Artificial Intelligence Cyber Security Defence Pakistan Terrorism

A Terrorist Tech Review in Khorasan

Broader implication is that counterterrorism efforts must adapt to an era of synthetic propaganda and AI-assisted operations. This means investing in new detection technologies, updating regulations for AI platforms, and perhaps rethinking how we monitor online terrorist communities without infringing on common people’s privacy. Rahul Pawa In June 2025, an unlikely tech column appeared in Voice of Khorasan, the English-language web terrorist propaganda magazine of ISIS-K (Islamic State Khorasan Province). Amid usual disillusions, Issue 46 featured a detailed comparison of popular AI chatbots; from OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Bing AI to the privacy-focused Brave Leo and the Chinese bot dubbed “DeepSeek.” The tone resembled a consumer tech review, but the intent was deadly serious. The authors warned fellow jihadists about the risks of these tools, raising alarms about data privacy and surveillance. ChatGPT and Bing, they noted, might log user data or even expose a terrorist’s IP address, a potential death sentence for an terrorist on the run. They cautioned that generative AI could churn out false information or even mimic someone’s writing or speaking style, making it a double-edged sword for propaganda. After weighing the platforms, the magazine gave its endorsement: Brave’s Leo AI, integrated into a private web browser and requiring no login, was deemed the safest option for terrorists seeking anonymity. In essence, ISIS-K selected the chatbot that asks for the fewest questions in return, a chilling reminder that even terrorists prize privacy features. This surreal scene, a terrorist group rating AI assistants illustrates how terrorist organisations are eagerly probing the latest technology for their own ends. If Islamic State’s Afghan affiliate is producing in-house reviews of chatbots, it is because they see potential tools for propaganda, recruitment, and even operational support. And ISIS-K is not alone. Across the ideological spectrum, violent terrorists are experimenting with generative AI, ushering in a new chapter in the long history of terrorists exploiting digital media. From jihadists in remote safe houses to far left extremist cells in Western suburbs, terrorists are testing how AI can amplify their hateful messaging and help them evade detection. It’s a development that has counterterrorism officials on high alert, and for good reason. For decades, terrorist groups have been early adopters of new media. In the late 1990s, Al-Qaeda circulated grainy VHS tapes and CD-ROMs with lectures by Osama bin Laden. By the mid-2010s, ISIS perfected the art of online propaganda: slickly edited videos, encrypted chat channels, and multilingual web magazines reached recruits worldwide at the click of a button. The Islamic State’s media operatives earned a dark reputation as “innovators” in digital terror, leveraging YouTube, Twitter, and Telegram in ways governments struggled to counter. Now, generative AI is the latest technology wave and once again, terrorists are riding it. What’s different today is the power and accessibility of these AI tools. Modern generative AI can produce content that is startlingly realistic and tailored to an audience’s biases or emotions. This opens troubling possibilities for propaganda. Terrorist groups can now generate fake images, videos, and even