Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
how well did the "negotiations" worked out in Swat? That is a failed tactic as well.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
**My life in Swat — under the Taliban
**
Taliban talks: lessons from the past – The Express Tribune
The joint declaration of the September 9 APC suggests there is a consensus on peace talks with the Taliban, but are the killing of the GOC Swat in Upper Dir and the church attack in Peshawar not enough to ascertain that talks offered from a position of weakness are equal to surrender and further embolden the opposite side to enforce its demands with more vigour and strength?
All previous efforts on peace talks with the Taliban not only proved futile, but also further strengthened the militants and further pressed the local population, who had shown an immense degree of resilience both in Fata and parts of K-P.
Here are only a few examples:
On February 7, 2005, a peace accord was signed with the then Taliban chief, Baitullah Mehsud, at the Sararogha Fort in South Waziristan. The then Corps Commander Peshawar, Lt General Safdar Hussain, on the occasion, declared Baitullah Mehsud ‘a soldier of peace’.
Less than three years onward, Baitullah’s men, whose number doubled and even tripled after the Sararogha peace deal, captured 200 Pakistani soldiers on August 30, 2007. The same year on December 12, he was strengthened and emboldened enough to found the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
Recently, the previous ANP-PPP government in K-P, after holding several rounds of fruitless talks with Mullah Fazlullah aka Mullah FM Radio, and his father-in-law Sufi Muhammad, finally struck a deal on May 21, 2008 to bring normalcy to Malakand.
Within a month, the deal was revoked and Swat Valley witnessed an unprecedented bloodshed. This was followed by another such deal, in February 2009, which culminated with the enforcement of Nizam-e-Adl Regulation. But once again, the deal failed to work and the Fazlullah-led Taliban advanced on the neighbouring districts of Buner and Dir, which forced the government to approve a massive army operation in May 2009.
Each of the deals struck with Fazlullah and Sufi Muhammad further strengthened their grip over the local population and further increased the reign of terror.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Okay, what about action against LeT and JeM? If its the armed forces who should choose Pakistan over Taliban then why are they ignoring country's biggest political party, in fact Federal government's open links with terrorist organizations? Why not concentrate on Punjab where Taliban are politically sheltered and supported.
It's pretty clear that you have a personal vendetta against certain individuals, all that superficial anti Taliban talk is just pretext to hide your real hate for Imran.
We mock Shahbaz Sharif (day in day out) for caving in front of the taleban but want IK to do the same?
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Not sure if peace talks is way to go. I know some patriotic Pakistani Christian families here and they're really devastated by this.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Peace talks are first phase of starting fight.
That would only make fight smaller more targeted.
And all my angry people, TALIBAN HAS NOT TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS ATTACK!!!
We know they never forget to admit... even the smallest failed attempts.
I have no freaking idea why this whole thread is going around about talks with taliban???
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
eemaan sy tum log to bary hi bander ho… jis ka jesay dil chahy wesy tum logon sy dance ker way :nono:
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Peace talks are first phase of starting fight. That would only make fight smaller more targeted.
And all my angry people, TALIBAN HAS NOT TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS ATTACK!!! We know they never forget to admit... even the smallest failed attempts.
I have no freaking idea why this whole thread is going around about talks with taliban???
I thought they did. Either them or JI aren't they both similar ?
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
No they have not. Even if they did.
They say out of 60 some thing groups or taliban, on 7-8 are unwilling to talk.
That is a golden opportunity to bring enemy no down by factor of 10 or some thing.
Why would some one want to war against 10 time more people.
No wonder all the fire works started all of a sudden.
But I guess this time around, people and politicians are some what more determined to talk and move forward in fight. Rather then go blindly and turn every one against them.
