Pakistani separatists kill 9 bus passengers: Govt - International
Security forces are battling a rise in ethnic and separatist violence in impoverished but mineral-rich Balochistan, which borders Afghanistan and Iran.
The militants boarded two buses on a major highway and checked passengers' identity cards before forcing nine people off the vehicles at gunpoint overnight on Thursday.
"The terrorists forced the two passenger buses to stop on a highway and pulled nine passengers out. They took them in an area nearby and killed all of them," local government official Naveed Alam told AFP.
The attackers specifically targeted people from Punjab, the country's most populous and prosperous province and a major recruitment base for the military.
"The forces found the dead bodies all belong to different areas of Punjab," said Saadat Hussain, another senior government official.
The Balochistan Liberation Front (BLA), a separatist group fighting the state, later claimed responsibility for the attack.
The BLA has emerged as the biggest threat targeting foreign interests, security forces and Pakistanis from outside the province.
Baloch separatists and rights groups say the military's heavy-handed counter-terrorism response to the insurgency has included widespread enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
Balochistan is rich in hydrocarbons and minerals, but 70 percent of its 15 million inhabitants live below the poverty line.
In March, the militant group was behind a deadly train siege with more than 450 passengers on board.
Last year was the deadliest in a decade for Pakistan, with a surge in attacks that killed more than 1,600 people, according to Islamabad-based analysis group the Center for Research and Security Studies.
Follow us on:
Short link:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Egypt Independent
12 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Zelensky and European leaders face tough choices at pivotal White House showdown
At what was billed as an 'historic' presidential summit, hastily put together in Alaska on Friday afternoon, the optics were as clear and overshadowing as the vast Chugach mountains glistening over Anchorage in the summer sun. US President Donald Trump literally applauded Vladimir Putin as he walked along a red carpet laid out in his honor by genuflecting US troops. After warmly greeting the Russian president, whose full-scale invasion of Ukraine has so far left more than a million people dead and injured, a US B-2 stealth bomber, flanked by fighter jets, roared overhead. But Putin seemed unintimidated by the spectacle. This was, after all, his long-awaited coming out of international isolation party; a political gift bestowed upon the Kremlin strongman, who is indicted for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, by a US president who called him his friend, 'Vladimir.' Later, in the windowless press room on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, where the White House and Kremlin press pools had gathered wrongly expecting a joint news conference, we found ourselves positioned alongside an energetic, tight-suited reporter from one of the radically conservative news networks who seem to vie for Trump's favor. 'Trump is determined to exit Biden's war,' the reporter confided to me between live shots, referring to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine that began in 2022 when Joe Biden was US president. 'But the Ukrainians and the Europeans are in his way,' the reporter added, seemingly frustrated, as Trump, at the reluctance to accept any deal at any price. Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump meet at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images The comment points to an even bigger, though less obvious, Putin victory than merely returning to the top table of international diplomacy: In pursuit of a quick peace deal in Ukraine, the US president appears to have taken Russia's side on key issues in the conflict. A ceasefire, for example. Ukraine and its European supporters have long argued that halting the violence must be an essential first step in peace talks. Trump, who had earlier accepted that, has apparently changed his mind, posting on his Truth Social platform about going for a full peace deal instead, a long-standing preference of the Kremlin, which sees no benefit in halting offensive operations at a time when it believes Russian forces have the upper hand. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, flanked by European leaders, prepares for direct and urgent talks with Trump, this about-face by the White House will be at the forefront of concerns and negotiations – alongside demands by Putin, and perhaps Trump too, for Kyiv to withdrawal from swathes of strategic territory in the Donbas region of Ukraine that has been annexed by Russia but not yet conquered. That may ultimately be a red line neither Ukraine nor Europe is willing to cross. Signing up to such a deal, which would involve pulling out of the so-called fortress belt of heavily defended Ukrainian towns and cities that have prevented Russian forces from advancing even deeper into Ukraine, would be seen as a security disaster on the continent. Ukrainian and European leaders are likely to push back hard in Washington on these territorial demands, but in doing so risk casting themselves – in the eyes of the White House, at least – as the real obstacles to peace. And saying no to a quick deal that Trump supports, with thoughts of a Nobel Peace Prize within his grasp, could push the mercurial US president to lash out, perhaps cutting off crucial intelligence sharing again, or military aid. Meanwhile, as Putin's forces relentlessly advance on the frontlines, he must be watching all this with some satisfaction. The fact a major territorial concession is being discussed at all is itself, from the Kremlin's point of view, yet another important win. While Ukraine and its Western backers haggle over how much more of Donbas