I had a chance for some thinking on this issue over the last week while I travelled to the USA. A few points came to mind about US self-centredness and uneveness of application of the doctrines of consistent defence against terrorism. I will illustrate this with the case of Northern Ireland.

During the 70's, 80's and 90's Britain fought an intense and dirty war against the separatist factions of the IRA and the extremists of the "loyalists". Both engaged in terror tacticts to achieve their ends, with strikes against soft targets in Northern Ireland, and in Mainland UK, with many innocent victims.

At no time during this episode did the USA pay more than lip service to the concept of uniting against terrorism. Indeed, the political impact of Irish heritage on senators in Chicago, amongst others, led successive US administrations to apply pressure against the UK government and question their "harsh" standards of imprisonment of suspected and convicted terrorists.

A steady flood of financial support for Irish terrorism came from unoficcial and semi-official bodies within the USA, who opposed all attempts to block the financial underpinning of terrorism.

Now, post 9/11, the boot is on the other foot. The USA finally realises that terrorism as a concept must be stamped out, and its financial and political support attacked.

They are finally in favour of following-up terrorism suspects into other countries where they may take shelter, and find religious, financial, and populist support.

Now, Guantanamo bay and the system of indefinite imprisonment without trial for being a suspected terrorist is held up as a model for the world.

We are exhorted to pursue terrorists and their supporters globally and to their roots.

What hypocrisy!

Only when US interests are threatened are we "one people" around the world. Only when US nationals are threatened is it fair to "harshly" imprison terrorists. Only now are financial sanctions called for.

(I'll leave out discussion of Central America and Israel. Others are filling that gap, more or less accurately).

What I will ask, is what safety valve is being offered to allow legitimate political protest and reform, outside of terrorism? You can't just lock everyone up. Stalin tried that, and failed, eventually...

One must recognise that often terrorism is an offshoot (admittedly irrational, inhuman, and almost insane), of legitimate political protest that has been quashed and sidelined, or unfairly punished.

The secret to stopping terorism is not just to fight it, but to render it obsolete. Despite hiccoughs, the IRA is becoming less relevant now that real political options exist for the Catholic minority in northern Ireland.

Similarly, the Palestine issue would be much ameliorated if the Palestinians had a genuine political voice.

Perhaps Al Queda would not have become as widespread and extreme if some of the concerns of the Muslim world against rampant westernisation had been addressed?

In my own country, I hope and pray that we never again lose the common bond of humanity with our indigenous population and force them to start fighting us with modern weapons and terror tactics.

These things are possible, in some dark and horrible futures. We have to work to make the world better and prevent them...