Pakistan army says 300 hostages freed from train
Pakistan's army says it has freed more than 300 hostages from a passenger train seized by militants in Balochistan province on Tuesday.
The military spokesperson said 33 militants were killed during the operation.
Twenty-one civilian hostages and four military personnel were killed by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) before the operation began, the military spokesperson said.
The military continues its search operation in the area to rule out any remaining threats.
The Pakistani authorities - as well as several Western countries, including the UK and US - have designated the BLA as a terrorist organisation.
The BLA is one of the rebel groups demanding either greater autonomy or independence for Balochistan, Pakistan's largest province.
They accuse Islamabad of exploiting the province's rich mineral resources while also neglecting it. In the past, they have attacked military camps, railway stations and trains - but this is the first time they have hijacked a train.
At least 100 of those on the train were members of the security forces, officials have said.
The militants had threatened to kill hostages if authorities did not release Baloch political prisoners within 48 hours, according to local reports.
During the attack, the militants blew up a section of the tracks and opened fire on the train near a mountain tunnel.
Eyewitnesses described the "doomsday scenes" on board the train as the attack unfolded, with passenger Ishaq Noor telling the BBC: "We held our breath throughout the firing, not knowing what would happen next."
Officials had difficulty communicating with passengers at the time of the attack, because the remote area has no internet or mobile coverage.
Some passengers who managed to disembark from the train late on Tuesday evening walked for nearly four hours to reach the next railway station.
Among them was Muhammad Ashraf, who had been travelling from Quetta to Lahore to visit his family.
"We reached the station with great difficulty, because we were tired and there were children and women with us," he told the BBC.
Helicopters and hundreds of troops were deployed to rescue the hostages. More than 100 passengers had been freed by Wednesday morning.
The hijacking lasted more than 30 hours.
A spokesperson for the military said anyone involved in the attack would be brought to justice.
Passengers describe 'doomsday scenes' on hijacked train
At least 100 passengers freed from Pakistan train siege
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Putin's Oil Empire Gets Double Boost
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. will not back an EU proposal to impose a price cap on Russian oil that seeks to curb revenues for Russian President Vladimir Putin's war machine, according to Bloomberg. Russia could also benefit from the spike in oil prices following Israel's attack on Iran, a major producer of the commodity. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment. A fuel tank farm of Russian oil pipeline giant Transneft on December 13, 2023. A fuel tank farm of Russian oil pipeline giant Transneft on December 13, It Matters Revenues from fossil fuels form the core of Russia's fiscal planning. As well as targeting Russia's natural gas, the European Commission's 18th sanctions package proposed lowering the cap on seaborne Russian oil from $60 to $45. The EU measures, which also target Russian businesses and banking, requires the backing of all 27 members. The proposal on Russian oil would need the support of the G7, which meets later this month. Bloomberg's report that Washington will not back the move deals a blow to Western hopes of limiting Moscow's means to fund its aggression in Ukraine, especially after oil prices rose following hostilities between Israel and Iran. What To Know The G7 introduced the $60-a-barrel cap that restricts the price Russia can earn from its seaborne oil. But it has not been effective in curbing the Kremlin's revenues since coming into effect in February 2023, partly because of Moscow's sanctions-busting "shadow fleet" of older vessels and a slump in oil prices. The European Commission proposed this week to drop the cap to $45, with High Representative Kaja Kallas suggesting that because Russian oil mostly transits the Baltic and Black Seas, U.S. support for the measure is not essential. An accord involving all G7 nations would be more effective because of the strength of U.S. enforcement, but the U.S. opposes dropping the price cap, Bloomberg reported, citing unnamed sources. Russian President Vladimir Putin at the St. George's Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace on June 12. Russian President Vladimir Putin at the St. George's Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace on June 12. Oil prices surged following Israel's strikes against Iran, and West Texas Intermediate crude futures advanced by more than 7 percent to settle near $73 a barrel, the biggest one-day jump since March 2022. The Institute for the Study of War said on Friday that the oil price rise may increase Russian revenue from