Pakistan surrenders

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-06-pakistan-militants_x.htm

Pakistan agrees to 'amnesty' for al Qaeda, Taliban
Posted 9/6/2006 5:09 AM ET

MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban militants on Tuesday signed a peace agreement aimed at ending five years of violent unrest in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the semiautonomous North Waziristan region and stop crossing into nearby eastern Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces, who are hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban forces there.

Pakistani troops are to stop their hugely unpopular military campaign in the restive Pakistani region, in which more than 350 soldiers have died, along with hundreds of militants and scores of civilians.

Senior army officers and militants hugged and congratulated one other after signing the agreement at a school in Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan, where thousands of Pakistani troops were deployed following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

But the agreement, which one official said offers an "implicit amnesty" to foreign and local militants, highlights the Pakistani military's inability to crush a violent pro-Taliban insurgency on its own soil.

Pakistani forces had no alternative but to reconcile with the militants, whose knowledge of the terrain and determination to protect their region would have forced the conflict to continue, said Pakistani political analyst Rusul Basksh Rais.

"The military was not in a position to defeat the tribes," Rais said. "But Pakistan can't afford to — and I believe won't — let this area become a sanctuary for the terrorists, especially with the coalition forces on the other side of the border."

Under the pact — signed by a militant leader, Azad Khan, and a government representative, Fakhr-e-Alam — no militant in North Waziristan will shelter foreign militants.

Militants also will not target Pakistani government and security officials or pro-government tribal elders or journalists, North Waziristan lawmaker Maulana Nek Zaman said.

For almost five years, Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary forces have battled local tribesmen, many believed to be allied with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, in the fiercely independent mountain region where central government powers do not reach. Bin Laden is also believed to be hiding along the porous Pakistani-Afghan frontier.

"This is a good day for everyone," Zaman, the lawmaker, told a gathering of about 600 tribesmen, members of a council of tribal elders and senior army and government officers.

The agreement has been in the making since May, when militants first declared a temporary cease-fire in clashes, and military leaders began negotiating with militants while tribal elders served as mediators.

It came a day after Pakistan began recalling troops from security posts back to barracks in the region to meet a demand of the militants. Pakistan has also released 132 detained insurgents over recent months in a goodwill gesture aimed at winning back the confidence of tribespeople angered by military incursions into the region.

Shah Zaman Khan, spokesman for the North West Frontier Province's governor, said foreign militants who had taken part in attacks can remain in North Waziristan only if they abide by Tuesday's peace agreement in the region.

Pakistani security officials have said that Arab, Afghan and Central Asian militants allegedly linked with al-Qaeda — as well as area tribesmen suspected of ties with Afghanistan's radical Taliban militia — operate in North Waziristan.

"If the foreigners want to live in North Waziristan, they will have to obey the Pakistani laws and stay away from militancy," he said.

A 10-member committee of tribal elders and Islamic clerics has been set up to ensure that the agreement is implemented, the statement said.

Pakistan's deployment of forces into North Waziristan after the Sept. 11 attacks was the first time soldiers had operated in the region since the Muslim country's 1947 creation.


One more victory for the terrorists. I guess the US should now surrender as well.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-06-pakistan-militants_x.htm

Pakistan agrees to 'amnesty' for al Qaeda, Taliban
Posted 9/6/2006 5:09 AM ET

MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban militants on Tuesday signed a peace agreement aimed at ending five years of violent unrest in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the semiautonomous North Waziristan region and stop crossing into nearby eastern Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces, who are hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban forces there.

Pakistani troops are to stop their hugely unpopular military campaign in the restive Pakistani region, in which more than 350 soldiers have died, along with hundreds of militants and scores of civilians.

Senior army officers and militants hugged and congratulated one other after signing the agreement at a school in Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan, where thousands of Pakistani troops were deployed following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

But the agreement, which one official said offers an "implicit amnesty" to foreign and local militants, highlights the Pakistani military's inability to crush a violent pro-Taliban insurgency on its own soil.

Pakistani forces had no alternative but to reconcile with the militants, whose knowledge of the terrain and determination to protect their region would have forced the conflict to continue, said Pakistani political analyst Rusul Basksh Rais.

