Islamic militants overrun Pakistani fort

By ISHTIAQ MAHSUD and SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writers 13 minutes ago

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - In an embarrassing battlefield defeat for Pakistan's army, Islamic extremists attacked and seized a small fort near the Afghan border, leaving at least 22 soldiers dead or missing.

The insurgents later abandoned the fort and melted away into the hills, said military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas. "There is no occupation of the Sararogha Fort. Militants have gone from there," he said.

The militants did not gain significant ground, but they did further erode confidence in the U.S.-allied government's ability to control the frontier area where the Taliban and al-Qaida flourish.

Attacks on security forces are rising in the volatile tribal region, and Pakistan is reeling from a series of suicide attacks that killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and hundreds more, chipping away at President Pervez Musharraf's prestige before Feb. 18 parliamentary elections.

"The militants are now challenging the army openly. They have become very bold and are consolidating their positions," Talat Masood, a retired general who is now a political analyst, said after Tuesday night's attack on Sararogha Fort.

Militants also fired small arms and rockets at a military base in Ladha, another town in South Waziristan, late Wednesday, drawing retaliatory fire from troops, the military said. No casualties were reported.

Separately, three rockets slammed near an air force base early Thursday in Kamra, a town about 30 miles northwest of the capital Islamabad, but no one was hurt.

The insurgents who seized the Sararogha Fort were said to be followers of Baitullah Mehsud, an Islamic hard-liner who since December has been sole leader of an umbrella group of Taliban sympathizers and who is also thought to have links to al-Qaida.

Musharraf has blamed Mehsud's movement, Tehrik-e-Taliban, for 19 suicide attacks that killed more than 450 people over the last three months. Mehsud, labeled enemy No. 1 by the government, also masterminded the brazen capture of 213 Pakistani soldiers last August.

Fighters of the pro-Taliban groups he leads have terrorized Pakistan's northwest, killing hundreds of soldiers, hunting down politicians, beheading women and burning schools that teach girls anything more than religion.

In the latest battle, insurgents launched a surprise attack on Sararogha Fort in South Waziristan and chased off its small garrison from the Frontier Constabulary, a paramilitary force formed of men from the area.

"About 200 militants charged the fort from four sides," Abbas said. "They broke through the fort's wall with rockets."

Seven of the 42 soldiers manning the fort were known dead, while 15 reached safety in Jandola, an army base about 10 miles south of the British colonial-era fort. Twenty were initially listed as missing, but five were later found. Abbas said the rest probably sought shelter in nearby villages.

The military claimed the defenders killed 50 militants before being overwhelmed. A spokesman for Tehrik-i-Taliban said that only two of its fighters died and that 16 soldiers were killed and 24 others captured, half of them wounded.

There was no way to verify casualty numbers. Both sides have long accused each other of exaggerating such figures.

The Tehrik-i-Taliban spokesman, Maulvi Muhammad Umer, warned the government to release Taliban prisoners and stop military operations in the frontier region or face militant attacks across Pakistan.

"Attacks will continue not only in the tribal areas, but we will target the government everywhere in the country," he told The Associated Press by telephone.

He said militants had destroyed the fort with explosives.

Sararogha Fort is one of four such posts in the Mehsud tribal region, where Baitullah Mehsud is based and has thousands of armed supporters.

On Sunday, the military said its troops repelled a similar attack last week on another fort, at Lhada, and killed 40 to 50 insurgents. On Monday, militants ambushed an army convoy in the same area, touching off a firefight that the military said killed 30 insurgents and Tehrik-i-Taliban said resulted only in some of its fighters being wounded.

Musharraf first deployed the army in Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal regions along the frontier in late 2001 to chase down al-Qaida militants fleeing the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Nearly 100,000 soldiers are now in the area, supported by heavy artillery and Cobra helicopter gunships, but they have had little success in stopping militants from infiltrating into Afghanistan or in quelling Pakistan's own worsening Islamic insurgency.

Government tactics have vacillated between use of extreme force and appeasement. Pro-Taliban forces now appear capable of launching the kind of coordinated assaults inside Pakistan's border regions as they do in the volatile south and east of Afghanistan.

