In his latest column “Blurring the lines” (The Express Tribune, March 13, 2016), Yaqoob Khan Bangash touched upon a very crucial subject that deals with the terminology of ‘Muslim extremism’. He argued very convincingly in support of his point of view by questioning the very notion that tends to label a person “extremist” who considers Taliban as freedom fighters. To him, nobody is an extremist as long as he does not commit any violence. And that makes sense, but what about those whom we call abettors and supporters of terrorists? His column is not very clear on this subject because his definition of extremism does not go beyond this limit: “We are only against those who harm or kill others because they do not conform to their views and who want to overthrow the state — these are the extremists we are fighting.” This principal, if applied in letter and spirit, is bound to create a situation where all forms of non-violent supports to extremism will have full freedom in the country. First and foremost buyers of this philosophy would be those political and religious parties that carry a soft corner for militants. Can the wave of terrorism continue in the country for more than 15 years without a network of well-organised support base? Only a naïve person can believe this. History is replete with events that initially began as a non-violent agenda, and later ended up generating mass movement that legitimised acts of violence leading to deaths, destructions, and social discriminations. An excerpt from Paul Krugman’s column “Trump is no accident” (The New York Times, March 14, 2016) can be a good example of how words and sentences, in spoken or written form, can work as a covert support to a campaign that carries a hidden agenda of spreading hatred within society. In a presidential debate, a Republican candidate, Marco Rubio, made a comment on Barack Obama that said: “Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.” This comment, in Krugman’s opinion, is not as simple as it appears. To him, it implies that “All the bad things Republicans claim have happened under President Obama — in particular, America’s allegedly reduced stature in the world — are the result of a deliberate effort to weaken the nation.” A kind of deliberate attempt by the Republicans to hide the crime of a white, former president of the USA, George W Bush Jr, who invaded Iraq on unproven allegations of amassing chemical weapons that led the world into an un-ending wave of terrorism. Incidentally, he was a Republican too. Another example of such an ideological support can be cited from a local newspaper report that appeared soon after the recovery of the abducted Shahbaz Taseer, son of Salmaan Taseer. An Urdu daily reported that Shahbaz has now become a very religious person offering prayers five times a day, and leads a pious life. The message it conveyed was: forget about the suffering misery, and pain of the last four and half years of Shahbaz’s captivity and think of the nice outcome of this abduction that has transformed him into a ‘pious’ person.” No support could be as innovative and effective as this one that turned a crime into piety. It was the same mindset that pulled an unprecedented mass support to a crime that was staged by the supporters of Mumtaz Qadri, the convicted killer of former governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer. Over a hundred thousand people were gathered at his funeral in Rawalpindi and almost a similar crowd was in attendance on third-day procession in Karachi. The purpose was to prove that the decision of the Supreme Court was unjust and the murder of Taseer was religiously justified. While some of these extremist behaviours may not be illegal per se, their insidious effects could be seen. An Ahmadi was stabbed to death in Sheikhupura on the day of Qadri’s funeral. One week later, a suicide blast at a session court in Charsadda was claimed by a splinter group of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar to avenge Qadri’s hanging. On March 23, a ‘mentally unstable’ person was killed in Charsadda on an accusation of blasphemy. It took no time for terrorists and religious parties to appear on the same page. The terminology of extremist is defined as “a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.” Since the above examples reflect a mindset that supports or advocates extreme action, no terminology is more appropriate to them than extremist. It is not the act of terrorism alone that we are fighting against but the mindset as well that provides ideological justification to the heinous crimes. While the army is fighting a war against terror, the missing link of our counter terrorism policy is an effective counter narrative that can expose the ideological extremism thriving in different shapes and forms in the country. It is a challenge highly unachievable in an environment where the killers of innocent children of Army Public School (APS) are hailed as ‘freedom fighters’ and extrajudicial killings of people are considered justifiable. What message do such supports convey to the people? Nothing except that these crimes are socially acceptable. Crimes like terrorism, honour killing, violence against women, and bonded labour are perpetuated because we, as a society, fail to condemn them. The case of the Lal Masjid cleric is a good example of how arrogantly he continued refraining from condemning the most heart-rending massacre of the innocent children at the APS. We cannot win this war against terror without bringing all pieces of extremism together and drawing a policy, owned by all government institutions, to deal with them collectively. The role of opinion makers is as crucial as the role of other institutions. The write is Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Research & Security Studies, Islamabad