Taliban scrap N. Waziristan peace deal

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Taliban scrap N. Waziristan peace deal​

By Our Correspondent
Tuesday, 30 Jun, 2009 | 01:33 AM PST |


MIRAMSHAH: Clashes between security forces and militants intensified in North Waziristan on Monday and the Taliban scrapped a peace deal they had signed with the government 16 months ago.

Security officials said that 27 soldiers had lost their lives on Sunday in an attack on a military convoy in Wacha Bibi near Datakhel, about 35 kilometres west of Miramshah.

Local people said the place where the convoy had been attacked was littered with wrecked army vehicles. Army personnel retrieved the wounded and the bodies of their fighters and shifted them to Islamabad.

On Monday, helicopters pounded suspected militant positions in Wacha Bibi, a narrow pass in the mountainous region. According to officials, five civilians were killed in the shelling.

The announcement about the scrapping of the nine-point peace agreement signed by the government with elders of

the Utmanzai tribe on Feb 17 last year was made by the local Taliban Shura.

Ahmadullah Ahmadi, a spokesman for the Taliban, told journalists on phone that the shura had decided to continue

guerrilla activities till the drone attacks were stopped and the government withdrew troops from North Waziristan.

‘We will attack forces everywhere in Waziristan unless the government fulfils these two demands,’ he said, adding that the government had allowed the United States to carry out drone attacks in the tribal region.

The government claims that the peace accord was signed with tribal elders and not with the Taliban led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Saddiq Noor.

Under the agreement, militants had agreed to stop target killings and attacks on security forces. No one would be allowed to set up a parallel administration in the area and all issues and disputes would be resolved in accordance with the Frontier Crimes Regulation and in consultation with the political agent.

Elders of the Utmanzai tribe had also assured the government that there would be no cross-border movement of militants and foreigners would be expelled from the area.

Sources said the elders had failed to curb militants’ activities in the region and the agreement had become dysfunctional.

Irfan Mughal in Dera Ismail Khan adds: Two militant commanders were killed and five captured during an operation in Tank district on Monday.

Officials said that security forces had cordoned off Garra Badha and Sabirabad areas after receiving information that some militant commanders were hiding there.

Troops raided houses in Mohallah Khurdianwala and arrested seven militants, including Ikramullah, younger brother of militant commander Hayatullah Shah Bukhari, and local commander Rasheed Khan.

However, Ikramullah and Rasheed Khan were killed when the militants resisted security personnel who were taking them away. The militants who died were reported to be affiliated with the Baitullah Mehsud group.

The bullet-riddled body of militant Subhan was found on the Tank-Jandola road.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

NWA militants scrap peace deal
​

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Death toll in military convoy attack reaches 30

By Mushtaq Yusufzai & Malik Mumtaz Khan

PESHAWAR/MIRAMSHAH: Previously known as pro-government militants, the Hafiz Gul Bahadur-led Taliban in the troubled North Waziristan region on Monday formally scrapped the peace deal with the government in, what they termed, protest against the US drone attacks.

Ahmadullah Ahmadi, a spokesman for the Hafiz Gul Bahadur-led militants, called The News from Miramshah, headquarters of North Waziristan Agency (NWA), and said their Shura members had decided in a meeting to scrap the peace accord.

Meanwhile, the death toll in the Sunday’s attack on a military convoy in NWA rose to 30, as 10 more seriously wounded soldiers succumbed to their injuries on Monday. The slain troops included a colonel, a captain and a lieutenant.

The Taliban in NWA had signed the first peace accord with the government on September 5, 2006 after months of bloody clashes with security forces in which both the sides had suffered heavy casualties. However, later they scrapped the agreement when their relations with the government turned sour.

Again, with the help of a 40-member peace committee, comprising tribal elders and clerics, the Taliban signed another peace agreement with the government on February 17, 2008, a day before the general elections last year. The latest accord was signed on militants’ terms and conditions.

Before signing the agreement, the government had removed all the roadside military checkpoints, released detained militants and compensated them and other tribesmen for their losses they had suffered during the military operation.

