Up to 700 militants killed in Swat offensive

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
, , ,
61

Are you kidding me?

The hazara wanted to lay claim to the valley which they believe belongs to them. Backed by Iran, they went into a legitimate war with the Taliban, under which they lost.

The taliban and hazara were on an uneasy truce up until 2001, when the truce was broken by the invasion of the US forces working in conjunction with the NA and the Hazara people.

Yes there is a massive difference between the TTP and the actual Taliban. TTP is something that can be discussed and their actions I really cannot comment on. The Taliban however, were a legal government.

Look up the first close documented footage of the Taliban when David Adams, the journalist went in during 2000, and filmed the Taliban. The problem some people have on this forum is that they found out Taliban existed after they saw two buildings fall down.

The only problem people in Pakistan have with the Taliban is that they’re strict. Other then that, they are just as peaceful as any government on earth.

You notice how the Taliban, despite BANNING photography, allowed David Adams to film in Afghanistan, not just film anything, but film the Buddha statue, to which even the aid workers were not allowed to go to.

You will also notice, how Taliban erected school for both girls and boys, the only difference? THEY were SEGREGATED.

THe problem people have with the taliban is that they cannot handle the shariah law being implemented.

The modernists live with freedom to expose woman, and condemn the Taliban or any other movement when they want to cover up their women.

When filthy propaganda is spread regarding tribal treatment of women, and suicide bombings, its easier to attribute it to a political movement which you detest from the start.

Taliban ideology does not encompass suicide bombing and honour killings. Tribal culture flourishes in that regard. This culture has not left Pakistan, OR Afghanistan.

This is exactly what the Taliban went to war against, to bring peace in the region.

You find honour killings in KARACHI of all places, and you think they won’t exist in the tribal belt?

Please keep supporting the killing of Innocent people, as well as desecrating the principles and values of the country you claim to love.

Kudos to you :k:

62

Wow. Talki about paper tigers.

It was lunacy all along to suggest that several thousand lightly arm insurgents actually posed a threat to Pakistan.

Let the dust settle. If there were indeed hundreadds of civilians killed as a result of these theatrics (let's face it, this required a POLICE action, not a military campaign), then I'd suggest it was not worth it. It's quite clear Pakistan was being pressured to act in a certain way at the behest of foreign powers, even though the magnitude of the action, and the bluntness of it, certainly wasn't imperitive given the nature of the threat.

This coupled with the fact that the Pakistani army has been complicit in aiding a foreign military conduct operations on it's own soil should also raise eyebrows. And yes, in the long term it is a bigger deal in the long run than a "threat" that will be cleaned up in a matter of weeks if there is indeed a desire to do so.

63

I see you are living according to Shariah (interpreted by Taliban) in Toronto, Canada, question do you flog your women too? Or your women don’t go to school/college?..

Seriously man i have thousands of questions.. to ask… should i?

Did you ever heard a modernists/moderate chop of the other ideologist head or hang his opponent body on main boulevard?

Nothing to talk, its all propaganda, ..actually it’s a conspiracy theory of Zionist/West (where you are living too)

Are you some how a sleeper cell?

Joke of the century !

Peace, yeh right my ass. I am referring you back to:
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/321020-up-700-militants-killed-swat-offensive-2.html#post6508727

In last line you were denying honour killing by Taliban, here you are accepting - what are you smoking?

Their is a difference its politically motivated in Karachi, on the other hand Taliban do honour killing on the name of Islam, and suicide bombing as a one-way ticket to heaven.

Don’t worry dude, you can go back to cave world, we will save our culture/heritage/religion !

Thank you , .. ***now come again.. ***

64

Nope, but they don't seem to have a problem with random people being blown to bits by air strikes and artillery all in the name of "liberty"...and that is an awful lot like the "Taliban"...

65

Yes ...

we don't have a problem with Military operaion..., after Thugs/Killers/goat-lovers commonly known as **Taliban **killed our soldiers, cut their heads, and hang their bodies on Main Swat Chowk.

We don't have a problem with Military operation, when thugs/killers/goat-lovers commonly known as Taliban flog our women.

