Sei sulla pagina 1di 30

The Emergence of Terrorism

Submitted By:
Ajmal Maarij
St.Joseph’s college (Autonomous),

Ajmal Maarij
BANGALORE – 5620 027

This is to certify the term paper entitled “The Emergence of Terrorism”
submitted to me has been carried out by Ajmal Maarij Partial fulfillment
of B.A course during 2010– 2011, under my supervision and guidance.


Dr.Cheriyan Alexander
Head of English Department

Ajmal Maarij

I, Ajmal Maarij declare that this Tram Paper is submitted by me as a

completion of my degree under Economics, Political science, Sociology
(E.P.S) combinations .this is my original work and my own ideas which
is not related to any group.

Name : Ajmal Maarij
Reg NO : 08EPS1267
Date : 30-01-2011

Ajmal Maarij
I express my sincere gratitude to FR.Ambrose pinto, the principle of st.joseph’s
college and Dr.Cheriyan Alexander the Head of English Department (HOD) for
being my guide in completion of my Term Paper. I sincerely thank to those who
helped in carrying out this tram paper through their guidance and encouragement
I express my special thank to those who rendered their help during the period of
my writing. I am really happy that you have given me this opportunity to work under
your guidance in writing of my term paper; I truly can't thank you enough and will be
forever grateful.

Last but not least I wish to avail myself of this opportunity, express a sense of
gratitude and love to my friends and my beloved parents for their manual support,
strength, and help for everything

Place: Bangalore
Date: 30-01-2011

Ajmal Maarij
1. History
2. The emergence of Taliban
3. Pakistani military interference
4. Difference between Taliban and Al Qaeda
5. NATO invasion, Taliban overthrow and insurgency
6. The realities, behind scene of MEDIA
7. Why Pakistan want to support Taliban?



Ajmal Maarij

Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history
it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and
strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable
abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has
often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict,
it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost.
Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no
clear organization to defend against or to deter.

A terrorist is someone who uses violence, especially murder, kidnapping, and bombing,
in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do smoothing.
• Coming to the etymology, both Taliban and al Qaeda are Arabic. The meaning of al Qaeda is
“the base”. Taliban means talib that means “student.”
• While the Taliban are restricted to a particular region, the al Qaeda has no boundaries.
• Al Qaeda consists of Sunni Muslims who practice Wahabism, which is considered to be the
most extreme and violent form of Islam). The Taliban, dominated by people with Pashtun

Terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the
threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has
become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But
despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government,
agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful
violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or
ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation
—and each element produce terror in its victims.

The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to
be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-
national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism
are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced this definition in 1992; "An anxiety-

Ajmal Maarij
inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or
state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination -
the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic
definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77
words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and 'violence based
communication processes." Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government
definition of 1974 is"…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for
the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear.
Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy
of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the
government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest
publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose.

The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s
reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September
Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was
the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event.

The Black September Organization used the high visibility of the Olympics to publicize its views
on the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Similarly, in October 1983, Middle Eastern terrorists
bombed the Marine Battalion Landing Team Headquarters at Beirut International Airport. Their
immediate victims were the 241 U.S. military personnel who were killed and over 100 others who
were wounded. Their true target was the American people and the U.S. Congress. Their one act of
violence influenced the United States’ decision to withdraw the Marines from Beirut and was
therefore considered a terrorist success.

There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist’s, the victim’s, and the general public’s. The
phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves
would accept. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil. They believe they are legitimate
combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible. A victim of a terrorist
act sees the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human life. The general public’s view is the
most unstable. The terrorists take great pains to foster a “Robin Hood” image in hope of swaying
the general public’s point of view toward their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has
become an integral part of their psychological warfare and needs to be countered vigorously.


Terrorist acts or the threat of such action have been in existence for millennia. Despite having a
history longer than the modern nation-state, the use of terror by governments and those that
contest their power remains poorly understood. While the meaning of the word terror itself is
clear, when it is applied to acts and actors in the real world it becomes confused. Part of this is due
to the use of terror tactics by actors at all levels in the social and political environment. Is the
Unabomber, with his solo campaign of terror, a criminal, terrorist, or revolutionary?

Ajmal Maarij
Can he be compared to the French revolutionary governments who coined the word terrorism by
instituting systematic state terror against the population of France in the 1790s, killing thousands?
Are either the same as revolutionary terrorist groups such as the Baader-Mienhof Gang of West
Germany or the Weather Underground in the United States?
So we see that distinctions of size and political legitimacy of the actors using terror raise questions
as to what is and is not terrorism.
The concept of moral equivalency is frequently used as an argument to broaden and blur the
definition of terrorism as well. This concept argues that the outcome of an action is what matters,
not the intent. Collateral or unintended damage to civilians from an attack by uniformed military
forces on a legitimate military target is the same as a terrorist bomb directed deliberately at the
civilian target with the intent of creating that damage.

Simply put, a car bomb on a city street and a jet fighter dropping a bomb on a tank are both acts of
violence that produce death and terror. Therefore (at the extreme end of this argument) any
military action is simply terrorism by a different name. This is the reasoning behind the famous
phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It is also a legacy of legitimizing
the use of terror by successful revolutionary movements after the fact.

The very flexibility and adaptability of terror throughout the years has contributed to the
confusion. Those seeking to disrupt, reorder or destroy the status quo have continuously sought
new and creative ways to achieve their goals. Changes in the tactics and techniques of terrorists
have been significant, but even more significant are the growth in the number of causes and social
contexts where terrorism is used.
Over the past 20 years, terrorists have committed extremely violent acts for alleged political or
religious reasons. Political ideology ranges from the far left to the far right. For example, the far
left can consist of groups such as Marxists and Leninists who propose a revolution of workers led
by a revolutionary elite. On the far right, we find dictatorships that typically believe in a merging
of state and business leadership.

Nationalism is the devotion to the interests or culture of a group of people or a nation. Typically,
nationalists share a common ethnic background and wish to establish or regain a homeland.

Religious extremists often reject the authority of secular governments and view legal systems that
are not based on their religious beliefs as illegitimate. They often view modernization efforts as
corrupting influences on traditional culture.

Special interest groups include people on the radical fringe of many legitimate causes; e.g., people
who use terrorism to uphold antiabortion views, animal rights, radical environmentalism. These
groups believe that violence is morally justifiable to achieve their goals.


Terrorism is continually changing. While at the surface it remains "the calculated use of unlawful
violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear…" it is rapidly becoming the predominant

Ajmal Maarij
strategic tool of our adversaries. As terrorism evolves into the principal irregular warfare strategy
of the 21st century, it is adapting to changes in the world socio-political environment. Some of
these changes facilitate the abilities of terrorists to operate, procure funding, and develop new
capabilities. Other changes are gradually moving terrorism into a different relationship with the
world at large.

In order to put these changes into context, it will be necessary to look at the historical evolution of
terrorism, with each succeeding evolution building upon techniques pioneered by others. This
evolution is driven by ongoing developments in the nature of conflict and international relations. It
is also necessary to consider some of the possible causes of future conflicts, in order to understand
the actors and their motivations. Finally, we examine how terrorism will be integrated into this
evolution of conflict, and what that will mean for U.S. military forces.

When describing the evolution of terrorism and the use of terror through history, it is essential to
remember that forms of society and government in the past were significantly different than they
are today.

