Pakistani militant leader is killed (Political)

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
Here we have one of the innocents who were held, without trial or legal representation, in Guantanamo Bay. Freed, the poor boy immediately returned to fighting for the Taliban. Thus despite the fact that it is required that those freed from Guantanamo Bay sign a pledge to abandon terrorism. Coment?

Pakistani militant leader is killed

QUETTA, Pakistan - A Taliban veteran of Guantanamo Bay who became one of Pakistan's most-wanted rebel leaders killed himself with a hand grenade Tuesday after he was cornered by security forces, officials said.

The death of Abdullah Mehsud, a stout, round-faced man in his early 30s who lost a leg years ago fighting for the Taliban, was a boost for Pakistani authorities under pressure from the U.S. to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaida militants fighting on both sides of the Afghan border.

Mehsud was wanted in "many terrorist cases," Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said. "He was a supporter of the al-Qaida terror network and an active Taliban commander in Pakistan."

A Pakistani intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to reporters, said Mehsud was intercepted on his way back from Afghanistan's Helmand province, where he had fought with the Taliban for the past year or more.

Police surrounded Mehsud and three other men before dawn in the home of an Islamist politician in Zhob, a town 160 miles from the southwestern city of Quetta, officials said. Cheema said security forces had trailed Mehsud for three days before moving in.

"Thanks be to God that only he was blown up and our men were safe," Zhob police chief Atta Mohammed said.

Mehsud was incarcerated in the jail for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he was captured by U.S.-allied Afghan forces in northern Afghanistan in December 2001. It remains unclear why he was released from Guantanamo in March 2004.

He quickly took up arms again, leading local and foreign militants in Pakistan's South Waziristan, a mountainous stronghold of militants in the tribal belt considered a possible hideout for al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

Mehsud was wanted for the kidnapping that year of two Chinese engineers, one of whom died in a rescue raid by Pakistani commandos. But he escaped a manhunt by the Pakistani army.

Zahid Hussain, an author and expert on Pakistan's militant groups, said Mehsud's defiance made him a hero among fellow militants — even after he adopted a lower profile.

"Even if he wasn't seen, he was an inspiration," Hussain said. "In that way, (his death is) a big gain for the Pakistani forces."

The intelligence official said there was no evidence Mehsud organized violence that has flared across Pakistan since a deadly military raid on a radical mosque in Islamabad this month. More than 300 people have died, most of them security forces.

Much of the trouble has been in North Waziristan, a tribal region where a 10-month-old peace deal between the government and militants has broken down.

On Monday, the army reported at least 20 militants and two soldiers were killed in fighting. Militants mounted rocket attacks Tuesday but no casualties were reported.

Washington has described the pact as a failure that gave breathing room to al-Qaida to regroup — and perhaps plot another big attack on the United States.

Pakistan still hopes to resurrect the peace deal, under which tribal elders pledged to evict foreign fighters and stop cross-border raids.

Nevertheless, the army's redeployment in the region, backed by helicopters and artillery, has elicited a fierce response.

On Monday, militants distributed pamphlets in Miran Shah warning and taunting troops that they faced more attacks by suicide bombers who "love death more than you love your salary of four, five thousand rupees, your photos of naked Indian actresses, your wine and kebabs."

In other violence, the beheaded bodies of two soldiers abducted the night before were found Tuesday morning in the Bajur tribal area, which lies north of Waziristan.

A note found in the hand of one of the slain men said that spies for President Bush or Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf would meet the same fate, said Sardar Yousaf, a local government official.
 
R. Richard said:
Here we have one of the innocents who were held, without trial or legal representation, in Guantanamo Bay. Freed, the poor boy immediately returned to fighting for the Taliban. Thus despite the fact that it is required that those freed from Guantanamo Bay sign a pledge to abandon terrorism. Coment?
I'm shocked . . . just shocked I tell you. What is the world coming to when we can't trust terrorists to keep their word?
 
S-Des said:
I'm shocked . . . just shocked I tell you. What is the world coming to when we can't trust terrorists to keep their word?

Actually, it is only the live terrorists that we are having this problem with. The dead terrorists are not really causing any trouble at all.
 
R. Richard said:
Actually, it is only the live terrorists that we are having this problem with. The dead terrorists are not really causing any trouble at all.

~~~

Chuckles...someone tell the anti war left who keep denying there are any Muslim terrorists at all.

Amicus...
 
amicus said:


~~~

Chuckles...someone tell the anti war left who keep denying there are any Muslim terrorists at all.

Amicus...

You don't need to tell the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, who have to deal with roadside bombs and also executions of civilian aid workers due to the terrorists.
 
&uot
R. Richard said:
Here we have one of the innocents who were held, without trial or legal representation, in Guantanamo Bay. Freed, the poor boy immediately returned to fighting for the Taliban.
Well, you've convinced me Richard. All those folk in Guantanamo should just be put to death. I mean why waste the money and time locking them up? Interrogate with torture anyone captured, and then funnel them into some kind of gas chamber. Get what information we can out of them and then erase the from the Earth.

