According to the German sociologist Ulrich Beck, we are living in the Risk Society. Part of this is our vulnerable open societies and those that want to take advantage of the vulnerabilities and use violence to change society. There is a constant fight and race between the authorities, law enforcement, security services, and groups/individuals using terrorism. It is now truer than ever many types of measures and approaches are needed to prevent and counter the threat. One part of the challenge is how we conceptualize the threat through our use and choice of words. Concepts and ideas are changing our societies and our perception of the terrorism risk, especially due to the Internet, which includes the 24/7 news cycle that has strongly influenced our society.
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.
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.
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.
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.