Pakistan Claims to Retake Town From Taliban

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — After a week of strong criticism here and abroad over its inaction, the Pakistani military claimed on Wednesday to have reasserted control of a key town just 60 miles from the capital in the strategic district of Buner which was overrun by hundreds of Taliban militants last week.

The development came one day after the military deployed fighter jets and helicopter gunships against the insurgents. It was not immediately clear what level of resistance the Taliban had offered.

Pakistan also agreed to move 6,000 troops from its Indian border to fight militants on its western border with Afghanistan, according to a Pakistani official who did not want to be identified discussing troop movements in advance.

But American officials, who welcomed the redeployment, said Pakistan was still not doing enough to fight the insurgents, who are tightening their hold on the country. The Americans expressed frustration that Pakistan was still rebuffing their offers to train more Pakistanis to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

News reports on Wednesday quoted an unidentified military spokesman as saying government troops dropped from helicopters near Daggar, the administrative center of Buner, to link up with other government forces in the region. There was no immediate word on casualties.

The campaign in Buner began Tuesday after government forces completed a two-day operation against Taliban militants in Dir, a neighboring district, said a military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Ather Abbas.

The Taliban advance into Buner has brought heavy pressure on the military from the United States and other Western countries. It has also fortified a growing consensus among Pakistani politicians and the public that the Taliban have gone too far and that the military should act to contain the spread of the insurgency.

Under threat of military action, the Taliban staged a show withdrawal from Buner at the end of last week, General Abbas said. But he said the militants were trying to expand the space they controlled beyond the Swat Valley, which borders Dir and Buner.

At a news conference, he played three tapes of what were described as telephone intercepts of the main Taliban leader, Mullah Fazlullah, talking to one of his commanders about making a show withdrawal for the news media while telling the fighters to put away their weapons and lie low.

“In Buner, people are living under coercion and in fear,” General Abbas said. “There was no reason to intimidate people in Buner, and the militants started intimidating people and forcibly recruiting young people to take them back to Swat for military training.”

“The government acted with patience,” he added, “but eventually there was no other way except to launch an operation.”

Earlier in the day, the new interior minister, Rehman Malik, said the Taliban had ignored repeated requests from the government of President Asif Ali Zardari to leave Buner. “I warn them to vacate the area,” Mr. Malik told reporters. “We are not going to spare them. Action will be taken if anyone tries to block our efforts to re-establish the writ of the government in Buner and other areas.”

Several events contributed to the shift among politicians and the public. Video of the flogging of a 17-year-old woman in Swat by the Taliban several weeks ago shocked many in the country. A radical cleric who helped negotiate the peace deal in Swat, Maulana Sufi Muhammad, said recently that Pakistani institutions like Parliament and the high courts were un-Islamic, a comment that angered politicians from all parties.

Finally, the militants’ move into new districts last week impelled the Pakistani Army to move against the Taliban.

The 6,000 troops to be shifted had originally been on Pakistan’s western border but were sent to the Indian border in December, after the terrorists’ attack in Mumbai in which 163 people were killed the previous month. India had responded to the attack, which Indian and American officials concluded was planned in Pakistan and carried out by Pakistanis, by massing troops on the Pakistani border.

The promised redeployment, which will essentially return Pakistan’s military presence in the northwest to pre-Mumbai levels, comes as American and Pakistani officials are preparing for what are likely to be tense meetings in Washington next week between President Obama, President Zardari and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

American officials have alternately criticized and praised Pakistan, in the hope of goading it into taking tougher action against the Taliban, and on Tuesday they engaged in both strategies.

Early in the day, a senior military official, one of several American officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the security strategy of an ally, expressed anger about what he saw as Pakistan’s fecklessness in trying to combat militants within its borders.

“It is reasonable for Pakistanis and Americans alike to ask why there has not been a more robust, sustained and serious response to elements that assassinated Benazir Bhutto, blew up the Marriott Hotel, attacked a visiting cricket team and assaulted a police academy,” the official said, ticking off a series of violent events that began with the killing of the former prime minister. He said it was “inexplicable” that the incidents had not “galvanized the Pakistani military and civilian leaders to link arms in a comprehensive, sustained campaign to fight back.”

