opinion What can we learn from the movies about the tragic suicide-bombings against innocent civilians in America? Yes, it is war. But this sort of global civil war is certainly not 'new'. It has been going on for a long time - in Palestine, Iraq and East Timor for instance.

The first and most important lesson that we learn from the movie Three Kings is that innocent civilians on both sides get hurt. That we need to look beyond the war propaganda (of both sides) which demonise the 'enemy' as a faceless non-human evil force - and instead look into the eyes of white, black and Asian children who have died from bombs.

Osama bin Laden feels that his war against the United States is 'righteous'. Likewise, the US itself has also felt 'righteous' in bombing the following countries since the end of World War II: China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Granada, Panama, Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Just as it has felt 'righteous' in supporting brutal, corrupt dictators such as Marcos, Suharto, the Shah of Iran and Chile's Pinochet in the name of Cold War politics (and American corporate profit). In the 1980s, it also supported Panama's General Noriega in his drug-running and of course, the "Great Satan", Saddam Hussein himself.

Yet we see in Above the law, that there is often very little that's 'right' about 'righteous' wars. In fact, the enemy itself changes according to current politics. In Rambo III, the Afghan Mujahideen were 'freedom fighters' being helped by the Americans. They sacrificed their lives in the 'noble cause' of fighting the 'evil' communist Soviet invaders. Now, these same Mujahideen are 'evil terrorists'.

Fighting hatred with hatred

Bob Trask, a US educationist, argues why we must not fight hatred with more hatred.

"We cannot irradiate ideas with bombs, we can only make others hate us more, and prepare a more fertile soil for more terrorism to grow.

"Yes, we must have justice, we demand it. The world and common decency demand it. But justice and revenge are not the same thing.

"We can kill thousands of terrorists, but when will we know we have killed enough? Will the head of all international terrorism step up and sign a peace treaty? What will stop an 8-year-old boy or girl from dropping glass vials of anthrax in many airports simultaneously, and in a few hours infecting all of America with a deadly, incurable disease? Will guns stop him [or her]?"

It is scary that a recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 75 percent of Americans approve of a military strike, "even if innocent people abroad" were to get killed.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the people who (supposedly) attacked the World Trade Center (they probably called themselves Holy Islamic Crusaders) also 'approved' of their own form of 'military strike'. Tragically, they were willing to do it "even if innocent people abroad" were to be killed.

After all, "this is war", right?

If the Cowboy President wants to go on bulldozing a war through regardless of the voices of reason and peace, is he willing to risk more American civilian casualties?

How far can we go on fighting fire with fire? Has America, as in the movie Judge Dredd, now declared itself the prosecutor-cum-judge-cum-jury-cum-executioner of the world? Are we even allowed to ask whether the evidence against Osama is credible? For some clues, try watching In the name of the Father.

Implementing a policy of genocide

The vendetta against Saddam Hussein has hurt neither that politician nor President George W Bush, but it has hurt Iraqi children i.e.: civilians who are as 'innocent' as those in the World Trade Center. Half a million children (Unicef statistics) have already died from American-inspired sanctions against Iraq. This led the former assistant secretary-general of the United Nations, Denis Halliday (an Irishman), to resign as co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq in 1998.

"I had been instructed," he recounted, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide, a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults."

Now the vendetta is against Osama. But won't that hurt ordinary civilians in Afghanistan?

"Oh, they look like they indirectly support the Taliban anyway. Somehow, with their turbans, beards and shit, they look like Muslim fundamentalists-cum-fanatics. So they more or less 'deserve' to be bombed," goes the CNN-numbed mindset.

If they are fanatics, what does that make the 75 percent of Americans who support war "even if innocent people abroad" are killed? Superpower Fundamentalists? What's the difference between Osama declaring "Islam is No 1! No matter what!" and the 75 percent who declared "America is No1! No matter what!"

Unfortunately, the 'no matter whats' in this case involve not only the 6,000 plus innocent civilians at the World Trade Center but also a desperate Afghanistan where four million innocent people are on the verge of starvation after a three-year drought. A country with 500,000 disabled orphans (UN statistics) after 22 years of war. Maybe those orphans will be the first to be killed by American cruise missiles - they don't run too fast.

