What's new

Operation this month if TTP violates truce: minister

Edevelop

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
23
Country
Pakistan
Location
Turkey
ISLAMABAD: The government could launch a full-scale military operation against the Taliban in the tribal areas as early as this month, the defence minister said, warning insurgents against violating a ceasefire.

Dashing chances of a peace deal with the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, gunmen burst into a courtroom in Islamabad on Monday, killing 11 people in a broad daylight attack in the heart of the capital.

The TTP denied any role in the assault and a splinter group, Ahrarul Hind, accepted responsibility.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told Reuters in an interview that the government would not hesitate to bomb militant hideouts or send forces into the tribal areas if the Taliban did not abide by the ceasefire announced last weekend.

“It will not take months now. We’ll have to march in the month of March,” Mr Asif said, describing the government’s response if insurgent attacks continued.

“If there is a ceasefire, it has to be complete. Without that, we just can’t afford to have talks with the Taliban.”

Mr Asif, long considered a pro-talks politician, is now one of a growing number of members of the federal cabinet who believe it is time for tougher military action against the Taliban strongholds.

In February, the government launched talks with the Taliban to find a negotiated settlement. But hopes of a peace deal have been crushed by a series of attacks and counter-attacks by both sides.

“We won’t just take this lying down,” the defence minister said. “If we are attacked, the state is attacked, civilians are attacked, military personnel are attacked; we will retaliate. We will retaliate in kind.”

For a government long considered soft for pursuing peace talks, Mr Asif said there were now very few takers for the argument that the Taliban are truly committed to dialogue.

“The Taliban have not even condemned this so-called splinter group four days after the attack. They are saying, `We have not violated a ceasefire, these are peripheral groups, they are not under our control,’” Mr Asif said.

“But we cannot believe this.”

When asked about reports that talks may be re-launched, this time with military in the driving seat, he said: “The army’s input is very valuable. They are the people on the frontlines. They have to execute our decisions.”

The government’s insistence on pushing for talks is driven, to a large extent, by the fear that the end of the US combat mission in 2014 could energise a resilient insurgency straddling the shared frontier.

“If in the post-withdrawal period, the Afghan Taliban become stronger and carve out an area of influence in the south and east of Afghanistan, which is next to our border – that’s a scenario we should even avoid thinking of,” Mr Asif said.

“Because then the Pakistani Taliban will have a power house behind them, to support them. This option is there and everyone should try to avoid it.” For sceptics, there is another scenario Pakistan wants to avoid at all costs: an unfriendly Afghanistan backed by India.

As Nato’s presence fades, President Hamid Karzai has turned to India. The countries have signed a wide-ranging strategic partnership and India has pledged billions in development aid.

Pakistan has for years been suspicious of the help, going as far as to say Indian consulates are surveillance posts.

But Mr Asif said Pakistan had evolved.

“We have evidence that India is meddling in Afghanistan, no doubt,” he said. “But I’m a believer that if the conditions in the four walls of your own house are stable, nobody from outside will try to enter. We give India the opportunity.”



Operation this month if TTP violates truce: minister - DAWN.COM
 
Last edited:
“If in the post-withdrawal period, the Afghan Taliban become stronger and carve out an area of influence in the south and east of Afghanistan, which is next to our border – that’s a scenario we should even avoid thinking of,” Mr Asif said.

“Because then the Pakistani Taliban will have a power house behind them, to support them. This option is there and everyone should try to avoid it.” For sceptics, there is another scenario Pakistan wants to avoid at all costs: an unfriendly Afghanistan backed by India.
Operation this month if TTP violates truce: minister - DAWN.COM

It is hard to be sympathetic. You reap what you sow.
 
It is hard to be sympathetic. You reap what you sow.
No, some times you don't reap what you sow, sometimes the seed you plant never actually grows.

Besides, it's the Afghans that started this mess in the 50s. If they didn't, we wouldn't even be in this mess at all. Looking at history, Pakistan is being punished for doing what it needs to in order to survive. Imagine that? Being punished for trying to survive.
 
