Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soldiers storm Red Mosque

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soldiers storm Red Mosque

    Troops in Pakistan's city of Islamabad have stormed the Red Mosque, after talks with radicals broke down.

    "It is a final push to clear the place of armed militants," said military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad.

    The army said 20 militants were killed in the operation, as loud explosions and gunfire were heard.

    Three soldiers were killed and 15 injured, the army said. Twenty children escaped from the mosque, where women are also being held.

    Students at the Red Mosque and its attached religious schools have been defying the authorities for several months in their campaign for Sharia law in the capital.

    'Tough resistance'

    The military operation began at about 0400 (2300 GMT Monday).

    The troops - attacking from three directions - entered the compound and exchanged fire with the militants holed up inside.

    Men wait for news of family members inside the Red Mosque
    It is an anxious wait for those with relatives inside the mosque

    "There are 20 militants dead and 15 to 20 wounded," Gen Arshad said.

    The army says it has taken over the building's roof, but is meeting "tough resistance" from militants in the basement.

    Those inside the mosque are using hand grenades, light machine guns, petrol bombs and other weapons, and the army says it expects the operation will last another four hours, the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan reports.

    Ambulances are waiting nearby to help any wounded.

    Security forces have sealed off the hospitals where the wounded are being taken, and prohibited journalists from entering them.

    It is not clear exactly how many people were left inside the mosque when the assault began.

    Mosque leader Abdul Rashid Ghazi earlier told Geo TV that his mother had been wounded by gunshot.

    "The government is using full force. This is naked aggression. My martyrdom is certain now," Mr Ghazi said.

    'Very disappointed'

    The talks aimed at resolving the crisis peacefully reportedly broke down over the militants' demand for an amnesty for all inside the mosque.


    Location map

    In pictures: Assault starts
    Profile: Red Mosque
    Profile: Abdul Rashid Ghazi

    The government wants to detain a number of people on a wanted list, and also a number of foreigners whom it says are inside.

    "I am returning very disappointed," said former PM Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, after talks conducted by loudspeaker and mobile phone with Mr Ghazi.

    "We offered him a lot, but he wasn't ready to come on our terms," said Mr Hussain.

    Security forces began their siege of the mosque a week ago, not long after students there abducted seven Chinese workers they accused of running a brothel.

    On Monday, three Chinese workers were killed in Peshawar in an attack said to be linked to the unrest in Islamabad.

    There is speculation that Islamic militants may be targeting Chinese people in Pakistan.

    Women and children

    Religious affairs minister Ejaz-ul-Haq, one of the negotiators who tried to reach an agreement, has described those in charge at the mosque as "hardened terrorists".

    At least 21 people have died since fighting erupted when the army surrounded the mosque last Tuesday, including an army commander shot dead inside the mosque on Sunday.

    Mr ul-Haq said women and children had been locked up on two floors of the Jamia Hafsa religious school, which is attached to the mosque.

    As many as five "hardcore terrorists" were inside the mosque, he added, saying that one person killed on the first day of the siege belonged to Jaish-e-Mohammad, an outlawed radical Muslim organisation which has been linked to al-Qaeda.

    Mr Ghazi has denied the presence of any banned extremist groups.

    He says those inside are students of his religious school and he is in charge.

    He has said as many as 1,800 followers remained in the mosque, although this cannot be verified.

    Earlier, Mr ul-Haq said up to 250 militants - including foreign radicals - were leading the fighting.

    More than 1,000 supporters left last week under mounting pressure from security forces, although only about 20 have left since Friday.
    BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


    Actually, I wasn't following this so closely, so this part in another article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6274018.stm had me surprised:

    (....Initial babbling why Musharraf was reluctant to go against Islamist extremists....)

    "The turning point clearly was the abduction of the Chinese massage parlour girls," says a senior diplomat in Islamabad.

    "We know that the Chinese sent a very strong message that they could take losses in Balochistan or the tribal belt but were not prepared to see their citizens abducted and tortured bang in the heart of the capital."
    Any idea what this Chinese "strong message" would have been?
    Blah

  • #2
    Communist Muslims?

    Comment


    • #3
      BBC reports this morning that Ghazi is dead.
      "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Soldiers storm Red Mosque

        Originally posted by BeBro
        Any idea what this Chinese "strong message" would have been?
        "We'll take back our nuke blueprints"
        THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
        AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
        AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
        DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

        Comment


        • #5
          So it's the Mosque of the Red Death?
          Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

          Comment


          • #6
            Giant badgers get no mention in all of this?

