Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Islamic Fighters Beat Back Pak Army

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The Epic Defense of Loe Sam. 400 against 40. WAR NEWS: New Trend research http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1238.htm Pakistani Forces Beaten Back by Islamic Fighters,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The Epic Defense of Loe Sam. 400 against 40.
      WAR NEWS: New Trend research
      http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1238.htm

      Pakistani Forces Beaten Back by Islamic Fighters, Declare Victory
      after Relentless use of Air force: Hundreds Killed in Bombing of
      Bajaur, Swat, Adam Khel


      September 1, 2008: Pakistani armed forces declared victory against
      Islamic fighters and announced cease fire for the month of Ramadan
      starting September 2 in Pakistan. However Pakistani air force and
      heavy artillery continued to pound suspected Taliban positions in
      Bajaur, Swat and Darra Adam Khel.

      Conservative estimates are that more than 400,000 Muslims have been
      uprooted from their homes by the Pakistani army's sustained
      offensive. Hundreds have been killed, mostly civilians, including
      women and children, as well as scores of Taliban fighters.

      The real reason for the cease fire announcement, our researchers
      say, is not that the Pak military command suddenly became religious
      but because they were beaten back by elite forces of the Islamic
      movement known as the Pakistani Taliban.

      The anti-Taliban New York Times [p.A7, 9.1 issue] admits that
      Pakistan's best troops were beaten back. It says that Pakistani
      forces' commander says that the famous Frontier Corp tried to take
      the a Taliban position in Bajaur known as Loe Sam THREE TIMES but
      was "bloodied." In each attack, the Frontier Corp used overwhelming
      forces, 400 troops backed by artillery. The Paks admit that at least
      29 of their troops were killed. Thereafter the Frontier Corp hid in
      the fortress of Khar throughout the campaign while the air force
      bombed up and down Bajaur and heavy artillery kept thumping. [Loe
      Sam was captured by the Taliban earlier from the Paks.]

      The second failure was that the bombing missed Taliban leaders. The
      army announced that it had killed Taliban leader Faqir Muhammad but
      he exposed the story by giving a radio interview soon after.

      [As New Trend readers may remember, the Frontier Corp was armed and
      trained by the U.S. as a killer force against the Taliban.]

      ===

      Islamic Leader warns, Pakistan Army is Undermining National Unity:
      400,000 Made Homeless in Bajaur by Pak Bombing and Armored Columns
      http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1238.htm


      LAHORE, Aug 30: Jamaat-e-Islami ameer Qazi Hussain Ahmad has warned
      that no army could conquer its own citizens merely on the basis of
      American patronization, adding that military operation in tribal
      areas has seriously endangered country's security.

      He was addressing lawyers at Karachi Bar Association on Saturday,
      where president of Bar Mehmoodul Hasan and secretary Naeem Qureshi
      also spoke.

      Qazi said the war on terror was actually a war against Islam and
      Pakistan. He said the recent bombing in Bajaur has left over four
      hundred thousand citizens to evacuate their homes and take shelter
      in safe places and relief camps where they were languishing without
      food and essential needs.

      Holding Army responsible for this catastrophe, Qazi asked how could
      people love Army when it treated them like that. Qazi also condemned
      PPP Co-chairperson Asif Zardari for violating his agreements and
      promises like Gen Musharraf, and announced that JI would support
      Justice Retd Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi for presidential elections. He
      also paid tributes to lawyers community for its valiant struggle for
      the restoration of independent judiciary, and said JI would back
      them till achievement of their goal.

      Qazi criticized MQM for its terrorism committed against patriotic
      citizens, specially the May 12, 07 massacre, and expressed sorrow
      that in the absence of independent judiciary the victims' families
      were helpless since they could not move any courts for justice. He
      said Gen Musharraf also sold out a number of patriotic citizens to
      America but their families could not go to the court of Justice
      Abdul Hameed Dogar.

      Qazi visited the house of JI leader Hasan Athar who was martyred by
      MQM terrorists a couple of days back and condoled with his family.
      He also visited the house of Dr Aafia Siddiqi and sympathized with
      her mother and sister over her abduction and illegal extradition to
      Washington for dollars by Gen Musharraf. He said JI would continue
      to extend all possible help to Dr Aafia, her lawyer and brother for
      seeking her release.

      ===

      The September 3 Attack on Pakistan
      By GARY LEUPP
      http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp09062008.html


      In the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday, September 3, three U.S.
      helicopters carrying U.S. Special Operations Forces swooped down
      onto the Pakistani village of Musa Nika, in South Waziristan,
      killing fifteen to twenty people according to early reports. The
      U.S. press noted that this is the first known ground assault of U.S.
      troops in Pakistan. The provincial governor said twenty civilians
      including women and children were killed. The Foreign Minister
      denounced the attack, declaring that "no important terrorist or high-
      value target" was hit.

      The chief spokesman for the Pakistani Army registered its "strong
      objection." Gen. Athar Abbas declared that the attack could provoke
      a general rebellion of local tribes against his government, and
      threaten NATO supply lines from Karachi into Afghanistan. The
      Foreign Minister angrily declared that "no important terrorist or
      high-value target" was hit. The U.S. ambassador was summoned to
      receive Islamabad's official protest.

