On the back cover of the 2017 May-June edition of this magazine we were reminded of the knot that binds us to the tangle we have made of human existence. Releasing the knot, one would contend, requires first an awareness of the nature of the knot, which means knowing what caused the tangle.

We are horribly aware of what is, but hardly aware of why. Your correspondent rather fears to suggest that in respect of human history, and as far as the current terrorists are   concerned, they are not even par for the course. This not an apology and is by no means a suggestion that they are anything less than undesirable, but they do have a long way to go to equal our collective bloody past. You don’t need a list.

It may be reasonable to suggest that frustration is at the root of most human folly. The terrorists are frustrated by their own need to find release from persecution perceived, but more likely a purpose for their lives. It amounts to the adoption of a system, a philosophy, a reason to be. It is often similar, in albeit psychological content, to what we often undertake in the name of “our interests.” Humans are also frustrated by the need for some of us to be rude, as in the appalling attacks of the good name of the Prophet Muhammad, which were used as an excuse to release ingrained frustrations. Should we really be aghast when we end up with a bloody nose after insulting someone? We do not discuss right or wrong because we are confronted by simply what is. Our lack of comprehension when being hit tells of an equal lack of awareness of human decency and that really means our own lack because, after all, you generally get back what you engender. The Hindus call it karma. All right, let’s tell it how it is. “Keep your dirty mouth off me, buddy, or you’re gonna get a smack in the eye.” Thus, however crass, crude or unsophisticated, that is how things stand. We must possibly consider that the human fuse is longer or shorter according to the individual. Even if so inclined, one would perhaps risk an oblique thrust against an educated, worldly wise person, but I will hesitate to walk into a black neighborhood shouting about white supremacy. This by no means supposes that people in a black neighborhood are unsophisticated, but it does suppose common sense, as opposed to being either cowardly or brave, or downright silly. Quite obviously, speaking one’s mind is often far removed from exercising common sense. To be fair, there would seem to be a need for a study about what to do with thoughts that are less than useful. The “freedom to be me” set would protest, but I am suggesting a universal creed, borrowed again from one of the mystics, of being able to do anything you like in this world, as long as you don’t hurt anybody.

Don’t think about it: only God is good.

The peoples of this world have been insulting each other since the beginning of time. Nevertheless, there must be more to the matter. History shows us that most nations have at one time or another been at the top of the pile politically, culturally, and naturally financially. The top nations were then seen to slide right on down again (Rome is the obvious example.) How come? They had it all! It is a common notion to say that wealth brings responsibility with it. But with tons of money available, decadence is a beguiling and easy option. Above all, we are bound to admit that the exhilarating, albeit disastrous, slide down is likely to be made rapid to the extent of a nation’s financial means.

One could also suggest that as far as the terrorists are concerned, they may well be running on a sort of universal “now is my time” program. The wheel of human endeavor has turned – someone has even suggested that there is a noticeable historic cycle in social change – and we are now faced with another bully thrusting to the fore. Please remember that none of the so-called advanced nations have ever succeeded without bullying, usually some other country’s indigenous peoples. This brings about frustration and an arising group urge. First comes the insult perceived, then comes the instinctive, then the planned, fight back.

Please consider that terrorists have, in one guise or another, littered the lives and existence of humans for thousands of years. The name, the cause, the flag under which they kill may have been superficially varied, but the root cause, the why, has always been the same. Humans have an appetite for anger. To be precise, anger is an appetite!

Has anyone ever investigated appetite? The mystics deal with it. The Islamic mystic, Sheikh Jilani, has pinpointed our lower instincts, for which the Arabic word is nafs. Our nafs are not merely our egos, but are somewhat akin to the appetites we attach to our lower impulses. Am I splitting hairs, here? Nevertheless, whether from the Arabic or otherwise, nafs, our lower impulses, are universal one way or another to all of humanity.

The ego is indeed pure until it acquires a less than useful appetite. Our motivating forces (often animal or material in nature) may well be necessary for navigating our daily lives, but there are few among us able to use them under the governance of a human attitude, read God’s guidance. Nevertheless, it may seem to be confusing the issue somewhat to suggest that our lower impulses are also needed to get out of bed in the morning with a purpose. In other words, an ego is little more than a mechanical function that has somehow acquired enormous clout in the minds of humans. The ego is very useful for undertaking work, for getting you to the train on time, for making money, but not for using money for matters of detriment. Such as having a war supported by a war industry. Thus, doing what you truly feel guided to do and nothing else is demonstrably tricky. Your mind will always find a reason for you to indulge in your appetite for sex, drugs and… (ok, let’s keep rock ‘n’ roll), the world, the world. One of the problems arising when discussing ego is that it is loaded with connotation. Everyone will tell you that egoism is bad, but that is not true! It is what you do with your ego that is often out of context. That’s the point, it is the notion of what you do that is of the essence. The big idea, of course, is to keep your self separate from your ego. In other words: my ego, my servant, and not the other way round. Moreover, my mind, my servant, and not the other way round, would suggest relegating the mind to its proper position within the human frame. This perhaps sounds like a good idea, on paper, and one should be able to exercise free will to undertake it. The problem is that not many wills on this earth are actually free. (Ask any parent struggling to put a child through school.) There always appear to be the add-ons, coloration engendered by experience. The Hindu maintains that “…to live life according to experience is the most bitter of ways.” Another mystic has also said that people make most mistakes when feeling happy. That may sound weird, and this writer apologizes for not offering an example. I would need a month on a desert island to figure that one out.