You're right. Trials are for wimps. No one accused of terrorism deserves a trial. Where there's smoke there's fire, right? If they're suspected they must be guilty, and so we can and should send anyone we suspect straight to the gas chamber.

What do you think? It would be cheaper and save both lives and time.
 
amicus said:


~~~

Chuckles...someone tell the anti war left who keep denying there are any Muslim terrorists at all.

Amicus...


Where are these people you keep referring to? The ones that you attribute all these statements to?

Really, Ami... Aren't there enough idiotic things that are really, actually said on both sides? There's no need to invent stuff...
 
R. Richard said:
Here we have one of the innocents who were held, without trial or legal representation, in Guantanamo Bay. Freed, the poor boy immediately returned to fighting for the Taliban. Thus despite the fact that it is required that those freed from Guantanamo Bay sign a pledge to abandon terrorism. Coment?

He signed a pledge? Gracious.

Would that be like the loyalty oath that Bush required everyone to sign if they wanted to be in the audience to hear him speak during campaign stops?
 
Here we have one of the innocents who were held, without trial or legal representation, in Guantanamo Bay. Freed, the poor boy immediately returned to fighting for the Taliban. Thus despite the fact that it is required that those freed from Guantanamo Bay sign a pledge to abandon terrorism. Coment?

your attention is misplaced. three things are obvious: the US way of determining who is or is not a threat, who's a busboy and who's a leader is seriously flawed.

US reliance on a pledge is naive, no?

i have no problems with *prisoners of war* and they are held for the duration, though that's a bit unclear (1 year, 10years, 20 years?).

the whole 'unlawful combatant' idea and its furbishings is ill conceived and, *as you show*, ineffective.
 
amicus said:


~~~

Chuckles...someone tell the anti war left who keep denying there are any Muslim terrorists at all.

Amicus...
Name one anti war left who keep denying there are any Muslim terrorists at all.
 
Liar said:
Name one anti war left who keep denying there are any Muslim terrorists at all.

~~~

The BBC for one of many who even refuse to use the name, 'terrorist', or 'war on terror', in their broadcasts.

And the left here, seems to insist on 'civil war', and insurgents, rather than Muslim or Islamic terrorists.

amicus...
 
amicus is using a standard defintion of terrorist: someone using very nasty, cruel methods for a cause the speaker does not approve of.
 
3113 said:
&uot
Well, you've convinced me Richard. All those folk in Guantanamo should just be put to death. I mean why waste the money and time locking them up? Interrogate with torture anyone captured, and then funnel them into some kind of gas chamber. Get what information we can out of them and then erase the from the Earth.

You're right. Trials are for wimps. No one accused of terrorism deserves a trial. Where there's smoke there's fire, right? If they're suspected they must be guilty, and so we can and should send anyone we suspect straight to the gas chamber.

What do you think? It would be cheaper and save both lives and time.

It is not a matter of what I think. Under the international rules of war, people caught in a combat zone who are bearing weapons of war and have no insignia of a belligerant engaged in the war fall under the heading of banditry. A bandit has no rights under the rules of war and/or the Geneva Convention. None. It is not a matter of terrorism, it is a matter of the rules of war that have been in place for literally thousands of years.

The normal procedure for dealing with bandits in a drumhead courts martial. A drumhead courts martial is a trial. It works like this. "You were found in a war zone, carying a weapon(s) of war. You were wearing no visible uniform or insignia. How do you plead?" [The alleged weapon(s) are presented by the captors as Exhibit A. Exhibit B is a visible uniform or insignia. If Exhibit A is present and Exhibit B is not, the sentence is death. The sentence is normally carried out by a bullet in the back of the head. If it is suspected that the bandit may have military intelligence worth the time and effort, said military intelligence is attempted to be tortured out of him on the spot. [You will not find a great deal of written material on drumhead courts martial, they are conducted under the ancient doctrine of 'custom with the force of law.']

[Gas chamber??? You have got to be kidding.]

By confining 'bandits' at Guantanamo Bay, the US is going well beyond what law and custom require for proper treatment of enemy combatants. It is not a matter of trials are for wimps, it is a matter that the foreign combatants at Guantanamo Bay have no right to a trial.
 
of course the US never called the detainees 'bandits,' but don't let that stop your analysis.
 
Pure said:
Here we have one of the innocents who were held, without trial or legal representation, in Guantanamo Bay. Freed, the poor boy immediately returned to fighting for the Taliban. Thus despite the fact that it is required that those freed from Guantanamo Bay sign a pledge to abandon terrorism. Coment?

your attention is misplaced. three things are obvious: the US way of determining who is or is not a threat, who's a busboy and who's a leader is seriously flawed.
I disagree. The prcedure for determining an enemy combatant is simple and crystal clear.

Pure said:
[US reliance on a pledge is naive, no?
Insane yes. Naive hardly covers the situation.

Pure said:
[i have no problems with *prisoners of war* and they are held for the duration, though that's a bit unclear (1 year, 10years, 20 years?).
The detainees at GITMO are not POWs, nor do they meet the standard of the Geneva Convention for POW status.

Pure said:
[the whole 'unlawful combatant' idea and its furbishings is ill conceived and, *as you show*, ineffective.
Only the way the US is handling the situation is ineffective. Normal, legal handling would work and work well, as has been proven in over a thousand years of warfare.
 
Pure said:
amicus is using a standard defintion of terrorist: someone using very nasty, cruel methods for a cause the speaker does not approve of.

I am not sure exactly what a 'terrorist is. I am sure of what a 'bandit' is, under the rules of war. I am also sure of the standard methods for dealing with bandits in a military situation.
 
amicus said:


~~~

The BBC for one of many who even refuse to use the name, 'terrorist', or 'war on terror', in their broadcasts.

