After the World Trade Center bombing, the author prepared the following five reaction papers containing political opinions. The articles were revised in proof in 2002 and in 2015. The opinions expressed and predictions made earlier remain the same. The opinions and predictions, expressed then, continue unchanged up to 2015. They have been tweaked a bit to deal with the passage of time since the first writing. They are available for limited circulation without permission of the author.

The attack on the World Trade Center brought death to Americans like we have not seen since the Korean War. Americans had become complacent, but in the subsequent three months, we have witnessed a surprisingly strong reaction. People were shocked and felt violated by the destruction of the Trade Center. It was meant to be an attack on all that America stands for-- and that is exactly what it was!

Normally pacific, gentle people clamor for revenge! Americans reacted so strongly because they were afraid of the unknown and unexpected. Americans were ready for war. Very large majorities favored bombing Afghanistan and Iraq; most Americans wanted to send in ground troops. A surprising number would support nuclear bombing to destroy these countries. These reactions are normal and to be expected, though terribly "uncivilized."

My family and friends have asked me what I think about this whole situation.. What I thought at the time of the disaster was that it would be best to keep my mouth shut when people are so thoroughly aroused. Hopefully, "voices of reason" will be heard after some of the justified rancor and single-minded focus on revenge will have diminished. Let us hope so, for our present actions are setting us in opposition to a billion Muslims throughout the world. We are headed into a "war", which no one can win. We will be faced by such overwhelming opposition that we will be forced to initiate the nuclear destruction of much of the world. Is appears unlikely that your children are going to have a chance to live in a friendly world.

President Bush has a tiger by the tail. The former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and former Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz took retaliatory steps that place us Americans in opposition to a billion people. Our leaders are ignoring policy makers in the State Department because the advice they offer is for long-term benefit, not how to deal with the immediate political fallout during the next years in office. Our leaders proceed with aggressive plans and try to cover their tracks by avowing repeatedly how wonderful Islam is and how we have nothing against the Arabs or Muslims of the world. "Me thinketh she doth protest too much!"

In fact, they are actively pursuing a war against the international community of Muslims. They sense the terrible dangers in following their present course. Still, they are more concerned about increasing their political ratings and obtaining support for their party.

Voters, driven by their earlier reaction of rancor and revenge, are encouraging the administration to strike out at any target. Their leaders are giving the American voters what they want. Such strong voter support makes it unlikely that policy change will occur so that disastrous long-term consequences can be avoided. The elder Bush opened the Eighth Crusade when he sent troops to Iraq. The junior Bush continued to drag the West into this Crusade by attacking Afghanistan and threatening most of the Arab countries.

Who are the billion people, who hate the United States? Know thine enemy!

There are roughly a billion Muslims in the world today. They are very diverse in all aspects of their living, yet there is some commonality. They worship in similar ways, but not identically. They all use Arabic in their worship, in prayers and in reading from the Quran.

The large majority of the sermons are given in another language. In fact, only about 20 percent of the Muslims have Arabic as their first language. The laws and customs in Muslim countries are similar because they are based upon the same sources of guidance (Quran, and Teachings of Mohammed). It will be convenient to refer to this more comprehensive group of people as "Arab/Muslim." They are probably unified most by two things other than religion, per se. First are those humane practices in Islam governing interaction among people of good intentions. The second is resentment of foreign interference in their affairs and exploitation by the West.

This resentment toward the West draws these billion people together like nothing else. And, frightening as it may be, there are many more millions of non-Muslim people in Latin America, Europe, and Asia, who share this resentment toward the West. The commonality of interests between Christian and Muslim Arabs arises from their common backgrounds with a respect for each other's religion. About twenty percent of the Palestinians are Christian, but all Arabs fight side by side in the "intifada" against Israeli occupation of their lands. The struggle in Palestine has nothing to do with religion but is an attempt to recover the land taken from its inhabitants by force and conniving.

