In The Star today, MCA chief Dr Ling Liong Sik called on the US to listen to the voices of moderation and reason before taking any drastic action. He said, "In the process of punishing the guilty, we must not end up punishing the innocent."

Although this sounds eminently reasonable, the US is not faced with one or two multiple murders of its citizens.

A norm of civilised behaviour among liberal democratic nations has been breached i.e. that mass slaughter of civilians is permissible. The terrorists who planned and executed the WTC-Pentagon plane crashes, aimed to exact the maximum number of civilian casualties with their actions.

In response, the military operation on these terrorists and their sponsors, will doubtless try to minimise civilian or "collateral damage". This difference in aim is a vivid illustration of the parties in conflict.

On the one hand, we have the terrorists and their sponsors. They have amply demonstrated their dehumanised nature and innovation in mass slaughter. Does Ling think this is a 'one-off', one-time operation and we can wait for the architects to be identified one by one and peacefully brought to the International Criminal Court, for due process of legal remedies to be applied? Judging from his comments, this seems to be his line of thought.

On the other hand, we have the US. The closest parallel to Sept 11, 2001 is Dec 8, 1941, the "day of infamy" as proclaimed by President Roosevelt. That event brought forward the resolution of World War II. It may even have altered the outcome of the war because of the subsequent rush to create the first atomic bomb, which became known as the Manhattan Project.

Roosevelt did much to change the thinking of Americans, firstly, to take a geopolitical viewpoint and reach out for better understanding with the world; secondly, in terms of ideology. His view was that American security depended ultimately on American ideals of a liberal, capitalistic society, being shared by the rest of the world.

President George W Bush is not Roosevelt. The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks have had an equally traumatic effect on America as Pearl Harbor 60 years ago.

Most fast conveniences and material goods of modern living come from freewheeling US inventiveness and research and the 'can-do' mentality of its entrepreneurs. Then again the security umbrella provided by the US to Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and through Nato to Europe, has enabled prosperity and technological innovation there. This has filtered through to much of the rest of the world.

Two things puzzle me.

The largest oil supplies in the world, I believe, are in the Middle East. Why are there such income-disparities there, eg. between the Bedouins and the Kuwaitis? Why do virtual dictators and absolute monarchies (in contrast to constitutional monarchies) continue to rule there? Are these issues related and can there be local reasons for the resentment and envy that seem to breed terrorism?

The second thing is the behaviour of some Malaysians. They seem to exult in the attacks on the US as if they were a personal 'victory'. Perhaps a sociologist can explain what leads to such behaviour. I have not heard a credible explanation yet.