And the left here, seems to insist on 'civil war', and insurgents, rather than Muslim or Islamic terrorists.

amicus...

Actually, from what I read in the 'Net, it would appear that both Sunnis and Shias are beginning to turn against the 'terrorists.' It must be remembered that the 'terrorists' are killing a lot more Iraqis than Coalition Army members.
 
R. Richard said:
Actually, from what I read in the 'Net, it would appear that both Sunnis and Shias are beginning to turn against the 'terrorists.' It must be remembered that the 'terrorists' are killing a lot more Iraqis than Coalition Army members.
Not to mention that many (if not most) of the terrorists are not Iraqi's themselves. They are foreigners coming to commit atrocities in the name of religion & politics. Unfortunately, since so many kill themselves in the process, it's hard to ascertain exactly what they're trying to accomplish, orther than killing a bunch of random people. I've heard analysis about why there is more cooperation from Iraquis at the moment, but I think it is mostly speculation. Perhaps they are tiring of the killing, perhaps because they see more of a military presence, they feel more comfortable revealing what they know. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has so badly damaged the public's trust that it takes quite a bit to make any theories believed.
 
R. Richard said:
[Gas chamber??? You have got to be kidding.]
Nope. Honestly, I'm not. I'm tired of all this. Most especially, I'm tired of throwing good money after bad. Either we quit the war and let the middle east folk fight among themselves (if there's sectarian violence then the terrorist have better things to do than bomb us), and save our money....Or we reinstate the draft, send a million troops, get everyone behind the war because everyone has someone they care about there--and put in a puppet government with teeth. This includes ignoring international law (why not?) and slaughtering anyone we suspect after interrogating them for anything they know. Why bother letting the go back to do something like this?

I mean, really, didn't we learn anything from Communist Russia about how to do these things? We've got to make people afraid of us, really afraid. Let's disappear people we suspect in the middle of the night--just make them disappear. Let's flood the airwaves with propaganda, let's cut off any communication that has anything to do with fact that might make us look bad.

If we're going to do this, let's do it right--or not at all. Like I said, you've convinced me. I believe that you're right and we should stop giving any captured enemies rights of any kind...including international rights. Now which of the candidates for president are likely to go for this, because Bush is a namby-pamby asshole. He didn't have the courage to instate a draft, he didn't have the courage to go all the way with torture and execution. All I see are simpering, weak, stupid half-way measures that have gotten us nowhere, and let things like this happen.

It's all or nothing. That's my new take on this whole fiasco.
 
3113 said:
Nope. Honestly, I'm not. I'm tired of all this. Most especially, I'm tired of throwing good money after bad. Either we quit the war and let the middle east folk fight among themselves (if there's sectarian violence then the terrorist have better things to do than bomb us), and save our money....Or we reinstate the draft, send a million troops, get everyone behind the war because everyone has someone they care about there--and put in a puppet government with teeth. This includes ignoring international law (why not?) and slaughtering anyone we suspect after interrogating them for anything they know. Why bother letting the go back to do something like this?
I think that everyone is tired of the war, especially those who have to serve in Iraq. We have had troops who slaughtered innocent Iraqis, after our troops were shot at from inside 'civilian' houses; the troops are now being tried in a court of law. If what I am reading in the news is true, we are finally seeing Iraqis fed up with being killed by Islamists who will kill anyone, anything to try to impose their fundamentalist religion on the Iraqis. If and when the Iraqis begin to turn on the Islamists, then the 'insurgency' will begin to wind down.

3113 said:
I mean, really, didn't we learn anything from Communist Russia about how to do these things? We've got to make people afraid of us, really afraid. Let's disappear people we suspect in the middle of the night--just make them disappear. Let's flood the airwaves with propaganda, let's cut off any communication that has anything to do with fact that might make us look bad.
Just where would we get the propaganda? The same ass holes who forced me to study German to get a math degree seemingly neglected to turn out Arabic speakers. If the US could get at the Islamist leaders, making them disappear would indeed work very well. However, as of now, it is hard to find the Islamist leaders.

In Lebanon, Islamists killed a Russian diplomat. The KGB sent in a few hard boys and they castrated and blinded the brother of one of the big Islamist leaders. The Islamists then left the Russians completely alone. Violence does work, if you know how and where to apply it and have the guts to do so. Killing innocent civilians does not work.
 
Back
Top