other outsiders...

 

[TalibanSwatter]

DAWN
ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear — as though it were not already clear enough — just what the militants’ agenda is. This time it was the kingpin himself, Hakeemullah Mehsud, emir of the TTP, who told the BBC that one of the principal reasons he and his fellow militants fight is because they regard the configuration of the Pakistani state to be un-Islamic. Consider the implications of that claim. The TTP is not fighting a government or an institution or a political party or a group of people; the TTP is fighting the idea of Pakistan itself. Overthrow the system, reject democracy, scrap the Constitution and replace it all with an austere(Salafi) version of Islam that is alien to most Pakistanis and is based on what the Taliban say is or isn’t true Islam. That this is unacceptable is obvious enough. That there still remains confusion in society about what the TTP really stands for is a truly depressing reality, one perpetuated by a political leadership that seems equal parts confused and spineless.

Dialogue with the Taliban is the first option, the APC resolution has told the country. But by its very definition dialogue is about finding some middle ground. What exactly can be ceded to the TTP that it wants and which the state can accept? Not a single politician who is pushing for talks as the first option has fleshed out which of the Taliban demands are legitimate and can be countenanced. Is democracy negotiable? The Constitution, perhaps? Or can the principle of the state having a monopoly over violence be watered down a bit, allowing for the official, not just de facto, co-existence of private militias and the state security apparatus? Perhaps the pro-talks lobby believes that laying out conditions or red lines before the formal start of talks will cause the TTP to baulk. But by avoiding articulating even a minimum agenda, it has ended up emboldening the TTP. It is surely no coincidence that the organisation has spoken in increasingly tough terms since the APC resolution. And why should it not? The political leadership seems more desperate to cut a deal than to defend the core tenets of the Pakistani state.

How weak and indecisive does the political leadership look at the moment? Having decided on dialogue as the first option, it has been unable to even initiate that process or propose a framework. It will hardly be a surprise if the TTP grows even more unyielding in the days and weeks ahead.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

DAWN
ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear — as though it were not already clear enough — just what the militants’ agenda is. This time it was the kingpin himself, Hakeemullah Mehsud, emir of the TTP, who told the BBC that one of the principal reasons he and his fellow militants fight is because they regard the configuration of the Pakistani state to be un-Islamic. Consider the implications of that claim. The TTP is not fighting a government or an institution or a political party or a group of people; the TTP is fighting the idea of Pakistan itself. Overthrow the system, reject democracy, scrap the Constitution and replace it all with an austere(Salafi) version of Islam that is alien to most Pakistanis and is based on what the Taliban say is or isn’t true Islam. That this is unacceptable is obvious enough. That there still remains confusion in society about what the TTP really stands for is a truly depressing reality, one perpetuated by a political leadership that seems equal parts confused and spineless.

Dialogue with the Taliban is the first option, the APC resolution has told the country. But by its very definition dialogue is about finding some middle ground. What exactly can be ceded to the TTP that it wants and which the state can accept? Not a single politician who is pushing for talks as the first option has fleshed out which of the Taliban demands are legitimate and can be countenanced. Is democracy negotiable? The Constitution, perhaps? Or can the principle of the state having a monopoly over violence be watered down a bit, allowing for the official, not just de facto, co-existence of private militias and the state security apparatus? Perhaps the pro-talks lobby believes that laying out conditions or red lines before the formal start of talks will cause the TTP to baulk. But by avoiding articulating even a minimum agenda, it has ended up emboldening the TTP. It is surely no coincidence that the organisation has spoken in increasingly tough terms since the APC resolution. And why should it not? The political leadership seems more desperate to cut a deal than to defend the core tenets of the Pakistani state.

How weak and indecisive does the political leadership look at the moment? Having decided on dialogue as the first option, it has been unable to even initiate that process or propose a framework. It will hardly be a surprise if the TTP grows even more unyielding in the days and weeks ahead.

 

[jaibi]

Exactly, sir, we're a pathetic nation. 50,000 dead are not enough to convince us who the enemy is. A drone flies to kill a wanted man, we go crazy; a church is blown and we look the other way. Sad, very sad. Just on the name of Islam we are going to give the TTP the greatest benefit of the doubt like a teenager with good intention who is just burly in his ways. Just very sad..

