Understanding Imran ,THE REASONS BEHIND HIS support to TTp?

[Tayyab1796]

you are no one whom i ever cared?keep it up!


who is running afghanistan? talibans?
why mighty talibans, went like rats to talk with US in qatar?

Talibs don't rule Afghanistan but ... do Nato powers 'rule' Afghanistan ??? I wish u pay a visit to Kabul and come back (safely) to tell the tale. Dear its only a matter of time , even i m apprehensive about repercussions but 'they' r coming back.

 

[batmannow]

Talibs don't rule Afghanistan but ... do Nato powers 'rule' Afghanistan ??? I wish u pay a visit to Kabul and come back (safely) to tell the tale. Dear its only a matter of time , even i m apprehensive about repercussions but 'they' r coming back.

i think, you need to go to kabul right now, its develped, its trunned into a city, despite bieng a target of terrorism?
i went to kabul jst last year, for some construction company run by a punjabi pakistani?
there are a lot of pakistani labours in kabul these days?
peshawar is wrost then kabul, as a no 1 hit target of the TTp?
& yes NATO + US are the rullers in afghanistan, i hvent seen any mullha in afghan presidential place yet?
so plz, stop living in a utopia created, by mullas who are playing with your great IK, for thier ultimate dreams of talbanistan?

 

[Zarvan]

 

[batmannow]

Taliban office in Pakistan: a poor idea
Taliban office in Pakistan: a poor idea - DAWN.COM

AS reported in the press, Imran Khan in his latest statement has demanded that the Taliban may be allowed to open an office in Pakistan for negotiations with the Pakistan government. This would be like the one opened in Doha for contact with Americans.

One must commend IK on this brilliant idea. Pray tell us why do the Taliban need an office to negotiate with the government when they hold the whole country hostage in order to strike and play havoc wherever they want.

If they really want to negotiate with the government, they must stop killing army and security personnel, as well as the people at large, and give an indication to come to the table for talks. They do not, therefore, need an office for talks. Moreove, even in Doha the idea of an office for negotiations with the Americans has not worked.

Imran Khan is either too naive or too optimistic. Surely, he is very difficult to be convinced of the futility of offering an olive branch to the terrorists. One wonders how many more acts of ruthless and merciless terrorism will persuade him to change his stance and convince him of the futility of talks with people who do not want to listen to logic.

ZAHEER AHMED
Islamabad

yes giving the terrorists the offices for talbanistan, ?

TTP Mohmand Agency Ameer opposes peace talks
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-120111-TTP-Mohmand-Agency-Ameer-opposes-peace-talks
September 27, 2013 - Updated 1638 PKT
From Web Edition




TTP Mohmand Agency Ameer opposes peace talks



PESHAWAR: Ameer Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Mohmand Agency Umer Khalid Khurasani has opposed peace talks with the government, Geo News reported.

TTP Mohmand Agency Ameer said peace negotiations with the government would never be successful as the Taliban demand enforcement of ‘Shariah’ while the government talks about the constitution.

Khalid Khurasani said Taliban wanted to replace the constitution and they would never backtrack even a single inch from their demand.


yes the TALBANISTAN where in his foolish, dreams he will become a PM?
cause thats all he, wants to be, even at the cost of pakistanis blood?

 

[batmannow]

Terror versus naivety
Terror versus naivety - Hussain H Zaidi

Hussain H Zaidi
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
From Print Edition




"Why do terrorist attacks occur when dialogue is on the table?" This is how Imran Khan, one of the most vehement exponents of the softer-on-the-Taliban narrative among our national political leaders, reacted in the wake of the deadly bomb blasts outside a church in Peshawar. His question reveals a lot about how he and others in his league look at the war on terror.

Khan sees the latest incident of terrorism in Peshawar as an attempt to derail the process of negotiations agreed by the APC recently. If that was the motive behind carrying out the dastardly suicide attacks, it follows that the Taliban were not behind the same. Rather the incident was masterminded by those who are opposed to holding an olive branch to the militants.

But how could Khan, or for that matter anyone else, come out with such a statement? Yes the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan has distanced itself from the Peshawar blasts and another militant organisation, which is widely regarded as a TTP offshoot, claimed responsibility. Yet the PTI boss’s reaction well preceded the Taliban denial. At any rate, it is for the agencies to dig out the truth. There’s, however, little reason to believe that if the TTP doesn’t own an incident of terrorism, it’s not behind it. Even if we assume that the TTP didn’t perpetrate the church blasts, how could Khan be that certain?

