Shoot-on-sight orders over illegal entry from Afghanistan

[shah_1]

Shoot-on-sight orders over illegal entry from Afghanistan



QUETTA: As Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan at Chaman remains closed on the second consecutive day on Saturday, authorities issued shoot-at-sight orders for those found trying to cross over.

The Friendship Gate was closed on Friday as part of tightening security in the wake of the suicide attack on the shrine of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sehwan town of Sindh in which nearly 90 people lost their lives and over 340 others suffered injuries.

As a result, traffic and transit trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan also remained suspended.

“Shooting order has been issued to the security forces for those...found trying to enter...Pakistan illegally from any area of the border,” security officials said. “The Friendship Gate at Pak-Afghan border [has been] sealed for [an] indefinite period,” a Frontier Corps spokesman said.

“There will be no traffic between Pakistan and Afghanistan for an indefinite period,” border officials said.

Shops in the Vash Mandi area across the border in Afghanistan were closed and traders in Chaman also did not open their businesses in protest against the terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

Hundreds of trucks and long vehicles carrying transit trade goods and Nato supplies have been stranded on both sides of the border.

Official sources said that after the recent bomb blasts in Quetta, Lahore, Peshawar and Sehwan more FC troops have been deployed along the border with Afghanistan.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1315663/shoot-on-sight-orders-over-illegal-entry-from-afghanistan

 

[PakLFC]

Afghans need to be put in their place. Other then shoot on site orders nothing should be allowed to enter Afghanistan until they hand over the 76 terrorists Pakistan is demanding.

 

[Pakistanian]

I'm disgusted.

 

[shah_1]

I'm disgusted.

What's so digusting?


Better safe than sorry, don't want another bomber coming in and killing innocent people.

 

[www787]

If you can see them, you can arrest them. Why take a life away ?

 

[Sachin136]

What's so digusting?


Better safe than sorry, don't want another bomber coming in and killing innocent people.

Arresting them would serve the same purpose, without the risk of needlessly killing people.

 

[blackanhyellow]

Get off your high horse. The refugees entering Hungary aren't strapping up suicide vests and blowing up left, right and center.

All three attackers in Lahore, Peshawar and Sehwan were Afghan nationals who came through OFFICIAL border crossings at the Pak-Afg border.

Completely sealing the border is the best possible move at this point in time.


Some of you would much rather see bombs go off everyday just to be champions of 'human rights'. Those dying in these bombs aren't humans????????

Sealing the border and having a shoot on sight policy are two different things.

I agree with sealing the border, not with killing anyone that comes across the border. If they are confirmed to be terrorists, or are smuggling drugs, etc... then it is a different story. But unless you have confirmed that, instead of shooting on sight, you should apprehend them and carry out an interrogation.

Actually many right wing Europeans would argue that is exactly what some refugees are doing, they are carrying out attacks throughout Europe.

So I repeat should European countries have a shoot on sight policy as well?

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

We have the sovereign right to protect our borders and I endorse this step. Anyone going through the border illegally is committing a crime in OUR LAND !! Which basically translates to OUR LAND....OUR RULES....

Get used to it.....

I was against bombing the afghans in their own country since that would mean innocent collateral damage, however, if you're crossing the border illegally, you aren't really that innocent are you !!! ??

 

[Syed1]

Sealing the border and having a shoot on sight policy are two different things.

I agree with sealing the border, not with killing anyone that comes across the border. If they are confirmed to be terrorists, or are smuggling drugs, etc... then it is a different story. But unless you have confirmed that, instead of shooting on sight, you should apprehend them and carry out an interrogation.

Actually many right wing Europeans would argue that is exactly what some refugees are doing, they are carrying out attacks throughout Europe.

So I repeat should European countries have a shoot on sight policy as well?

Ok let me break it down so you understand.


Say there is a police checkpoint (or a police chowki in desi lingo) on a major street. The police are stopping every car from entering, thoroughly vetting each occupants papers and then letting through if they meet the criteria or arresting them/turning them away if they don't meet. Now a gungho rambo type decides that he is too big of a person to be stopped by the pesky police and decides to run through the police checkpoint without stopping. You know what the police will do? They will shoot first and ask questions later. Something very similar happend in Islamabad a couple weeks ago where a young man who was a baray baap ki ulaad decided not to stop at a police chowki and was shot and killed.