The problem is that we are pathetic, we are indeed some of the most pathetic people in the world. Even after killing thousands of innocent people, there are actually people in Pakistan and one particular individual on this forum whom defend TTP. According to them, they are soldiers of Allah and carrying on the fight against the infidel Americans. While i have no qualms with the TTP picking up weapons and fighting the Americans, what boils my blood is that these people have turned their guns on Pakistan and have attacked innocent women, children, hell they haven't even spared mosques.

If we as a nation had even a little bit of self respect, we would be marching up an Army right now in their strongholds in Fataville with the intention of giving 'No Quarter'. Members captured of TTP should not have been given any quarter, all members executed in public display. We have the means, the resources and most importantly the firepower to level these Pigs to the ground. The only thing that is lacking is the will, and it is due to this lack of will that terrorists such as Hakimullah Mehsud is talking as an equal.

 

[janon]

Here come the almighty, who know everything since the begenning of the time

To know what I said in that post, I don't need to be almighty - any informed person who reads the news and current affairs will know that. And I certainly don't need to know everything since the beginning of time, unless time to you began in 2008. Yes, Baitullah was killed by a US drone strike. If you are suggesting that I am wrong, how about refuting me with a link or two, instead of a sarcastic remark that adds no value? From the PDF rule book:

SARCASM
We do not allow people to post sarcastic post at all. They are a very pathetic way in the end to back things up. They will be deleted on sight and user warned.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/forum-book/92653-forum-rules-regulations.html#ixzz2hOvmbevb

 

[niaz]

I must have repeated a hundred times in my posts that Pakistan has been hijacked by the Islamic political forces such as Jamaat Islami & Deobandi parties that never wanted Pakistan in the first place and these are out to destroy Pakistan from within thru their support of Taliban. Finally others are also realizing this fact. Dawn editorial:

Quote:

Ominous signs: Interview with Mehsud

Published 2013-10-11 08:03:34

ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear — as though it were not already clear enough — just what the militants’ agenda is. This time it was the kingpin himself, Hakeemullah Mehsud, emir of the TTP, who told the BBC that one of the principal reasons he and his fellow militants fight is because they regard the configuration of the Pakistani state to be un-Islamic. Consider the implications of that claim. The TTP is not fighting a government or an institution or a political party or a group of people; the TTP is fighting the idea of Pakistan itself. Overthrow the system, reject democracy, scrap the Constitution and replace it all with an austere version of Islam that is alien to most Pakistanis and is based on what the Taliban say is or isn’t true Islam. That this is unacceptable is obvious enough. That there still remains confusion in society about what the TTP really stands for is a truly depressing reality, one perpetuated by a political leadership that seems equal parts confused and spineless.

Dialogue with the Taliban is the first option, the APC resolution has told the country. But by its very definition dialogue is about finding some middle ground. What exactly can be ceded to the TTP that it wants and which the state can accept? Not a single politician who is pushing for talks as the first option has fleshed out which of the Taliban demands are legitimate and can be countenanced. Is democracy negotiable? The Constitution, perhaps? Or can the principle of the state having a monopoly over violence be watered down a bit, allowing for the official, not just de facto, co-existence of private militias and the state security apparatus? Perhaps the pro-talks lobby believes that laying out conditions or red lines before the formal start of talks will cause the TTP to baulk. But by avoiding articulating even a minimum agenda, it has ended up emboldening the TTP. It is surely no coincidence that the organisation has spoken in increasingly tough terms since the APC resolution. And why should it not? The political leadership seems more desperate to cut a deal than to defend the core tenets of the Pakistani state.

How weak and indecisive does the political leadership look at the moment? Having decided on dialogue as the first option, it has been unable to even initiate that process or propose a framework. It will hardly be a surprise if the TTP grows even more unyielding in the days and weeks ahead.

Ominous signs: Interview with Mehsud - DAWN.COM

Unquote.

I have no quarrel with the JI followers and supporters of the Wahabi, Khilafat and other organizations, these being openly anti Pakistan State. We also know that Abbaji had a soft spot for the extremists and his sons have similar thinking.

My deep disappointment is with Imran Khan & PTI followers. Does Naya Pakistan mean a truncated Pakistan? Are we going to discuss dissolution of Pakistan with Taliban?