interactive dialogues at scale, with minimal resources. In recent months, terrorists have used AI-created images and videos to stoke sectarian hatred and amplify conflicts. During the Israel counter strike on Hamas in 2023, for example, Hamas-linked propagandists circulated doctored visuals, including fabricated pictures of injured children and fake photos of Israeli soldiers in humiliating situations to inflame public emotion and spread disinformation. These AI-manipulated images blended seamlessly into the online information ecosystem, making it harder to separate truth from fabrication in the fog of war. ISIS and its offshoots have likewise ventured into deepfakes. Islamic State’s media affiliates reportedly published a “tech support guide” in mid-2023 instructing followers how to securely use generative AI tools while avoiding detection. Not long after, ISIS-K began unveiling AI-generated propaganda videos. Following a 2024 attack in Afghanistan, ISIS-K released a video bulletin featuring a fictitious news anchor, generated by deepfake technology calmly reading the group’s claims of responsibility. The video looked like a normal news broadcast, complete with a professional-looking anchor, except it was entirely fabricated by AI. In another case, after an assault in Kandahar, an ISIS-K propagandist created a second deepfake “Khurasan TV” clip, this time with a Western-accented avatar as the presenter. The goal is clear: lend terrorist propaganda a veneer of credibility and polish that previously required a studio and camera crew. Instead of grainy cellphone martyr videos, we now see digital avatars delivering the jihadists message in high definition, potentially fooling viewers (and automated content filters) that would dismiss overtly violent footage. As one security analyst observed, this marks a stark upgrade from the early 2000s when terrorist videos were rudimentary and “prioritised the message over higher production values” , today’s AI-crafted terror content can closely resemble legitimate media broadcasts. Why are terrorist groups so keen on generative AI? The answer lies in what these tools promise: speed, scale, personalisation, and a degree of deniability. A large language model can produce terrorist propaganda texts in multiple languages almost instantaneously, allowing a group like ISIS-K or al-Qaeda to tailor messages to different ethnic or national audiences without a large translation team. AI image generators can churn out endless visuals for memes, posters, or fake “news” proof, enabling agitators to flood social media with content that algorithmic moderation hasn’t seen before, thereby evading detection by hash-based filters that flag known terrorist photos. As Adam Hadley of Tech Against Terrorism warned, if terrorists manipulate imagery at scale with AI, it could undermine the hash-sharing databases that platforms use to automatically block violent content . In effect, generative AI offers terrorists a way to boost volume and variety in their online output, potentially staying one step ahead of content moderation efforts. Just as importantly, AI lowers the barriers for creating sophisticated lies. Misinformation and conspiracy theories can be mass-produced with ChatGPT-like models, which excel at mimicking authoritative tone or even an individual’s speech patterns. ISIS-K’s magazine explicitly noted this danger that AI can “create false information or mimic specific speech patterns”

