TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 13 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Bomb in Pakistan kills 47, injures 200

The bomb exploded in Hazara town, an area dominated by Shiites on the outskirts of Quetta.

File photo (not of scene)
File photo (not of scene)
Image: Mohammad Sajjad/AP

A REMOTE-CONTROLLED bomb targeting Shiite Muslims killed 47 people including women and children and wounded more than 200 in Pakistan’s insurgency-hit southwest today, police and officials said.

The bomb exploded in Hazara town, an area dominated by Shiites on the outskirts of Quetta, capital of oil and gas rich Baluchistan province.

“At least 47 people have been killed and at least 200 more wounded. The death toll may rise. It was a remote-controlled bomb,” Wazir Khan Nasir, senior police officer in Quetta, told AFP.

“It was a sectarian attack, the Shiite community was the target,” he added.

Azhar Ali Shah, a second police officer, confirmed the death toll, which had initially been put at 10. Provincial home secretary Akbar Hussain Durrani told AFP that the dead included women and children.

“We fear more casualties. We have announced an emergency in hospitals,” he said.

Durrani said the bomb was planted near the pillar of a building in a bazaar. “The building collapsed due to the intensity of the bomb, some people have been trapped inside,” he said.

Officials and witnesses said an angry mob surrounded the area after the blast and were not allowing policemen, rescue workers and reporters to reach the site.

“They were angry and started a protest, some of them pelted police with stones,” home secretary Akbar Hussain Durrani told AFP.

“Some of them were armed and were firing gunshots in the air, now they have allowed police and rescue workers to reach on spot,” he added.

An AFP photographer counted 30 dead bodies in only one hospital.

Sectarian violence

Baluchistan, which borders Iran and Afghanistan, has increasingly become a flashpoint for sectarian violence between Pakistan’s majority Sunni Muslims and Shiites, who account for around a fifth of the country’s 180 million people.

At least 92 people were killed and 121 wounded on January 10, when two suicide bombers blew themselves up at a crowded snooker club in an area of Quetta city dominated by the Shiite community.

It was Pakistan’s worst sectarian bombing, claimed by Sunni Muslim militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf later the same month sacked the provincial government in Baluchistan after meeting Shiite Muslim protesters demanding protection.

The province is also rife with Islamist militants and a regional insurgency which began in 2004.

The insurgents demand political autonomy and a greater share of profits from the region’s natural resources.

- © AFP 2013.

Read: Suicide attack at Pakistan checkpost leaves 24 dead>

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (52 Comments)

  • In the name of religion. Misguided zealots and fanatics. No religion and that includes Islam says kill your own people/fellow believers. Unrepresentative lunatics.

    Reply
  • You have to worry for Pakistan, the religious nuts are taking over. Don’t think I’d like to be an atheist in that country.

    Reply
  • the Religion of Peace showing its true face again.

    Reply
  • Religion you old dog, you’ve done it again.

    Bravo….

    Reply
  • Derek, what you are saying is this, if I had a family member killed in a drone strike I should seek revenge by planting a bomb that’s going to target and kill people who had nothing to with the drone strike?!
    Your thinking is off.
    That was the reasoning behind the IRA bombings of the ’70′s and ’80′s.
    Well the English did this to us so this bomb going off is justified.
    Sick twisted logic.

    Reply
    • Declan your logic is completely twisted, are you trying in some eoighan Harris kind of way to compare the IRA with Islamic militants. Goodbye and good luck. Ps check out the late Christopher hitchens on islam.

      Reply
    • Declan you are out of order the IRA were freedom fighters these nut cases are nothing but freedom fighters. When you are a freedom fighter you are entitled to blow people up because this is what freedom fighters do. In time when the freedom fighters get into power they will write the true history and will then be recognised by all as freedom fighters and not terrorists. Their only worry would be attack by terrorists who think that they are freedom fighters.

      Reply
    • John, no I am not comparing the IRA to these bombers. I am talking about the twisted logic that people use to bomb innocent people.

      Reply
    • John, I think I know what Christopher Hitchens had to say about Islam. Any idea from you of what he would have to say about IRA bombs?

      Reply
    • If the 2057 men, women and children killed by republicans had a voice today I am sure that they would appreciate that their sacrifice was not in vain but necessary in order to achieve the ultimate goal of freedom. Freedom is a much misunderstood concept sometimes we must be forced to be free. With freedom comes responsibilities and duties. One of those duties is to demonstrate our unswerving loyalty and due reverence to those who have set us free. Those misguided individuals who do not demonstrate true devotion to their liberators should be ostracised by normal society.

      Reply
    • KEVIN.N 16/02/13 #

      Comparing our domestic terrorism (PIRA, UVF) to Islamic terrorism is absurd. Islamism’s goal is to conquer the world, implement Islamic law, and convert the rest of us to Islam or die. Every country has or had domestic terrorism at some point in their history.

      Reply
    • KEVIN.N 16/02/13 #

      I know your being sarcastic Patrick but Irish Independence was very much justified. If the majority of Irish people do not want to remain in the UK and are forced to that is complete tyranny. It would be like denying Scottish Independence if the overwhelmingly majority wish to secede. There was nothing democratic about the Union of Ireland or Scotland with England. If Northern Ireland was forced to become part of the ROI then that is as well tyranny as the majority do not wish to do so.

      Reply
  • Any comments from those critical of drone strikes against these militants who target the general population.
    Silent as always.

    Reply
    • And suicide bombers and flying planes into building and beheading kidnapped people and killing polio vaccine health workers and and and. Muslims need to stand up to Islamist head cases. Then we will get somewhere.

