It was quite shocking – I could not stop listening to the news almost all day -, but I think it was much more shocking for others, the Americans mostly. I have been expecting terrorist attacks in this country for some time, and since this terrible attack has unfortunately been very successful, thus has been destroyed the myth of the invincible America, there will probably be more of them in future.

Thing will certainly not be the same anymore. The so-called American liberties will be re-tested, and my guess that America will fail this test. It is a very tough business to stay very democratic and have a fight against terrorism at the same time. It is easier said than done.

It is still too early to say anything about the relationships in multi-ethnic and multi-cultural communities like San Francisco. The mayor of this city was going to have a meeting today with the community leaders. I think in smaller places where Middle Eastern ethnic groups are greatly outnumbered the situation may be scarier. So far, all I know is one of my Iranian friends had his share of being accused as a terrorist. The real effects will probably felt in other areas of life than the usual day –to-day encounters: for example, when trying to get a job. I do not want to jump to the conclusions right now. The sad and not so fair thing is that the whole thing is already connected to the Muslim.

Innocent people died; many and many of them. It is a terrible war, but most Americans do not realize it, or they do now, is that this war has been going on for a long time now. People were dying in great numbers around the world. It has now finally made it to the living rooms of America, and now “America is under attack”. It is still not the world, but America. I wished there was someone in the office with a better mind.

I remember, I think in late eighties, when I was again studying in some college in Midwest, that one of the American students had told me proudly that they could turn any place in Middle East into a parking lot anytime.

I guess there were no cooks this time to save America from the terrorists or some Bruce Willis in some Die Hard action. The real heroes yesterday were those firemen who went to their deaths willingly.

The world is becoming very unsafe and very mean.

t.

San Francisco is still all right; just a few incidents here and there. The most creative one was the pig’s blood that was targeted for a mosque, but it got the wrong place. I think it is not going to get any worse than this until the US or some multi-nation force moves into Afghanistan or somewhere else.

I have also talked to some Muslim friends. Although everyone feels sorry for the innocent people who died in the towers, it seems like this is not the main thing in their arguments. They immediately bring up the subject to that compared to what the US has been doing for many years, this was expected to happen. They (the American government I suppose) got what they deserved seems to be the idea and argument shared by the majority of the Muslims I talked to, and especially by those who have stronger religious feelings than the average believers. Also most Muslims, moderate or radical, seem to be disturbed very much by how quickly this whole thing was turned into an anti Islam thing.

These have been my observations. Now to my comments.

I was raised as a Muslim, but I quit, very radically, both the idea of religion and any form of belief in a supernatural power almost 25 years ago. So, I hardly get offended when people are talking about Muslims. In fact, I dislike very much bin Laden and the likes of him for the ideas they nurture and support.

I do not like terrorism of any kind either. Because of this, I hate what happened. But, when I am talking about terrorism, I certainly include the US in this category too. Coming up with a working definition of what terrorism is has been a difficult task too, since there are actually a lot of ‘freedom fighters’ around. Although those with short or selective memories cannot remember anymore bin Laden and his colleagues and all other Islamic fighters in Afghanistan were ‘freedom fighters’ once. They were trained and supported by the US until they managed to kick out the Russians.

There is also the case of being innocent, which is a very sticky situation, too. Can one close his/her eyes to what is happening around the world, or actually what is being done by his own government around the world? I guess can. For example, I want nothing to do with those serious problems of the world anymore. But there is a difference. First of all, I am aware of, or trying to find out, what is going on. Secondly, I do not support the argument of innocence. If I live in a society, a society of humans, which I do, then I do have certain responsibilities. I may argue that I do not care about these responsibilities – this is individualism-, but still they are there, especially when I am killed or attacked. But, when I am attacked I am quick to remind my attackers of their responsibilities, or obligations, as human beings. On the other hand, I, as a citizen of the strongest, or one of the strongest, countries in the world, think that I can get away from the same responsibility by playing the famous monkeys about seeing, hearing, and talking. You either play the selfish and do not complain when hurt, or complain about being hurt but then pay attention to others who are, or have been, getting hurt constantly for years now.

This is it for now – got to go.

t.

Sorry, this is in Turkish, since I do not think I can translate it without ruining the whole thing.


BU DA FARKLI BİR VERSİYON.