Can we envisage “my mind, my servant”? A mind that serves and does not lead? A humble mind is a rarity, of course. A mind denying its self for most of us would be, well, unthinkable. This writer asks forgiveness for adding sophistry; it is a writer’s test of faith. But it does mean that the true human self should be, but rarely is, separate from a person’s motivating forces. Hence inner conflict.

It has been suggested that to worship God one must make neutral the effects of the heart and the mind. This emptying of worldly influences, which are actually necessary for living in the world, for a period of worship means permitting God to take over. With the heart and mind in neutral, the nafs, our lower motivating forces, are in abeyance. At the finish of worship, the nafs will again thrust to the fore, often with a vengeance. Five times daily in prayer is a constant return to God. Then by the grace of God we may wish to consider the forces within us as they really are. It must be of great value to be able to dissociate ourselves – achieve distance – from our lower forces, get them into focus but not to eradicate them because one may never get off one’s desert island. One may also meditate at lofty Himalayan heights and even “shake” the hand of God, but would be incapable of coming down to the valley where human life goes on.

Our lower motivating forces should be – in fact are – the instruments given at our disposal for work, for undertaking science, for example, for feeding ourselves and our families, thus, for dealing with our worldly responsibilities. Many persons of an ascetic leaning have removed themselves from “the world” in an endeavor to subdue their lower forces. Indeed, Muhammad went to his cave, Jesus went into the desert for forty days and forty nights. Their motivating instinct, however, was submission, for receiving and not conceiving. After all, can we really be wiser than God? These persons then returned to the world to assist the rest of humankind. This writer remembers the story of a Buddhist monk who had received nirvana, after which he returned to the marketplace, the world, to serve humanity. In its simplest form it was all about knowing what makes people suffer, what makes people afraid, what makes people turn to their lower instincts for answers and then makes them fight. The German language offers Existenzangst, which is a good a word as any for describing the root of the human condition.

Jesus returned knowing what makes people be the way they are, Muhammad, too, and he was reported to have cried out in anguish at his knowing. The Buddha came to his realization of what makes people unhappy, which was, of course, desire.

The Islamic tradition leans, quite rightly I believe, on the sciences – the use of the mind to serve for the betterment of human existence. It is not a mystical matter, but it is engendered by a mystical instinct. First the realization, then the serving. Moreover, using the mind to cultivate a garden, harness solar energy, or simply attending to one’s given profession could reasonably be suggested as being God’s preferred way of keeping us out of trouble. Those of theological persuasion may well suggest that one is unable to enter through the gates of heaven through works. This writer would contend, however, that enterprise is not the real meaning of work, or works. It may be reasonable to suggest that anything undertaken through the designs of God has already been blessed, however mundane it may appear. Philosophers, writers in general and those who would delve into higher things are naturally at risk. It is dangerous terrain, often a tightrope walk over a yawning chasm engendered by the heart and the mind, which amounts to the most sophisticated double act to ever enter upon the stage of human endeavor. This writer has also been in the presence of a mystic who once maintained that he had no real knowledge of what he was about to say (lecture notes would be anathema). His inspiration was from above.

Thus, after our daily prayers we return to the world on a hopefully even keel. Our appetites, which, let’s face it, are currently raging around the planet, are for a while governed by a higher force.

It has been suggested – and don’t get me wrong here – that prayer changes nothing. Prayer changes people and people change things. This writer is inclined to equate prayer with a spontaneously arising feeling of hope for betterment in the face of trouble. Thus, to hope for betterment, and not wish to kill, is in itself grace.

The only way to surrender to God, it seems, is to place one’s lower motivating forces in abeyance for a while. But never, ever, try to eradicate them.

This writer finds himself, at long last, reading James Michener’s Iberia. At the beginning of the book Michener tells us about duende (grace recognized) and shibui (aesthetic rightness). Both explanations are approximations. My leaning for such things, my temperament, brought on enthusiasm. The promising beginning was brief, however, and Mr. Michener then takes the reader through 800 pages of small print dealing mostly with the history, art and culture of the Iberian peninsula. Mr. Michener tells us what is or was, but not why.

The foot is a limb that is not given much importance when compared to other vital organs such as the brain or heart. However, the foot is a very complex mechanical structure that is made of 26 bones, 33 joints, and more than 100 muscles and ligaments. About a quarter of the bones in the human body and about a fifth of the joints are found in our two feet. That is why Leonardo da Vinci described the human foot as an engineering and artistic masterpiece.

A healthy person takes about 5,000 steps a day. Given a life of eighty years, a person takes about 150 million steps throughout their life. Assuming that each step is 75 cm, a person walks about 110,000 kilometers throughout his life. This corresponds to walking around the equator about 3 times. Apart from that, a typical person stands for around 2-4 hours a day. During all these activities, the human foot carries the entire body’s weight. In standing position, body weight is supported by two feet while activities such as walking and running are done by only one foot for a certain period of time. While standing, the feet carry 100% of their body weight, while walking, this rate rises up to 150%. While walking, the foot that needs to be lifted from the ground approaches the ground again with an acceleration in the same direction as gravity. Therefore, the impact force at the moment the foot touches the ground corresponds to 150% of a person’s body weight. In cases of severe effects such as running and jumping, this force easily increases up to 5 times the body weight and up to 10 times in some people. For a person weighing 70 kilograms, this force can be 105 kg (or about 1050 Newton) in walking, and easily 350 kg (or about 3500 Newton) in running or jumping. Assuming that a person walking for an hour takes 5,000 steps, the foot pulls a total of about 500 tons of load (5,000 steps x 105 kg). In running, this figure will increase approximately three times.

