The message purportedly issued by al Qaeda after the Madrid massacre contained the phrase: "You love life and we love death which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said".

Which, of course, is a lot of nonsense. The Prophet never preached death but the enjoyment of life and its strongest infrastructure, peace or "Islam". The love of death comes natural only to those who have lost hope.

Thankfully, most Moslem societies have not lost hope yet. That is why perhaps they have also been singled out for special punishment as much as western democratic societies have been. The bombings in Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey over the last 30 months show all too well that it is not only the "west" that is carrying the burden of terrorism.

I say this out of fear that it is so easy for visions to become blurred in moments like this and for hysteria to replace common sense. Moslems have also been victimised by Moslem terrorists.

The Madrid massacre, a most despicable act by any standard, must now be used intelligently to lead to some quiet reflection and rethinking on common threats and common issues facing our societies. Begin first with Josè Maria Aznar's Popular Party's dismal performance in the elections last Sunday.

Despite the enormous good that it has done to Spain over the last eight years or so, the Popular Party has been punished at the polls, allegedly for its misleading pronouncements in the aftermath of the attack.

But what is quite clear is that once al Qaeda's involvement has been proved without doubt it would mean that for the first time this terrorist organisation has successfully, and with lots of carnage, toppled a government in a democratic country.

This is an unmistakable victory for terrorism which could certainly encourage them to go for more. Of course, while saying this I aim no punches at the Spanish voters. I have frequently aired my own personal views against beginning the war in Iraq and had I been a voter in Spain I would have voted against a government that ignored widespread popular sentiment (90 per cent of Spaniards are thought to have opposed involvement in Iraq) and headed for war regardless.

Of course, Mr Aznar's Popular Party may not be the only one to pay the full price for its thoughtlessness. But if John Kerry manages to replace George W. Bush at the White House later this year, if the Ulivo eventually get the better of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and the Labour Party is punished in the UK, the world will still be faced by the serious challenge of undoing all the damage that has been done.

No matter what happens during the rest of the year and much of the next to the electoral fortunes of the key protagonists, a quick exit from Iraq before a strong democratic government is firmly in place is not advisable. Such an eventuality is only likely to compound the damage. A unilateral withdrawal by one of the parties involved in the affair will be equally damaging. So we must await to see what the new government in Madrid will do over the next few months.

Meanwhile, the question of how to defeat international terrorism is bound to stay with us for quite some time. Terrorist organisations are unlikely to call a truce just because western democracies kick out (if they do) the politicians who have gambled so roughly over Iraq.

So the question of preventive action against terrorism will remain our main challenge. Preventive action is not to be confused with preventive war, which is the only thing that has ever excited the Bush administration. Preventive war is a policy tool that has been available to rulers since classical times. Though it should not be discarded, it is however wise to acknowledge its limitations.

It is also quite naïve to believe that it can work miracles - as the current American administration has been led into believing.

There is also the need of broader preventive action such as ridding the world of age-old problems such as the Arab-Israeli problem that have been skilfully employed by terrorists to justify their otherwise lost causes.

Also, time and again, many have argued of the need of using the West's economic power to bring to an end poverty, malnutrition and pandemics in developing countries. Misery is the natural incubator of discontent and terrorism.

Above all, there is a need for a world-concerted effort to ensure good governance everywhere. This is the only road to economic progress. In all these tasks, multilateral cooperation holds the key and the democracies cannot impose their wills but must entice the other states to follow them and join them in making the world safer for all.

These measures can only be implemented effectively in the longer-term. This requires states to maintain their focus on them for a long time despite the periodic and natural change in governments. Hence, the need of strengthening the UN's involvement to ensure continuity.

There is also a strong need to strengthen intelligence gathering networks and to target active springheads of international terrorism for military action in preference to the occupation of huge territories, which seems to be Washington's preference.

What is the more effective way of combating international terrorism? Striking at their nerve centres on the Afghan-Pakistan border or occupying a country like Iraq which is so difficult to hold once you have it?

And, just to remain sober, we should never imagine that terrorism could be wiped out completely. It can eventually happen, who knows. But what is certainly important is that it can be contained a lot given the right antidotes and not the "quick fixes".