 

[Zarvan]

Exactly, sir, we're a pathetic nation. 50,000 dead are not enough to convince us who the enemy is. A drone flies to kill a wanted man, we go crazy; a church is blown and we look the other way. Sad, very sad. Just on the name of Islam we are going to give the TTP the greatest benefit of the doubt like a teenager with good intention who is just burly in his ways. Just very sad..

Sir because people know why Army entered Tribal areas in first place and on whose orders and Air Force was used on our own people to please a country Air Force is not even used by India in Kashmir Sir

I must have repeated a hundred times in my posts that Pakistan has been hijacked by the Islamic political forces such as Jamaat Islami & Deobandi parties that never wanted Pakistan in the first place and these are out to destroy Pakistan from within thru their support of Taliban. Finally others are also realizing this fact. Dawn editorial:

Quote:

Ominous signs: Interview with Mehsud

Published 2013-10-11 08:03:34

ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear — as though it were not already clear enough — just what the militants’ agenda is. This time it was the kingpin himself, Hakeemullah Mehsud, emir of the TTP, who told the BBC that one of the principal reasons he and his fellow militants fight is because they regard the configuration of the Pakistani state to be un-Islamic. Consider the implications of that claim. The TTP is not fighting a government or an institution or a political party or a group of people; the TTP is fighting the idea of Pakistan itself. Overthrow the system, reject democracy, scrap the Constitution and replace it all with an austere version of Islam that is alien to most Pakistanis and is based on what the Taliban say is or isn’t true Islam. That this is unacceptable is obvious enough. That there still remains confusion in society about what the TTP really stands for is a truly depressing reality, one perpetuated by a political leadership that seems equal parts confused and spineless.

Dialogue with the Taliban is the first option, the APC resolution has told the country. But by its very definition dialogue is about finding some middle ground. What exactly can be ceded to the TTP that it wants and which the state can accept? Not a single politician who is pushing for talks as the first option has fleshed out which of the Taliban demands are legitimate and can be countenanced. Is democracy negotiable? The Constitution, perhaps? Or can the principle of the state having a monopoly over violence be watered down a bit, allowing for the official, not just de facto, co-existence of private militias and the state security apparatus? Perhaps the pro-talks lobby believes that laying out conditions or red lines before the formal start of talks will cause the TTP to baulk. But by avoiding articulating even a minimum agenda, it has ended up emboldening the TTP. It is surely no coincidence that the organisation has spoken in increasingly tough terms since the APC resolution. And why should it not? The political leadership seems more desperate to cut a deal than to defend the core tenets of the Pakistani state.

How weak and indecisive does the political leadership look at the moment? Having decided on dialogue as the first option, it has been unable to even initiate that process or propose a framework. It will hardly be a surprise if the TTP grows even more unyielding in the days and weeks ahead.

Ominous signs: Interview with Mehsud - DAWN.COM

Unquote.

I have no quarrel with the JI followers and supporters of the Wahabi, Khilafat and other organizations, these being openly anti Pakistan State. We also know that Abbaji had a soft spot for the extremists and his sons have similar thinking.

My deep disappointment is with Imran Khan & PTI followers. Does Naya Pakistan mean a truncated Pakistan? Are we going to discuss dissolution of Pakistan with Taliban?

Mr Jamat e Islami was the one who fought for Pakistan in 71 and they are paying the price for that in Bangladesh their leaders were killed during 71 because they refused to say Pakistan Murda.... Sir and Wahabis also supported creation of Pakistan only one section of deoband opposed but many Ulemas of Deoband like allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani and Mufti Muhammad Shafi and finally Moalana Ashraf Ali Thanvi supported creation of Pakistan Sir

 

[jaibi]

Zarvi, our methods might not be 100% OK, I accept that but the Army 'entering' it's own country seems like a stupid argument. Our constitution gives the military the powers to, under the civilian directive, act within our own territory. So who 'entered' as a Pakistani do not I or you, as Punjabis, have as much right to 'enter' and live in the Tribal Areas? Are they a separate country?