The foot has been created with a wonderful mechanical and construction design that is able to consistently sustain such high loads. The bones and muscles of the foot add two different belt designs to it. One of them, the structure called the longitudinal belt starts from the heel bone (calcaneus) and ends with its metatarsal bones (Figure 1). Some researchers claim that the long arch is divided into two parts as the inner (medial arch) and the outer arch (lateral arch). However, both structures resemble bridges built in arches. The second arch on the foot is called the transverse arch. This belt is perpendicular to the long belt from the right side of the foot to the left side and is shorter in length (Figure 2).

Therefore, the foot is a marvelous structure consisting of roughly two arches. This structure of the foot can be compared to arch bridges or a dam. The arch structure is known as the strongest structure against steep loads in construction areas due to the robustness of the designs against compression forces in cases of vertical loading. Therefore, hydroelectric dams are constructed in the form of arches or arcs in order to make the most resistant model against hydrostatic pressure.

The arch structure of the foot is very flexible and can also move up and down like a car suspension and acts as a shock absorption. If there was no such structure on the foot, the impact forces during walking and running activities would be higher and cause chronic foot pain. The flatfoot complication is a result of a damage in the arch structure in the foot which comes from birth or develops afterwards. Flatfoot patients are often unable to perform long-term activities and experience foot pain as well as complications in other organs of the body.

Our feet’s arch structure is not the only factor involved in shock absorption that is designed against mechanical forces. The layer of fat on the bottom of the foot also contributes to this process. In a healthy person, this fat layer, which has a height of 2.5 cm under the heel, drops to 5-7 mm in the front part of the foot. It also helps to distribute the vertical and horizontal forces caused by standing or walking evenly on the sole of the foot. At the same time, it serves as a source of heat insulation and helps protect our feet from hot or cold surfaces. In some diseases such as diabetes, in which this fat layer melts or decreases, wounds called foot ulcers can develop because the shock absorption and load distribution get damaged. Mechanical pressure is calculated by dividing the amount of mechanical force by the surface area on which it is applied, meaning that smaller surfaces areas are subjected to more pressure. This is why very tiny needles, despite weighing almost nothing, can pierce our skin and cause pain. Similarly, damage to the fat layer under the foot causes the forces applied under the foot to act on a limited surface area. For example, the reduction of fat in the area just below the heads of the metatarsal bones reduces the “cushioning” effect in this area and causes a pressure in high values. This extra pressure can cause tissue damage along with the aforementioned foot ulcers.

Such a situation that will cause pain in a normal person cannot be felt by many diabetics. If diabetes is not well controlled, neuropathy or a “lack of feeling” may occur as a complication. Dead nerve cells become unable to feel pain which can result in people not knowing about harm that is being done to their body. Diabetic patients who develop neuropathy would not feel fatty layer damage and accompanying high pressure values whereas a typical person normally would. Untreated foot ulcers can become infected and can turn into gangrene. Since the gangrenous foot has to be cut, diabetes unfortunately causes a large number of amputations. Such amputations are sadly quite frequent throughout the world due to diabetic neuropathy. Dr. Paul Brand, who studied diabetic foot ulcers, defined pain as a gift from God that no one wanted. Sometimes, what we do not like might be better for us (Qur’an 2:216); likewise, pain can cause a lot of trouble to people but it can also alert us of dangers and harm to our bodies.

Thus, foot care is very important in diabetics. The following three actions are recommended to patients; daily inspection of the foot; daily washing; and control of the inside of the shoes. The pest, pebble, or similar hard object in the shoe that can be very harmful for diabetics with loss of sensation would be removed this way. On the other hand, when such a hard object remains in the shoes, patients may step on them repeatedly without feeling it which will likely lead to an ulcer case.

With its pain that works like a health alarm, extraordinary mechanical loads it carries, heat insulation and shock absorbing features, the human foot is a wonder of art that calls for contemplation.

While wandering near a creek, have you ever seen bugs walking on the surface of the water? Have you felt any resistance when you hit the surface of the sea with your palm? Have you ever thought about what causes these to happen?

The two examples of events given above happen to be related to “surface tension.” This situation is described as the force per distance unit that is generated in the opposite direction of the direction of expansion between two different surfaces. It can take place in between two different liquid layers, as well as among liquid-gas and liquid-solid layers. For example, the surface tension of a liquid forms in the transitional region where liquid and gas molecules make contact. The source of this force generated on the liquid’s surface is the intermolecular attractions that hold the liquid molecules together. Each molecule in the liquid is pulled via opposite but equal forces by neighboring molecules, thus no single force is acting on the molecules. However, the molecules on the surface are only surrounded by one side, therefore they are pulled inwards with a net force (Figure 1), causing a tension similar to an inflated balloon on the surface of the liquid.

