Peace Dialog with taleban

While Pakistani government and opposition readies itself for dialog with Taleban, the latter has responded to their gestures in kind which shows their seriousness.

In recent days we have seen them kill a General and now a suicide attack on a Church (both these attacks have taken place in #NAYAKPK).

Its clear that PMLN and PTI want to strike a deal with the terrorists at all costs, and to achieve this goal they don’t even have the guts to condemn the perpetrators (everything happening in Pakistan is linked to drones as per most of their supporters).

Its clear that the TTP will not leave violence as a means to achieve their targets, the government on the other hand is confused on what they want to achieve through the dialog and how.

Keeping in view the current situation, should the government cede FATA and Malakand, Buner and Peshawar to the militants to buy peace in other parts of the country?

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

I'll add another thing to my previous post, we are unlucky to have cowards in the shape of PMLN and PTI (who cannot even stand with their people in their time of distress) as the governments in the center and province at this critical juncture.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

People need to calm down for a second and stop throwing toys out of the pram.

We are still in a state of war. This war hasn't been concluded yet! So please.

The government, in fact all parties have already reached a census for military operation in case of peace talks failure. It's so laughable to see people so militantly opposing, blaming, attacking political parties and totally ignoring the role of Pakistan military and intelligence, in regards to latest developments. Who are you trying to fool by saying its a bloody ex cricketer who is suddenly pulling the strings on Pakistan's notoriously out of control military and intelligence. Was Imran or Sharif in power in last 12 years? Were they also in power when Pakistan military agreed to US' exit policy?

I don't know if it's short term memory or selective memory but people need to remind themselves that at one point in time, all Pakistan major cities were getting hit by 4-5 suicide blasts per day. Hundreds and hundreds of people have been killed in Friday sermons, entire bazaars have been put on fire....so please, appreciate the fact that innocent lives are being saved. If Pakistan military can put its ego on side and make efforts to stop suicide bombing on daily basis, at least, why can't people just be bloody patient and assess the situation before throwing hissy fits.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Sums up our dilemma.

Che™ ‏@FarrukhHussaini](https://twitter.com/FarrukhHussaini)3m
[RIGHT]
ہم شرمندہ قوم ہیں - ہم درندہ قوم ہیں - ہم سب کی ہے پہچان - طالبان کا پاکستان -ttp](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TTP&src=hash) taliban](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Taliban&src=hash) #PeshwarMassacre](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PeshwarMassacre&src=hash) #PeshawarChurchBlas](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PeshawarChurchBlast&src=hash)t[/RIGHT]

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Very true and very sad.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

What Pakistan need is a leadership...maybe someone like Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka? He defeated Tamils and brought peace to his country. What Pakistan has for leaders are terrorist apologists and those who make excuses for these murderous scumbags.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Unconditional talks? - DAWN.COM

IS it not extraordinary that the prime minister and the federal government assume they possess legal authority to hold unconditional talks with the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other terrorists?

Our Constitution and related legal principles do not endorse such assumption. The prime minister and parliamentarians have all sworn an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. It is a settled principle that the authority vested in state functionaries is the authority delegated to them by the people and must be exercised as a sacred trust within limits prescribed by the Constitution.

The distinction between acts of an individual and those of state functionaries is as follows: a private citizen is free to do what he is not prohibited by law to do, while a state functionary can only do what he is explicitly authorised by law to do. What this means is that while the TTP, that doesn’t recognise our Constitution, can elect to engage in conditional or unconditional talks with the state, the state and its representatives are bound by the framework of the Constitution and do not have the luxury to discuss terms of peace that travel beyond it.

This raises key questions: can the state accept the continuing existence of the TTP as an armed group even if it agrees not to attack citizens, officials and state property? Can the state relinquish its obligation to uphold fundamental rights across Pakistan, including within tribal areas, or delegate its responsibility within a specified region to a non-state actor such as the TTP? Can the state release undertrial or condemned prisoners on the TTP’s demand as a confidence-building measure? Can the state make a pact with the TTP even if it refuses to recognise the legitimacy of our Constitution?

**Article 256 of the Constitution is unambiguous: “No private organisation capable of functioning as a military organisation shall be formed, and any such organisation shall be illegal.” The TTP is not just capable but has been functioning rather effectively as an organisation fighting and killing our security forces.
**
**It is proscribed under the anti-terror law and cannot be allowed to exist as such in view of Article 256 unless it disarms and relinquishes violence. The TTP giving up arms and violence thus must be a condition for a peace pact.
**
There is a widely held false belief that our tribal areas fall beyond the writ of the Constitution. While this might be true in practice, it is not so in principle. Article 247 does make special administrative arrangement for Fata by ousting the jurisdiction of the high court and the Supreme Court and delegating the authority to legislate in relation to such areas to the president. But the Constitution neither curtails the application of fundamental rights to tribal areas not relieves the state of its obligation to uphold such rights.