>FBI 'ın yaptığı araştırmada uçakların Sarı Hilmi adında bir şahıs ve >arkadaşları tarafından gezmek amacıyla kaçırıldığı tespit edilmiştir.
>1 nci uçak: >
>-- Hilmi Abi yapma bak, harbi söylüyorum geçemeyiz o aradan!
>-- Ya olm kitabını yazdık biz bu işin...
>-- Abi çok korkuyom niye yapıyon bu işi?
>-- Olm o Selami ipnesinden önce geçcem burdan, bana hava atacakmış >pezvenk!
>-- Abi o herif manyak, bak sen akıllı adamsın bırakalım abi n'olur abi >bak yeni evliyim abi..!! abiiiii .....!!! >
>2 nci uçak: >
>-- Olm o Hilmi ipnesinden ses seda yok, nerde lan bu herif???
>-- Abicim bugün hava çok sisli tam rekor havası, 101 nci kata >Şerafettin'i yolladım tam geçerken fotoğrafımızı çekecek hadi abi >hadi...
>-- Olm Hilmi'den harbi ses yok n'oldu lan bu ipneye? >-- Abi bırak Hilmi'yi bak ne biçim hava atcaz elin ecnebilerine hadi >abi, hadi ya bas gaza!!!
>-- Olm bu sis felan değil laan, yeni bir fabrika olsa gerek şehrin >göbeğinde!
>-- ??? abi napıyon abiii...
>-- Lan levye elimde kaldı ..mına koyiim, bak bi de sola yattık...!!!.

Timucin, sorry for not carrying on much of any conversation despite the fact that I asked for your opinion and observations. I would agree with what you are saying, but the scope and nature of this act is making me hesitant. I am not quite sure if the traditional arguments about terror hold in this case. Was this a conventional act of terror? Was this an act of terror before that? We may label the yet-to-be-identified culprit as terrorist, terrorist organization, or a terrorist state, but how about the act with its clearly called-for consequences? Somebody dared the US, the strongest force on the face of earth. I should think, not even the culprit expects this force to be lectured obediently with traditional arguments. This can't be simply taken as a desperate act of expression. I don't know what it is, but such is how I feel about what it isn't.

I am undecided about the criticisms about calling this "Islamic terror." Yes, if we go by the acceptable definitions of what Islam is for its modest, minding-his-own-business believers, it is an unfair, maybe even unacceptable, generalization. Terror is terror after all. But I believe, it is now imperative that the Islamic communities at large do something more than argueing against and reacting to the label. In what sense, for example, is Islam a world religion? Is it because there are more than a billion Muslims? Not enough, I should think. I am more than a bit upset, and I may not be thinking clearly, but I was disturbed to hear on the news that "cenaze namazi" was observed at a mosque in the US for the Muslim victims of the attack. I in no way think that Muslims did/would exlude non-Muslim victims in their prayers, and "cenaze namazi" only for Muslims, one can argue, is a technical matter, and there were a lot of examples of coming/feeling/acting together also. Yet this technicality disturbs me in the face of the scope of the event. I don't want to hear such news, even if they are as disinterested as this one I heard was.

This is a wake-up call, everybody says, and everybody will understand different things from this. What do Muslims at large understand from this? Why does Islamic communities/groups/governments that haven't yet dropped the notion of "holy war" still exist? That their non-Muslim counterparts might also exist is not an acceptable answer. The reality manifests itself with more than just faint hints: an Islamic holy war is a more alive notion. What does the world of Islam do to resist the potentially coming true of "the clash of civilizations" scenerios?

Well, anyways, I may still not be in my right mind. So much so, I feel, that I am angered by reasoned and calm thoughts at times. Of course, not to mean you shouldn't comment.

Take good care.

There is nothing extraordinary with the scope and the nature of this act. Only the arrogant Americans are thinking that never there was a terrorist act of this proportion. Terrorism comes in many ways, and this was simply one of them. Yes, it may have killed 5000 people, but there have been terrorists acts before that killed even more, and are still continuing to kill as we speak now. The only difference between this New York act and the others I am talking about is that we were, or still are, situated too far from these acts, their direct and indirect physical and mental consequences, that we do not see them as terrorist acts. There are of course those who see these other terrorist acts as defensive measures to protect the free world, but in my humble opinion, every act that involves killing innocent, unprepared and option-less people is a terrorist act.