But later in the day, after the United States received word of the troop movement, the official took a different tone. “It’s too soon to say how it’s going to turn out,” the official said. “But it’s a promising sign that they finally recognize the existential threat to their country.”

American officials said they were continuing to press Pakistan to accept more American trainers, an issue likely to come up in the meetings next week. More than 70 American military advisers and technical specialists are already working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle militants in the lawless tribal areas, but the United States would like to expand the effort.

Pakistan has balked, American officials said, because it does not want a large American presence in its country.

“There’s a red line about our advisers and any foreign boots on the ground in Pakistan right now,” a senior administration official said. He said that the United States was “doing everything we can within the constraints that are currently placed on our engagement to be as helpful as we can.”

The Pakistani military may have a difficult fight ahead. The Taliban have already been digging trenches and fortified positions, General Abbas said.

There are indications that the fighting in Dir has been heavier than Pakistani officials have acknowledged, and that the civilian cost has been high. The military said some 70 militants had been killed in three days of fighting.

But more than 30,000 civilians have fled their homes in the region, and some of them reported seeing bodies lying in the streets and the fields as they fled, Amnesty International said Tuesday.

“Neither the Taliban nor the government forces seem to care about the well-being of the residents of Lower Dir,” Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director, said in a statement.

Carlotta Gall reported from Islamabad, and Elisabeth Bumiller from Washington. Helene Cooper, Mark Mazzetti and Mark Landler contributed reporting from Washington. Alan Cowell contributed from London.

Terror Gift to Pakistan

2011 World Cup shift will cost PCB 10.5 million dollars

KARACHI - With the International Cricket Council (ICC) deciding to shift the 2011 cricket World Cup matches from Pakistan, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is set to suffer a whopping 10.5 million dollar loss.

“We lose out on earning the hosting fees of the matches. The ICC pay out the host country 750,000 dollars for each match,” PCB’s Chief Operating Officer Saleem Altaf said.

Altaf said the loss could be much more than what has been estimated.

He added that the board has already suffered huge financial set backs due to the cancellation of Australian and Indian tour.

The eight nation Champions Trophy was also shifted from the country by the ICC in the wake of precarious conditions.

Officials of the PCB marketing department estimated that the overall loss could be around 40 million dollars, The News reported. (ANI)

Terror on Cricket: Malaysia offers Pakistan two alternative playing venues

The impact of Terrorism on Cricket.

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia has offered two of its ICC-recognised venues to Pakistan so that it can fulfil its international commitments and hold matches that were cancelled in the aftermath of the terror attack on Sri Lanka team.

According to The Nation, Malaysia is ready to become the alternative venue for Pakistan’s cricket matches so that all their international matches that were cancelled due to safety reasons can be played here, Malaysian Cricket Association (MCA) honorary secretary C Sivanandan said.

Since Malaysia already has two world class cricket venues, certified by the International Cricket Council to host Test matches and One-Day Internationals, MCA has made the offer to Pakistan, he said.

“The Bayu Emas Oval in Klang and the Kinrara Oval in Puchong have already staged world class international matches and we already have the facilities, expertise and the people to assist Pakistan in hosting matches,” Sivanandan was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency.

However, MCA has not yet received any feedback on the offer from the Pakistan board, he said.

After the March 3 terror attack on the visiting Sri Lanka team in Lahore, foreign countries and teams are reluctant to travel to Pakistan.

