Pakistan Taliban release video of Polish hostage's beheading

Monday 09th February, 06:02 AM JST

PESHAWAR —

Pakistani Taliban militants released a graphic video Sunday showing the beheading of a Polish engineer whom they said was killed because Islamabad refused to free detained insurgents.

The tape was released one day after a spokesman for Pakistan’s umbrella Taliban group said its men had decapitated Piotr Stanczak, who was seized in the volatile northwest on Sept 28.

Pakistan has seen a number of kidnappings of foreign nationals in recent months, many of them in the northwest, where Taliban and al-Qaida militants have been holed up since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.

Authorities in Islamabad are also hunting for an American U.N. worker abducted a week ago in the southwestern city of Quetta. A shadowy ethnic Baluch rebel group has claimed responsibility for that kidnapping.

Stanczak, who was working in Pakistan for a Polish energy company, was seized by armed men in the town of Attock, about 70 kilometers northwest of the capital Islamabad. His two drivers and bodyguard were killed.

The video released by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) shows Stanczak sitting cross-legged on a carpet, wearing a khaki shalwar kameez.

The Polish man made a brief statement in English in response to questions posed by his captors, urging his government to withdraw its contingent of about 1,100 troops from Afghanistan, where they are helping fight Taliban insurgents.

In the next scene, Stanczak is sitting in the same position, but blindfolded. A masked man is shown beheading him with a knife, while two men stand guard behind him, holding AK-47s at the hostage’s head.

A masked militant is then shown saying Stanczak was killed because Taliban prisoners were not released and warning that other foreign hostages could meet the same fate, without claiming to have specific hostages in captivity.

A black banner seen in the beheading video reads: “Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Darra Adam Khel.” Darra Adam Khel is a town near Peshawar, which is on the edge of Pakistan’s violence-wracked tribal areas on the Afghan border.

Polish deputy foreign minister Jacek Najder earlier said authorities in Warsaw were still awaiting official confirmation of Stanczak’s killing.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk previously said Poland had received “informal confirmation” of the engineer’s death, while a spokesman for the Polish embassy in Islamabad said it considered the TTP claim to be “99.99% true.”

TTP is led by tribal warlord Baitullah Mehsud, who has been accused by U.S. and Pakistani officials of masterminding the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

On Saturday, a TTP spokesman said by telephone that Stanczak had been killed because the Pakistani government had failed to meet the group’s demands by a Friday midnight deadline.

“We held a meeting last evening (Friday) to consider it and the majority view… was that there should be no more time given to negotiations,” said TTP official Suhail Ahmed.

A purported Taliban spokesman named Mohammad later said that the beheading was carried out early Saturday in tribal South Waziristan, a notorious hub of al-Qaida and Taliban militants on the Afghan border.

“We had given a deadline to the government for Friday midnight which they failed to honor and we beheaded the Polish man,” the spokesman said.

Security officials said the negotiations broke down because the Taliban demanded the release of a Pakistani al-Qaida militant known for his expertise in making explosive-packed “suicide jackets”.

The Taliban originally demanded the release of 30 militants in Pakistani custody and then reduced it to a list of six, a security official involved in the negotiations said.

The Taliban said both Islamabad and Warsaw offered it a large amount of money in return for Polish man’s release but it refused to accept that without the release of the prisoners.

It had also called for the end of suspected U.S. drone attacks against Taliban and al-Qaida targets in the tribal areas.

Wire reports

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 98 Total Comments Show All

bushlover at 09:24 AM JST - 11th February

[I'm in complete agreement with you Smith. It seems that no matter what the Muslim world does to demonstrate that it's not like these animals, it's never enough. Which makes protests and motivations of the West, or rather the simple citizens of the West, all that much more suspect.] ... My God exactly as Smith does when it came to the USA back in Bush's reign especially. Would that be like ... what's that word? Hypocrite? It seems he's only apologist when it comes to the actions of the Taliban, Sea Shepherd etc. But when it comes to ... let's say an American for example in Okinawa, well then it's a done deal. Guilty. But the Taliban are only evil because the USA is so evil. We all know his way of thinking and I hope LFRA doesn't get that extreme in conspiracy thought.
sailwind at 11:37 AM JST - 11th February

I don't think it would be true that saying this or that particular soldier is little different from this or that particular terrorist is an insult to our soldiers. Our own government admits to "a few bad apples".

It is an insult, our Soldiers our duty bound to support the Constitution of the United States they swear an oath to that document, the Supreme Law of the land. If the 'few bad apples' in the Service break the law civilian or under the Code of Military Justice they go to Leavenworth prison. Your trying to make the case that law-abiding people who just happen to in the Military are on the same par as a Terrorist.

Second, What Law does the Terrorist obey? None, that is why he is a terrorist, a criminal who operates outside the law of his own country. He is duty bound to nothing but his political cause and uses bloody beheaded bodies to push his agenda.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a 'progressive' rant agaisn't U.S foreign policy since the dawn of the Republic. And a Bush bash thrown in for good measure.

