Bharat Rakshak

A leading member of the Pakistan civil society has exposed the war-mongering ideology of the Jamaat ud Daawa, or JuD, the umbrella organization of the Lashkar-i-Toiba or Army of Pure—the terror outfit responsible for the Mumbai mayhem in November that left 200 people dead and over 300 injured.

Dr. Rubina Saigol of Action Aid Pakistan has expressed her disgust at the teachings of the jihadist outfit that had tried to show a softer face to the world immediately after the Mumbai attacks by inviting journalists to its headquarters in Muridke, Punjab.

The United Nations Security Council on December 11 imposed sanctions on the Pakistan-based terror outfit and declared four of its top leaders Dawaa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, suspected Mumbai terror mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Haji Muhammad Ashraf and Zaki-ur-Bahaziq as global terrorists.

Saigol posted her views on a progressive Pakistani public yahoogroups emailing list called SPN, with nearly 5,000 members. She was responding to the views of another liberal Pakistani editor, Omar R. Quraishi, editorial page editor of largest circulation English newspaper The News International.

In his article, Quraishi wrote: "Regrettably, this tendency to act superior than the rest of the world, ignore one's own warts and what not and to blame the rest of the world for all that ills the Islamic world is something that is found in many ordinary Pakistanis as well. Whether they have been influenced by organisations such as the JuD or whether the organisations have been influenced by the society that they have grown up in is not the issue but rather that the value system and worldview of the JuD and the LeT is in fact something that a lot of Pakistanis share -- particularly the view that a Hindu/Zionist/ American conspiracy of sorts has been put in motion to annihilate the Muslim world."

India still has plans to bomb the Muridke headquarters of the terror outfit and many people in the renegade province of Baluchistan believe New Delhi would be fully justified in doing so.

Even Indian Muslims were calling for tit-for-tat against Pakistan's rogue spy service Inter Services Intelligence and elements within the country's omnipotent army--the fourth largest in the world and armed with nuclear weapons. "The attacks were India's 911. The terror infrastructure has to be brought down. If the Congress Party will not act, it will lose the elections," the scion of a leading Muslim family from Mumbai said on a request of anonymity.

Saigol concurring with Quraishi's view on Jamaat ud Daawa gave some glaring examples from textbooks "that they distribute to their students and which are not available openly in the market." She added the books are published by Jamaat ud Daawa press and are given to students free of charge.

"The Mullahs [Islamic cleric] say that the books are meant to 'inspire' and to inculcate a truly Islamic spirit among students and to enable them to view Islam as a complete way of life, rather than as a set of rituals," Saigol said. "Through these textbooks children are given inspirational ideas and introduced to the objectives of Islam as seen by the Mullah. They are thus introduced the glorious Muslim past to inspire them to violence to re-create the past."

She said Jamaat ud Daawa argues that Muslims alone have right to rule the world and are allowed to kill infidels that stand in the way of Islam and this is being taught in textbooks used by the Jamaat ud Daawa.

Saigol said Daawa glorifies violence and hate and teaches the new version of alphabets in which children learn Bandook for Bai, Talwar for Tai, Tank for Ttai, jehaz for jeem and khanjar for khai, rocket for rai and tayyara for To-ay. [In English, all this will translate into G for gun, S for sword, T for tank, J for jet, K for knife, R for rocket and A for airplane.]

"In the Urdu textbook, children are told that infidels are cowards by nature and when a holy warrior attacks them, they scream with terror and fear," she said. "Mujahideen are glorified as being on a mission from Allah and they are superheroes that kill Hindus and make infidels cower in fear," she said, referring from the pages of the textbook.

She deplored games are organized around violence and killing and the children play with guns and learn to shoot at balloons, adding they play guerilla games of ambushing infidels, and in one story, a ten year old boy kills hundreds of Russians in Afghanistan .

She said poems and stories are taught about young boys that wage jihad and children read fictitious letters from jihadis killed in battle. “If I am killed in battle, celebrate”, reads one letter to a mother and sister in the seventh grade textbook, and then admonishes, “Make sure you conceal your body and never wear perfume.” Obscurantists among Muslims call this decadent and sexist practice hijab.

"India is presented as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a best friend. Kashmir appears as Pakistani territory forcibly snatched by Hindus and Pakistan as a country created only for Muslims."

Saigol said children are instructed to mercilessly beat up non-Muslims and are told in the second grade textbook that every student should become a holy warrior and that they should be willing to lay down their lives for the great nuclear power that is Pakistan.

Quraishi notes: "Another (JuD) post is devoted to Mother's Day, or rather to equating it more or less with paganism. In fact, another post is on how Muslims should beware of doing actions that make them equal to kaafirs [infidels] -- such as celebrating their holy days and festivals. Also, it is clearly mentioned that non-Muslims are kaafirs and should not be even befriended."

Even after passage of one month, Pakistan is still in self-denial about the identity of the Mumbai terrorists. Though Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari initially admitted his country's non-state actors were involved in the Mumbai attacks, under the rogue army's instructions he has made a U-turn since then and said recently there were no solid proofs the lone surviving terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab is a Pakistani national.

Pakistan's leading English newspaper DAWN--owned by a cousin of Hussain Haroon, Pakistan's permanent representative to the United Nations-- recently carried an interview of Kasab's father from the Punjab town of Faridkot, confirming his son's identity. Baring one, all the 10 Mumbai terrorists were from Punjab, stronghold of the Pakistan army.

The attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul involved very sophisticated explosives that have never been used by mujahideen or Taliban, and the Taliban denied being responsible. The attack on President Hamid Karzai in April also involved very sophisticated planning and financing. The records of the mobile phones of those involved show they were constantly telephoning to Pakistan.

Q. How serious are reports of an impending American/NATO attack/strike inside Pakistan’s territories?

A. I have no idea if there will be such a strike, as I don’t work for the government or have a security clearance. But there is undeniable evidence of the presence of top Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. The best evidence is that Pakistan has arrested some of them and usually can find another to arrest when the pressure gets too intense. I think that people in Punjab and Sindh might not be fully aware of the situation.