Modern nation-states did not exist in their present form until 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia), and the
state's monopoly on warfare, or inter-state violence, is even more recent. The lack of central
governments made it impossible to use terror as a method of affecting a political change, as there
was no single dominant political authority. Also, the absence of central authority meant that the
game of warfare was open to many more players. Instead of national armies, a variety of non-
sovereign nobility, mercenaries, leaders of religious factions, or mercantile companies participated
in warfare. Their involvement in warfare was considered to be perfectly legitimate. This is in
contrast to the modern era, where nations go to war, but private participation is actually illegal.

Early Theories of Terrorism

Early practitioners of terrorism, such as the Zealots and the Assassins did not leave any particular
philosophy or doctrine on their use of terrorism. With the exception of spectacular failures such as
Guy Fawkes' religiously inspired attempt to assassinate King James I and both Houses of
Parliament in England, terrorism did not separate itself or progress beyond the normal practices of
warfare at that time. As political systems became more sophisticated, and political authority was
viewed as less of a divine gift and more as a social construct, new ideas about political conflict

The period of warfare and political conflict that embroiled Europe after the French Revolution
provided inspiration for political theorists during the early 1800s. Several important theories of
social revolution developed during this time (see text box on the next page for summaries of the
key revolutionary thinkers). The link between revolutionary violence and terror was developed
early on. Revolutionary theories rejected the possibility of reforming the system and demanded its
destruction. This extremism laid the groundwork for the use of unconstrained violence for political
Two ideologies that embraced violent social change were Marxism, which evolved into
communism, and anarchism. Both were utopian; they held that putting their theories into practice
could produce ideal societies. Both advocated the complete destruction of the existing system.
Both acknowledged that violence outside the accepted bounds of warfare and rebellion would be
necessary. Communism focused on economic class warfare, and assumed seizure of state power

Ajmal Maarij
by the working class (proletariat) until the state was no longer needed, and eventually disposed of.
Anarchism advocated more or less immediate rejection of all forms of governance.

The anarchist's belief was that after the state is completely destroyed, nothing will be required to
replace it, and people could live and interact without governmental coercion. In the short term,
communism's acceptance of the need for organization and an interim coercive state made it the
more successful of the two ideologies. Anarchism survived into the modern era and retains
attraction for violent extremists to this day.

20th Century Evolution of Terrorism

In the early years of the 20th Century nationalism and revolutionary political ideologies were the
principal developmental forces acting upon terrorism. When the Treaty of Versailles redrew the
map of Europe after World War I by breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating new
nations, it acknowledged the principle of self-determination for nationalities and ethnic groups.
This encouraged minorities and ethnicities not receiving recognition to campaign for
independence or autonomy. However, in many cases self-determination was limited to European
nations and ethnic groups and denied others, especially the colonial possessions of the major
European powers, creating bitterness and setting the stage for the long conflicts of the anti-
colonial period.

In particular, Arab nationalists felt that they had been betrayed. Believing they were promised
post-war independence, they were doubly disappointed; first when the French and British were
given authority over their lands; and then especially when the British allowed Zionist immigration
into Palestine in keeping with a promise contained in the Balfour Declaration.

Since the end of World War II, terrorism has accelerated its development into a major component
of contemporary conflict. Primarily in use immediately after the war as a subordinate element of
anti-colonial insurgencies, it expanded beyond that role. In the service of various ideologies and
aspirations, terrorism sometimes supplanted other forms of conflict completely. It also became a
far-reaching weapon capable of effects no less global than the intercontinental bomber or missile.
It has also proven to be a significant tool of diplomacy and international power for states inclined
to use it.

The seemingly quick results and shocking immediacy of terrorism made some consider it as a
short cut to victory. Small revolutionary groups not willing to invest the time and resources to
organize political activity would rely on the "propaganda of the deed" to energize mass action.
This suggested that a tiny core of activists could topple any government through the use of terror
The result of this belief by revolutionaries in developed countries was the isolation of the terrorists
from the population they claimed to represent, and the adoption of the Leninist concept of the
"vanguard of revolution" by tiny groups of disaffected revolutionaries. In less developed countries
small groups of foreign revolutionaries such as Che Guevara arrived from outside the country,
expecting to immediately energize revolutionary action by their presence.

Ajmal Maarij

There is clearly a wide choice of definitions for terrorism. Despite this, there are elements in
common among the majority of useful definitions. Common threads of the various definitions
identify terrorism as:

• Political
• Psychological
• Coercive
• Dynamic
• Deliberate

A terrorist act is a political act or is committed with the intention to cause a political effect.
Clausewitz' statement that "war is a continuation of policy by other means" is taken as a truism by
terrorists. They merely eliminate the intermediate step of armies and warfare, and apply violence
directly to the political contest.
the intended results of terrorist acts cause a psychological effect ("terror"). They are aimed at a
target audience other than the actual victims of the act. The intended target audience of the
terrorist act may be the population as a whole, some specific portion of a society (an ethnic
minority, for example), or decision-making elites in the society's political, social, or military

Violence and destruction are used in the commission of the act to produce the desired effect. Even
if casualties or destruction are not the result of a terrorist operation, the threat or potential of
violence is what produces the intended effect. For example, a successful hostage taking operation
may result in all hostages being freed unharmed after negotiations and bargaining. Regardless of
the outcome, the terrorist bargaining chips were nothing less than the raw threat of applying
violence to maim or kill some or all of the hostages. When the threat of violence is not credible, or
the terrorists are unable to implement violence effectively, terrorism fails.

Terrorist groups demand change, revolution, or political movement.
The radical worldview that justifies terrorism mandates drastic action to destroy or alter the status
quo. Even if the goals of a movement are reactionary in nature, they require action to "turn back
the clock" or restore some cherished value system that is extinct. Nobody commits violent attacks
on strangers or innocents to keep things "just the way they are."

Ajmal Maarij
Terrorism is an activity planned and intended to achieve particular goals. It is a rationally
employed, specifically selected tactic, and is not a random act. Since the victims of terrorist
violence are often of little import, with one being as good for the terrorists' purposes as another,
victim or target selection can appear random or unprovoked. But the target will contain symbolic
value or be capable of eliciting emotional response according to the terrorists' goals. Remember
that the actual target of terrorism is not the victim of the violence, but the psychological balance

Media Exploitation
Terrorism's effects are not necessarily aimed at the victims of terrorist violence. Victims are
usually objects to be exploited by the terrorists for their effect on a third party. In order to produce
this effect, information of the attack must reach the target audience. So any terrorist organization
plans for exploitation of available media to get the message to the right audiences. Victims are
simply the first medium that transmits the psychological impact to the larger target audience. The
next step in transmission will depend on what media is available, but it will be planned, and it will
frequently be the responsibility of a specific organization within the terrorist group to do nothing
else but exploit and control the news cycle.

Some organizations can rely on friendly or sympathetic news outlets, but this is not necessary.
News media can be manipulated by planning around the demands of the "news cycle", and the
advantage that control of the initiative gives the terrorist. Pressures to report quickly, to "scoop"
competitors, allow terrorists to present claims or make statements that might be refuted or
critically commented on if time were available. Terrorists often provide names and details of
individual victims to control the news media through its desire to humanize or personalize a story.
For the victims of a terrorist attack, it is a certainty that the impact on the survivors (if there are
any) is of minimal importance to the terrorists. What is important is the intended psychological
impact that the news of their death or suffering will cause in a wider audience.