Pakistan’s hopes of jointly staging the World Cup with India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have dimmed after gunmen attacked the visiting Lankan team bus in Lahore on March 3, killing seven people and injuring six players ahead of the third day of the second Test. (ANI)

al-Qaeda: The Many Faces of an Islamist Extremist Threat

REPORT OF THE



U.S. HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE





APPROVED: JUNE 2006



TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS



SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 2006

Understanding the Strategic Threat

Today, the remnants of al-Qaeda and radical Islamist terrorist groups with like-minded goals and ideologies remain the single most important threat to the national security of the United States. Although al-Qaeda has suffered significant setbacks since 9/11, the organization is constantly evolving, and its leaders patiently wait for the right opportunity to direct another attack against the United States. As evidenced by Usama bin Laden's statement from January 2006, al-Qaeda's leadership still possesses the desire to carry out further attacks. Breaking a fourteen-month silence, bin Laden said:

"As for similar operations taking place in America, it is only a matter of time. They [the terrorists] are in the final stages, and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete."⁵

The enemy we face today is not the same enemy that attacked the United States in 2001. Al-Qaeda has been forced to adapt to its changing environment and has relinquished some of its operational control to an extended network of like-minded terrorist groups to ensure the movement's longevity. Today, the war on terrorism is being fought on multiple fronts. First, we are fighting al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization led by Usama bin Laden. Usama bin Laden formally declared war against the United States in a 1996 letter urging Jihad against America. In his 1996 letter, and in subsequent statements, Usama bin Laden cites the United States and its allies for their military presence in the Middle East, support for Israel and the occupation of Iraq as reasons to attack the U.S. His 1998 statement expanded on the 1996 fatwa to sanction attacks on all Americans, including civilians. Usama bin Laden justified attacks against the American people because "they are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq" He further states, "The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us."⁶

Successful operations against al-Qaeda's core have created new problems in the sense that al-Qaeda is no longer a hierarchical organization run by bin Laden. Rather, the terrorist threat has evolved into what some experts refer to as "franchised" terrorism. In this new phase, previously identified al-Qaeda leaders serve as examples and provide ideological rather than organizational and material support to terrorist operatives around the world. Al-Qaeda acts as an inspiration to groups from Chechnya to the Palestinian territories, as well as to individuals in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom that have minimal contact with the network.⁷

Al-Qaeda's ability to export its ideology to terrorist organizations around the world has created a second front in the war on terrorism. In addition to the central group, "al-Qaeda" has become a network of loosely affiliated individuals that subscribe to its ideology, but have little, if any, contact with its core leaders and sometimes differ on end goals and agendas.⁸ In Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by Coalition forces on June 8, 2006, declared allegiance to bin Laden, al-Qaeda and an extreme interpretation of Islam. Although bin Laden and al-Zarqawi's supporters in Iraq have their differences, they share the same end goal and are willing to put these disagreements aside as they work to create a Muslim state under a new Caliphate.⁹ Al-Qaeda has also benefited from the rise of homegrown terrorist cells in Europe and North America, as well as its ability to exploit the Internet to increase support among Muslims and other sympathizers worldwide.

We are no longer fighting a war against just al-Qaeda. Rather, we are now fighting a war against various entities inspired by al-Qaeda and radicalized in various areas around the world, including in the United States. Al-Qaeda's ability to recruit large support networks should not be overlooked. As long as al-Qaeda can spread its ideology to other groups, the movement will continue to grow and threaten to change the way the Islamic world is governed. To win the war on terrorism, the United States and our allies will have to not just kill and capture key terrorist operatives, but also identify ways to discredit the radical ideology that supports these groups. Organizations like Jemaah Islamiyah, the Libyan Islamic

Fighting Group and the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat have shown willingness to support al-Qaeda's global operations. Although the core element of al-Qaeda is still dangerous, it may increasingly look to leverage support from affiliates to carry out attacks against the United States. Today, al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda associated groups maintain a presence in dozens of countries worldwide, including the United States (See Figure 1).

Of particular concern is a relatively new phenomenon-the rise of homegrown Islamist extremism. In London, Casablanca, Madrid, the Netherlands and elsewhere, homegrown terrorist cells comprised of second and third generation radicalized Muslims have proven difficult for authorities to track or preempt their activities.¹⁰ Such homegrown cells have been able to train and prepare in secrecy, escaping detection even from the local community. Although the United States has not yet seen this phenomenon on the same scale as our European allies, the potential for America to face homegrown terrorism is real. This threat calls for a more robust, capable, and empowered Intelligence Community.