Q. If launched, what can such an attack be like?

A. I have no idea. In my view this is not a problem that can be solved by cross-border attacks.

Q. Many analysts have said that such an attack/strike will be counterproductive…

A. So far the only policy on cross-border strikes or operations that I know of is about targeting the top leaders of al-Qaeda. And everyone knows that a major attack that is too visible or lasts too long could damage our friends in Pakistan. I think that marginalising extremists and supporting democracy and development in Pakistan is a common interest of the US and Pakistan. We should find a way to pursue these goals together. But we also have partners in Afghanistan and the US’s partnership with Pakistan cannot be at their expense.

Q. If the presence of the top leadership of Taliban and al-Qaeda is not new, why is Kabul reacting so vehemently this time round – it has virtually suspended all diplomatic ties with Pakistan – and why is there so much noise in the US media, government and think-tanks about the need to do something?

A. The US actually never complained about Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan for many years. I doubt you could find any examples before 2004 and even then you will find only statements by Zalmay Khalilzad (the then US envoy in Kabul). The Bush administration was placing all its attention on Iraq and did not even conduct any surveillance of what the Taliban were doing in Quetta and Waziristan. But in the last two years, especially since the North Waziristan agreement in 2006, the attacks and infiltrations from across the border (Durand Line) has greatly increased. Of course there is always a seasonal increase, so we do not compare this month with last month. When I study the data I compare a week in 2008 with the same week in 2007, 2006, etc. The data clearly show an increase.

And it is not just an increase in guerrilla activity. I know that the tribes on the India/Pakistan side of the Durand Line have always fought in civil wars in Afghanistan – they did so in 1928-29 and in 1978-1992. But today very sophisticated terrorist attacks are being planned, organised and funded in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). The attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul involved very sophisticated explosives that have never been used by mujahideen or Taliban, and the Taliban denied being responsible. The attack on President Hamid Karzai in April also involved very sophisticated planning and financing. The records of the mobile phones of those involved show they were constantly telephoning to Pakistan. There is a lot more evidence that very sophisticated terrorist acts are being organised in camps in Fata. By the way, the UN conducted a study of suicide bombings in Afghanistan and concluded that they were organised and planned in Fata (http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UNDocs/U ... 202007.pdf.) Pakistan’s only response was for its UN representative to demand that the report be taken off the UN website. Pakistan is not just opposing the Northern Alliance or the US – it is standing alone against the UN and NATO.

The situation in Afghanistan is indeed much more urgent. That is not only because of the bases of Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan. It is also because of a very poor policy of the Bush administration and poor performance of the Afghan government. But the situation in Pakistan makes it much more difficult.

Q. Is the focus shifting to Afghanistan because there is a general belief that the war in Afghanistan could have been won with the right strategy because it was a ‘just’ war but it did not get the attention because of the war in Iraq which was strictly legally speaking “illegal”?

A. Public opinion surveys in the US show that a substantial majority believes that the war in Iraq was a mistake. They believe that the military operation in Afghanistan was not only justified but necessary because we were attacked from there. But you know it is not only the US who says this. It is the position of the UN Security Council. It is the position of the Government of Pakistan.

I can’t speak for others, but I’ll give you my view. The attack on Iraq was the greatest gift that President Bush gave to Osama Bin Laden. The US said it attacked the Taliban because they harboured al-Qaeda, which attacked the US. Iraq had nothing to do with that attack. So al-Qaeda could argue, “You see? It had nothing to do with ‘terrorism’. It is a war against Islam and Muslims.”

After 9/11, I thought we should support an amnesty for most of the Taliban, start a big reconstruction programme in Afghanistan, work with Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve differences over the border, continue cooperation with Iran in Afghanistan, and intensify US efforts to address legitimate concerns of the Muslims, such as the situation in Palestine. Instead the Bush administration pretty much did the opposite. I don’t know what future US policy will be, but I am hoping to move it in this direction.

Q. Are Pakistan-based Taliban the only problem in Afghanistan? There are reports that some other foreign and local militants are also fighting in central and eastern Afghanistan…

A. Pakistan-based Taliban are very far from being the only problem in Afghanistan. But the groups you mention are also based in Pakistan. Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin are in North Waziristan, close to Miran Shah. Hikmatyar still has the same office in Shamshattu camp near Peshawar. All of these groups are based in Pakistan.

But there are a lot of other problems in Afghanistan. The former Interior Minister of Afghanistan, Ali Ahmad Jalali, calls Afghanistan a “theme park of problems.” Afghanistan is one of the five poorest countries in the world, and all the other very poor countries are the poorest countries in Africa. It has the weakest government in the world. It is more dependent on narcotics and illegal activity than any other country in the world. It is politically impossible for its government to recognise its longest and most important border. It has more weapons per capita and more amputees per capita and a lower female literacy rate than any other country. It has lots of ethnic issues and not enough water. It is being “assisted” by a coalition of countries that have very little capacity to operate in Afghanistan or understand what they are doing there. I could go on.

Eliminating the centres in Pakistan where the war in Afghanistan is planned and funded and where many fighters are recruited would not solve all of Afghanistan’s problems or even end the war. There will be armed conflict over many issues for a long time (if only because unemployment is so high). But as long as the war is based outside of Afghanistan, it is almost impossible to address these other problems inside Afghanistan.

Let me ask a question: Are Pakistan-based Taliban a problem only for Afghanistan? When I was in Peshawar, the city was surrounded on three sides. The militants blew up the power grid so that the city lost a third of its electricity. People were being kidnapped and assassinated in broad daylight in Peshawar. People from other cities had even worse stories. A student from Mardan told me that co-called “Taliban” (including Chechens and Uzbeks) threatened to blow up the school his sister was attending if the girls didn’t wear the burqa instead of her own hijab. I met a group of senior officials from Fata and NWFP who said that there was a full-blown insurgency in NWFP (not just in Fata), and that the military seemed not to be doing anything about it.

Q. In Pakistan, the general public as well as analysts and media personnel are wary that Afghanistan is becoming a staging ground for anti-Pakistan conspiracies which bring together the Afghan government, India and the US in a bid to “break up Pakistan”. Do you think the US should do something to counter this impression?