When we look carefully to a stagnant pool of water in a container, the surface of the water seems to be covered with a thin layer of film, resembling a stretched membrane. In order for a substance to enter or leave the body of water successfully, it must puncture this membrane. In other words it has to overcome this intermolecular force. If a steel blade is laid horizontally on the surface of the water slowly, it floats despite that it is made of denser steel because it cannot overcome this surface tension. Surface tension is the principle responsible for the trampoline-like behavior of liquid surfaces. Many insect species created for aqueous habitats can maintain their lives on the water via their adapted leg parts. The best example of this is the water strider. This insect lives on water by taking advantage of water surface tension. Though the surface tension principle is a requirement to be on the water, it is also necessary that the strider not to stick to the surface. Therefore, this insect is also equipped with a paddle made of waxy hairs at the end of their legs (Figure 2).

Forces of cohesion and adhesion

The intermolecular force of a liquid among the same kind of molecules is called the “cohesion force,” and intermolecular attraction between different types of liquid molecules is called the “adhesion force.” These forces of adhesion and cohesion determine the behavior of a liquid in a container. If some mercury is put in a glass tube, because the cohesive forces among the mercury atoms is greater than the adhesive forces in between the glass container and the mercury, the mercury assumes a convex shape. Here, mercury has a tendency to reduce its contact with the glass and does not wet it. In contrast to mercury, when water is put inside the tube, the surface layer between the water and air takes an inward concave shape. This is caused by the greater adhesion force between the water and glass compared to the intermolecular cohesion forces of water. Water wets the glass since it has a tendency to spread towards the greatest surface possible (Figure 3).

When there is a thin layer of water or tea left in between a tea glass and its plate, the adhesion force glues the glass and plate together. Since the adhesion force is greater than the weight of the plate, the glass cup can be lifted together with the plate. Contact lenses also stay in position on the eyes without falling through the help of adhesion forces. Tears strongly pull both cornea and the contact lens together, holding it in place.

The capillary effect

A liquid inside a thin vertical tube is pulled upwards by the inner surface of the tube until the adhesion force becomes balanced with the liquid weight. This event is called the capillary effect or capillarity. Liquids naturally rise in narrow channels if there is sufficient adhesion force. This effect is enhanced in narrow tubes due to the smaller volume of the liquid, but reduced in wider tubes because of gravity. Therefore, there is an inverse ratio between the channel diameter and liquid height in capillarity.

The reason a sponge absorbs water effectively is the easy rise of water in the capillary openings of the sponge. In a similar fashion, there are small openings found in paper napkins and towels. When a napkin makes contact with a wet surface, water is pulled inside the small openings with capillary action, thus removing the water from the surface. This is because the adhesion force in between the napkin tissue and water is greater than the cohesion force of the water molecules. This principle is also utilized while getting blood samples with capillary tubes. In addition, the removal of continuously excreted tears by the capillary ocular ducts that extend into the nasal cavity is another example of this wise law.

Capillary action is also important for the transportation of water molecules from humid parts towards drier areas in soil, providing for the spread of water. The same principle is also vital to nourishment of trees. Every part of a tree encompasses capillary channels, all the way from the tips of the roots to very ends of the branches. Water molecules are transported to the leaves against gravity when they enter the tips of these capillary channels at the roots. Even though the adhesion forces between the water molecules and the root’s tissues win the war against gravity, at a certain height, this force becomes equal to the gravitational pull, thus not allowing water molecules to climb higher. This is the ultimate height a tree reaches. Capillarity also affects internal water pressure of a tree, leaf size, photosynthesis, and other factors. This is why the leaves of a tree are usually bigger on lower branches compared to higher ones (Figure 4).

The surface tension of water is the highest among the known values of other liquids and this has very significant biological effects. If the surface tension of water was to be lower, like other liquids, it would not be able reach the higher parts of plants through capillary action, thus preventing the survival of taller plants. The vegetation waits patiently as nourishment is delivered to its roots. Water has been assigned a vital role in this service.

The water-dependent survival of plants is made possible through the capillarity and surface tension. Could this amazing phenomenon, in which the capillarity is on duty to water the leaves on the highest branches of the tallest trees to ensure the maintenance of life, take place via blind atomic interactions or accidental occurrences?

How do liquid droplets get their shape?

Objects with a wider surface will have a greater surface tension. Since the force of surface tension, acting on per unit distance, is equal to the surface energy per surface area, a wider surface requires greater accumulation of energy on the surface. All the matter in the universe tends to stay at a lowered energy level. Therefore, it is ideal for objects to reduce their surface area. When the surface area to volume ratio of the known geometric shapes is investigated, the smallest ratio is found to belong to a sphere. A small value of this ratio means the most reduced surface area per volume. Among enclosed containers of equal volume, a sphere is also the one with the smallest surface area. When two equal volume watermelons of spherical and cubical shape are peeled, the spherical one will produce the least amount of rinds.

Because of the reasons mentioned above, liquids take a droplet shape immediately when they fall, reducing their surface area. That is why a water droplet dripping from a faucet, a falling rain drop, and a droplet on a leaf are all in the shape of a sphere (Figure 5). It is the same principle that makes planets and other heavenly bodies resemble a globular form. This indeed points to an Almighty Power who plans the motions, positions, and assignments of all the objects, from particles to giants, managing and dispatching them as The Self-Existent One holding everything together.

Factors affecting surface tension

Temperature increase is directly proportional to a decrease in the surface tension in most liquids. When the temperature of a liquid rises, so does the kinetic energy of the particles in it, making these particles move faster. This leads to a weakened intermolecular attraction that binds molecules together. Since this change affects the particles at the surface, it decreases the tension. Improved soaking of hands and laundry can be achieved with warm water during cleaning because heat reduces the surface tension. This helps with better cleaning results in a shorter amount of time.

