0 ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM Someone said, “ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM. SO WE HATE ALL MUSLIMS, WHETHER HE IS BEARDED OR CLEAN SHAVED WHETHER SHE IS IN HIJAB OR WITHOUT HIJAB.” Of course its quiet easy to say that “All terrorist are Muslim’’. But whenever it comes into the terms of facts and figure then I think it will be much more easy to say that “ARE ALL TERRORISTS MUSLIM’’? Let’s analyze then: WHAT IS TERRORISM The root of the word terrorism is taken from a Latin term that means “to frighten”. It became part of the phrase terror cimbricus, which was used by ancient Romans in 105BC to describe the panic that ensued as they prepared for an attack by a fierce warrior tribe. Many years later that fact was taken into account during the bloody reign of Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. Terror is a feeling of intense and overwhelming fear, and that is exactly what Robespierre brought to the people of France. Following the execution of Louis XVI, Robespierre was made the de facto leader of the French government. He was a member of the Jacobins political party, and used his new found power to attack his political enemies, the Girondins. Thousands of people were executed at Robespierre’s request, and it became one of the bloodiest times in French history. Most of the victims were beheaded using the guillotine (BEHEADING), which was often referred to by the title “The National Razor”. Any opposition to the power of the Jacobins was immediately squashed, and people lived in fear of retribution. 1 The National Razor Guillotine ( http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/origins-of-the-term-terrorism) This period of time was referred to as the ‘Reign of Terror’, largely in homage to terror cimbricus. After nearly a year, the Terror came to an end and Robespierre was overthrown and executed. When it was over, people started to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe a person who abuses power through the threat of force. A journalist in the United Kingdom wrote about the ‘Reign of Terror’ in The Times newspaper, and created the word terrorism as a way to describe the actions of Robespierre. The word became so popular it was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary three years later, basically to define those political leaders or politics which abuses power through the threat of force so that people could remain loyal to him either thorough fear or logic. Today the term terrorism has basically the same meaning, although it has become better defined over the years. It is now used to describe those intentional acts of violence that are designed to harm or kill citizens in order to intimidate others. This clearly clarifies that ‘Terror and terrorism’ is the monopoly of Politics and Politicians. 2 MODIFICATIONS IN DEFINITION The definition of terrorism gradually started to become controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, which is different from general crime and criminals. But in 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism as criminal acts: Those Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them [1994 United Nations Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annex to UN General Assembly resolution 49/60, "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism", of December 9, 1994, UN Doc. A/Res/60/49] Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political or religious aim. In recent times, terrorism is considered a major threat to society and therefore illegal under anti-terrorism laws in most jurisdictions. The war crime under the laws of war when used to target non-combatants, such as civilians, neutral military personnel, or enemy prisoners of war, also comes under the purview of terror and terrorism [Hoffman, 3 Bruce (1998). Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press. p. 32. ISBN 0-231-11468-0. Also review in "Inside Terrorism". The New York Times] A broad array of political organizations has practiced terrorism to promote their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left- wing political parties, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. The symbolism of terrorism can exploit human fear to help achieve these goals. [ "Terrorism". Encyclopedia Britannica. p. 3. Retrieved 2015-01-07. and Ruby, Charles L. (2002). "The Definition of Terrorism". Retrieved 2010-02-22.] Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people [Robert Mackey (November 20, 2009). "Can Soldiers Be Victims of Terrorism?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01-11. Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, in order to spread fear through a whole population and force the hand of its political leaders.] for political purposes in such a way as to create a spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist"[ Crenshaw, Martha, Terrorism in Context, p. 77.] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869. [Arnold, Kathleen R., ed. (September 23, 2011). Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia II. ABC-CLIO, LLC. p. 461. ISBN 978-0-313-37521-7.] In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating (threating) a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". [ UN Reform". United Nations. 2005-03-21. Archived from the original on 2007-04-27. Retrieved2008-07-11. The second part of the report, entitled "Freedom from Fear backs the 4 definition of terrorism–an issue so divisive agreement on it has long eluded the world community–as any action "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"] LEGAL & ILLEGALITY OF TERRORISM On whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing non-combatants, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good that could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism". Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so". [Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge., Peter Steinfels (March 1, 2003). "Beliefs; The just-war tradition, its last-resort criterion and the debate on an invasion of Iraq". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-01- 11.] In his book Inside ‘Terrorism’ Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted: On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has 5 written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator (offender), the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; then it is not terrorism. The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter”. [ Paul Reynolds, quoting David Hannay, Former UK ambassador (14 September 2005). "UN staggers on road to reform". BBC News. Retrieved2010-01-11. This would end the argument that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ...] This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.