A police officer may kill an innocent people accidentally during his work; this I can understand, and this is very much a collateral damage. But, when certain nations devise plans to stop certain other nations from doing certain things by targeting their infrastructure, and therefore civilians, especially when they are fully aware that civilians will suffer in many ways, this is no more an issue of collateral damage, but terrorism.

A piece of infrastructure in the United States of America was attacked; granted a very important piece. Yet the same country, in a little over than a decade, targeted with its military might the totality of the infrastructures of at least two different countries. I am not even talking about the Vietnam War. So, where is the big difference between these past events and the one we have just recently experienced.

America changed the rules and the others decided to accept the new rules; simple as that. Qualitatively these acts may be different in some ways. In the New York act, nobody was expecting anything; they were not given enough warning to find ways to protect themselves. In the other events, the people were aware that they were going to experience the American military might in a few days. But, since whole countries were targeted in the American case, warning the civilians did not matter too much. The point is that civilians were intentionally targeted in both kinds of acts. They were not some collateral damage, but the active ingredient in both kinds of acts. Neither kind would have worked without adding the human factor into the whole equation. Because there were civilians in both countries, Serbia and Iraq, and because civilians are easier to hurt than professional soldiers, those plans were made the way they were made. If there were no civilians and no infrastructure to destroy, America could have bombed and embargo-ed both of these countries forever and still not get any result.

I hope I have been able to made my point that the bottom line is that America has also targeted and used civilians in very recent past and thus lost all its credibility as not-so-evil a state. And, when we approach from this perspective, there is no need to make a big deal out of this whole thing, because, when we take out the stylistic extras the acts committed by the American governments in past years and the one just executed in New York are the same essentially. We are feeling more emotional about the New York act right now, because now we are on the receiving end.

I have to end this discussion here, but I will continue tomorrow from where I stopped.

t.

Timucin, I agree with all pieces of facts in your message (including American arrogance), but I guess I put them together differently. If this was determined to be an act of revenge, say by a Serbian and/or Iraqi group, then I would believe the usefulness and the explanatory value of "they had it coming" arguments. But, is this the case? We don't know this certainly. The US is yet to share with the public what credible information they have pointing to Osama bin Laden, on the one hand; and on the other, no one but Taleban disputed/questioned this allegation. What is bin Laden's grievance against the US or Americans? For all I gather about him, he has first and foremost political aspirations about Saudi Arabia, and is pissed off by Saudi dependence on the USA in particular and the American influence in the Middle East in general. Whether or not he particularly cares about Iraqi plight or Palestanian cause is anybody's guess. But clearly, he (or whoever is at the root of this act, or such beligerent extremist ideologies) banked heavily upon the existing grievances against America.

I guess, I am not able (or ready) to relax conventional (non-post-modern?) causality in the analyses of this matter. (Sure, I know that you haven't presented a complete analysis. But I am not strictly argueing against you.) Yes, in some sense, they really had it coming; there is after all a huge gap between the American self-perception and the way they are perceived by the world (less northern Europe maybe). For example, some blue collar Chinese workers reportedly (heard in the morning news) expressed satisfaction with the attack, and said that they were glad that someone finally fixed the Americans.

All said, I should clarify, the scope, rather the nature, of this event that I was stressing on has more to do with such an act's being successfully carried out by a relatively small group and budget than with the toll on Americans (material or lost lives). The unimaginability of what happened makes many think that there must be an enormous financial backing behind this. But I am not sure. I guess, I agree with what an expert said earlier: this was a very low-tech, but very high-concept attack. America has/had the power to raze whole countries, and did overtly and precisely this (too bad, although it was for declared reasons and with warning, and not completely on her own). On the other hand, we haven't known (or have we?) that an underground, covert group could and would dare to do this kind of harm. You are somewhat downplaying this aspect of the event. It unfortunately seems to be a different kind of ball-game from now on. I would love to see America pursueing this with sustained restraint along with their declared resolve, but ...

As might be clear from my previous message, I am actually interested in how the culture(s) we grew in will play this game. I hope we will come to discuss that also.

Take care.

