Will defeating the Taleban actually stem terrorism or is political violence a fact of life in an unfair world? The West defines itself by choosing its enemies. After the Nazis, came the Soviets. The threat of communist Russia justified enormous spending by America that resulted in over a thousand nuclear tests being conducted (mainly by America) refining the deterrent or amplifying the madness?

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is still considered a deterrent. It is extremely wasteful of national resources in a time of great financial troubles. Using fear as a weapon against their own populations is hardly beneficial.

Conspiracy theorists come unstuck when they consider that Governments are evil. Although some Governments may indeed be evil, most are not. They do however act in the interests of their own nation.

How is the deterrent logical if you can not use it under any circumstances? How can war succeed if a “short” war extends to nine years of bloody vengeance for the acts of 19 people?

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?

In the latest message from Osama bin Laden, broadcast on Al Jazeera, bin Laden called Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip a ”holocaust” and lashed out at Arab governments that he said failed to stop the bloodshed in an audio recording, broadcast Saturday.

He also issued military orders for fighters to move from Iraq into Jordon and the West Bank – for an attack on Israel. And here is Israel’s problem – its incursion into Gaza in December pushed away progress on peace settlements by reacting with anger and extreme force. Their logic seemed the same as the Bush rationale given for invading Iraq. Fear of what these missiles may one day bring.

Although the Hamas missiles were relatively puny when compared to the bombs dropped by Israel, it does seem that Israel want to make the penalty so severe that Hamas recalculate their strategy.

Is it now inevitable that as the US focus is lifting on Iraq it will it feel forced to invade Jordon to protect Israel? Or will the USA continue to build bridges with Syria and Jordon and by supporting better border control – avoid the consequences of infiltration by “terrorist” mercenaries?

War is negative. It takes about 3 generations before any sanity is recovered into a war ravaged world. We hear how America does not look after its returned wounded with some horror, but it is the shattered lives of the innocent bystanders that can never be recovered that makes war totally unjustifiable unless there is simply no other way.

Israel could have asked Hamas to stop sending their futile missiles by addressing the grievance of a complete lack of diplomacy between the two governments. You can not have democracy and predetermination. The Palestinians voted Hamas in, and the Bush administration and Israel both blindly refused to deal with Hamas as they had committed acts of war. As Hamas is a legitimate government these are no longer acts of terrorism, Israel should have negotiated with Hamas. Osama bin Laden has not been voted into power and yet assumes leadership of a fanatical death cult pretending to be devout Muslims. His edicts of war are encouraging acts of terrorism, and not negotiating with Osama bin Laden is completely understandable.

Modern world leadership requires complicity of the people. Fanatical devotion to a cause that will never be achieved is really wasting the time and energy of a world that is sick and tired of random death being dished out like foul medicine. Osama bin Laden has no mandate over anyone and for him to be called a “leader” implies he has a “people”. He does not. He may have a private army and he may hire mercenaries, but he is not a leader. He is wreaking the lives of millions of people by fostering war in Afghanistan both internally and with both superpowers of the day.

Imagine for a second a discontinuance of his death acceleration programme for Muslims. Schools could be providing the children of opium farmers skills that are beneficial to humanity.

For a Muslim to support the opium trade as a way of financing pointless war is evidence of evil. If the West stopped buying heroin the economy of Afghanistan would not support its people. So in a way drug addicts are keeping Afghan children alive so they can become suicide bombers?

If Osama bin Laden does not negotiate peace it will continue to be a tragedy for the Afghani children and for generations to come.

Israel has demonstrated it can defend itself. Palestine has demonstrated that it can not, except my futile efforts. Israel made no friends by going into Gaza. Israel makes no friends by not creating a state of Palestine with rules of peaceful co-existence instead of siege.

For that to occur, peaceful civilized leaders in the Palestinian world are required. This will require an act of extraordinary generosity that will never be forgotten. If Israel were able to make peace and ensure equality with the Palestinian people, it may not stop the ravings of Osama bin Laden. But then his proclamations would then be his own undoing.

By going to war with him, the USA has effectively elevated his standing to that of a cultural hero. A hero he is not. He causes suffering and death of innocents.

His continued aggressive stance in the face of radical changes in American politics belies a man without real purpose. Following his logic and edicts involves his foot soldiers in crimes against humanity and for that they may never get to the paradise of their beliefs. It therefore serves the purposes of Osama bin Laden to avoid educating the children of Islam or they may work out that he is simply misleading them.