Making of a Terrorist

As a small nation on the Indian Ocean. away from the continent of Asia, the people of Maldives interpreted the word terrorism, as the bomb attacks to public places or terror attacks like New York 9/11. They believed that the terrorism was something very devilish to mankind which destroy public properties and civilians to harm governments. While they had their our own belief on terrorism, there is no consistent legal consensus to define terrorism. Various legal systems and governments use different definitions on terrorism. As the Organization of the Islamic Conference demands "to distinguish between acts of terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples under foreign occupation and colonial or alien domination in the exercise of their right to self-determination”, from the drafted definition of United Nations, the UN is facing difficulties to conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism with a criminal law definition of terrorism. 

As the UN struggling to agree upon a single definition for terrorism, countries like Maldives used the term “terrorism” as a tool to get rid of political opponents. Their former President Mohamed Nasheed was convicted on terrorism charges earlier this year and many Maldivians are in a confusion of the interpretation of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist”, especially the 49% of voters who supported him for 2013 presidential elections are believing the classic phrase, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. President Nasheed was convicted for an official activity happened during the time of his presidency, and when he is the most popular person as an opposition, the charges against him from the government is understandable. While the world leading leaders opposing the conviction, the charismatic president is rated as the most popular terrorist in the country. As a developing nation, who use to follow the positive behaviors from the developing countries, the Maldives is now following the dirty tricks from conflicting nations to convict the political oppositions and passing sudden laws to nail down opposition activities. 
Anti-terrorism laws are one of the tool which troubled regimes used to maintain their power. Earlier this year the President of Egypt Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi signed new anti-terrorism law defining terrorism very broadly as “any act that disturbs public order with force.” Journalists are explicitly banned from reporting news that contradicts official government statements, and people found breaching the sweeping laws can face penalties ranging from hefty fines to lengthy prison sentences. Following the Egyptians, the Maldives parliament recently passed an anti-terrorism law which the general public is in a fear of the extreme power given in that law to the home minister. From these laws, it’s very clear that if you don’t bow to the government, you will be prosecuted. In Maldives, the simplest person today, can be rated as a terrorist tomorrow.

The word terrorist was initiated during late 18^th century from French terroriste from the latin word terror. The word was originally applied to supporters of the jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality. Whichever way the word initiated, various legal systems and governments use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged. Though Maldivian oppositions do not choose any violent means to fight for democracy and equality at present, most of them are in a fear to be charged under the harsh terrorism law without any act of terror.

Dictators are lonely

Its way past stone-age or late modern period and we are experiencing the 21st Century with the growing economic globalization and integration, the time of  conquerors like Genghis Khan, Thutmose III, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte are history.
Though most of the conquerors terrorized the people of other countries, their are leaders who terrorize the people of his own countries and expect them to be on their knees. With the changing world & its developments, the cruelty may differ, but the personality of these leaders may be similar to some extend.

Adolf Hitler's life lacked "before & "after" - everything that normally lends weight, warmth and diginity to a human life apart from politics and political passion. Hitler had no friends, He enjoyed sitting for hours on end with subordinates, drivers, bodyguards, secretaries - but he alone did all the talking. real friendship he avoided all his life. his relationships with men such as Goering, Goebhels or Himmler always remained cool and remote. Rohm the only one his paladins with whom he was on familiar terms from early days, he had shot, principally, no doubt, because he had became politically inconvenient. however, the old intimacy certainly proved no obstacle to his removal. if one reflects on Hitler's general shyness one is almost led to suspect that Rohm's superannuated claim to friendship was, if anything an additional reason for getting rid of him.