Pakistan Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud killed in drone strike.

[Patriots]

A picture of dead hakimullah mehsud floating on social websites. has anyone seen it?

Upar dekh lay mafiya !!!!!!!

 

[Muhammad Tahir Din Ch]

We need a strong leader up there who takes a call. I know that journalists like Hamid Mir who have been found in bed with some really good friends of Pakistan and PPP heard chiding Gen Musharraf over Red Mosque of Laal Masjid. We need a leader whose position is clear and gives authority to our armed forces to take out these enemies of state. For me Gen Musharraf was one. Any party which stands against these TTP has my support and they aren’t many. ANP or MQM are the only two who have clearly.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Here is another commentary on the absurd state of affairs that exists in Pakistan now:

Death by drone turns villain into martyr
World|Declan Walsh, The New York Times| Updated: November 04, 2013 11:37 IST

AFP image
File photo of Pakistani Taliban commander Hakimullah Mehsud (L) firing from a rifle as he poses for a group of media representatives in the Mamouzai area of Orakzai Agency.
London: In life, Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, was Public Enemy No. 1: a ruthless figure who devoted his career to bloodshed and mayhem, whom Pakistani pundits occasionally accused of being a pawn of Indian, or even American, intelligence.

But after his death, it seems, Pakistani hearts have grown fonder.
Since missiles fired by American drones killed Mehsud in his vehicle on Friday, Pakistan's political leaders have reacted with unusual vehemence. The interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, denounced the strike as sabotage of incipient government peace talks with the Taliban. Media commentators fulminated about American treachery. And the former cricket star Imran Khan, now a politician, renewed his threats to block NATO military supply lines through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa a province his Tehreek-e-Insaf party controls - with a parliamentary vote scheduled for Monday.

Virtually nobody openly welcomed the demise of Mehsud, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Pakistani civilians. To some American security analysts, the furious reaction was another sign of the perversity and ingratitude that they say has scarred Pakistan's relationship with the United States.

"It's another stab in the back," said Bill Roggio, whose website, the Long War Journal, monitors drone strikes. "Even those of us who watch Pakistan closely don't know where they stand anymore. It's such a double game."

To many Pakistanis, though, it is the United States that is double-dealing, and sentiments like Roggio's exemplify typical American arrogance. Shireen Mazari, a senior official in Khan's party, has urged the Pakistani military to shoot down drones.

But if the equivocation over Mehsud's death seems to be just another manifestation of the cankerous relationship between the two countries, albeit a particularly troubling one, it is rooted in a complex mix of psychology and politics that may be central to the way Pakistanis see their arch allies, the Americans.

Partly, it is a product of Pakistan's failure to counter a stubborn insurgency. After years of Taliban-induced humiliations and bloodshed, and of heavy American pressure to step up military action against the Taliban, Pakistan's political and security establishments still agree that starting peace talks with the Taliban is the best course.

Such talks may have had slim chances of success - previous negotiations quickly foundered - but Mehsud's death appears to have thoroughly derailed them, at least for now.

Beyond that, analysts say, Pakistanis have a consistent, if relatively recent, history of rooting for people the West has deemed villains, and against people the West has praised.

Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani woman who is serving an 86-year jail sentence in New Yorkfor trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan, is a virtual national hero, popularly known as the "daughter of the nation."

On the other side, Malala Yousafzai, the teenage education activist who was shot in the head by the Taliban last year, making her an icon around the world, has been demonized in Pakistan, where she is regularly called a CIA agent or a pawn of the West.

These adversarial reactions stem in part from Pakistanis' perception of their country's history with the United States. In their view, it is a long story of treachery, abandonment and double-crossing: The United States, many Pakistanis believe, used Pakistan during the Cold War, dropped it in the 1990s and has spent much of its time since trying to steal the army's nuclear arsenal. Then came the CIA drones.

In recent years, that resentment has been bolstered by a growing sense of impotence among Pakistanis: The country's own security forces failed to find or capture Osama bin Laden, for instance, and it also took an American drone to kill the previous Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in August 2009.

