A fundamental error in Abramsky's article is to discount Fisk's quotation marks too lightly. We have become too accustomed to changing our language and discourse to suit the needs of political agendas. The idea of a “War on Terror” is ridiculous on many levels, the belief that you can use violence to fight fear being one. Another is this insinuation that terrorism, as a tactic, is something recent that requires a completely new approach. Britain survived the IRA without the need to invade Boston to deal with their supporters, funders and suppliers. The creation of the "War on Terror" and the frequently changing aims, modus operandi, structure and capabilities of Bin Laden’s organisation, if it exists in that form, that the Bush and Blair administrations feed to us are part of the rules of the game they are playing. These are rules change when needed, (from Weapons of Mass Destruction to Democracy for the oppressed Iraqis), yet Abramsky wants the opposition to engage with them. History, contrary to Fukuyama’s polemic, did not end. More importantly it did not begin again on the 11th of September 2001. Europe and America have a history in the Middle East. This history, coupled with what has happened since 2001, suggests Fisk’s quotation marks are thoroughly appropriate. Was the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of a government in Afghanistan and the assault on civil liberties in the Europe and America a necessary outcome of the need to bring a criminal organisation, (however heinous), to justice? Or are these journalists perhaps aware that American policy in these regions is far more ambitious then simply dealing with a criminal organisation and that is the story they should be engaging with. Is it not possible that these acts of terrorism are the side-effects of larger processes, including American and British foreign policy, and thus should not distract us from the larger picture. These journalists have consistently tried to bring oil, despotic regimes and Israel amongst other issues into the debate. I am currently in New York as I write this and the American media provide daily examples of the dangers of what Abramsky suggests. Accepting what the American government tells them of the al-Qaida phenomenon, they are willingly subject to constantly shifting goal posts, as those who set the rules of engagement change them on a whim. It is perhaps the recent elevation of terrorism as a security issue that inspires the likes of Naomi Klein to raise the question of racism. After all, if the response from the international "community" to the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where between 2 and 4 million people died, is compared to the response to the deaths just under 2800 Americans then racism is not out the question. If you will forgive the sarcasm, I missed the headlines declaring us all to be Congolese now. It is unfortunate that the attacks that took place in New York in 2001 continue to divert attention away from far more serious developmental, environmental and security issues. Once again the third world will have to suffer as we obsess about the security of the wealthy in the west. Message was edited by: themba.linden Message was edited by: themba.linden