oil sales and improve Russia's ability to sustain its war effort in Ukraine, delivering a boost to Putin. The Washington, D.C., think tank said Moscow might be able to leverage sudden oil price rises to weather economic challenges and finance a protracted war in Ukraine. This is notable given the concerns Putin previously voiced that any reduction in the oil price would likely risk destabilizing Russia's economy. Nikos Tzabouras, a senior market analyst at told Newsweek that although prices are set to rise, sustained hikes would require disruption to supply chains, and the U.S.'s denial of involvement in Israel's strikes keeps hope alive for a contained conflict, keeping downward pressure on oil. A sustained upside would require actual disruptions to physical flows, such as damage to Iran's oil infrastructure or a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a key global chokepoint, Tzabouras added. What People Are Saying The Institute for the Study of War said in a report on Friday: "Oil price increases following Israeli strikes against Iran may increase Russian revenue from oil sales and improve Russia's ability to sustain its war effort in Ukraine." Nikos Tzabouras, a senior market analyst at told Newsweek: "The U.S. denial of involvement offers a possible off-ramp, keeping hopes alive for a contained conflict and continuation of nuclear talks, which could pressure oil." Allen Good, the director of equity research at Morningstar, told Newsweek: "We expect, absent a wider war, today's rise in prices will likely prove to be a sell-the-news event. Oil markets remain amply supplied with OPEC set on increasing production and demand soft." What Happens Next The G7 summit is expected to discuss the oil price cap proposal when it meets in Alberta, Canada, from Sunday. The EU may try to proceed with the measure even if the U.S. rejects the proposal. U.S. President Donald Trump and his officials will make the final decision, Bloomberg reported. Meanwhile, markets continued to eye the effects the hostilities between Iran and Israel are having on oil prices.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine arrests two suspects accused of extorting foreign defense supplier
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has arrested two individuals in Kyiv accused of attempting to extort $200,000 from a European defense company, potentially jeopardizing the delivery of electronic warfare (EW) systems to Ukraine's military, the SBU reported on June 14. The suspects allegedly demanded the payment in exchange for facilitating the successful testing and adoption of five radio electronic warfare systems provided to Ukraine at no cost, according to statements released by the SBU and the Prosecutor General's Office. The devices, supplied by a private foreign manufacturer, were financed by Ukraine's international partners. The producer had already delivered five systems to Ukraine, with additional contracts possible if the equipment performed well in combat conditions, the SBU said. According to investigators, the suspects falsely claimed to have influence within Ukraine's Defense Ministry and promised to use their connections to ensure positive evaluations of the equipment. "Under the guise of having contacts within the ministry, the men demanded $200,000 from the company in exchange for ensuring no obstacles during official trials of the equipment," the Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement. Both men have been formally charged under Ukraine's Criminal Code for alleged obstruction of the Armed Forces and receiving unlawful benefits through influence peddling. The charges carry a possible sentence of up to eight years in prison and asset confiscation. The arrests were made as part of a broader investigation led by the SBU and conducted under the procedural oversight of the Specialized Defense Prosecutor's Office. Authorities say the investigation is ongoing to identify all individuals involved. Ukraine continues to rely heavily on international military assistance as it defends against Russia's full-scale invasion, now in its fourth year. Ukraine uses EW systems during Russian attacks on its cities and on the front line. Kyiv and its Western partners launched an electronic warfare coalition in April, which consists of 11 countries and comes on top of other eight Western coalitions to support Ukraine. Other similar initiatives include an artillery coalition, a fighter jet coalition, and a demining coalition, organized within the framework of the Ramstein format. Read also: From buffer zone to new front: Russia pushes deeper into Sumy Oblast We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
More Details Emerge Around the Public Land Sale Bill — and It's Worse Than You Think