Remember they are only men in caves, on our side its women/children etc... Its us who have to careful.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
if taliban are really positive about talks then they should take some measures that should show to all especially the government that they are willing to move forward with the peace process.
if their dogma is
*Tu wafa karey mein jafa karoon *
then eventually final cleanup operation should be launched.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
I think all the people, so-called ullemas who despite clear indications are still want to have talks and are of the opinion that government should take steps in this regard. They all should be gathered and sent on a cruise ship enroute somalia and somali pirates should be bribed to ensure that these scumbags never come back.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Peace talks are first phase of starting fight. That would only make fight smaller more targeted.
And all my angry people, TALIBAN HAS NOT TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS ATTACK!!! We know they never forget to admit... even the smallest failed attempts.
I have no freaking idea why this whole thread is going around about talks with taliban???
It is all over the news that jund-ullah group of taliban claimed responsibility. Some say that two groups claimed responsibility. How can you say that no one took responsibility
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
The day we as a nation shake off confusion and double-mindedness and make up our minds that no one under any guise or pretext can be allowed to ruin our lives, that day this menace will start receding.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Fahd Husain @Fahdhusain](https://twitter.com/Fahdhusain)24m
After mtg Adolf Hitler, Brit PM Neville Chamberlain said “I have bought peace for our times.” Soon Hitler invaded Poland & WW 2 started.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
IMRAN Khan startles us with his philistinism each time he speaks on the issue of terrorism. His narrative on violent militancy in the country and the prescription to end the menace is dangerously simplistic. Not surprisingly he is seen as the most strident of apologists for the Pakistani Taliban.
He attributes the killing of thousands of Pakistani men, women and children by the terrorists solely to the blowback effect of the US drone strikes and the war in Afghanistan. For the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief the unconditional surrender of the Pakistani state to the Taliban is the only way out of the bloody conflict.
His demand for a ceasefire in the aftermath of the killing of Gen Sanaullah Niazi by the militants is a glaring example of his muddled thinking on critical security issues. A day before the militant attack in Upper Dir, the PTI government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ordered the army troops to pull out of Malakand.
Such a senseless move without a strong civilian security and administrative system in place is tantamount to handing back the control of the area to the group involved in last week’s killing of the regional commander.
The party has also endorsed the Taliban demand for withdrawal of the army from the tribal areas. With this approach there is nothing to wonder about which side of the fence Imran Khan is on.
What is most dangerous, however, is that Imran Khan’s perilously flawed narrative has influenced the national discourse. Those views were reflected in the all-party conference (APC) resolution earlier this month that has virtually legitimised militancy by declaring the extremist group a stakeholder in the peace process.
**A non-starter from the outset, the so-called peace initiative endorsed by the APC has not yet taken off the ground, mainly because the Taliban have upped the ante sensing the government’s weakness. The resolution, aptly described as a “document of surrender”, has however further muddled the nation’s resolve to fight violent militancy and religious extremism.
A weak-kneed response by the government to the latest killing of senior army officers fighting on the front line has widened the difference between the civilian and military leadership.**
**Gen Kayani’s statement that the military would not bow to the Taliban’s demands marks a clear departure from the placatory tenor of the APC resolution.
**
**It also reflects the growing frustration within the military ranks at the ambivalence of the national leadership on the problem that presents the greatest threat to national security and the unity of the country.
**
**Nothing can make the militants happier than a procrastinating political leadership unable to stand up to the grave national security challenges.
**
**In order to fight terrorism and violent militancy more effectively it is imperative to dismantle the toxic narrative that is being propounded by the likes of Imran Khan and also taken up by the PML-N government.
**
Firstly, it is a false argument that the rise of militancy and sectarian violence is solely the blowback effect of US intervention in Afghanistan and the drone strikes in the tribal region. The roots of militancy are much deeper in Pakistan and while the war in Afghanistan may have only fuelled it further, it is certainly not the cause.
**Most militant groups involved in terrorist activities and those fighting the Pakistani forces operated for a long time under the patronage of the country’s security establishment waging jihad in other countries. Many of them had a close nexus with Al Qaeda and it was a matter of time before they turned their guns on their erstwhile patrons.
