Dec 24, 2021·edited Dec 24, 2021

In Pakistan, every act, in some cases non-violent protests against the government, can be charged under anti-terrorism laws - pretty vague definition; in fact, I believe the so-called war on global terror has given the states immense powers to label anyone a terrorist.

Secondly, violent extremism and terrorism are "conflated" because of the use of violence - I don't think there is any difference between terrorism and extremism if violence is removed/added from the equation, isn't that the case?

But what has always puzzled me is the difference between militants and terrorists - when/how does a militant become a terrorist: is it the use of violence against civilian that makes someone a terrorist because groups dubbed as militant often refrain from using force against civilians.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Yes you are right, the war on terrorism was problematic in many ways. Terrorism originally involved the attack on civilians, usually mass violence. That is not always the case for violent extremism. Yes it is the use of violence against civilians that makes the difference.

Expand full comment