As the magnitude of Senate Republicans' proposal to sell millions of acres of public land in the West has reverberated over the last two days, opponents are mobilizing to keep what they call a bad idea from becoming law. They're encouraging the hunting and fishing community to flood Instagram and Facebook with 'hell no' videos and posts that denounce the Wednesday night bill introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). They're contacting congressional delegations to let them know that the mandatory sale of between 2.02 and 3.04 million unidentified acres of BLM and Forest Service land over the next five years is a political land mine. And they're digging into the arcane and dense language of the bill to learn that it has much, much wider ramifications for Western land management than its proponents have indicated. 'Don't take the bait that this is about 'affordable housing,' as its proponent claims,' says David Willms, associate vice president for public lands with the National Wildlife Federation. 'It isn't.' An attorney, Willms has parsed the bill's language and concluded that, in both its wording and intention, it intends to remake the map of the Western United States by allowing the sale of public lands that could be used for nearly any purpose under an expansive 'associated community needs' definition. He says that could include AI data centers, ski areas, golf courses, or consolidation of large ranches. Willms and co-host of Your Mountain podcast Nephi Cole detail both the specifics of the bill and its potential consequences in a remarkable podcast that dropped today. Other conservation groups have calculated the amount and mapped the locations of BLM and Forest Service land that would be eligible for sale under Lee's bill. It totals 120 million acres across 11 Western states. .embed-container {position: relative; padding-bottom: 80%; height: 0; max-width: 100%;} .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container iframe{position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%;} small{position: absolute; z-index: 40; bottom: 0; margin-bottom: -15px;} For public-land advocates, defeating the Senate Energy and Natural Resources' budget draft, which contains the public-land sale language, is the biggest fight of their careers. 'Anybody who supports this in the Senate that has any inkling that this is a good idea, they need to get their ass kicked,' says Land Tawney, the animated leader of a lobbying group called American Hunters and Anglers. 'We need to flood their social pages with comments. We need to call their offices. These folks are too scared of the public to have public meetings, but if you see them on an airplane coming home for the recess, that's a good time to remind them to keep public lands in public hands.' Meanwhile, critter conservation groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are encouraging their members to get engaged. 'RMEF is very concerned about the federal land sales provision included in Chairman Mike Lee's energy and natural resources section of the pending budget reconciliation bill and will continue to work to remove that measure from the legislation,' the foundation said in a press release. 'We encourage our members to contact their senators to express their opinions about selling two million acres of BLM and national forest lands across the West. ' Because Lee's bill draft was dropped on Wednesday evening, following an hours-long meeting of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs, early reporting focused on the jaw-dropping acreage in play. The bill, in a section titled 'Mandatory Disposal of Bureau of Land Management Land and National Forest Service System Land for Housing,' requires the BLM and Forest Service to 'select for disposal no less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent' of eligible land for sale. National parks, wildlife refuges, designated wilderness areas, national monuments, and historic sites would be exempt from sale. The bill identifies additional exemptions: lands where there are legally recognized permits or rights-of-ways are not eligible for sale. That means livestock grazing leases, mining claims, rights-of-way for a transmission line or a pipeline or an energy lease or a solar or wind project. And federal land in Montana is exempt, because that state's senior senator, Steve Daines (R), negotiated with Lee to omit Montana from the budget package in order to reduce bill-killing opposition. In a video that discusses some of the provisions of his bill, Lee stresses that the sales would be of 'underutilized' federal land 'suitable for residential development' in order to alleviate housing shortages around fast-growing Western cities. That's not the case, says Willms. 'You're hearing that this bill would address affordable housing. It won't,' he says, pointing to bill language that says eligible land must address 'local housing needs or any associated community needs.' 'The term 'community' isn't defined,' notes Willms. 