A few weeks after the deadly attacks in London, terrorism appears, once again, to be the major disease of our century.

On the one hand, it is repeatedly said that terrorism is a universal threat, which could hit each and every country in the world. No country is spared.

Britain may be stricken today, but France and others could be likely targets tomorrow. Moreover, it is argued, terrorism has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

"The world is safer and gets better without Saddam Hussain," said Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It is thus necessary to lead a "global war on terror", a full-fledged unspecified action that would make supporters of the Chechen rebels, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi resistance and Al Qaida's all equal.

This may be a no-exit road concept but US President George W. Bush swears by it, despite his team's effort to promote the more subtle approach of "Struggle Against Violent Extremism".

It is then no surprise that on the other hand, there are some who prefer to point out reasons for the spread of terrorism by looking at its roots and engaging against poverty, under-education as well as settling situations that are said to promote terrorism.

In Israel, "occupation has created terrorism and not vice-versa".

Peaceful settlements of many pending conflicts Chechnya, Iraq or the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories would help put an end to it. But it takes time before achieving the results and no government can leave its population under threat.

It is why a resolute action must be pursued, provided that some mistakes are avoided.

The first step is to try to define terrorism. America and others did it, using concepts of "violence against civilian populations" or "illegitimate fights against democratically elected governments".

But whatever the excuses, it is evident that defining terrorism without adding a political component to it is impossible. Otherwise, the universality of the concept disappears.

If the inhabitants of Maouassi, who are packed like cattle in the Goush Katif colony in Gaza, are terrorists as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated, then terrorism has won because nobody will fight it.

A second mistake is to use one's mental grid when analysing a foreign situation. Nobody thought that "peaceful and well integrated" British Muslim students could fall victims under the terrorist ideology.

The new terrorists have no geographical limits and their cultural roots could disappear.

A third mistake is to take advantage of existing terrorism to lead dangerous adventures. There is more terrorism today in Iraq than there was before the war.

Fifty-two people died in London but 25 Iraqi people die every day because of the war.

A fourth mistake is to believe that money and total dedication will be enough to save the case. There is no absolute security.

As for money, what is the $12 million (Dh44 million) raised for the new START programme (studying and fighting terrorism) in front of the $10,000 (Dh36,700) supposedly spent for the USS Cole ship attack? A fifth and fatal mistake is to lead a global war.

Globalising terrorism prevents fighting it efficiently and as it cannot be defined, it must be fought through differentiated, specific treatments.

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hyper terrorism are distinct phenomena. The fight against terrorism doesn't imply a unique answer," writes Strategic Research Studies Head François Hesisbourg.

Common means can be used to fight terrorism. Beyond the necessary political treatments (better than invading Iraq, solving the Palestinian issue would have taken off some of the ammunition that feed terrorists) some actions must be followed; sharing information, staying firm against blackmail, creating a social environment that prevents individuals from resorting to terrorism as the final resort available to them.

A combination of police tactics, political breakthroughs and willingness not to let a minority impose its rule on a majority is the only way to fight the roots and not only the effects of terrorism.