Sir because people know why Army entered Tribal areas in first place and on whose orders and Air Force was used on our own people to please a country Air Force is not even used by India in Kashmir Sir

 

[Zarvan]

Zarvi, our methods might not be 100% OK, I accept that but the Army 'entering' it's own country seems like a stupid argument. Our constitution gives the military the powers to, under the civilian directive, act within our own territory. So who 'entered' as a Pakistani do not I or you, as Punjabis, have as much right to 'enter' and live in the Tribal Areas? Are they a separate country?

Yes if Military will keep conquering its own people than don't cry if civil war starts Sir Army is not for conquering its own people Sir

 

[janon]

Zarvi, our methods might not be 100% OK, I accept that but the Army 'entering' it's own country seems like a stupid argument. Our constitution gives the military the powers to, under the civilian directive, act within our own territory. So who 'entered' as a Pakistani do not I or you, as Punjabis, have as much right to 'enter' and live in the Tribal Areas? Are they a separate country?

Good observation, but notice that many people in Pakistan (especially in those regions) feel that way. If a handful of people on PDF (admittedly, very few, but...) think in those terms, you can bet that many people in that region feel the same way. The question then to be asked is why the non Punjabi non sindhi parts of Pakistan think of themselves as a separate entity. Why those parts were not integrated into the mainstream after 67 years of independence. And we are not talking about a few distant villages, but more than half the landmass of Pakistan. IMO, there should have been more cultural assimilation and integration than actually happened, so that the old tribal identities and loyalties assumed less importance compared to a national identity.

Also, I think Pakistan is going the wrong way about the present insurgencies. Zarvan has a point when he asks why the air force and such heavy measures are being used. Most insurgencies are eventually finished off by the police, not by the military - case in point, India's Punjab insurgency, and how the Punjab police completely quelled it (of course, after the military destroyed the top leaders in op Blue star). Similarly, I think the Pakistani military should simply have led a few operations against major insurgent leaders, and left the police forces to mop up the movements on the bottom rung. I mean, an effective police force can lead intelligence on the ground, and learn how they recruit people, how they fund their activities and so on. All this is in the domain of law enforcement, NOT warfighting. Tanks and artillery and fighters cannot do these unglamorous jobs, but eventually it is these unglamorous, behind the scenes work that leads to termination of insurgencies.

 

[jaibi]

The reason these people view it that way is because they do not get the same representation and resource sharing as other parts of the nation. That is base line of all separatists in Pakistan and their solution is also political.

The reasoning is: you do not share what we earn, why come here then? Leave us be. Sadly, Pakistan used the tribal belt the same way the British had.

Secondly, there is a huge confusion about who really is in power in Pakistan. Most people think it's Punjab but that is completely false: they must read the Punjabiat movement in Pakistan, Punjab is the most oppressed region in Pakistan, Sindhis have Sindhi their taught in school, same for KPK but not so for Punjab. Punjabi is not even an official language here, the oppression of Punjabi self consciousness was deliberate and started with the smear campaign against the Unionists. It's only that Punjabis take being Pakistani as a responsibility upon themselves. Sindhis feel alienated more because of Mohajars and it was these fellows who did not allow regional self consciousness to take root and effectively stumped it out: 1971 was a result of that. So it is not just Sindh, KPK, FATA, Balochistan that need integration, PAKISTAN does.

Thirdly, the PAF did use blunt weapons but mostly it was because we were a conventional force, our AF did not have drones, still do not to use. Granted it was perhaps not the most prudent move.

Fourthly, YES, our police system needs a complete overhaul but that must go hand in hand with the military presence in FATA, we cannot allow for a vacuum to be created for a Swat like crises might emerge again.

Good observation, but notice that many people in Pakistan (especially in those regions) feel that way. If a handful of people on PDF (admittedly, very few, but...) think in those terms, you can bet that many people in that region feel the same way. The question then to be asked is why the non Punjabi non sindhi parts of Pakistan think of themselves as a separate entity. Why those parts were not integrated into the mainstream after 67 years of independence. And we are not talking about a few distant villages, but more than half the landmass of Pakistan. IMO, there should have been more cultural assimilation and integration than actually happened, so that the old tribal identities and loyalties assumed less importance compared to a national identity.

