I disagree with both Sabria Jawhar and S.H. Moulana on their stand, “When can we call a 17-year-old-white kid a terrorist?” (May 27 and May 30) wherein they questioned why the trigger-happy Christian white boys going on shooting spree in the US schools are not termed as terrorists while the recently converted Muslim black men who stabbed and beheaded a British soldier were immediately declared as a terrorists. Let us see what this term “terrorist” stands for: According to the Oxford Dictionary, a terrorist is a person (or organization) who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

And “terrorism” is defined as the unofficial and unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Don’t we know that whether its 9/11 or the Madrid and London bombings or the shooting in Boston, Fort Hood or Oslo, 11/26 Mumbai attacks, bombing of Samjhauta Express, suicide bombing by LTTE in Sri Lanka — they are all terrorist activities by different groups in pursuit of political aims.

It is safe to presume that none of the terrorists who participated in these horrific acts were deranged as they were acting with the knowledge and the intention to advance their perceived missions.

I also see nothing wrong with the prosecutors’ attempt to convince the court that Oslo murderer Anders Behring Breivik is insane. It is the job of lawyers to defend their clients; the court’s final verdict is more important than the court proceedings themselves.

I also found a few contradictions in Sabria’s article: On the one hand, she persuades us to believe that the mental health of the duo is sound but at the same time informs us that they were associated with extremists.

Masood Khan

Jubail