Without questioning Khan’s esoteric knowledge, one may safely say that his reaction was born of his essential outlook on the war on terror and Pakistan’s involvement in it. This outlook rests on some widespread misconceptions and a great deal of confusion: Is it our war or America’s? Is the militancy simply a reaction against Pakistan’s foreign policy or is there more to it? Should we put down the militancy or embrace the militants?

Are there any good terrorists? If yes, how can we segregate them from the bad ones? Should we continue to look upon every incident of terrorism as a conspiracy against the state-Taliban détente? Should we seek peace with the Taliban regardless of its price? If so, can we imagine a securer way to establish peace than to simply hand the country over to the TTP?

The Taliban, on the other hand, are dead clear: kill as many people as possible to weaken the state and leave its leadership confused and then force it to hold out an olive branch to the militants. And when the state decides to do so, make it even weaker so that embracing the militants on their terms appears to be the only way forward. Needless to say, the militants have been successful in their strategy.

It’s naïve to believe that the war against terrorism is not ours, that it is essentially America`s war, and that the hell that has been let loose on the people of Pakistan is the result of the country`s role as a frontline ally of Washington in the fight against terrorism.

This notion regarding the ownership of the war against terror is incorrect for at least two reasons. One, the roots of terrorism go back to Pakistan`s involvement in the US-led war against the former USSR. In fact, it was through Pakistan that the US fought its war against the USSR in Afghanistan. The war was given religious meaning by the then `Islamist` military regime of Pakistan, itself looking for legitimacy.

The people of Pakistan were made to believe that it was the religious duty of the government and the people to fight in the war on the side of the US, which was said to be fighting for Islam.

However, the Americans had no love for Islam and their interest in Afghanistan sprang from their counter-communism strategy. In the wake of Moscow`s decision to pull out from Afghanistan in the second half of the 1980s and softening of the Cold War, US involvement in the Afghan situation fizzled out leaving the various Afghan factions to fight among themselves.

For Pakistan the impact of the Afghan campaign was disastrous. Since the Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr, it gave birth to militants who knew only one way of living – by the sword. In order to live by the sword, one also needs an enemy – real or perceived. In the case of the jihadis, once the external enemy had gone, they turned their guns to the `enemy` within, which they found in the followers of rival creeds. The result was a sectarian bloodbath, which preceded and had nothing to do with the 9/11 incident.

To those who maintain who the terrorism in Pakistan is the gift of the country`s post-9/11 alliance with the US one may ask: were mosques and other religious places in Pakistan safe before the 9/11? Had people not been killed in the name of ridding the society of `evil` before 9/11? What 9/11 did was bring home to the extremists the usefulness of suicide blasts as a method of large-scale manslaughter. It did not sow the seeds of terrorism; they had been sown years ago.

Two, the war against terrorism is our own, simply because it is our society, not the US’, that has been turned into an inferno. It is high time Imran Khan and others like him shunned their misleading pro-militant narrative and see the war on terror in its true perspective.

The writer is a freelance contributor.Email: hussainhzaidi@**********

 

[Saleem]

Off The Record (Exclusive Interview Of Imran Khan)

 

[batmannow]

Off The Record (Exclusive Interview Of Imran Khan)

what new?
he jst trying to ,clear himself, his image?
his politics revolves around his personality, like allways!

 

[qamar1990]

i think, you need to go to kabul right now, its develped, its trunned into a city, despite bieng a target of terrorism?
i went to kabul jst last year, for some construction company run by a punjabi pakistani?
there are a lot of pakistani labours in kabul these days?
peshawar is wrost then kabul, as a no 1 hit target of the TTp?
& yes NATO + US are the rullers in afghanistan, i hvent seen any mullha in afghan presidential place yet?
so plz, stop living in a utopia created, by mullas who are playing with your great IK, for thier ultimate dreams of talbanistan?

lmao kabul stop smoking weed.

 

[batmannow]

lmao kabul stop smoking weed.

its still peacefull, thn peshawar!
stop listening to the TTp radio instead?

 

[batmannow]

PTI to host conference of scholars on militancy
PTI to host conference of scholars on militancy - DAWN.COM


ISLAMABAD: After floating a slew of proposals to deal with terrorism and the Taliban which failed to find common ground either with the government or other opposition parties, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) has now decided to hold a national conference of religious scholars and intellectuals on Oct 5 for the purpose.