Foreign powers continue to exploit the Christian minorities against their own countries. Ill will between Muslim and Christian Arabs stems from this exploitation. The most conspicuous examples are in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Iran. It is not surprising that the people of these countries are suspicious of the hidden motives and affiliations of missionaries. Missionaries and other foreigners often incite the people to disobey the laws of their country and reward treason and disloyalty. Beware of the zealots, be they Muslim or Christian! Outsiders strive to increase their authority by setting up strawmen to knock down. Those who translate Arabic to English, but retain the Arabic word for God, Allah, fall into the trap of spreading division among men. They make it appear that there are two different Gods.

Why do these billion people hate us? To say that they are envious of what we have and jealous of our power is an over-simplification but it does say it rather neatly. There is a long history of friction between the Muslim countries and the West (Christian). A brief recap of history as the Arab/Muslims see it will be helpful. That way, we can understand better why they hate us. Some prefer to phrase it differently-- "They don't hate us, only our government." But these Arab/Muslims know that American voters choose their misguided leaders.

The conflict began about the eighth century, as Islam brought a better way of life to the peasants of Europe, who were enslaved and impoverished by their lords. Christian knights mounted excursions to "retake Jerusalem", which was never theirs to start with. After a couple of centuries this petered out and they went back home. However, the seed of distrust had been sown among the Muslims and it became a part of their culture. A general split between East and West is incorporated in the traditional Muslim division of the world into the "Region of Peace" and the "Region of War." The world has been split into these two parts with the advent of the Eighth Crusade. We, Americans, need to offer guidance to our leaders so that they will not carry us too far in such a divisive direction.

Things were quiet in the Middle East for several centuries. Then the Europeans returned, bringing their colonizing efforts. Great Britain, with France as a weak second, pursued her ambitions aggressively. Britain took the initiative after World War I and the defeat of Turkey. She established herself as the protector over the territories liberated from the Turks.

Britain set up the mechanisms for rule by "divide and conquer." She made deals with the more powerful Arab families to give them partial autonomy under British advisors. She issued decrees elevating desert Bedouins to royalty and drew up boundaries to mark off "countries" that never existed before.

Rulers governed through fear rather than by popular support. One of the more recent and important consequences of this is the case of Iraq taking over Kuwait. All the prodigious wealth of oil revenue in Kuwait was going to the "Kuwaiti Royal Family" not to the people. Saddam figured, "Why shouldn't the Arab people get the benefit of this wealth instead of it staying in the hands of the rich?" Besides, Kuwait was only a creation of Britain and no real borders should exist between Arabs of the region. It was easy for Saddam to justify the claim that Kuwaiti oil belonged to all the people of the region.

Britain and America's creation of Israel was to have the most devastating long-term effect on the Arabs. America and Britain always wanted to have a client-state like Israel. Located in the midst of the Arab Middle East, the West can launch diplomatic and military maneuvers.

The Zionists immediately created several million displaced Palestinians. Had the leaders of the West never read the history of England and Ireland? When Cromwell gave Irish land to the English settlers, he created an inequitable situation that would have reverberations for centuries, down to the present time. Only political arrogance blinded the English to the inevitable long-term consequences of this action.

Having created Israel, they were now obliged to support her against the Arabs in all matters. The western Christian countries have fulfilled the alleged goal of the Crusades of taking most of Jerusalem from the "infidel." Israel systematically destroys Palestinian homes and then refuses to issue building permits to the Arabs. This process opens more land to be occupied by Jewish settlers. They have continued to occupy Arab land in defiance of signed treaties, international law, and U.N. resolutions requiring withdrawal from large areas of Palestine and the West Bank.

American politicians are too dependent upon the Jewish vote to be able to adhere to international law. Now there is an unconfirmed report that Israel has been able to get the U.S. to add to the terrorist list, 80 organizations and leaders working for the liberation of Palestinian territory. The U.S. has fallen into the Israeli trap of declaring war on the Palestinians by labeling Palestinian resistance as "terrorism." It has come down to the point that what is good for Israel is no longer good for America.