      This is heavy stuff. But this news got sidelined by the star
      coverage conferred by the mainstream media on Sarah Palin, whose
      ringing oration, dripping with ignorance and contempt for the world,
      brought down the house Wednesday night in that celebration of
      stupidity in St. Paul. That speech, authored by George W. Bush
      speechwriter Matthew Scully for whatever vice presidential candidate
      McCain selected, asserted among other things that Bush's "surge"
      had prevented al-Qaeda from taking over Iraq. The message is clear:
      all U.S. military action is designed to protect the U.S. from al-
      Qaeda terror.

      Why would the mainstream media, pronouncing "a star is born," want
      to highlight the little news story about remote Waziristan? Palin
      was splashed all over the front page of the Boston Globe on
      Thursday; the Pakistan story was on page A-3. On Friday a follow-up
      AP story made page A-26. It emphasized how the raid had "complicated
      life for presidential front-runner Asif Ali Zardari."

      But this largely ignored event holds potentially horrifying
      significance. "Top American officials" have told the New York Times
      that this raid "could be the opening salvo in a much broader
      campaign by Special Operations forces against the Taliban and Al
      Qaeda inside Pakistan, a secret plan that Defense Secretary Robert
      M. Gates has been advocating for months within President Bush's war
      council."

      The plan of course enjoys the support of John McCain, who never met
      a warlike action he didn't like, as well as his opponent in the
      presidential race. Barack Obama has been saying for over a year
      that is the U.S. has "actionable intelligence about high-value
      terrorist targets" in Pakistan and the chance to hit them, it should
      do so. The hell with Pakistani sovereignty! Why should such a detail
      matter after "we were attacked"?

      Why should the outraged opposition of the Pakistani government
      constitute a major news story? Pakistan's only a nuclear-armed
      Muslim country of 165 million people, which has at great cost to
      itself agreed---under duress, indeed the threat of being "bombed
      back into the Stone Age"---to abet U.S. objectives in neighboring
      Afghanistan. It's just a country that having helped create and
      nurture the Taliban in order to stabilize Afghanistan, broke with
      that organization at the demand of the U.S. in 2001 and then found
      its frontier provinces flooded with Islamist militants fleeing
      across the border.

      According to a White House "fact sheet" issued in August 2007:

      Pakistan has worked closely with the United States to secure the
      arrest of terrorists like Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, Abu Zubaydah, and
      Ramzi bin al Shibh. Pakistan has killed or captured hundreds of
      suspected and known terrorists, including Mullah Obaidullah, who
      ranked second in the Taliban hierarchy at the time of his capture.
      About 100,000 Pakistani troops are deployed in the region near the
      Afghan border, and hundreds of Pakistani security forces have given
      their lives in the battle to combat terrorism post-9/11.

      Pakistan provides vital logistical support to coalition forces in
      Afghanistan.

      President Musharraf has a comprehensive strategy that combines three
      critical components--strengthened governance, increased economic
      development, and improved security--aimed at eradicating extremism
      in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

      No government has provided more assistance to Washington as it
      pursues its goals in Southwest Asia. No country has been more
      dramatically destabilized as the price of its cooperation. But not
      only does the U.S. political class take this disasterous compliance
      for granted, it wants to further emphasize Islamabad's irrelevance
      by attacking the border area at will.

      It insults the sensibilities of a population that holds bin Laden in
      far greater esteem than the U.S. president. It provokes the powerful
      Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), originally the creation of the
      CIA, once a close partner with the U.S. in the project of destroying
      the secular pro-Soviet state that existed in Afghanistan from 1978
      to 1993. (The ISI, a power unto itself, is already annoyed that
      Afghanistan, where anti-Indian Kashmiri jihadis used to hone their
      skills in training camps, has been cozying up to India.) Its embrace
      undermines any leader who seeks nationalist and religious
      credentials in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

      "There's potential to see more [attacks on Pakistan]," an unnamed
      U.S. official told the New York Times. Who do these people think
      they're dealing with?

      It is one thing to ignore the government of Iraq, placed in power by
      the U.S. invasion, when it says no to a permanent U.S. military
      presence, U.S. forces' immunity from Iraqi law, or the privatization
      of Iraq's petroleum resources. It's one thing to laugh at al-Maliki
      & Co. and say, "Well, they don't mean that," confident that they'll
      eventually knuckle under. It's another thing to suppose that the
      Pakistanis, when they say "No," mean anything other than "No" and
      will simply burn with quiet resentment indefinitely as U.S. forces
      violate their sovereignty. But that sort of insane arrogance stems
      naturally from the post 9-11 "us vs. them" mentality of U.S.
      leaders. Not just the neocons, mind you, but the entire political
      mainstream.