A. I know people believe this. This is the same kind of thinking that led Pakistan to disaster in 1972. Nobody wants to repeat that. Pakistan is a very big country with a growing economy, nuclear weapons, and a government that is a big participant in the international community. Pakistan is the largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping operations. If there is any élite family in Pakistan that does not have relatives in the US, I have never met them. Nobody wants to break up such a country. I tried to explain to officials in Washington that people in Pakistan think there is a conspiracy to break up Pakistan, and I had a hard time getting them to take it seriously. They thought it was a joke.

But I would like to ask: where was the anti-Pakistan conspiracy in 1970-72? It was right inside Pakistan, in the high command of the Army and among the top politicians. That’s what led to the break-up of the country. If there is a conspiracy in Pakistan today, it is taking place in the same places. It’s up to the people of Pakistan to save their country.

I understand that many people in Pakistan are concerned about Indian activities in Afghanistan. In my writings I have pointed this out many times and argued that the US and Afghan government should address these concerns. As far as I can tell, the US government does not have independent information to show whether Pakistan’s charges are true. We should take them seriously and try to assure that no activity in Afghanistan threatens the unity or integrity of Pakistan. That is a legitimate interest of Pakistan. But Pakistan cannot protect its legitimate interest by demanding to exercise a veto over who can be in the government of Afghanistan.

Q. There has been a lot of talking about winning hearts and minds since 9/11. Do you think the US and NATO have done enough to win the hearts and minds in Afghanistan?

A. As I said, the Bush policy in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) has been very ineffective and harmful. Killing civilians (and house searches, torture, detention in Guantanamo and Bagram, and many other things) are wrong, in some cases criminal, and counter-productive. This has resulted in a turn of public opinion in Afghanistan against the international presence especially in the areas directly affected by fighting. We did not do enough to develop the country and pursue all the other positive policies I mentioned above. Right now most Afghans still feel they need foreign troops to prevent a civil war and to keep their neighbours (above all, Pakistan) from trying to control their country, but nobody likes to have foreign troops in their country.

Q. What can be a strategy for winning hearts and minds in Pakistan’s tribal areas?

A. I think that the current government of Pakistan and that of the NWFP have stated the right policy: integrate the tribal agencies into the mainstream of Pakistan. The US, NATO, the European Union and even the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation should support this goal. But it is very difficult. It cannot be accomplished just by passing a law to abolish the Frontier Crimes Regulations. It requires a well worked out strategy involving politics, economics, and security. The Awami National Party says the first step is extending the Political Parties Act to Fata. Then the government will have to figure out how to implement that. But I think it will be easier to get the support of the people of Fata for their right to participate in elections to local government bodies than for them to help George Bush with his war on terror. This would involve a lot of complicated changes in the way the maliks relate to the administration, how the economy is run, and many other things. But the military keeps proposing the revival of tribal system so FCR can work properly cannot possibly succeed. The tribal system has been weakened too much. Of course the Taliban and al-Qaeda have assassinated hundreds of tribal elders (this does not seem to upset people in the rest of Pakistan as much as when people are killed by American bombs), but the problem is much deeper.

The US, Saudi Arabia, and the government of Pakistan spent billions of dollars there creating an institutional base for exporting the so-called “jihad.” (I will let Muslims decide if it is really jihad to do what they are doing in Afghanistan.) Lots more money came in from remittances, trade (not only drugs), and contributions to extremist armed militants from the Persian Gulf countries. So (with all this money available to Islamic militants) owning a lot of land or animals and coming from a prominent family is not as important as it used to be (in Fata). Nothing will change this. The new situation requires political reforms in Fata. These reforms will benefit the people of the area, including most of the local people who are now with the militants. They are not the enemies of the US or Pakistan or Afghanistan or anyone else who does not attack them, and it is foolish to make them into enemies instead of partners. The same is true, by the way, of most of the people fighting against the government in Afghanistan. I knew some of the Taliban leaders. Of course we had very different world views, but they were not interested in attacking the US. They opposed US foreign policy but they didn’t think that killing thousands of Americans was the way to change it. We need a political solution in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But that does not mean doing the peace deals that the Pakistani military is making in Fata. By the way, these deals are made by the military and not the civilian government. The civilian government has no authority in Fata as far as I know. The political agents answer to the governor of NWFP, who is appointed by the president, not the Prime Minister. I met the governor of NWFP in May. He is totally opposed to the elected government’s programme of integrating Fata into mainstream Pakistan. But so far the elected government has been a huge disappointment. They have no strategy for confronting this huge crisis in Pakistan. They are acting as if they want to prove that the military is right when it says that democracy can’t work in Pakistan, because the politicians are irresponsible and corrupt. I know there are a lot of very dedicated good people in politics in Pakistan, in all parties. But the leadership of both the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz do not seem to be confronting the major issues of the country, including the one we are discussing. I think the ANP is doing what it can in NWFP, but its power is limited. An effective democratic government is the best partner and friend for the US in Pakistan and the region. We have to make that partnership work. - Conducted via email by Muhammad Badar Alam

...if there is a major terrorist incident that can be traced back to Pakistani-supported groups then there will be no restraint.

Q. In retrospect, how does the Republican Party view the support extended to General Pervez Musharraf by the current administration?

A. There are important Republican voices (who don't speak for the party officially) who have recently come out in criticism of Bush’s support of Musharraf, notably the conservative columnist Bob Novak, who is regarded as close to Vice President Dick Cheney. Several centrist Republican senators have long been critical of Musharraf for many reasons. However, it is important that Musharraf be treated with respect and that he not be disgraced. Doing so would be counter-productive, and return Pakistan to a cycle of revenge and counter revenge.

Q. Is there an effort on the part of the current administration to shift its focus away from Musharraf and develop a working relationship with the new government?

A. My guess is that the administration is divided. Certainly Bush had a place for Musharraf in his heart, (but) many professionals in the administration have long realised that while Musharraf talked a good game and was persuasive, actions did not follow, especially regarding looking the other way when it came to Taliban operations in Pakistan, and Taliban-Al Qaeda links.

Q. Is there any apparent difference between the way the Pentagon and the White House are viewing Pakistan in light of the fact that there is not just a new elected government in power but also a new Chief of Army Staff?