No, this message is not going to be defense of US policies but a different angle.
As many of us share the idea that USA or Israel (Jews) has very strong influence on how world running and the domestic politics of sovereign nations. But, I think, many third world countries (especially Islamic world and communist) take this "manipulation" in different place "devil".
Many Muslim countries such as Syria, Egypt, algeria and Tunisia have faced Islamic threats and crushed them without mercy (e.g., syria destroyed all all city of Hama with almost 10.000 civilian in 1982 due to Sunni unrest). Similar processes have taken places in oil rich arap countries especially Saudis. And most of the corrupt dictatorship afraid of their own people time to time made devil's pact both fundamentalist and western power. Moreover, the arap's regimes, feeling defensive about their Islamic crackdowns, allowed their own press and intellectuals total freedom to attack USA or isreal, as way of deflecting criticism from themselves. Also, it is more safe to attack to west then their own corrupt regime. So, you have huge hate against west, some of them justified but some is directed one (especially USA and israil, mainly europe in turkish case).
For example, eventhough we have not experience radical clash between radical islam and secular one except the early year of the republic, the left and political Islam always attack on west on many ground. I also think, the hatred against west serve very good defense mechanism for unfortunate and poor third world. (if they let us to succeed, we will be very popular county, USA found large amount of oil in TC but they do not want us strong so they are hiding the info, koku disarda, we have so many urban legend like this).
On west part, you already know and explained their part, so I will briefly talk about it. Many of western country relatively developed modern and democratic regimes but when it comes foreign policies, they are not much different than roman empire (just war machine becomes more advance). As the third world leader, they have been playing the double-standard over and over. Most of them do not mind getting bed with most brutal leaders for their interest. And as Timucin explained the western media or people do not mind playing the famous monkey as long as their safe within their heaven.
I do not think the attack on WTC is very serious in nature but get big and strong echoes because it does not shakes the USA power but shakes the gates of "haven". For example, the main motivation behind helping the disadvantaged groups within west, the heaven, not very much moral or humanity concern but fear of crime. The immigration is another source of fear in west, and, after this, it is getting bigger and justified one.
I love looking depth into the games we play in our daily life, but the international one also not very different.
Let's wait, second part of game: "free world" on defense...
peace, artun

The responses to original message in this threat slightly have been changed, so I split my post in two different postings (A-1 and A-2). (I like to post short messages, since I will make less grammatical mistakes ).

So
A-1
I share your concern about anti Muslim sentiments and emotion throughout nation. This is shameful for us (US) to see such feelings. Of course vast majority of Americans do understand essence of this problem, but if even 0.1% of population (one out of 1000) Americans blame Islam for this matter, then this means 200,000 whites will attack to Religious minorities in this country, which is terrible. Even in S. California, where whites are only 25% of population, Arab businessmen feel no safe (well, I can imagine things in Central and North states).
In my opinion media should double (triple) their educational talks in this subject. Majority of these 0.1% will understand what is what.
Beside, these emotions could easily turn to anti-Jewish, anti-Chinese, anti-African, or even anti-Armenian (/Greek/Italian) sentiments!

A-2 (sorry for disagreement, but...)

...I think “Terror against terror” is the best formula in such cases. Of course people in White Building and 5 angle campus (temporary 4 angle) know what to do and how to do, but since we are discussing this subject, my opinion is that
USA should attack Afghanistan (see, how short and simple).
Here is why. If Osamah ibn Ladean (and Taleban) feels that he always can use human shield (nation(!) shield) for his dirty job, then Afghanistan will become home of 10-s of thousands terrorists. And we will witness many-many WTC-s in near future.
(And interesting part is that- why Afganistan? These microbes think that they are safe in the Muslim surrounding/environment-Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, etc.). So somehow we should destroy this castle.

Now about civilian casualties.
(of course I am strictly against Stalin method –if one person in 4000 is guilty, and you don’t know who is he, kill all 4000. Sure- this criminal will be punished)

Again this is simple (I will vote by two hands- non of civilian/innocent person should receive miserable damage in this war, both physically and financially-(property))
US should give chance all Afghani people in populated area to evacuate, and then bomb their (“god’s fighter’s”) infrastructure (in Afghani measurement). It is funny to say – it is hard to see difference between terrorist’s property vs civilian property, when from space shuttle you can easily single out dime in mass nickels on the ground (or read car’s license-plate number).

