EFFECTS ON PAKISTAN:

Afghan refugees US military strikes the NWFP influences. Taliban are increasing. Taliban elements and their mentors Al—Qaeda, moved into the major cities.

It has forced the state to station many divisions of army for law and order at the cost of earning the opprobrium of “use of force” against terroists in SWAT and FATA. The loss of foreign direct investment and tourism. Visa and job opportunities for Pakistan is from these areas to the Middle East are being increasingly curtailed.

The rugged border terrain of nearly 1,500 Km at the height of 10,000 to 15,000 feet, with no communication infrastructure, has enabled the foreign elements to fully exploit the situation. Pakistan has dispatched almost 70-80,000 of troops to the tribal regions.

This preparation has to be dispelled that fight against terrorism is a now form of warfare where the attackers are insidious, elusive and yet create sense of create sense of intimidation and terror.

On the political side, Pakistan’s international political isolation ceased immediately and it assumed the role of frontline state yet again. Despite the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation crisis, the US gave Pakistan the status of ‘Major Non-Nato Ally’, offered Kerry-Lugar Bill.


Debate in Pakistan either war against terror is ours or of US.

Acute economic crisis. Pakistan has adversely affected by terrorism than any other country of the world. Although, Pakistan is a victim of terrorism is being labeled as a state sponsoring terrorism.

Lot of time and energy of Pakistan is being consumed to make world understand that Pakistan is not the sponsor of terrorism but it is a victim, and while doing so it is being forced to make compromises on vital interests. Even the friendly countries like China, Iran, and Indonesia started looking towards Pakistan with suspicion.

As far as NATO operations in Afghanistan are concerned, they are limited by inadequate number of troops, and with difficulties of terrain primitive tribal culture, weapon stocks and drug money. The Taliban are resurgent. In fact it is a cumulative effect of many factors: due to divisions of resources to Iraq war, NATO’s insufficient level of troops, rise in opium trade, limited control of Karzai government around Kabul, poor governance, high level of corruption and unemployment, lack of reconstruction, rise in violence and rampant warlordism. A nagging perception in some quarters in the West, especially the US, that Pakistan is not “doing enough”.

Solutions:

In fact, no military solution from the air or ground will ever be found to solve the deplorable conditions – grinding poverty and benign neglect – that breed violence, hatred and rebellion.

Obama should avoid Bush’s Policies of use of force to avoid further military and financial losses.

Involving UNSC & OIC would be in the interest of US to minimize anti US sentiments in the Muslim world.

Interfaith dialogue can clear the misconceptions against each other.

Solution of issues like Kashmir and Palestine The Muslims should discourage extremist groups in their social life. Madressa reforms Positive role of world media

“There is no silver bullet that can address global terrorism in all its complexity,” writs

Maleeha Lodhi in “The Threats of all Threats”.

Every continent has seen acts of terrorism. Perpetrators belong to diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths.

She proposed a broad-gauge counter-terrorism strategy based on nine ‘Cs’.

1) Comprehensiveness: A comprehensive, multifaceted strategy is needed that encompasses law enforcement, political, social, cultural, financial and diplomatic measures.

2) Consensus at the global level is required on a strategy incorporating both short-and long-terms

3) Causes and conditions that breed, encourage and contribute to terrorism must be objectively identified and addressed.

4) Confusion about the definition of terrorism and mixing every Muslim with terror is discouraging.

5) Capabilities must be improved and national capacities strengthened across he spectrum to pursue terrorists and prevent terrorist activities.

6) Cooperative rather than coercive national and international strategies should be pursued so that the reaction to counter-terrorism measures does not compound the problem.

7) Civil liberties and principles of good governance must be upheld in the fight against terror, because real security can only be achieved through respect for human rights.

8) Civilization and cultural: dialogue and understanding including engaging at the battle for the hearts and minds, must become an integral part of global consensus-building to evolve a joint strategy. Such a dialogue must be premised on the understanding that the root cause of friction between civilization are not primarily religious differences, but mainly issues of power, competing political and economic interests, policies and misunderstandings.

9) Conference at the summit level must be called to craft and coordinate an approach based on these elements.

10) There are two dimensions to the problem in Afghanistan- strategic depth and nation building.

11) Militarism was dominant in George Bush’s policy and it was not a comprehensive approach.

12) President Obama’s policy talks about a regional approach and China is important part of this regional concept.


13) The primary reason for the unpopularity of the government in Afghanistan is lack of social development activities.


14) Afghanistan needs to have a force which is sustainable in its own budget.


15) Afghanistan problem cannot be solved in isolation and there is need for comprehensive engagement with getting confidence of Pakistan by stopping Indian interfernce in Afghanistan.