In a similar fashion, soap and detergents also reduce the surface tension of water. If a small soap bubble is placed on a water droplet, the droplet spreads away instantly. This indeed tells us that the soap bubble reduces surface tension.

If a substance dissolves in a pure material, surface tension is found to change depending on the solute and the solvent structure. For example, salt decreases the surface tension of water. Salt weakens the intermolecular bonds of the water molecules, and therefore reduces the cohesion and surface tension. That’s why sea waves foam when they hit shore.

Can surface tension be associated with the ability of unconscious and primitive atoms as the principle behind many functions and tasks in the lives of plants and animals? Do such wondrous events happen by chance? Isn’t this principle such a blessing of the One who easily provides what is necessary to all living things, nourishing them in time according to their needs?

•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

While you are comfortably sitting in your chair or leaning against a pillow reading this article, you are rotating around the Earth’s axis at a speed up to 1000 miles per hour depending on how far you are from the poles. In addition, our planet is revolving around the Sun, in an orbit 186 million miles wide, at a speed of 67,000 mph. The Sun is taking its planets on a ride around the center of the Milky Way. In turn, the Milky Way, where the Solar System appears as no more than a small dust particle, is retreating from some galaxies and approaching others. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy is getting closer to us at a speed of 200,000 mph. And, even if you know all this, the apparent uniformity and order under which these movements occur enables you to feel at peace and to ignore them.

In distant space, new galaxies are being formed and many others are swallowed by mysterious black holes. Old stars collapse and explode to become supernova, or shrink and become little white dwarfs.

On our home planet which looks like a calm, blue marble from the space, atmospheric conditions from above and the volcanic forces from below cause continuous change in the layout of the continents and the oceans. Again, several centuries of scientific discoveries have shown that the continents are in constant motion, colliding on some fronts, and pulling apart in some other places. The theory of plate tectonics tells us that the continental plates float over the Earth and that when they collide, great mountain ranges (for example, the Himalayas) occur. For similar reasons, the Atlantic Ocean widens by four-tenths of an inch every year.

On the surface of the Earth, volcanoes rise and empty their contents as the building material for new lands. The wind and the rivers erode the soil, leveling the heights or causing deep canyons, slowly but steadily changing the layout of the land.

Animals and plants that sustain life on Earth come into existence and then disappear in lives that range from a few hours to several centuries. The plants recycle the soil and the gases and feed the animals, which return back to the soil when they die.

Your body is renewing itself without you being aware of it. Wounds heal, nails and hair grow. You breathe unconsciously and provide oxygen to blood cells that carry energy and nutrients to each and every cell in your body. The cells multiply for growth and renewal. The body fights against unknown intruders by producing its own medicines. The connections between your brain cells are constantly reestablishing themselves to enable you to understand and react to what you read or experience. Numerous decisions are made in the genes in the billions of cells in your body every moment to produce one or another kind of protein, which ultimately determines how your body functions.

The atoms, the building materials of all living or non-living matter in the universe, interact with other nearby atoms or even with atoms that are millions of light years away, reacting to their gravitational or electromagnetic forces. Atoms are bound to their neighbors, forming strong compounds or breaking bounds and releasing energy.

Even inside a single atom that is seemingly stable, a constant movement and renewal continues. The electrons circle the atomic nucleus at one percent of the speed of light. Even though matter in an atom constitutes a negligible part of the observed volume of the atom, the movements and resulting forces form the illusion of solid matter. When you are looking at a solid rock, are you aware that you are looking at an object that is 99.999999999 % empty? While the electrons continue their restless turn around the nucleus, they jump up and down the energy levels. The electrons seem to disappear from one level and reappear at another level without any continuum in between-hence the term “quantum leap.” When changing levels, electrons emit or absorb photons that are the building blocks of light.

The space-time continuum, first explained by Einstein, tells us that we will not be in the same place or at the same time twice. You will have traveled thousands of miles in the universe by the time you have finished reading this sentence.

In summary, everything in the universe, from the little subatomic particles to gigantic clusters of galaxies, is in a constant state of change.

In all this seemingly chaotic rush, there is a hidden order that keeps everything on course. When astronomers inspect the deep skies, they gasp when observing the beauty of celestial objects, like the nebulae structures recently discovered with the Hubble Space Telescope. On Earth, life continues to function on its course. Your body works until it has fulfilled its expected life span. And, despite all the electrons that are flying, disappearing, and reappearing, the book you left on the desk this evening will be there tomorrow morning-unless you have children at home.

It should be clear that any mishap, even for the slightest moment, might render the universe useless. So, why isn’t everything turning into a chaos of colliding, rotting, disappearing particles? What is the force that sets the harmony in the universe? This is best explained by Said Nursi, who wrote a century ago:

“The Glorious Creator of the universe is Self-Subsistent, that is, He subsists, continues, and endures of Himself. All things subsist and continue through Him, they remain in existence and have permanence. If that relationship of Self-Subsistence was cut off from the universe for even the fraction of a second, the universe would be annihilated.”

