To bring anyone who may have been living in a cave these last two weeks up to date, this is what happened as reported by the Newspapers, Television and radio news.

On last September 11, 2001, (as I write, about 10 days ago) some terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners two of which were then flown into the World Trade Center in New York. The third was flown into the Pentagon in Washington. The fourth was crash landed in Pennsylvania, and was probably intended for some other landmark.

This was a horrible act that leaves me sick. My only consolation is the knowledge that it will never happen again. In the future (even if there are no changes in the rules) if an attempt is made to hijack an American plane, especially by anyone with a middle eastern look, the hijacker (or hijackers) will be dead before they can do anything. The reason is because all the other passengers will see to it that that happens before the plane leaves course.

Since then there has been an increasing war of words as President Bush attempts to lead the country to war. It has been reported that the terrorist bands under Bin Laden are responsible, and, to be honest, it very much looks to be true. Since he has been hiding in Afganistan, Bush has been threatening Afganistan.

Last night Bush made a speech to congress, and the World, in which he called for an all out attack on Terrorism. I should say that this was reported because I have not had time enough to watch it. He made statements like "either you're for us or against us," etc.

This evening on the way home from work I had some new insights into this. Reading the international comments on this, I see several places where people have commented that Bush is playing into Bin Laden's hands. That is, Bin Laden wants a middle eastern war to "Unite the Arabs" against the rest of the world, and, unless there is a big discrepency between Bush's Words and his actions, they are right in all regards.

One observation that the international sources are likely to miss is that Bin Laden is playing into Bush's hands for exactly the same reason. That is, Bush was elected president by one of the most unfair elections in United States history. (I cannot say, "The most unfair" because there was an election in the late 1800's that was worse.) There are many difficult problems in the area that need to be faced. For example, the idea that people can be disinfanchised simply because of their race, and the fact the might want to vote for someone other than who the Governer of a state wants, is totally unacceptable.

I have commented somewhat on this already , and perhaps I shall comment further.

In addition, he "inherited" an weakening economy. (I have to put in quotes as in he did not really inherit it. I hope I can comment on this further as well.) The truth is that during Republican administrations the unemployment rate in the United States goes up, and typically the economy goes down. This is due to the insistance the Republican party has on ignoring basic reality, in this paragraph that means about the affect of a budget deficit, the so called poverty program for the rich. By having a "war" right now he can blame the bad economy on "the enemy."

It is somewhat interesting that right after Bush was elected, a friend mentioned that in his opinion Bush would have a war as soon as possible. This fills the bill nicely.

I would like to suggest an alternative that has not been tried. Namely, peace. Afganistan has already said that it will ask Bin Laden to leave. This is enough, since if he goes anywhere else he will be a refugee. I doubt that Iraq would take him because Sadam is well aware of what the United States can, and will, do if he does. Iran is unlikely to accept him because they have been trying to "make up" with the United States in recent years, although I suspect that they might consider giving him refuge. Maybe he could go to one of the former Soviet states.

In any event, he will be unable to do anything for a while. If the United States were to accept this offer, then Afganistan, and the entire fundamentalist Islamic world, would be forced to re-evalute their characterization of the United States as a war loving country. This could open the door for a peace such as the world has never known.

I fear this is not the case, however. What will happen is that the United States will attack Afganistan. Shortly after the moderate governments of the Arab, and possibly Islamic, World will fall. Bush will point to this as "proof" that terrorism needs to be addressed, and the people of the United States will agree. This will likely lead to a protracted war---some have suggested that it could be decades, and I think it could be.

Meanwhile, there will be a mini economic boom in the United States. Unemployment will be down, as more people are employed by the Military-industrial complex. Inflation will skyrocket, as people will have money to spend on goods and services without actaully producing any sellable goods or services. This will be blamed on the war.

Terrorism within the United States will be up. This upcoming war will not be like any we have seen in the United States since the Civil war. I would not be surprised if millions of people are killed in the United States by Terrorist. Once more this will be pointed to as "proof" that we need to attack the terrorist.

Meanwhile, basic liberties will be a thing of the past. I have already noticed that several big names that have spoken out against this war have been force to recant. I suppose that if this is widely read, then I will be asked to recant. But, as Galaleo said, as he was force to recant his theory that the earth was not the center of the universe, "But still it turns."

As I was thinking of what I wanted to write, I thought I ought to mention that I do not respect the Sovereignty of Afganistan. I do not respect the Sovereignty of the United States, so why should I respect theirs. In my opinion the ideas of Nationalism has generated more death an distruction than any other idea, including religion.

(I find it interesting that the name of Jesus Christ should be used to justify more wars than any other name, dispite his unconditional love of peace. I mean, he allowed himself to be killed rather than resist his tormentors! Can I expect any less of myself?)

(From all reports, the same can be said of Islam. That is, Christianity had its crusade, which was a blot on the image of our Lord, and an abomination in his sight. So Islam has its terrorist, which are a blot on Muhammad.)

I guess Bush must be right. Either you, as a person, will have to stand for peace, or war. There can no longer be any middle ground.

Religion and War

I think it might be worthwhile to see what the scriptures have to say about this. That is, the Christian Scriptures.

Last Sunday at church this subject came up. I expressed the opinion that we have the right to defend ourselves, and I very much believe that.

I base this on Matthew 18:15-17:

Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

The problem is that most people like to use this type of scripture as an excuse for revenge. That is, "he got me, now I'm going to get him." In fact, experience has shown that what most people tend to mean by the word "forgive" is to quite seeking revenge. There is another scripture which speaks to this (Rom 12:17-21):

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

In this current crisis, this means that, dispite the terrible actions of Bin Laden, and, more importantly, the Afgan government, we should not seek revenge. The government should only take actions designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. That means, the government can go after Bin Laden, he has a track record of attacking US targets, and, as far as I know, has shown no remorse, or evidence of quitting. This is not true of the Afgan government (although I, personally, think they have a lot to learn).