Operations in Permissive Societies

Terrorists conduct more operations in societies where individual rights and civil legal protections
prevail. While terrorists may base themselves in repressive regimes that are sympathetic to them,
they usually avoid repressive governments when conducting operations wherever possible. An
exception to this case is a repressive regime that does not have the means to enforce security
measures. Governments with effective security forces and few guaranteed civil liberties have
typically suffered much less from terrorism than liberal states with excellent security forces. Al
Qaeda has shown, however, that they will conduct operations anywhere.

Illegality of Methods
Terrorism is a criminal act. Whether the terrorist chooses to identify himself with military
terminology (as discussed under insurgencies below), or with civilian imagery ("brotherhood",
"committee", etc.), he is a criminal in both spheres. The violations of civil criminal laws are self-
evident in activities such as murder, arson, and kidnapping regardless of the legitimacy of the
government enforcing the laws. Victimizing the innocent is criminal injustice under a dictatorship
or a democracy. If the terrorist claims that he is justified in using such violence as a military
combatant, he is a de facto war criminal under international law and the military justice systems of
most nations.

Ajmal Maarij
Preparation and Support
It's important to understand that actual terrorist operations are the result of extensive preparation
and support operations. Media reporting and academic study have mainly focused on the terrorists'
goals and actions, which is precisely what the terrorist intends. This neglects the vital but less
exciting topic of preparation and support operations. Significant effort and coordination is
required to finance group operations, procure or manufacture weapons, conduct target surveillance
and analysis, and deliver trained terrorists to the operational area. While the time and effort
expended by the terrorists may be a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts spent to defend
against them, terrorist operations can still involve large amounts of money and groups of people.
The need for dedicated support activities and resources on simple operations are significant, and
get larger the greater the sophistication of the plan and the complexity of the target.


The most common types of terrorist incidents include:

Bombings are the most common type of terrorist act. Typically, improvised explosive devices are
inexpensive and easy to make. Modern devices are smaller and are harder to detect. They contain
very destructive capabilities; for example, on August 7, 1998, two American embassies in Africa
were bombed. The bombings claimed the lives of over 200 people, including 12 innocent
American citizens, and injured over 5,000 civilians. Terrorists can also use materials that are
readily available to the average consumer to construct a bomb.

Kidnappings and Hostage-Takings

Terrorists use kidnapping and hostage-taking to establish a bargaining position and to elicit
publicity. Kidnapping is one of the most difficult acts for a terrorist group to accomplish, but, if a
kidnapping is successful, it can gain terrorists money, release of jailed comrades, and publicity for
an extended period. Hostage-taking involves the seizure of a facility or location and the taking of
hostages. Unlike a kidnapping, hostage-taking provokes a confrontation with authorities.
It forces authorities to either make dramatic decisions or to comply with the terrorist’s de- mands.
It is overt and designed to attract and hold media attention. The terrorists’ intended target is the
audience affected by the hostage’s confinement, not the hostage.

Armed Attacks and Assassinations

Armed attacks include raids and ambushes. Assassinations are the killing of a selected
victim,usually by bombings or small arms.Drive-by shootings is a common technique employed
by unsophisticated or loosely organized terrorist groups. Historically, terrorists have assassinated

Ajmal Maarij
specific individuals for psychological effect.

Arsons and Firebombings

Incendiary devices are cheap and easy to hide. Arson and firebombings are easily conducted by
terrorist groups that may not be as well-organized, equipped, or trained as a major terrorist
organization. An arson or firebombing against a utility, hotel, government building, or industrial
center portrays an image that the ruling government is incapable of maintaining order.

Hijackings and Skyjackings

Hijacking is the seizure by force of a surface vehicle, its passengers, and/or its cargo. Skyjacking
is the taking of an aircraft, which creates a mobile, hostage barricade situation. It provides
terrorists with hostages from many nations and draws heavy media attention. Skyjacking also
provides mobility for the terrorists to relocate the aircraft to a country that supports their cause and
provides them with a human shield, making retaliation difficult.

Other Types of Terrorist Incidents

In addition to the acts of violence discussed above, there are also numerous other types of violence
that can exist under the framework of terrorism. Terrorist groups conduct maimings against their
own people as a form of punishment for security violations, defections, or informing. Terrorist
organizations also conduct robberies and extortion when they need to finance their acts and they
don’t have sponsorship from sympathetic nations. Cyberterrorism is a new form of terrorism that
is everincreasing as we rely on computer networks to relay information and provide connectivity
to today’s modern and fast-paced world. Cyberterrorism allows terrorists to conduct their
operations with little or no risk to themselves. It also provides terrorists an opportunity to disrupt
or destroy networks and computers. The result is interruption of key government or business-
related activities. This type of terrorism isn’t as high profile as other types of terrorist attacks, but
its impact is just as destructive.

Historically, terrorist attacks using nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons have been
rare. Due the extremely high number of casualties that NBC weapons produce, they are also
referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, a number of nations are involved in
arms races with neighboring countries be- cause they view the development of WMD as a key de-
terrent of attack by hostile neighbors.

The increased development of WMD also increases the potential for terrorist groups to gain access
to WMD. It is believed that in the future terrorists will have greater access to WMD because
unstable nations or states may fail to safeguard their stockpiles of WMD from accidental losses,
illicit sales, or outright theft or seizure. Determined terrorist groups can also gain access to WMD
through covert independent research efforts or by hiring technically skilled professionals to
construct the WMD.


Ideology and motivation will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, especially regarding
the casualty rate. Groups with secular ideologies and non-religious goals will often attempt highly
selective and discriminate acts of violence to achieve a specific political aim. This often requires

Ajmal Maarij
them to keep casualties at the minimum amount necessary to attain the objective. This is both to
avoid a backlash that might severely damage the organization, and also maintain the appearance of
a rational group that has legitimate grievances. By limiting their attacks they reduce the risk of
undermining external political and economic support. Groups that comprise a "wing" of an
insurgency, or are affiliated with aboveground, sometimes legitimate, political organizations often
operate under these constraints.

The tensions caused by balancing these considerations are often a prime factor in the
development of splinter groups and internal factions within these organizations.
In contrast, religiously oriented and millenarian groups typically attempt to inflict as many
casualties as possible. Because of the apocalyptic frame of reference they use, loss of life is
irrelevant, and more casualties are better. Losses among their co-religionists are of little account,
because such casualties will reap the benefits of the afterlife. Likewise, non-believers, whether
they are the intended target or collateral damage, deserve death, and killing them may be
considered a moral duty. The Kenyan bombing against the U.S. Embassy in 1998 inflicted
casualties on the local inhabitants in proportion to U.S. personnel of over twenty to one killed, and
an even greater disparity in the proportion of wounded (over 5000 Kenyans were wounded by the
blast; 95% of total casualties were non-American ). Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups,
as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the

The type of target selected will often reflect motivations and ideologies. For groups professing
secular political or social motivations, their targets are highly symbolic of authority; government
offices, banks, national airlines, and multinational corporations with direct relation to the
established order. Likewise, they conduct attacks on representative individuals whom they
associate with economic exploitation, social injustice, or political repression. While religious
groups also use much of this symbolism, there is a trend to connect it to greater physical
devastation. There also is a tendency to add religiously affiliated individuals, such as missionaries,
and religious activities, such as worship services, to the targeting equation.