Islamist extremism, as it is discussed throughout this report, refers to the political philosophy that says that, in order to defend a carefully defined vision of Islam and protect pious Muslims around the world, one has to impose, essentially, a 7th century political structure over the people of the Islamic world, and that this political structure must be implemented by violent jihad, or Holy War. We are not looking at Muslims who practice their faith fundamentally -there is nothing wrong with practicing religion in a fundamental way. ¹¹

In preparing this report the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held numerous hearings (both open and closed), briefings and meetings with representatives from the Intelligence Community, academia, and the private sector to enable Members and staff to better understand the threat presented by Islamist extremist groups. Due to the unclassified nature of this report, the Committee has only drawn from publicly available sources. In no way does this undermine the threat facing the United States-the Committee would reach the same findings and conclusions using classified information.

Jihad in Afghanistan

Jihad in Afghanistan

The origins of the group can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahedeen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone.^[41][42]

At the same time, a growing number of foreign Arab mujahedeen (also called Afghan Arabs) joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations, particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat,^[43] whose funds came from some of the $600 million a year donated to the jihad by the Saudi Arabia government and individual Muslims - particularly wealthy Saudis who were approached by Osama bin Laden.^[44]

Maktab al-Khidamat was established by Abdullah Azzam and Bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1984. From 1986 it began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the United States, the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent" Ali Mohamed, whom FBI special agent Jack Cloonan called "bin Laden's first trainer,"^[45] and "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, a leading recruiter of mujahideen for Afghanistan.

The Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s have been alleged to be the inspiration for terrorist groups in nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Chechnya, and the former Yugoslavia.^[46] According to Russian sources, the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 allegedly used a manual allegedly written by the CIA for the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan on how to make explosives.^[47]

Al-Qaeda evolved from the Maktab al-Khidamat (Services Office), a Muslim organization founded in 1980 to raise and channel funds and recruit foreign mujahadeen for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was founded by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a Palestinian Islamic scholar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Maktab al-Khadamat organized guest houses in Peshawar, in Pakistan, near the Afghan border, and paramilitary training camps in Afghanistan to prepare international non-Afghan recruits for the Afghan war front. Azzam persuaded Bin Laden to join MAK, to use his own money and use his connections with "the Saudi royal family and the petro-billionaires of the Gulf" to raise more to help the mujahideen.^[48]

The role played by MAK and foreign Muslim volunteers, or "Afghan Arabs", in the war was not a major one. While 250,000 Afghan Mujahideen fought the Soviets and the communist Afghan government, it is estimated that were never more than 2000 foreign mujahideen in the field at any one time.^[49] Nonetheless, foreign mujahedeen volunteers came from 43 countries and the number that participated in the Afghan movement between 1982 and 1992 is reported to have been 35,000.^[50]

The Soviet Union finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. To the surprise of many, Mohammed Najibullah's communist Afghan government hung on for three more years before being overrun by elements of the mujahedeen. With mujahedeen leaders unable to agree on a structure for governance, chaos ensued, with constantly reorganizing alliances fighting for control of ill-defined territories, leaving the country devastated.

Expanding operations

Toward the end of the Soviet military mission in Afghanistan, some mujahedeen wanted to expand their operations to include Islamist struggles in other parts of the world, such as Israel and Kashmir. A number of overlapping and interrelated organizations were formed to further those aspirations.

One of these was the organization that would eventually be called al-Qaeda, formed by Osama bin Laden with an initial meeting held on August 11, 1988.^[51] Bin Laden wished to establish nonmilitary operations in other parts of the world; Azzam, in contrast, wanted to remain focused on military campaigns. After Azzam was assassinated in 1989, the MAK split, with a significant number joining bin Laden's organization.

In November 1989, Ali Mohamed, a former special forces Sergeant stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, left military service and moved to Santa Clara, California. He traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan and became "deeply involved with bin Laden's plans."^[52].