References

• See “The Great Attractor” at http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/GtAttractor.html.
• Charles Flowers , Instability Rules: The Ten Most Amazing Ideas of Modern Science, John Wiley & Sons, 1st edition, March 15, 2002.
• See “Complete Coverage of the Hubble Space Telescope” at http://www.space.com/hubble.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said, The Flashes, Sozler Publishing, 5th edition, December 1996.

But two important developments in modern physics during the 1930s gradually undermined their certainty. These developments were based upon experimental, intellectual, and theoretical observations. The experimental field revealed new particles, and the relevant tools and techniques became far more sophisticated. The results showed that subatomic components were not elementary particles, for they were not even elementary. And, the number of fundamental particles continued to grow: 6 in 1935, 18 in 1955, and more than 200 today.

Subatomic particles challenge old assumptions

Classical physics held that an object’s mass was connected to an elementary material that could not be annihilated or divided. But Einstein’s theory of relativity disproved this by showing that mass was not related to a concept like essence, and that energy was an expression of a quantity associated with activity, process, and movement. Since a particle’s mass is equivalent to a specific energy, the particle cannot be a static and stable object. Thus, a particle’s mass has to be considered a dynamic entity. This energy process shows itself as mass.

The theory of relativity’s most interesting aspect appeared when the process of extracting matter from pure energy was explained. Given that matter’s elements were considered indivisible and non-changeable units or compounds that could be reduced to their origins, could matter be fragmented ad infinitum or would the smallest indivisible unit eventually appear? The theoretical physicist Dirac (1902-84) answered this question by showing that when two particles collide at a high speed, they generally are smashed. However, the residual pieces are not smaller than their originals, for these remnants are constituted as the same particles via kinetic energy.

Subatomic particles are split by using high energy levels to crash them into each other. Thus matter can be split forever, and no particle so obtained can be smaller than its original. Such collisions result in new particles, for the two colliding particles’ energy is delivered between the particles so that new ones are formed. If there is enough such energy is produced, more particles are constituted than before the collision, meaning that subatomic particles are both divisible and indivisible.

As this is one of the best ways to study a particle’s basic features, this field is called high energy physics. The necessary kinetic energy is obtained by using particle accelerators, which are a couple of miles in diameter, to accelerate protons almost to the speed of light and then crash them into another proton or neutron. It is interesting that such huge super-microscopes are used to analyze infinitely small objects.

Since 1960, the number of known subatomic particles has grown. There were electrons in the nucleus, and protons and neutrons in an atom’s orbit. But what was in the proton? In 1970, Swiss researchers discovered a quark in the protons and neutrons. Its electric charge was explained by the charge value of protons and neutrons. But they could not explain what the energy was. Energy, which chained the quarks forming the proton in the nucleus, was called the strong nuclear force. But how could this energy bind the quarks together? Scientists postulated that energy was not an invisible force, but a feature formed by tiny granules and motes. Thus, these gluon (adhesive) particles bound the quarks together by pasting and clamping them in such a way that nuclear power was developed. In other words, the essence nuclear power was the gluon.

Photons, defined as particles carrying electromagnetic energy, were postulated to be the result of an exchange, a shifting between two particles. Thus, electromagnetism was a field of quantum, carried its energy through particles with no electric charge, had a spin value of 1, and was not radiating but rather perceived. Although photons had been known for a long time, scientists did not realize that they provided the force of attraction between protons and neutrons. Photons were the smallest energy packages forming the light. Now, the only thing left to be discovered was the weak nuclear force that controlled radioactive decay.

These forces had to be carried by particles. These particles (bosons), when discovered, were found to be of three types: positive (W), negative (W), and neutral (W). Thus, scientists learned that the universe’s three elementary forces were carried by particles. But the particles (gravitons) carrying gravity, the weakest force, remained undiscovered. 

Non-atomic particles

Non-atomic particles are depicted as objects having a mass in terms of space, and as events and activities having as much energy as the quantity of the mass. Given this, the matter found in space is unstable and changes due to continuous activity and movement. This is surprising, for it means that particles move and consist of movement. In other words, matter’s presence and movement are not different of each other, but represent different features of the same mechanical truth.

Based on these observations, particle physicists consider force to be an energy transition between matter, which it affects, and think that it is caused by the smaller particles’ diffusion and absorption. For instance, charged particle’s state of movement changes when it diffuses a photon. If another charged particle absorbs the photon, it gains energy and thus changes its condition of movement. Here, as the mutual movement changes between two particles occur as force, the change’s total effect is perceived as force. And so there are no external forces, but only interactions via some inter-particles between the particles. In this way, quantum mechanics adds an unusual approach to non-atomic events and engenders a completely different description for force. In fact, force does not exist, because it is no more than tiny particles, motes, and rays. So, the interaction and continuous communication between particles give rise to force, which has no reality or presence by itself.

This truth disturbed materialists and determinists, for it showed that matter and force, which brought forth and sustain this magnificent universe, are based on another existence that indicates omnipotence. According to Said Nursi, the existence of this power is more definite than the existence of the universe, and each visible item is a proof and the sign of the Holy Power of God, the source of all objects and forces. He states: Every creature, either on its own or altogether, is this Power’s solid word. Scientific names like ˜dynamic process,’ ˜energy form,’ or ˜effect mechanism,’ are given to this governing power. However, modern science is beginning to show that the effect mechanism, which cannot be associated to any reason and is reduced to one truth, is really the manifestation of the ˜Holy Power.’ Said Nursi further says The motion of particles is the vibration and motion from that writing and transcription, which occurs while beings pass from the World of the Unseen to the Manifest World, as they pass from knowledge to power. (The Words, Vol. 2, 30th Word, Second Aim, Footnote) 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the activities and creation of creatures are manifested as wave-vibration-movement passing from the field of knowledge to the field of power. Then, the pen of Divine Power writes its fate and ushers it into the world of material existence. 