Another common form of symbolism utilized in terrorist targeting is striking on particular

anniversaries or commemorative dates. Nationalist groups may strike to commemorate battles won
or lost during a conventional struggle, whereas religious groups may strike to mark particularly
appropriate observances. Many groups will attempt to commemorate anniversaries of successful
operations, or the executions or deaths of notable individuals related to their particular conflict.
Likewise, striking on days of particular significance to the enemy can also provide the required
impact. Since there are more events than operations, assessment of the likelihood of an attack on a
commemorative date is only useful when analyzed against the operational pattern of a particular
group or specific members of a group's leadership cadre.
The Intent of Terrorist Groups

A terrorist group commits acts of violence to - Produce widesrpead fear Obtain worldwide,
national, or local recognition for their cause by attracting the attention of the mediaHarass,
weaken, or embarrass government security forces so that the the government overreacts and
appears repressive
Steal or extort money and equipment, especially weapons and ammunition vital to the operation of
their group

Ajmal Maarij
Destroy facilities or disrupt lines of communication in order to create doubt that the government
can provide for and protect its citizens
Discourage foreign investments, tourism, or assistance programs that can affect the target
country’s economy and support of the government in power
Influence government decisions, legislation, or other critical decisions
Free prisoners
Satisfy vengeance
Turn the tide in a guerrilla war by forcing government security forces to concentrate their efforts
in urban areas. This allows the terrorist group to establish itself among the local populace in rural


There are many different categories of terrorism and terrorist groups that are currently in use.
These categories serve to differentiate terrorist organizations according to specific criteria, which
are usually related to the field or specialty of whoever is selecting the categories. Also, some
categories are simply labels appended arbitrarily or redundantly, often by the media. For example,
every terrorist organization is by definition "radical", as terror tactics are not the norm for the
mainstream of any group.

Separatist: Separatist groups are those with the goal of separation from existing entities through
independence, political autonomy, or religious freedom or domination. The ideologies separatists
subscribe to include social justice or equity, anti-imperialism, as well as the resistance to conquest
or occupation by a foreign power.
Ethnocentric: Groups of this persuasion see race as the defining characteristic of a society, and
therefore a basis of cohesion. There is usually the attitude that a particular group is superior
because of their inherent racial characteristics.

Nationalistic: The loyalty and devotion to a nation, and the national consciousness derived from
placing one nation's culture and interests above those of other nations or groups. This can find
expression in the creation of a new nation, or in splitting away part of an existing state to join with
another that shares the perceived "national" identity.

Revolutionary: Dedicated to the overthrow of an established order and replacing it with a new
political or social structure. Although often associated with communist political ideologies, this is
not always the case, and other political movements can advocate revolutionary methods to achieve
their goals.

Political: Political ideologies are concerned with the structure and organization of the forms of
government and communities. While observers outside terrorist organizations may stress
differences in political ideology, the activities of groups that are diametrically opposed on the
political spectrum are similar to each other in practice.

Religious: Religiously inspired terrorism is on the rise, with a forty-three percent increase of total
international terror groups espousing religious motivation between 1980 and 1995. While Islamic
terrorists and organizations have been the most active, and the greatest recent threat to the United

Ajmal Maarij
States, all of the major world religions have extremists that have taken up violence to further their
perceived religious goals. Religiously motivated terrorists see their objectives as holy writ, and
therefore infallible and non-negotiable

Social: Often particular social policies or issues will be so contentious that they will incite
extremist behavior and terrorism. Frequently this is referred to as "single issue" or "special
interest" terrorism. Some issues that have produced terrorist activities in the United States and
other countries include animal rights, abortion, ecology/environment, and minority rights.

Domestic: These terrorists are "home-grown" and operate within and against their home country.
They are frequently tied to extreme social or political factions within a particular society, and
focus their efforts specifically on their nation's socio-political arena.

\activities. Hezbollah has cells worldwide, and has conducted operations in multiple countries, but
is primarily concerned with events in Lebanon and Israel.
Transnational groups operate internationally, but are not tied to a particular country, or even
region. Al Qaeda is transnational; being made up of many nationalities, having been based out of
multiple countries simultaneously, and conducting operations throughout the world. Their
objectives affect dozens of countries with differing political systems, religions, ethnic
compositions, and national interests

A landlocked country of southwest-central Asia. Since ancient times the region has been crisscrossed
by invaders, including Persians, Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols. Afghan tribes united in the
18th century under a single leadership, but a fully independent state did not emerge until 1919. Kabul
is the capital and the largest city. Population: 29,900,000.

About two-fifths of the people belong to the Pashtun ethnic group; other ethnic groups include Tajiks,
Uzbeks, and Hazara. Languages: Pashto, Persian (both official). Religions: Islam (official;
predominantly Sunni); also Zoroastrianism.

Afghanistan has a developing economy based largely on agriculture; its significant mineral resources
remain largely untapped because of the Afghan War of the 1980s and subsequent fighting. Traditional
handicrafts remain important; woolen carpets are a major export. Soviets withdrew in 1989. In 1992
rebel factions overthrew the government and established an Islamic republic. In 1996 the Taliban
militia took power in Kabul and enforced a harsh Islamic order. The militia's unwillingness to
extradite extremist leader Osama bin Laden and members of his al-Qaeda militant organization
following the September 11 attacks in 2001 led to military conflict with the U.S. and allied nations,
the overthrow of the Taliban, and the establishment of an interim government.


Ajmal Maarij
In Aug., 1998, as the Taliban appeared on the verge of taking over the whole country, U.S. missiles
destroyed what was described by the Pentagon as an extensive terrorist training complex near Kabul
run by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born militant accused of masterminding the 1998 bombings of the
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In Mar., 1999, a UN-brokered peace agreement was
reached between the Taliban and their major remaining foe, the forces of the Northern Alliance, under
Ahmed Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik and former mujahidin leader, but fighting broke out again in
July. In November, the United Nations imposed economic sanctions on Afghanistan; this action and
the 1998 U.S. missile attacks were related to the Afghani refusal to turn over bin Laden. Additional
UN sanctions, including a ban on arms sales to Taliban forces, were imposed in Dec., 2000.

The Taliban controlled some 90% of the country by 2000, but their government was not generally
recognized by the international community (the United Nations recognized President Burhanuddin
Rabbani and the Northern Alliance). Continued warfare had caused over a million deaths, while 3
million Afghans remained in Pakistan and Iran as refugees. Adding to the nation's woe, a drought in W
and central Asia that began in the late 1990s has been most severe in Afghanistan.

In early 2001 the Taliban militia destroyed all statues in the nation, including two ancient giant
Buddhas in Bamian, outside Kabul. The destruction was ordered by religious leaders, who regarded
the figures as idolatrous and un-Islamic; the action was met with widespread international dismay and
condemnation, even from other Islamic nations. In September, in a severe blow to the Northern
Alliance, Massoud died as a result of a suicide bomb attack by assassins posing as Arab journalists.
Two days after that attack, devastating terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
which bin Laden was apparently involved in planning, prompted new demands by U.S. President Bush
for his arrest.