You don't like War or the Warrior, that is totally understandable. The warrior reminds you that the world has a dark ugly side to it that you wish would just go away. You are the sheep and the warrior is the sheepdog. The sheepdog sometimes has to become the wolf he is on the inside to keep the other wolves that roam outside of his flock from devouring the flock. The sheep tolerate the sheepdog for the job he does but he sure doesn't really like the sheepdog and is always wary of him.......The sheepdog is a constant reminder that the wolf inside is always with us.
SezWho2 at 02:46 PM JST - 11th February

It is an insult, our Soldiers our duty bound to support the Constitution of the United States they swear an oath to that document, the Supreme Law of the land. If the 'few bad apples' in the Service break the law civilian or under the Code of Military Justice they go to Leavenworth prison. Your trying to make the case that law-abiding people who just happen to in the Military are on the same par as a Terrorist.

No. You are taking an insult where none was given--and you are working overtime to do so. Furthermore, there is absolutely no attempt to define law-abiding American military people as terrorists. I really can't be much more clear. I have said that I am not comparing our individual military personnel to individual terrorists collectively. And I have said that selectively you will find American military personnel who are just as frightening as the terrorists, especially if given half the chance. This does not insult law-abiding personnel.

Second, What Law does the Terrorist obey?

This strikes me as irrelevant to your primary contention. And what's with the capital "T"? However, I would say that terrorists selectively obey the laws of the country they reside in. It is to their advantage to do so. They certainly don't want to be picked up for jay-walking when they have heads to chop off, now, do they? With respect to any person who breaks the law, capital "T" terrorist or "bad apple", we can ask what law they obey. I really think you are confusing individual terrorists with organizations that use terrorism.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a 'progressive' rant agaisn't U.S foreign policy since the dawn of the Republic. And a Bush bash thrown in for good measure.

Whatever the rest of the post was, this comment does nothing to refute it. Additionally, I think it shows a great deal of resistance to any and all amount of criticism. To recap, I invited you to think about what lies we might be using to justify our own killing of innocents. You declined. I invited again. You declined and asked me to give you some examples. I gave you some examples. Now, without refutation or analysis, you dismiss them as being a rant. It seems you will do anything to avoid looking at the question. No pass.

You don't like War or the Warrior, that is totally understandable. The warrior reminds you that the world has a dark ugly side to it that you wish would just go away.

How can I say this politely? These comments are simplistic. And what's with the capital "W"s? I have a suggestion. Why don't you tell me what you like and don't like and I will tell you what I like and don't like. Yes, war is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was here, but it is sometimes. I cannot think of anytime, however, when "war" and "morality" belong in the same sentence unless it's a negative one.

So, while I recognize war as a sometime necessity, I think it is fair to say that I don't like war. Do you? As far as warriors are concerned, I think that is a somewhat glorified term. However, it seems to be much in vogue and I would invite you to think why except that I think that you would have to refuse the invitation. Nonetheless, I don't have anything against people who serve in the military. I think that they are for the most part honorable people.

This does not mean that they serve an honorable cause. That was my contention. And it's the one you don't seem to be able to look at without trying to twist what I am saying.
sailwind at 04:14 PM JST - 11th February

I invited you to think about what lies we might be using to justify our own killing of innocents.

I haven't answered because the question makes no sense.

We don't justify the killing of innocents on purpose. We never have. That's why they are called war crimes.

If you never justified it in the first place, how could one lie to himself that all of the sudden it is okay now?

It doesn't make any sense of what your asking me to consider. When I was an Active Duty I had to obey the orders of the President and those appointed over me, I also had to the moral obligation to not obey an illegal order.

There isn't a Servicemember past or present who doesn't know being ordered to kill innocent civilians on purpose isn't illegal and has every right to dis-obey it.

So once again your asking me to consider something I could not even fathom to consider in the first place.
smithinjapan at 10:37 PM JST - 11th February

grafton: "To a degree you are right, I will go on holding Islam responsible for these crimes until the People of that religion take a degree of responsibility that I believe is right. You may not like that, they may not like that, but I am happy with that."

Hey, you want to go on being ignorant, by all means. I have given, as well as others have given, plenty of examples of Muslims standing up, pointed out that pretty much every Muslim nation is against the Taliban, and most Muslim nations also against AQ and sentence them to death in their own countries, but if you fail to see all that than nothing can knock of the blinders you've super-glued in place. This would be somewhat akin to me holding you indirectly responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, by your logic. I mean, they attacked Americans because people like you are solidified by ignorance against them, right? I didn't see you standing up against such generalizations, and so you must therefore be in part to blame.

See how your logic fails you? Of course it's an extreme example, but very much along the same lines as your thinking. There are MANY MORE countries against the Taliban and even AQ than those for. In fact, can you show me a single government that supports the Taliban? By that I mean openly, not 'being suspected of supporting'. I can show you pretty much every single nation in the world as NOT supporting them, and a good deal of those are Muslims... so tell me again how it is they need to prove themselves if they are not supporting them? I mean, clearly, if they did the opposite and openly harboured and supported them that wouldn't do much, now would it?