Geopolitics United States USA World

395

Trump’s Tantrums & Lies!

Quixotic dealing with strategic allies untenable, US may lose out on India and get cornered as the deep state and left lobbies plays dirty. K.A.Badarinath Overwhelming opinion amongst intelligentsia is that US President Donald Trump is throwing tantrums and lying through his teeth. His repeated claims from Washington DC, Kananaskis – the venue for G-7 summit – and elsewhere have come under close scrutiny internationally. First big claim that President Trump made was to have successfully mediated between Bharat and Pakistan during the week-long conflict to avert a nuclear war. The two countries fought a limited war following daylight murder of 26 tourists in Pahalgam of Jammu and Kashmir by ISI sponsored terrorists in April 25, 2025. Yesterday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi categorically debunked President Trump’s falsified claims from White House and outside. Neither was there any mediation, dialogue nor intervention by President Trump to pause the armed conflict. Instead, ‘Operation Sindhoor’ was paused only at specific and desperate request of Pakistan military establishment through regular channels of communication after Bharat pounded its airbases deep. In fact, Trump had gone ahead and tweeted to claim his leadership role in dissuading the South Asian neighbours from going to a major nuclear war. Yesterday, President Trump went a step further and pointed out that international media did not write about his ‘stellar role’ as peacenik between the arch rivals. On the contrary, in his 35-minutes telephonic conversation with Trump, Modi unambiguously stated that the latter had no role whatsoever. Indian foreign office ‘read out’ by Secretary Vikram Misri clearly dismissed in most certain terms any mediation by President Trump. What’s laughable is that Donald Trump repeated his bombastic claim from Oval office that he stopped the war even after getting a ‘earful’ from Modi. Second big claim of President Trump that trade deal between India and US was used as leverage to bring around Prime Minister Modi. Again, this has been outright dismissed outright by India. President Trump’s suggestion that trade deal in the works between India and US leveraged to prevent a larger war was again billed as ‘preposterous’ and ‘untrue’. To drive home India’s unambiguous position on war with terror infested Pakistan, Modi firmly and politely declined Trump’s invite to stop over in Washington DC for a chat citing ‘prior commitments’. One cannot recall if American President’s invite was ever declined by Indian leadership in the past. Few things have been stated crystal clear to President Trump in the telephonic conversation whether he liked it or not. India will not and never accept mediation with Pakistan. This is key articulation of the country’s policy as part of its ‘strategic autonomy’ framework. Yet another point made was that funding, sponsoring and abetting terrorism will now on be considered war against India and not Proxy war. And, hence, Bharat reserves the right to hit back in a manner it deems fit. Thirdly, Jammu & Kashmir is non-negotiable, integral to India and only discussion could be on areas under illegal occupation of Pakistan. In last few weeks, India exercised maximum restraint in not taking on President Trump’s claim either directly or indirectly. Yesterday’s phone call between the two leaders reflected clarity in articulation India’s position. On the parallel, General Asim Munir of Pakistan getting close to White House, having a closed door lunch with President Trump is something that clearly indicates complete disruption in US foreign policy under Republican Presidency. Reports that President Trump promised hitherto denied defence technologies to Pakistan for using its territory to strike against Iran has its own implications. Old foreign policy hands have an independent analysis on the chain of events including President Trump’s claims that have been eventually denied by Indian foreign secretary Misri. Entire rule book in diplomatic niceties have been consigned to dust bin by President Trump and his bunch of policy advisors from corporate world while dealing with Presidents and Prime Ministers. Hosting General Asim Munir has its own nuances and messaging for sure. President Trump seems to have realized that General Munir could be deployed to could push the American agenda in Asia. Using Pakistani airbases and army entry – exit points across 1000 kilometres long border with Iran will only expand the war theatre between Israel and Iran. Courting Pakistan at most critical junctures have had happened even in the past. Hence, Trump – Munir lunch may not have come as a big surprise for some Indian security hawks. Also, Donald Trump may be looking at a defunct and rudderless Pakistan as ‘potential market’ for clinching transactional business deals as well as go down in human history with a ‘peace nobel’ courtesy Islamabad’s leadership. One big suspicion is that American deep state may be playing dirty against Prime Minister Modi’s decisive leadership as it had attempted at denying his re-election for a third consecutive term. Cosying up of Pakistan military establishment with Republican White House may have come after a successful trade deal hammered out by Trump and Chinese Communist Party’s iron-fisted President Xi Jingping. In ultimate analysis, President Trump comes out as an ‘undependable ally’ for anyone including Bharat. Disruptions in equations with friends and foes may be treated with equanimity by the slippery Trump administration. Rising American societal unrest that has begun to show up in demonstrations and protests may only deepen threatening the very idea of ‘United States of America’. American deep state and Left aligned lobbies entrenched over decades are bound to exploit the churn to their advantage. In the process, there’s huge possibility of President Trump getting cornered. In the process, Trump may lose out on India. (Author is Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bharat International Media News Security World

414

‘Mis-Reporting on War Against Terror’

