The World Trade Center tragedy

issues that we think need addressing...

1. We were struck by the way that, only a few hours after the 'planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the news media were announcing that Osama ben Laden was being considered a "prime suspect". If official enquiries had already enabled the authorities to refine their investigations that specifically, does this not suggest that some information was already in their possession at the time of the incident?

2. We were struck by the way that, only a few hours after the 'planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the news media were announcing that the act was that of "Islamic terrorists". On what basis was this "fact" provided? Was it perhaps revealed in communications emanating from the doomed 'planes, and if so, why wasn't this clarified at the time?

3. We were somewhat confused by the announcement by President Bush of a "War on Terrorism". Is it not the case that all civilised countries are already actively opposed to acts of terrorism and pursue investigations into and prosecutions of such acts? In other words, can we be sure this wasn't just a ruse to enable governing bodies to implement measures that would otherwise be strongly resisted by the populace? Surely it cannot be that our elected representatives were actually capitalising on this terrible tragedy?

4. We were impressed by the speed with which law enforcement agencies throughout the world identified and arrested (or at least detained) persons suspected of having been involved with the planning of the World Trade Center atrocity — in some cases only days after the tragic event. Very impressive when compared with the normal track-record of many authorities in pursuing investigations! Could it be that information was already in the possession of these agencies that, had they acted sooner, might have enabled the prevention (or, at least, lessened the scale) of the atrocity?

5. We were struck by the way that the Taliban of Afghanistan seemed to almost deliberately misinterpret President Bush's remarks, and repeatedly misrepresented his warnings as being a threat of war against Islam. Were the Taliban in possession of any statistics that established how many Muslims died in the World Trade Center tragedy? And when this number was established, did they then regard the perpetrators thereof as having declared war on Islam?

6. We have been impressed by the protestations of many Islamic scholars that Islam is a "peace-loving religion". We therefore have some difficulty in reconciling this to the concept of "Jihad" or "Holy War" that, from our researches, appears to be intrinsic to the Islamic religion.
We are also intrigued by the fact that Islam appears to be the only major world religion that volubly advocates the actual physical destruction of those not of the Islamic faith.

7. Given the unique circumstances of the World Trade Center tragedy, and as a gesture demonstrating the desire to maintain world peace...
It seems to us that if President Bush had sufficient evidence in his possession to justify committing vast American forces to preparations for a military action, it would perhaps have been wiser, and a signal to all peace-loving peoples, to have conveyed that information to the Taliban and invited them to deal, publicly, with the perpetrators. Why was that very simple option not adopted as a first response on the part of Bush's administration?

8. "Claiming responsibility" has become a hallmark of virtually all violent terrorist actions. If the World Trade Center tragedy was indeed perpetrated by Islamic extremists, it strikes us as curious that their "spiritual kin" didn't immediately come forward to claim responsibility. Surely if some members of a fanatical sect are sufficiently "devoted" to sacrifice their lives, the remaining members of that sect would not be so cowardly as to devalue the act by denying or evading responsibility?

9. We were bemused by the conflicting statements issued by the Taliban in reference to their knowledge of the whereabouts of Osama ben Laden. Are we to accept that each of these conflicting statements were to be believed? And if not, are we to presume that Islam as recognised by the Taliban advocates dishonesty and duplicity (in a word, lying)?

As events unfolded over the ensuing days and weeks other "anomalies" bubbled to the surface. The greatest tragedy in this whole sorry affair is perhaps that the greatest tragedy is yet to come. As if the American people had not already suffered sufficiently, we foresee that yet more suffering may be visited upon them, and indeed upon vast numbers of innocent Muslims, courtesy of the machinations and politicking that seem to accompany "statecraft" — on both sides of the fence.

If we are all to be plunged into some horrific and prolonged conflict, then let us at least know the real reasons why. Be it simply revenge on the part of the Americans (and who can fail to understand that all-too-human motivation?), or the desire of Islam to find any justification for a "holy war", or yet another manifestation of Western imperialism, or even the Machiavellian manipulations of just a few power-hungry individuals, let us all look the truth straight in the eye.

The history of conflicts the world over has taught us that the true facts and motivations are seldom revealed at the time, or even for years afterwards. And when they finally are revealed all too often we find that neither side is innocent, and that what prompts and sustains such conflicts are inevitably things that are less than honourable, and demeaning to the supposed intelligence of our species as a whole. We are very often revealed for what most of "humanity" truly is — animals with ego! Which of course makes a mockery of all claims of superiority, spirituality, and so on.