Also, I think Pakistan is going the wrong way about the present insurgencies. Zarvan has a point when he asks why the air force and such heavy measures are being used. Most insurgencies are eventually finished off by the police, not by the military - case in point, India's Punjab insurgency, and how the Punjab police completely quelled it (of course, after the military destroyed the top leaders in op Blue star). Similarly, I think the Pakistani military should simply have led a few operations against major insurgent leaders, and left the police forces to mop up the movements on the bottom rung. I mean, an effective police force can lead intelligence on the ground, and learn how they recruit people, how they fund their activities and so on. All this is in the domain of law enforcement, NOT warfighting. Tanks and artillery and fighters cannot do these unglamorous jobs, but eventually it is these unglamorous, behind the scenes work that leads to termination of insurgencies.

As a PTI supporter, sir, I share your disappointment. I hypothesised that the rightist tendencies were for the vote but that's not true, it was all real. We need leftist parties, strong ones. Sadly, that does not seem to happen. Pakistan has become a wh*re, excuse my language, for the far-rightists. It's not for Pakistanis anymore.

I must have repeated a hundred times in my posts that Pakistan has been hijacked by the Islamic political forces such as Jamaat Islami & Deobandi parties that never wanted Pakistan in the first place and these are out to destroy Pakistan from within thru their support of Taliban. Finally others are also realizing this fact. Dawn editorial:

Quote:

Ominous signs: Interview with Mehsud

Published 2013-10-11 08:03:34

ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear — as though it were not already clear enough — just what the militants’ agenda is. This time it was the kingpin himself, Hakeemullah Mehsud, emir of the TTP, who told the BBC that one of the principal reasons he and his fellow militants fight is because they regard the configuration of the Pakistani state to be un-Islamic. Consider the implications of that claim. The TTP is not fighting a government or an institution or a political party or a group of people; the TTP is fighting the idea of Pakistan itself. Overthrow the system, reject democracy, scrap the Constitution and replace it all with an austere version of Islam that is alien to most Pakistanis and is based on what the Taliban say is or isn’t true Islam. That this is unacceptable is obvious enough. That there still remains confusion in society about what the TTP really stands for is a truly depressing reality, one perpetuated by a political leadership that seems equal parts confused and spineless.

Dialogue with the Taliban is the first option, the APC resolution has told the country. But by its very definition dialogue is about finding some middle ground. What exactly can be ceded to the TTP that it wants and which the state can accept? Not a single politician who is pushing for talks as the first option has fleshed out which of the Taliban demands are legitimate and can be countenanced. Is democracy negotiable? The Constitution, perhaps? Or can the principle of the state having a monopoly over violence be watered down a bit, allowing for the official, not just de facto, co-existence of private militias and the state security apparatus? Perhaps the pro-talks lobby believes that laying out conditions or red lines before the formal start of talks will cause the TTP to baulk. But by avoiding articulating even a minimum agenda, it has ended up emboldening the TTP. It is surely no coincidence that the organisation has spoken in increasingly tough terms since the APC resolution. And why should it not? The political leadership seems more desperate to cut a deal than to defend the core tenets of the Pakistani state.

How weak and indecisive does the political leadership look at the moment? Having decided on dialogue as the first option, it has been unable to even initiate that process or propose a framework. It will hardly be a surprise if the TTP grows even more unyielding in the days and weeks ahead.

Ominous signs: Interview with Mehsud - DAWN.COM

Unquote.

I have no quarrel with the JI followers and supporters of the Wahabi, Khilafat and other organizations, these being openly anti Pakistan State. We also know that Abbaji had a soft spot for the extremists and his sons have similar thinking.

My deep disappointment is with Imran Khan & PTI followers. Does Naya Pakistan mean a truncated Pakistan? Are we going to discuss dissolution of Pakistan with Taliban?

 

[jaibi]

Zarvan, sir niaz, is your elder, please address him as so. Remove the 'sir' from me if you want.

Read history, Zavi, the conservatives and religioists did not want Pakistan. They even called Quiad-e-Azam, Kafar-e-Azam, the same man whose quotes you were posting.

Mr Jamat e Islami was the one who fought for Pakistan in 71 and they are paying the price for that in Bangladesh their leaders were killed during 71 because they refused to say Pakistan Murda.... Sir and Wahabis also supported creation of Pakistan only one section of deoband opposed but many Ulemas of Deoband like allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani and Mufti Muhammad Shafi and finally Moalana Ashraf Ali Thanvi supported creation of Pakistan Sir