When the Taliban refused to hand bin Laden over, the United States launched (Oct., 2001) attacks
against Taliban and Al Qaeda (bin Laden's organization) positions and forces. The United States also
began providing financial aid and other assistance to the Northern Alliance and other opposition
groups. Assisted by U.S. air strikes, opposition forces ousted Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from
Afghanistan's major urban areas in November and December, often aided by the defection of forces
allied with the Taliban. Several thousand U.S. troops began entering the country in November, mainly
to concentrate on the search for bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar and to deal
with the remaining pockets of their forces.

Pakistani military interference

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf – then as Chief of Army Staff – was responsible for sending
thousands of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden against the forces of Massoud. In
total there were believed to be 28,000 Pakistani nationals fighting inside Afghanistan. 20,000 were
regular Pakistani soldiers either from the Frontier Corps or army and an estimated 8,000 were
militants recruited in madrassas filling regular Taliban ranks. The estimated 25,000 Taliban regular
force thus comprised more than 8,000 Pakistani nationals. A 1998 document by the U.S. State
Department confirms that "20–40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani." The document
further states that the parents of those Pakistani nationals "know nothing regarding their child's
military involvement with the Taliban until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan." Further 3,000
fighters of the regular Taliban army were Arab and Central Asian militants. From 1996 to 2001 the Al
Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri became a state within the Taliban state. Bin
Laden sent Arab recruits to join the fight against the United Front. Of roughly 45,000 Pakistani,
Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers fighting against the forces of Massoud only 14,000 were Afghan.

Ajmal Maarij
Ahmad Shah Massoud (right) and Pashtun anti-Taliban leader Haji Abdul Qadir

Ahmad Shah Massoud was the only major anti-Taliban leader who never left Afghanistan for exile
and who was able to defend vast parts of his territory against the Taliban. Abdul Rashid Dostum and
his forces were defeated by the Taliban in 1998. Dostum subsequently went into exile.

In the areas under his control Massoud set up democratic institutions and signed the Women's Rights
Declaration. In the area of Massoud, women and girls did not have to wear the Afghan burqa. They
were allowed to work and to go to school. In at least two known instances, Massoud personally
intervened against cases of forced marriage. To Massoud there was reportedly nothing worse than
treating a person like an object. He stated: "It is our conviction and we believe that both men and
women are created by the Almighty. Both have equal rights. Women can pursue an education, women
can pursue a career, and women can play a role in society – just like men."

Economics of Afghanistan during Taliban regime


Opium poppies are a traditional crop in Afghanistan, and, with the war shattering other sectors of the
economy, opium became its largest export.

"The Taliban have provided an Islamic sanction for farmers ... to grow even more opium, even though
the Koran forbids Muslims from producing or imbibing intoxicants. Abdul Rashid, the head of the
Taliban's anti-drugs control force in Kandahar, spelled out the nature of his unique job. He is
authorized to impose a strict ban on the growing of hashish, "because it is consumed by Afghans and
Muslims." But, Rashid told me without a hint of sarcasm, "Opium is permissible because it is
consumed by kafirs in the West, and not by Muslims or Afghans."

In 2000 Afghanistan's opium production accounted for 75% of the world's supply. On July 27, 2000,
the Taliban issued a decree banning cultivation. By February 2001, production had reportedly been
reduced from 12,600 acres (51 km2) to only 17 acres (7 ha). Opium production was reportedly cut
back by the Taliban not to prevent its use, but to increase its price, and thus increase the income of
Afghan poppy farmers and tax revenue.

In October 2009 a report, citing "American and Afghan officials", appeared in The New York Times
stating that the Taliban were supporting the opium trade and deriving funding from it.


The so-called "transportation mafia" operating out of Pakistan working with the Taliban "cut down
millions of acres of timber in Afghanistan for the Pakistani market, denuding the countryside without
attempting reforestation. They stripped rusting factories, ... even electricity and telephone poles for
their steel and sold the scrap to steel mills in Lahore."

Emerald mines

The Taliban took over emerald mines in Pakistan's Swat valley (not a tribal area), once the
'Switzerland of Pakistan', a popular tourist area for skiers. The government did not react to the move.

Ajmal Maarij
The Taliban reached an agreement with the region's mining labor allowing the Taliban to keep one-
third of the miners' output, while equally sharing costs. The Taliban does not take part in the mining

Business dealings

In 1997, the Taliban and Unocal negotiated arrangements for CentGas to build a gas pipeline from
Turkmenistan to Pakistan. Reportedly, a deal was struck but later collapsed, rumored to be because of
competing negotiations with Bridas, an Argentine company.

International relations

During its time in power, the Taliban regime, or "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan", gained diplomatic
recognition from only three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, all of which
provided substantial aid. The other nations including the United Nations recognized the government of
the Islamic State of Afghanistan (parts of whom were part of the United Front (Northern Alliance) as
the legitimate government of Afghanistan.


The vast majority of the Taliban's rank and file and most of the leadership, though not Mullah Omar,
were Koranic students who had studied at madrasas set up for Afghan refugees, usually by JUI.
Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, JUI's leader, was a political ally of Benazir Bhutto. After Bhutto became
prime minister, Rehman "had access to the government, the army and the ISI," whom he influenced to
help the Taliban.

Pakistan's ISI supported the previously unknown Kandahari student movement, the Taliban, as the
group conquered Afghanistan in the 1990s.

From 1994 onwards Pakistan has been the force behind the Taliban. Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf – then as Chief of Army Staff – was responsible for sending thousands of Pakistanis to
fight alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden against the forces of Massoud. In total there were believed
to be 28,000 Pakistani nationals fighting inside Afghanistan. 20,000 were regular Pakistani soldiers
either from the Frontier Corps or army and an estimated 8,000 were militants recruited in madrassas
filling regular Taliban ranks. The estimated 25,000 Taliban regular force thus comprised more than
8,000 Pakistani nationals. A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20–40
percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani." The document further states that the parents of
those Pakistani nationals "know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban
until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan." Further 3,000 fighters of the regular Taliban army
were Arab and Central Asian militants. Of roughly 45,000 Pakistani, Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers
fighting against the forces of Massoud only 14,000 were Afghan.

Human Rights Watch also writes, "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces
during combat operations in late 2000 and ... senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and
army were involved in planning military operations." Pakistan provided military equipment, recruiting
assistance, training, and tactical advice. Officially Pakistan denied supporting the Taliban militarily.

Author Ahmed Rashid claims that the Taliban had "unprecedented access" among Pakistan's lobbies
and interest groups. He also writes that they at times were able to "play off one lobby against another
and extend their influence in Pakistan even further". By 1998–99, Taliban-style groups in Pakistan's

Ajmal Maarij
Pashtun belt, and to an extent in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, "were banning TV and videos ... and
forcing people, particularly women, to adapt to the Taliban dress code and way of life.

From 2010, a report by a leading British institution claimed that Pakistan's intelligence service still
today has a strong link with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Published by the London School of
Economics, the report said that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) has an "official
policy" of support for the Taliban. It said the ISI provides funding and training for the Taliban, and
that the agency has representatives on the so-called Quetta Shura, the Taliban's leadership council,
which is believed to meet in Pakistan. The report, based on interviews with Taliban commanders in
Afghanistan, was written by Matt Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University.

Al Qaeda

In 1996, bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came without invitation, and sometimes
irritated Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwas against citizens of third-party countries,
but relations between the two groups improved over time, to the point that Mullah Omar rebuffed his
group's patron Saudi Arabia, insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki while reneging on an earlier
promise to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis.

Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Al Qaeda-trained 055
Brigade integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan
fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the Mazar-e-Sharif slaughter. The so-called Brigade
055 was also responsible for massacres against civilians in other parts of Afghanistan. From 1996 to
2001 the organization of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become a virtual state within
the Taliban state.

Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's
sons to Omar's daughter. While in Afghanistan, bin Laden may have helped finance the Taliban.

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were
indicted in U.S. criminal court. The Taliban rejected extradition requests by the U.S., variously
claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing", or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any
proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a
man without sin... he is a free man."

Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records. Bin Laden in
turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for
his destruction of idols such as the Buddhas of Bamyan.

At the end of 2008, the Taliban was in talks to sever all ties with Al-Qaeda.


India is one of the Taliban's most outspoken critics. India was concerned about growing Islamic
militancy in its neighborhood, and refused to recognize the Taliban regime. Ahmad Shah Massoud
also had close ties to India.

Ajmal Maarij
In December 1999, Indian Airlines Flight 814 en route from Kathmandu to Delhi was hijacked and
taken to Kandahar. The Taliban moved its militias near the hijacked aircraft, supposedly to prevent
Indian special forces from storming the aircraft, and stalled the negotiations between India and the
hijackers for days. The New York Times later reported that there were credible links between the
hijackers and the Taliban. As a part of the deal to free the plane, India released three militants. The
Taliban gave a safe passage to the hijackers and the released militants.

Following the hijacking, India drastically increased its efforts to help Massoud, providing an arms
depot in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. India also provided a wide range of high-altitude warfare equipment,
helicopter technicians, medical services, and tactical advice. According to one report, Indian military
support to anti-Taliban forces totaled US$70 million, including five Mi-17 helicopters, and US$8
million worth of high-altitude equipment in 2001. India extensively supported the new administration
in Afghanistan, leading several reconstruction projects and by 2001 had emerged as the country's
largest regional donor.


In early August 1998, relations with other countries became much more troubled. After attacking the
city of Mazar, Taliban forces killed several thousand civilians and 10 Iranian diplomats and
intelligence officers in the Iranian consulate. Alleged radio intercepts indicate Mullah Omar personally
approved the killings. The Iranian government was incensed, and crisis ensued as Iran mobilized
200,000 regular troops, though war was eventually averted.


The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for a September 3, 2010, suicide bomber attack against a
pro-Palestine rally held by a Shia group in Pakistan that killed 73 people.

United Nations and NGOs

A major issue during the Taliban's reign was its relations with the United Nations (UN) and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs). Twenty years of continuous warfare had devastated
Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy. There was no running water, little electricity, few
telephones, functioning roads or regular energy supplies. Basic necessities like water, food, housing
and others were in desperately short supply. In addition, the clan and family structure that provided
Afghans with a social/economic safety net was also badly damaged. Afghanistan's infant mortality
was the highest in the world. A full quarter of all children died before they reached their fifth birthday,
a rate several times higher than most other developing countries.

International charitable and/or development organisations (NGOs) were extremely important to the
supply of food, employment, reconstruction, and other services. With one million plus deaths during
the years of war, the number of families headed by widows had reached 98,000 by 1998. Thus Taliban
restrictions on women were sometime a matter not only of human rights, but of life and death. In
Kabul, where vast portions of the city had been devastated from rocket attacks, more than half of its
1.2 million people benefited in some way from NGO activities, even for water to drink. The civil war
and its never-ending refugee stream continued throughout the Taliban's reign. The Mazar, Herat, and
Shomali valley offensives displaced more than three-quarters of a million civilians, using "scorched
earth" tactics to prevent them from supplying the enemy with aid.

Ajmal Maarij
Despite the aid, the Taliban's attitude toward the UN and NGOs was often one of suspicion, in place of
gratitude or even tolerance. The UN operates on the basis of international law, not Sharia, and the UN
did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Additionally, most foreign
donors and aid workers, were non-Muslims. As the Taliban's Attorney General Maulvi Jalil-ullah
Maulvizada put it:

Let us state what sort of education the UN wants. This is a big infidel policy which gives such obscene
freedom to women which would lead to adultery and herald the destruction of Islam. In any Islamic
country where adultery becomes common, that country is destroyed and enters the domination of the
infidels because their men become like women and women cannot defend themselves. Anyone who
talks to us should do so within Islam's framework. The Holy Koran cannot adjust itself to other
people's requirements, people should adjust themselves to the requirements of the Holy Koran.

Taliban decision-makers, particularly Mullah Omar, seldom if ever talked directly to non-Muslim
foreigners, so aid providers had to deal with intermediaries whose approvals and agreements were
often reversed. Around September 1997 the heads of three UN agencies in Kandahar were expelled
from the country after protesting when a female attorney for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
was forced to talk from behind a curtain so her face would not be visible.

We Muslims believe God the Almighty will feed everybody one way or another. If the foreign NGOs
leave then it is their decision. We have not expelled them.

In 2009 a top U.N official called for talks with Taliban leaders. In 2010 the U.N lifted sanctions on the
Taliban, and requested that Taliban leaders and others be removed from terrorism watch lists. In 2010
the U.S. and Europe announced support for President Karzai's latest attempt to negotiate peace with
the Taliban.

Difference between Taliban and Al Qaeda

Taliban vs Al Qaeda

Taliban and al qaeda, the two terrorist organisations born out of Islamic roots, seem to be almost one
and the same. Though the two talk of an Islamic world, there are many differences between the two.

While Mullah Mohammed Omar, who was an extremely enigmatic person, founded Taliban, the credit
for al qaeda goes to Osama bin laden.

Al Qaeda consists of Sunni Muslims who practise Wahabism, which is considered to be the most
extreme form of Islam. The al qaeda wants to establish Islamic rule and that all governments should be
replaced by Islamic leaders.

The Taliban at first consisted of religious students who were very much conservative. They believed
more in Sharia (Islamic law). The Taliban, dominated by people with Pashtun identity, controlled
Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Though ousted from power in 2001, they have embarked again,
spreading terrorism around the world.

Ajmal Maarij
Coming to the etymology, both taliban and al qaeda are Arabic. The meaning of al qaeda is “base”.
Taliban means talib that means “student.”

The origin of al qaeda can be traced to the writings of Sayyid Qutb, an Islamic thinker.
The basic ideology of al qaeda is to establish an Islamic state, with focus on Sharia. They want to get
rid of socialism and nationalism, which they consider as non-Muslim concepts. The Talibans’
extremist ideology is only an innovative form of Islam in combination with Pashtun tribal codes with
Deobandi interpretations.

While the Taliban are restricted to a particular region, the al qaeda has no boundaries.

Coming to the origin Taliban, two stories have been told. One story is that Mullah Omar and his
students were agitated after the rape and murder of boys and girls of a family who were travelling to
Kandahar. Another version is that Pakistan based truck shipping mafia had sought the support of
Taliban to clear the road across Afghan to Central Asian Republics of bandits.

Al qaeda is considered to have formed in 1988 after a meeting between Osama bin Laden, leaders of
Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Abdullah Azzam.

1. Mullah Mohammed Omar founded Taliban and the credit for al qaeda goes to Osama bin laden.
2. Al Qaeda consists of Sunni Muslims who practise Wahabism, which is considered to be the most
extreme and violent form of Islam). The Taliban, dominated by people with Pashtun identity.
3. Al Qaeda means “the base” or “the foundation”. Taliban means talib that means “student.”