You may say that, these terrorists will kill civilians (or will prohibit their movement), then sorry, what can we do. Entire Muslim population on planet Earth will see that Muslim people (and Islam itself) are in hostage on the hand of some “careerists”, and I think they all themselves will declare war to these imbeciles. I don’t think these parasites will stay on the way of entire civilization.
Now about material/property damage of civilians. It is easy to recover with one billion (by confiscating banking accounts of these “Mudjaheds” (Those of you who know meanings of this Arabic word, will understand how these criminals discredited this word)). However, this (financial) solution is much more easier than recovering WTC/Pentagon/s (by various calculation about 25 to 40 bln)

Next
You will say how about other/non-Muslim terrorist groups?
Believe me, when you punish big-bad boy others will make their conclusion.

Next
In some article I have seen, that “not proved – not guilty” (about Osamah). Well, even past crimes of Laden’s son are more than enough to sign 2 live sentence + 3 death penalty.

And now about main subject (please be little bit more patient)

I wonder, you guys (you, Attila, Zareh, Arek etc) talking about past crimes of USA in connection to these recent events. These are different topics, which are not connected(!) to this criminal act. These are subject to talk about in separate threats as well as subjects of new world order (roots of pipe lines, New divisions of markets, etc.). In other board I read even about syndrome of new antagonism of US-Europe (evaluation in new level). WTC was just Catalyze in this arena.
New world order began long before September 11

Thank you for your patient.
Ararat

just short reaction for Ararat comments.
Even though, you seemed to support the idea that everthing should done to reduce civilian causalities, your bottom line conclusion is "it is OK to kill civilian" (or justify "lateral" demage)in Afganistan.
In my first post, I disscuss the responsibility of muslim or third world countries in this dirty games, but we should not forget the responsibiities (or their lateral demage due to their regime) of the "civilized" and "free" members of USA.
As I explained before, american public do not care or seemed to have interest their state business and its war machiene as long as they are safe in their haven. I think, for more "just" world order, the WTC attack has a very important take-home lesson: They are not safe as they thought. This might (I hope) lead to USA will be more careful when they mess around. So, it is perfect time to discuss USA' dirty laundry. The thing we should be careful is not playing the game of "justiying" the killing of civilian. But, the question of WHY should be discussed throughly....
We should not forget that the american public became dissatisfied or made their voice strong toward vietnam war when the american dead body arrived to state. Sad but true...
peace, artun

Hi Artun. I enjoyed to read your perspective on the Muslim countries contradictions (or mistakes/responsibilities). I personally think this must be a taken up as a public discussion in these countries. In my opinion, much of this is linked with the trauma that western colonialism caused, rather than with a grand religious clash (Islam versus Christianity). Turkey therefore has her advantages to make a nitch in the matter (intellectually and/or politically), I should think. We have our historical complexes, but hey, we believe we weren't defeated but we did raise from ashes, don't we?

As for American insensitivities, uncaring American public, etc., I would like to say a couple of things. I have been living for almost five years now in the American heartland, Midwest, where people are presumed relatively unsophisticated. I have so far had no negative experience (neither before the attack nor after it). On the contrary, I have seen several of my middle-class American friends expressing distaste with the nationalistic fervor and rhetoric that came to overwhelm the atmosphere (public space in general - hey, Timucin, I used it in a sentence ) in the wake of the attack. Some of them seem to be against military retaliation even.

On a related note, Americans will sooner or later have to confront the contradictions between their inward and outward teachings and outlooks. Everybody has to do this maybe, but America as the global force that she is is hardpressed to do this. Last week, they aired on TV some interviews they made with elementary school kids, and I found it remarkable that almost all kids said, it would be wrong to bomb another country for this was equivalent to what was done to NYC. They seemed to be firmly decided that innocent people should be spared. They said, they were taught at school to talk problems out, no bullying... They clearly don't have the notion of collateral damage. Of course, I am not as innocent as these 8-10 year-olds are, and I think there is no other party to talk this out with, but the truth must be somewhere inbetween such innocence and a dirty technowar.

Public discussion, western colonialism, confronting the contradictions, and maybe everyone should do that: all very good points.

What is currently happening in Islamic countries is not much different from what is happening in the US: total lack of critical public discussion, but simple scapegoating.

