The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). So what constitutes terrorism or who a terrorist is, is to a good extent within the context of the accuser. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents. Such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state such as in the case of SPLA/M in south Sudan and the Maoists of India. That notwithstanding, I feel compelled to disabuse the prevailing myth that the act of terrorism as a rule, lacks ethical basis and legitimacy. The use of terror has been the undergirding pre-independence war strategy of many Free States, Democracies and Liberal Cultures of the world today. Such as the Maroons of West Indies, the Irish Republican Army, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Cuba and Chile to mention a few. Let me quickly add that these examples stand in stark contrast to the kinds of Joseph Kony (LRA), the Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, Musa Kamara and Bush. The Mao Mao independence movement was labeled as terrorists by the British, who violated her sovereignty; coerced and exercised hegemony over their land and natural resources, the British colonialists called the ZANU PF freedom fighters of Zimbabwe terrorist, King Leopold (a Belgian) was notorious for chopping off the limbs of villagers in the Congo who fell short of weekly work rations on his farms. When the native groups rebelled against his rule they were considered infidels who were rebelling against godly authority. In fact, until as recently as July 1 2008, Nelson Mandela was still on the US terrorist list. To the masses of the exploited, these groups and their leaders were Freedom Fighters. I don’t site these examples to present terrorism as a red herring. No, terrorism is not a myth…. It is real. But contrary to popular opinion, its’ end point and motivations are varied, and merit some close attention. There is a general sense in the Islamic world that the Western world is bent on hogging it. A good number of my Moslem friends point to the carnage and apartheid in Palestine, the outright belligerence by the West against Iran’s nuclear ambitions; even though it has said that it was meant for useful purposes. They feel enraged by the incessant balkanization of Islam with radical jihadism by Western media, America and Britain’s overt complicity in the subjugation of weaker Islamic states and the reckless branding of an entire geographic region as constituting the “axis of evil”. They point to the banning of the wearing of scarves by women in French schools, and of the mounting of minarets in Switzerland as symptomatic of the Islamaphobia of the West, and indicative of a tacit resentment of the rapid spread of Islam in the Western hemisphere. These are no more than a random mention of some of their concerns. Indeed they have more. But perhaps the Moslem world could do more to state its’ case, and by this I appeal to the open mind. How can we justify the pervasive practice of lynching, stoning, canning and amputation of liberals, Christians and non-Moslems in Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere under Sharia, and condemn the denial of our rights to liberal democratic freedoms we expect to enjoy when we go to the West? Whose responsibility is it to curb the radical elements within the faith, whose motivations stem from doctrinal formulations which are widely perceived by some very enlightened clerics that I have met, as ethically ambiguous and inconsistent with the Holy teachings of Islam? How does the Moslem community deal with seemingly obsolete cultural practice of honor killing and mutilation of women, often by the complainant who exercises the multiple authority of complainant, judge and jury in the matter? I recently saw the report on how a young woman in Afghanistan had her nose chopped-off because she turned down the marriage proposal of a man. The man sought to justify his act within the context of honor. I hope the police don’t buy it. The Klu Klux Klan, a racist white extremist group which has for centuries perpetuated violence against dark skin people and other minority Americans, freely meet, plot and match the streets of America in their ghostly hoods and continue to strike fear and inflict psychological violence on the populace. Even as I write this article, minority groups are confronted daily with the trauma of eminent murder and torture by this group. Several other groups still caught up in the nostalgic blues of the Jim Crow era, such as the Skin-heads and the White Citizens Council operate in brutal solidarity to subvert the rights of innocent citizens and foreigners alike, ironically, in that country which has unilaterally declared war on terror and is on the hunt for terrorists. The dwindling hope in the unipolar constituent of the United States of America, of leading the new global culture of dialogue and persuasive concessions for the advancement of world peace, was given new impetus in the rhetoric of Barrack Obama. It was that wave of change and euphoria which swept the Democrats in U.S to power. Personally I sense in him a genuine desire to neutralize the stench which broods over America’s image globally, post Iraq. But the real possibility of an air strike on Iranian nuclear and military installations, the covert operations by private security companies like black water in several countries in service of U.S interest, the delayed withdrawal of U.S troupes from Iraq and the extra deployment of troupes to Afghanistan, deflate the hope of a new leadership paradigm of mutual respect among nations led by the only Super Power in the world, and numbs the overwhelming resolve of the silent billions who hold their breath to sigh-in a new dawn of multiculturalism and world citizenship. So, perhaps the firefighting approach to the threats posed by Umar Farouk AbdulMuttalab would only obscure the real threats to today’s civilization, which in my humble view are; the support of injustice, the punitive unilateralism, Poverty, ignorance and the cultural myopia which seeks new results from old ways of thinking. Until these factors are given honest attention, the dream of lasting peace would remain, but only remain a fleeting illusion to be pursued, to borrow the words of H.I.M Haile Selasie. Author: Sedem Ofori