I've lived with terrorism. I've had nasty, firsthand, pistol-whipped exposure to the practices, habits and fallouts of terrorism. Not, mark you, a single act of terror. My entire childhood was filled with bomb warnings, duck-and-cover schoolyard exercises and explosions that never made the news. It was a fact of life and, for a lot of South Africa, it still is. That this 'terrorism' was later revealed to be an exercise in 'freedom fighting' didn't diminish the fear. The fact that many western nations had seen fit to finance the 'terrorists' likewise did nothing to mitigate the terror I felt after my first carjacking, the frustration and empty anger I kept from my first beating or the grief that remained with me long after a classmate was burned to death.

As time wore on, of course, I was able to appreciate the complexity of the issues involved. I understood that violent action is sometimes the only way to achieve change and I could even understand how declaring war on a civilian population can be considered justifiable, given the right impetus.

No matter how enlightened I become, though, I will never overcome the basic survival instinct that breaks the world, at certain times, into two distinct camps: me and them. I will always view someone who attacks me as an aggressor, no matter what rationale they have for attacking me, no matter what I might have done to provoke the attack, and it's only natural that America, at this time, should do the same. If somebody hits you, there's a certain urge to hit them back. And of course, that cuts all ways.

Which brings me to CNN, and the 'War On Terrorism' banner. It might seem like rampant pedantry, but there's a world's difference between 'War On bin-Laden', 'War on Afghanistan' and, indeed, 'War on Terrorism'.

America was, it's said, attacked by Bin-Laden. In response, America is bombing Afghanistan while declaring war on 'terrorism'.

Clearly, America is not at war with terrorism per se. For all the rhetoric, America is not going after ETA, or the IRA, or AZAPO or Hizbollah or any of the many, many terrorist organisations that plague the rest of the planet.

Likewise, when American politicians say 'terrorist', they're obviously distinguishing between terrorists who, say, blow things up in America and freedom fighters who, for example, blow things up in foreign countries using American weaponry and training (the Taliban, for a tidily ironic example).

So what are the advantages to be gained from describing this as a war on 'terror'? There are a few, but they're less effective against the Taliban than they are against America.

First is America as the superhero. The USA is not after anything so petty as a single terrorist. Oh no. America is out to destroy TERROR. After this, it's safe to say, there will be no terrorists anywhere. God Bless Uncle Sam and GOD BLESS George Bush.

Next is the notion that this is a war which cannot be defined by arbitrary political boundaries. Terrorists, after all, could be anywhere. So America and, more importantly, the oil-hungry good-old boy elite who seem to run the place at the moment, are pretty much obliged to hunt down terror wherever it rears its head. Things like sovereignty and international law, I remind you, cannot be allowed to impede the US in its glorious pursuit of a terror free world.

Finally, and following closely on, is the notion that the enemy is beyond the remit of one military expedition. There is no single enemy. The enemy is terror.

If, as is looking increasingly likely, 'Terror' means 'Islamic Fundamentalism' then America (and The West as a whole) runs the risk of creating an enemy a thousand times greater than what it's facing at the moment. While Bush and Blair run around reassuring their local Moslem populations that the bombing of the Taliban is not a war on Islam, a growing sector of young, second and third generation Moslems find themselves being pushed more and more to the fringe. They see people with the same colour skin and, ostensibly, the same beliefs being blown apart indiscriminately. They take different routes home from school because a certain nastiness has sprung up in the schoolyard of late. They go home to families who know some of the sets that are being destroyed and wait for news from kin halfway around the world who are in fear of their lives. If you were in that situation, how do you think you'd feel? Angry, maybe?

And if you got angry, and maybe blew a few things up in your town in an attempt to make a point, who cares that the law cracks down on everyone?

And if you're in a town which has suddenly developed a terrorist problem (or maybe just a religious graffiti problem)? You'd be prepared to give up a few of your own liberties in the name of safety, surely?

War's don't happen 'over there'. They happen at home, too. Look at the course of the war, then, and ask yourself: when everything's packed up and Afghanistan is a burning shitpile, and Osama Bin Laden has been marched around the world courts like a celebrity chef on the talk show circuit, who stands to gain? Who makes a profit? And at who's expense?

Last time, I accused America of being rapacious. That's wrong. But there is a rapacious element that has always exerted undue influence on American affairs. The dark side of capitalism, maybe, the kind which justifies screaming poverty as a natural side-effect of opportunity. Unfortunately, it's this element that's running the war. It's this element that scares me when I think about the future. It's this element that I was ranting against last time out.

America, your leaders are insolent, destructive and distressingly greedy. But you know that.

For all our sakes, get off your collective arse and do something about it.

Thank you. Good night.