A Coincidence or a Deliberate Act?

[AstanoshKhan]

On March 27, 2004 Shakai agreement was signed to bring peace in the region. This pact was sabotaged on June 19, 2004 when Nek Muhammad was killed by a drone strike. On May 29, 2013 Wali ur Rehman was killed by a drone strike, just two days before a new Govt in KPK and Islamabad was to sworn in and subsequently starting negotiations. Is it a co-incidence or preempting the peace process?

 

[OrionHunter]

Good point! Makes for a nice conspiracy theory! It does seem intriguing that the drone strike coincided with the so called peace initiative by the Govt/TTP.

Now the question is, why would the Yanks want no peace, and the bloodshed by the TTP to continue? Why would they want to destabilize Pakistan? Does it have anything to do with their war in Afghanistan? After all, it is the Afghan Taliban (Haqqani/Mullah Omar) that they are fighting against, not the TTP which is Pak centric. So why aren't they targeting the Afghan Taliban instead of the TTP?

 

[AstanoshKhan]

Its been heard that the guy killed in drone attack was among those who were in favor of negotiations and dialogue. Its definitely not a coincidence.

 

[Leader]

On March 27, 2004 Shakai agreement was signed to bring peace in the region. This pact was sabotaged on June 19, 2004 when Nek Muhammad was killed by a drone strike. On May 29, 2013 Wali ur Rehman was killed by a drone strike, just two days before a new Govt in KPK and Islamabad was to sworn in and subsequently starting negotiations. Is it a co-incidence or preempting the peace process?

the americans have full knowledge of taliban whereabouts, they use them to keep the region destabilize, thats their whole purpose ....

 

[AstanoshKhan]

the americans have full knowledge of taliban whereabouts, they use them to keep the region destabilize, thats their whole purpose ....

So one can presume that the Americans are complicit in sabotaging the peace dialogues in Pakistan? Why would they hunt down the main character who would about to be their representative in the dialogues?

 

[Leader]

So one can presume that the Americans are complicit in sabotaging the peace dialogues in Pakistan? Why would they hunt down the main character who would about to be their representative in the dialogues?

like I said they dont want peace in the region, what are they to lose?

 

[Amaa'n]

Wali killed on a tip-off by Hakimullah supporter – The Express Tribune

 

[Jazzbot]

Yankiess don't want stable tribal areas at least till their withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

[AstanoshKhan]

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

All the high profile TTP men were droned on special requests of ISI. Nek mohammad, baitullah mehsud, qari hussain and wali ur rehman were killed through collaboration between CIA and ISI...The alqaida targets are also tipped off to CIA by local spies of ISI.....Pakistan army is merely tolerating hafiz gul bahadur, bahawal khan group (former maulvi nazir group) and haqqani network...the long term goal of pakistan is to get rid of all taliban in FATA, both good or bad.....first TTP is supposed to be eliminated, then pro-pakistan taliban would be asked to lay down their arms.

 

[muse]

....first TTP is supposed to be eliminated, then pro-pakistan taliban would be asked to lay down their arms.

This is terribly interesting - however, I would ask you to present some evidence or argument that may allow us to consider the conclusion quoted above, seriously -- Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the conclusion you have presented is false or wrong or inaccurate, I am only asking that you be persuasive.

 

[muse]

like I said they dont want peace in the region, what are they to lose?

Come on now, don't just make the claim, offer an argument -- "what are they to lose?", you seriously want readers to think that US policy is designed to alienate a nuclear power that can help make or break their policy objectives??

Listen up guys, gals - Talib leadership in Pakistan must and will be eradicated - if you want to make your politics all about keeping them alive so that your politics can record a win, you will be disappointed. -- but look, what was the point of talking to the Talib?, It was to enable them to give up militancy and return to the normal, right?? And the Talib, whether Wali ur Rahman or Hakimullah or whatever, proved that they wanted such talks exactly how?? By killing and bombing ANP? By Bombings and assassination in KHI??

You are reasonable people and you endeavor for a purpose, the talks are a means to an an end, not an end in itself.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

This is terribly interesting - however, I would ask you to present some evidence or argument that may allow us to consider the conclusion quoted above, seriously -- Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the conclusion you have presented is false or wrong or inaccurate, I am only asking that you be persuasive.

Hmmm...1-turkistan bhittani, when he served his purpose, he and hundreds of his men were asked by pak army to lay down arms despite their protests, they are now regular citizens in tank......
2- mangal bagh, he was first given free hand by army as they was busy in other operations in FATA, now pak army is getting rid of him.....
i have to say i am not fully sure about haqqani network, their leadership is afghan and they would ultimately shift to afghanistan if ever taliban get control of afghanistan after 2014.

 

[muse]

Hmmm...1-turkistan bhittani, when he served his purpose, he and hundreds of his men were asked by pak army to lay down arms despite their protests, they are now regular citizens in tank......
2- mangal bagh, he was first given free hand by army as they was busy in other operations in FATA, now pak army is getting rid of him.....
i have to say i am not fully sure about haqqani network, their leadership is afghan and they would ultimately shift to afghanistan if ever taliban get control of afghanistan after 2014.

I understand that PA has the policy option of using the militant for the purposes that PA imagines serves their interest, what I was hoping you would provide is some evidence or argument that could support the conclusion that since US operates the drones, that it is on board with PA policy options, in particular that the Pakistani Talib be first rendered harmless and that this be followed by serous attempts to bring about the same for the Afghan Talib.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

I understand that PA has the policy option of using the militant for the purposes that PA imagines serves their interest, what I was hoping you would provide is some evidence or argument that could support the conclusion that since US operates the drones, that it is on board with PA policy options, in particular that the Pakistani Talib be first rendered harmless and that this be followed by serous attempts to bring about the same for the Afghan Talib.

Antagonizing Afghan taliban is like "aa bail mujey maar".