The United States has always been admired for its protection of people's civil rights and the impartial administration of justice. But the United States has lost its credibility with the Arab/Muslim people by providing unconditional support for unlawful actions by Israel.

As Americans have become more and more powerful, they dream of world hegemony-- this means everybody doing things "their way." The world now belongs to them in this new technical age. We ignore other countries' rights to control their own air space and we send out satellites to cover every square-foot of the world without being given permission. We can look into the movements and activities of any person anywhere in the world. Big Brother is watching!

We violate national sovereignty of countries by bombing them and sending in spies, drones and subversive agents. We tell nations which rulers we approve of, and of those whom we do not. If the unacceptable ruler is not removed then we take it upon ourselves to remove him. We want them to recognize that we have the strength to enforce our will so we have military operations in over 100 countries. Understandably, the people of smaller nations feel insecure.

What is "Jihad"? Jihad was established in the time of Muhammed and it became incumbent for each Muslim to struggle to save himself, his people, and his religion. Physical Jihad was necessary when there were only twenty original followers of Muhammed. The Revelations had to be preserved at all cost. The small band of followers was in real danger of being killed off. Today the need for jihad is less.

Fighting under the obligation of jihad may be justified. Ataturk removed religion from political and social life in Turkey a century ago.. The jihad is required if a government prevents you from practicing your religion by establishing sectarian rules. Jihad is not aimed at the destruction of your neighbor, be he Muslim or non-Muslim. Nor is jihad a carnet to sanction war between nations with different political or social practices.

Jihad was appropriate in the Middle Ages when Jerusalem was invaded by waves of self-seeking, or at best, misguided Crusaders. Jihad again may be appropriate if the Christian west becomes bent on the destruction of the Muslim societies. Our Administration repeatedly tells us that they are not at war with Islam. Muslims are not very reassured. They notice that the target of embargoes and bombings are almost exclusively Muslim countries. When Christians soldiers kill Muslim people they are labeled in news stories as "troops" or "soldiers," but never as "Christians." The West is in a conspiracy to hide their prejudice against Muslims.

It is estimated that the invasion of Afghanistan is producing another two and a half million refugees. The majority of these probably will die this winter from exposure and malnutrition. These actions shout out to the Muslim world that they, too, are unsafe from arbitrary American action. Even President Bush slipped and used the work "Crusade" in talking about fighting terrorism! Note that the original basis for the word, Crusade, is derived from the cross the participants wore as a badge. The cross was revered as the battle emblem of the Crusader's aggression.

It is an over-simplification to say, that since Islam permits jihad, the religion sanctions terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a religion of peace among brothers and submission to God. The religion is fundamentalist in the proper sense of the word-- it is based in the fundamental revelations of God. There is no such a thing as non-fundamentalist Islam because all the religion is founded in the Torah (Old Testament) and the Quran. To ask a Muslim to give up his fundamentalist orientation is to ask him to ignore God's commandments and no longer follow in the footsteps of Mohammed. In other words, give up religion and live a godless life. Any time the term, Fundamentalist Muslim, is used by Westerners you should recognize that the speakers are ignorant of the religion or they are "putting it down."

Islam imposes no obligations other than those explicitly required in the Revelations (Torah, Quran) and as established by the God-inspired practices of the Prophets. "There is no hardship in the Religion." "That which is not forbidden is lawful." Some people like to make a show of their religion. We say in America, "They wear their religion on their sleeve." Those who thrust their own ideas and practices upon others are not behaving piously. A pious man is one who lives his religion, not one who makes a show of it. Outsiders frequently label a Muslim , who fulfills his religious obligations, as a "radical."