Imran Khan and others who blame Pakistan’s support for the US war in Afghanistan for the conflict are either naïve or twisting the facts to give legitimacy to the militants’ violence. The truth is that under a UN Security Council resolution Pakistan had no choice but to side with the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We should not forget that Imran Khan supported Gen Musharraf’s decision at the time.**
Again it is a false argument that militancy will cease if Pakistan dissociates itself from the US-led war in Afghanistan. Firstly, how is Pakistan a part of the US war? In fact, the country has often been accused of supporting the Afghan Taliban insurgency against the occupation forces.
**Secondly, the US now plans to pull out its forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year and it is in the interest of Pakistan to facilitate a political settlement in the war-ravaged country. Does Imran Khan want Pakistan to side with the Taliban fighting the foreign troops in Afghanistan?
**
Yet another fallacy is that the Pakistani Taliban’s militancy is in retaliation to the US drone strikes in the tribal regions. There is no empirical evidence to prove this contention. For sure the drone strikes violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and must be stopped. It is also true that the civilian casualties have some serious political implications. But to link the militancy to the Predator strikes is certainly an exaggeration.
To put the record straight, only six drone strikes were carried out from 2004 to 2009 and except for the Damadola incident there had not been any collateral damage reported.
But most terrorist attacks occurred during that period targeting civilians as well as the security personnel and the installations.
Most of the tribal agencies and Malakand division in KP had fallen under Taliban control. Peshawar was virtually under siege and militants had advanced to the areas close to the capital Islamabad. It was only after the military operations that the state was able to re-establish its control over those areas.
So to say that the military action did not work is an extremely flawed argument. In fact, the peace deals had allowed the Taliban the space to reorganise themselves. The latest move for unconditional peace negotiations will have the same effect.
Imran Khan’s toxic narrative only helps the Taliban and other militant groups that have declared war against the state. What is at stake is the future of democracy and the stability of the country.
The writer is an author and journalist.
[EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]
Twitter: @hidhussain
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Looks like this person was homecshooled. LOL. They should stick to yellow journalism, talking serious history is not their forte.
Even people who with most basic history knowledge know that Chamberlain brought home the message of war. British defence produce was upgraded by over over 50%. British war industry showed such excellent display efficiency that in less than a year, Britain had managed to match German military might, who were actually preparing for years. Yeah so much for ‘bringing peace’. lol
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Deadly confusion - Muneeb Farooq
**Not long after a general, a lieutenant-colonel and a lance naik lost their lives to ‘our people in the tribal areas’ or ‘the stakeholders’, we have seen the utter monstrosity of the carnage in a Peshawar church. After the killing of our soldiers, there was nothing shocking in the stereotyped response from most of our politicians. Their statements had nothing new apart from a twisted use of adjectives.
What intrigued me was the response from some in the media calling for a military-backed dialogue with the ‘stakeholders’ alias the TTP. Many of them urged the government to engage with the TTP urgently to regain peace as the enemies of the country would try to make the most of this situation by sabotaging the entire process of dialogue. The TTP was not even termed as an enemy of Pakistan; anyone questioning the logic or reasoning behind the proposed talks is the enemy and not the Tehreek-e-Taliban who have bathed this country in blood. **
The irony is unmistakable. Much was made of the contents of the coy resolution where it says that “We declare that we shall ourselves determine the means and mode of fighting this war in our national interest and shall not be guided by the United States of America or any other country in this regard”. But can these rhetorical clichés be anything more than a travesty?
**Nobody wants to fight and no one supports what Gen Musharraf did years back. But now the country is plagued with terrorism. We have a situation at hand and a timid response to this problem will get us nowhere. However, there is a core issue which may make a military operation or dialogue succeed or fail. That issue is our national security policy which is muddled with confusion and grey areas.