A. If there is a difference they have concealed it publicly, but there's no doubt that the US military is incensed with Pakistan. They have to face the Taliban daily in Afghanistan, and as many responsible journalists and foreign observers have written, the tracks back to Pakistan were evident years ago.

Q. Can significant changes be expected in the US-Pakistan relations after the presidential elections of 2008 with regard to ‘war on terrorism’, militancy in Waziristan and aid to Pakistan?

A. First, the term ‘war on terrorism’ is likely to disappear if Obama Barack is elected. It never was the appropriate phrase. McCain might continue it but the US generals who are planning and fighting the war in Afghanistan are far more subtle. There's a lot of impatience with Pakistan but even Obama has recently acknowledged that there may be limits to what Pakistan can actually do. I know of no one who would like to abandon Pakistan. This is a marriage, and we are going to have to learn to live with each other for the duration. What is new, and important, is the recognition that Pakistan itself could be an even greater problem in years to come because of economic stagnation, political incoherence, and a divide over whether the "main enemy" is India or radical Islam or Pakistan itself. There's great support for strengthening Pakistan civil society, the economy, and so forth.

Q. Considering that every year there is an increase in the militant activity in Afghanistan at the onset of summer, the US concern about the insurgency seems more acute this year…

A. It has been at an acute level for several years now. Certainly the European states fighting in Afghanistan share this concern—this has become the biggest NATO issue now, as well as a matter that affects our relationship with Pakistan.

Q. There is also a feeling that Washington's tone has become harsher because it does not have the sort of faith in the new dispensation as it did in Musharraf…

A. There's division here as to whether the new government is for some reason unwilling to move against the extremists, or, more likely, unable. The former view holds that Pakistan's military is pursuing one strategy, the civilians would like to pursue another, but can't. I reserve judgment, but all the explanations are troubling.

Q. How will Washington react to the increasing militancy in Pakistan's tribal region, when there is a new White House administration? Can an increase in air strikes be expected?

A. The US will have to continue to balance its calculations of alienating Pakistan versus doing something about groups that operate in Pakistan but hurt the effort in Afghanistan (and let me add that the problem in Afghanistan is not due entirely, or even largely, to what comes out of Pakistan). However, first, if there is a major terrorist incident that can be traced back to Pakistani-supported groups then there will be no restraint. Second, people may start thinking of very different strategies: if we have to stay in Afghanistan over the long term, then perhaps Iran might provide the means by which our forces can be supplied, rather than Pakistan. Right now the US is dependent on Karachi, but what if there were a limited US-Iran accommodation? Stranger things have happened.

Q. How have the administration and the foreign policy circles viewed the recent statements of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan and can they lead to additional pressure on Pakistan?

A. My view is that he was right when he said that the Pakistan bomb affected India's calculations in recent crises. However, he has done tremendous damage to Pakistan's reputation as a stable and reliable state, and it is in Pakistan's own interest to help the world find out exactly what was transferred to several states in the Middle East and perhaps North Korea. This stands in the way of Pakistan being treated like India in terms of a possible nuclear "deal".

Q. Is there any chance that the US may reduce the aid package to Pakistan in the near future? If so, what factors will be behind such a decision?

A. It certainly will be made conditional, and theoretically some kinds of assistance could increase. Senator Biden is introducing legislation to this effect which will provide a new, and more honest, basis for US-Pakistan relations. However, Pakistan does not want to be aid dependent forever. My fear is that it may have missed too many opportunities to catch up.

Q. How realistic are the chances of the Biden proposed "democracy dividend" materialising?

A. right now it has received a lot of support in the Senate from both parties. No matter who wins the election I believe it will go through, and in the end will be good for the US and Pakistan. - Conducted Via email by Muhammad Badar Alam

Threat from militants' sympathisers in (Paki) nuke establishment is a worry.

Q. How is the United States viewing the security of Pakistan’s nuclear installations? Do the Bush administration, the Congress, and the State Department believe that there is a possibility of Taliban or other Islamic extremists taking over the country’s nuclear weapons?

A. Those who know Pakistan well do not believe that Islamic extremists will take over the government of Pakistan or installations in its nuclear production complex. A greater worry is the “insider” threat -- that extremist groups have managed to place sympathisers within the (nuclear) production complex, or in military units that are in close proximity to nuclear forces.

Q. How have the various segments of foreign policy establishment in the United States reacted to the latest statements by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan on the centrifuges’ transfer?

A. Most experts in the United States doubt that Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was acting on his own initiative in all cases. Some of what he says may be true, and some may well be untrue. It is also possible that some transactions began with official authorisation and then evolved into freelance ones. Khan certainly profited from his business dealings. He also seems to have been motivated in some cases by a sense of Islamic solidarity and anti-Americanism. It is probably unwise to generalise about his activities, other than to say that he did great damage by making it easier for states to make nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s reputation has been badly sullied.

Q. Is the US satisfied by the security, control and regulatory arrangements that Pakistan has put in place for its nuclear facilities and weapons?

A. Most experts in the United States agree that Pakistan has belatedly taken important steps to improve nuclear security. But every country can always do better. Will there be further instances of Pakistani proliferation? With respect to officially sanctioned proliferation, I suppose the answer depends on which country asks Pakistan for help. As for proliferation through “rogue” scientists from inside the nuclear weapons complex, I do not believe that there will be another Abdul Qadeer Khan, although lesser abuses are still possible.

Q. There is a general belief that aid to Pakistan will stop flowing as soon as either the ‘war on terror’ is over…

A. It is unreasonable to expect that significant aid amounts from the United States in the future will be provided unconditionally. The good news is that, despite all the problems between Pakistan and the United States, there is bipartisan support in the (US) Congress to help Pakistan to become a more secure state that feeds and educates its citizens, enjoys economic growth, and is not troubled by internal and foreign security threats. The future of Pakistan is important for the future of the entire region. If Pakistani governments are serious about dealing with internal problems, they can expect outside help.

Q. Do you think pressure on Pakistan on nuclear proliferation as well as the security of its nuclear assets will increase if there is Democrat president?