16) The role of SCO in the context of Afghanistan should also be considered while studying this problem.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

Today terrorism is complex in scope, even across the continents non-state actors. Countering this multi-headed phenomenon require multi-pronged and sustained policy by the governments across the globe. Deprivation and an unjust political and socioeconomic dispensation rapidly give rise to frustration. The remedy lies in a tolerant and democratic society. However to enable the United Nations to evolve an effective strategy for this purpose it I imperative to define terrorism that may be acceptable globally. Also make a distinction between terrorism and legitimate struggle for freedom and right of self-determination, the denial of which can breed terrorism and a threat to “peaceful co-existence”. But Dr. Martin Luther King logically said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Source: TOPPERS

Terror attack on Karachi naval station, 10 killed

Click to Expand & Play

Karachi:  Suspected militants stormed a naval base in Karachi late on Sunday night, rocking one of the nation's heavily guarded military installations with fiery explosions. The attack, which comes just three weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden, has left at least 10 people dead.

According to the reports, the Pakistan Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack. An emergency has been declared in all hospitals across the city.

The unilateral American raid that killed bin Laden had triggered a strong backlash against Washington, as well as rare domestic criticism against the armed forces for failing to detect or prevent the operation.

The terrorists used rocket propelled grenades to damage and destroy several warplanes including the Pakistan navy's premier anti-submarine attack jet - the US made P-3C Orion.

"The nation should support our forces and condemn Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are against Pakistan and they're a threat to Pakistan and today nobody should have any doubt that this attack is actually an attack on Pakistan. I believe that this is an attack on Pakistan. And this is now a responsibility of every citizen of Pakistan to condemn this act and also condemn those who are supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban and issuing statements in their favour, and praying for them. I believe that they are not Muslim and neither are they well- wishers of Pakistan." (Watch)

Malik also said that heavy contingents of special naval and military commandos and other security forces have been rushed to the base to control the situation.

A Pakistan Navy spokesman, meanwhile, confirmed that two naval officers were injured in the attack.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani reportedly spoke to the heads of all three armed forces asking them to take immediate action to control the situation.

Gilani also condemned the attack, saying such a "cowardly act of terror could not deter the commitment of the government and people of Pakistan to fight terrorism."

The terrorists, numbering between 12 and 15, targeted PNS Mehran where some Chinese engineers were reportedly engaged in work within the Faisal airbase, at about 10.40 pm, sources said.

Reports suggest there is a hostage situation and the terrorists have taken over a building in the military complex.

The armed men lobbed several grenades and exchanged heavy fire with security forces. The firing died out at about 11.30 pm but erupted again at midnight.

The militants apparently entered the Naval base and hangers through the Pakistan Air Force museum, a source said.

"They took advantage of the fact that people at that time were leaving for home from the PAF museum inside the Faisal base," the source said.

Dawn News channel quoted witnesses as saying that they had heard up to five blasts. Heavy firing continued for over 20 minutes after the first blast occurred, following which there were reports of intermittent firing.

Hundreds of paramilitary personnel surrounded the airbase while commandos from the army's elite Special Services Group were sent in to sweep the area.

Footage on television showed ambulances rushing to the airbase.

The high-security area where the attack occurred also houses the Pakistan Air Force's (PAF) Southern Air Command, Air War College and museum as well as PNS Mehran.

The fact that militants were able to enter one of the country's largest military bases is another embarrassing blow to the army and will raise questions over whether the attackers had inside information. That they targeted a US supplied aircraft draws attention to American aid to the military, something generals here do not talk about, fearing criticism from the county's fiercely anti-American population.

Sunday's raid appeared to be the most serious against the military since October 2009, when militants attacked the army headquarters close to the capital, Islamabad. They held dozens hostage in a 22-hour standoff that left 23 people dead, including nine militants.

The raid began with at least three loud explosions, which were heard by people who live around the naval air station. It was unclear what caused the explosions, but they set off raging fires that could be seen from far in the distance.

At least one media report said a team of American technicians were working on the aircraft at the time of the strike, but US Embassy spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said no Americans were on the base. Ali also stated there were no foreigners inside the base.

Pakistan critical front in war against terrorism, says US

US State Department’s latest report on terrorism, issued on Thursday evening, noted that “portions of Pakistani territory remained a safe haven for extremists, including high-level Al Qaeda leaders.” – File Photo