However, despite being in peace accord the two sides never enjoyed cordial relations and lack of trust has always been visible. The militants were running the tribal region according to their own will, leaving little space for the government and the law-enforcement agencies.

Hafiz Gul Bahadur has said he had scrapped the peace accord in protest against the frequent US drone attacks in NWA. He claimed that the drones had carried over 50 attacks since signing of the peace accord in NWA in which hundreds of people, including women and children, had lost their lives.

Another reason that reportedly annoyed Gul Bahadur was the recent military operation in Janikhel and Bakakhel villages of the FR Bannu. Gul Bahadur has recently threatened more than once to end the peace agreement but it was the 40-memebr peace committee members who prevented him from taking such a decision.

Tribal sources said the peace committee members also reminded Gul Bahadur and his men that drones did not pound any target in NWA during the past two months and a military operation in the FR Bannu was almost over.

The Taliban commander has also reportedly demanded an end to the military operation against the Baitullah Mehsud-led militants and drone attacks in the adjoining South Waziristan tribal region. The elders, however, have told Gul Bahadur that their peace agreement was restricted to NWA, therefore, it would be difficult for them to put pressure on the government to accept their demands related to South Waziristan.

In the meantime, Gul Bahadur told the tribal elders that all doors for negotiations between him and the government had been closed, warning the peace committee members not to approach him for talks.

He also later issued a pamphlet, asking all tribal elders and Maliks to boycott the government offices and its functions.The pamphlet, a copy of which was made available to The News, forbade the tribesmen from approaching the government and attending its functionaries. It also banned holding of Jirgas and congregations in the tribal region. He had warned he would not even hesitate to send his suicide bombers to attack any meeting convened for peace in the region.

The tribal sources said Gul Bahadur’s decision to scrap the peace deal with the government was in context of his previous association with Baitullah Mehsud.In February last, Baitullah Mehsud, Gul Bahadur and Mulla Nazeer, commander of Ahmadzai Wazir militants in Wana area, had entered into an alliance — “Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahideen” or council of holy warriors — and pledged to end their differences and fight together in future against their enemy.

Sources close to the Taliban said that Gul Bahadur had personally decided to break the peace accord. They said he had called 600 well-armed militants to his village for attacking the military convoy.

Several soldiers went missing after their convoy was ambushed and militants are believed to have kidnapped them. After Gul Bahadur, militants affiliated with Mulla Nazeer have also started attacks on military installations in Wana and Shakai areas of South Waziristan. Though he has been silent so far, military officials believe his men are involved in recent attacks on military installations.

NWA militants scrap peace deal

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Army facing tough choice after NWA ambush​

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Should it go after Baitullah only or punish Gul Bahadur too?

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: The Army high command is required to make a tough choice whether to extend its military operation from South Waziristan to North Waziristan following the provocative attack by the Taliban militants on a military convoy in North Waziristan’s Madakhel area on Sunday despite the existence of a peace accord.

The priority for now is South Waziristan where the military campaign against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) head Baitullah Mehsud is gaining momentum. Opening a new front when the armed forces are fighting on a number of fronts including Swat, Buner, Dir Lower, Bajaur, Mohmand, Darra Adamkhel, Orakzai and South Waziristan would over-stretch the military and mix-up its priorities. But the military cannot ignore the deadly ambush on the 250-member convoy in which a significant number of soldiers were killed and injured. A senior government official said such attacks could demoralise the troops if punitive measures aren’t undertaken.

This wasn’t the first time that the security forces were targeted by the Hafiz Gul Bahadur-led militants or the peace accord was violated in North Waziristan. There have been quite a few such incidents during the past month or so. There were attacks on military convoys with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), including two last Friday on the Miramshah-Mir Ali road in which four soldiers were killed, and the students of Cadet College, Razmak, located in North Waziristan, were kidnapped by Baitullah’s men in the limits of Frontier Region (FR) Bannu, an area that Hafiz Gul Bahadur considers as part of his tribal fiefdom. There have been suspicions that militants loyal to Hafiz Gul Bahadur cooperated with Baitullah’s fighters while kidnapping the Razmak college cadets and their teachers.