A.Different administrations emphasise different themes, and some aspects of the US policy might change. But the challenges and opportunities in relations between the United States and Pakistan outlast changes in administrations. The new US administration – be it Democratic or Republican -- will have to deal with a deteriorating situation in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Pakistani governments that have difficulty delivering on their promises. - Conducted Via email by Muhammad Badar Alam

jrjrao wrote:

The attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul involved very sophisticated explosives that have never been used by mujahideen or Taliban, and the Taliban denied being responsible. The attack on President Hamid Karzai in April also involved very sophisticated planning and financing. The records of the mobile phones of those involved show they were constantly telephoning to Pakistan.

Singha wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faqir_of_Ipi

as usual a perceived 'injustice' - i.e. british rescued and freed a kidnapped
hindu teenage girl drove him to the wonders of jihad

--
The case of Islam Bibi

In March 1936, however, came the turning point in the Faqir's career. The incident was the trial case of the so-called 'Islam Bibi',the crisis was triggered by the conversion and marriage of a 15-year-old Hindu girl Ram Kori, named and known as Islam Bibi, to a Pashtun school teacher Syed Amir Noor Ali Shah of Bannu. A minor girl still, the British Resident of Waziristan and the Brigade Commander Bannu applied strong political pressure on the Torikhel and Madda Khel Waziris for the release of the girl. The next morning two companies of Tochi Scouts surrounded the village holding Islam Bibi, and a flight of fully armed RAF Audaxes circled overhead in a show of force. The tribal elders acceded to the Political Agent's plea to allow Islam Bibi to declare her decision in front of a Jirga comprising both sides. Before such a Jirga could be arranged, however, the Deputy Commissioner of Bannu, with the concurrence of the NWFP Government, somehow managed to whisk Islam Bibi and her parents away into the interior of the Punjab.

The school teacher was accused of abduction and arrested. The case reached the court in Bannu city 'amid a blaze of publicity.' The trial magistrate found no evidence to suggest that Islam Bibi left her home under compulsion. It was more than clear that she escaped and married Noor Ali Shah out of her own free choice.

Noor Ali Shah's claim to the girl's custody was dismissed as he could not prove 'legal marriage'. He received two years imprisonment for abduction. This verdict proved the trigger for the Faqir.

You reap what you sow, right? This latest animation from Chronicle editorial cartoonist Nick Anderson warns the country about the company it seems to keep.

Pakistani Islamist admits Mumbai link

Zahid Hussain

More evidence of a link between a Pakistan-based Islamist group and last month’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai has emerged after a leading member of the organisation allegedly admitted his complicity.

Zarar Shah, a top commander of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), told investigators that he was in contact with the gunmen involved in the attacks, according to senior Pakistani sources.

Mr Shah was arrested this month along with Zakiaur Rehman, another LeT commander, in a raid on a militant camp in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Indian and Western security agencies had accused the pair of masterminding the attacks, which claimed the lives of 165 people in India’s commercial capital and stoked tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations.

Mr Shah is said to be the communication chief of LeT, which was outlawed by Pakistan in 2002. But the group continued to operate under the banner of Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Pakistan’s Government ordered the closure of all its offices after the UN Security Council declared it a front for terrorists.

Pakistan under pressure to extradite Lakhvi

By Anwar Iqbal

Wednesday, 31 Dec, 2008 | 12:05 AM PST |

WASHINGTON: Pakistan faces tremendous pressure from the United States to extradite Zaki al-Rahman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai terror attacks, to India, US and diplomatic sources told Dawn.

The Americans are believed to have given Pakistan a taped conversation Lakhvi allegedly had with the gunmen involved in the Mumbai attacks.

Diplomatic sources in Washington said that American audio experts had checked the tape and had concluded that it was genuine and that the speaker indeed was Lakhvi.

It is, however, not clear if the Americans recorded the conversation using their own surveillance methods or received the tape from the Indians who have blamed Lakhvi right from the beginning.

On December 4, less than a week after the attacks, Indian officials told reporters in New Delhi they believed Lakhvi and Yusuf Muzammil had masterminded the Mumbai operation.

They identified both as top leaders of the Lashkar-i-Taiba group, which India claimed was behind this and other terrorist attacks on its soil.

On December 8, Pakistani security officials told media that they had arrested Lakhvi and some of his top lieutenants but they also said that all suspects would be tried in Pakistan and will not be handed over to India.

But officials in both New Delhi and Washington said they will not be satisfied unless Islamabad followed up by prosecuting those arrested and taking further action against other militant groups allegedly linked to attacks in Indian.

Later, India urged Pakistan to hand over Lakhvi to Indian authorities along with at least two other suspects.

Until this week, US officials had not given a statement regarding the issue but Lakhvi’s reported conversation with the gunmen appeared to have changed their minds.

Reports in the US media noted that Lakhvi came from the same area as Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the gunman arrested in Mumbai and identified by Indian authorities as one of the 10 terrorists.

Kasab’s village Faridkot is near Lakha, the ancestral village of the Lakhvis who are a prominent religious family in Punjab.

Officials in Islamabad, however, appeared reluctant to accept the intercepts of Lakhvi’s alleged confession provided to them by American and British intelligence agencies as authentic.

The intercepts allegedly showed Lakhvi having cell-phone conversations with the gunmen holed up inside Mumbai’s Taj hotel during the 60-hour siege.

But officials in Pakistan said that Kasab’s confession and other evidences were inadmissible in court. They said that since the confessions had been obtained under severe pressure by the Indians, this could not be admissible in judicial process. They have insisted that the information provided would not stand scrutiny in any court.

There, however, appears to be a serious difference of opinion between Islamabad and the Pakistan Embassy in Washington over the issue.

While Islamabad was reluctant to accept the evidence as authentic, the embassy insisted that it’s authentic and that the Pakistani authorities now needed to take steps to satisfy the international community.

Pakistan Sees No Evil

You've got to love the Pakistani government's sense of humor, which is so vividly on display with its official position on Ajmal Amir Kasab, the surviving terrorist involved in the execution of the Mumbai terror assault.