WASHINGTON: While drawing a list of states sponsoring terrorism, the US State Department has resisted calls to place Pakistan on the list and instead depicted it as “a critical front” in the war against terror.
Since the May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, some US lawmakers and a strong Indian lobby in Washington have been campaigning hard to place Pakistan among the states that sponsor terrorism.
But the State Department’s latest report on terrorism, issued on Thursday evening, only listed Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria among such states.
But it noted that “portions of Pakistani territory remained a safe haven for extremists, including high-level Al Qaeda leaders”.
The department also claimed that groups such as the Taliban’s Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network “used western Pakistan to plan attacks against American interests” in Afghanistan.
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan continued using Pakistan’s tribal belt to plan attacks against the government of Pakistan and its citizens.
TTP has also diversified its target set by seeking to attack the US directly, as demonstrated by its support for the attempted Times Square bombing in May 2010, the report added.
The State Department also described Lashkar-i-Taiba and its affiliates as “a threat to the stability of the region and beyond”.
According to the State Department, Pakistan continued to experience high levels of terrorism in 2010 and Pakistan-based terrorist organisations continued to “threaten internal, regional, and global security”.
Violence resulted from both political and sectarian conflicts throughout the country, with terrorist incidents occurring in every province. While government authorities arrested many alleged perpetrators of terrorist violence, few convictions resulted.
The Pakistani military continued to conduct operations in areas with known terrorist activity but was unable to expand its operations to all areas of concern.
Increased sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shia communities and against religious minority communities also resulted in numerous attacks with high casualties. These attacks continued the trend of employing suicide bombers and remotely detonated explosives to perpetrate violence. Attacks using similar methods were also carried out against government and police facilities.
Pakistan, particularly Fata and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, continued to be used as a base for terrorist organisations operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Pakistani security forces undertook substantial efforts to counter these threats.
These organisations recruited, trained, and conducted fund-raising for terrorist operations in Pakistan, and used Pakistan as a transit point for cross-border movement to Afghanistan and abroad.
Pakistan’s Frontier Corps and military initiated large-scale counter-insurgency operations in Mohmand and Orakzai, and added one battalion in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Pakistan’s ability to continue robust operations was negatively impacted by the need to divert resources to provide relief from the 2010 floods, which caused severe, long-term damage in Pakistan.
The ability to establish and maintain security in densely populated urban areas or areas with a historically poor security presence also remained a major challenge for Pakistan.
“Pakistan’s civilian government and military departments cooperated and collaborated with US efforts to identify and counter terrorist activity in Pakistan, and the United States continued to engage Pakistan to ensure it had the will and capacity to confront all extremist elements within its borders,” the report concluded.

Terrorism in Pakistan

On the evening of 4th September 2008 Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Associate Professor of International Relations at the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad was invited to the SPO national centre to speak on Terrorism in Pakistan, an issue that is presently agitating the minds of many in the country. Among the audience were students and members of Islamabad based rights based NGOs.

Tracing terrorism’s historical roots, Dr. Ishtiaq said that in the case of Pakistan the mushrooming of religious extremists began with the decision of western powers to launch a ‘jihad’ in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Several groups were armed to fight against the Soviets and pro Soviet Afghan forces. Seven of these factions were supported by Pakistan and eight by Iran. They were used by international powers to fight against the Soviet Union, and later by Pakistan to fight in Kashmir. Typically, after the war was over, these groups became independent and, as has happened throughout history, turned on their erstwhile supporters. They invited Al Qaeda to Afghanistan, engaged in cruelties and excesses and, despite pleadings by the Pakistan government, destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas. Madrasas were set up with foreign funding to prepare fighters for the jihad, but the talibanisation of Pakistan began in earnest when the Taliban seized control of Kabul. Sufi Mohammad launched his Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi in Swat, which was financed by criminals who had cases against them in courts of law for murder, rape, kidnapping and other heinous crimes, and sought to escape punishment by subverting the criminal justice system. ‘If Pakistan is seen as an ideological state there will always be people who will demand Shariah’, Dr. Ishtiaq pointed out. He believed that though the Partition had taken place because the Muslims as a group were economically subservient, the Muslim League had raised the slogan of Islam in order to mobilise support. Realising that this could lead to problems, Mr. Jinnah in his famous 11th August 1947 speech emphasised that tolerance and respect for diversity, not religion, would be the guiding principles for the country. To overcome terrorism Dr. Ishtiaq recommended that: Firstly, basic concepts needed to be debated so that a national consensus on the raison’etre of Pakistan could be arrived at. The nation has to decide if Pakistan was an Islamic state or a secular state guided by the 11th August speech of the Quaid-e-Azam, in which he declared that religion had nothing to do with the business of the state, and that citizens of different religions were equal. Secondly, the ambiguous attitude towards suicide bombers and terrorists had to be discarded. It must be clearly understood that religion does not permit the killing of unarmed civilians. The concept that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is basically wrong. He emphasised that violence against unarmed people could never be justified, and that terrorism and violence could not succeed, only peaceful means lead to success. He cited the examples of Ireland and South Africa, where freedom was achieved when violent means were discontinued and peaceful means adopted. And thirdly, civil society should persuade religious political parties and scholars to oppose suicide bombings and violence. He reminded the audience of the golden age of Islam, and said that fundamentalists ignored the science and culture of this period when Muslims were not afraid of learning from others, and sought their inspiration from the tribal age before enlightenment. Defining terrorism, he said that terrorism was violence, which was politically motivated, deliberate and planned, against unarmed civilians, with the purpose of creating fear in a wider audience, by an individual or group of people. Should states also be called terrorist if they killed and inflicted violence? And if people killed by the terrorist were military or armed soldiers or police, would it count as terrorism? Answering these questions Dr. Ishtiaq reminded participants that international law permitted only states to use force. However, the state had to abide by the Geneva Conventions. During the discussion some thought provoking points were raised. For instance, what relationship did the arms industry have to militancy? And what part did poverty play in provoking people to adopt violence? It was pointed out that exploitation by capitalism could not be ignored. All Muslim countries, with the exception of Turkey, had undergone colonisation. Global injustice too molded societies to support radical movements. And international law cannot be applied equally because of great inequalities between nations. In response Dr. Ishtiaq gave the example of Africa, which too was poor and had undergone colonisation, but had not turned to terrorism to achieve justice. Perhaps there was a problem with the Muslim psyche? On this provocative note the discussion came to a close, as it was Ramzan and time to break the fast.