We don't have a problem with military operation, when thugs/killers/goat-lovers commonly known as Taliban killed thousands of Pakistan in a suicide attacks

We don't have a problem with military operation, when thugs/killers/goat-lovers commonly known as Taliban destroy schools/college and harassed our women/children.

we don't have a problem with military operation, when thugs/killers/goat-lovers commonly known as** Taliban** distribute bombs as candy to children as young as 6.

Every Son of Pakistan will die to stop & vanish the march of Taliban in the dress of Monkeys !..

66

Thats the Taliban of Afghanistan. The Taliban in Pakistan destroyed girls school (not necessarily mixed schools), you are mistaken to think the Taliban in Pakistan are extension of Taliban in Afghanistan.

I don't have problem with sharia, but I've problem if just anyone grows a beard and becomes a 'qazi' and starts doling justice of his tribal culture.

Again, you are confusing Taliban of Afghanistan with Pakistani Taliban.

RPGs is not 'lightly armed', suicide-bombers are not 'lightly armed', thats just 2 of the most used ammo by "lightly armed insurgents'.

67

yawn!

if afghanistan wasso great why did nt you move to utopia? and why are you using a banned media ie the internet?

ifyour talking about pashtun tribal culture you should read up about what it was and how different it is to the women-whipping taliban of today.

quote=Crescent;6512575]Are you kidding me?

The hazara wanted to lay claim to the valley which they believe belongs to them. Backed by Iran, they went into a legitimate war with the Taliban, under which they lost.

The taliban and hazara were on an uneasy truce up until 2001, when the truce was broken by the invasion of the US forces working in conjunction with the NA and the Hazara people.

Yes there is a massive difference between the TTP and the actual Taliban. TTP is something that can be discussed and their actions I really cannot comment on. The Taliban however, were a legal government.

Look up the first close documented footage of the Taliban when David Adams, the journalist went in during 2000, and filmed the Taliban. The problem some people have on this forum is that they found out Taliban existed after they saw two buildings fall down.

The only problem people in Pakistan have with the Taliban is that they’re strict. Other then that, they are just as peaceful as any government on earth.

You notice how the Taliban, despite BANNING photography, allowed David Adams to film in Afghanistan, not just film anything, but film the Buddha statue, to which even the aid workers were not allowed to go to.

You will also notice, how Taliban erected school for both girls and boys, the only difference? THEY were SEGREGATED.

THe problem people have with the taliban is that they cannot handle the shariah law being implemented.

The modernists live with freedom to expose woman, and condemn the Taliban or any other movement when they want to cover up their women.

When filthy propaganda is spread regarding tribal treatment of women, and suicide bombings, its easier to attribute it to a political movement which you detest from the start.

Taliban ideology does not encompass suicide bombing and honour killings. Tribal culture flourishes in that regard. This culture has not left Pakistan, OR Afghanistan.

This is exactly what the Taliban went to war against, to bring peace in the region.

You find honour killings in KARACHI of all places, and you think they won’t exist in the tribal belt?

Please keep supporting the killing of Innocent people, as well as desecrating the principles and values of the country you claim to love.

Kudos to you :k:
[/quote]

68

You didn’t even bother to understand what I said in my post. Your post is just a copy paste of another post you made.

I cant believe I am wasting my time responding to you, I’ll find someone else to respond to.

Now go again, and come back when you know how to read other people’s posts.

Hello From _______
69

Thats what people need to understand.

It isn't as black and white as its being made out to be. That region is a host to a complex group of people. The Taliban in Afghanistan are busy fighting Nato forces, and let me tell you they're growing according to reports from BBC, more and more people are joining that movement because of all the civilians being killed by the Nato forces.

As for problems in Pakistan. Yes there are splinter cells which do commit acts of terror, however, they can be easily dealt with. They are not a threat to Pakistan, and their acts are being exploited and magnified like those in Iraq.

Those people I do not support, they have not an iota of my sympathy or care, however to generalize every afghan, every pashtun as an enemy of Pakistan. To eradicate the ideology that brought peace to their land after years of turmoil and war, those people have my support!

They want peace, yet Pakistan and US won't let them have it. They are being driven to a corner where they have to fight back. Then you question the methods they utilize to do so.