The inalienable right to life, property, liberty, dignity, equality and due process guaranteed to citizens residing across Pakistan applies equally to citizens living in the tribal areas. Even if the courts have not so far exercised judicial review powers to scrutinise regulations promulgated by the president in relation to the tribal areas, they don’t lack such jurisdiction. Simply put, the president wields no legal authority to promulgate regulations for administration of tribal areas that contravene enumerated fundamental rights or other provisions of the Constitution.

What this also means is that in the name of peace the state can’t cede control of North Waziristan or another tribal area to the TTP or leave the protection of guaranteed fundamental rights to the will and grace of the terrorists. It is important to understand that our form of federalism is inclusive and cooperative. Islamabad or Lahore or Karachi cannot decide that no citizens from tribal areas will travel or settle down in these cities. Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to everyone.

**Short of ceding territory and allowing the creation of a Taliban emirate as a new state, the government cannot hand over to the TTP an autonomous area within the tribal belt to administer in accordance with its own whims and wishes, whether in the name of the Sharia, tribal custom, tradition or peace. Given our constitutional structure, it will not be possible to prohibit the movement of men and arms from such an area to the rest of Pakistan, not to mention the ideology of intolerance, hate and violence.
**
Further, the Constitution doesn’t permit any government, whether local, provincial or federal, to adopt or practise any law or custom that contravenes fundamental rights. So, for example, the state cannot allow the TTP to prohibit girls from getting educated as barring them will breach Article 25(a) that mandates the state to educate all children between ages five to 16, and also Article 25, being discrimination on the basis of sex. The TTP’s allegiance to the Constitution thus has to be a condition for a peace pact.

Regarding the release of prisoners, our criminal law states that no prosecution against an accused can be withdrawn except with the court’s permission. Thus undertrial prisoners cannot be released at the government’s discretion. However, once a court finds someone guilty, the provincial government has the authority to pardon the convict, and so does the president. But to state the obvious, laws provide for imprisonment of those who have established through their conduct that they are a threat to society if let loose.

What rational basis would the state have to pardon hardened terrorists who retain the urgent resolve to revert to their murderous ways if set free, like those who escaped from Bannu or D.I. Khan jails? Crime is not a private matter between two individuals or an individual and the state. It is an offence against society, and in prosecuting and punishing the criminal the state acts on the society’s behalf. Thus, a de-radicalisation programme and continued monitoring of terror suspects will have to be a precondition for an amnesty scheme in the interest of society’s safety.

The futility of talks with terrorists and misdiagnosis of our terror problem notwithstanding, the position that the government can engage in talks unconditionally is simply untenable.

The writer is a lawyer. [EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

How is Pak army going to do it?
What do you expect an army to do to terrorists who just killed one of its generals? Would you be so apologetic if India had him killed?

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Pakistan's dilemma.

Its not our war. Boom! A general is killed.

Its not our war. Boom! A mosque/market is bombed.

Muslims cant do this. RAW/CIA agents behind terror activities in the country. We want to talk to our brothers. BOOOM!

Drones responsible for terrorist activities. Boom, a public place is blown by some non tribal group (who are not directly affected by drones).

Seriously, if our brothers are not involved in terror activities (or they are CIA/RAW agents) who are we negotiating with?

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

That question is a slap on everyone who says that TTP is an Indian/ Israeli/ American entity.

Taliban apologists use various ways to make those monsters appear like humans.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

If any peace talks are held, Imran Khan should be sent there to negotiate with his brothers.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Mir bi kia Saada Dil haiN .. beemar howey jis k sabab
Ushii AaTar k LOndey se Dawa layTay haiN

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Me being apologetic? Perhaps you've missed Gen Kiyani's remarks which were given the day after the death of the general.

Pakistanis need to come out their utterly baseless superior complex that their army can defeat the enemy who essentially blends in the local population and uses innocent civilians as their shields. Pakistan has conventional military might to pose threat to India, there are whole bunch of other platforms where protests and ultimatums could be registered, what do with the bunch of animals who say do a military operation on us and we'll unleash 300 suicide bombers on you....are we prepared for such bloodshed?

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

This argument is the basis of Taliban apologists to scare Pakistani people away so that they could surrender in front of Taliban khariji mufsideen. They do everything to support thee khawarij every way possible. They are against every military action against them. They are against drones which effectively eliminate them. They are up on the media speaking as Taliban spokesman justifying each of their cowardly act one way or another, confusing people. Some of them even provide these kharjis intelligence against army and other targets.