But the ambush against the military convoy in Madakhel area on Sunday was both unexpected and provocative. Though the Taliban spokesman Ahmadullah Ahmadi claimed that 60 troops were killed and 15 military vehicles were destroyed in the attack, the Pakistan Army spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas conceded the loss of 12 soldiers only. Official sources in Peshawar and Miramshah estimated that the number of soldiers who lost their lives in the ambush was 40 or even more. Among the dead was a colonel, a major and a captain. The sources said the attackers also seized vehicles and arms and ammunition.

The ambush was carried out in a narrow gorge that isn’t much different than the Shaoor Tangi, the famous gorge in South Waziristan where freedom-fighters often ambushed British forces and other invaders in the past. People with knowledge of Madakhel area wondered why adequate measures weren’t taken when the military convoy was passing through that treacherous gorge. It isn’t clear if helicopters were in place to provide air cover to the convoy at a time when it was vulnerable to an ambush.

More intriguing are reports that intercepts of the militants communicating with each other had been heard three days before the ambush in which they talked about starting attacks against the security forces without formally scrapping their peace accord with the government in North Waziristan. If true, it is strange that even then proper security measures weren’t made for military convoys in the dangerous parts of North Waziristan. Also worth recalling is another such incident in June in which an army rescue party sent to help a military convoy under attack itself was ambushed shortly before sunset while returning to Shakai in South Waziristan. It was felt the rescue party shouldn’t have undertaken the return journey at such inopportune time in an area infested with militants. As a consequence, the rescue party suffered avoidable casualties.

It is clear that the peace accord in North Waziristan is finished even if there has been no formal announcement by the militants and the government that it has been scrapped. The Hafiz Gul Bahadur-led Taliban Shura has already issued threats to tribal elders and others to stop interacting with government functionaries and avoid holding jirgas to settle disputes. Aware of the consequences, only one tribal elder, Malik Gulabat Khan, dared to attend the jirga with North Waziristan’s political agent on Monday. Others who came to the jirga, convened to discuss Sunday ambush against the military convoy, were clerics. The clerics’ loyalties, out of necessity, fear or religious affiliation would be with the militants.

Though Hafiz Gul Bahadur was angry with the military for carrying out operation against his militant allies in FR Bannu, his spokesman Ahmadi mentioned the continued US drone attacks as the reason for the Taliban ambush on the Pakistan Army convoy in Madakhel area on Sunday. It was thus obvious that the confrontation between the militants and the military in North Waziristan would escalate because the US is unlikely to give up its policy of using drones to target militants’ positions.

Army facing tough choice after NWA ambush

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The reference to the drone attacks as being reason to attack the PA is just propaganda designed to gain sympathy from Pakistanis and the Pakistani media angry about 'US interference'.

As the second article mentions, the peace committee did point out that no drone attacks had occurred in N Waziristan in 2 months.

The real reason is that which we speculated upon earlier, the 'pro government' Taliban are now fearful that if the government succeeds against B Mehsud, then that leaves them open to greater pressure from the Pakistani Military.

Gul Bahadur, Nazir likely as well, will either use this to join forces and attempt a last ditch united stand against the GoP, or utilize the hesitation to open multiple fronts and overstretch the forces to negotiate better terms for themselves.

 

[zubair723]

The reference to the drone attacks as being reason to attack the PA is just propaganda designed to gain sympathy from Pakistanis and the Pakistani media angry about 'US interference'.

As the second article mentions, the peace committee did point out that no drone attacks had occurred in N Waziristan in 2 months.

The real reason is that which we speculated upon earlier, the 'pro government' Taliban are now fearful that if the government succeeds against B Mehsud, then that leaves them open to greater pressure from the Pakistani Military.

Gul Bahadur, Nazir likely as well, will either use this to join forces and attempt a last ditch united stand against the GoP, or utilize the hesitation to open multiple fronts and overstretch the forces to negotiate better terms for themselves.