The trauma of western colonialism is a very important point, but I think this is a actually a new phenomena. It is a major topic both in Islamic and Third World countries. However, it is important in my opinion that this issue is not allowed to monopolize the public discussions, or rather that it is not turned into an issue that somehow explains anything and cannot be criticized.

Yes, confronting the contradictions in how one perceives himself and how one is perceived is very important and must be done by all nations. But, more importantly, when we say, and I have been saying this, that the Aemricans have not been asking questions or not taking active part in political matters, this is also actually the case for many other countries including the Islamic countries. As Americans did not care much about their governments foreign policies, similarly, I believe, some Islamic countries, for example, Iraq, did not care much about their own. What we definitely need is existence of many individual critical public spaces in each country that are functional both locally and globally. Other than building up local, that is, national public spaces, there also is need, I believe, to establish international, global, critically active, public institutions, and a space.

Some quick comments

t.

"It is OK to kill civilian"?

Read as
... where did I say ...

Ararat,

Would we be so eager to yell 'let's attack Afghanistan'? These issues are always easy when we know that Afghanistan can not send its own planes and aircraft carriers to the shores of the US and bomb its cities. But, the world never stays the same. Even the strongest one day lose all their power and become just one of the other small states. History is full of examples. Therefore, I would think and hope that the US would start considering other options, more long term ones, in order to create an international community made out of societies who would side with the US on a cause like this because they really believe in it, rather than they are afraid that its military and economic might can be directed at them instead in case they refuse helping.

If you cannot separate the good guys from the bad guys and if there is the possibility that many good guys, or rather, innocent ones, may get killed, then you are not supposed to shoot, but look for other options. If we were to go by your option Ararat, first of all, our present daily lives would become a bit nightmarish when our own police forces are dealing with criminals, secondly, there would be no holding back the police and other security forces, both locally and internationally, even in cases where use of force is not warranted, and thirdly, every similar act both in past and present becomes justifiable.

What is definitely terribly wrong with this whole thing, not going after the terrorists, but the way it is being done, is that there is no power above the US to which it may be accountable. And, this is a serious problem for the future of our planet. The US is simply taking the law and its possible interpretations to its own hand.

If this is an act of war against the US then what the US is preparing to do soon, in the name of catching bin Ladin, will also be an act of war against another country. And, following the same logic, if some Afghans blow up the Sears building in Chicago or drop some chemical weapons somewhere, they will be justified.

We need to reexamine our standards.

t.

My apologies for not being able to continue with the discussion I started, but I had some urgent personal matters to attend. The WTC bombing has actually affected my economic life greatly, as I do not get a paycheck from anywhere, and therefore I had to spend last week both worrying about and looking for options for the immediate future. Having experienced the Gulf War about ten years ago, and its very damaging results on my life economically, I am not approaching this whole issue with extra caution. I do not want to go through another Gulf War economics. Anyway, back to the discussion.

What bin Laden feels about Palestinians or the people of Iraq is actually not very important. He resorts to terrorism and because of this he is guilty. If they somehow catch bin Ladin tomorrow, bring him to justice and punish him, or even kill him, I will not feel a bit of remorse. To me, he is a criminal, and as such he should be dealt with.

For Americans it is easy to follow their government obediently with this ‘but the innocent people were killed’ logic, since most of them either do not know much about the things that have been going on internationally, other than what has been fed to their brains through the American or Western media, or they simply do not care. However, for others who are from different countries and cultures and who have either experienced or observed personally both the workings and consequences of the American foreign policy(ies), the situation is very different exactly because of the above innocent people logic. This is the first major act in America, but it is not the first for others from other countries, and since it is not the first for these other people, the very rhetoric of the innocenct people dying comes with an already well established history of its own for these other people. And, in this history, whether we want to hear it or not, the US has been one of the major perpetrators. Therefore, when I approach this issue I am not necessarily on the side of bin Laden just to be against the US, but, since I am well aware of the recent history of the US violence in various places around the world, I question both the motives and the aimed goals in this war against terrorism and find it difficult to take a side with the US.