The surprising part of the move is that instead of inviting heads or representatives of political parties, only religious scholars, intellectuals and thinkers will be invited to the conference.

In the opening lines of a press statement the party’s media wing issued on Monday about the conference, it criticised the government for sleeping over the recommendations of the Sept 9 all-party conference (APC).

“After accepting PTI’s stand and Imran Khan’s formula during the APC which was translated into a consensus resolution, there is no on-ground implementation. This has resulted in continuation of terrorist acts throughout the country, notably in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.”

It said that taking into account the gravity of the issue, the religious leadership of the PTI had decided to organise a national conference on ‘Islam, Deen and Salamati’ (Islam, religion and peace).

The purpose of the conference is to get input from religious scholars and thinkers from across the country on how to deal with terrorism and turn Pakistan into a peaceful and prosperous country.

The PTI chairman will chair the conference and the party expressed hope that the initiative would help break a new path.

Asked if the PTI, by holding the conference, was trying to distance itself from the recommendations of the APC, an official of the party’s media wing clarified that it wanted to create consensus among religious leaders on the issue of terrorism.

He said Mufti Abdul Qavi, who deals with religious affairs for the PTI, was heading the initiative and by no means it was equivalent to the government-sponsored APC in which all political parties had collectively called for a peaceful solution to the ongoing terrorism in the country.

However, the announcement made by the party said that it was holding the conference because of the government’s failure to implement the APC resolution.

Elated by the outcome of the APC, which the PTI claimed was vindication of its stand on militancy, Mr Khan has been actively arguing how the government should go about the proposed dialogue with the Taliban as recommended by the resolution.

Imran Khan, talking to reporters outside the Parliament House on Sept 16, called for immediate ceasefire by the government and the militants and formation of their delegations to kick-start the talks.On Sept 23, after an attack on Christians in Peshawar, Mr Khan said talks could only be held with those willing to renounce violence and accept the writ of the state. “If peace is to be given a chance, it is essential to isolate those who are dedicated to an agenda of violence and carrying out terror attacks against innocent people from those who are prepared to have a ceasefire and talk peace within the ambit of the constitution,” a statement issued by him said.

However, Mr Khan came out with a shocker last week when he recommended setting up of a Taliban office in Pakistan on the lines of their Afghan counterparts, who had briefly opened their office in Qatar for negotiations with the US and other stakeholders.

Mr Khan and his party have been facing a tirade of criticism from all around over the suggestion.

Asad Umar, the newly elected PTI MNA, even had to say that Mr Khan had expressed his personal viewpoint.[/I]

 

[batmannow]

now he is telling, where the location shouldbe?lolzzz

 

[qamar1990]

its still peacefull, thn peshawar!
stop listening to the TTp radio instead?

im starting to think your delusional. so you were in pak army? when? which regiment.

 

[batmannow]