And then in the end when those half-hearted attempts by army and government fail to eliminate terrorism, they come out declaring their victory, urging Pakistanis to surrender and accept Taliban khariji rule over us.

Jolie bhai, we really can't defeat them if we have their apologists like you among us. Every Taliban attack against army has been possible due to a similar Taliban apologist within army.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

42k people (soldiers and civilians) have paid with their lives. How much worse could it get? And more importantly, should we living in perpetual fear that terrorists are trying to kill us? I say call it bluff and go after them, their supporters, backers & financers. Call out Arab countries and tell them to stop funding terrorism in Pakistan. Shut down madrassas that are breeding ground for terrorists, and out-law and prosecute religious extremist and parties that support terrorism. Bangladesh & Egypt have gone after extremists why can't Pakistan do it?

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

A terrorist supporter calling others terrorist apologists. Amusing. Call me as many names as you like, it doesn't make any difference neither it gets any point across. You are full of personal vendetta and to expect objectivity from you is like expecting a blind person to have a have perfect vision.

Fine I am an apologist (coz you said so) what the eff has Pak army done in all those 12 years to suppress the threat let alone eliminate it? Where did all that American money go? Yes buying fancy Israeli birds to show off in front of India and pouring truck load of money retirement schemes for Generals yet there's not a single good anti terrorism agency has been formed. Mind telling me exactly what kind of training, weaponry and para military anti terrorism forces have been created to combat the terrorism which is prevalent in every part of Pakistan? Okay fine, a person like you has managed to figure that there are rats within army, intelligence and government who leak the info to terrorists but what efforts and actions have been made to get rid of those enemies within? Where's the credibility? Where's the accountability? Intelligence' own HQ have been attacked and some loonies still think they can be trusted with within borders guerrilla warfare. You yourself are full of lame excuses, biggest apologists of army's total cowardice and helplessness.

Why can't you answer your own bloody question, would Gen Kiyani have said the same thing if the army official was killed by Indians? What's stopping him from addressing the nation and promising security and victory over Taliban? Who knows, maybe its him who's on Taliban side, eh? Afterall, last time I saw him on TV, he was shaking hands with Imran and smiling....goodness, what on earth was that all about?

I absolutely detest house of Saud and their evil Saudi ideologies but what has Pak army have done to stop the ideology from spreading. Likes of you are only good at screaming Taliban are coming, Taliban are coming but done jack sh!t to raise a voice against thousands of Saudi funded yet technically illegal madarass? Yes Khoji baji, people are indeed confuse thanks to people who pick and choose what kind of violence and terrorism they want to support.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Musharraf was first mainstream public to raise a voice against Saudi madarass, apart from pissing some Mullahs' off, what legislation did he pass to bring madaarass under the state control? How many laws and council have been formed to regulate millions of those madarrasas? What is mighty Pak army doing right now to combat LeT type organization in Punjab? They can't even bloody put their foot down to tell PMLN to finish off their political alliance with these terrorism or you'll also be blacklisted? But guess what, if anything our beloved army is as dirty as the terrorists everyone wants them to go after. Yeah this why Pakistanis are so confused and dumb, it's a God given curse that stops them from doing some self reflection. Everyone is at fault except them.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

State of fear - DAWN.COM

What is it that the government wants to talk to the Taliban about? Are they fighting for the protection and preservation of the human rights of a particular community? No matter, how hard Imran Khan tries to argue that terrorism in Pakistan is the effect of drone attacks and America’s war on terror, nobody would be willing to suspend disbelief to accept that the Taliban’s killing spree is forcing the world to attend to the plight of the civilian victims of drone attacks or, for that matter, of the war against terror. If anything, it hardens international opinion against the perpetrators of such crimes against humanity as the ghastly church attack in Peshawar.
Are they fighting for the right of self-determination of the people of the tribal areas? They could be freedom fighters in Afghanistan where they are fighting against foreign forces but there are no foreign forces in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Here, they are fighting only against the Pakistan Army. If there are any foreigners, illegally staying and carrying out hostile activities from there against Pakistan in particular and the rest of the world in general, they are the Taliban’s own al Qaeda allies. The state, under national and international laws, has the right to expel them from its territory, even if that requires force.

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

Latest Pakistani Hopes For Peace Talks With Taliban Could Be Short-Lived

On September 9, political parties at a government-sponsored All Parties Conference (APC) in Pakistan agreed on dialogue with militants as the first option to address ongoing terrorism in the country.

The daylong meeting was attended and briefed by, among others, Pakistan’s two most powerful men: Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and the director-general of the country’s prime intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant General Zaheer-ul-Islam.

The government’s offer of talks with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) amid increasing incidents of terrorism was regarded by many as a goodwill gesture and was widely welcomed in Pakistan.