Terrorism in Pakistan

Terrorism in Pakistan has become a major and highly destructive phenomenon in recent years. President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives".^[1][2] The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which a jihad or guerilla holy war was started against non-muslim countries. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent. The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of the state in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Taliban who were all encouraged to achieve Pakistan's agenda in the Kashmir conflict^[3] and Afghanistan^[4] respectively. The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials, by what Pakistan calls misguided holy warriors (mujahideen) and the rest of the world calls terrorists.^{[citation needed]}
From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 5,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians^[5] for reasons attributed to a number of causes – sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalishnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs based in or near Pakistan, who originate from any country with a Muslim population and the subsequent war against the Afghan communists in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba; Pakistan's thousands of fundamentalist madrassas (Islamic schools) which are thought by some to provide training for little other than jihad.^[who?] and secessionists movements – the most significant being the Balochistan liberation movement – blamed on regionalism, which is problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages,

Causes

See also: Pakistan and state terrorism

Two of the main causal factors of terrorism in Pakistan are sectarian/religious violence and the Pakistani state's active nurturing of terrorist proxies for perceived strategic ends.^{[citation needed]} Following imposition of martial law in 1956, Pakistan's political situation suddenly changed and thereafter saw dictatorship type behaviour at different levels appearing in the civil service, the army (those most culpable) and political forces or Zamindars (landlords created by the British) who claimed power, probably because the British originally did not consider Pakistan an independent state, yet did not want to intervene; this trend continued into the 21st century, when finally, the US persuaded General Pervez Musharraf to hold elections. Other causes, such as political rivalry and business disputes, also took their toll. It is estimated that more than 4,000 people have died in Pakistan in the past 25 years due to sectarian strife.^[6]

pictures of terrorisms

we will fight against terrorism as a one nation .

Pre-1980

In the late 1960s, the government faced a rebellion in East Pakistan as well as having to deal with its struggle with its western counter-part over resources and political power, which led to theBangladesh Liberation War. This changed the dynamics of the country and led the Pakistani state to "deal harshly with Hindus and Muslims" in East Pakistan, resulting in secession and the creation of Bangladesh.^[7] Bangladeshi authorities controversially claim that three million people were killed,^[8] while a further eight to ten million fled the country to seek asylum in India.^[9]

Aid to the mujahideen and Arab Afghans

Terrorism in Pakistan since the 1980s began primarily with support for the Soviet-Afghan War, and the subsequent war against Afghan communists that continued for at least a decade. The conflict brought numerous fighters from all over the world to South Asia in the name of jihad. These mujahideen fighters carried out insurgent activities inside the country well after the war officially ended.

The sectarian violence presently plaguing the country is also said to originate in the controversial Islamist policies of General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq initiated during his tenure as president from 1977 to 1988. These gave immense power to religious figures in the country, who in turn spread intolerant religious dogma among the masses, against non-muslim countries in general and non-muslims in particular.

Post Afghan War

At the end of the Afghan War, between 1990 and 1996, the Pakistani establishment continued to organize, support and nurture mujahideen groups on the premise that they could be used for proxy warfare in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and in support of the doctrine of "strategic depth" in Afghanistan through the use of the Taliban. The 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK respectively, both of which had links to Pakistan, brought the country's strategy under increased international scrutiny.