A year later, on November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of Mohammed's associate El Sayyid Nosair, discovering a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers.^[53] Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane on November 5, 1990. In 1991, Ali Mohammed is said to have helped orchestrate Osama bin Laden's relocation to Sudan.^[54]

Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda, alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, (Arabic: القاعدة‎; al-qāʿidah; translation: The Base) is an Islamist multinational^[5] and extremist Sunni movement founded sometime between August 1988^[6] and late 1989/early 1990.^[7]

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching a military and intelligence campaign against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations called the War on Terror. As of 2009, the group is believed to have between 200 and 300 members.^[8]

Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.^[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous "al-Qaeda-linked" individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan or Sudan but not taken any pledge.^[10]

Al-Qaeda's objectives include the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,^[11] and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is Islamically justified in jihad.

Its management philosophy has been described as "centralization of decision and decentralization of execution."^[12] Following 9/11 and the launching of what's called the War on Terrorism, it is thought al-Qaeda's leadership has "become geographically isolated", leading to the "emergence of decentralized leadership" of regional groups using the al-Qaeda "brand name."^[13][14]

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council,^[15] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General,^[16][17] the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union,^[18] the United States Department of State,^[19] the Australian Government,^[20] Government of India,^[21] Public Safety Canada,^[22] the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,^[23] Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook,^[24] South Korean Foreign Ministry,^[25] the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,^[26] the United Kingdom Home Office,^[27] Russia,^[28] the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,^[29] Turkish Police Forces^[30] and the Swiss Government.^[31]

Blasts In Japur

A peaceful City. God knows why cant people tolerate peace. A beautiful City of so much historic importance. Named pink city, but the terrorists colored it red... crimson red.

Sixty people were killed in a series of bomb attacks in India's western city of Jaipur on Tuesday evening, police, officials and witnesses said.

At least six bombs, which exploded in markets and near a Hindu temple in Jaipur's crowded walled city just as many people took to the streets after a sweltering day, also wounded up to 150 people, officials said.

Rajasthan state government officials said between 50 and 60 people were killed in the explosions, the deadliest bomb attacks in India in nearly two years.

"According to the information I have received 60 people have died and 150 have been injured," Rajasthan's Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje was quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying.

CAN INDIA ENGAGE ITSELF IN COUNTER TERRORISM?

The concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the concept of terrorism as well as an attempt to understand and articulate what constitutes terrorism in Western terms. It must be remembered that in military contexts, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Terrorism may be a tactic in a war between nation-states, in a civil war, or in an insurgency.

Counter-terrorism refers to offensive strategies intended to prevent a belligerent, in a broader conflict, from successfully using the tactic of terrorism. The U.S. military definition, compatible with the definitions used by NATO and many other militaries, is "Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism."[1] In other words, counter-terrorism is a set of techniques for denying an opponent the use terrorism-based tactics, just as counter-air is a set of techniques for denying the opponent the use of attack aircraft.
United States Customs and Border Protection officers.

Anti-terrorism is defensive, intended to reduce the chance of an attack using terrorist tactics at specific points, or to reduce the vulnerability of possible targets to such tactics. "Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces." [1]

To continue the analogy between air and terrorist capability, offensive counter-air missions attack the airfields of the opponent, while defensive counter-air uses antiaircraft missiles to protect a point on one's own territory. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict,[2] Sri Lankan Civil War,[3] and Colombian Civil War[4] are examples of conflicts where terrorism is present, along with other tactics, so that a participant uses counter- and anti-terrorism to limit the opponent's use of terror tactics.



Legal contexts
Main article: Anti-terrorism legislation

In response to the growing threat of international terrorism many countries have introduced anti-terrorism legislation.