Now the border is sealed, everyone and their aunt knows it. There is no trade taking place. There are no people crossing between the two countries, but a guy is still trying to cross the border. What is the appropriate response then? You tell me?


Funny you keep bringing up the European connection when there is none.

 

[Slog]

inhumane step

not a fan of role of afghans but for every terrorist who crosses the border, theres many desperate people who have few other options and sometimes dont even know the mechanics of how the border works due to their tribal upbringing.

 

[blackanhyellow]

Ok let me break it down so you understand.


Say there is a police checkpoint (or a police chowki in desi lingo) on a major street. The police are stopping every car from entering, thoroughly vetting each occupants papers and then letting through if they meet the criteria or arresting them/turning them away if they don't meet. Now a gungho rambo type decides that he is too big of a person to be stopped by the pesky police and decides to run through the police checkpoint without stopping. You know what the police will do? They will shoot first and ask questions later. Something very similar happend in Islamabad a couple weeks ago where a young man who was a baray baap ki ulaad decided not to stop at a police chowki and was shot and killed.


Now the border is sealed, everyone and their aunt knows it. There is no trade taking place. There are no people crossing between the two countries, but a guy is still trying to cross the border. What is the appropriate response then? You tell me?


Funny you keep bringing up the European connection when there is none.

What is this nonsense?

If the torkham and chaman crossings are closed, no one is coming in cars. They are going to be coming on foot.

You should have some sort of mechanism to capture them, whether that is a helicopter or w.e

If you can arrest them then you should arrest them as a first resort.

Shooting should be a last resort if it can be confirmed they are smuggling, or are known terrorists, or don't respond to your warnings.

Even in your scenario, the right protocol would be to surround the vehicle, and give the perpetrator a chance to turn himself in. If he doesn't (or he is about to get away) then and only then you have the right to shoot.

 

[Zak_Fan]

RIP humanity, disgusting if true.

 

[enkidu_]

Disgusting.

The true enemies of Pakistan are its so called political élites, not Afghans.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Shoot at sight.

While it seems a cure it will more likely create a bigger tsunami.

Not every human coming through a closed border is a terrorist.

I am torn with the thought that it could bring peace to Pakistan but at the end of the day I doubt this will lead to any peace.

The ramifications would be bigger in my humble opinion.

If proven terrorist, then I have no qualms in saying such people should be hanged in public.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

[MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] Not all Afghanis are Taliban terrorists and the guys are right if Germany and France gave similar orders you would be crying about atrocities committed by them. And they did have terrorists attacks with similar or larger casualties.

Sent from the mobile client - Forum Talker

 

[Gabbar Singh]

If Pakistan decides to make the Durand line a hard border surely they just risk pissing off their own Pashtun population who live along the border?

It's a soft border for a reason - as I understand it tribes, settlements and entire villages were separated when the border was created thus people are allowed the right to move back and forth quite easily for socio economic reasons.

Is it really feasible to change this just because a tiny minority of Afghans are involved in terrorism in Pakistan?

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

If Pakistan decides to make the Durand line a hard border surely they just risk pissing off their own Pashtun population who live along the border?

It's a soft border for a reason - as I understand it tribes, settlements and entire villages were separated when the border was created thus people are allowed the right to move back and forth quite easily for socio economic reasons.

Is it really feasible to change this just because a tiny minority of Afghans are involved in terrorism in Pakistan?

The average Pakistani doesn't live on the border my friend, this 'soft border' is causing loss of life for innocent people who are average Pakistanis.

For the greater good of the nation, Border has to be sealed without any ifs or buts....

 

[Eagle_Eye]

For this order to be in place, the afghans must be trying to break the ban.

Just stay on Afghan side and there is nothing to worry about.

If I was to try to cross the line of control from my ancestral village in AJK, I would be shot dead by Indian army snipers...

 

[shaz619]

Funny how people who are in favor of this are against the treatment of refugees / illegals by the US, terrorists need to be dealt with accordingly but this shoot on sight policy is unethical on so many levels.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Third world mentality on display. Why not just detain anyone trying to cross over illegally?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Third world mentality on display. Why not just detain anyone trying to cross over illegally?