No, some times you don't reap what you sow, sometimes the seed you plant never actually grows.

Besides, it's the Afghans that started this mess in the 50s. If they didn't, we wouldn't even be in this mess at all. Looking at history, Pakistan is being punished for doing what it needs to in order to survive. Imagine that? Being punished for trying to survive.

Funny, I have heard people say American casualties by Taliban are what they reaped.
 
It is hard to be sympathetic. You reap what you sow.
we reap what we sow?
there is no need to be sympathetic.
if everybody start reaping what they sow the the we in america would be in the worse condition in the world.

95 percent of native americans were slaughtered just to make this country and that was just the beginning.

Funny, I have heard people say American casualties by Taliban are what they reaped.
american casualties by the taliban? what casualties by the taliban? our soldiers? you talking about?
america really has done much in afghanistan they could've finished this long time ago but out of stupidity they our government decided to stay.
india however will reap what they sow for what they are doing in kashmir how long will india be able to keep 700,000 dollars in kashmir to make the biggest open air prison in the world?
 
we reap what we sow?
there is no need to be sympathetic.
if everybody start reaping what they sow the the we in america would be in the worse condition in the world.

95 percent of native americans were slaughtered just to make this country and that was just the beginning.


american casualties by the taliban? what casualties by the taliban? our soldiers? you talking about?
america really has done much in afghanistan they could've finished this long time ago but out of stupidity they our government decided to stay.
india however will reap what they sow for what they are doing in kashmir how long will india be able to keep 700,000 dollars in kashmir to make the biggest open air prison in the world?

:drag:

I am way the hell over here in New Zealand. How will I pay my friend?

Before that, I will be dead and six feet under. :-)

we reap what we sow?
there is no need to be sympathetic.
if everybody start reaping what they sow the the we in america would be in the worse condition in the world.

95 percent of native americans were slaughtered just to make this country and that was just the beginning.

Aztecs also enslaved neighbouring tribes and used them for sacrifices.

The freed slaves in the United States later went to Liberia and enslaved the Africans there.

My point is, today's oppressed are tomorrow's oppressors.
 
There are factions in TTP funded by foreign agencies or simply hate the army too much to be involved in any sort of peace.

They will try to sabotage this peace process. PA needs to hunt them regardless of the talks and make the TTP aware.
 
No, some times you don't reap what you sow, sometimes the seed you plant never actually grows.

Besides, it's the Afghans that started this mess in the 50s. If they didn't, we wouldn't even be in this mess at all. Looking at history, Pakistan is being punished for doing what it needs to in order to survive. Imagine that? Being punished for trying to survive.
Punished for trying to survive? Pakistan has instead been meddling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and India since time immemorial. It's part of Pakistan's strategy and foreign policy. That's the problem! You've not allowed others to survive in peace yourselves and you want to blame others for your policies and say you are being 'punished'??

Secondly, the TTP and other terror offshoots pose a far greater security thread than India. So of what use are the billions of dollars Pakistan has spent on the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world? Except for some deterrence value, it's a pile of junk - just like all nuclear weapons in this world are.

You guys are being bled from your insides, nuke or no nukes. Hypothetically speaking, but as many falsely state, let's say India's aim is to destroy Pakistan. If so, why use nukes or even conventional warfare? The new methodology would be to aid and abet terrorists against the interests of Pakistan (As Pakistan herself has been doing for the past three decades in Kashmir and other parts of India as well as Afghanistan). This is New Age Warfare, since the nuke option is no option at all. It's zero. Zilch. Nukes will never ever be used. Period!

So we're back to that old adage: As you sow, you shall reap. You've sown the seeds of terrorism in Asia thanks to Zia and his fundamentalist mullahs who supported him to the hilt and from whom he derived his power. That legacy continues.

And you say you're being punished for trying to survive? Nope, you're trying to punish others instead by using terrorists as 'strategic assets' as Kayani himself had mentioned to his American counterpart. It's a dangerous road leading to death and destruction. Meaning, 50,000 Pakistanis killed since 2001 and counting - almost ten times more than the casualties in all wars fought with India, and then some!!