You're off your rocker, my friend, and it's pretty clear to me that you really aren't that different from the maniacs that carry out these actions, at least in rationale. You're blindly hateful of a group of people based on the acts of a few WHO DON'T EVEN GET ALONG WITH THEM! Also, as I said before, it's pretty clear you'll simply continue to ignore the answers to the things you demand and continue to hate 1.4 billion people of this world based on their beliefs. But then, you never really were all that credible to begin with, so it's no shocker.

bushlover: "It seems he's only apologist when it comes to the actions of the Taliban, Sea Shepherd etc. But when it comes to ... let's say an American for example in Okinawa, well then it's a done deal. Guilty. But the Taliban are only evil because the USA is so evil. We all know his way of thinking and I hope LFRA doesn't get that extreme in conspiracy thought."

Wrong-o, chap. Call up the last example of a US marine who was reported by a Japanese as committing assault, and who was fortunately caught on camera as NOT committing the assault. You'll see I not only clearly defended the US soldier, but I said it was typical behaviour in such a situation to blame the American, and that if the video had not been made the government would have rest assured sided with the J-man. That's but one example.

You're just sour that you guys have had it wrong in various places around the world from the get go, and in your case as a chickenhawk on just about anything. I don't support the Taliban whatsoever -- show me a single post where I do! -- and I most CERTAINLY do not support them here. I simply made the point, which you chose to ignore to pursue your agenda of bigotry, that it was not religious but political in nature, and those who condemn all of Islam for it are simply ignorant. You prove my point very well, again, thank you.
smithinjapan at 10:43 PM JST - 11th February

sailwind: "We don't justify the killing of innocents on purpose. We never have. That's why they are called war crimes."

I'm pretty sure you're right if you interpret what you said as not intentionally justifying the innocents you kill, but you're wrong if you say you don't kill on purpose. I know that majority due not, and you're right that if they are caught they are often (not always, and even when they are you will jump on and defend them tooth and nail, like with Blackwater and the boys in Haditha, as examples) tried very harshly, unlike with other terrorists. But the point is that you said you have NEVER EVER defended the killing of innocents, and you have, bucko, bottom line. You can't take that back.

"There isn't a Servicemember past or present who doesn't know being ordered to kill innocent civilians on purpose isn't illegal and has every right to dis-obey it"

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your "isn't illegal" was more of a typo than a Freudian slip.
sailwind at 10:48 PM JST - 11th February

But the point is that you said you have NEVER EVER defended the killing of innocents, and you have, bucko, bottom line.

Pretty bold Smith...Cite any post or word I said to back that up.
sailwind at 10:54 PM JST - 11th February

One Post Smith......JUST ONE is all I ask?

I defended killing innocents???????

Please...............
bushlover at 06:10 AM JST - 12th February

[You're blindly hateful of a group of people based on the acts of a few] sounds like yourself in case involving the US military in Japan. [and that if the video had not been made the government would have rest assured sided with the J-man.] And so would you have. Go back and read your own post in the archives hypocrite.
SezWho2 at 11:12 AM JST - 12th February

We don't justify the killing of innocents on purpose. We never have.

This is not true. Almost anyone living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden knows that. Those who know about Wounded Knee know that.

Furthermore, and more currently, we rationalize the death of innocents by saying that the war is necessary, that the mistake was an honest one, that the intel was bad but the intent was good, that it's the enemies fault for quartering among innocents and so on and so on. These are justifications for what we do. It allows us to sleep better at night and allows us to continue to make war on criminals instead of apprehending them.
wuzzademcrat at 03:22 PM JST - 12th February

sezwho: "This is not true. Almost anyone living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden knows that. Those who know about Wounded Knee know that."

LOL. ALways with the Chomsky-wannabe angle of attempting to tie one incident, in this case the clear-cut evil act of beheading an innocent unarmed civilian, with some larger atrocity completely isolated from its historical context.

As Tritter says on "House", "Everybody lies."

Another weird anachronism. Nothing more recent than 70's TV?
JoeBigs at 07:59 AM JST - 13th February

Sorry for the death of this person. Now let's get to business and start bombing the hell out of them.

I do love those U.S. drone attacks against Taliban and al-Qaida targets. That is one good thing the Bush administration did. I say we hit more of those so called weddings.

Now all we need are more boots on the ground in the right country and we maybe able to end this so called war on terror.
SezWho2 at 09:46 AM JST - 13th February

wuzzademcrat,

Try to keep up with the conversation. There was no attempt to tie these events to the beheading of the Polish engineer. The purposes was solely to refute the statement that the US has never justified the killing of innocents.

You also might want to keep up with TV. Tritter's statement from "House" would have been from '00,s TV. That would be the 2000's if you're really out of touch with TV.
sailwind at 11:02 AM JST - 13th February

The purposes was solely to refute the statement that the US has never justified the killing of innocents.

ON PURPOSE.......Why do you insist on leaving those two little words out all the time.
SezWho2 at 08:32 AM JST - 14th February

sailwind,

ON PURPOSE.......Why do you insist on leaving those two little words out all the time.

Two reasons:

First, it is not true.

Second, it was not part of your original contention, quoted below.

The lie you have to tell yourself that the cause is so important that you can put your humanity aside and kill innocent civilian human beings with impugnity.