"In a sense, this has nothing to do with Malala or Aafia Siddiqui or Hakimullah," said Adil Najam, a professor of international relations at Boston University who is Pakistani. "These people are just characters in a larger relationship that has become so poisonous."

The problem, some analysts say, is that hostility toward the United States may be clouding Pakistanis' ability to discern their own best interests. In the conflagration over Hakimullah Mehsud's death, Najam said, the government has failed to distinguish between opposition to drone strikes and to the removal of a homicidal, militant enemy.

"It's very destructive that we can't untangle these two things," he said. "The reaction has become absolutely absurd."
Analysts say this reaction also holds lessons for the Obama administration, showing that drone strikes, for all their antiseptic appeal, will always struggle for legitimacy because the covert program operates in the shadows of international law - no matter how big the target it takes out.

For now, the ball is in Khan's court. If his party votes on Monday to block American supplies bound for Afghanistan, it would make life difficult for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who opposes closing the supply lines but has nonetheless vowed to press ahead with Taliban peace talks.

It is concern for the fate of those talks that has been given as justification for the most vehement criticism of the killing of Mehsud. But amid all the enthusiasm for negotiations, Pakistani politicians have yet to publicly address the first hurdle: deciding what the government would be willing to concede to the Taliban, given that the movement's central aim is to overthrow the state itself.

© 2013, The New York Times News Service

Funny slowly turns into absurd.
Welcome to the Republik of Confusionistan.

 

[Audio]

Some Pakistanis in this thread crying about what the future will bring as if the present is so bright and shiny.

I also do not understand, how is it possible that senior Taliban spokespeople, decisionmakers etc have regular contacts with the media through a cell phone and yet they still live. How is this possible in 2013 with all the tracking and spying?

 

[Informant]

You need to realize we cannot celebrate this drone kill no matter how long it was due. The GoP has to stick by their MO of peace talks. They are going to disown and show dismay at these attacks. We need to make sure turdbans we mean business when we mean peace talks.

No matter how utterly ridiculous it sounds , that is the truth.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

@Audio ,hi friend, how ya doing....?

Well, he probably was the right man.But it wasn't the right time.Nobody can justify the existence of a terrorist in a society.No one should advocate for his freedom at least.He should've been captured long ago and must have been presented in front of a court for his crimes against humanity.
If you see from the POV of an ally state busy in engaging insurgents to lay down their arms.
Instead of helping the GoP dissolve that organization i-e TTP,you've killed their head right at the moment when he was willing to settle it on a table.No body could expect these dialogues to bring any major success.But at least we could have categorized them in to ,"who wants to fight" and "who wants to lay down their arms".

Did you guys killed their representatives when you engaged yourself in talks with Mullah Omer and hence the Talibans at large.?
No you did not.
Did you killed their leader when you were engaging them in a dialogue process?
No, it didn't happen.

When your state department tells us that these talks are our "internal matter", then they should rather not intervene.But should observe any development and raise their concerns about the process of dialogue that is going on.

“The issue of whether to negotiate with TTP is an internal matter for Pakistan, and we refer you to the government of Pakistan for further details.”

Indeed it caused disruption of the dialogues right from the beginning.

It's like two friends found a group of lunatics on the street,one friend told the other one."Dude let me talk them into a situation where we can move them off the street and put them into a mental asylum to let them get treated there."
The second friend nods and when his fellow goes near that group,he pulls out his gun and kills a man belonging to the lunatics who was interested to talk about it.
There you go, we are waiting for the whole bunch to go wild now and attack me and my house.
Luckily you have got a gun to defend yourself and a home far away that is safe and i've not.

 

[Side-Winder]

 

[jha]

this could not have been done without isi. maybe it is a subtle hint from army to the political class to hold their horses on talks.

 

[Patriots]

Good riddance.

Next target. Hafiz Saeed...

Maulana Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (Hifzullah) is not a terrorist ..........