Drone ATTACKS have occurred even after the peace deals there. GOP has lost all trust & vice versa. More people will get killed on all sides which is very painful.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Drone ATTACKS have occurred even after the peace deals there. GOP has lost all trust & vice versa. More people will get killed on all sides which is very painful.

The Taliban cross the border to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan - what do they expect NATO will do?

Either expect Pakistan to strike these militants and get them to stop or attack them itself. In terms of NATO attacking the militants itself, the drone strikes have been a minimal effort.

I don't think it is accurate to say that the 'GoP lost trust' when the militants refused to cease their cross border attacks. The militants are the ones that created the situation where the GoP could either attack them, or allow NATO to conduct Drone attacks (since it drew the line on ground troops).

If they really want to fight a 'Jihad' in Afghanistan, be brave and go over there, don't use Pakistani territory to hide in, and then complain when the US attacks it.

 

[Faruqi]

The attack on the convoy is a sign that that we must deal with the N.Waziristan Taliban as well. Killing 27 of our soldiers is equivalent to a declaration of war. So much for those who try to differentiate between "good & bad" Taliban.

 

[Conscientious objector]

The Taliban cross the border to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan - what do they expect NATO will do?

The actions of the Taliban who cross the border to wage jihad against NATO (which is a religious obligation) are a reaction to NATO aggression and occupation.what you are implying is that NATO is reacting to Taliban aggression.

This the same tactic the zionist occupation army uses against the Palestinians, they claim their aerial bombardments are a response to Palestinian rocket attacks and conveniently forget to mention the fact that the Palestinians are resisting a brutal occupation and have every right to do so by all standards.

Either expect Pakistan to strike these militants and get them to stop or attack them itself. In terms of NATO attacking the militants itself, the drone strikes have been a minimal effort.

During the war which took place between Britain and the I.R.A the latter would make frequent use of the Irish border by crossing back and forth from northern to southern Ireland.The most Britain could expect Ireland a sovereign nation to do was to try as best it could to secure their side of the border.International law does not allow one country to bomb another sovereign country simply because those resisting them cross into it.

I don't think it is accurate to say that the 'GoP lost trust' when the militants refused to cease their cross border attacks. The militants are the ones that created the situation where the GoP could either attack them, or allow NATO to conduct Drone attacks (since it drew the line on ground troops).

"Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947 provided much of their homeland remain autonomous and free of government troops.Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands."

GOP could/should have at most informed the americans that it would do all that could/should be reasonably expected to secure its side of the border.To agree to civil war within its own country against its own people is probably the biggest sell out of all time.Pakistan has become a laughing stock throughout the world because it is wiling to self destruct in order to appease america.

If they really want to fight a 'Jihad' in Afghanistan, be brave and go over there, don't use Pakistani territory to hide in, and then complain when the US attacks it.

Well if america wants to be brave they should not expect to be supplied through Pakistani territory, and if the GOP were brave it would not be assisting america in its crusade against Islam.

If you play with fire expect to get burned.



.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The actions of the Taliban who cross the border to wage jihad against NATO (which is a religious obligation) are a reaction to NATO aggression and occupation.what you are implying is that NATO is reacting to Taliban aggression.

This the same tactic the zionist occupation army uses against the Palestinians, they claim their aerial bombardments are a response to Palestinian rocket attacks and conveniently forget to mention the fact that the Palestinians are resisting a brutal occupation and have every right to do so by all standards.

During the war which took place between Britain and the I.R.A the latter would make frequent use of the Irish border by crossing back and forth from northern to southern Ireland.The most Britain could expect Ireland a sovereign nation to do was to try as best it could to secure their side of the border.International law does not allow one country to bomb another sovereign country simply because those resisting them cross into it.

"Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947 provided much of their homeland remain autonomous and free of government troops.Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands."

GOP could/should have at most informed the americans that it would do all that could/should be reasonably expected to secure its side of the border.To agree to civil war within its own country against its own people is probably the biggest sell out of all time.Pakistan has become a laughing stock throughout the world because it is wiling to self destruct in order to appease america.