Kyiv should surrender, the land Russia has already captured by brute force is barely mentioned at all. But in the days and the weeks ahead, as the success or failure of peace talks inevitably dominate the news agenda, it's worth acknowledging that it is Trump – not Putin – who is now driving this process forward and that the US President's objectives are not necessarily the same as those of Europe or Ukraine. Ukrainian servicemen fire a multiple rocket launch system towards Russian troops near the frontline town of Pokrovsk, in Ukraine's Donetsk region, on June 8. Anatolii Stepanov/Reuters That means there must also be concern about any promised US security guarantees – another key issue in peace negotiations, aimed at preventing the Kremlin from relaunching its war once the it has secured any peace deal advantage. A threat of US military action if, for instance, Russian violates a peace deal, must be credible if it is to be an effective deterrent. But with Trump pressuring for an end to the conflict and US involvement in it, the Kremlin may judge any US security guarantees as hollow in the current climate. Trump wants this war off his hands, a quick win. European security is not his paramount concern. Economic gain, and possible business deals with Russia, appear to be more of a priority, as it the idea of taking his place in a pantheon of leaders who bend the world to their will. Back at anticlimactic Alaskan summit, it was striking how deferential a usually domineering Trump appeared, even allowing Putin – a foreign guest on American soil – to speak first in the joint statements to the press. The US president stood listening quietly at his podium for several minutes as the Kremlin leader held forth on Alaska's Russian and American history before delivering his own impressions of the day's meetings. It was almost as if Putin, who confidently suggested Trump visit Moscow – in a rare English-language remark from the Russian president – was accepting Trump back into the fold, not the other way around; reintroducing him to the world from Alaska as a fellow strongman, with immense power, many thousands of miles away from the petty concerns of Ukraine and Europe.
Egypt Independent
15 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Egypt warns Israel that mass displacement of Gazans is a ‘red line'
Rafah, Egypt — The displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip is a 'red line' and Cairo will not allow any party to risk Egypt's national security or sovereignty, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said on Monday. In an exclusive interview with CNN in the northern Egyptian town of Al-Arish, close to the Gaza border, Abdelatty said that Egypt is working through 'different channels, with one objective, to alleviate the burden and suffering of Palestinians,' adding that mass Palestinian emigration from Gaza would not be tolerated by his country. 'We will not accept it, we will not participate in it, and we will not allow it to happen,' Abdelatty told CNN, adding that displacement is guaranteed to be a 'one way ticket' for Palestinians out of Gaza, which would lead to the 'liquidation' of their cause altogether. The Israeli government has never given a detailed vision of what will happen to Gaza after the war but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly advocated for moving Palestinians from Gaza to other countries, particularly after US President Donald Trump floated the idea early this year. But even after Trump appeared to cool on the proposal, Israeli officials have embraced it. Egypt is Gaza's only access to the outside world as Israel has blockaded the territory from the land, sea and air. Cairo has come under intense public pressure to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians and has repeatedly blamed Israel for blocking aid as thousands of trucks remain stranded at its border. Egypt's Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty gives a press conference in the New Administrative Capital, east of Cairo, Egypt on October 8, 2024. Khaled Desouki/AFP via Getty Images Asked whether the war places the Egypt-Israel peace treaty at risk, Abdelatty said Cairo is 'respecting and honoring (its) commitments according to the peace treaty,' but added that 'any kind of displacement would be a big risk and we will not allow any single party to risk our national security and our sovereignty… in our border.' The minister's warnings are some of the harshest since Israel said last week that it is in talks with several countries about taking in Palestinians displaced by the war. 'If the Israelis manage to displace them, I can assure you that will be the end of the Palestinian cause,' the foreign minister said. Egypt was the first Arab nation to recognize Israel in 1979. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that talks are underway with several countries about taking in displaced Palestinians. The countries involved are South Sudan, Somaliland, Ethiopia, Libya, and Indonesia, a senior Israeli official told CNN. In exchange for taking in some of Gaza's population of more than two million people, the official said the countries are looking for 'significant financial and international compensation.' It's unclear how advanced any of these discussions are and whether they are likely to come to fruition. South Sudan rejected earlier reports that it was in discussions about the resettlement of Palestinians, saying they were 'baseless.' Indonesia said it was ready to take in 2,000 Palestinians from Gaza for treatment but that they would return to Gaza once they recovered. Earlier this year, Somaliland also said there were no such talks. No partner for peace Abdelatty said that while Egypt maintains contact with Israel on the security and intelligence levels, it hasn't seen a desire from the political establishment to conclude the war. 'Unfortunately, we don't have a partner in Israel right now for peace and the two-state solution,' he said. 