 

[Side-Winder]

Comments on our Facebook page LOL

now i realize what jaibi wrote 'divided nation against a united enemy'

im just showing you 2 screen shots...lots of comments more but no need to show since these 2 shots speak all what i want to say...

 

[Secur]

there were safe hideouts for criminals only in tribal areas...so americans could only launch their bombing compaign in FATA....which by the way they are already doing...

now going by your point....(US could bomb ALL us to stone age)

don't you think there would have been alot of pressure on USA as well to not launch this bombing compaign since pakistan was to become a nuclear suicide bomber for the whole region...??

on what basis USA could launch this BOMBING COMPAIGN in whole pakistan? were pakistanis the ones doing 9/11?

Tribal areas have already been bombed back to stone age...war on terror did the same and perhaps ALOT MORE!!!

Come one man! this theory of bombing all of us to stone age seems really CHILDISH and Pathetic...

plus,may i ask why do you get hyper when these talibans blow up our civilians? because WE chose to turn on them....yes we CHOSE...then why this RONA DONA?
Consider them as independent entity and not patriotic pakistanis and think..

Under ideal conditions , yes . But do these exist in the real world ? I guess not , do not you think the bombing campaign would have been more of a punitive strike rather than for achieving any tangible and real objectives - cleansing of terrorists because of Pakistan's non compliance ? Keep in mind that Americans aka Yanks were literally in a cocaine fueled rage after the attack on twin towers . You ask on " what basis " . Do these uncontrollable countries really need a reason to do anything ? Look at the " Bay of Piggs invasion " and " Iraq War " , what reason was given and what did it turn out to be ? Speaks volumes about the need for a reason - a casus belli and " justification " of some sort . You are right about the " foreign pressure " on U.S. part , but think again , that country is a superpower and quickly that pressure would have been diverted to us by our own friends to comply to their demands of providing logistics and becoming partners in the War on Terror . Interesting theory eh ? But there are real life examples of this , look at Syria destruction of chemical stockpiles , the U.S. did get its job done , what if it was Russia which give the Damascus , nod to carry it out ? Changes nothing , the Yanks got what they wanted .

Yes it sounds childish , when you not know the power of USAF but once you concentrate on ground realities rather than getting emotional and waiting for saviors , the thought of saving your nation comes to mind , my friend . The tribal areas haven't been bombed back actually , they were more or less in the same state since independence , they are more autonomous than you think and the people do not accept development and progress in their regions .

Did Taliban exist in Pakistan before 9/11 ? Then where did they come from , after it ? We fought against Afghan Taliban after desperately asking them to hand over Osama Bin Laden * Read the Line of Fire * to save their country and ours . Where do these new animals come in between if I may ask ?

 

[Side-Winder]

Under ideal conditions , yes . But do these exist in the real world ? I guess not , do not you think the bombing campaign would have been more of a punitive strike rather than for achieving any tangible and real objectives - cleansing of terrorists because of Pakistan's non compliance ? Keep in mind that Americans aka Yanks were literally in a cocaine fueled rage after the attack on twin towers . You ask on " what basis " . Do these uncontrollable countries really need a reason to do anything ? Look at the " Bay of Piggs invasion " and " Iraq War " , what reason was given and what did it turn out to be ? Speaks volumes about the need for a reason - a casus belli and " justification " of some sort . You are right about the " foreign pressure " on U.S. part , but think again , that country is a superpower and quickly that pressure would have been diverted to us by our own friends to comply to their demands of providing logistics and becoming partners in the War on Terror . Interesting theory eh ? But there are real life examples of this , look at Syria destruction of chemical stockpiles , the U.S. did get its job done , what if it was Russia which give the Damascus , nod to carry it out ? Changes nothing , the Yanks got what they wanted .

Yes it sounds childish , when you not know the power of USAF but once you concentrate on ground realities rather than getting emotional and waiting for saviors , the thought of saving your nation comes to mind , my friend . The tribal areas haven't been bombed back actually , they were more or less in the same state since independence , they are more autonomous than you think and the people do not accept development and progress in their regions .

