Sick minded Men
How to deal with them?

1933: Those who burn books once will burn people ...
2001: Those who blast historic monuments once will blast buildings full with people ...

1. The fallacy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

We are confronted with a cruel irony. The basterds who blasted the WTC once were called "freedom fighters" by Ronald Reagan. They were trained and equipped with the help of the Pakistani secret service and the CIA. After the Afghan war many of them fanned out over the world. The results were tragic: Murderous assaults in Algeria (the "islamic salvation front"), Egypt, against embassy's in Eastern Africa, etc., etc., etc.
It is an illusion to think that western security services are now able to get information about them by means of infiltration. Whithin their networks any western secret agent "dropped in quickly" would be as inconspicious as an albino among a flock of Ravens ...
The only secret service able to do this would probably be the Pakistani secret service. However, it is highly doubtful whether this is willing to do such a job. They gave the Taliban vital support enabling them to seize power in Afghanistan. They supported training camps in the Tribal Areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan training "hellraisers" on their way to Kashmir and the rest of the world ...

War won't solve the problem

Getting the people who were behind the WTC assault will be extremely difficult. It is an illusion to think that mr. Osama Bin Laden will stay were he is while the US make their move. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
The war in Afghanistan will probably end the rule of the Taliban but it will do little against large parts of network organisations like Al Qaida outside Afghanistan. They still have their (financial) support and will probably move their mainstays to other inaccessible places. (Kashmir? The Tribal Areas in Pakistan? Somewhere in Indonesia? The southern part of The Philippines?).
What can be done is to ask countries to take actions against these islamic extremists. If a country refuses this there is the possibility to establish an air and a naval embargo against such a country. This can be done via the security council of the UN. Military means will be needed to make this effective, but it doesn't require an all out war.
Secondly it will require intelligence to combat these extremists. But this will take much time.

2. Remove their "feeding grounds"

Israel and the Palestinians

If Europe would have done with Germany after WW II what Israel is doing with the Palistinians at the moment we wouldn't have had 55 years of peace. Then the scene in Europe - with respect to violent extremism - would have been a lot less quiet.
At the moment the Palestinian territories are "a perfect feeding ground" for islamic extremism. The best way to try to get rid of this is to ensure that the Palestinians will have more to lose than their presently hopeless, futureless and miserable lives. Therefore the present Israeli economic blockade of the Palestinian territories must stop. Obviously violent extremism (from both sides!) should be fought. A start should be made to vacate the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Briefly said: Go on with the execution of the Oslo agreements, and go on with negotiations to reach a lasting solution.
And I say extremism on both sides because when I see an Israeli say that Sharon missed "a golden opportunity to wipe out the Palestinians" this is to some extent sickening as well. And when I see Sharon say that "Arafat is our Bin Laden" - a few days later he moderated his tone somewhat - I can only say one thing: Vicious propaganda! A "Bin Laden look alike" wouldn't have signed the Oslo agreements!
And also here sanctions could be considered. A first (painful) approach: Say to the non-extremist Israeli intelligentsia: "You are welcome and safe in Western Europe!".

Combat social injustice

Previously the turmoil around world trading conferences was in the news. The issue of social injustice should be put much higher on the agenda. "Free market competition" is often only benificial for those with a strong market power. E.g. Hypermarkets purchasing centres ripping off farmers in France. Coffee traders ripping off coffee growers in Latin America. According to WTO rules "cartels are forbidden". Small companies are not allowed to form selling cartels.
It is like a collection of kittens and Tigers engaged in "free competition". The Tigers would like it that way to last forever ...
This whole picture often causes gross social injustice. Taking care to make this smaller is very important for the further removal of "feeding grounds". Secondly (and maybe firstly!) it is a matter of civilization to make the differences in wealth in the world smaller.

3. Combat (religious) extremism

John le Carré once said the following wise words: "Not the dissidents, not the heretics, not even betrayors have brought so much mischief to the world. They have not been able to undermine civilization. No, loyal men navigating blindly on the compasses of their institutionalized beliefs are the culprit. Their balances are not valid, they use double standards. They navigate on the "compass" of "Christianity", "the Islam", "the Great Leader", "our Great Nation", ...    The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the biggest threat to humanity in society originates from the renouncing of personal scruples in favour of institutional agendas."

Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse

The basterds who blasted the WTC were in their way very loyal, and they did it in the name of Islam. (For most Islamic people - I think - their interpretation of this religion was a perversion of it.) Timothy McVeigh blasted the federal office building in Oklahoma City in the name of freedom (of religion). It served as a retaliation for the Waco, Texas incident.
In my opinion all men talking all the time of "God" and "Soldiers of God" should be regarded as potentially extremely dangerous folks. And this should be tought at schools as well. In the end only one thing counts: Respect for (human) life.

Amsterdam, September 16th 2001,
Mazzel & broge / kind regards,
Evert Wesker

Rewritten at November 22nd 2001

Half a year ago I put my opinion (Yes, rebuild) on this spot. That is no longer relevant. The New Yorkers made their choice ...

... and it looks quite good.

February 27th 2003

From IHT (29/12/2003)

A mission for moderates (by Amin Saikal)

Three minority extremist groups - the militant fundamentalist Islamists exemplified at the far edge by Al Qaeda, certain activist elements among America's reborn Christians and neoconservatives, and the most inflexible hard-line Zionists from Israel - have emerged as dangerously destabilizing actors in world politics. Working perversely to reinforce each other's ideological excesses, they have managed to drown out mainstream voices from all sides. Each has the aim of changing the world according to its own individual vision.

If these extremists are not marginalized, they could succeed in creating a world order with devastating consequences for generations to come. Al Qaeda and its radical Islamist supporters, believing in Islam as an assertive ideology of political and social transformation, want a re-Islamization of the Muslim world according to their vision and their social and political preferences. The alternative that they offer is widely regarded as regressive and repressive even by most Muslims, let alone the West. Violence against innocent civilians can neither be justified in Islam nor find approval among a majority of Muslims. Yet many Muslims have come to identify with the anti-American and anti-Israeli stance of the radicals because they have grown intolerant of America's globalist policies.

Muslims have been angered by U.S. support for dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries, including at one point Saddam Hussein's, and by its backing of Israel as a force occupying Palestinian lands and Islam's third holiest place, East Jerusalem. The U.S.-$ led occupation of Iraq, seen by many in the Middle East as imperial behavior harmful to the Iraqi people, has certainly not eased these feelings. On another side are groups of internationalist activists among American fundamentalist Christians and neoconservatives who have found it opportune since Sept. 11, 2001, to pursue their agendas more aggressively. They wish to reshape the Middle East and defiant political Islam according to their ideological and geopolitical preferences.

The extremists of these groups seek to "civilize" or "democratize" the Arab world in particular, and the Muslim world in general, in their own images, and they have particular influence through key appointees in the Bush administration. The fact that democracy can neither be imposed nor be expected to mushroom overnight does not appear to resonate with them. (The agenda of some fundamentalist Christians, who promote Jewish dominance of the Palestinian lands as leading the world closer to the prophesied Judgment Day, is a variant that might be dismissed as a hysterical fringe element if it were not connected to a powerful voting bloc supporting President George W. Bush.)

The efforts of the neoconservatives dovetail all too effectively with the aims of the radical Zionists who push for more and more Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Because of Israel's proportional voting system, these radicals exercise disproportionate power within Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government. Although a majority of the Israelis still support the creation of an independent Palestinian state based on the principle of land for peace, the electoral system leaves them hostage to the minority of extremists in their midst. The activities of these three extremist minorities feed on one another: actions by each are seized on by others to justify their own extremism. With considerable help, intended or not, from one another, these three groups have now positioned themselves to determine the future of world order and, for that matter, humanity. Prime Minister Tony Blair recently declared that Iraq would define the future of relations between the West and the Muslim world. This is also precisely what Osama Bin Laden and his leadership associates have said from the Islamic side. It is important that these minorities not be allowed to have such an influence. It is necessary for the mainstream from all sides to return to the center stage to chart the direction of world politics before it is too late.

It takes a few to make war but many to make peace. In pursuit of peace, not only should Al Qaeda and its associates be marginalized, but the radical international agendas of some reborn Christians, neoconservatives and hard-line Zionists should be completely discredited. Doing away with one and not the others is not an option for our future.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.