      Reply
    • i agree with drone strikes. the US says however it has seriously diminished the militants but they we see something like this. The government there should tackle it harder. what the area need is investment. Living in shacks with no link to outside world its easy to be brainwashed. Education is the best answer but sadly its not going to sort itself out for many years. i do see a Vietnam situation as soon as US pulls out Afghanistan will fall into civil war and could revert back to the way it was

      Reply
    • Pity you don’t understand that flying drones into buildings not only kills militants but innocent targets including women and children which creates more militants and an ensuing blowback but of course thats what they want, endless wars. And for every 50 people killed in drones strikes, only 1 are militants.

      Reply
    • Total strikes: 362
      Total reported killed: 2,629 – 3,461
      Civilians reported killed: 475 – 891
      Children reported killed: 176
      Total reported injured: 1,267 – 1,431

      thats wikipedia for Pakistan. problem with militants they hide in civilian areas just so things like that happen but the number of militants killed toward number of civilian casualties is seriously contested but deffo not 50/1. If pakistan actually took action then these strikes would not happen.

      targeting houses i think is wrong as you never know whats inside. vehicle convoy fair enough but not houses. Thing is you cant believe the US figures any more then you can believe pakistans figures

      Reply
    • Derek, do you see what you just did with your comment? You justified this attack on the general population. You twisted it around to blame the Americans.
      You are justifying the actions of extremists in this world.

      Reply
    • mattoid 16/02/13 #

      Derek your figure is complete bullshit

      Reply
    • Declan — You’re such a slave to American power.

      Reply
    • mattoid 16/02/13 #

      Maybe you’ve spent too much time listening to Damien Flinter – he often came out with this figure saying it came from the “Living Under Drones” report. I proved to him that the report actually says something completely different but that didn’t stop him from repeating the lie.

      Quoting from the report: “From June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881
      were civilians, including 176 children.”
      This represents from 14% (best case scenario) to 34% (worst case scenario) civilian casualties – far too many in anybody’s book, but a long way from the 98% figure you have peddled.
      The 2% reference in the Stanford report actually states:

      “The number of ‘high-level’ targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%”.
      The source given for this figure is the Bergen-Braun study, which clearly states “Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at least two credible news sources. While this represents a significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related fatalities”, ie. the 2% figure refers solely to Taliban leaders as opposed to Taliban ‘foot soldiers’.

      The same report also states:
      “The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus ‘unknowns’, those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama’s tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%” ie. in 2012 only 2% of drone strike casualties have been civilians, the complete opposite of what you have claimed!

      Any civilian death is one too many but please don’t misrepresent the truth.

      http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf
      http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html
      http://www.law.columbia.edu/ipimages/Human_Rights_Institute/The%20Civilian%20Impact%20of%20Drones.pdf
      http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/13-1/drone%20strikes.pdf

      Reply
    • Petr, you are another one of those people who are silent when it comes to the killing of innocents by extremists in the world.
      Where am I a slave to US power?
      I have been critical of US actions in the past but I will not be taking the side of these nut jobs in Pakistan.

      Reply
    • Petr, I would say that you are a slave to dogma. I don’t think there is a free bone in your body or a free thought in your head.
      Dogma, look it up and reflect on it.

      Reply
    • Declan — You barely literate buffoon. Can you point out where I have ever taken the side of, or excused, Islamist violence? Didn’t think so.

      Reply
    • @Mattoid. Google it. If u were following whats going on over there, u’d know the figure is correct.

      Reply
    • mattoid 16/02/13 #

      @Derek
      I have already thrashed this out with Damien Flinter who made the same claim as you and cited the “Living Under Drones” report as a source, but completely misrepresented it.

      Quoting from the report: “From June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881
      were civilians, including 176 children.”
      This represents from 14% (best case scenario) to 34% (worst case scenario) civilian casualties – far too many in anybody’s book, but a long way from the 98% figure you have peddled.

      The 2% reference in the Stanford report actually states:
      “The number of ‘high-level’ targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%”. The source given for this figure is the Bergen-Braun study, which clearly states “Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at least two credible news sources. While this represents a significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related fatalities”, ie. the 2% figure refers solely to Taliban leaders as opposed to Taliban ‘foot soldiers’.

      The same report also states:
      “The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus ‘unknowns’, those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama’s tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%” ie. in 2012 only 2% of drone strike casualties have been civilians the complete opposite of what you have claimed!

      I can provide links to back all this up. Can you provide any souce for your claim?

      Reply
    • mattoid 17/02/13 #

      Thought not.

      Reply
  • Sorry I went abroad on business after posting my comment and caught up with the fallout on my return today.
    My specific comment implication that there was no religious or any other justification for the indiscriminate act of violence that was the reported bomb explosion and the needless deaths. That also applies for all such acts carried out b whosoever when so ever.
    As regards religions don’t tell me that religious internecine wars haven’t happened over the centuries sanctioned by all kind of religions and leaders mainstream or otherwise or were all the crusades to give an expletive of the past and the barbarity associated with it in the past and the Northern Ireland ongoing festering issue till now which I accept has other factors involved but that one factor used to continue it is religious leanings/subdivisions. My issue is the somewhat blanket targeting and vilifying of one religion, albeit sometimes somewhat justified but most times due to prejudices, bigotry and other agenda’s. Try targeting Judaism like this and see how the powers and the press crush you.
    I understand Communism is no longer the Pariah that everyone could target their ire towards but doesn’t mean you have to target Islam for the need of a substitute or to support your expansionist aims or supporting the arms industry.

    Reply
  • I blame the Americans they have de-stabilised the whole region. Terrible bombing just a sick thing to do.

    Reply
  • The perps should drop one of the “i’s ” in their religions name.

    Reply

Add New Comment