This is the first thing we need to consider in these discussions. There are definitely two different perspectives. One of the is the perspective of the ones who experienced such an event for the first time and the other one is of those who have already been experiencing such events for sometime now. But, this should not be taken to justify what bin Ladin does, whether or not it might be because of the Palestinians or Iraqis. The obvious fact is that the WTC bombing brought to the surface what many others may have been feeling about the conditions in various other countries created mainly by the American policies in past or near past. The people who did the WTC bombing may have done it for entirely different reasons. We will probably never fully know this part of the story, since most of them died. The main thing here is that nobody is even thinking about this part anymore. The WTC has, almost immediately, created the argument that the US had this coming for sometime. This is the point we need to concentrate on. Such a terrible event managed to find followers, not because those people who died there had deserved to die, but because of this particular history of the US violence I have just mentioned. I hated what happened to the WTC, but similarly I hate what the US is about to do right now. How are we going to deal with the people like myself?

t.

Frankly, I don't know how to deal with people like "yourself." I don't know how or whether this perspective will come to affect and shape actual political conduct. Don't know. I too have become pessimistic. You certainly offer some ideas as to what is needed (critical public spaces, globally in addition to locally, etc.) But we are in some sense talking about literally bringing up to date, to the same page, a large and heterogenous world so that, for example, what is obvious and normalcy for one is not confusing novelty and outrage for the other. With the existing national boundaries (physical and psychological), with commercial media feeding people who want to mind their normal lives and who therefore expect to be fed inconsequential stuff, I don't know. One's gotta keep trying anyhow. Long way to go, it seems. Bush is cautioning people about the same, saying "be prepared to a long and different war." If I have to be optimistic, I say, there is a pinch of hope here, and America this time might not wage a seen-before, no-loss-of-life-on-my-side-no-matter-what technowar.

You didn't have to explain what you thought of Osama bin Laden, what side you are taking, why, etc. Remember, I was admittedly talking from a conventional perspective, and not necessarily argueing against you. Anyways, sorry if I made you feel that you should explain.

Take care, and I hope the economic hit won't last long for you.

Nihat,

I understand you were not arguing against me, and it would not have mattered even if you did. We need to argue against each other more and more anyway; it is because we do not do it enough that we are experiencing what we are experiencing globally. Of course, arguing using reason is different from fighting through verbal insults and nonsense. I felt the need to reexplain my position on Osama anyway, not necessarily to anyone particularly, but to myself first of all.

I do not care much about Bush's war. We already know what it is going to be about, and because what it is going to be about, that is, chasing individual troublemakers rather than the conditions that create them, I personally don't think much good will come from it even if they spend 20 years. The actual war, the one that will take us to a new phase in history, the one that will be about setting up new methods of administering ourselves,once it starts, will take much longer. I honestly think that the capitalist era, the era of the nation-states, is slowly coming to its end. There are some serious contradictions in the system that needs to be dealt with; the system started cracking. This will certainly take a long time, unless governments vountarily start doing stuff to fix it.

Anyway, I will come back to this, as it seems to be a very important topic.

t.

Timucin, it is not that there didn't exist world institutions to address various imbalances/inequities between countries or regions. Various UN functions come to mind. IMF and World Bank come to mind, etc. I don't claim these functions were perfect or perfectly adequate, but are we to join the band of cynics and say these are worthless? Why? Because their premise (the worldwide order of nation-states) is crumbling? What are these going be replaced with? What do you exactly want the US (Bush) or the West in general to do that you would care about? To me, the urgent concern is their possible blanket-bombing Afghanistan. I'd be satisfied if they managed to not do so. For the longer term, or from a broader prespective, I share your concerns. But let's also take note of the fact that there are ideologies and people out there that are determined to remain dissatisfied (for want of a better term, and to cut it short). What are we going to do with these? How can we appease them if this is what we should do? Maybe you'd say you didn't care what happened to these, but the conditions that created them were to be corrected. Okay, but what are these conditions? Do these ideologies/people not have any hand/responsibility in these conditions and what/who they are? Although I can generally follow your analyses, I found it more explanatory than functional. Which follows which: design or implementation? The engineering answer is simple. But, in social/psychological matters, I doubt if the answer is the same. As far as I can judge, what you say is postmodernism very successfully criticisizes grand historical theories of the modern man. But now, this way of thought seems to be after a grand design. Modern man won't comprehend it, I am afraid, unless it is backed by affirmative arguments. The chances are, even if it was so backed, alteration of the existing order in reality might still come through pain and suffering, thereby creating the discontents of this anticipated new era. People are bounded by their five senses after all.