The Taliban was the Sunni Islamist organization and governing body of Afghanistan from 1996-2001,
with some resurgence in 2007. They were headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar and "removed" from
power by the US.

They have worked with Al Qaida, and offered to hand Osama Bin Laden over the USA or try him
under Islamic law if the USA could provide evidence that he was guilty of 9/11. The USA denied their
request and instead demanded they turn him over without evidence, which the Taliban refused to do,
so when you consider that alongside Bin Laden's probable headquarters in Afghanistan this provided a
reason for USA police action in Afghanistan.

Al Qaida is a terrorist organization operating throughout the middle east and some Asian and African
countries. Contrary to what people believe, they don't have borders just within afghanistan. They
operate amongst many middle eastern countries like pakistan.
Al Qaida was responsible or 9/11 and most of its members pledge their allegiance to Osama Bin
Laden, who has trained in many of their training camps. Al Qaida has training camps set up across the
globe to train members in killing and jihad (holy war). They are very fundamentalist Islamic, so they
differ from most muslims in the countries they operate in (because most muslims aren't like that at all).
They are a fundamentalist terror organization and are currently believed to be harboring Bin Laden in

Ajmal Maarij
NATO invasion, Taliban overthrow and insurgency

After the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and the PENTTBOM investigation, the United States made
the following demands of the Taliban, and refused to discuss them:

1. Deliver to the U.S. all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda

2. Release all foreign nationals that have been "unjustly imprisoned"
3. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers
4. Close immediately every terrorist training camp
5. Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities
6. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

Over the course of the investigation, the U.S. petitioned the international community to back a military
campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The United Nations Security Council and NATO approved the
campaign as self-defense against armed attack.

On September 21, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the U.S. could bring
evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence
linking him to the September 11 attacks.

On September 22, the United Arab Emirates, and later Saudi Arabia, withdrew recognition of the
Taliban as Afghanistan's legal government, leaving neighbouring Pakistan as the only remaining
country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, the Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for
trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan blocked
the offer as it was not possible to guarantee his safety. On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to
Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the U.S. made a formal request
and presented the Taliban with evidence. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer, and stated that the U.S. would not negotiate their demands.

The realities, being an Afghan citizen behind the scene of MEDIA

Ajmal Maarij
Taliban is not an organization or a club which should have high level of knowledge, technology. It
was just movements which toke place Because of injustice which was happening by mujaheedin.
Two girls were raped in kundaher by mujahedin in public that made the step for a new regime
PUSHUTON which start fighting against mujahedin…the priest of mullah who called all
neighboring to masque to take decision what shall they have to do to stop this injustice and raping
our wife’s and daughter They start with 15 people and moved ahead and kundaher comes to their
control easily. The makes them to moves ahead and to bring peace in Afghanistan.
The allies of Taliban is Pakistan,Haqqani network,Al-Qaeda,Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin,Islamic Emirate of
Waziristan,Uzbekistan, Movement, Osama,

Why Pakistan want to support Taliban?

There are several reasons

Durain line: the contract between India and Afghanistan before Pakistan gets its independence has
been signed. half of today’s Pakistan belong to Afghanistan soil in cases if Afghanistan become
powerful and stay in peace ways from wars and foreign interventions then Afghanistan will take
that part from Pakistan, Pakistan want to keep afghan under their control and they know if WE
afghan remain in peace the our military defense become powerful they will lose half of

Afghanistan is the core of un utilized minerals ,iron ,silver, various type of stone BBC announced
recently if afghan extract their mineral they will be richest country of the word…that is why
Pakistan want Afghanistan to be in war that they could make use of natural resources,

They conflict which exist between India and Pakistan is another cause of war and existence of
Taliban ,,,,Pakistan is training terrorist in Kashmir today against India and India helps afghans
government to become a self defendable country that will keep Pakistan weaker because of several
issue…today Afghanistan entirely depend of Pakistan, most of goods and material are imported
from Pakistan and Pakistan is the country through which we can reach to other countries in matter
of export and imports. And we wont imports Pakistan product anymore if we reach to other
markets of the world. Today the income generators for Pakistan are Afghanistan.

The afghan Taliban or students of holy Quran was much different of terrorist activities in the
began when they start fighting against injustice as they
Grows Pakistan sent Pakistanis Taliban those who were brain washed with hug money and support
from Islamic countries like Iran, Arabs countries other …all order were given by Pakistan to
Taliban in Afghanistan.

That created a new interpretation of Islamic interpretation of holy book quran, they killed hug
number of afghan. According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to
consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against
civilians. UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001.

They also said, that "these have been highly systematic and they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry
of Defense or to Mullah Omar himself." In a major effort to retake the Shomali plains, the Taliban
indiscriminately killed civilians, while uprooting and expelling the population. Kamal Hossein, a

Ajmal Maarij
special reporter for the UN, reported on these and other war crimes. Upon taking Mazar-i-Sharif in
1998, about 4,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban and many more reported tortured. The
Taliban especially targeted people of Shia religious or Hazara ethnic background. Among those killed
in Mazari Sharif were several Iranian diplomats. Others were kidnapped by the Taliban, touching off a
hostage crisis that nearly escalated to a full scale war, with 150,000 Iranian soldiers massed on the
Afghan border at one time. It was later admitted that the diplomats were killed by the Taliban, and
their bodies were returned to Iran.

The documents also reveal the role of Arab and Pakistani support troops in these killings. Bin Laden's
so-called 055 Brigade was responsible for mass-killings of Afghan civilians. The report by the United
Nations quotes eyewitnesses in many villages describing Arab fighters carrying long knives used for
slitting throats and skinning people.

The Taliban was the Sunni Islamist organization and governing body of Afghanistan from 1996-2001,
with some resurgence in 2007. They were headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar and "removed" from
power by the US.
They have worked with Al Qaida, and offered to hand Osama Bin Laden over the USA or try him
under Islamic law if the USA could provide evidence that he was guilty of 9/11. The USA denied their
request and instead demanded they turn him over without evidence, which the Taliban refused to do,
so when you consider that alongside Bin Laden's probable headquarters in Afghanistan this provided a
reason for USA police action in Afghanistan.


Terrorism has become a part of modern life. Hijackings, bombings, and assassinations on different
continents of the world may seem like isolated attacks, but they reflect an easy reliance on
violence as a way to promote social, political, and religious change. They are elements of a
pervasive end justifies the means philosophy being followed to its most perverse conclusions.

International terrorism has become the scourge of all democratic governments. These democratic
governments are accustomed to dealing within a legal structure, often find it difficult to deal with
criminals and terrorists that routinely operate outside of the law. However, deterrence is just as
much a part of justice as proper enforcement of the laws. Democratic governments that do not
deter criminals inevitably spawn vigilantism as normally law-abiding citizens who have lost
confidence in the criminal justice system take the law into their own hands. A similar backlash is
beginning to emerge as a result of the inability of western democracies to defend themselves
against terrorists. However, lack of governmental resolve is only part of the problem.
Terrorists thrive on media exposure, and news organizations around the world have been all too
willing to give terrorists what they crave, publicity.