"The military was not in a position to defeat the tribes," Rais said. "But Pakistan can't afford to — and I believe won't — let this area become a sanctuary for the terrorists, especially with the coalition forces on the other side of the border."

Under the pact — signed by a militant leader, Azad Khan, and a government representative, Fakhr-e-Alam — no militant in North Waziristan will shelter foreign militants.

Militants also will not target Pakistani government and security officials or pro-government tribal elders or journalists, North Waziristan lawmaker Maulana Nek Zaman said.

For almost five years, Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary forces have battled local tribesmen, many believed to be allied with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, in the fiercely independent mountain region where central government powers do not reach. Bin Laden is also believed to be hiding along the porous Pakistani-Afghan frontier.

"This is a good day for everyone," Zaman, the lawmaker, told a gathering of about 600 tribesmen, members of a council of tribal elders and senior army and government officers.

The agreement has been in the making since May, when militants first declared a temporary cease-fire in clashes, and military leaders began negotiating with militants while tribal elders served as mediators.

It came a day after Pakistan began recalling troops from security posts back to barracks in the region to meet a demand of the militants. Pakistan has also released 132 detained insurgents over recent months in a goodwill gesture aimed at winning back the confidence of tribespeople angered by military incursions into the region.

Shah Zaman Khan, spokesman for the North West Frontier Province's governor, said foreign militants who had taken part in attacks can remain in North Waziristan only if they abide by Tuesday's peace agreement in the region.

Pakistani security officials have said that Arab, Afghan and Central Asian militants allegedly linked with al-Qaeda — as well as area tribesmen suspected of ties with Afghanistan's radical Taliban militia — operate in North Waziristan.

"If the foreigners want to live in North Waziristan, they will have to obey the Pakistani laws and stay away from militancy," he said.

A 10-member committee of tribal elders and Islamic clerics has been set up to ensure that the agreement is implemented, the statement said.

Pakistan's deployment of forces into North Waziristan after the Sept. 11 attacks was the first time soldiers had operated in the region since the Muslim country's 1947 creation.


One more victory for the terrorists. I guess the US should now surrender as well.
Surrendered ? But bin laden is still there and we haven't even attacked them yet. Why aren't the liberals screaming for us to attack Pakistan? I mean this is THE guy behind 9/11 and Pelosi or Kerry haven't suggested a declaration of war. Can we really trust the Dems to keep us safe if they are willing to let THE GUY to walk around free as a bird ?
 

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
Surrendered ? But bin laden is still there and we haven't even attacked them yet. Why aren't the liberals screaming for us to attack Pakistan? I mean this is THE guy behind 9/11 and Pelosi or Kerry haven't suggested a declaration of war. Can we really trust the Dems to keep us safe if they are willing to let THE GUY to walk around free as a bird ?
You really have to ask that question? Pakistan is a nuclear power. Liberals don't have the balls to attack a nuclear power.
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
AHHHHHHHHH THAT"S how they keep us safer. They don't irritate anyone. But that pesky bin laden--how are they gonna get him now?
Tis the "Out of site, out of mind" thing. For a liberal that means he means no harm because "he's just a nice guy with a cause for WORLD PEACE in another Country somewhere".:bat:
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Our "...Good friend and ally in the war on terror...", Pakistan, has knifed us in the back. They have essentially given bin Laden and the renegades making armed forays into Afghanistan a "Get out of Jail and go Anywhere for Free" card. They can slip across the border into Afghanistan, kill our troops and slip back across the border beyond our reach.

Gee, thanks President Bush!
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Our "...Good friend and ally in the war on terror...", Pakistan, has knifed us in the back. They have essentially given bin Laden and the renegades making armed forays into Afghanistan a "Get out of Jail and go Anywhere for Free" card. They can slip across the border into Afghanistan, kill our troops and slip back across the border beyond our reach.

Gee, thanks President Bush!
And Bush made this decision how?
 

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
Our "...Good friend and ally in the war on terror...", Pakistan, has knifed us in the back. They have essentially given bin Laden and the renegades making armed forays into Afghanistan a "Get out of Jail and go Anywhere for Free" card. They can slip across the border into Afghanistan, kill our troops and slip back across the border beyond our reach.