References

• Hawking, Stephen, The Universe in a Nutshell, Bantam Books, Incorporated, 2001
• Penrose, Roger, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, 1990
• Weinberg, Stewen, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of Universe, New York: Basic Books, 1988
• Hooft, Gerart T., In the Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks, Cambridge University Press, 1996
• Davies, Paul, God and New Physics, Simon & Schuster 1984. For other books by the same author: http://aca.mq.edu.au/pdavies.html

Modern theories of creation are built upon quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity. The question is what happened before the Big Bang? Einstein’s equations break down at the enormously small distances and large energies found at the universe’s origin. At distances 10-33cm, quantum effects take over from Einstein’s theory. For questions involving the beginning of time, one must invoke the ten-dimensional theory. The Big Bang probably originated in the breakdown of the original ten-dimensional universe into a four- and six-dimensional universe. Therefore, the history of the Big Bang represents the breakup of previously unified symmetries, and the split universe was no longer symmetrical. Six dimensions have curled up.

Quantum physics abolishes time close to the Big Bang. How did the universe come into existence? Why does time vanish in the black hole? Did time exist before the universe came into being? These questions and realities point to the existence of a Creator.

Unfortunately, quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity are mutually incompatible. In this new millennium, superstring theory, or simply string theory, resolves this tension. Three particle theorists (Yoichiro Nambu, Leonard Susskind, and Holger Nielsen) independently realized that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of an oscillating string. This marks the official birth of string theory in 1970, according to which the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but also inevitable. Brian Greene writes in his The Elegant Universe: String theory has the inherent capability to show that all of the astonishing happenings in the universe”from the frenzied dance of subatomic quarks (components of protons or neutrons) to the stately dance of orbiting binary stars, from the primordial fireball of the big bang to the majestic whirl of celestial galaxies”are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation.

Fundamental forces

During the past hundred years, physicists have proven the existence of four fundamental forces in nature: Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Gravity, the most familiar force, keeps Earth revolving around the sun and our feet planted firmly on the ground. Electromagnetic force, the next most familiar force, is the driving force for such things as lights, TVs, computers, and telephones.

The strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces are less familiar, because they operate in the atom’s nucleus. The strong force (mediated by gluons) keeps quarks glued together inside protons and neutrons, and keeps protons and neutrons tightly crammed together inside atomic nuclei. The weak force (mediated by W and Z particles) determines the radioactive decay of such radioactive materials as uranium, plutonium, and tritium.

Gravitational force is mediated by graviton (the concept of graviton was introduced in 1974), photons for the electromagnetic force (a photon is the smallest EM force or the smallest packet of energy for light). In Einstein’s day, the strong and weak forces were unknown. For 30 years Einstein sought to unify the two distinct forces of gravity and electromagnetism.

String theory

Matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are made of nucleons (protons and neutrons in the nucleus) and electrons orbiting around the nucleus. Nucleons are made of three quarks each. Quarks are made of string. According to the standard model of particle physics, the universe’s elementary constituents are point-like ingredients with no internal structure. However, this standard model cannot be a complete theory, for it does not include gravity. But according to string theory, atomic and subatomic particles are not point-like; rather, they consist of tiny one-dimensional filaments somewhat like infinitely thin rubber bands. Physicists call these vibrating, oscillating, and dancing filaments strings.

String theory takes its name from this point of view. Unlike an ordinary piece of string, which itself is composed of molecules and atoms, the strings of string theory are alleged to lie deeply within the heart of matter. They are so small”on average about as long the Planck length (10-33 cm, or about 100 billion billion [1020] times smaller than an atomic nucleus)”that they appear point-like even when examined with our most powerful equipment. String theory offers a far fuller and more satisfying explanation than that of the standard model.

Moreover, this theory shows the harmonious union of general relativity and quantum mechanics”a major success. In this new millennium, the excitement in the physics community is that string theory may provide the unified theory of all four forces and all matter. For this reason, string theory sometimes is described as possibly being the theory of everything.

String theory proclaims that the observed particle properties (i.e., mass, charge, and spin) are reflections of a string’s various vibrations. Each preferred pattern of a string’s vibration in string theory appears as a particle whose mass and force charges are determined by the string’s oscillatory pattern. All fundamental particles can be described as resonant patterns of these string vibrations. There is even a mode describing the graviton. The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Hence everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the microscopic string oscillations”the notes that strings can play.

Extra Dimensions

Our universe has three spatial dimensions: length, width, and height. In formulating the general theory of relativity, Einstein showed that time is another dimension. According to the general theory of relativity, space and time communicate the gravitational force through their curvature. The special theory of relativity is Einstein’s law of space and time in the absence of gravity.

In 1919, the mathematician Theodor Kaluza unified Maxwell’s electromagnetism and Einstein’s theory of general relativity by adding a fifth dimension. Thus Kaluza was the one who suggested that the universe might have more than three spatial dimensions.