As of now, India and Pakistan are at two ends of the pole. The twain it seems, will never meet! Unless and until both countries throw up statesmen of the highest caliber and stop politicizing issues purely for brownie points and pandering to political constituencies. But that's easier said than done, seeing the deeply entrenched vested interests on both sides of the divide who have an enormous stake in keeping hostilities going.
 
Punished for trying to survive? Pakistan has instead been meddling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and India since time immemorial. It's part of Pakistan's strategy and foreign policy. That's the problem! You've not allowed others to survive in peace yourselves and you want to blame others for your policies and say you are being 'punished'??

Secondly, the TTP and other terror offshoots pose a far greater security thread than India. So of what use are the billions of dollars Pakistan has spent on the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world? Except for some deterrence value, it's a pile of junk - just like all nuclear weapons in this world are.

You guys are being bled from your insides, nuke or no nukes. Hypothetically speaking, but as many falsely state, let's say India's aim is to destroy Pakistan. If so, why use nukes or even conventional warfare? The new methodology would be to aid and abet terrorists against the interests of Pakistan (As Pakistan herself has been doing for the past three decades in Kashmir and other parts of India as well as Afghanistan). This is New Age Warfare, since the nuke option is no option at all. It's zero. Zilch. Nukes will never ever be used. Period!

So we're back to that old adage: As you sow, you shall reap. You've sown the seeds of terrorism in Asia thanks to Zia and his fundamentalist mullahs who supported him to the hilt and from whom he derived his power. That legacy continues.

And you say you're being punished for trying to survive? Nope, you're trying to punish others instead by using terrorists as 'strategic assets' as Kayani himself had mentioned to his American counterpart. It's a dangerous road leading to death and destruction. Meaning, 50,000 Pakistanis killed since 2001 and counting - almost ten times more than the casualties in all wars fought with India, and then some!!

As of now, India and Pakistan are at two ends of the pole. The twain it seems, will never meet! Unless and until both countries throw up statesmen of the highest caliber and stop politicizing issues purely for brownie points and pandering to political constituencies. But that's easier said than done, seeing the deeply entrenched vested interests on both sides of the divide who have an enormous stake in keeping hostilities going.

Seems you don't actually know the history of South Asia, it wasn't Pakistan that started this issue in Afghanistan, it was the Afghans themselves, who were the only ones to reject the birth of Pakistan since the beginning.

When it comes to the nuclear issue, Pakistan may be spending a lot of money in these weapons, but so is India. What use does India have of ICBMs? The road goes both ways, don't ignore this. Besides, I don't know where half of these points are coming from, because it seems to me that you're making straw-man arguments to try and make me look bad. When did I mention India in my comment? Don't make ridiculous comments when you have no idea what you're talking about and you're letting your blind patriotism cloud your eyes. India has always aimed to split Pakistan, that is the only way to get rid of Pakistan as a threat to India. Believe what you want, but the fact is that if you truly believe India has never supported militancy in Pakistan, then you're nationalism is influencing your judgement heavily. Support from India for Baluchi insurgents is obvious, and for you to deny this is ridiculous.

Pakistan wasn't the one to start using militants, it was the Afghans, which is something you tend to ignore. The Pashtunistan issue (which the Afghans started) was the beginning of using militants as proxies in the region, and it started not too long after the birth of Pakistan. Please don't bring Kashmir into this, we both know that even if Pakistan and India ended up agreeing to a deal, Kashmiri militants would still exist, you cannot blame Pakistan for this.

The casualties since 2001 have nothing to do with Pakistani support of militants, it's in fact the opposite of that. The militants have perceived Pakistan as a satellite state of the US, and have been fighting Pakistan since the war began. If Pakistan was indeed supporting them, they'd be biting the hand that feeds them.

In the end, (like always) your little analysis is filled with bias and nothing more. You have I have both talked about these same issues before, and you have never acknowledged my points as legitimate, so I'll just end with this; Pakistan isn't the problem, it never has been.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom