truthseer
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 4,439
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Are you willing to protect Netanyahu with your body as well as words and prayers?
Taliban threaten to kill Imran Khan
- Thread starter Leader
- Start date
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
truthseer, that falls really, really, flat. It is Pakistan that has the recent history of its politicians getting threatened and assassinated. How can anyone read your words and not see the author as a coward?
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Imran Khan vows to go ahead with protest against US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal region despite purported Taliban death threats
The Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan has vowed to go ahead with a rally in Pakistans tribal areas aimed at highlighting the human cost of US drone strikes despite a purported death threat levelled at him by the Taliban.
Mr Khan intends to join activists and party colleagues who plan to drive or walk to the main town in North Waziristan next month in protest at the USs continuing policy of using drones to target suspected militants. The activists say even if militants are killed, scores of innocent bystanders also lose their lives.
Earlier this week it was reported the Taliban had said if Mr Khan travelled to North Waziristan he would be attacked. If he comes, our suicide bombers will target him, a Taliban spokesman, Ahsanullah Ahsan, was quoted as saying by Associated Press. The Taliban subsequently said they had been misquoted.
Either way, Mr Khan, who heads the Pakistan Movement for Justice party (PTI) and whose political momentum has gathered pace over the past 18 months, made clear he intended to take part in the rally and was willing to risk his safety.
Everyone needs to know that our peace march is against the drones killing the ppl of [the tribal areas] and against a debilitating war imposed on Pakistan, he said on Twitter. In a statement issued by his party today, Mr Khan said: A man of faith doesnt fear death. It would be an honour to give the ultimate sacrifice of ones life to protest American lack of care for the innocent men, women and children of Waziristan who have died in thousands by American drone attacks.
Mr Khan announced the rally earlier this summer, saying he would take representatives of human rights organisations and the media with us to Waziristan. We will march for peace. Organisers hope a convoy of thousands of vehicles and individuals will descend on the town of Miranshah on 23 September. There was a similar rally in Islamabad last year.
Among the international organisations taking part is the London-based Reprieve. The groups director, Clive Stafford Smith said last night the march was going ahead and raised questions about the authenticity of the purported threat levelled at Mr Khan.
The bottom line is we are not stupid, but we are not going to be put off, he said. Also, I dont think its the Pakistan Taliban saying this. Its more likely to be some dissident establishment element from within Pakistan or the US.
Mr Stafford Smith claim followed a subsequent comment from the Taliban spokesman, Ahsanullah Ahsan, who told local media that he had been misquoted in the AP report. He said he had told the reporter, who interviewed him at an undisclosed location in South Waziristan, that the Talibans ruling council would decide what action to take if Mr Khan takes part in the rally.
A number of observers had been surprised by the Talibans original quoted comment, given that both it and Mr Khan have spoken out against the drones and that his organisation has drawn support from religious conservatives.
The US drone strikes have become major source of angst and concern for many in Pakistan, who blame them for killing many civilians and see them as a blow against the countrys sovereignty. Under the administration of Barack Obama, Washingtons use of drones has hugely increased and earlier this year the president said they were targeted at people who were trying to go in and harm Americans. It was later revealed the US had said any males of military age who were in the area of the suspected militant were also to be considered valid targets.
While the Pakistani military publicly condemns the strikes, it is widely assumed they privately assist the CIA with targeting information. One of the most recent drone strikes took place on 29 July when six missiles were fired at a house in the village of Khushhali Turikhel in North Waziristan. Between four and seven people died, according to the Agence France-Presse.
There is no agreement on many people have been killed by the strikes or what percentage of them are militants. The Bureau for Investigative Journalism believes that from 2007 and until today between 2,524 and 3,247 people have been killed of whom 482 to 852 were said to be civilians. The total number of children reportedly killed has been 175.
Another of the international human rights groups due to take part is the US groups Code Pink. In a statement outlining the intention of the rally, it said: We want to reach out to people in Pakistan, especially [in] the areas hit by drone strikes, to show that we care about their lives. We want to show the American public how civilians are being targeted by drones.