More on talks with the TTP
Ejaz Haider
Last week’s article on what it means to negotiate with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has evoked a mixed response. There are those who agree with me and others who don’t. The critics ask for alternatives — i.e., if military operations have not dented the TTP and if the state mustn’t talk to them, then we are in an impossible situation. What’s the solution?
This is a legitimate concern, but missed the entire point of my article and, more generally, tends to misunderstand the situation we face.
First, my article simply applied the fundamentals of negotiation theory to the situation, trying to lay down what it means to negotiate and how, given evidence, talks with the TTP might unfold. Reading a text is a practised exercise that must bear in mind the parameters of an argument. It’s not about wild swings of imagination.
A practised reader will not look into an article for what is not there or has been left out because it was or is not relevant to the framework. This does not mean that what has been left out is insignificant. For example, the question of how to solve this problem is not insignificant but was not immediately relevant to what it would mean to negotiate with the TTP. Of course, that question will pose itself as a next step, as it has. So here goes.
Let’s begin with a presupposition about talks. The not-so-hidden assumption here is that talks will fare better than the use of force. Going by the argument that the state has never tried talking to the TTP, this is, at best, untested. In other words, we do not know if talking will be a better option. We can only say that talking might be better which, as should be evident, immediately makes the proposition iffy.
A counterargument can be that even if this proposition is iffy, it offers a possibility which must be tested since the other option, the use of force, has already been tested and found wanting. Fair point, but there are two problems.
One, talking has been tested. There have been a number of deals, starting with the Shakai peace deal in South Waziristan in 2004 with Nek Mohammad. All the deals, except two — with the killed Mullah Nazir, and the still-alive Hafiz Gul Bahadur — were broken by the so-called Taliban.
Two, it is incorrect to aver that the use of force has done nothing to thwart the TTP. Imagine a scenario where no operations were conducted in the tribal agencies and there was no deployment of the army and FC in the area. Imagine also that the state had left the area at the mercy of the Taliban and al Qaeda elements and their affiliates. Does anyone think the agencies would be idyllic and everyone would have lived happily ever after?
Perhaps, but such a person would be in serious need of brain treatment. There’s nothing the TTP wants more than for the state to withdraw forces from the agencies. The why of this should be obvious: that’s the only way for the TTP to gain full control of the area. Not only would this be a terrible blow to the whole idea of the state’s writ, by abdicating its responsibility for controlling its own territory, the state would send out a signal to external powers that would also be disastrous for its external security.
Let me also here dispel a major misconception, generally promoted by uninformed media reporting. The Pakistani state has not deployed troops to the area for the first time. The present XI Corps was raised in 1975. Before that, Peshawar used to have one division (7 Division) which, since the British times, was part of the Northern Command based in Rawalpindi. The Northern Command HQ, after Independence, became the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army. Until the raising of XI Corps, 7 Div was responsible for the defence of the area right up to the Afghan border in the tribal agencies of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Parachinar and North and South Waziristan, just like during the British period. When the corps was raised, another division (9 Div), based in Kohat, was added. This division’s elements were given responsibility for the southern tribal agencies and Frontier Regions (FRs).
During the Soviet invasion, the corps’ fighting elements were maintaining and manning Forward Defended Localities along the border. The fighting formations regularly trained and exercised in the tribal agencies. The Pakistan Air Force had also beefed up its presence and flew regular sorties in Fata. To say that the tribal Eden has suddenly been sullied by the presence of the Pakistan Army is, therefore, bollocks.
However, a concern remains. When these terrorist groups are squeezed in their havens, they strike in the cities. Countering urban terrorism is the other prong of Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy, which has only been partially successful and is the area where the actual war will be fought, requiring a discriminate, nimble hand, not a sledgehammer. The fear factor in Pakistan, as also the fatigue, is because of population dislocations and terrorist acts in the urban centres of the country.
The solution is not talks — at this stage — that won’t walk but to strengthen the state’s capacity against urban terrorism. Talks will come, as they always do. That is precisely the reason for use of force or the threat of its use: to force the enemy into talking. But the lesson remains unchanged. Talks must be conducted from a position of strength.
Finally, those expecting a neat solution must despair their belief. Irregular wars and the combination of external and internal threats do not vanish easily or quickly. They take years to gestate and many more years to put down. The choice, therefore, is not between fighting and talking as two mutually exclusive binaries. They are intertwined. But the timing must be right. And the fight itself needs to be understood correctly in all its dimensions — urban terrorism being the most important to deal at this point.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 29th, 2013
http://tribune.com.pk/story/555578/more-on-talks-with-the-ttp/

[

 

[batmannow]

im starting to think your delusional. so you were in pak army? when? which regiment.

was in NLI?
now thats end part of out of topic, chit chat?
but just check the facts, before bieng getting into, mullha prapoganda done these days by PTI?
check the number of terrorsist attacks in kabul, & peoples killed & injured there, then just check the peshawar ,s terorists attacks, peoples killed & injured here?

its just all is happenening cause, politicians like IK, just want to be seen as, symphatizers of tribal torabora islam, funded by KSA, india, even UK?

 

[qamar1990]

was in NLI?
now thats end part of out of topic, chit chat?
but just check the facts, before bieng getting into, mullha prapoganda done these days by PTI?
check the number of terrorsist attacks in kabul, & peoples killed & injured there, then just check the peshawar ,s terorists attacks, peoples killed & injured here?

its just all is happenening cause, politicians like IK, just want to be seen as, symphatizers of tribal torabora islam, funded by KSA, india, even UK?

I'm not listening to any propaganda, and its not chit chat. you had mentioned earlier that you were in PAK ARMY so i asked which regiment you were in and when you were in the army.
please don't associate imran khan with ttp. he is a good man who wants nothing but good for our nation.