In the current context, however, state terrorism is apparently much more difficult to recognize. Discussions of terrorism in the social sciences and philosophy tend to focus on non-state terrorism. In common parlance and the media, based on the meaning of the word, terrorism is usually expected to be an action of non-state agents. If it is suggested that the army or security services are doing the same things that, when done by insurgents (such as the Taliban, ISIS), are invariably described and condemned as terrorist, the usual response is: “But these are actions carried out on behalf of the state, in pursuit of legitimate state goals: the army, which wages war, or the security services, which repel threats to our security. 'We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As far as everyday discourse and the media are concerned, this can perhaps be explained by two related trends. The first is the widely held assumption that, at least normally, what the state does has a certain kind of legitimacy, while those who question it tend to be perceived as forces of disorder and destruction, committed to clearly unjustifiable goals. The other is the ordinary double of the form 'us against them'. In states facing an insurrection, the public and the media find themselves on the side of the state. This tends to affect usage. One consequence of this bias is that when guerrillas abroad are sponsored by Western powers, CNN and the BBC tend to call them paramilitaries and freedom fighters rather than terrorists. The focus on non-state terrorism has a different explanation: that whatever the similarities between state terrorism and non-state terrorism, the differences are more obvious and instructive. Walter Laqueur, a leading authority in the history and sociology of terrorism, tells us that the two "perform different functions and manifest themselves in different ways" and that "nothing is gained by ignoring the specifics of violence." If some acts of state agents are fundamentally similar and display the same morally relevant traits as the acts of non-state agencies commonly referred to as terrorist, this will clearly determine our moral understanding and evaluation of both. Thus philosophers have been less reluctant than political scientists to recognize and discuss state terrorism. State-sponsored terrorism is worse, from a moral point of view, than terrorism carried out by non-state agents. The recent new exposé in Pakistan Today proving that the murder of Pakistan's first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was, in fact, an American-backed terrorist act is a perfect example of this argument. The US declassified these documents and ensured that it was meddling in Pakistan, literally from the beginning. The targets, as reports suggest, were Iranian oil, as they always have been. State-sponsored terrorism is much more correct, more heavily sponsored and more surgical than the religious terrorism that confounds the Muslim world today. in discriminatory behavior towards Muslim minorities in the Western world. The FBI's existing empirical literature is based on evidence indicating a dramatic increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes following the September 11 attacks, not only in the United States but also beyond its borders. Overall, 9/11 fueled acts of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim aggression and hostility in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The events of September 11 helped create.