Prevalence of guns... last time, Pakistan army officer was killed by afghans when they tried to reason with them and stop them coming over with non lethal means. What do you expect them to do, keep having army men killed arresting afghans crossing over?

The afghans don't recognise it as a border, in fact they claim large part of KPK. That's the crux of the issue. The afghans don't want it to be enforced because they have this fantasy that one day they will get back this territory.

 

[troodon]

Arrest them.

Shooting will only increase the animosity. Violence begets more violence.

 

[blackanhyellow]

Arrest them.

Shooting will only increase the animosity. Violence begets more violence.

In context, it is a derogatory term.

Why? Because the people that use it historically were not very educated, so they probably didn't know daal has plenty of protein in it.

They are of the thinking that "real men" eat meat.

In England for example, sometimes desis get called "curry-eaters" or something along those lines as an insult.

To me, curry is delicious, but it is not meant that way by the people saying it.

 

[MenInG]

Too much hatred in the air.

Both sides should be mending fences.

 

[troodon]

In context, it is a derogatory term.

Why? Because the people that use it historically were not very educated, so they probably didn't know daal has plenty of protein in it.

They are of the thinking that "real men" eat meat.

In England for example, sometimes desis get called "curry-eaters" or something along those lines as an insult.

To me, curry is delicious, but it is not meant that way by the people saying it.

Okay. Thanks!

 

[Third_Umpire]

Terrible and inhumane if actually done.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

In context, it is a derogatory term.

Why? Because the people that use it historically were not very educated, so they probably didn't know daal has plenty of protein in it.

They are of the thinking that "real men" eat meat.

In England for example, sometimes desis get called "curry-eaters" or something along those lines as an insult.

To me, curry is delicious, but it is not meant that way by the people saying it.

Curry is one of the most popular cuisine In UK...

"Curry munchers" was an insult in Australia I believe.

 

[blackanhyellow]

Curry is one of the most popular cuisine In UK...

"Curry munchers" was an insult in Australia I believe.

Oh ok, thanks for the correction.

 

[PakLFC]

So first we take in million's of their refugee's for 40 years giving them decent lives only to be repeatedly stabbed in the back. They bring in their Kalashnikov and opium culture poisoning our youth effecting an entire generation still we continue to tolerate them. They for years allow RAW to use Afghanistan as a hideout to repeatedly attack Pakistan but again we turn a blind eye. There would inevitably come a point when a final straw will break the camel's back when Pakistanis refuse to take anymore terrorism from them. As the saying goes "lathon ke bhoot baton se nehin maante", let lethal force be used against them until they get the message loud and clear. Let the UN or anyone else beat their chests all they want for like any other country Pakistan has the right to defend it self. If Ashraf Ghani refuses to act then Qamar Javed Bajwa and ISI will take Afghanistan to the cleaners big time. If they refuse to acknowledge the problem then Pak has no choice but to take firm action themselves in which case there will be Afghan causalities. The third rate Afghan army fighting with bows and arrows don't stand a chance against our well drilled machine armed to teeth. I am hearing that we are only getting started here as heavy artillery is being moved to the Afghan border. By all means support the Indian Cricket team when living in Afghanistan, not Pakistan. So glad to see 600,000 thousand of them being thrown out of Pakistan. I do not want innocent Afghans to die however they leave Pakistan with no other choice here.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Most Afghans aren't enemies of Pakistan, the small number of terrorist leaders and their supporters have sold out to the Americans and Indians. Only a known terrorist should be targeted in this way.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Anyone actually shot since this announcement?

 

[ExpressPacer]

Despite being all for humanitarianism and respectful for life, I support this to the extreme. I would not have in the past. But I'm so done with all the terrorism, all the bombings, all the attacks, all the people dying, everything. So done with it.

Afghan citizens need to have some sense and not cross the border if they don't want to die. It's not like we're going to go and kill them inside Afghanistan. Pakistan has the absolute authority to this and if true, then this is an amazing decision by the Govt. and Pakistan Army. We need to go to all extremes and stop playing the nice guy role.

 

[Runner Up]

Instead of shooting, just arrest them and hand over to their beloved ones at Wahga Border.