The hawks in Washington DC dismiss this as just the 'collateral damage' of war. Like the hundreds ofthousands of padi-planting villagers killed during the Vietnam War from B-52 bombing. But what if it were to - as in Crazy history of the world (Malaysian edition) - happen to us? After all, thanks to the hype over our homegrown 'Muslim militants', one newspaper reported that Malaysia is on the FBI list of countries that 'harbour' terrorists. This was later denied by the US authorities.

National 'security'

It's strange. In America, their justice system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The philosophy of that system says: It is better that nine guilty persons should be found innocent rather than for one innocent person to be found guilty.

Unfortunately, American 'justice' overseas finds it OK to bomb 99 innocent people just to kill one Osama bin Laden - if the missiles can even get him in the first place.

In the movie Enemy of the state, it is telling that the Bad Guys are from the US National 'Security' Agency. A similar sense of false national 'security' (or is it 'insecurity') led America to try to 'save' Vietnam from communism by dropping more bombs on that beautiful green country than the total dropped during the whole of World War II. Now, to 'save' the world from the Taliban, America is set to rain more bombs on Afghanistan.

How much should we believe TV channels such as CNN? Isn't it strange that they have so conspicuously failed to put forward the question that any first-year journalism student would have asked: Why?

Why is America under attack? Why would anyone be willing to sacrifice their lives in suicide attacks? To bomb a country that embodies freedom, democracy, human rights, Michael Jackson and Coca-Cola? Is it because America has been waging undeclared wars against innocent civilians in many countries?

Dave and JFK remind us that American politicians do not necessarily have the best interests of their own citizens at heart. After all, polls show that most Americans don't trust their politicians any more than they would trust a used car sales personnel. Should we Malaysians now believe every word that these politicians are saying? Is it possible that their so-called 'free and independent' media are being carefully manipulated like in the movie Wag the dog?

Is this article anti-American? Just because it points out some of its politicians' short-sighted policies? After all, is that not what the spirit of American democracy and freedom is all about? Is this not what American bombs claim to be defending?

Win-win solutions

Some of my colleagues, including so-called 'progressives', felt that a reference to movies would 'trivialise' the current grief of the American people. It says a lot about the CNN-created 'War on Terrorism' mood now that any criticism of America is perceived as 'distasteful'.

Yet, how could that be when the lessons are drawn from proud all-American movies (except for one British production)? And if there is any humour in this article, it is black humour, appropriate to the horrible carnage of war (to both sides) as well as the depressing hypocrisy that supports it.

Finally, the movies suggest some solutions to us. Maybe we have to stop fighting fire with fire and terror with more terror. Instead, maybe we need to try fighting fire with water. Overcome hatred with the love of political and economic co-operation that builds win-win situations.

Priest and Pay it forward suggest that we should try to conquer evil with good. An e-mail I received recently summed it all up: "Bomb Afghanistan with bread and butter. Bribe them with hope."

The logic is simple: people with full stomachs, VCD players, American Nike shoes and, most importantly, the hope for a brighter future for their children will be less keen to become suicide-bombers. Give peace a chance. After all, former President Clinton has visited Hanoi and America is now doing business with communist Vietnam. Wasn't this the great 'evil' enemy of the US just 30 years ago?

After World War II, America had the wisdom to make peace with Germany and Japan. Thank you, America - for the world has reaped the rewards. Retribution, the Old Testament demand of an eye for an eye, merely makes the whole world blind.

Ultimately, this is a call for America to show the world what goodness its great civilisation can achieve. A country that was once a refuge from religious persecution in Europe. A country of justice, freedom and fairplay.

On US dollar bills, there is a declaration: "In God we trust". However, that God also teaches: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. God Bless America.

Tomorrow: Lessons from Hollywood, Part 2

ANDREW SIA is a journalist and columnist with a local newspaper. This is the first of a three-part series.