If the news media gave terrorists the minuscule coverage their numbers and influence would
decline. But, when hijackings and bombings are given prominent media attention, governments
start feeling pressure from their citizens to resolve the crisis and eventually capitulate to terrorists’
demands. Encouraged by their latest success, terrorists usually try again -Winston Churchill
Recent successes have made terrorists hungry for more attacks. News commentators have been
unwilling to call terrorism what it is, Blind criminal violence. They soften their barbaric acts by

Ajmal Maarij
arguing that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This illusion is simply not true.
Terrorists are not concerned about human rights and human dignity.

In fact, they end up destroying human rights in their alleged fight for human rights. A relatively
new term for terrorism has been coined, new warfare. Yet, terrorists turn the notion of war on its
head. Innocent citizens become targets in the devastating terrorist attacks. How do we define a
terrorist? Is a terrorist a common criminal? If terrorists are mere criminals, then with reference to
the Bible, they should be dealt with by their host governments.

In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul says; He who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God;
and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers is not a cause
of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good
and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do
what is evil, be afraid: for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an
avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil This passage of scripture helps us make
an important distinction we will use in our analysis of terrorism. It shows us that criminals are
those who do evil and threaten the civil peace. But, any outside threat to the existence of the
country is not a criminal threat but an act of war, which is also to be dealt with by the government.
In other words, criminals threaten the state from within. Foreign armies threaten the state from
outside. These evildoers should live in fear of government. However, terrorists do not live in fear
of the governing authorities in the countries where they live. Their governments do not think of
them as breaking civilian laws and thus do not prosecute them. Let us look over an imaginary
situation. If an anti-Syrian terrorist group was based somewhere in North America, we would
prosecute those terrorists as enemies of our countries.

This North American based terrorist group would be illegal because it would be engaging in
activities reserved for the governments of the North American countries. Why wouldn’t the
Middle Eastern governments prosecute these terrorists? It’s simple, because the terrorists often
carry out the policies and desires of such host governments. The assumption that is made after
studying a case like this is that both the terrorist groups and their host nations are truly enemies of
the North American governments. After studying this imaginary case, it is possible to see that both
the terrorist groups and their host nations are truly enemies of North American government and
people. When they capture and kill innocent civilians for military and foreign policy purposes, it is
not simply civilian murder but, military warfare.

What the world is facing is a new type of military aggressor. As explained earlier, terrorists are
not common criminals to be tried in civil courts. They are military targets who must be stopped
since they are armed and military enemies of the governments whom they oppose. In the same
way that it took traditional armies some time to learn how to combat guerrilla warfare, so it is
taking Western government’s time to realize that the rules for warfare have been revised in the
case of terrorism. Diplomatic efforts have failed to convince.

Meetings and negotiations haven't been able to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists. When we fight
terrorism we need to realize we are talking about war. Military warfare is different from civilian
peacekeeping. In civilian peacekeeping, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A
citizen can be arrested and detained before trial but must be released unless guilt is proven.
Military warfare is different. A trial is not held for each military action. In a sense, in a just war, a
trial of sorts is held before any action is taken. Discussion and debates among government

Ajmal Maarij
officials usually occur before war is declared. Fact-finding studies, presentations, testimonies, and
other kinds of forethought go into a declaration of war. In a sense, when the use of the military is
involved, the trial period comes before anyone is confronted or arrested. But once war is declared,
there are no more trials until the enemy is defeated. And every one who aids and abets the enemy
is guilty by association.

At present, terrorism is a one-sided war that the target governments are losing. Soldiers and
citizens are being killed in the war. Unfortunately, the target governments are not treating
terrorism like the war it is. If we take the United States as an example, the limited war powers
granted to the president by Congress are not powerful enough and are not used in a systematic
way to defeat the enemy. If we are to win the war against terrorism, we must realize that it is war.
Until we see it as military aggression, we will be unsuccessful in ending terrorism in this decade.
If we continue on with the example of the United States, The ability of these groups to carry out
their agenda is not the issue.

The fundamental issue is how U.S. government leaders should deal with this new type of military
strategy. Terrorists have held American diplomats hostage for years, blown up military
compounds, and hijacked aero planes and cruise ships. Although some hostages have been
released, many others have been killed, and the U.S. has been unsuccessful at punishing more than
a small number of terrorists. Even though international diplomacy has been the primary means
used by The United States against terrorism, we should consider what other means may be
appropriate. In the past American leaders have responded to military aggression in a variety of
ways short of declaring war.

The U.S. Constitution grants the following powers to Congress: To define and punish piracies and
felonies committed on the high Seas, and offences against the law of nations; to declare war, grant
letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Terrorist
acts fall into at least two of the congressional provisions for dealing with attacks on the nations.
They are: (1) to punish offenses against the law of nations, and (2) to declare war. In either case,
there are strong constitutional grounds for taking action against terrorists. The difficulty comes in
clearly identifying the enemy and being willing to risk offending many Arab nations whom we
consider allies. Congress must identify the enemy and call that group a military target.

Once that has happened, many of the other steps will fall into place with less difficulty. It can be
seen that, through diplomatic channels we must make two things very clear to the leaders of the
host country. First, they should catch and punish the terrorist groups as civilian criminals.

Or, second, they should extradite the enemy soldiers to an international court for trial. If the host
country fails to act on these two requests, we should make it clear that we see it as in complicity
with the terrorist groups. By failing to exercise their civil responsibility, these countries leave
themselves open to the consequences of allowing military forces hostile to the target government,
to remain within their borders. Although diplomacy has its place, it is easy to see that diplomacy
and negotiation do not strike fear in the hearts of terrorists.

In most cases, diplomatic efforts have failed to bring terrorists to justice. It has been shown that
Romans 13 acknowledges the government's right to bear the sword to protect its citizens from
criminal threats within the country and military threats outside the country. We have also shown
that military action is sanctioned by Congress to punish piracies and felonies and to punish

Ajmal Maarij
offence against the law of nations. With these facts as background, we should now focus on the
issue of just punishment. The principle here is that the punishment must be proportional to the

A judge could not chop off a man's hand merely because he scratched another man's hand in a
fight. The punishment should be burn for burn and wound for wound. In saying this, it does not
mean that the target government should not go off and start to bomb the host countries’ cities if
the do not do anything to stop a terrorist group that had for examples sake, kidnapped the target
government’s governmental officials.
However, just and proportional punishment also means that we should not apply too light a

Countries that harbor terrorists and refuse to punish or extradite them should be pressured.
Punishment could come in the form of economic embargoes, import-export restrictions, the
serving of diplomatic relations, or even military actions. Any excessive reaction in a situation like
this would not only be unjust, bit it would also fuel the fires of an even stronger retaliation from
the host country. In the most desperate cases, a strike force of counterterrorists might be necessary
where the threat is both real and imminent. This however, should be considered only as an option
of last resort. Some examples of such actions are, in 1989, an Israeli Special Forces team
successfully captured a man by the name of Sheik Obeid, and no doubt put a dent in the terrorist
network by bringing one of its leaders to justice. Another example is, in 1985, United States Air
Force planes were able to force down an Egyptian airliner to prevent the escape of another
terrorist leader. These are acts which should be done rarely and carefully. But, they may be
appropriate means to bring about justice.

In conclusion, terrorism must be recognized as a new type of military aggression that requires
governmental action. It involves an undeclared war and government officials must take the same
sort of actions that they would if threatened by a hostile country. There must be changes in order
to prevent further terrorist aggression in this decade and in the future. There has to be a line drawn
if we are to completely eradicate this modern scourge of terrorism.

Ajmal Maarij