Pakistan has repeatedly denied that Kasab is even a Pakistani, let alone a member of the Inter-Services Intelligence-backed Lashkar-e-Taiba. Even President Asif Ali Zardari, in an interview with the BBC said there is no proof Kasab is a Pakistani. "Have you seen any evidence to that effect. I have definitely not seen any real evidence to that effect," Zardari told the BBC in mid-December.

More than one month after the Mumbai attack, Pakistani National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani waffles on the issue of Kasab's nationality. "Could be," Durrani said when asked if Kasab was a Pakistani citizen. "I am not saying more than that because we don't have, I hate to say this we don't have proof."

But Pakistan has been given proof of Kasab's nationality. Kasab himself admitted he is from Pakistan and submitted a request for consular access. The request is "under review." Kasab's father and neighbors were interviewed by Pakistani television and news outlets and confirmed he was indeed from Pakistan. His own father identified him and provided a nearly identical account of his son's background as Kasab gave to Indian intelligence. "This is the truth," Kasab's father told a Pakistani news outlet. "I have seen the picture in the newspaper. This is my son Ajmal."

Pakistan's response was to cordon the village, remove Kasab's family from their home and move someone else in, and force the townspeople to retract their statements. That's humor, Pakistani style. But nuclear-armed India doesn’t think it is funny.

A dozen of al-Qaeda’s “senior management” have been killed by Predator drone attacks, which have been so effective in locating their targets that the militant group has been forced to move from traditional outdoor training camps to classroom-style facilities that are hidden from view.

A French court will begin the trial of two suspected associates of Osama Bin Laden and a third man on Monday for their part in a 2002 suicide attack in Tunisia that killed 21 people including two French nationals. The three — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani, Christian Ganczarski, a German convert to Islam, and Walid Nouar, the suicide bomber’s brother – are being tried for the suicide truck bomb attack on a synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia, on April 11, 2002. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks in the US, is suspected of organising the suicide attack. He is being held in the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay and will be tried in his absence. Christian Ganczarski, who spent time in Afghanistan and is believed to have been an adviser to Osama Bin Laden before his arrest in France in 2003, will also face charges of helping to prepare the attack. Nouar, the brother of the Djerba suicide bomber, will also be tried for his involvement in preparing the attack. The trial is expected to last five weeks.

See this interview by A Q Khan's wife exposing Musharraf's lie on pak
govt involvement in nuclear smuggling activities. wonder why US
ignores this and in return of what arrangement??

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 56,00.html

jrjrao wrote:The Times, UK:

Death from above: how Predator is taking its toll on al-Qaeda -- Unmanned and heavily armed drones are killing off the 'senior management'

A dozen of al-Qaeda’s “senior management” have been killed by Predator drone attacks, which have been so effective in locating their targets that the militant group has been forced to move from traditional outdoor training camps to classroom-style facilities that are hidden from view.

I don't know why the western world always felt happy to announce the killing of human beings like they have the right to eliminate another. Is it sweeting them? Is it not terrorism? may be they have re-defined it. one day they will also taste the bitterness of it inside their own houses.

Hassan Baba, Abuja, Nigeria

Malaysian police said on Wednesday they had arrested 13 people for running an international narcotics syndicate that smuggled heroin from Pakistan. Othman Harun, deputy director of the federal narcotics department, said those detained included two women, from Singapore and the Philippines, as well as seven African men, one Pakistani and three Malaysians.

“We believe drugs from Pakistan were smuggled into this country,” Harun said, adding that the narcotics were to be distributed to other countries from Malaysia.

Six Pakistani handlers monitored the news coverage from Mumbai and kept in constant touch with the terrorists holed up in Nariman House and the Taj Mahal and Trident hotels during the three day siege. The handlers are identified as Zarar, Kafa, Wassi, Jundal, Bururg, and “Major General.”

Zarar has been identified as Zarar Shah, the Lashkar-e-Taiba communications expert who set up the network that allowed the Mumbai terrorists to speak with Lashkar-e-Taiba commanders in Pakistan during the attack. He also served as a key liaison between the terror group and Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency. Zarar is currently in Pakistani custody and has admitted to his role in the Mumbai attacks.

The identity of the other handlers has not been provided, but India has accused elements within Pakistan’s intelligence service and the military of supporting the attack. The handler identified as “Major General” implies the involvement of a current or former military officer. The Inter-Service Intelligence agency is a branch of the Pakistani military. The ISI chief and Army corps commanders achieve the rank of Major General or Lieutenant General.

A senior US military intelligence official familiar with the dossier said that the "Major General" is indeed Hamid Gul, the retired former chief of the ISI. "It's Gul," the official told The Long War Journal. "This is why the US is trying to get him on the UN list of terrorists." In December 2008 the US attempted to get Hamid Gul and other former military and intelligence officials added to the UN list of designated terrorists but has so far been rebuffed.

Opening Statement of Chairman Joseph Lieberman
“Lessons from the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks”
Washington, DC
January 8, 2009

On the night of November 26th, 2008, 10 terrorists made an amphibious landing onto the jetties of Mumbai, India, and proceeded to carry out sophisticated, simultaneous deadly attacks on multiple targets, including its main railway station, two of its most prominent hotels, a popular outdoor café, a movie theater, and a Jewish community center.

Three days of of siege and mayhem followed. As the world watched live on television, these 10 terrorists paralyzed a great metropolis of twelve million people and murdered nearly 200 people. The victims were Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, and Jews; they were citizens of many nations, including six Americans. Senior U.S. intelligence officials have placed responsibility for the attacks on Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group known as LET for short, and based in Pakistan.

I know that I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing sympathy for the families of the victims of this attack and to express our solidarity with the people of India and their government in the wake of the attack.

I traveled to New Delhi just a few days after the Mumbai attack, where I met with Prime Minister Singh, Foreign Minister Mukherjee, and National Security Adviser Narayanan.

The Indian people and their leaders were understandably and justifiably angry, and intent on demanding justice. Prime Minister Singh has acted firmly and responsibly in response to this attack. The terrorists wanted to divide and radicalize the Indian people, and to provoke a war with Pakistan. But India’s people have been stronger and wiser than that and have insisted on bringing these people to justice.