I'd be looking forward to your more concrete analyses. Please continue, if and you would, in a new chain. It's a pain to load whole chains all at once, a drawback of the new format.

Take care.

I am not really downplaying that particular aspect of the WTC act that “an underground, covert group could and would dare to do this kind of harm”. I just do not understand why it is relevant. To me, an event like this as shocking as a country or a particular collection of countries bombing another country with or without warning. Suddenly a country or a group of countries decide to bomb your country, and a few weeks later bombs start falling on your had. In both cases, we have a “I don’t care about what my government does” kind of public and two groups, not necessarily countries, who do not like each other for what they are doing. I am sure the organization that was responsible for the WTC would not mind sending planes to the US and bomb the hell out of the country after warning her, if they had the capacity. But, they did not. Similarly, the US in past have undertaken many covert actions. I am not sure, but I think they did not warn Sudan before they bombed the pharmaceutical factory, which might have caused considerable suffering in this country. And again when America warns a country or presents a set of conditions, the purpose is usually to make sure that the conditions are actually not acceptable, and if they are, then comes a different set of conditions until a set that is not acceptable is found.

I really do not care much about the “unimaginability” of the event, because as I have stressed it this is the case only for those who experienced terrorism on this scale for the first time. It is not a generally shared feeling. Americans or others did not think this was going to happen, because generally they simply do not think about these matters. I know I have thought about terrorism coming to this country, and I have been talking about it for the last five years to my friends or others who were thinking about where next party was. It was as simple and clear as two plus two is four. The terrorists, who are actually ‘freedom fighters’ from another perspective, do continuously look for different options. You are in a fight, and you are constantly trying to improve your tactics. The tactics had already started changing in 80s, and, with this war on terrorism that the US is about to start, we will probably see many other tactics being implemented. I am saying in 80s, because I have personally observed such changes among certain groups in those years. That is why I have always thought terrorism would have eventually reached the US. From this perspective, state sponsored military punishment is hardly the solution, because it is exactly this kind of action that will feed more terrorism. So, kill Ladin and destroy some camps. There will be other tactics, and I am afraid these tactics are already come up with.

You want to fight terrorism; it is actually very simple, but takes time. It does not go through from destroying infrastructures, but on the contrary, from building infrastructures. All that is needed is to create communities who have a lot to lose. However, if you have communities who are made out of individuals who basically do not have much to lose then there is simply no way to stop terrorism. The US policies in particular and the so-called western interests in general have created such communities. Any fight on terrorism, before even so-called terrorist camps are bombed, must include tactics that are aimed at bringing considerable social and political improvements in various countries, cultures and communities around the world. It is of course always possible to eradicate terrorism through purely militaristic means, but such a solution will always be a short term one, since what one side considers terrorism is simply the fight for some kind of freedom for another side. If the WTC act was the making of a bunch of lunatics then the US solution would have made sense, but whoever these people were, they were committed to a cause, a cause they thought was worth dying for. As long as these causes are not attacked positively, the terrorism will not die. As one Turkish high ranking officer put it during the Kurdish war in Turkey “We can always beat them militaristically, but the problem will never be over until the politicians in Ankara do something about it”.

A good number of us in this world want to live our lives normally, but there are those out there who are hurt in someway, or who think they have been wronged greatly and that they can get even by resorting to violent ways. There are also out there certain governments or groups who think that they may deal with these issues through the 19th century Gunboat policies. But the world is different now. Hundred years ago it was possible to send a Gunboat to a country that was causing problems and solve the problem, since the other side usually had spears and knives, nothing else. But today we have a different world. At least three countries in Near East, the place where the US is getting ready to have another military operation, have nuclear weapons. What if things go wrong and we have a local nuclear conflict? I think it is time that everyone in this world starts thinking critically about issues and start getting involved politically. If we can achieve this in coming years then perhaps the WTC bombing will be seen as a blessing in future. But, I am not so sure if this will be the case. And, for the first time, I am actually hopeless about our future. I am hopeless because so many of us simply do not care. What if next time it is not Afghanistan, but a nuclear capable fanatic government? What are we going to do then? What if Israel is under major attack and they decide to take on everyone with them by using nuclear weapons? What if the radical Islam or another bin Ladin takes over nuclear capable Pakistan? How are we going to solve the problem then?

t.