'We have ministers in the Israeli cabinet right now who do not believe in the two-state solution.' Israel's far-right ministers, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have called for an expansion of the war in Gaza and the emigration of Palestinians from the enclave, which critics have said amounts to ethnic cleansing. Abdelatty said negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage deal are, however, ongoing, adding that 'we reached a sort of understanding on most of the building issues' with regards to the latest proposal submitted by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Egyptian Red Crecent members prepare humanitarian aid at their warehouse in the logistical center supporting Gaza, at Sheikh Zuweid, Egypt, on Monday. Mayar Mokhtar/AP Last month, the US and Israel recalled their negotiating teams from Qatar, where talks had been taking place, with Witkoff saying the latest response from Hamas 'clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire.' The Egyptian foreign minister said Cairo is in favor of a comprehensive deal that ends the war, brings back hostages, releases Palestinian prisoners and allows aid to flow in. Israel's demand to immediately disarm Hamas is, he said, an 'impossible' condition at this stage of the talks. 'Israel is insisting on disarming Hamas now. Who will do it? How can we do it on the ground?' he said, adding that Israel has tried to eliminate the group through a 22-month bombardment campaign and still failed. 'We need to push now (for a deal),' Abdelatty said. There is currently a delegation from Hamas in Cairo, he said, and talks are ongoing with the Qataris, the Americans and the Israelis. 'We can have a deal if we have political will.' 'Once you're here… you cannot leave' On Monday, CNN saw dozens of aid trucks lining the roads to the Rafah crossing with Gaza, where many convoys have remained idle for weeks or even months, often causing essential food aid to spoil. Abdelatty said that there are 5,000 trucks on the Egyptian side of the crossing waiting to enter the blockaded strip, but that 'the Israelis are not allowing them to enter.' Three truck drivers told CNN they've been waiting for more than a week for a greenlight to enter. Medhat Mohamed, a father of three, had his truck turned back Wednesday after a rejection by the Israeli military, he said, adding that he has spent the past three weeks parked along the Egyptian side of the border. Palestinians, displaced by the Israeli offensive, shelter in a tent camp as the Israeli military prepares to relocate residents to southern Gaza, in Gaza City on Sunday. Dawoud Abu Alkas/Reuters 'Once you're here with your truck you cannot leave,' Mohamed told CNN. 'Either your aid gets approved and you leave or you stay next to your truck – that might take weeks, or even months' He said it was the little he could do to help Gaza's starving population. 'This is not about money – we can get a lot of money from work in Cairo. We're here because we want to help in any way we can the people in Gaza.' Another driver, Mohamed Fawzy, told CNN he was carrying ICU beds that were rejected four times by Israeli authorities. Amal Imam, the executive director of the Egyptian Red Crescent, told CNN the beds, along with the rest of aid rejected, had received pre-approval by Israeli authorities but had been rejected for containing metals and plastic.
Egypt Independent
21 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
As South Korea's population falls, its military is shrinking rapidly. Is that a problem as North Korea ramps up its forces?
The writing has been on the wall for a long time: South Korea's birth rate has dropped throughout much of the past decade, spelling trouble for the military as regional threats and global conflicts simmer. Now, a new report has found that the number of South Korean troops declined by 20% in the past six years, in large part because of the dwindling pool of young men – reflecting the shrinking workforce and swelling elderly population in one of the world's most rapidly aging countries. The Defense Ministry report attributed the drop to 'complex factors' including population decline and fewer men wanting to become officers due to 'soldier treatment.' The report didn't elaborate on that treatment but studies and surveys have previously highlighted the military's notoriously harsh conditions. As of July, the military had 450,000 troops, it said – down from 563,000 in 2019. 'If the number of standing army (members) continues to decline, there can be difficulties in securing elite manpower and limits in operating equipment,' warned the report, shared last week by lawmaker Choo Mi-ae. The news comes at a bad time for South Korea, a key Western ally which hosts huge numbers of US troops and has a mutual defense treaty with Washington. Just across the border, neighboring North Korea has sent tens of thousands of soldiers to fight for Russia along the front lines with Ukraine – raising fears that Moscow may share advanced military technology with Pyongyang in exchange, violating international sanctions. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin during a visit to Pyongyang, North Korea, on June 19, 2024. Gavriil Grigorov/Pool/AFP/Getty Images/File Meanwhile, North Korea's ruling Kim family has continued blasting hostile rhetoric, threatening to destroy South Korea with nuclear weapons if attacked and warning that Seoul remains 'the enemy.' However, experts say, that doesn't necessarily mean North Korea's military is better off. The North is facing its own population woes and birth rate decline – and its technology lags far behind the South, which is now hoping to plug the shortfall in military recruits through innovation. 'South Korea is incomparably far ahead of North Korea in terms of conventional weapons,' said Choi Byung-ook, a national security professor at Sangmyung University. 