Well if america wants to be brave they should not expect to be supplied through Pakistani territory, and if the GOP were brave it would not be assisting america in its crusade against Islam.

If you play with fire expect to get burned.

If the Taliban have objections to the occupation of Afghanistan, they need to carry out their Jihad from Afghanistan, not Pakistan.

If they choose to carry out their Jihad from Pakistan, then they inevitably involve Pakistan in their activities and the GoP has to respond.

You mentioned the example of the IRA and the Irish government being expected to secure its side of the border - well, you yourself argued against that when you brought up the condition that FATA has to be 'free of government troops'.

How is Pakistan supposed to secure its side of the border and prevent groups from carrying out attacks in Afghanistan when you say the GoP cannot deploy troops there to begin with?

If Pakistan cannot deploy troops in FATA, or deploys troops and then ends up having a peace agreement with the groups who continue to attack NATO, then why do you expect NATO to not attack the Taliban in FATA?

If Pakistan cannot deploy its own army in FATA and impose its writ, then what sovereignty does Pakistan have over that territory to begin with?

We can't deploy our military there, we can't control what the people there do, we can't make the people adhere to Pakistan's international commitments and laws - so really, why exactly should we stop the US from bombing the place or even sending in ground troops to clean up the *****?

You can't have it both ways - either the GoP enforces its writ in FATA and if necessary deploys the Pakistani military to do so, or FATA is a 'free for all', and NATO can attack the Taliban in FATA just as much as the Taliban from FATA can attack NATO in Afghanistan.

 

[waraich66]

The actions of the Taliban who cross the border to wage jihad against NATO (which is a religious obligation) are a reaction to NATO aggression and occupation.what you are implying is that NATO is reacting to Taliban aggression.

This the same tactic the zionist occupation army uses against the Palestinians, they claim their aerial bombardments are a response to Palestinian rocket attacks and conveniently forget to mention the fact that the Palestinians are resisting a brutal occupation and have every right to do so by all standards.



During the war which took place between Britain and the I.R.A the latter would make frequent use of the Irish border by crossing back and forth from northern to southern Ireland.The most Britain could expect Ireland a sovereign nation to do was to try as best it could to secure their side of the border.International law does not allow one country to bomb another sovereign country simply because those resisting them cross into it.




"Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947 provided much of their homeland remain autonomous and free of government troops.Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands."

GOP could/should have at most informed the americans that it would do all that could/should be reasonably expected to secure its side of the border.To agree to civil war within its own country against its own people is probably the biggest sell out of all time.Pakistan has become a laughing stock throughout the world because it is wiling to self destruct in order to appease america.



Well if america wants to be brave they should not expect to be supplied through Pakistani territory, and if the GOP were brave it would not be assisting america in its crusade against Islam.

If you play with fire expect to get burned.



.

Muslim nation is critising US policies in Palestine which is root cause of terrorism .

Mean time we should also condemn the terrorist activities of Al Qaeda .Islam dont allow terrorism at any conditions.

Pakistan alone could not challenge US which is more power full then three Chines or Rssian armies.

Muslim Ummah should first get united and develop compareable war machine then we can chellange US wrong policies.

We should not make Pakistan another Iraq.

 

[Conscientious objector]

If they choose to carry out their Jihad from Pakistan, then they inevitably involve Pakistan in their activities and the GoP has to respond.

GOP has involved itself by assisting in the supply of NATO forces.

You mentioned the example of the IRA and the Irish government being expected to secure its side of the border - well, you yourself argued against that when you brought up the condition that FATA has to be 'free of government troops'.

If the role of the troops is to secure the border I'm sure the tribal elders would not only allow but also assist in this,what is problematic is when troops are deployed to attack its own people.

How is Pakistan supposed to secure its side of the border and prevent groups from carrying out attacks in Afghanistan when you say the GoP cannot deploy troops there to begin with?

