The falling out among terrorists continues as George Bush and his crew continue to punish the people of Afghanistan for being the unlucky hosts to the U.S.’s ex-buddy, Osama Bin Laden, and his group.

In addition to all of the ordinance that is flying around in this spat between thugs, the rhetoric is blasting away at full force. War is what they like to call it because it makes it sound so much more manly and heroic — and easier to provoke the passions of the gullible on both sides. After all, some people might think twice about unquestioningly giving support to a campaign of brutality, murder and terror.

It is Canada’s shame that our own Prime Minister knuckled under to U.S. pressure and became a second- or third string-accomplice in this madness.

He could have taken the high ground and offered our services to find a peaceful and truly just solution this problem — such as bringing terrorists of all stripes and locations before an international court of human rights where the rule of law, not force, will be the arbitrator of justice.

It has been interesting to watch the news reports, particularly CNN’s, over the past month. It is apparent that any information is being carefully massaged to sell the war program.

This, of course, is a classic tactic. How often in history have we seen dictators and despots — even so-called democratic leaders — create a wave of hate against a race of people, a religion or a nationality, then ride on that hate to limit rights, institutionalize terror and create yet another disaster for humankind? Do we seriously think that the leaders of this latest insanity are any different?

Still a respected player in the game, though now more as a pundit, is Henry Kissinger. The same man who was at the peace table with Vietnam in 1968. Recent material shows that, when a peace treaty was imminent to end the war — a peace that would have given Hubert Humphrey the presidency of the Unites States — Kissinger told the South Vietnamese not to sign it as they would get a better deal out of the Republicans.

They believed him and the treaty fell through. Nixon, not Humphrey, was elected, the war dragged on, 30,000 more Americans died and Nixon signed the same treaty in 1972. Kissinger was also involved with Chile in 1973. At the time, Chile was the most stable democracy in Latin America and Salvador Allende was elected as president.

U.S. business interests did not want an Allende government, but the Chileans were committed to democracy, as were both the leader of the army and the outgoing president. The U.S., with Kissinger in a leading role, facilitated the assassination of the commander of the military and of President Allende and put in power a fascist regime that proceeded to torture and kill thousands.

You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep, and the current crew in Washington keeps company with Henry Kissinger, a man who belongs before the World Court in the Hague for crimes against humanity.

They also keep company with the government of Pakistan, a country known for its human-rights abuses, particularly against women, who can be murdered by their male family members with little protection from thestate. With associates like these, why should we assume that the current U.S.-led endeavor has any righteousness at all?

No matter who “wins” this so-called war, in the long run we will probably all be losers. There will be no just solution to the problem of terrorism until all terrorists are brought to justice and the social and economic conditions that allow terrorism to flourish are eradicated.