India faced serious issues when a few top international media outlets shred objectivity in their reportage on terror, terrorist organizations, their handlers and financiers. Rohan Giri In the dense fog of war against terror unleashed by India after dastardly killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, several international media outlets rushed not to inform, but to build slanted opinion in sync with their agenda-based narratives. From manipulated assumptions to selective outrage, recent reportage by outlets like The Independent, Al Jazeera, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times raises serious questions not just about journalistic standards but the intent behind this slanted coverage of war on terror. Even global news agency like Reuters fell to prey to such narratives. Between May 7 – 11, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) jointly released evidence and detailed press briefings were held showing how India’s calibrated military actions were in direct response to a spate of cross-border terror attacks traced to Pakistan-based jihadi networks. Indian government provided satellite Intelligence, precision strike data and official press briefings were held. But, the international media houses chose to bury facts, ignore or sidestep India’s security concerns, campaign against terror and gave platform to unverifiable Pakistani military propaganda. One big question was the possible agenda these media houses peddled during the conflict? London-based The Independent carried articles in series on terror attacks, military retaliation by India and the two full days of conflict. One piece suggested that Pakistan shot down three Indian Rafale fighter jets. Reuters went a step further and put the number of fighter jets lost by India at five. The New York Times even claimed that it had evidence. But then, what’s the basis for these dispatches? Well, an old hand at international news agencies averred that the story was blurted out by American security establishment sleuths that reportedly kept a watch on India’s precision strikes that led to destruction of nine terrorist sites in Pakistan occupied Jammu Kashmir and deep within Pakistan where over 100 terrorists were neutralised. Another version was that Chinese Communist Party apparatus swung into action. Its agenda that apparently was pushed big time. As per these media analysts, China was keen to portray that its military aircraft and missiles in Pakistani armour shot down the Rafale fighter jets. Beijing’s possible intent was to establish its superiority in tactical and technological superiority in a complex war theatre. The word around was that China was simultaneously looking at testing its fighters capabilities and missiles power as against French Dassault built Rafales and Indian missiles. Well, one wonders on ethical part of media ecosystem that comes under close scrutiny in trying war situation. But then, lobbies with geo-political interests and corporates pushing their defence ware also played out. Unverified claims made by Pakistani military as part of its psychological offensive was taken as ‘fact based’ news copy without third-party verification or forensic satellite imagery. Interestingly enough, the big unanswered question was why several international media outlets failed to pass muster by for not juxtaposing India’s official version or basic checks done with South Block that houses defence ministry on Raisina Hill. A story on similar lines filed by The New York Times team in South Asia with screaming headlines that India lost jets. This is contrary to Indian army version that all aircraft returned safely to their base. If Pakistan had such decisive victories shooting down as many as five Indian jets and global media networks reported this as the ‘absolute truth’ where’s the evidence? Did Pakistan present wreckage or pilot log information? Was evidence sought either from US security establishment, Chinese peddlers or Pakistani machinery? Is this objective ‘war reporting’ or part of the larger misinformation campaign launched by Islamabad, its backers and cahoots? Another write up by Independent claimed that India used Israeli-origin Harop drones against Pakistan in a provocative act insinuating recklessness. Again, no proof was offered, no drone telemetry was shown and no assessment was provided of the Harop’s actual precision capabilities. Were these articles meant to inform the reader—or feed into a broader narrative that paints India as a trigger-happy aggressor, irrespective of facts? Al Jazeera went a step further. It aired emotional testimonies from locals in Muridke who disputed India’s intelligence that a mosque in the town had doubled up as a terror training camp. Civilians deserve to be heard in a war situation. But, why was it that these newsmen with huge track record failed to piece together Muridke’s well-documented history as headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba. This is not classified information—it is part of the 26/11 Mumbai terror ATF reports and independent research. Why suppress this reality? Who benefits from painting that Muridke was a “victim”? Moving to the next peddler, The Guardian published a humanizing profile of Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir, portraying him as a composed and stabilizing force. What got omitted in the process was Munir’s leadership of Pakistani military that intensified support to jihadist proxies under the guise of “strategic depth”—a doctrine responsible for decades of regional instability. Why romanticize military leadership in a country where elected civilian voices are repeatedly silenced and the army retained unchecked power? Why does The Guardian avoid similar puff pieces for India’s civilian leadership during crisis management? In another article, The Guardian casually reported India’s accusations that Pakistani drones had attacked Indian civilian and military sites. It framed this as part of a “tit-for-tat” cycle—effectively equating defensive action with terrorist provocation. But how can a country’s retaliation after civilian deaths be presented as escalation? Is there no difference between attacking civilians and targeting terror camps based on intelligence? Meanwhile, The Washington Post centered its story on the theme of “misinformation”—but blurred the lines between Pakistan’s unverifiable claims and India’s official statements backed by data and press briefings. Does Washington Post really believe a constitutional democracy’s formal briefings are on par with WhatsApp forwards and anonymous leaks pushed by a military-intelligence complex with a known