See above response

If Pakistan cannot deploy troops in FATA, or deploys troops and then ends up having a peace agreement with the groups who continue to attack NATO, then why do you expect NATO to not attack the Taliban in FATA?

If the GOP secures border then the problem is resolved, simple

If Pakistan cannot deploy its own army in FATA and impose its writ, then what sovereignty does Pakistan have over that territory to begin with?

Again deployment for securing border is not problematic, during the war with Russia Mujahideen freely crossed the border, Russia did not attack another sovereign nation in response.

We can't deploy our military there, we can't control what the people there do, we can't make the people adhere to Pakistan's international commitments and laws - so really, why exactly should we stop the US from bombing the place or even sending in ground troops to clean up the *****?

Well america is free to do all of that within Afghanistan yet has failed miserably to crush the resistance.

You can't have it both ways - either the GoP enforces its writ in FATA and if necessary deploys the Pakistani military to do so, or FATA is a 'free for all', and NATO can attack the Taliban in FATA just as much as the Taliban from FATA can attack NATO in Afghanistan.

Enforcement of writ being securing the border to the best of its ability is all that should be expected from Pakistan at most. Im sure the GOP would not be able to stop cross border infiltration 100% but what the hell, america hasn't managed to secure its border with Mexico 100% either.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

GOP has involved itself by assisting in the supply of NATO forces.

The GoP is a sovereign nation and government, and its citizens are obliged to live by its laws and decisions, not go around fighting wars and blowing up people as they see fit.

The GoP can support whoever it wants - if the citizens disagree, they can attempt to change the GoP through whatever constitutional and non-violent means are available.

The lawyers and media did just that with Musharraf, and in 3.5 years those opposing the PPP's policies can attempt the same.

If the role of the troops is to secure the border I'm sure the tribal elders would not only allow but also assist in this,what is problematic is when troops are deployed to attack its own people.

The Tribal elders have failed repeatedly in enforcing peace when pitted against the Taliban, unless backed up by Military force.

Over 300 tribal elders have been massacred by the Taliban for opposing the Taliban's call for violence and war.

If the GOP secures border then the problem is resolved, simple

The border cannot be secured without Military deployment and action against the militant groups operating there, nor can Pakistani sovereignty be exercised in FATA without removing the militant groups from power.

Again deployment for securing border is not problematic, during the war with Russia Mujahideen freely crossed the border, Russia did not attack another sovereign nation in response.

Given that the Soviets had their fighters shot down by the PAF, I'm not surprised they didn't cross over.

However, there was also the added deterrent of Pakistan being backed by the other superpower in the world, the US.

And once again, the border cannot be secured without deploying the military and dismantling the Taliban groups in Pakistani territory.

Well america is free to do all of that within Afghanistan yet has failed miserably to crush the resistance.

Whether the fail or succeed is besides the point - the point is that your argument, and that of the Paksitani Taliban, is full of contradictions.

You don't want the PA deployed in FATA, you don't want the GoP to enforce its writ and act against the militias and other groups using violence to grab power, and yet these groups want Pakistan to stop the US from acting against them in FATA by asserting its 'sovereignty'.

Pakistan will assert its sovereignty - by deploying its military where necessary and acting against the militant groups that refuse to disarm an disband.

Enforcement of writ being securing the border to the best of its ability is all that should be expected from Pakistan at most. Im sure the GOP would not be able to stop cross border infiltration 100% but what the hell, america hasn't managed to secure its border with Mexico 100% either.

Its a rather poor argument that Pakistan should only be expected to try and stop cross border infiltration, when the Taliban run training camps in plain sight, and then also use that infrastructure to supply terrorists in Swat and elsewhere in Pakistan.

 

[Conscientious objector]

The GoP is a sovereign nation and government, and its citizens are obliged to live by its laws and decisions, not go around fighting wars and blowing up people as they see fit.

Is this what they taught you in never never land? The leaders of Pakistan do not live by its laws the thieves that they are, and you want to enforce the law on the people, let the lapdogs of america who rule Pak do so by example.

The GoP can support whoever it wants - if the citizens disagree, they can attempt to change the GoP through whatever constitutional and non-violent means are available.

