The beginnings of terrorism are a complex subject that is frequently cloaked in misconceptions in the vast texture of human history. Contrary to popular assumption, the origins of terrorism do not lie only in Asia; rather, they may be traced back to the chronicles of European history. To comprehend today’s expression of terrorism, one must travel through the Reign of Terror in France, the creation of modern terrorism in the mid-twentieth century, and the complex dynamics of jihad. This story is more than just a timeline of events; it is an investigation of the interconnection of global geopolitics, the consequences of which continue to affect our world today. The Reign of Terror (1793-1794) during the French Revolution was a seminal point in history, as it was during this period that the term “terrorism” first appeared. It was used to define the revolutionary government’s tactics, which used fear and violence as tools of control. However, this early definition differs greatly from the present understanding of terrorism as acts perpetrated by non-state actors for political goals. The seeds sown during the Reign of Terror laid the groundwork for the emergence of this phenomenon. The 1940s witnessed a transformative period that laid the foundation for current terrorism. In search of a homeland, Jewish factions in Palestine turned to violence against British authorities, providing one of the earliest examples of the current use of the term “terrorism.” This represented a paradigm shift, and the pattern of terrorism shifted toward non-state groups pursuing political objectives through violent means. The rise of anarchist and nationalist movements in Europe throughout the late 1800s contributed to the development of terrorism. These groups, driven by fanatical ideologies, prepared the ground for unrest in the 20th century. Terrorist organizations like the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and the Red Brigades in Italy have grown significantly as a result of decolonization and Cold War tensions. The increasing use of terrorism as a tactic had a lasting impression on the political scene. A call for the United States to avoid extremes in its approach to terrorism resonates loudly. In his book “Terrorism: Theirs and Ours,” Eqbal Ahmed highlights how the US supported governments that frequently supported terrorism during the Cold War. America’s relationships with tyrants, ranging from Somoza to Netanyahu and Fulgencio Batista, transpired against the backdrop of a Rand Corporation research that found that half of the terror attacks had no apparent political motive. This disclosure casts doubt on oversimplified theories and emphasizes the complexity of the causes underlying terrorism. The 1980s marked a significant juncture with the resurgence of jihad, in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union’s intervention prompted the United States, utilizing Pakistan as a conduit, to launch a jihad against godless communism. This strategic move, however, inadvertently revived a concept that had been dormant for centuries in Islamic history. The consequences of this revival are palpable in the contemporary landscape, particularly in Pakistan, where the toll of terrorism is measured not just in lives lost but in economic and social upheaval. The financial division reports that Pakistan has lost hundreds of military and civilians in terrorist attacks, with direct and indirect costs totalling US$ 123.13 billion. We continue to regularly face attacks. The terrorists utilized the newest US equipment and infrared sights in the massive attack that occurred in DI Khan recently, as has been observed in previous years. Eqbal Ahmed’s insights shed light on the dangers of double standards in dealing with terrorism. The Cold War era saw the U.S. condoning terrorist regimes while positioning itself as a global arbiter against terrorism. This duality, rooted in geopolitical considerations, has far-reaching implications. Double standards not only undermine moral authority but also contribute to a perpetuation of violence, as seen in the tumultuous aftermath of Cold War alliances. The absence of a revolutionary ideology post-World War II has been central to the phenomenon of victim terrorism. Unlike the highly selective and sociologically informed revolutionary terror of the past, victim terrorism lacks a cohesive ideological framework. Eqbal Ahmed highlighted the shift in the post-World War II period, where acts of terror become indiscriminate and devoid of the strategic, limited character seen in earlier revolutionary movements. Endless confrontations between European revolutionary groups-such as the battle between anarchists and Marxists-are no strangers to students of revolutionary theory. However, Marxists have always emphasized sociological and psychological selectivity in their sophisticated approach to revolutionary terror. The point is obvious: refrain from acts such as kidnapping, hostage-taking, and airline hijacking. Don’t use suicide bombs, and stay away from mosques and other places of worship. Though their methods were noticeably different, great revolutions including the Chinese, Vietnamese, Algerian, and Cuban ones did use terrorism. Their acts were controlled, extremely restricted, and marked by a rigorous societal selection, even if they were nevertheless awful. The need to be heard, a potent mix of anger and helplessness, emerges as a recurring theme in the evolution of terrorism. Battered individuals and nations, feeling marginalized and disenfranchised, often resort to violence as a means of asserting agency and seeking retribution. This psychological underpinning manifests in the form of terrorist acts, a striking parallel to the cycle of abuse observed in the trajectory from battered children to abusive parents and violent adults. Furthermore, some terrorist group uses the idea of Jihad as a means of obtaining religious cover. In its truest sense, jihad means “to struggle,” encompassing both violent and non-violent forms. The small jihad involves fighting, while the big jihad centres on the struggle with oneself. Eqbal Ahmed emphasized the historical disappearance of international jihad in the four centuries preceding its sudden revival in the 1980s with American support. The interconnectedness of global issues comes to the fore in Eqbal’s critique of double standards. A call for the United States to avoid extremes in its approach to terrorism resonates loudly. Condoning terror in one geopolitical context while condemning it in another perpetuates a cycle of violence and undermines efforts to combat terrorism globally. The call for an even-handed approach is not just a moral imperative but a pragmatic necessity in a world that is increasingly interconnected and interdependent. The writer is a freelance columnist.