**However, any high hopes suffered a serious blow when two senior army officers were killed in a roadside bomb attack in an area near the Afghan border on September 15 and the claim of responsibility instantly came from the TTP.
**
In a resulting fit of anger, it was the army chief who came out with a blunt warning, saying that “terrorists would not be allowed to take advantage of the military’s support to the political process.”

Since then, potential peace negotiations with the Taliban have become the topic of heated debate in the Pakistani print and electronic media, with some key questions being raised about the proposed process:

**a. Among the 62 proscribed militant outfits, which should be chosen for such talks?
b. Would the Taliban surrender their arms and accept state authority?
c. Would militants agree to end their jihadist activities inside Pakistan and across the border into Afghanistan?
d. Would the Waziristan-based militants agree to cut ties with international terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)?
e. And would they accept the Pakistani Constitution by ending their armed struggle for the implementation of a Shari’a-based system.

Many Pakistani analysts suggest that if the answer to any of these questions is a clear “no,” then the last option left to the Pakistani government is the use of force rather than any futile attempt at talks.**

Commenting on the government’s olive branch to the Taliban and the latter’s killing of two senior army officers, the leading English-language daily “Express Tribune” asked:

**“How many more of the upper echelons of the military are we to see murdered before the state makes a robust response? Time to walk the walk Mr prime minister, if you can because the time for merely talking the talk is over.”
**
Another English daily newspaper, “Dawn,” in an editorial on September 16 questioned the Pakistan army’s policy toward the Taliban and warned that before hoping to achieve lasting peace, the military establishment needed to do away with its allegedly duplicitous policies of “good” and “bad” Taliban:

**“Has the army leadership publicly distanced itself from groups like the Difa-e-Pakistan Council and sundry right-wingers running around the country trying to stir up trouble?”
**
In an op-ed piece in “Dawn,” retired police officer Tariq Khosa asked the government and the military leadership to work together to counter the Taliban threat:

“If the political leadership and the military establishment want to be on the same page regarding the post-APC developments, they will have to come up with a purposeful and well-planned response to the offensive launched by the TTP and its affiliates despite the offer of talks and the unanimous political will to give peace a chance.”

**In his op-ed piece for the “Daily Times” on September 19, columnist Muhammad Taqi argued that “without setting the parameters for what exactly is the state willing to concede to the TTP in exchange for peace, the prime minister and his APC have left the door wide open for the terrorists to keep making highly perverse demands.”
**
**Since 2001, the government of Pakistan has signed various peace agreements with militants in different parts of northern Pakistan. But critics complain that each agreement has ended up further strengthening the Taliban and eroding people’s trust in writ of the state.
**
**Elaborating on the same point in an op-ed piece for “The News International” on September 19, columnist Kamila Hayat said that “each new cease-fire called over the years appears to have given the militants time to re-group, strengthen their ranks and welcome back freed fighters.”
**
**Following the killing of the two army officers in the September 15 bomb attack claimed by the TTP, some leading columnists asked for an across-the-board action against the militants. That came against the backdrop of years in which the Pakistani army has been accused of using certain jihadist groups as “strategic assets” in Afghanistan and India.
**
Columnist Kamran Shafi, in an op-ed piece for the “Express Tribune” on September 20, wrote:

“The question is: have our strategists finally decided that there are no ‘good’ Taliban; that all of the many factions are joined at the hip, be they the Mehsuds or the Haqqanis or the Fazlullahs or the Punjabis or whatever’s? That all of them ultimately pay allegiance to Mullah Omar, that al Qaeda is the Mother of All Umbrellas and that strategic depth in Afghanistan is dead as a dodo? And, finally, that though most difficult it will be, North Waziristan must be cleansed come hell or high water?”

Conservative Urdu-language media also expressed anger over the Taliban attacks and advised the government not to hesitate to employ force if the first option (talks) was not going to bear positive results.

The “Daily Express,” in an editorial on September 19, wrote that “the government peace talks offer to the Taliban was a golden chance which they [Taliban] wasted following their attack on the army officers in Dir Upper of northern Pakistan.”

Writing in another Urdu-language newspaper, “Daily Jang,” columnist Irfan Siddiqi said the killing of army officers and the instant claim of responsibility by the Taliban have shattered hopes for peace talks. Though still supporting a midpoint between the use of force and negotiations, Irfan Siddiqi said the Taliban claim that it killed the army officers on September 15 has provided a golden opportunity to those who support the use of force in order to crush the Taliban insurgency.

– Daud Khattak

Re: Peace Dialog with taleban

People like Imran khan and munawar hasan should not only be sent but also be kept by tablian as security deposit .!