I have never been fond of the term ‘The War On Terror’. The reason? It probably has to do with the fact that those who coined the phrase are the world’s foremost militarists, have aided in the survival or emplacement of a variety of despotic regimes over the last sixty some odd years, have played a significant role in undermining the integrity of the United Nations over the last six years, have scoffed at the Geneva Conventions and international law because they have more planes, ships, rockets and guns than everyone else and yes – even sponsored terrorists.

There are those that will defend such things as necessities of circumstance. I wonder why those same people don’t afford others the same disgusting accommodation.

Sponsor terrorists, you say? You surely jest Mr. Good.

I am, in fact, far from joking. One such terrorist, Luis Posada, was recently set at liberty in the United States, who have refused to consider extradition requests from both Cuba and Venezuela, the latter in which he was legally imprisoned for years before escaping – which in truth was engineered by the Cuban American National Foundation.

Posada was a CIA asset in Latin America in the 1960’s, and perhaps beyond, and has been linked to the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed 73 innocent people. And yet, Posada, one of the principals in Ollie North’s Nicaraguan adventures in the 80’s, is a free man. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees are still being held captive at Guantanamo Bay beyond their rights under international and human rights laws.

They’re terrorists, though. Why in God’s name should they be afforded rights?

I have argued in the past that the demoralization of our principles with regards to our conduct in War 2.0 has stripped us of the moral high ground, if we ever held it in the first place. Again, there are those that disagree with that sentiment, most of whom don’t have to witness people being tortured. They can, quite comfortably, sit a world away and condone such actions and then, rather stunningly, claim that we should be ever vigilant of terrorist attacks on home soil.

And what, do you suppose, might inspire such attacks?

Certainly not our blatant hypocrisy. After all, we’re fighting monsters bent on global domination, the complete destruction of our way of life and the rest of that idiotic bather.

If you honestly believe that al-Qaeda has the power to undertake, or even influence, a ‘global uprising’ that would see us in chains, you are, no offense intended, delusional. Ironically, it’s not really your fault. Most of us have been so sold on the idea that it has almost become fact.

And God forbid any of us question that.

Turn on the news and the focus on the violence in Iraq is squarely placed on al-Qaeda’s shoulders, as if it represented the majority of the insurgency, as if were the United States to abandon Iraq it would somehow take power there. The truth, of course, is that it constitutes less than 7% of the insurgency, that it is disliked or disregarded by those that comprise its majority and were the United States to abandon Iraq, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia would be one of the first groups to be liquidated by far more predominant power blocks. It’s also important to remember that it didn’t even exist as an entity in Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion in 2003.

So where does this power come from? Where does the need to over emphasize their importance come from? In whose best interest is it in to ensure that they remain the focus, an ambiguous global boogey man, a group with which others can associate themselves, even if they have little to no connection with them in reality?

For all we know, when 9/11 was planned, Osama Bin Laden’s participation in the entire thing could have been nothing more than a nod of his head in agreement. Then again, he could have authored thousands of pages on how it was to be done. But the fact remains – who actually knows? Certainly not the likes of the CIA, that’s for certain. If that particular detail were a hard fact then you’d think they’d know enough to actually apprehend the man. Instead, he’s most likely somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan, protected by those loyal to him and, in all probability, the Pakistani ISI as well.

We can’t mess with Pakistan though, despite the fact that their intelligence apparatus operates without impunity or oversight, is beyond the control of the government, and despite the fact that its border with Afghanistan is dotted with radical religious schools that teach anything but the truth of Islam. We can’t mess with them because, unlike Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, they actually have the bomb. And that changes everything.

The bomb provides protection, and guess who solidified that reality?

The word terrorism is a façade. It is a façade that allows governments around the world to curtail social rights and freedoms, promote xenophobic attitudes and, above all else – justify militarization.

In the War 2.0 world there is no tank, no plane, no missile, nor any ship that can stop five determined madmen bent on blowing something up and killing people if they are determined to do so, no matter their religion, the colour of their skin, or their ideology. What is of importance in the War 2.0 world is how many planes, missiles, ships, tanks, and guns are we going to manufacture and convince ourselves we need to put into use before we figure that out? Because the truth is that twenty madmen bent on destruction can kill 3,000 people. But one madman with millions at his command can kill much more.

Zealotry knows no definitive boundaries, no matter how much we’d like to believe otherwise. And to say that any nation that possesses the military power and wherewithal to invade other nations at will based on lies, not to mention the nuclear capability to destroy it several times over, is beyond scrutiny only makes the cause of those who despise it all the more impassioned.

And so five men get together in some dark cave or on the banks of some remote river, and they plot. The question is, of the five, how many of their names do we already know?