more pic of terrorism

Pakistan Assessment 2011

For far too long, Western powers – vigorously led by the US – have been party to a comprehensive cover-up, a pretence that has sought to minimize Pakistan’s role in the active sponsorship and export of terrorism, and an effort to distract international attention from the country’s failing institutions, to emphasise, instead, its acts of purported ‘cooperation’ with global counter-terrorism efforts. This farce, and elements of the international community’s real appraisal of Pakistan and the many players in the country, lay fully exposed with the Wikileaks disclosure of US diplomatic correspondence and confidential assessments in 2010. These have fully confirmed the continuing complicity of the Pakistani establishment in terrorism in the South Asian region and beyond; the corruption and mendacity of its various institutions of Government; the country’s hurtling trajectory towards state failure; and the inescapable truth of the realities SAIR has repeatedly emphasized in the past. In sharp contrast to frequent public declarations of faith in Pakistan’s capacities to tide over its rising crises, one leaked diplomatic post thus reads, "Although we do not believe Pakistan is a failed state, we nonetheless recognize that the challenges it confronts are dire... The government is losing more and more territory every day to foreign and domestic militant groups; deteriorating law and order in turn is undermining economic recovery. The bureaucracy is settling into third-world mediocrity, as demonstrated by some corruption and a limited capacity to implement or articulate policy." Worse, individual leaders were deeply compromised. President Asif Ali Zardari, Sir Jock Stirrup, the then British Chief of Defence Staff told US diplomats, was a "numbskull", even as other senior British officials described Pakistan’s President as incompetent and "highly corrupt". Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, is revealed to have plotted an ‘informal coup’ to dismiss the President. Hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid, earmarked for fighting militants, were being diverted. Crucially, then US ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, warned that no amount of US aid would change the Pakistan army's covert support for four major terrorist formations, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani group, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s fighters, and the Lashkar-e-Toiba: "...there is no chance that Pakistan will view enhanced assistance... as sufficient compensation for abandoning support to these groups". Moreover, extremism was "no longer restricted to the border area", and fighters were increasingly being recruited from the Punjab province, even as "the phenomenon is spreading into northern Sindh as well." Another post notes, "The bad news is that the militants increasingly are setting the agenda." Moreover, "The government’s anti-terrorism strategy is based on ‘dialogue, deterrence and development’; however, it lacks the military capacity to deter militants and the financial resources to develop the FATA and NWFP. Its historic fallback has been to play for time by conducting negotiations with militants, a disastrous tactic that only has made the extremists stronger." The country was facing "pending economic catastrophe." Then Special Advisor on AfPak, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, in a May 29, 2009, note, observed that Pakistan was a centre for terrorist financing through Islamic charities. Despite a clear acceptance of these many aspects of the chaos that is Pakistan, the US remained helpless to counter these trends, since it saw itself as being trapped in a "co-dependent relationship" with Pakistan. The Wikileaks revelations have now forced many of these issues out into the open, and British Prime Minister David Cameron, during a visit to India, stated unambiguously, on July 28, 2010, "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that [Pakistan] is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world." Despite vociferous Pakistani protestations, he refused to withdraw or dilute his observations. The limited decline in and shifting patterns of terrorism-related fatalities and incidents over the past year offer poor consolation against this backdrop. Total fatalities have certainly dropped from the unnatural peak of 11,585 in 2009, to 7,435 in 2010, but are still higher than any preceding year, including 2008, when the figure stood at 6,715 [all data from the South Asia Terrorism Portal database; the figures are likely to be gross underestimates, since reportage from areas of conflict is poor, as authorities deny access to reporters, international observers and other independent institutions]. Civilian fatalities registered a 22 per cent drop between 2009 and 2010, while militant and Security Force (SF) fatalities declined by 54 and 37.5 per cent, respectively, essentially indicating that some of indiscriminate slaughters that were being engineered in the name of counter-terrorism, what some of the US State Department correspondence described as "ham handed military tactics, which included indiscriminate artillery bombardment" and "blind artillery and F-16 bombardments" which had displaced millions of innocent civilians from their target areas, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), had been selectively scaled back in 2010. Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan: 2003- 2011   Year Civilians Security Forces (SFs) Terrorists Total 2003 140 24 25 189 2004 435 184 244 863 2005 430 81 137 648 2006 608 325 538 1471 2007 1523 597 1479 3599 2008 2155 654 3906 6715 2009 2307 1011 8267 11585 2010 1796 469 5170 7435 2011* 226 98 384 708 Total 9620 3443 20150 33213 * Data till February 20, 2011, Source: SATP Significantly, KP accounts for the overwhelming proportion of the dramatic drop in fatalities and violence, essentially indicating active disengagement between the SFs and extremists in this Province, as the total killed declined from 5,497 in 2009 to 1,202 in 2010. Terrorism related fatalities also fell in the Punjab, from 441 to 316 over the same period. However, FATA saw 5,408 killed in 2010, as against 5,304 in 2009; in Balochistan, fatalities rose from 277 to 347; while Sindh saw an increase from 66 to 162. FATA has acquired particular significance for Islamabad, since the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which threatens the country with massive internal destabilization, has now substantially concentrated its forces in this Province. Pakistan’s SFs have, consequently, focused overwhelming attention against this principal sanctuary of the TTP, even as they continue to studiously avoid any action against elements of the Afghan Taliban, the al Qaeda and the various India-directed groups that continue to be seen as serving the countries perceived ‘strategic interests’. The SFs launched major operations in FATA through 2009-10, accounting for the mounting casualties, though the gains of extended operations in the South Waziristan Agency (SWA) and Orakzai Agency have, at best, been cosmetic. Even the limited pressure exerted on the terrorists will quickly dissipate unless operations are taken forward into the North Waziristan Agency (NWA), resulting in further escalation in the hinterland, at a time when Islamabad is struggling to contain terrorism in its core areas of Punjab and Sindh. Balochistan continued to witness overwhelming and relentless military repression, human rights violations and excesses by intelligence and security agencies, with fatalities rising from 277 to 347. The increase was essentially in the civilian category, and included an increasing number of unexplained ‘disappearances’ engineered by the Intelligence agencies and SFs operating in the Province. SF and militant fatalities declined from 88 and 37 in 2009, to 59 and 14 in 2010. 