I also had the opportunity to visit Pakistan, where I met with Prime Minister Gillani, General Kayani, and other senior officials, with whom I discussed Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Mumbai attacks.

I was encouraged that the democratically-elected leaders of Pakistan understand the threat of Islamist extremism to themselves and their neighbors, and that the Pakistani government has taken steps to crack down on Lashkar-e-Taiba, including abiding by the sanctions imposed last December at the UN.

But much more is needed – and quickly. It is absolutely imperative that Lashkar’s leaders are not just detained by Pakistani authorities, but that they are
prosecuted for the terrorist acts they are accused of planning and carrying out.

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the attacks in Mumbai – their perpetrators, tactics, and targets – and determine what lessons can be drawn from them for America’s homeland security.

First, we need to understand who carried out these attacks. In other words, what is Lashkar-e-Taiba? What are its ideology and its history? What is its relationship to al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups? Does is threaten the U.S. in any way? And what are its ties, both past and present, to the Pakistani Army and its intelligence agency, the ISI?

Second, we need to understand how the men who carried out these attacks were recruited, trained, funded, indoctrinated, and radicalized—a process onto which the one surviving terrorist, Ajmal Amir, in Indian custody, has already cast some light.

The process of radicalization is one this Committee has closely examined in the last two and a half years, and one that the three governmental agencies represented by our three witnesses have also closely studied.

It bears particular importance in Pakistan, given that many of the attacks against the United States and our allies—both blocked and successful—have links to Pakistani groups, particularly Pakistani training camps.
...

On the diplomatic front, we must redouble our efforts to pressure states like Pakistan that tolerate terrorist safe havens.

A New Year's CIA strike in northern Pakistan killed two top al-Qaeda terrorists long sought by the United States...

Div wrote:RAW agents are on a roll...just like old times!

Petraeus linked Afghanistan's fortunes directly to Pakistan's,....."Afghanistan and Pakistan have, in many ways, merged into a single problem set, and the way forward in Afghanistan is incomplete without a strategy that includes and assists(?????) Pakistan,"......

He underscored the scale of the threat he said Britain faces from plots inspired by Al Qaeda and hatched in Pakistan.....Mr. Evans said that 75 percent of MI5’s investigations involved connections with Pakistan,.......he main threat to Britain, he said, came from Al Qaeda’s core in Pakistan

US national security adviser says Pakistan is the central challenge for incoming US administration

A top US official says Washington will continue drone attack on Pakistani soil in order to counter raids on US troops in Afghanistan.

IN BUSH’S LAST YEAR in office, Pakistan’s downward spiral came to dominate the meetings of the principals down in the Situation Room of the White House. First came the assassination in late December 2007 of Benazir Bhutto, which resulted in a secret trip by McConnell, the intelligence chief, and the director of the C.I.A., Michael V. Hayden, to Islamabad. It was the first of a series of secret missions to convince Musharraf and his handpicked successor as the chief of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, that the militants in the tribal areas were now aiming to bring down the government in Islamabad. The message was simple and direct: The Pakistani leadership needed to forget about India and focus on the threat from within.

But with each successive trip it became clearer and clearer, particularly to McConnell, that the gap between how Washington viewed the threat and how the Pakistanis viewed it was as yawning as ever. Even worse, suspicions grew that Inter-Services Intelligence was directly aiding the Taliban and other jihadist militants, seeing them as a useful counterweight to India’s influence in the region.

Washington’s sanguinity was not increased when Pakistan’s new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, arrived in Washington over the summer for what turned out to be a disastrous first visit. Gilani, as the country’s first civilian leader in more than a decade, was under huge pressure to show he could bring the intelligence agency, and the country, under control. He couldn’t — a brief effort to force the ISI to report to the civilian leadership was quashed — but he thought he had better show up with a gift for President Bush.

Gilani wanted to tell Bush that he had sent forces into the tribal areas to clean out a major madrassa where hard-line ideology and intolerance were part of the daily curriculum. There were roughly 25,000 such private Islamic schools around Pakistan, though only a small number of them regularly bred young terrorists. The one he decided to target was run by the Haqqani faction of Islamic militants, one of the most powerful in the tribal areas.

Though Gilani never knew it, Bush was aware of this gift in advance. The National Security Agency had picked up intercepts indicating that a Pakistani unit warned the leadership of the school about what was coming before carrying out its raid. “They must have called 1-800-HAQQANI,” said one person who was familiar with the intercepted conversation. According to another, the account of the warning sent to the school was almost comic. “It was something like, ‘Hey, we’re going to hit your place in a few days, so if anyone important is there, you might want to tell them to scram.’ ”

When the “attack” on the madrassa came, the Pakistani forces grabbed a few guns and hauled away a few teenagers. Sure enough, a few days later Gilani showed up in the Oval Office and conveyed the wonderful news to Bush: the great crackdown on the madrassas had begun. The officials in the room — Bush; his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley; and others — did not want to confront Gilani with the evidence that the school had been warned. That would have required revealing sensitive intercepts, and they judged, according to participants in the discussion, that Gilani was both incapable of keeping a secret and incapable of cracking down on his military and intelligence units. Indeed, Gilani may not even have been aware that his gift was a charade: Bush and Hadley may well have known more about the military’s actions than the prime minister himself.

WHAT OBAMA NOW inherits in Pakistan is a fully dysfunctional relationship between that country and the United States. Last summer, Bush signed secret orders allowing American special forces to run ground raids into Pakistani territory to root out not only Al Qaeda but also a list of other militants who could be targeted by either the C.I.A. or American military commandos. The first such raid, in September, provoked such a firefight and outrage in Pakistan that most other raids were suspended. But the reasons for the Pakistani government’s anger went beyond the concern that Bush was publicly violating Pakistani sovereignty. If American special forces were now authorized to come into the country to snatch or kill a range of militants, several Pakistani officials said to me, would it be very long before they tried to get the country’s nuclear weapons as well?

Though few in Washington will admit it, it is the right question. At the end of Bush’s term, his aides handed over to Obama’s transition team a lengthy review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluding that in the end, the United States has far more at stake in preventing Pakistan’s collapse than it does in stabilizing Afghanistan or Iraq.