**
Neither dialogue nor a military operation is a complete solution to the problem at this stage – unless we turn the grey areas into black and white ones. And I don’t see a solution in sight unless we get rid of our assets-and-liability problem. **One segment of our policy-makers does not want to target the ‘asset’ Taliban, the Haqqani group and associates, since their role is considered pivotal in Afghanistan post-2014. Maybe with a different name, but strategic depth lives in our imagination. This essentially brings us to the confusion, where the so-called assets support the TTP. This disables our military from taking on the bad guys. **
**Our state has peace accords with Maulvi Nazir in South Waziristan and with Hafiz Gul Bahadur in North Waziristan. These accords are still intact but everyone knows what the reality is. Despite these accords, North Waziristan is the hub of anti-Pakistan activities. This in itself is a clear violation of the agreement between the state and the Taliban on September 5 at Miranshah. Moreover, the prisoners who fled with the help of the TTP in the Bannu and DI Khan jail breaks are currently residing in north and south Waziristans under the supervision of our assets and working with impunity. Yet there is complete inaction on the part of the state.
**
Sweeping statements about the success or failure of military operations are erroneous. The military has conducted successful operations in Swat, Malakand and Bajaur and recently cleared the Tirah Valley. The operations were focused and target-oriented but they were carried along the hazard of ‘good and bad’ Taliban. Some Taliban fled to the bordering districts of Afghanistan and continued to launch cross-border attacks while others took refuge in Fata, North Waziristan in particular. If a military offensive is launched today against the TTP, it is almost certain that most TTP men will repeat the same exercise and may even develop new hideouts in Fata.
If a military operation is not a wise option owing to such confusion, then the option of dialogue is not going to help bring peace either, unless the state gets to a position of strength and then initiates dialogue. This option is also marred with confusion. The supporters of a dialogue with TTP are divided on one basic issue. Some believe that the state should not set any conditions for dialogue while others believe that the state should talk from a position of strength. They support dialogue but none of them know the extent to which they can go to accept the TTP’s demands. The TTP, on the other hand, is far clearer in its policy. It has tried to cow down the state to the dialogue table by killing military officers.
To avoid further confusion, some elementary principles need to be strictly adhered to. First, barring a few exceptions the state does not and should not bow before terrorists. However, if the state decides to engage itself in dialogue it should set certain prerequisites to be acted on by terrorists/militants. The often misapplied and wrongly-cited IRA-Britain dialogue or the Northern Ireland Peace Process was based on this principle.
**It was an ancient problem and Britain maintained its demand/prerequisite for the IRA to renounce violence and stop its attacks. The government of Pakistan must ensure that there is a complete ceasefire before any negotiations. A clear and unequivocal announcement of an end to war against the forces of Pakistan must come from the TTP’s side.
**
Second, the state must see if it is in a position to accept the core demands of the TTP. Submitting to their demands and allowing them to impose their version of Shariah will be tantamount to allowing a militant group run a parallel government with its own set of laws. Lastly, the state must not release any militants, be they from the TTP, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or the Sipah-e-Sahaba, prior to the negotiations. The state must, at all costs, assert its existence and writ.
The writer works for Geo.Email: [EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
Imran Khan seems to have been knocked out by taleban whose violence he thought could be stopped through talks. The narrative that he had constructed during the past 10 years, US war, drones, our people etc has been exposed. The attacks during the past three months and the response of PTI and KPK government have put them on the side of Taleban. The result is visible now. PTI is on the defensive mode since the Church tragedy, Pakistan Army and PMLN are the clear winners in all of this.
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
The murder of DialogueThe murder of Dialogue - DAWN.COM
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
.........PTI is on the defensive mode since the Church tragedy, Pakistan Army and PMLN are the clear winners in all of this.
I get the PTI part, but how are Army and PMLN winners?
Re: Peace Dialog with taleban
I get the PTI part, but how are Army and PMLN winners?
because no one is discussing the Army's failure (during the past 10 years) and the role of PMLN (as federal government). Dont you think IK has made himself the punching bag?