Gee, thanks President Bush!
How in the hell was President Bush involved in Pakistans decision. Do you have to work at being a dumbass or does it come natural?
 
OP
CSM

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Our "...Good friend and ally in the war on terror...", Pakistan, has knifed us in the back. They have essentially given bin Laden and the renegades making armed forays into Afghanistan a "Get out of Jail and go Anywhere for Free" card. They can slip across the border into Afghanistan, kill our troops and slip back across the border beyond our reach.

Gee, thanks President Bush!
While I agree with our assessment of the terrorist safe haven I fail to see what the heck Bush had to do with that particular decision. If you keep stretching like that you will hurt yourself!
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
While I agree with our assessment of the terrorist safe haven I fail to see what the heck Bush had to do with that particular decision. If you keep stretching like that you will hurt yourself!
I'm more intersted in the silence from the dems. They go bananas to point out that Bush has let bin laden off the hook but are NOWHERE TO BE FOUND when Pakistan makes that area of the country "off limits" ( and I'm not so sure that there still isn't a hunt going on. )
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
You really have to ask that question? Pakistan is a nuclear power. Liberals don't have the balls to attack a nuclear power.

Actually it's cons who don't have the cojones to attack a 'nukular' power. Iraq had no WMD, we invaded. Iran does not want to make that same mistake.
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
I'm more intersted in the silence from the dems. They go bananas to point out that Bush has let bin laden off the hook but are NOWHERE TO BE FOUND when Pakistan makes that area of the country "off limits" ( and I'm not so sure that there still isn't a hunt going on. )
Why dems? Bush is the WAR PRESIDENT remember. He is the 'deciderer'. He sould be the one responding to this.
 

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
Actually it's cons who don't have the cojones to attack a 'nukular' power. Iraq had no WMD, we invaded. Iran does not want to make that same mistake.
You think a nuclear weapon is going to stop us from attacking Iran?
 

GeeWhiz

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
166
Reaction score
25
Points
16
This thread is hilarious. Bushbots attacking the dems, whom have no control in any of the three branches of our government. Who is in charge right now? Gee who could that be?

The bravest thing Junior did was do a 360 degree turn on a bar stool while stinking drunk. He could have fell off. He was pretending to be fighting the Viet Congs at the time. He puttered his lips to make it sound like he was flying a plane.

Getting back to the present. So the terrorists are in Pakistan, but Junior wages a war in Iraq, a country that had zero to do with 911 or the terrorist. Sounds like his bar stool routine alright. Talk tough but play it safe Junior always says.

Don't you Bushbots ever get tired of playing mommy to little Junior? no wonder he never grows up, why should he with you clowns around.
 

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
163
Points
48
This thread is hilarious. Bushbots attacking the dems, whom have no control in any of the three branches of our government. Who is in charge right now? Gee who could that be?
Ha ha, yeah I was wondering that myself.

I'm guessing that Pakistan has been biding their time, waiting for Iraq to bleed us dry, overextend us, and make mideast wars unpopular in america before announcing "piss off, USA". Either that, or they are trying to derail an attack on Iran, by announcing that they are harboring Bin Laden and company--Pakistan has nukes and Iran doesn't; Pakistan publicly admits to harboring Al Quaeda and Iran doesn't.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Why dems? Bush is the WAR PRESIDENT remember. He is the 'deciderer'. He sould be the one responding to this.
Why Dems? Because they have bitched and moaned for years now that the US should not be in Iraq and chasing Bin Laden instead. SInce when has not being in "control" of the government stopped them from second guessing everything Bush has done ? Now Pakistan has made a safe little hidey hole for Bin Laden and you don't hear a peep out of the Dems. If they really believed what they have been saying, they should be srceaming bloody murder but again we discover that they don't mean what they say.
 
OP
CSM

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
This thread is hilarious. Bushbots attacking the dems, whom have no control in any of the three branches of our government. Who is in charge right now? Gee who could that be?