2009 2010 Province Civilians SFs Terrorists Total Civilians SFs Terrorists Total Balochistan 152 88 37 277 274 59 14 347 KP 1229 471 3797 5497 597 94 511 1202 FATA 636 350 4318 5304 542 262 4604 5408 Punjab 293 97 51 441 272 28 16 316 Sindh 49 3 14 66 111 26 25 162 Total 2359 1009 8217 11585 1796 469 5170 7435 Civilians also bore the brunt of terrorist-related fatalities in Punjab, though fatalities even in this category fell from 293 in 2009 to 272 in 2010. Nevertheless, an index of the inherent instability of the system was provided by the assassination on January 4, 2011, of Salman Taseer, the Governor of the Province, by his own bodyguard, with the possible foreknowledge of his entire security detail. Taseer had spoken repeatedly against Pakistan’s oppressive and frequently abused blasphemy laws, and specifically against the death penalty on blasphemy charges awarded against a Christian woman, Asia Bibi. The unrepentant killer was greeted with widespread public applause and showered with rose petals on his first court appearance on January 5, 2011. The Taseer killing was also a worrying index of the growing religious extremism within the security establishment. On January 12, the Punjab Police recalled four Policemen from active duty and asked them to report to their respective District headquarters. Malik Mumtaz Qadri, Taseer’s assassin, had revealed during interrogation that the four held "extreme religious views" and could strike at any time. Significantly, no religious leader or Imam was willing to read a prayer at Taseer’s funeral, and a significant faction within the Pakistani Senate walked out during the Fateha (memorial prayer) for the slain Governor. The Taseer assassination is only the latest and most dramatic manifestation of the passions and abuse that have flowed from Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Nevertheless, in the wake of the killing, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, under visible pressure from Islamist extremist parties, made it abundantly clear that the law would not be amended. Sherry Rehman, a former Information Minister, was pressured to withdraw a private member’s bill pending in Parliament, seeking reforms in the blasphemy law. Rehman angrily declared, "Appeasement of extremism is a policy that will have its blowback", and is presently under death threats from extremist groups. The cumulative ‘blowback’ of pandering to extremism and, indeed, actively supporting and encouraging it, has long been more than visible across Pakistan. In 2010, suicide bombings acquired an unprecedented lethality, with just 49 such attacks inflicting 1,167 fatalities, as against 76 such attacks in 2009, with a total of 949 fatalities. Figures compiled by the Federal Ministry of Interior show that a total of 3,433 Pakistanis had been killed in 215 incidents of suicide attacks across Pakistan, between July 2007 and July 2010. Nor was there any respite from sectarian strife. Though the number of incidents fell from 106 in 2009 to 57 in 2010, total fatalities rose from 190 to 509. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) remained the principal organisations responsible for the rise of sectarian violence, but it was their association with terrorist groups such as the TTP which has conferred increasing lethality on their operations.. Amidst growing radicalisation and rising terror, US pressure has increased along the borders with Afghanistan. US drone attacks have more than tripled since January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama took over the Presidency. A BBC report of July 24, 2010, indicated that there were 25 drone strikes between January 2008 and January 2009, in which slightly fewer than 200 people were killed. In the year 2010, SATP data recorded at least 90 attacks by US drones, killing more than 831 persons, as against 46 such attacks killing 536 in 2009. The annual report of the Conflict Monitoring Centre released on January 1, 2011 revealed that, while a total of 2,043 people, mostly civilians, were killed in US drone attacks during the preceding five years, 929 of those causalities were reported in FATA alone in 2010. In reaction to the drone attacks as well as US backed military operations of Pakistan Army in tribal regions, the attacks on the NATO supply vehicles has increased from just eight in 2008 and 25 in 2009, to at least 99 in 2010. The most brazen among these was witnessed near the national capital, Islamabad, on June 8, 2010, when unidentified militants attacked and set ablaze a convoy of about 50 tankers and containers heading towards Peshawar, the provincial capital of KP, on the Motorway in the Sangjani area of Ternol. Four people were killed in the attack and another three were injured. With cumulative evidence of Pakistani reluctance to act against major terrorist formations operating in Afghanistan, it is unsurprising that relations between Islamabad and Washington have come under increasing strain. On December 16, 2010, the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) station chief in Islamabad, Jonathan Banks, was forced to leave the country after his name was disclosed in a class-action lawsuit brought by Kareem Khan, a tribesman from the NWA, who sued the CIA over the deaths of his son and brother in a 2009 US missile strike. The diplomatic relation between the two countries fell to an all-time-low as it was suspected that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) leaked the CIA station chief’s name. It was no coincidence that the lawsuit against the CIA station chief occurred shortly after the head of Pakistan’s directorate, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was accused in a civil lawsuit for alleged involvement in the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. The suit was brought in US District Court in Brooklyn by family members of the American rabbi killed alongside his wife in the 26/11 attacks. The Raymond Davis episode has further strained US-Pakistan diplomatic relations. Davis, suspected to be an undercover spy, shot dead two persons on January 27, 2011, in Islamabad. Reports suggest that the two may have been ISI agents, though Davis claims he fired during an apparent robbery attempt. Pakistani officials have corroborated Davis’ version of events and, according to their preliminary report, Davis appears to have acted in self-defense. But the matter has become mired in politics and Pakistani public sentiment, and Pakistan is refusing to accept the US plea of diplomatic immunity for Davis. At the time of writing, there is rising pressure from Washington for Davis’ release, and indications that the US will use its massive financial aid to Pakistan as an irresistible lever in this case. The Barack Obama’s administration has proposed to Congress a total of USD 3.1 billion in its budget for economic and security assistance and diplomatic operations in Pakistan, for the fiscal year 2012, beginning October 1, 2011. Earlier, on January 27, 2011, President Barack Obama discussed ways of achieving US goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan with his top security and foreign policy advisors. There seems to be growing uneasiness in the US over the status of its AfPak policy, which many believe has failed to generate any positive impact. Indeed, the continuing farce of the US AfPak policy, and the war of imminent flight the ISAF is seen to be fighting in Afghanistan, can only destabilize the region – and Pakistan in particular – even further. Islamabad remains unwilling to act consistently against a wide spectrum of Islamist terrorists and extremists – with the exception of the TTP and factions that operate within the country, even as stranglehold of radicalism strengthens over the country’s institutions and chokes of the most incipient signs of reform. A significant proportion of foreign aid continues to be diverted to the extremist constituency in the country, even as this constituency continues to enjoy unfettered access to a wide range of independent financial sources. In December 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote, somewhat coyly, that "some ISI officials... continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organisations, in particular the Taliban, LeT and other extremist organizations." The persistent ambivalence about the role of state institutions in promoting terrorism sourced from Pakistan is now no longer sustainable. Regrettably, the world, and the US in particular, is yet to respond unambiguously to the continuing adventurism of a nation that should have been declared rogue more than two decades ago.