Imran Khan vows to go ahead with protest against US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal region despite purported Taliban death threats - Asia - World - The Independent
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Enlightening Imran Khan
The stiff Taliban rebuke to Imran Khan’s Waziristan march initiative ought to be a sobering wake up call for the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf’s (PTI) persistent push for dialogue with the extremists. Yet the party leadership, particularly Chairman Khan, is adamant, and it seems unless better sense prevails, tsunami party adherents flocking to Miranshah is still pretty much on the cards. However, Mr Khan’s ‘supreme sacrifice’ rhetoric, should worse come to worst, and how that “would be an honour” is disturbing, particularly for the youth that constitutes the bulk of the party, and merits very serious debate. The party’s position, that worsening violence in the tribal area should be brought to an immediate end, while attracting greater international attention to the mounting spillover from drone attacks, is appreciated, but it misses some vital points. One, negotiations, particularly with outlawed anti-state outfits, are based on preconditions, not to mention mutual inclination. And judging from developments, especially this particular snub, the only point of negotiation the Taliban seem inclined toward is preparatory transition to shari’a law, that too according to their own narrow reading of Islam. Two, it is not that the idea of talks has not occurred to anyone yet. And Mr Khan would do well to study the aftermath of numerous rounds of negotiations, particularly in General Musharraf’s time, which led to an unprecedented wave of beheadings of tribal elders and upset the tribal construct that endured for centuries. Three, that the Taliban seem little impressed by Mr Khan’s concern for drone attack victims ought to finally disabuse him of all illusions. If you fail to subscribe to their way of life, you fail to subscribe to life itself seems their dictum. Four, any party still in the dark about the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) venomous ideology has learnt nothing from the sad fate of Colonel Imam and Khalid Khwaja, former intelligence officers who helped midwife the mujahideen of the Soviet jihad and later the Afghan Taliban: one found dead and the other mercilessly gunned down by Hakeemullah Mehsud, despite pleas from al Qaeda’s high command itself.
The Taliban clarification, attributing the death threat to misreporting, brings a measure of relief, even if the rest of the statement raises fresh concerns. It is clear that the once hospitable tribal region has been overtaken by the ideology-driven xenophobia of the extremists, and the mere hint of democratic and secular tendencies invites confrontation, often of an existential nature. And Mr Khan’s politics, and by extension his party’s, comes across as increasingly reactionary, much in keeping with rightist ideology that influenced, even facilitated his entry into it. True, much of the country opposes drone strikes, but few if any suggest going to self-destructive lengths. He has found considerable traction because he read the public pulse right regarding unprecedented and intolerable corruption. He should not risk losing it by imposing a narrow, extreme right ideology on progressive, sensible youth that had just found much promise in him. *
The stiff Taliban rebuke to Imran Khan’s Waziristan march initiative ought to be a sobering wake up call for the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf’s (PTI) persistent push for dialogue with the extremists. Yet the party leadership, particularly Chairman Khan, is adamant, and it seems unless better sense prevails, tsunami party adherents flocking to Miranshah is still pretty much on the cards. However, Mr Khan’s ‘supreme sacrifice’ rhetoric, should worse come to worst, and how that “would be an honour” is disturbing, particularly for the youth that constitutes the bulk of the party, and merits very serious debate. The party’s position, that worsening violence in the tribal area should be brought to an immediate end, while attracting greater international attention to the mounting spillover from drone attacks, is appreciated, but it misses some vital points. One, negotiations, particularly with outlawed anti-state outfits, are based on preconditions, not to mention mutual inclination. And judging from developments, especially this particular snub, the only point of negotiation the Taliban seem inclined toward is preparatory transition to shari’a law, that too according to their own narrow reading of Islam. Two, it is not that the idea of talks has not occurred to anyone yet. And Mr Khan would do well to study the aftermath of numerous rounds of negotiations, particularly in General Musharraf’s time, which led to an unprecedented wave of beheadings of tribal elders and upset the tribal construct that endured for centuries. Three, that the Taliban seem little impressed by Mr Khan’s concern for drone attack victims ought to finally disabuse him of all illusions. If you fail to subscribe to their way of life, you fail to subscribe to life itself seems their dictum. Four, any party still in the dark about the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) venomous ideology has learnt nothing from the sad fate of Colonel Imam and Khalid Khwaja, former intelligence officers who helped midwife the mujahideen of the Soviet jihad and later the Afghan Taliban: one found dead and the other mercilessly gunned down by Hakeemullah Mehsud, despite pleas from al Qaeda’s high command itself.
The Taliban clarification, attributing the death threat to misreporting, brings a measure of relief, even if the rest of the statement raises fresh concerns. It is clear that the once hospitable tribal region has been overtaken by the ideology-driven xenophobia of the extremists, and the mere hint of democratic and secular tendencies invites confrontation, often of an existential nature. And Mr Khan’s politics, and by extension his party’s, comes across as increasingly reactionary, much in keeping with rightist ideology that influenced, even facilitated his entry into it. True, much of the country opposes drone strikes, but few if any suggest going to self-destructive lengths. He has found considerable traction because he read the public pulse right regarding unprecedented and intolerable corruption. He should not risk losing it by imposing a narrow, extreme right ideology on progressive, sensible youth that had just found much promise in him. *
Similar threads