So this unqualified general statement would allow them to support India as well would it? and the people of Pak would have to sit around waiting years for a fixed fraudulent election? What kind of nonsense is that?

The lawyers and media did just that with Musharraf, and in 3.5 years those opposing the PPP's policies can attempt the same.

In the mean time Pakistan can burn?

The Tribal elders have failed repeatedly in enforcing peace when pitted against the Taliban, unless backed up by Military force.

Let me remind you that the Taliban never once attacked any target within Pakistan until after the troops were deployed.

Over 300 tribal elders have been massacred by the Taliban for opposing the Taliban's call for violence and war.

reference for this?

The border cannot be secured without Military deployment and action against the militant groups operating there, nor can Pakistani sovereignty be exercised in FATA without removing the militant groups from power.

Wrong, every nation on earth secures its borders without the need to kill those that might want to illegally cross it, The Irish government did this without engaging in a civil war with the IRA.

Given that the Soviets had their fighters shot down by the PAF, I'm not surprised they didn't cross over.

Do you really think that if Russia wanted to Bomb Islamabad Pakistani air defenses would've been able to stop them?

However, there was also the added deterrent of Pakistan being backed by the other superpower in the world, the US.

Do you really think the U.S would be prepared to defend Pakistan by taking Russia on directly themselves?

And once again, the border cannot be secured without deploying the military and dismantling the Taliban groups in Pakistani territory.

Deploying troops as a border control would have been adequate, I doubt the Taliban would have engaged in a war with an army it considered friendly not too long ago, if that army had not attacked them first.

Such a border patrol would have made it more difficult for them to cross the border but not impossible, and Pakistan would have been seen to be doing its bit. The U.S could not have expected anything more than this from sovereign Pakistan

Whether the fail or succeed is besides the point - the point is that your argument, and that of the Paksitani Taliban, is full of contradictions.

Your argument is that of someone who is mentally enslaved to his imperial masters, not to mention someone who has forsaken his religion if you ever were a Muslim to begin with that is.

You don't want the PA deployed in FATA, you don't want the GoP to enforce its writ and act against the militias and other groups using violence to grab power

Ive told you what would be required and what any self respecting government would have done, but not the GOP no they have no self respect, they would sell their mothers to america for the right price.

and yet these groups want Pakistan to stop the US from acting against them in FATA by asserting its 'sovereignty'.

I doubt anyone in their right mind would rely on any GOP to actually defend them, but what would be expected would be for the GOP not to assist the aggressors or be the aggressors.Is it too much to ask from a country that it doesn't kill its own citizens.

Pakistan will assert its sovereignty - by deploying its military where necessary and acting against the militant groups that refuse to disarm an disband.

Assert its sovereignty by carrying out the orders of the U.S, some sovereignty that is.

Its a rather poor argument that Pakistan should only be expected to try and stop cross border infiltration, when the Taliban run training camps in plain sight, and then also use that infrastructure to supply terrorists in Swat and elsewhere in Pakistan.

There was never any question of the Taliban fighting the GOP until busharaf took it upon himself to fight america's war for her , that's where the problem arose.


.

 

[zubair723]

The GoP is a sovereign nation and government, and its citizens are obliged to live by its laws and decisions, not go around fighting wars and blowing up people as they see fit.

The GoP can support whoever it wants - if the citizens disagree, they can attempt to change the GoP through whatever constitutional and non-violent means are available.

The lawyers and media did just that with Musharraf, and in 3.5 years those opposing the PPP's policies can attempt the same.

Correction here to the above:
GOP is not sovereign. And who is living by its laws? These are not laws , they are public nuiscance. People have been denied justice & rights for long by a 'few'. All going on is the wrongful reaction to very wrongful acts. No constituitional or non-violent means are availabe to people as an option.
The LAWYERS movement was not non-violent or constitutional.HAve we forgotten 12th MAY etc. Even NAWAZ SHARIF broke the constitutional laws to get the demands met. Its clear to people that now 'agitation' is the way.