Did Taliban exist in Pakistan before 9/11 ? Then where did they come from , after it ? We fought against Afghan Taliban after desperately asking them to hand over Osama Bin Laden * Read the Line of Fire * to save their country and ours . Where do these new animals come in between if I may ask ?

ahan are you scaring me?
i know what US military is and what limit they can go to...but there is a limit to everything...

I again say americans could launch their bombing compaign only in tribal areas (not in entire pakistan,don't go quoting iraq and other military invasions)..which they are already doing....

The tribal areas haven't been bombed back actually , they were more or less in the same state since independence , they are more autonomous than you think and the people do not accept development and progress in their regions .

actually they have...most unsafe places where writ of govt has been challenged as a result of our military operation (yeah i know the writ of govt was never there but atleast these guys were at peace with govt after all we were the ones who created them during zia's regime so no need to mess with them)...plus, US drone strikes....military operation's effects that kill many innocents as well in the name of collateral damage

Did Taliban exist in Pakistan before 9/11 ? Then where did they come from , after it ? We fought against Afghan Taliban after desperately asking them to hand over Osama Bin Laden * Read the Line of Fire * to save their country and ours . Where do these new animals come in between if I may ask ?

they came from the sense that pakistan had become ally of USA and they were to launch military operation against us,so just stand up against this murtad fouj.. (na-uzubillah)

We fought against Afghan Taliban after desperately asking them to hand over Osama Bin Laden * Read the Line of Fire * to save their country and ours . Where do these new animals come in between if I may ask ?

sorry couldn't get your point


BTW you need to asnwer

plus,may i ask why do you get hyper when these talibans blow up our civilians? because WE chose to turn on them....yes we CHOSE...then why this RONA DONA?
Consider them as independent entity and not patriotic pakistanis and think..

 

[CENTCOM]

Death is nothing to rejoice about, but a common enemy is dead. He has been responsible for the senseless killings of thousands of innocent Pakistanis. He was responsible for the attacks on our bases in Afghanistan, and proudly claimed the attempted ‘Time square bombing’ in New York City. It is surprising that some are calling him a martyr. Was he not a cold blooded murderer who had claimed responsibility of thousands of deaths? There should be no doubts that many people who had lost loved ones over the years at the hand of this terrorist are taking a sigh of relief. Let us stand in silence for a few minutes and remember all those who died at the hand of this enemy.


Abdul Quddus
DET-United States Central Command
www.centcom.mil/ur

 

[Not Sure]

Death is nothing to rejoice about, but a common enemy is dead. He has been responsible for the senseless killings of thousands of innocent Pakistanis. He was responsible for the attacks on our bases in Afghanistan, and proudly claimed the attempted ‘Time square bombing’ in New York City. It is surprising that some are calling him a martyr. Was he not a cold blooded murderer who had claimed responsibility of thousands of deaths? There should be no doubts that many people who had lost loved ones over the years at the hand of this terrorist are taking a sigh of relief. Let us stand in silence for a few minutes and remember all those who died at the hand of this enemy.


Abdul Quddus
DET-United States Central Command
www.centcom.mil/ur

Thanks man, that was a nice statement. Went beyond expectations coming from a representative of directly involved entity.

 

[Waar]

Death is nothing to rejoice about, but a common enemy is dead. He has been responsible for the senseless killings of thousands of innocent Pakistanis. He was responsible for the attacks on our bases in Afghanistan, and proudly claimed the attempted ‘Time square bombing’ in New York City. It is surprising that some are calling him a martyr. Was he not a cold blooded murderer who had claimed responsibility of thousands of deaths? There should be no doubts that many people who had lost loved ones over the years at the hand of this terrorist are taking a sigh of relief. Let us stand in silence for a few minutes and remember all those who died at the hand of this enemy.


Abdul Quddus
DET-United States Central Command
www.centcom.mil/ur

Why did you killed him when we were going to hold peace talks with TTP and not before ? You have a agenda behind that.You never wanted Pakistan to have peace and that's why you killed him at this important point of time to show Taliban that we were not serious about peace talks and allowed US to kill their leader.