War on Terrorism in Pakistan

Main article: War in North-West Pakistan

The post-9/11 War on Terrorism in Pakistan has had two principal elements: the government's battle with jihad groups banned after the attacks in New York, and the U.S. pursuit of Al-Qaeda, usually (but not always) in co-operation with Pakistani forces.
In 2004, the Pakistani army launched a pursuit of Al-Qaeda members in the mountainous area of Waziristan on the Afghan border, although sceptics question the sincerity of this pursuit. Clashes there erupted into a low-level conflict with Islamic militants and local tribesmen, sparking the Waziristan War. A short-lived truce known as the Waziristan accord was brokered in September 2006, which indicated Pakistan's reluctance to fight Islamic milita

Yesterday

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani talking to US Senator Carl Levin, Chairman Armed Services Committee, who called on him at the PM House. – Online photo

ISLAMABAD: Senator Carl Levin, Chairman Armed Services Committee called on Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani here Tuesday in which the Senator underlined the importance of bringing back US-Pakistan relations on even keel because both the countries were fighting a common enemy.
The Prime Minister said that Pakistan desired a sovereign, independent, peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan, adding that his country supported Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process of reconciliation.
Gilani said that Pakistan was a part of the solution and not the part of the problem and favoured three Ds namely, Dialogue, Development and Deterrence, as the best strategy to seek out the solution of the Afghan imbroglio.
The PM called upon both the countries to evolve a common strategy against the common enemy because its absence would benefit the enemy which is both coward and callous.
The Prime Minister said, “one wonders how terrorists dare go to Afghanistan without being eliminated by the Isaf and Nato Forces which are equipped with the most advanced weapons.”
Gilani, during the meeting appreciated Hilary Clinton who took stand and supported Pakistan’s case for assistance at the time when the voices of imposing restrictions were being raised in Washington. She wrote to the House Foreign Committee Members that the proposed restrictions would damage the ‘the US considered foreign policy and diplomacy.’
The PM also referred to the telephonic exchange of views between the Pakistan foreign Minister and Hilary Clinton in the recent past in which they exchanged views about the ongoing discussion on the objectives and principles of enduring partnership with Pakistan.
The Prime Minister underscored the importance of relations between the US and Pakistan that should go beyond terrorism and cover other areas of bilateral relations on durable basis for the benefit of people of both countries.
He said that Pakistan had suffered badly in the war on terror and had rendered more sacrifices in terms of civilians and the troops’ fatalities than the coalition partners put together.
However, he said, the success of the military operation in Malakand Division stands out because the nation not only defeated the terrorists but also managed the return of more than two million IDPs within two months to their homes with honour and dignity.

