Taliban beheads 13 Pakistani soldiers

[hafeezrocks]

Taliban beheads 13 Pakistani soldiers Taliban fighters have killed 14 Pakistani soldiers in a key militant sanctuary along the Afghan border, beheading all but one of them and hanging two of the heads from wooden poles in the centre of town, officials say.

The killings in Miran Shah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal area, highlight the dilemma facing the military in dealing with an area used by both the country's fiercest enemy, the Pakistani Taliban, and Afghan and Pakistani militants believed to be close to the government who are battling US-led forces in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The US has repeatedly demanded that Pakistan launch an offensive in North Waziristan, especially against the so-called Haqqani network. Pakistan has promised to do so in the future, but claims its forces are stretched too thin right now fighting the Pakistani Taliban in other parts of the tribal region. m

[hafeezrocks]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...508-1y9k9.html

[King Cobra]

The goverment should launch a full scale military operation against these beasts . Better late than never .

[freelance_cricketer]

That is so sad, can't expect any good thing from these Talibanis.

[smoothcriminal]

I think the one future hypothetical has polarized Pakistani opinion. Will these people wage these methods ONCE/if the United States limits its presence in Afghanistan? I know these opinions are gross over-simplifications but i'm trying to narrow it down. Pardon the obvious points.

1. On one side you have PPP asserting that the threat will still be there and needs to be combatted against, regardless of U.S. involvement or not. They assert the notion that the elements are anti-State actors who want to abolish the writ of the government ans assert their own law. They unite all the anti-State actors into one ultra-religious entity to make their claim simpler to understand.


2. PTI firmly believes that this is all "reactionary." Stop the relationship with the U.S.( and 47 NATO countries for that matter), and everyone will automatically give up arms. There is no anti-State agenda asserted by ANY of these organizations.


3. The Army is trying to cherry pick from the groups. With some groups it does believe the interests are best served if they are directly combatted against(TTP), however others(Haqqani network) would serve the ends. They see TTP-esque organizations as a threat to their writ but with the Haqqanis it is an easier problem to solve for them.


Important points to supplement these arguments:

1. SWAT peace deal in 2009 broke down due to non-conformity by the Tehreek-e-Taliban( if i'm not mistaken) group due to their expansionist doctrine-(PPP + the Army united on this)

2. These are anti-State funded actors that are funded by CIA/MOSSAD/RAW and therefore MUST be eliminated(Zaid Hamid/elements of army doctrine).

3. These are all people who have died to to U.S. actions with drone attacks and our active NATO participation. Pre- 9/11, SUBSTANTIALLY less suicide bombs happened and Taliban lived in peace without disturbing us. No expansionist doctrine was asserted then.




Which one do you all think holds the most merit? For me, the biggest frame of reference is the SWAT deal in 2009. I also would not be comfortable with any anti-State, quasi-State actors asserting their writ in any part of the State. I do believe the anti-State doctrine overflows the reactionary warfare doctrine. The biggest issue is, WHAT EXACTLY will these people( if you can even identify) do once America is gone? Go home? Integrate into society? Go to Kashmir? Stay in the North-West regions and assert SWAT-esque theocratic tribal regimes? Which one are we most content with?


Sorry I dragged on, but my point is that there is absolutely NO consensus amongst Pakistanis amongst these points. If there is a consensus, the closest I can find is the PTI doctrine( at least amongst the urban youth and middle class). Is it a gross over-simplification though? PTI members help me out.

[asifp]

what are these guys fighting for now?

Did Hillary Clinton read this article before making her statement?

[deviously~fading~away]

In retaliation the army has launched an operation in N.Waziristan town where this incident took place. So far 22 taliban killed.

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by deviously~fading~away In retaliation the army has launched an operation in N.Waziristan town where this incident took place. So far 22 taliban killed.

Are the 22 so claimed 'Dead Taliban' be of any comfort for those who lost the 13 soldiers from their lives forever.

This quest of finding the 'good' Taliban simply exposes uniformed men who still arent sure who the enemy is!! So far neither the political or military heirarchy have any damn idea as to what needs to be done!!

[Markhor]

Scumbags, how can you negotiate with these people ? Rather than the usual ceasefire and allowing them to regroup that has gone on for the last few years, these barbarians should be shot on sight to cleanse this country from this cancer.

[BD-fan]

Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun

[Bewal Express]

I have sat with Pakistanis and barely without exception they always tell me i am wrong and the Taliban are misunderstood. Are they still misunderstood when they kill the soldiers?

[Sjaloha]

Originally Posted by kabir000 I have sat with Pakistanis and barely without exception they always tell me i am wrong and the Taliban are misunderstood. Are they still misunderstood when they kill the soldiers?

Lot of people are in denial and that is the biggest problem. People do not see the killings of soldiers and other people as a sign of barbarism. They see this as a mere reaction to US campaign in Afghanistan. Explain that.