'We know the administration has called for building data centers on public land. Maybe that's considered a 'community need'? It could be a business park. Or maybe a golf course. It's public land sale under the guise of affordable housing but it's really for economic development for any use. And land can be nominated for sale by state and local governments, but the bill also says land can be nominated for sale by 'interested parties.' That could include corporations, foreign governments, we just don't know.' The bill also contains a provision that 'a person may not purchase more than 2 tracts of covered Federal land in any 1 sale… unless the person owns land surrounding the tracts of covered Federal land to be sold.' In other words, large landowners could use the land-sale mechanism to buy inholdings and consolidate their private holdings. Willms also takes exception to Lee's claim that the public would have opportunities to weigh in on proposed land sales. 'The bill contains language that says all these sales are 'considered to meet the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,' which means that they are deemed to have already complied with all public-notice and participation requirements,' says Willms. 'It basically means the public is cut out of this. These sales will not have a public process.' If the lands package makes it into the Senate's version of the budget reconciliation bill, and the bill becomes law, public-land sales would start quickly. The bill calls for the process to start within 60 days of passage and requires the 2 to 3 million acres to be sold within five years, with 90 percent of revenue going to the U.S. Treasury, 5 percent returned to the state of the sale, and 5 percent going to the agency that sold the land. The upshot, says Willms, is 'they're going to try to jam this through in a week or two without public input, without vetting any of the potential consequences this bill will cause. This bill is not ready for prime time, yet it's in prime time … everybody is forced to take a vote on it. But I think that's intentional: jam this [mandatory land sale] into a big bill with a high priority in a tight time frame.' Sources don't expect Lee's lands package to get a vote in his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 'Under the reconciliation process, they aren't required to mark up each section in committee,' said an unnamed legislative source who wasn't authorized to speak to the press. 'They will probably not do committee votes in order to avoid taking any more hard votes than what is necessary.' The committee's portion of the budget package, containing the land-sale requirement, will go to the Senate budget committee for review and then for a vote on the full Senate floor. That vote could happen prior to the July 4 congressional recess, says the source. The majority Republicans can only lose three votes in the Senate. If the budget package passes the Senate, then it's likely to return to the House, where it passed by a single vote last month. 'If this does pass the Senate, then I don't think the House can stomach the lands provision,' the legislative source says. 'The House language [that proposed selling 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada] was a bridge too far for Representative Zinke (R-Mont.), among others. I think this Senate version is a continent too far for some of these folks.' A number of sources have criticized Daines for abrogating campaign pledges to defend public land. As the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, widely credited with winning the Republican majority in the Senate, and as a ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he could use his influence to strip or moderate the lands package. 'When this lands package was in the House, we had Zinke stand up and say that selling public land was his 'San Juan Hill' and his 'red line,'' says Willms. 'But on the Senate side you don't have [a Republican] who is saying they will not vote for this.' But critics say Daines' deal with Lee has taken both Montana senators out of the fight. 'Hopefully some Republican Senator will stand up and be that champion, but we don't have that, so there's a high risk of this provision staying in this bill.' Which means, if the Senate passes the lands bill, the next and probably last place to kill it will be in the House conference committee. The unnamed legislative source said that Western senators and representatives are already getting plenty of heat on the topic, and they said that continued pressure could cause them to pull the lands package from the budget bill. 'The hunting and angling community needs to keep the pressure up,' they said. 'At the end of the day, the Republican delegations need to realize that the sportsmen's community is a big voting bloc, and the broader outdoor recreation community is an even bigger voting bloc. These folks need to realize that they're messing with a $1.3 trillion industry, but even more to the point, they need to realize this is the third rail and they've been put in an untenable position by their party's leadership.' The larger issue of disposing of the public estate without a public process or a clear public purpose isn't just a Western issue, the legislative source said. 'It doesn't matter if you live in Bozeman or Baltimore, these lands belong to you. The best thing I can advise, as someone who sees how members [of Congress] respond to stimuli, is let your Congressman know how you feel. Your members need to hear from you, and the time window is very short to engage.'