The bravest thing Junior did was do a 360 degree turn on a bar stool while stinking drunk. He could have fell off. He was pretending to be fighting the Viet Congs at the time. He puttered his lips to make it sound like he was flying a plane.

Getting back to the present. So the terrorists are in Pakistan, but Junior wages a war in Iraq, a country that had zero to do with 911 or the terrorist. Sounds like his bar stool routine alright. Talk tough but play it safe Junior always says.

Don't you Bushbots ever get tired of playing mommy to little Junior? no wonder he never grows up, why should he with you clowns around.

Pathetic...the whining about not having control is also not true.

Your second paragraph is pure bullshit and probably more aptly applies to yourself. My accusation is about as credible as yours, so prove me wrong!

Paragraph three: I have yet to see the Dems display ANY form of bravery when it comes to foreign policy...all we here is cut and run, surrender to the terrorists, the UN will protect us, and ask the French for help. Of course, when finally pressed for details and the grand plan we get "But we have no control!" At least the current administration is trying to do something besides appease the enemies of this country.

Paragraph 4; Its not Bush who needs to grow up...folks like you need to get off your ass, develop some spine (and some self discipline) and start taking responsibility for yourselves instead of waiting for someone else to come and take care of you and take the blame for all your problems.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
.....The bravest thing Junior did was do a 360 degree turn on a bar stool while stinking drunk. He could have fell off. He was pretending to be fighting the Viet Congs at the time. He puttered his lips to make it sound like he was flying a plane.......
Ahh- thoughful words from an open minded, independent thinking, kind, intellectual DEMOCRAT.:clap1:
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Dead tree editorial this morning:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ep08,0,6755745.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed

The founding of Terroristan

Published September 8, 2006

Ever heard of Terroristan? You may. No, it's not actually labeled that way on the map. But essentially, that seems to be what Pakistan created recently when it signed a "peace agreement" with tribal elders and pro-Taliban militants in an area of the border known as North Waziristan.

The deal allows militants--mostly Taliban loyalists--to operate freely in the area. In return, the government received a pledge from the militants not to attack Pakistani troops or cross the border into Afghanistan and attack Afghan or allied forces. And who's policing this deal? Apparently many of the same tribal elders who have let the militants flourish in those areas in the first place.

Under terms of the deal, the government won't even try to evict "foreign fighters," some of whom are likely allied with Al Qaeda. They're allowed to stay if they abide by the agreement and respect the law. One prominent exception: Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Pakistan ambassador to the U.S. issued a statement to clarify that the deal did not mean that bin Laden had been granted "amnesty."

Is this a peace treaty? It sure sounds like a capitulation.

It seems entirely likely that this area will become a sanctuary for terrorists, a protected place for them to regroup and rearm, a miniature version of what Afghanistan had become before the U.S. routed the Taliban starting in 2001.

So why did Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, a crucial U.S. ally in the war against terror, agree to these questionable terms? Well, for starters, he has survived several assassination attempts and faces an election next year. The Pakistan army has absorbed heavy losses in fighting militants in that region and has proven to be ineffective. The military effort wasn't helping Musharraf's political standing ... or chances for survival.

The peace deal, the thinking goes, relieves some of the pressure on Musharraf, at least in the short term. It also bows to unfortunate reality: That area of the border already is a haven for militants, who have imposed Taliban Lite in the region--forcing men to grow beards and stopping people from listening to music or watching TV.

But for the government to simply call a truce, sign a peace deal and then trust the terrorists to stop being terrorists, to stay in their safe haven and not threaten the world, is dangerous, if not delusional.

The Taliban is surging again in Afghanistan. The aim: Topple the democratically elected government of Hamid Karzai and reinstate Dark Ages rule. The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said recently that he set a six-month deadline to blunt the potent Taliban insurgency to prove to skeptical Afghans that the government, backed by NATO, can and will prevail. Perhaps this deal will send a significant number of Taliban fighters into retirement. But that's the longest of long shots.

In past days, Musharraf has visited Karzai and vowed to aid Afghanistan in fighting the Taliban. Unfortunately, this bargain raises questions about how much he can, or will, deliver. It is a setback in the war on terror.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top