The religion of Islam grew from adherence to a single prophet, just as in Christianity. However, centuries after the death of Jesus, Saint Paul founded the hierarchy within the church and provided the priests, who are above the people with their special spiritual investment. Their secular governments have grown alongside the Church. In Islam, the Prophet was the spiritual as well as secular leader. This should guarantee that the people would be ruled and governed by a pious leader, who adheres to the revealed laws and practices coming from God.

A leader had to be nominated after Muhammed's death. He is called the Khalif or successor. These khalifs continued to be the rulers of the governments for a thousand years. While the office is no longer occupied, the tradition continues of having a pious man as the secular leader. This is especially true in the countries with traditional societies such as Iran and Afghanistan. In theory, if not in practice, the religion should assure a just and beneficial government. The everyday life of Muslims is different from that in the West in that God is remembered in all the ordinary actions of the day. At least that is the way it is supposed to be. There is no virtue in behaving properly unless it is done explicitly in the Name of God. It is unnatural for Muslims to separate their religious and political views from their daily activities.

The two gathering places for adult Muslims outside the home are the mosque and the coffee house. The youth also congregate and exchange ideas at the schools and universities. It is not surprising that political questions are brought up and discussed in these three venues.

We read about how the "Medresas" are training schools for terrorists. Using the Arabic name medresa introduces the unknown and fear of a foreign entity, as with the Arabic words Allah and Jihad. Medrasas are the equivalent of the public schools in America, except that religion is not excluded from the curriculum. The teacher is respected for his abilities. In theory, there is little real hierarchy of people in the Muslim religion. No one has the right to tell another what he should do. That is the responsibility of God, and God has sent down His Word. If anyone acquires ascendancy over another person, it should be because of his superior nature He or she should have great knowledge and be devoted to the religion.

What is the political theory behind terrorism?

1. Terrorism is resorted to only by the underdog. He is too weak, in power, or numbers, to assert his demands in a lawful manner.
2. Terrorism is employed only when a strong government suppresses peaceful expression of the demands from its citizens.
3. The motivations behind terrorist acts are long-simmering resentments that could not be expressed publicly and there is little hope for obtaining redress by lawful means.
4. Terrorist acts must be spectacular so as to attract widespread attention.
5. The goal of an act must be political and designed to bring about the desired effects. It should not be engaged in just because it will gratify the personal needs for revenge, because then it may produce undesired results.
6. An individual or group may commit terrorist acts only to promote the appropriate goals of the group.

The goals behind terrorist acts, or series of actions, are several…

1. Make people aware of the injustice(s) being perpetuated,
2. Cause people to wonder why people would be driven to commit such acts.
3. Provoke the civil authority (police, army, politicians) to engage in outrageous acts that will attract wide public attention. This includes restricting the civil liberties of the general populace.
4. Develop a rallying point so others with similar complaints will not feel so alone and will come forth and make their complaints heard, perhaps by joining in committing similar terrorist acts.
5. Attempt to weaken the civil authority through causing their supporters to have a loss of confidence in them.

Unpleasant as the recognition must be to all Americans, the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center has accomplished all the first four objectives, above. The attack was not in vain. It was well planned and the desired results were obtained. We lost that battle! Now, what about the war?
What can Americans do in this war against terrorism?

Short-Term. Your government is doing what it is expected to do-- React! There is an immediate threat. To reduce the damage of an attack it is necessary to discredit the terrorist and his cause. You must personalize the situation to develop public support against him.

If at all possible, blame one person so as to create a target. A single target can be destroyed more easily than a group of people or a country. You must villainize the perpetrator and avoid any considerations that might explain his crime. He must be treated as a criminal and viewed by the public as a madman, a heathen, and as a heartless, inhuman subspecies. We must portray him as an enemy of his own people so as to justify our action against their country.

Strip him of dignity. Above all, don't let him appear to be a courageous martyr. Only our own people are to be seen as patriots, martyrs, heroes and freedom fighters. Depersonalize the enemy. Convert the enemy into a soulless nation. The threat of short-term violence against us is very high and must be dealt with strongly and promptly.