“Only one of those countries has a hundred nuclear weapons,” a primary author of the report said to me. For Al Qaeda and the other Islamists, he went on to say, “this is the home game.” He paused, before offering up the next thought: For anyone trying to keep a nuclear weapon from going off in the United States, it’s our home game, too.

Six Pakistanis have been arrested on suspicion of a tax fraud and are being investigated for diverting funds to terror groups, said the Spanish police.

The police said the six men were arrested on Tuesday in Barcelona on orders from Judge Baltasar Garzon, who often investigates terrorism.

The Civil Guard said in a statement, the alleged fraud was carried out through telecommunications companies and officials were investigating whether any money went to ‘armed groups’, AP reported.

According to AFP, the six along with five others arrested by the Spanish police, were suspected of financing terrorist activities by carrying out thefts and sending the money they raised from their criminal activities to Pakistan, the judicial source added.

IndraD wrote:Fight against terror linked to aid, Obama warns Pak

"(President Barack) Obama and (Vice President Joe) Biden will increase non-military aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan," the White House said in its foreign policy agenda document released soon after Obama occupied the Oval office.

Afghan girls maimed by acid vow to go to school

Shivering in pain and calling for her mother, Shamsia's hands shake uncontrollably, her eyes swollen shut and her skin peeling from terrible acid burns.

The 19-year-old was heading to school along with her 16-year-old sister, Atifa, in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It was a warm November morning last year and their only anxiety was being late for class.

"We saw two men up ahead staring at us. One was standing off and the other one was on their motorcycle. I wanted to go but there was a black object in his hand and he took it out," Atifa says.

The girls thought it was a water pistol.

"He grabbed my arm and asked, 'Will you be going to school anymore?' He then threw acid on my sister and threw acid on me," Shamsia says.

They weren't the only ones attacked that day. Several other teachers and students were targeted on their way to Meir Weis Mena School in Kandahar, the nation's third-largest city and one where the Taliban have long been influential.

Atifa was burned so badly that her red scarf melted onto her dark brown hair.
.
.
.
.
One of the accused, Jalil, said in the video that a major in the ISI, or Pakistani intelligence unit, approached him and offered him the equivalent of $2,000 for each attack.

"He told me I will give 200,000 Pakistani rupees for a teacher's death, 300,000 for burning a school, and 100,000 for throwing acid on a schoolgirl," Jalil said, seeming frightened and agitated as he looked into the camera.

He said the major gave him a letter for the Pakistani Consulate in Kandahar, where he received the money.

SSridhar wrote:

IndraD wrote:Fight against terror linked to aid, Obama warns Pak

"(President Barack) Obama and (Vice President Joe) Biden will increase non-military aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan," the White House said in its foreign policy agenda document released soon after Obama occupied the Oval office.

If this is what it is, it is not good news since Pakistan is held accountable for peace only in the Pak-Afghan border. India will be a perpetual sufferer.

Acharya wrote:Check the photo of the Pak items and GPS used by the terrorists
http://www.hindu.com/nic/dossier.htm


Mumbai Terror attacks - Dossier of evidence


This is a scanned copy of the 69-page dossier of material stemming from the ongoing investigation into the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 26-29, 2008 that was handed over by India to Pakistan on January 5, 2009.

Evidence 1

Evidence 2

Evidence 3

Some pages from the dossier were originally posted twice in another format. These have been removed. The complete dossier in the possession of The Hindu consists of 69 pages.

The head of MI5 says today that the threat of an immediate attack in Britain by al-Qaida-inspired extremists has diminished because a string of successful prosecutions has had a "chilling" effect.

Jonathan Evans warns, however, that al-Qaida leaders still intend to mount an attack, and that there are individuals in Britain able to do so. In the first newspaper interview by a serving MI5 director general, Evans warns that:

• Israeli attacks on Gaza give extremists in Britain more ideological ammunition.

• The Afghan conflict and its outcome has a "direct impact" on UK domestic security.

• The international economic crisis could affect Britain's security.

• Dissident republican groups in Northern Ireland are a growing threat.

• Not getting access to emails and data on internet sites would be detrimental to national security.

Speaking on the centenary of the establishment of MI5, Evans said his agency believes "core-al Qaida", the leadership based on Pakistan's north-west frontier, retains a strategic interest in carrying out attacks in the UK, using British nationals or residents.

"There is a significant number of individuals in active sympathy," Evans said. He added: "They are doing things like fundraising, helping people to travel to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. Sometimes they provide equipment, support and propaganda."

However, MI5 does not believe al-Qaida has what he termed a "semi-autonomous structured hierarchy" in the UK. And: "We have probably seen fewer 'late-stage' attack plans over the last 18 months."

Evans pointed to 86 successful prosecutions in terror trials since January 2007. In more than half, the accused pleaded guilty: "That has had a chilling effect." However, while the networks might keep their heads down, they had not gone away. "There is enough intelligence to show they have the intention to mount an attack here," he said. And the period between first talk of a plot and its active planning could be just a few weeks.

Evans predicted that the Israeli invasion of Gaza would see "extremists try to radicalise individuals for their own purposes". Research had shown "no single path" on the way to violent extremism, but foreign policy was certainly one factor, along with economic, social, and personal circumstances.

Three out of four al-Qaida and Islamist-related terrorist attacks in Britain had a Pakistan link, Evans said. Potential jihadists had made their way to Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan (and now increasingly to Somalia) by circuitous routes. "There is no super highway. Lots of little lanes will get there," he said.

He played down any idea that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai in November had links to Britain. "Alarming statements" had been made, but MI5 had not found "any connections of national security significance to the UK".

Overall, Evans painted a more sanguine and less alarming picture of the terrorist threat than ministers have done of late. They and some senior Whitehall officials have suggested the threat level was close to being raised to its highest - "critical" - in recent months. Evans appeared to dismiss such a suggestion.

What MI5 was very concerned about, he said, was an "upsurge" in plots by dissident republicans with sophisticated booby-trap bombs aimed at police officers.

The London Olympic games in 2012 were a potential target but he said any real threats to the event would be more likely to come from extremists already known to MI5. rather than any dedicated team established to target the games.