            Comment


            • #7
              Yay, another round of Musharraf is teh glorious savior talk from DC, regardless of how repressive he is, and how small an Islamist constituency actually is in Pakistan.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ramo
                Yay, another round of Musharraf is teh glorious savior talk from DC, regardless of how repressive he is, and how small an Islamist constituency actually is in Pakistan.
                He's probably the least oppressive military dictator Pakistan's ever had

                BBC and other sites that cover the Pakistani press show that while the English language press was strongly in favor of the op, the Urdu press was strongly hostile. Many other repressive regimes could stand to have so much dissent in the press.


                The Islamist constituency got less than 25% of the vote in the last parliamentary election. Of course I also heard that was low, cause of vote fraud,etc. OTOH maybe there was no significant vote fraud. Odd for such a repressive regime. The real threat is not that the MMA will win a majority election, but that the MMA will combine with anti-western elements in the military and ISI, and rally around a coup by Hamid Gul.

                That doesnt resolve the question of his status in uniform, the supreme court, or enabling the exiled civilian politicians to return. It does raise, in DC, the real question of whether making Musharaf give up his uniform will lessen his control over the Pakistani military, and whether the civilian politicians can control Gul.

                Its still a good thing that Pakistan did this, unresolved political questions aside. AFAICT virtually all secular Pakistanis saw a grave danger from the Red Mosque, and the govts failure to act.

                NWFP is still largely in the hands of the Taliban/AQ, and is their principle base.
                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                Comment


                • #9
                  BBC and other sites that cover the Pakistani press show that while the English language press was strongly in favor of the op, the Urdu press was strongly hostile. Many other repressive regimes could stand to have so much dissent in the press.
                  It's pretty ironic that you're writing this, given that Musharraf recently shut down two major TV stations for covering the crisis regarding the dismissal of Chief Justice Chaudhry. And it's telling that this suppression was directed against the secular opposition.

                  The Islamist constituency got less than 25% of the vote in the last parliamentary election. Of course I also heard that was low, cause of vote fraud,etc. OTOH maybe there was no significant vote fraud. Odd for such a repressive regime.
                  Huh? Seeing as how Musharraf was allied to the MMA during the last Parliamentary elections, exactly why would the electoral fraud widely accepted to have hurt the secular parties have much of an effect on the MMA? And they only got 11.3% according to Wiki...

                  And you realize that Pakistan is a military dictatorship, right?

                  It does raise, in DC, the real question of whether making Musharaf give up his uniform will lessen his control over the Pakistani military, and whether the civilian politicians can control Gul.
                  Even if you accept the premise that Gul will try to pull off a coup the minute Musharraf's gone, legitimizing Musharraf's defiance of democratic will only foster militant anti-Western sentiment, making the problem worse whenever he does happen to step down.
                  Last edited by Ramo; July 12, 2007, 12:00.
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


                    It's pretty ironic that you're writing this, given that Musharraf recently shut down two major TV stations for covering the crisis regarding the dismissal of Chief Justice Chaudhry.



                    well he shouldnt have done that. The Chaudry thing is obviously a hot button. He IS a military dictator, I havent denied it. But Pakistan still has a more vibrant press than some countries which do not have military rule, and which are said by some to be no more repressive than Pakistan is.



                    Huh? Seeing as how Musharraf was allied with the MMA during the last Parliamentary elections, exactly why would the electoral fraud widely accepted to have hurt the secular parties have much of an effect on the MMA? And they got got 11.3% according to Wiki...


                    My reading has been that he wanted more seats for his own party and definitely not for MMA. He has made tactical parliamentary alliances with MMA, and has flirted with deals with the secular opposition as well.


                    And you realize that Pakistan is a military dictatorship, right?


                    I said so in my first post. Musharraf holds office due to a coup, and has not held an election for the Presidency.


                    Even if you accept the premise that Gul will try to pull off a coup the minute Musharraf's gone, legitimizing Musharraf's defiance of democratic will only foster militant anti-Western sentiment, making the problem worse whenever he does happen to step down.


                    Im quite uncomfortable with the possible consequences of our support for Musharaf, and how we are handling the Chaudry crisis. I expect we have quiet contacts to Bhutto and the other civilian pols, but that may not be enough to prevent Musharaffs problems from impacting us if we dont do more to distance ourselves in public.

                    What Im not willing to do is to pretend that this is an easy decision, or that the Islamists arent already strong enough to make themselves a significant factor.
                    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ramo

                      And they only got 11.3% according to Wiki...

                      I guess I was thinking of the 2003 Senate elections.

                      Since MMA is now in opposition, its not like the MMA has been a reliable partner for Musharaff.
                      "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It should also be noted that Nawaz Sharif, the last civilian to head Pakistan, who was toppled in Musharrafs coup, was himself accused of vote fraud by Benazir Bhutto, and had his own run in with the Pakistani Supreme Court.