Shoot Down Terrorism!

You never know when terrorism knocks at your door and mows you down for no reason.


Till date, there have been constant endeavours to wipe off terrorism from the World. Discernibly, India - The Lenient One - has done little to kill terrorism. Many security experts around the World have put forth ways to curb this menace, but even now, terror outfits like the Taliban are still at large.



I am no security analyst or defence advisor, but here are a few guidelines I think shall definitely prove effective in shredding terrorism into pieces:

• Stop production of ammunition. This will lead to a shortage of arms in terror outfits, and subsequently, these outfits will stop functioning. You may be wondering that if there is no ammunition, then how will nations strengthen their military powers, right? First of all, what's the use of having more ammunition if it's not going to be used? In other words, where to use the arms and ammunition if terrorism and pirates cease to exist? Also, weapons shall become useless if all nations want peace because ammunition is used only in wars. On the whole, this is the most important tactic to finish off terrorism.

There are many events that take place around the world defined as terrorism. As many of these events as there are it seems the reaction by many observers is something less than shock or outrage. While being offended or outraged has been the liberal mantra with selected use rarely is it employed against terrorists but it is always used against those who resist or defend themselves in the face of terrorism.
Salama, Salama, Bologna is no exception. Israel is attacked by Hamas with rockets on consecutive days where Israel first employed diplomacy and public warnings to Hamas. When those actions were unsuccessful and they responded militarily many around the world first expressed outrage or some form of criticism of Israel. Just another example that there is plenty of bias against Israel. This is not to say Israel has never made a mistake. But so has everyone else. And in this case they did nothing wrong yet they are being criticized by a significant number of those who express their desire to eliminate Israel and others with similar attitudes. How about laying some blame on Hamas and other terrorist groups for bringing this on themselves and other parties unrelated to this particular event.
Stanford Matthews

How UK Terrorism Law Compares With Rest of World

The government says the proposed 42 days could be needed if the country faced a ´very grave and exceptional terrorist threat´.

If the United States and Germany allow police just two days for initial questioning of terrorism suspects, why is Britain proposing to grant up to six weeks? For civil liberties groups, the disparity is proof that British counter-terrorism law is growing ever more draconian. The government counters that bald comparisons are deeply misleading because of sharp differences between legal systems.
Parliament will vote on Wednesday on a bill to increase from 28 to 42 days the maximum time that police can hold terrorism suspects before having to charge or release them. Defeat in what is expected to be a close vote would severely undermine Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Rights group Liberty says the existing limit of 28 days is already "way out of line with the rest of Europe" and extending it would lead to more innocent people being detained for longer, creating injustice and undermining the "hearts and minds" struggle against Islamist militants.
The government says the proposed 42 days could be needed if the country faced a "very grave and exceptional terrorist threat", for example if police had to conduct complex investigations into multiple simultaneous attacks.
It argues that the threshold of evidence required for police to charge suspects in Britain is higher than in some overseas jurisdictions, where they need only to establish firm grounds for suspicion before handing cases to judges or prosecutors whose investigations may last for months or even years.
Following is a summary of detention and charging arrangements for terrorism cases in Britain and some other Western countries.
BRITAIN - Police need a warrant from a judge to keep a suspect in custody after the first 48 hours, and these warrants are usually updated weekly up to a current maximum of 28 days. At that point police must charge or release the suspect.
UNITED STATES - The maximum pre-charge detention period for criminal, including terrorist, suspects is 48 hours. Asked how the U.S. manages with so low a limit, the head of the FBI pointed recently to two key differences with the British legal system. He cited the use of plea bargaining in the United States and the fact that U.S. prosecutors -- unlike their British counterparts -- can make use in court of intelligence material obtained from tapping suspects' phones.
GERMANY - A person can be held in provisional police detention for up to 48 hours, after which a warrant from a judge is required to keep the suspect in investigative custody. At this point prosecutors publicly state the grounds for suspicion. It may, however, take many months for them to bring charges. For example, three men arrested on Sept. 4 last year on "urgent suspicion" of planning terrorist attacks on U.S. installations in Germany have not yet been formally charged.
FRANCE - A terrorism suspect can normally be held for up to four days for police questioning, increasing to six if there is proof an attack was being prepared. If suspicion is confirmed, the case is then transferred to an investigating judge. While the judge's investigation proceeds, a suspect may remain in detention for years, but has the right to appeal against it.