A U.S. intelligence estimate last year said a Musharraf peace pact in 2006 with Taliban militants had allowed al-Qaida to regroup in Pakistan's tribal belt, a possible hiding place of Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

In Florida, the head of the U.S. military's Central Command said the rise in violence was pushing Pakistan to be more open to suggestions that American troops train and advise Pakistani forces.

That is a touchy subject in predominantly Muslim Pakistan, where many people are leery of Musharraf's alliance with Washington since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but Navy Adm. William J. Fallon said he believes Pakistani leaders are beginning to view the militants as a dire threat.

"They see they've got real problems internally," Fallon said.

Masood, the political analyst, said tribesmen along the frontier are increasingly joining up with Taliban forces from across the border in Afghanistan.

"Even if they don't support the Taliban per se, they are now siding with them rather than the government because they think Musharraf and the army are an extension of the Americans," he said.

Washington considers Musharraf a key ally in the fight against extremist groups. President Bush and other U.S. officials have frequently praised Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup but resigned from the army in December and is now ruling as a civilian president.

After the fall of Sararogha Fort, opposition leaders were quick to blame Musharraf for the deteriorating security situation.

"Musharraf is the root cause of all problems," said Nawaz Sharif, a leading opposition politician and the prime minister who was ousted by Musharraf in 1999.

"If he goes, 95 percent of the problems of this country will be solved. There will be no bomb blasts, there will be no missile attacks," Sharif told reporters in his hometown of Lahore.

___

Associated Press writers Ishtiaq Mahsud reported this story from Dera Ismail Khan and Slobodan Lekic from Islamabad. AP writers Riaz Khan in Peshawar and Kathy Gannon in Islamabad contributed to this report.

Source - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

damn.....do you reckon a civil war will start in this country?

I don't think, there would be a civil war in Pakistan. But the snakes and scorpions Pakistan was breeding and nurturing all these years have begun to sting back the Pakistanis themselves.

While there may not be a full civil war in Pakistan, large segments of Western Pakistan may not be subject tp the writ of the central government. In that case the country would be effectively partitioned on a de facto basis.

If they didn't have nukes I'd say let us sit back and enjoy Muslims ripping eachother to pieces. Nothing warms my heart as much.

But with nukes being involved this is unnerving.

^why so much hate towards muslims?

That's what Indian Nationalists are good at

his persian i think

I thought Muslims were a big part of multi-cultural India. Why would nationalist and not some other "ist" hate Muslims?

Pakistan and Indian Muslims are two different things. Indian Muslims tend to be more secular and progressive(except the rural folk, all of them are equally backwards). Right now, Pakistan is just reeping the crap they've sowed for all these years. Both Mouseface and Chimphead know this.

Yup.

Pink Cream,

I have no tolerance for the intolerant. My prejudice didn't exist prior to 2001.

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/7595/is...etheworlzx0.jpg

Edit: Check this out. In their own words:

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1117...mmunity&a=6

So, I take it you have no family in Iran?



He is "self-hating".

Most of these clowns think that white people will accept them more if they speak like he does. Then, when they get fired from their job for being a "raghead", they come crying into my office seeking help.

Hey, you reap what you soe.



Very true.



No! NO!!!

He is a WHITE ARYAN I TELL YOU!!!

JUST LOOK AT HIS PICTURE!!!



Simple, the modern "Indian Nationalists" are really "Hindu Nationalist", which is a polite way of saying "Hind-Nazi".

They are no different than any other form of extremist mental retardation.



Well, you probably know as well as I do how diverse Islam as a religion in South Asia is.



So you have no tolerance for yourself?

Seriously, it looks to me like 9/11 just gave you an excuse to hate. After all, killing all those Afghans and Iraqis has SOOOOOooooo made up for what all those Sunni-Saudi-Psychos did on 9/11.

Oh, and I love the picture. The internet is such a great place to share Photoshop art!

PERSIAN AND PROUD!

Persian, maybe...Iranian, no way.

Persians only live in Los Angeles.

At anyrate, does it make you feel good to spread so much hate on a forum like this?

What did you think of the article from the Yemeni newspaper? Was the article photoshopped? Oh, btw, you have a choice. You can let me know whether you want to discuss these issues dispassionately, analytically and without rancor, or you can call me names. Please let me know your preference when you have decided.