Disinformation Media Misinformation News Pakistan

750

Demolishing Dawn’s Deception

Rohan Giri Dawn.com, the Pakistani news outlet that hosts Naqvi’s fabrications, has a long history of anti-Indian prejudice, regularly publishing articles that undermine Indian sovereignty and national interests. While it claims to support democracy, it rarely, if ever, scrutinizes Pakistan’s establishment with the same zeal as it does India. The hypocrisy is apparent. It is a journal that thrives on manufactured frustration with India while deliberately avoiding the dictatorial reality of its country. Jawed Naqvi’s most recent piece in The Dawn, “India’s left-right centenary,” is another example of selective indignation and intellectual dishonesty. It is deliberately written to support the myth that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is the face of fascism in India. In his distinctive manner, Naqvi weaves together hypocritical historical allusions, ideological prejudices, and plain lies to create a story that has been disproven time and time again but is still promoted by those who are unwilling to confront except facts. In addition to criticizing RSS, his piece highlights the larger intellectual squalor that plagues segments of the Indian left and its supporters abroad. Exposing his distortions is not only necessary but also morally required since, if allowed unchecked, lying takes on the appearance of reality. Naqvi’s argument’s basic tenet is a sloppy and false analogy between RSS and European fascism. It reveals a basic misinterpretation—possibly deliberate—of fascism as well as the intellectual and historical foundations of RSS. RSS has never aspired to be an authoritarian entity, in contrast to Hitler’s racial superiority or Mussolini’s corporatist state. It continued to be a sociocultural movement dedicated to self-reliance, national cohesion, and a continuation of civilization. The alleged similarities to European fascism are merely rhetorical instruments employed by people who wish to discredit the movement without actually participating in its activities. The irrationality of this accusation is further demonstrated by the fact that RSS has never supported racial supremacy, a one-party system, or a dictatorship—all of which are fundamental elements of fascism. Decentralization of authority, community-driven governance, and cultural revival—values that are directly in conflict with the core of fascist ideology—have, if anything, always been at the heart of RSS’s priorities. Naqvi’s assertion that Hitler and Mussolini were the inspiration for RSS is a well-worn fallacy that has been repeatedly disproved but is still brought up by individuals with political frustrations. The accusations are the result of selectively misinterpreting words made by specific people while disregarding the broader context. Distorting historical facts to suit a convenient political narrative is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Unlike the Communist parties, which notoriously followed the Soviet line even at the expense of national interests, the RSS has no history of working with colonial or imperialist regimes. In 1942, the Communists fiercely opposed the Quit India Movement, calling it “subversive,” at the direction of their bosses in Beijing and Moscow. They weakened the quest for independence, whereas RSS struggled diligently at the grassroots level to foster cultural awareness and a sense of pride in the country. If the study of treachery is the goal, then the Communist parties—not RSS—need to be examined. Communists teaching about nationalism is blatantly ironic. Communists were involved in violent uprisings, such as the Telangana Rebellion, which aimed to impose a Soviet-style revolution in India, while the RSS was working to unite the nation. Naqvi romanticizes this uprising as a noble peasant battle, but in reality, it was a violent and terrifying war. Under the guise of “revolution,” the Communist objective has always been to sow disarray, erode democratic institutions, and open the door for authoritarian control. It should come as no surprise that democracy has always suffered the most when Communists have taken control, whether in North Korea, the USSR, or Maoist China. The people’s rejection of their outdated, foreign-imposed ideology is what is causing their electoral downfall in India, not any alleged “fascist” repression. Naqvi’s attempts to demonize the RSS and cover up the wrongdoings of Indian Communists are blatant examples of selective amnesia. The CPI’s record is marked by obvious blemishes, including its ideological subservience to foreign powers, its unwillingness to support the 1962 war effort against China, and its vacillations on important national challenges. On the other hand, RSS has supported Indian army in needs, increased disaster relief, and supported national defense. These are not theoretical claims; they are demonstrable realities. Naqvi, however, avoids them out of convenience since they contradict his rhetoric. It is a flagrant fabrication to say that RSS and its inspired individuals were “apologists for colonialism.” The Communist leadership frequently undermined nationalist initiatives and remained ambivalent about India’s independence. While RSS karyakartas were actively involved in opposing British rule. The goal of the RSS was to create a robust, independent society that could fend off colonial domination on all fronts—politically, culturally, and economically. The Communist concern with quick and frequently violent upheavals was always in conflict with these long-term objectives. If we look at Jawed Naqvi explicitly, his history of anti-Hindu and anti-Indian hatred is well known. His publications frequently echo the talking points of Pakistan’s official narratives, raising doubts about his integrity, ethics and journalism. His previous pieces, such as “Hindutva Terrorism: Another View” and “The Crooked Timber of Modi’s India,” all follow the same formula: they show Muslims as unforgiving victims, Hindus as aggressors, and India as a country on the verge of collapse. The outrage is blatantly selective. He highlights every perceived or actual weakness in India’s democracy, but he says nothing about Pakistan’s deep state, its persecution of minorities, or its decline into political and economic catastrophe. Naqvi’s most recent article is not a rare occurrence; rather, it is a component of a larger trend—a network of authors and journals that want to discredit India’s revival of civilization by calling it “fascist.” A typical example of projection is this one. Extremist Islamism and Communism, I call that Islamo-leftist, the exact ideologies Naqvi espouses, have committed some of the most horrific crimes in recorded history. More than 100 million people have died as a result of communism worldwide, and extremist Islamist beliefs have sunk entire