Emphasize the immorality of the terrorist's acts. It is very important to keep the issues from appearing to be political. The forces of "law and order" must keep hammering on the criminal nature of the act(s). Keep talking in moral and jingoistic terms. Raise the specter of worldwide destruction as the aim of the enemy. Former President Bush was very successful in the introduction of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." His son has now used the same jingoism to justify the American position.

The truth is that many countries in the world have the "potential for creating weapons of mass destruction." Not the least of these are America and Israel. The arrival of anthrax poisoning in America does much to strengthen the government in its pursuit of terrorists. Accusations are enough. It is not necessary to prove that the perpetrators are Arab / Muslims. We must be ready to forgo due process of law. Just today, an unconfirmed report says that 11 foreigners, who are not Arab/Muslim, have been arrested in the U.S. with large amounts of Anthrax in their possession. Being cynical, one can't help but recognize how very useful this anthrax scare is to the government.

Make the issue a moral crusade. Some window-dressing must make it appear that this is not American retaliation but a response by an outraged world. This requires buying support from many of our client rulers even though their public is against American action. Too much pressure should not be placed upon the foreign rulers least their people overthrow them and we lose our influence over those countries. It is best to cobble together support from countries outside the Arab / Muslim realm. Current puppet governments in Muslim countries in the most danger of being ousted are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt. Subsequently, Syria must be added to the list.

The American clergy will have to support any government action if the moral issues are kept in the forefront. The clergy would be placed in the position of approving immorality if they offered any objection to government efforts to pursue and punish the terrorists. The church can be expected to support the government almost always.

Clerics ask their parishioners to pray for the dead heroes who gave their lives for the "American way of Life." They will never remind the worshipper that the others, who died on the field of battle, were warriors with souls and with bereaved families awaiting their return. There may be some opportunity to think of the "Brotherhood of all mankind" after the first months of "war against terrorism." This can come only after the immediate threat has been reduced or eliminated. Probably, it is still too soon. Hopefully, in better years, we will hear people say, "God Bless the World" (not just America).

The Presidents Bush have been very successful in replacing the Boogey-man with Saddam and then, Usama. Earlier American regimes created evil public perceptions of Jamal Abdul Nasser, Mosadegh, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Quadafi. Yet, these are the heroes and martyrs, admired by their own people. We must be careful not to make martyrs of them. We will see that Usama is captured by the Afghanis fighting against the Taliban and executed by them if we are clever enough to anticipate the future. We have done it successfully before with Lumumba, Allende, Che Guevara, and many others. After Usama is eliminated, we should be able to withdraw our troops and stop pursuing the "war." Unfortunately, our politicians won't be able to stand up to the American Jewish pressure to maintain the war for the benefit of Israel.

There is heavy political and diplomatic pressure to continue the war against "State-sponsored terrorism." This seems to be supported by the American public because they do not realize that they are being hoodwinked. Israeli supporters want us to believe that the Arab neighbors of theirs are paying the supporters of Palestine to carry out terrorist acts. Many of the Palestinians were displaced from their own land when the Israeli army bulldozed their homes and/or drove them across the border to a neighboring Arab country. These displaced persons have no future and need no monetary incentive to commit defiant acts.

Displaced Arabs are resentful and they organize among themselves to gain the strength to recover their land and their civil rights. It is unrealistic to expect the Arab governments to expel them. Expel them to where? Occupied Palestine? They are permitted to exist in peace, something they cannot do on their own land. This does not mean that the country in which they reside sponsors them. Now Israel is asking the U.S. to attack these refugees, and hopefully, replace the governments, that offer them homes, with American-controlled puppet governments. Israel would like to level the playing field, and then the U.S. and Israel would not have to contend with the resistance. If we go down that path and attack Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan all hope is lost!