'We have smaller troops now, but I like to say 'small but strong military,' that's what we need to become.' Double the babies, triple the soldiers On the surface, North Korea has a few advantages. It's one of the world's most heavily militarized nations, with up to 1.3 million armed forces personnel, according to the CIA World Factbook. That's nearly three times higher than South Korea's troop numbers. Those troops also serve in the military for far longer – an average of 10 years, which allows them to have higher 'unit cohesion (and) knowledge of each other's capabilities,' said Sydney Seiler, senior adviser to the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. By contrast, there's 'really not much advanced skills that you can develop' within the year and a half that most South Korean conscripts serve, Seiler said. North Korea's fertility rate – defined as the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime – is also far higher, at 1.77 in 2025 compared to South Korea's rate of 0.75, UN data shows. That data also suggests the North has been having more babies per year than the South since 2018, said Jooyung Lee, senior economist at the Bank of Korea Economic Research Institute. But the full picture is more complicated, experts told CNN. For one, South Korea has a reserve force of about 3.1 million men. While their training may be basic, it would give them the numbers needed for potential warfare – and that's not including the 28,500 US troops stationed in the country. Pyongyang is also facing its own population problems, with its fertility rate dipping in the last few years after the pandemic. The nation's authoritarian leader, Kim Jong Un, pointed to the problem at a national conference of mothers in 2023, urging them to 'give birth to many children' as a patriotic duty. That could bode ill for a highly isolated nation with an economy that relies on labor-intensive industries like agriculture and mining, said Lee. It's hard to tell how much this has impacted the North Korean military so far. But the fact that Pyongyang has sent tens of thousands of troops to fight for Russia suggests Kim 'doesn't feel concerned about not having enough soldiers on board to do the task of defending the homeland,' Seiler said. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un instructs soldiers at a firing contest among army sub-units on July 23, 2025, in a photo released by the official Korean Central News Agency. STR/AFP/KCNA VIA KNS/AFP via Getty Image Their military has also enlisted more women to fill whatever gaps do exist. This trend began near the turn of the century after a previous dip in fertility, Lee said, with the proportion of female recruits now reaching as high as 20% by some estimates. Many are younger women serving in the military's communications, administrative and anti-aircraft artillery sectors, said Lee, who has interviewed many North Korean refugees who fled the country. Meanwhile, middle-aged and older women have been mobilized to fill gaps in other civilian sectors. By contrast, women are not conscripted in South Korea – a controversial point that has stoked resentment among some young Korean men who argue their mandatory service puts them at a disadvantage in their studies, careers and personal lives. As of 2023, volunteer females accounted for only 3.6% of the entire military, according to the Defense Ministry. The way forward Some experts have suggested that conscripting more women could solve South Korea's problem, which the Defense Ministry has not ruled out. But Choi, the national security professor, argued the country needs to move away from the idea of increasing its manpower – and instead focus on advancing its technology and making the troops elite. 'I don't personally agree with opinions that we must have a large number of troops because North Korea does,' he said. 'The size of our troops has decreased and there are not many options to increase it … I think we need to take this crisis as an opportunity as South Korea is in the route of becoming a science technology powerhouse.' On the battlefields of Europe, Ukraine has shown firsthand how an out-manned and out-gunned military can still hold back and inflict painful losses on a much larger opponent by embracing new and affordable technology. Tools like drones and cyber-warfare could help decrease South Korea's reliance on infantry and artillery, Seiler said. AI-assisted and autonomous systems could further boost a shrinking military, said Leif-Eric Easley, a professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. Choi pointed out that South Korea spends far more on defense than the North, and conducts many military drills including with allies like the US – making it better equipped in overall combat readiness. However, Seiler warned, at the end of the day 'you still need people. There's no robots or automation that can replace a trained soldier, airman, marine.' Easley agreed, saying South Korea's military would still face shortages in manpower in the event of war. And a broader challenge remains: how do authorities change cultural attitudes toward the military within South Korea? While people can volunteer to become professional cadres who serve longer terms and train with more advanced weapons, the number of applicants has dropped steadily over the years. High-profile cases of hazing, bullying and harassment within the South Korean military may have contributed to negative perceptions of the force. In recent years, the government has loosened restrictions on conscripts – including allowing them to use cell phones at certain times of the day – and offered a longer civilian service alternative to conscription. But that's not enough, said Choi. 'We need to improve military welfare and fighting spirits as a whole,' he said – adding that supporting the current size of the military will become even harder in the coming decades as the population declines further. 'By 2040s, even maintaining 350,000 troops will be difficult, and that is why we need to establish an optimized manpower structure system … as soon as possible.'