* United Kingdom
o The United Kingdom has had anti-terrorism legislation in place for more than thirty years. The Prevention of Violence Act 1939 was brought in response to an Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaign of violence under the S-Plan. This act had been allowed to expire in 1953 and was repealed in 1973 to be replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act a response to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. From 1974 to 1989 the temporary provisions of the act annually.
o In 2000 the Acts were replaced with the more permanent Terrorism Act 2000, which contained many of their powers, and then the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
o During The Troubles, authorities in Northern Ireland were accused of employing a shoot-to-kill policy
o The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was formally introduced into the Parliament November 19, 2001 two months after the September 11, 2001 attacks in America. It received royal assent and went into force on December 13, 2001. On December 16, 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Part 4 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 it remained in force. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was drafted to answer the Law Lords ruling and the Terrorism Act 2006 creates new offences related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and like its predecessors some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial.
o Great Britain dealt with internal threats from terrorism through a secret law enforcement training program known as Operation Kratos.
* United States
o U.S. legal issues surrounding this issue include rulings on the domestic employment of Deadly force by law enforcement organizations.
o Search and seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
o The US passed the USA PATRIOT Act after the 9/11 attacks, as well as a range of other legislation and executive orders.
o The Department of Homeland Security was established to consolidate domestic security agencies to coordinate anti-terrorism, as well as national response to major natural disasters and accidents.
o The Posse Comitatus Act limits domestic employment of the United States Army, requiring Presidential approval prior to deploying the Army. Pentagon policy also applies this limitation to the United States Marine Corps, United States Navy, and United States Air Force. The Department of Defense can be employed domestically on Presidential order, as was done during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, Hurricane Katrina and the Beltway Sniper incidents.
o External or international use of lethal force would require a Presidential finding.

* Australia
o Australia has passed several anti-terrorism acts in 2004 three acts Anti-terrorism Act, 2004, (No 2) and (No 3) were passed. The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, introduced the Anti-terrorism bill, 2004 on March 31. He described it as "a bill to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws in a number of respects - a task made more urgent following the recent tragic terrorist bombings in Spain." He said that Australia's counter-terrorism laws "require review and, where necessary, updating if we are to have a legal framework capable of safeguarding all Australians from the scourge of terrorism." The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 supplemented the powers of the earlier acts. The legislation in Australia allows police to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge, and to electronically track suspects for up to a year. The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005 included a "shoot-to-kill" clause. In a country, with entrenched liberal democratic traditions, the measures have been controversial and have been criticized by civil libertarians and Islamic groups.
* Israel
o On December 14, 2006 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled targeted killings were a permitted form of self defense.[6]







Terrorism and human rights

One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist measures is the waning of civil liberties and individual privacy that such measures often entail, both for citizens of, and for those detained by states attempting to combat terror. At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as abuses of power or even violations of human rights.

Examples of these problems can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of people between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach principles of non-discrimination. [7] Examples include:

* In November 2003 Malaysia passed new counter-terrorism laws that were widely criticized by local human rights groups for being vague and overbroad. Critics claim that the laws put the basic rights of free expression, association, and assembly at risk. Malaysia persisted in holding around 100 alleged militants without trial, including five Malaysian students detained for alleged terrorist activity while studying in Karachi, Pakistan. [7]
* In November 2003 a Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, alleged publicly that he had been tortured in a Syrian prison after being handed over to the Syrian authorities by U.S. [7]
* In December 2003 Colombia's congress approved legislation that would give the military the power to arrest, tap telephones and carry out searches without warrants or any previous judicial order. [7]
* Images of unpopular treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and other locations have encouraged international scrutiny of US operations in the war on terror. [8]
* Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and US constitutional standards some groups believe outlaw such practices. [8]
* Hundreds of people suspected of connections with the Taliban or al Qa'eda remain in long-term detention in Pakistan or in US-controlled centers in Afghanistan. [8]
* China has used the "war on terror" to justify its policies in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to stifle Uighur identity. [8]
* In Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, scores of people have been arrested and arbitrarily detained in connection with suspected terrorist acts or links to opposition armed groups. [8]
* Until 2005 eleven men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [8]

Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat. [7] Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism. [8] This suggests, as proponents of human security have long argued, that respecting human rights may indeed help us to incur security. Amnesty International included a section on confronting terrorism in the recommendations in the Madrid Agenda arising from the Madrid Summit on Democracy and Terrorism (Madrid 8-11 March 2005):