SO what if Pakistan lets say eradicates the "threat" from NWFP. Will you back the ones being oppressed in Afghanistan under NATO?

or will you continue to support the crusade against the Taliban and Al-Qaida, to extract from them Osama and WMDs?

Where will your support lie then?

Andaz Apna Apna
70

no what makes altaf a git is the fact that he is a criminal and ethnic hate promoter. his accent isnt one of the reasons why people dislike him.

71

You know this is the spin that even Joseph Goebbels would admire.

No one can slit throats with one hand, and wave the peace flag with the other. You cannot exhume dead bodies and lynch them, and then go around claiming peace. That's war-mongering and brutality and thus very very distant from any kind of peace.

The whole world knows that Taliban pushed the Pakistani people to the corner. We made 1000s of peace deals and they broke everyone of them.

The last straw was when the so-called peace loving Talibs signed a deal and then showed up in Buner.

We all know that it is rather futile to convince a Talib supporter, so this argument may not work.

72

FATA was not burning with war, so the so called Taliban in FATA are not comparable to Taliban in Afghanistan (who actually brougth peace there), so when you defend "Taliban" you should mention that you are talking about Afghan Taliban because Pakistan is not fighting with those Taliban, Pakistan is fighting the Taliban you mentioned (splinter cells etc...). To you they may be "splinter cells" but if one can take over a city they are much more than just 'splinter cells' to me (and to rest of the world). So lets keep distinction between the Talibans. Also, nobody is saying all Pashtuns are Talibans, unless you can cite it for us.

Pakistan should eradicate the threat that is to NWFP, the ones in Afghanistan have nothing to do with that. I am supporting Pakistan to fight militants in Pakistan, thats where the support is needed NOW.

73

Blah blah blah. The point being that this military "operation" is hardly surgical. The point being that the rhetoric of "collateral damage" is a dehumanizing one, and one usually employed by so-called patriots of one nation when the victims belong to some other god forsaken nation...so you'll pardon me if I find allusions to patriotic fervor in combating the Taliban somewhat misplaced.

74

They most certainly are. An F-16 or what not droping 500lb bombs is heavily armed. Howitzer shells pounding a village is heavily armed.

RPG is an infantry weapon, and unless we're talking about RPG-30's, they definitely are light arms and pose no real strategic threat to Pakistan.

Suicide bombings, on the other hand, are politically volatile even if it is a crude weaponary. Such tactics are insidious as it's impossible to guard against without resorting to draconian measures. Again, a conventional military response is nonsensical to that particular threat.

ﻁ se shroo hone wale ashaar - competition starts
75

If you are saying they are lightly armed compared to Pakistan army then I'd agree, but they are heavily armed compared to the civilian areas they capture, civilians they loot, kill, harass, threaten etc.

76

Re: Up to 700 militants killed in Swat offensive

^^ good rebuttal

77

Yes, compared to the army. To repeat, the "Taliban" pose no strategic threat to Pakistan, nor do they pose a threat to the existence of the state.

As an insurgency, the best they can hope for is a war of attrition, however that's a non-starter when one is on the conventional army's home turf.

Granted, suicide bombings do pose as a severe destabalizing factor, however that is not a problem solved by application of conventional military might which is what all and sundry were agitating for, and seem to be rabidly cheering.

Further, it is not at all unheard of for a state's intelligence apparatus to engage in a campaign of anti-terror (forgive the terminology, but the implication being that the state engages in activities that in all ways resemble terrorism) to coerce/convince people to turn against the terrorists.

I fear for Pakistan if it has decided to go down that route...

To be clear, my unstated stance was that what other people dismissed as Pakistani complacency I forgave as the political and military apparatus as bending over backwards to avoid anything that could resemble a civil war.

I suggest, and continue to do so, that all foreign agitation that Pakistan is "not doing enough", or insane suggestions that the nuclear armed state is somehow in danger of falling is nothing short of a black mail (the economic and political fallout of such rehtoric is clear for all to see) to establish a military paradigm that has at it's root the tactical interest of other military outfits, and represents a dangerous flirtation with a broader scale insurgency if in fact the military inflicts significant civilian casualties.