      Pakistan, these leaders will note, is not doing enough to prevent
      militants from crossing over the border to attack U.S. and NATO
      forces in Afghanistan. One should respond to this assertion with the
      following points:

      The U.S. is conflating Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. But these are
      not the same thing. (This is perhaps the most obvious but obviously
      neglected point of fact in the post 9-11 era.) The Taliban is an
      indigenous Afghan movement and--however unsavory--unquestionably
      enjoys a social base.

      Al-Qaeda is a mostly Arab force rooted in the U.S.-sponsored anti-
      Soviet Mujahadeen of the 1980s.

      Nobody in Afghanistan asked the U.S. to invade, bomb, or continue
      bombing Afghanistan for seven years. Nor did the Pakistanis.

      The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, against the advice and
      will of Pakistan, and the failure of that invasion to crush al-
      Qaeda, pushed al-Qaeda and Taliban forces into Pakistan. It's likely
      the latter far outnumber the former.

      Pakistan's government had never firmly controlled the frontier
      provinces or deployed large-scale military forces there in deference
      to the sensibilities of local tribes.

      Washington, oblivious to Pakistan's realities, demanded that
      Islamabad suppress the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that fled into
      the region. In effect, it demanded that Pakistan clean up a mess
      that the U.S. invasion had created.

      Pakistan's efforts to obey Washington have taken a terrible toll on
      the Pakistani Army, solidified local resistance to the central
      government, and in fact produced a Pakistani Taliban rooted in the
      local Pashtuns who identify with the Afghan Pashtuns and have no use
      for the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan drawn by
      colonialists who never consulted with them in drawing the map.

      Faced with the prospect of a general tribal-based rebellion,
      Islamabad has cut deals with local Taliban-linked groups. Washington
      has expressed its disapproval, claiming such deals continue to allow
      militants to cross back and forth across the border attacking its
      forces and their allies in Afghanistan. Washington is, in effect,
      asking Pakistan's government to risk civil war and its own collapse
      to prevent Afghans from attacking its forces in Afghanistan whose
      deployment Pakistan opposed in the first place.

      Washington is saying to this nuclear power, Pakistan: "You must
      obey!" And some in Pakistan are saying: "You do not know this
      region. You've responded to 9-11 by lashing out in all directions,
      creating enemies you never had before. You created this problem, our
      headache, in Waziristan and adjoining regions. And you make it worse
      by saying that since we're not handling it to your satisfaction,
      you're going to start landing your troops in our villages, shooting
      on our civilians. And you're expecting us to say, `Ok, no problem,
      boss?' You're crazy."

      It is crazy, even for a cocky hyper-imperialist power, to manifest
      such arrogance and contempt. Such attacks on Pakistan say to the
      Muslims of the world: "You are the problem and we reserve the right
      to slaughter you, because back home, we have powerful politicians
      who respond to a mass base that thinks fighting you all is, as Sarah
      Palin put it, `a task from God.' (USA! USA! USA! USA!)

      If you don't agree with our program to restructure your region,
      supporting our misogynistic fanatical Islamists in the Northern
      Alliance as opposed to the Taliban misogynistic fanatical Islamists
      you used to sponsor, we'll invade you and take care of the problem
      ourselves. (USA! USA! USA! USA!) Get used to it. It's not just the
      Bush crowd. We've got Obama on board now too. We will strike
      Pakistani targets as we see fit. Screw international law, which we
      invoke when it serves our needs and ignore when it might restrain
      us. Nobody is allowed to cross any border to attack our brave
      Americans, no matter where we invade, or why. Just accept that,
      world, and avoid our wrath. (USA! USA! USA!)"

      That's indeed the message to Pakistan. If there were a free press in
      this country, honest education and genuine discussion, the people
      would recoil in horror from the crimes committed in their name and
      the premises---largely lies---behind those crimes. But we have none
      of that, just some posts on the internet. The outlook is grim.


      Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
      Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and
      Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan

      ===

      Protest lodged with US ambassador
      By Baqir Sajjad Syed
      http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/04/top2.htm


      ISLAMABAD, Sept 3: Pakistan on Wednesday condemned an incursion into
      its territory by the US-led coalition forces based in Afghanistan,
      saying it constituted a grave violation of its territorial
      sovereignty and undermined its efforts against terrorism.

      US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson was summoned to the Foreign Office,
      where Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir lodged a protest against the
      helicopter-borne ground attack by coalition troops on a village near
      Angoor Adda in South Waziristan that resulted in 20 civilian
      casualties.

      The foreign secretary told the ambassador that the assault supported
      by air assets based in Afghanistan was a gross violation of
      Pakistan's territory which was unacceptable and tantamount to a
      grave provocation. He said it was most unfortunate that coalition
      forces in Afghanistan had resorted to cross-border attacks on
      civilians. Impressing upon the US that such attacks were counter-
      productive for joint efforts against terrorism, he warned that the
      incident could fuel the "fire of hatred and violence" which the
      government was trying to extinguish.

      The US ambassador promised that Pakistan's concerns would be
      communicated to Washington.

      Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Wednesday no external
      forces would be allowed to launch an attack inside Pakistan's
      territory. He said Pakistan was a sovereign country fully capable of
      countering extremist and terrorist elements within its borders on
      its own.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
      wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.