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 in the media, terrorism is generally considered an action of non-state agents, given the meaning of the term. If one suggests that the military or security services do the same things that, when done by insurgents (like the Taliban, ISIS), are invariably described and condemned as terrorists, the usual response is : “But these are actions done in the name of the state, pursuing legitimate state objectives: the army, which wages war, or the security services, which repel threats to our security. “Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original Essay When it comes to everyday discourse and the media, this can perhaps be explained by two related trends. One is the widely shared assumption that, at least normally, what the state does has some form of legitimacy, while those who challenge it tend to be seen as forces of disorder and destruction, engaged in clearly unjustifiable activities. The other is the ordinary duplicate of the “us versus them” form. In states facing insurgency, the general public and media side with the state. This tends to affect usage. A consequence of this propensity is that when guerrillas abroad are sponsored by Western powers, CNN and the BBC tend to characterize them as paramilitaries and freedom fighters rather than terrorists. The emphasis on non-state terrorism receives a different explanation: whatever the similarities between state terrorism and non-state terrorism, the dissimilarities are more striking and more instructive. Walter Laqueur, a leading authority on the history and sociology of terrorism, tells us that the two "perform different functions and manifest themselves in different ways" and that "there is no point in ignoring the specificities of violence." Whether certain acts of state agents are fundamentally similar and exhibit the same relevant moral characteristics as the acts of non-state agencies commonly referred to as terrorists 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, morally speaking, than terrorism committed by non-state agents. The recent expose on Pakistan Today showing that the murder of Pakistan's first-ever Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was in fact a US-backed terrorist act is a perfect example of this argument. The United States declassified these documents and assured that they had meddled with Pakistan, literally from the beginning. The targets, as reports suggest, were Iranian oil, as has always been the case. State terrorism is much more correct, more heavily sponsored and more surgical than the religious terrorism which now confounds the Muslim world. Muslim minorities after 9/11 The attacks of September 11 had a direct and significant impact on people's attitudes, leading to an increase in discriminatory behavior towards Muslim minorities in the Western world. The FBI's existing empirical literature draws on evidence that indicates a dramatic increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes following.