India Hate Lab’s Flawed Report Lacks Credence

Disinformation Misinformation

525

India Hate Lab’s Flawed Report Lacks Credence

The report smacks of selective amnesia, prejudiced frameworks, overlooks rising crimes on Hindus, seeks to bring about divisiveness. India Hate Lab’s (IHL) 2024 report on Hate Speech Events claims that hate speech incidents increased significantly in the country and Hindu nationalist organizations, ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were behind these crimes. A closer examination however throws up methodological flaws in the ‘agenda’ based study laced with prejudices, dubiousness of the publishing institute. The report’s inconsistent data collection, selective incident framing, turbulent agenda of IHL and its parent group, Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) have to fore.

Disinformation Fact Sheet Hindus Human Rights Misinformation

610

Explainer: Ulterior Equality Labs, a controversial council member and Seattle City’s absurd anti-caste discrimination law

The Seattle City Council enacted an amendment on February 22, 2023, which added “caste” to its anti-discrimination statutes. This makes Seattle the first city outside of South Asia to pass anti-caste discrimination legislation. According to the ordinance (now the legislation), caste is a system of social stratification that has been prescribed by law, traditions, and religion. In contrast, the passage of this Act is predicated on the discrimination of Hindus under the guise of an effort to abolish discrimination. In the West, motivated and agenda-driven organisations like the Equality Labs and contentious council members have used the opportunity to rally support to malign Hindus and Hindu practises, furthering falsehoods about Hindus and fueling hatred towards Hindus. The legislation derives its rationale from a 2016 report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on minority issues, which asserts that caste is a global issue and cites Equality Labs which provides a local context and sees it as a human rights issue. However, the hasty ordinance rests its reasoning on the phenomenon, but fails to give statistical or scientific data to support its reasoning. As a result, the ordinance promotes institutionalise prejudice against a specific Hindu minority group. In this explainer, we analyse the anti-caste discrimination ordinance, its backers, and their possible reasoning for supporting an anti-Hindu and anti-Indian legislature.