                        Its not at all clear that Musharaffs departure, even if it resulted in civilian rule rather than coup by Gul, would in fact lead to a genuinely democratic Pakistan.
                        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          well he shouldnt have done that. The Chaudry thing is obviously a hot button. He IS a military dictator, I havent denied it. But Pakistan still has a more vibrant press than some countries which do not have military rule, and which are said by some to be no more repressive than Pakistan is.
                          Yeah, Perv only does minor things like, last month, rounding up over a thousand of opposition partisans and tossing 'em in prison indefinitely. He's really a democrat at heart.

                          But I'm still not sure why un-named other regimes that I probably don't support have any bearing on whether we should be legitimizing this one.

                          My reading has been that he wanted more seats for his own party and definitely not for MMA. He has made tactical parliamentary alliances with MMA, and has flirted with deals with the secular opposition as well.
                          No, there was an explicit alliance between Perv and the MMA before the election. Electoral fraud was specifically directed against the secular opposition, i.e. in terms of disqualifications of candidates.

                          I said so in my first post. Musharraf holds office due to a coup, and has not held an election for the Presidency.
                          I realize that you know. The unstated question was, then why would lack of fraud in these largely irrelevant elections be a particularly redeeming feature?

                          What Im not willing to do is to pretend that this is an easy decision, or that the Islamists arent already strong enough to make themselves a significant factor.
                          No, the question is pretty simple. Do we stick with Musharraf while the Islamists are a fairly minor force in Pakistan, or do we wait an indefinite amount of time during which they're not likely to get weaker, till we drop him, he dies, etc.

                          I guess I was thinking of the 2003 Senate elections.
                          Senators are elected from provincial legislatures. The same ones that Musharraf restocked in the 2002 elections.
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

                            Yeah, Perv only does minor things like, last month, rounding up over a thousand of opposition partisans and tossing 'em in prison indefinitely. He's really a democrat at heart.

                            But I'm still not sure why un-named other regimes that I probably don't support have any bearing on whether we should be legitimizing this one.


                            The regime I meant was Iran, which has been held up by many as a democracy, due to its elections, despite having a far more restrictive approach to the press than Pakistan.

                            I didnt mean to imply that you personally supported them.

                            My only purpose was to establish perspective. Musharraf is not behaving democratically. But hes not the Shah of Iran, either, AFAICT. Not all dictatorships are the same, and I think thats relevant.

                            As for legitimizing, I dont know that it should be our role to either legitimize or delegitmize Pakistani govts. Quite frankly Im a tad burned on the business of judging the democratic quals of friendly govts in the muslim world. Esp after the Palestinian elections, which apparently Abbas opposed, and have left us, when we try to oppose a terrorist gang, having our own call for the elections thrust in our faces constantly.

                            Now I know that Pakistan is not Gaza, in terms of electoral dynamics. But I think that we should make it clear we provide arms and aid to Pakistan while Musharaff is president BECAUSE Pakistan is fighting AQ. And that we would do exactly the same if Bhutto or Sharif were president. Whether Pakistan is to be governed by Musharaff with his clamp down over the Supreme court crisis, and accusations of electoral fraud, Sharif with his own electoral fraud issues and conflicts with the judiciary, or Bhutto with her corruption, and alleged extra-judicial killings, is not really our business.



                            I realize that you know. The unstated question was, then why would lack of fraud in these largely irrelevant elections be a particularly redeeming feature?


                            from all I can gather the parliament has had a major role to play in governance, and the govt has scrambled to keep a majority, so im not sure they are largely irrelevant.



                            No, the question is pretty simple. Do we stick with Musharraf while the Islamists are a fairly minor force in Pakistan, or do we wait an indefinite amount of time during which they're not likely to get weaker, till we drop him, he dies, etc.


                            What does 'stick with' mean operationally? Should we stop financial aid to Pakistan? Stop selling them weapons? Stop working with them on counter terror? I dont think that supporting them on those things has to mean supporting the current regime as against its adversaries. The opposition may want us to do their work for them, but I dont know that we have to.
                            Last edited by lord of the mark; July 12, 2007, 13:58.
                            "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ramo

                              No, the question is pretty simple. Do we stick with Musharraf while the Islamists are a fairly minor force in Pakistan,
                              They dominate the prov assembly of the NWFP, and they control most of NWFP on the ground, and AFAICT that was true under Bhutto and Sharif as well. And Hamid Gul remains, IIUC, a popular figure. The Islamist, AFAICT, are not weak, even if MMA doesnt threaten to get a parliamentary majority.

                              Note:

                              NYT

                              "Hinting at how the mosque standoff could alter the political calculus, Benazir Bhutto, the exiled leader of the country’s largest opposition party, also offered an unusual endorsement of the government’s action. "
                              Last edited by lord of the mark; July 12, 2007, 13:30.
                              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X