Speaking of terrorism, the American Establishment allegedly started with civil disobedience-- the Boston Tea Party. The greatest terrorist act of that time was the firing on the British Redcoats, the legal representatives sent to keep the peace and prevent insurrection. Were the rebels terrorists and traitors or were they heroes? Our own hero of the Revolution, George Washington, would have been hanged by Britain if we lost the war. History will comment on the Palestine Problem very differently from the view presented to Americans by the press.

We must pass laws and enforce them to prevent and punish acts of terrorism. This is being done. Terrorism must be treated as criminal activity not a political one. Blood should be spilled. The public will demand it to slake their need for revenge. All these things have been carried out by the American administration. They have managed the situation quite well on a short-term basis. Unfortunately, it is these suppressions that force people to resort to terrorism.

Long-Term. Killing and suppression are not going to remove the root causes of terrorism and make America safe once again. A two-pronged approach to terrorism is always the most successful. On the one hand, police should be used to control the criminal action. If the nation resorts to the army instead of courts of law, then, the terrorists are winning and Americans are losing.

The other thrust must be to try to understand the reasons behind why the enemy feels so strongly that America has been arbitrary and intransigent. We must listen to justified complaints and reduce inequities. This is the long-term approach to reducing the risk of terrorism.

The term, "patriot" is reserved for those who respond quickly and strongly in support of their country in a time of immediate threat. They are ready to give their lives in defense of their country. Their loyalty is plainly manifested. A few Americans statesmen are needed, who show a patient interest in the welfare of the country through planning for a better future. They will not be called "patriots." Are they are any less loyal than those manifesting immediate reactions?

Some Reservations. We must sacrifice some of our personal rights to prosecute the "war." Not only must we put trust in our government leaders, but also, they must show themselves worthy of it. My cynical self, doubts that they are trustworthy. We can only hope that they will listen to those who urge caution. We must insist that they be accountable to us and straightforward with us. They must convince us of the honorableness of their political agendas. Learning that we imported daily one and a quarter million gallons of oil (Yes, barrels not gallons) from Iraq in September makes me wonder how we can do this while maintaining an embargo. Matters like this don't engender trust. What is going on? How can we be buying this much oil (18 million dollars a day) and not be paying for it? Or is America depleting our resources by sending large amounts of money and export goods to pay Iraq for the oil?

Now the government of Afghanistan is up for sale to the highest bidder. Can we believe that long-term planning will benefit the Afghanis and that world peace will be taken into consideration? We are witnessing the turning point in Central Asian political identity. The Russians want the people to adhere to the USSR model. They will not! They are Muslim and therefore they will lean toward Turkey or Iran in their alliances. But the West doesn't want this. We want them to remain under Western influence because they have a lot of oil, gas, and other mineral wealth.

But Turkey has been vehemently secular since WW II (despite the recent return to Islam in private and public life). She cannot lead the Central Asia peoples politically. Iran can, and this scares the hell out of the Christian West. The Western leaders are frightened to death that people may start demanding that their leaders take religious ethics into consideration when conducting their business and in politics. Americans have been sold on the maxim, "You can't mix religion with politics." Now almost all Americans believe this without question. Iran offers the biggest opposition to the expansion of western interests and spread of sectarianism in Central Asia. We probably will declare war against Iran within 10 years, at the latest.

Americans have lived the good, or, as they say, "The Best" life up to now. We must recognize that this will no longer continue. Our new lives will be less secure. We will have to live with the fear of others, we have been able to ignore and trample on in the past. We are going to have to accept that our wealth must be shared more generally with the rest of the world.

We cannot always have what is best for us! We are going to have to accept the fact that "In the American interest" no longer is a sufficient justification for carrying out all actions against others. We are going to have to stop insisting that everybody should think and live as we do. The time of the proselytizing missionaries is now past. The God of the Muslims is the same as the God of the Christians and Jews. We must come to recognize and accept that not all people will follow a single (Christian) path to find God. We must respect the rights of Non-Americans as we respect our own. We must respect the sovereignty of other nations as we worship our own. We must give up the hard-nosed position that "Might is right."