The trial judge told the terrorists while pronouncing the sentence: ‘The sentences are for life. Release is not a foregone conclusion. Some or all of you may never be released. You are considered cruel, ruthless, misfits by society.’

Most Britons may still be figuring out why the jehadis should make them targets of their reprehensible acts of senseless violence. Opposition politicians are now berating Her Majesty’s government for not acting enough to prevent the July 7, 2005 serial London bombings (that had killed 50) by a group of jehadis (all young British Pakistanis) after it had become known to the police that the ‘ringleaders’ of the July 7 attacks and the gang that was planning fertiliser bomb attacks, Mohammed Siddique Khan and Omar Khyam, were in touch with each other.

Maybe the issue of perceived security lapse will snowball in Britain as the ruling Labour party seems to be going through its roughest patch with a war of succession coinciding with rapid decline in popularity of the ‘new’ Labour that the Prime Minister Tony Blair had fashioned. Ordinary Britons and perhaps a large section of the establishment may also have been struck by some of the revelations made during the trial that go to confirm that the motivation for the young British Pakistanis to turn to terror came from Pakistan.

The British government (as also the George Bush-led Republican administration in the US) continues to underplay this fact not caring to realise that it only encourages the Pakistani dictator, Gen Pervez Musharraf, to unjustifiably disclaim any responsibility. He, in fact, is in the habit of passing the buck back to Britain, saying that ‘they’ (the British jehadis of Pakistani origin) are ‘home-grown’. He even more brazenly rejects any charge that Pakistan remains the magnet for budding jehadis.

Consider a few facts brought out during the latest terror trial. The untenability of Musharraf’s contention becomes clear. The ‘ringleader’ of this group, Omar Khyam, was born in Crawley to Pakistani parents who had reportedly grown up in Britain. It can be presumed that Khyam also grew up in a ‘secular’ atmosphere. But a visit to Pakistan to meet relatives while he was still in his teens changed him forever.

It turned out that many of his Pakistani relatives were members of the Pakistani military, some actually working for the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of the Pakistani army. All these relatives of Khyam were supporters of the ‘freedom struggle’ in Kashmir—and well connected with terrorist groups that operate in Kashmir.

Khyam was introduced to one of these groups, the Al-Badr Mujahideen, who advised him to become a ‘good Muslim’ by growing a long beard and dress ‘like a Muslim’ in order to join the holy forces of Jehad. He joined a terrorist training camp in Pakistan after telling his parents in the UK that he was going out on a six-month college excursion. When he landed in PoK he did not have to give the address of the training camp to the taxi driver.

Musharraf says there are no training camps in Pakistan. Yet, just about everyone in Pakistan seems to know about their location, as would appear from what Khyam told the trial court. ‘Take me to the camp’ he said on reaching Muzaffarabad and the taxi driver drove him straight to the terrorist training camp. During his trial Khyam admitted that the ISI was actively associated with the training of terrorists at the camp he had attended.

The trial of the fertiliser bomb accused in Britain—one of the longest in the UK—again established that a British jehadi is not born without a Pakistani link—a ‘pilgrimage’ to the many jehadi training camps.

The British Pakistani plotters hatched their conspiracy in Pakistan, meeting often in the palatial house that one of them, Waheed Mahmoud, was building in his Pakistani village, Gujjar Khan. The plotters received their training in handling various types of arms and ammunition, including making the fertiliser bomb, in separate training camps in Pakistan.

It was Mahmoud who told the other plotters that their priority should be attacking targets in Britain. Khyam had told his colleagues that he was working for ‘number three’ man in Al Qaeda who obviously lived in Pakistan and, what is more, was known to the ISI who facilitated cooperation between jehadis and Al Qaeda operatives together.

There is no doubt that Pakistan will take the plea that even if the ISI did have a role in radicalising and training the British Pakistanis it was all ‘in the past’. Such denials come natural to the Pak foreign office. But there is a sinister pattern behind it. First, Islamabad will refute all accusations against it and its ISI. Later when evidence of irrefutable Pakistani complicity emerges, it says it was ‘in the past’. The idea is to implant an impression that Pakistan has turned a new leaf in its pursuit of ‘enlightened moderation’.

That is another fib. The speed with which Pakistan is being Talibanised—a fear expressed by many important Pakistanis themselves—does not suggest that the regime in Islamabad is actually serious about uprooting all vestiges of the vast terror network that it had created. Whenever the question of Pakistan’s support to militancy in Kashmir crops up Islamabad does not even try to hide the fact that it will not cut off its links with the terror network that operates in Kashmir. British and American officials happily buy the Pakistani lie that it is not doing anything to keep the terror tap to India open.

If countries like Britain continue to be so indulgent towards Pakistan, they should be ready for many more fertiliser bomb plots hatched by British Pakistanis with active cooperation of Pak ‘agencies’. By now it must be clear to both the UK and the US, and even to Pakistan, that terrorists are not like pets who act and perform according to how you train them. The terrorists are more like Frankenstein monsters. You may think they will not devour you because you had raised them to destroy some other target. They will as likely turn on you.

Printer-Friendly Version