Do note that the Pakistani brass have stated a policy that soldiers are to put their own lives in harms way before civilians. This, even if it be mere words, has impressed as no Western army would ever adopt such a policy, especially if the civilians in question are non-Western. Time will tell if Pakistan would be criticized for even this sort of restraint.

78

Re: Up to 700 militants killed in Swat offensive

I believe you should go back and read history. Superior weapons can easily be defeated by a motivated and dedicated insurgency. Ownership of an F-16 does not dictate the winner of a war or whether the insurgent poses any strategic threat to the country. When Taliban control more then 50% of NWFP and continue to gain more areas, how do you foresee this as a war of attrition? This is a war of occupation by taliban now.

And if your thinking was true, there would be no question that only America could have won in Vietnam or is winning in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or that Russia won in Afghanistan.

79

On home turf? Unless the insurgents manage a revolution of sorts, I know of no case where there was a decisive military defeat of a conventional army...

[quote]

Ownership of an F-16 does not dictate the winner of a war or whether the insurgent poses any strategic threat to the country. When Taliban control more then 50% of NWFP and continue to gain more areas, how do you foresee this as a war of attrition? This is a war of occupation by taliban now.

[/quote]

NWFP is a red hearring as that was never centrally controlled anyway...tribals, feudals, Taliban...did anybody ever care? The growth was problematic only in that the 5000 or so insurgents were peppered throughout the land, and it was difficult to guage their popular support. Would a retalitation percipitate into civil war? The trepediation of the Pak. establishment was along those lines, NOT fear of taking out 5000 or so lightly armed militants.

[quote]

And if your thinking was true, there would be no question that only America could have won in Vietnam or is winning in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or that Russia won in Afghanistan.
[/quote]

Okay, in the Vietnam case the Americans played the role of the Taliban...the NVA were the native, and arguably the "legitimate" power based of the country. Despite our mythology surrounding the Mujahideen, they ultimately lost almost every battle they had with the Russian war machine...leading to a war of attrition that finally saw the Russians giving up and abandoning their regime. Had the Afghans been on Russian soil, are you suggesting that Russia would have been a part of Afghanistan today?

I doubt it.

In either case, we have a clear exmaple of a war of attrition driving out a conventional army. Neither armies were on home soil.

The threat of the "Taliban" is overblown.

80

Oh meray bhai, this is home turf for taliban, this is foreign land, especially the tribal areas, for the army, majority of them aren't even from nwfp.

[quote]

NWFP is a red hearring as that was never centrally controlled anyway...tribals, feudals, Taliban...did anybody ever care? The growth was problematic only in that the 5000 or so insurgents were peppered throughout the land, and it was difficult to guage their popular support. Would a retalitation percipitate into civil war? The trepediation of the Pak. establishment was along those lines, NOT fear of taking out 5000 or so lightly armed militants.
[/quote]

You are proving my point and completely negating yours that this is a red herring and not an existential threat to the viability of pakistan as a functioning state. The taliban and other jihadi groups are so powerful, that pakistani law cannot be applied to them and they can take over govnt buildings, conduct their own courts, carry out summary executions, attack army and deny the army entry into their land all under the cover they are no longer recognize pakistani authority. And even then, the paksitani army has been helpless because it did not want to start a civil war. That's right, attacking 10,000 or so taliban will cause a civil war and you think the threat is being overblown?

[quote]
Okay, in the Vietnam case the Americans played the role of the Taliban...the NVA were the native, and arguably the "legitimate" power based of the country. Despite our mythology surrounding the Mujahideen, they ultimately lost almost every battle they had with the Russian war machine...leading to a war of attrition that finally saw the Russians giving up and abandoning their regime. Had the Afghans been on Russian soil, are you suggesting that Russia would have been a part of Afghanistan today?

I doubt it.

In either case, we have a clear exmaple of a war of attrition driving out a conventional army. Neither armies were on home soil.

The threat of the "Taliban" is overblown.
[/QUOTE]

No, in this case, taliban are akin to the vietcong. They operate in the country side and know the land and terrain better then the army, plus have local support either through jihadi sympathy or forced support. Or even better, they are akin to the mujahideen and taliban in afghanistan. You fail to understand that in the end of the day, the only thing that makes pashtun land into pakistan land, is a badly drawn border by some English guy called Durand.