Yeah, I'm the bad guy!

You are an admittedly "passionate" bigot who found a wonderful excuse to hate a grouping of over 1 Billion very diverse people in "2001", so...End of discussion.



No, just foolish, along with your silly pictures. Any culture, anywhere, can be made to look ugly through choice presentation. Need I show pictures of Black Americans be lynched?



Oh, and there is always "My Lai".



You are only increasing, ever so lightly, the chance of Iran getting the receiving end of a U.S bombing campaign. Perhaps that does not matter to you, sitting comfortably in Australia, but as an American, it matters to me.

This has nothing to due with being a "proud Persian". The prospects of thousands of dead American soldiers and sailors(of which I was one), and as many as a million dead Iranians is absurd and pointless.

Maybe you think thats "cool", I don't know.

Why do you call me names instead of accepting my invitation to debate?

Passé
a. 'past'; worn out; out of date; antiquated.
Link

Is there a reason you are unwilling to debate? Are you unable to debate? Show us the logical analysis underlying your pithy comments. Are you using steppe tactics by taking a parting shot with a flaming arrow from a composite bow while riding backwards on a midget horse? Or is that a pony?

Waiting, wondering. What's the old aphorism about the courage of one's convictions?

If for whatever reason you are unwilling or unable to debate why did you engage me in the first place? I didn't seek you out, you came looking for me.

Atari400,

How did you assume that I support the prospect of war, think it would be cool or that my post would increase the likelihood of war?

Your arguments are flawed and your logic faulty. Of course images of slavery could be used to make America look bad. IF SLAVERY WAS STILL PRACTICED! But it's not.

Muslim savages are still beheading people in $hitholes like Saudi Arabia (which your leaders love so much) and hanging and stoning women for crimes they didn't commit.

There are no bigger savages on this planet than those people.

And for the record. Iran has a tyrannical and oppressive regime that needs to be removed, BY THE PEOPLE OF IRAN. But the fact remains that the number of wars started by Iran in the past 100 years are 0! While you people are constantly at war.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. If you decide to set foot on it's soil leave your guns at home and you'll be treated like kings(by the people). Otherwise make sure you bring enough body bags.

If you've read the National Intelligence Estimate, and followed American public opinion, you know that there is no possibility of America attacking Iran absent Iran being clearly seen to have struck the first blow. I agree that removal of the Iranian theocracy rests solely within the hands of the Iranian people. But, I see no prospect of that happening. Imo, it would require a civil war to remove the mullahs from power. Frankly, I see no end to the long nightmare of the Iranian people. If you know something I don't please let me know.

There are a lot of daily struggles going on in Iran, the news of which never makes it to the media outside. Students protesting, workers striking, women refusing to obey the dress code and paying for it.

Iran is a powder keg, awaiting one big spark. And if that occurs, then we're likely going to look at the formation of a very open, pro-Western democracy in the heart of the middle east. And I think that will be very good news for the region and the world in general.

Unless the western world manage to fu-k you up before that happens, which hopefully won't happen. But the situation is not looking good at all, people are slowly being fooled into believing that Iran is the new Nazi state with "alot of brown evil people that want to bring down the western civiliation" bla bla bla bla bla. A strong and stable Iran would not only be good for the people of Iran, but good overall for this godforsaken region, the stronger Iran is, the less chance there is for the middle east to get fu-ked and taken advantage of by western powers. However, a strong Iran with the current goverment? No thanks.

Iran, unlike most other middle eastern countries, is one of the few countries that don't bow down to the "white men".

lawl

That's just the view of the Islamic filth occupying Iran.

Iranian people identify themselves with Europeans, not anyone else. The Iran after the Pisslamic Republic will be more pro-American and Westernised than even most European countries.

The only people we really despise in the West are the British dogs. But they're not really loved by anyone either.

I'm more like meaning puppet along with puppet governments (new government of Iraq, Musharraf, King Abdullah to a degree etc.)

Common now, honestly! They can't cook for $hit either!

At least they introduced custard dessert to my country, and I don't regret that, it does taste good if done in the right way

*mumbles to himself* freaking custard. So tasty and delicious and..

NO! Must resist!

ahh who am I kidding! It's great!