Terrorism fails to exert political pressure on governments, as nobody in the world wants random acts of violence to take the lives of their children, or indeed themselves.

Where terrorism has succeeded is forcing Western governments to take actions that limit freedoms – but what the Osama bin Laden mentality that has gripped the radical Islamic extremes seems to not understand – is that the West was already reluctantly accepting of restrictions imposed historically (e.g. during WWII) and is better setup (especially the UK) for the police to keep watch on its citizens.

There is however an assumption that these restrictions, inspections and limitations on real freedom would be released once the terrorist threat is over. The day Osama bin Laden is caught and tried may be the token end that the voters are waiting for, but it probably means nothing; now that the Western governments have committed acts of war to try and prevent the terrorism threat. There is a growing discomfort that the acts of government are becoming the default stance and that freedom itself is being redefined to mean “freedom within limits”.

What I find truly disturbing is not the 2 million video cameras in London, or scanners that can see through my clothing, but the reaction of people to each other evident in today’s media. The judgementalism reflects a shift where distrust between people is the assumed stance and everyone is seen as a potential threat.

Our political forums are unbalanced, there is no respect for political leadership and with only more of the same on offer, a lack of imagination seems to have gripped the world in an economic cold war where bankers claim a natural right to 7 figure salaries and their actions put 5% more of the population out of employment and countless numbers of lives are damaged as foreclosures ruin the future hopes of far too many.

This we did all by ourselves, without the prodding of the insane suicide bombers. There is simply no heroics in those kind of tactics. Nor in the response to them.

A better path is the realisation of the great beauty of difference.

When a flaw in the protective shield (that makes airflight possible without holding your breath) exposed American flights a new kind of designer suicide bomber with a concealed and undetectable chemistry set to be set off by an “emergency injection”, the media in the UK highlighted how detailed scanners would fail to show such kit, but would expose peoples’ genitals to the security police. Making people the “apparent victims” because they are viewed as a parade of pornographic images is what the prurient minds of a few are most concerned about? Is that their response?

I avoided international travel for eight years not so much for a fear of terrorists, but the sense that being intimately searched at every border under the watchful eye of machine gun toting security could result in a mistake. But now, that the bullet has been bit and I have travelled to the UK, I find that the real response of this Government is far less intrusive or threatening than when I travelled before 9/11.

If one’s naughty bits are exposed in a virtual lineup parading past the border, then so be it. Security is not infallible, but so long as the scanning of human bodies is not harmful, then it should be employed. Discreet methods to make things harder for the wannabe terrorist are better than being pointlessly delayed and questioned or blown up.

In other words, it a response. President Obama decided that it is not acceptable to rely upon failure and passengers to tackle security and has taken an immediate action by ordering air marshals on all flights into America. And now he has ordered security reviews and responded in such a fashion that it is obvious that he intends to disrupt the threat to public safety that increasingly sophisticated attacks may bring. Thinking ahead of the plotters is the trick and when a politician takes responsibility for solving the previously unsolvable, the public is rightfully reassured to get on with business as usual.

The unacceptable risk of being exposed to acts of war carried out upon the innocent by people who can only be perceived as totally insane or brainwashed far exceeds any fear that security police may view the bodies of the public in a virtual invasive search does provide a better rationale that will have a side effect of reducing the ability of idiots to stuff their bodies with condom wrapped drug contraband as well.

So long as there are no adverse effects, it is not a threat to freedom. And when a politician takes responsibility, there is hope of real progress. Terrorism is a serious wound, triage involves stemming blood loss, while the antibiotics take more time to be effective.

Let us hope that the Obama responsibility extends to winning the war by reducing the motivators that allow insanity to prevail. Terrorism is a terrible sickness that has befallen some of the most committed idiots who’s goals can not be realised because the forces that will act against them are not only far stronger, smarter and increasingly evolving (also), but it now has a leadership that understands responsibility.

The year 2000 was a fine boundary, because of the mathematics of dates. 2010 seems a little more mathematical, in that the century count is double that of the year count. 2000 however exposed a hole in thinking shared by everyone who entered a two figure date into their computers. Time marches on, and it is necessary to record the details.

The 2000 decade was the decade that Tony Blair and GW Bush decided that the Geneva Convention prevented them from dealing with the threat of Iraq. There is a movement to bring them to justice as their actions were not legal or desirable. They appear to have been politically driven to protect energy consumption by Americans as that was the “engine of the world” economically. How wrong could they be? Far from being an engine, the West was empowering China and India by overextending greed.

And that is why the war in Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. If a war was to be fought in Iraq, it’s timing was wrong. Iraq was the barrier between Israel and Iran, and two “dangerous” countries who were at war with each other for years seems more threatening than one tamed and one restricted. By weakening Iraq militarily, there is a weaker buffer zone separating Iran and Israel.

It is an imbalance of credibility to claim that certain countries have a “right” to nuclear weapons, and others do not. Nobody has a right to murder all life on the planet.

And when the US withdraws from Iraq, Iran is far more likely to try and annex the Shi’ite zones of Iraq and thus raise the stakes by presenting a more polarised fundamentalist Sunni and Shi’ite division. Iran lies between the two GW Bush war zones. The Taleban are anti-Shia, therefore America has strengthened Iran and is in essence attempting to defeat Sunni fundamentalism with its continued war against the Taleban. Afghanistan is 99% Sunni, therefore acceptance of the Taleban is a very likely consequence of the failing war effort. That is why the Obama administration are ramping up the war against Sunni extremism. Iran is being defended by America. The rational however for Iran’s nuclear capability is clear.

The cause of international law and justice continues to be of terrible importance. The injustice of the Iraq invasion is reflected by a new generation of terrorists, some home grown. The unpredictable threat of a suicide bomber on air-plane flights is inviting Western governments to screen the skin surface of all passengers, so Al Qaeda has now managed to terrorise huge numbers of Muslims.

This insensitivity is due to the nature of Islamic militancy: most evident in the Teleban movement. Young men controlled the government of Afghanistan with ultra strict Sharia law enforcement. When the toll of continuous war is considered, it is no wonder that the Taleban arose. They were the children of the war with the USSR.

The absence of justice for reckless or ill considered actions by these leaders implies that they were infallible and somehow above all that. Remember, justice is a balance and if Blair or Bush were to be found not guilty of war crimes, at least it would explain their rationale. And if they were found guilty?