"Democratic principles and values are essential tools in the fight against terrorism. Any successful strategy for dealing with terrorism requires terrorists to be isolated. Consequently, the preference must be to treat terrorism as criminal acts to be handled through existing systems of law enforcement and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We recommend: (1) taking effective measures to make impunity impossible either for acts of terrorism or for the abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. (2) the incorporation of human rights laws in all anti-terrorism programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies."[8]

While international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, proponents of human rights (as well as human security) have suggested that more effort needs to be given to the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation. They argue that international human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine its effectiveness in the international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism. [7]

Major Terror Attacks and real pictures

Uniting Against Terror argues that defeating the global terrorist threat requires engaging international financial, diplomatic, intelligence, and defense communities and law enforcement organizations in an atmosphere of cooperation. It examines cooperative diplomatic and economic policies to address the changing face of terrorism and the global Al Qaida threat, differentiates between protective measures and long-term preventive policies, and makes recommendations for effective cooperative nonmilitary strategies. Included are chapters that analyze the UN and its role, the unique blend of sanctions and diplomacy that convinced Libya to end its support of terrorism, efforts to halt the financing of terrorist networks, and an account of the European Union's unified "Plan of Action" against terrorism.

Mar 12, 1993: Bombings in Bombay
Sep 11, 2001: America attacked
Dec 13, 2001 - Attack on the parliament complex in New Delhi
Sep 24, 2002 - Terrorists attack the Akshardham temple in Gujarat
Aug 25, 2003 - Car bombs in Bombay
Mar 11, 2004 - Madrid Blasts
Jul 7, 2005: London bombings
Oct 29, 2005 - Blasts in New Delhi
Jul 11, 2006: Bombay train blasts
May 18, 2007 and Aug 25, 2007: Bomb blasts in Hyderabad
May 13, 2008: Bomb blasts in Jaipur
Jul 25, 2008 - Bomb blasts in Bangalore.
Jul 26, 2008 - Bomb blasts in Ahmedabad.
Sep 13, 2008 - Bomb blasts in Delhi.
Oct 30, 2008 - Bomb blasts in Assam
Nov 26, 2008: Bombay attacked like never before!! Who is to blame??


All of us are responsible for what’s happening today!! As long as we tolerate terror from our politicians in the name of religion and state boundaries, we permit this kind of terrorism to exist!! Terror must stop no matter how small.. we have got to stop being tolerant and "celebrating our 'spirit' of moving on"!!!

Today we are shocked, stunned, horrified!! Everyone is condemning the terror!! And tomorrow, in the name of the indomitable spirit of Bombay, we will move on!! It will be remembered as just another tragedy!! When are we going to say ENOUGH is ENOUGH!! When are we going to stand up and say we won't take it anymore!! It’s NOT just another tragedy!! It's NOT just a few more lives lost!! When are we truly going to care enough to stop “moving on” and do something!! Be it an attack on any city, state or country!! Be it an attack on Hindus, Muslims or Christians!! Be it an attack by Hindus, Muslims or Christians!! Terror has no religion and no justification!! It’s an attack on humanity!! It’s an attack against all of us!! Let’s unite and stand up for ZERO TOLERANCE no matter how small the terror!!








ACT AS IF WHAT YOU DO MAKES A DIFFERENCE! IT DOES!










Pakistan is slipping deeper by the day into political, economic, ethnic and religious chaos.

The Pakistani Taliban control most of the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and have seized Swat, a valley 100 miles from Islamabad. Electricity and food shortages have sparked unrest and stalled industrial production, and the stock market has dropped more than 60 percent while the Pakistani rupee has fallen 30 percent against the dollar in the past year.

Meanwhile, the coalition government led by President Asif Ali Zardari, mired in infighting and incompetence, has failed to unite around a strategy to contain the crisis, and some U.S. and Pakistani experts warn that there's a growing danger that Pakistan could have its fifth military coup since it won its independence from Britain in 1947.

"The civilian leadership is weak and fearful of the inevitable in Pakistan, that it oversteps the mark and runs the risk of being removed (by the Army)," said Rashed Rahman, a political analyst based in Lahore. "It is a non-functional government. There is no legislative program. Parliament was always a talking shop in Pakistan, but they have taken it to new heights."