For example, a garden hose viewed from a long distance looks like a one-dimensional object. When looked at closely, a second dimension, one shaped like a circle and curled around the hose, becomes visible. The direction along the hose’s length is long, extended, and easily visible. The direction circling around its thickness is short, curled up, and harder to see. Hence spatial dimensions are of two types: large, extended, and therefore directly evident, or small, curled up, and far harder to detect. As for the garden hose, the curled-up dimension encircling its thickness is detected either moving closer to the hose or using a pair of binoculars from a distance. If the hose is as thin as a hair or a capillary, its curled-up dimension is more difficult to detect.

In 1926, the mathematician Oskar Klein applied Kaluza’s theory to quantum theory, which is used in modern string theory. Klein showed that our universe’s spatial fabric may have both extended (the three spatial dimensions of daily experience) and curled-up dimensions. The universe’s additional dimensions are tightly curled up into a tiny space, a space so tiny that it has so far eluded detection. These extra dimensions are believed to be minuscule, somewhere between 10-35 meters and 0.3 millimeters in size.

The equations of string theory show that the universe has nine space dimensions and one time dimension. At present, no one knows why the three space and one time dimensions are large and extended, while all of the others are tiny and curled up.

Supersymmetry

Symmetry is a physical system property that does not change when the system is transformed. For example, a sphere is rotationally symmetrical, since its appearance does not change if it is rotated.

In 1971, supersymmetry was invented in two contexts at once: in ordinary particle field theory and as a consequence of introducing fermions into string theory. It holds the promise of resolving many problems in particle theory, but requires equal numbers of fermions and bosons. Thus, it cannot be an exact symmetry of Nature.

Supersymmetry, a mathematical transformation, is a symmetry principle that relates a particle’s properties of a whole number amount (integer) of spin (bosons) to those with half a whole (half-integer or odd) number amount of spin (fermions). Bosons tend to be the mediators of fundamental forces, while fermions make up the matter experiencing these forces. Bosons can occupy the same space and have an integral spin (0,1, .), while fermions cannot occupy the same space and have a half-integral spin ( 1/2, 3/2,.). Bosons transmit such forces as photons, gravitons, W and Z particles, mesons, and gluons. Many bosons can occupy the same state at the same time. Fermions (e.g., electrons, muons, tau, protons, neutrons, quarks, and neutrinos) cannot share a given state at a given time with other fermions. The fact that fermions make up matter explains why we cannot walk through walls: the inability of fermions (matter) to share the same space the way bosons (particles of force or energy) can.

Supersymmetry treats all particles of the same mass as different varieties of the same superparticle. This means that there is an equal matching between bosons and fermions. A supersymmetric string theory is called a superstring theory. The original string theory only described bosons, and hence became known as bosonic string theory (BST). Thus it did not describe fermions or, for example, include quarks and electrons.

Introducing supersymmetry to BST engendered a new theory that describes both the forces and the matter making up the universe: the theory of superstrings. String theorists have shown that all string theories are different aspects of a string theory that has not 10 but 11 spatial dimensions. This was called M-theory. The M might stand for the mother of all theories or mystery, magic, matrix, or membrane. The last two refer to mathematical techniques used in science. There is no space or time in M Theory. Furthermore, our space-time is not four-dimensional after all. M theory unites the four forces of nature (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, strong force, and weak force) and, remarkably, is a mathematical and geometrical theory. It is attractive because it can explain gravity and an atom’s inside at the same time and thus resolve the contradiction between current theories.

Summary and Conclusions

String theory gives a theoretical description of elementary particles and treats them as one-dimensional curves (strings). Traditional models of interactions between elementary particles are based on quantum field theory, which treats particles as dimensionless points. Theoretical physicists have not developed a workable theory of gravitation that is consistent with quantum mechanics’ principles.

However, treating elementary particles as strings permits the derivation of a quantum theory that encompasses all four forces. Superstring theory, a combination of string theory and supersymmetry, treats particles as very short (10-33 cm along its single dimension, which is 1020 smaller than a proton’s diameter) closed strings (string loops). All of the masses, charges, and other properties of elementary particles result from the vibration of these superstrings at different frequencies. The complex mathematical basis of superstrings involves 10 dimensions: 9 spatial dimensions, 6 of which are invisible, and time. Since superstring theory provides a unified description of all elementary particles and fundamental forces, it is sometimes called the theory of everything.

Some major unsolved problems of string theory are how to condense, 10 dimensions to 6 (spatial) plus 4 (space and time) dimensions, and what is happening at distances smaller than 10-33 cm. In addition, the experimental verification of the existence of strings in the near future poses quite a challenge. Since they are thought to be less than a billionth of a billionth the size of an atom, we cannot use current technology to detect them directly. An indirect test, however, will be carried out within the next decade or so by the Large Hadron Collider, a huge atom smasher being built by CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research, located in Geneva, Switzerland). There also is an urgent need to develop new mathematics in areas of Riemann surfaces, algebraic geometry, singular geometries, number theory, and other related fields. 

Footnotes

1. K stands for Kelvin, a measurement of degree relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the unit of measurement equals the centigrade degree and according to which absolute zero is 0A , the equivalent of “273.16A C.

References

• Adams, Steve. A Theory of Everything. New Scientist 161 (20 Feb. 1999).
• Arkani-Hamed, Nima et al. The Universe’s Unseen Dimensions. Scientific American 283 (Aug. 2000): 62-69.
• Davies, P. C. W. and Julian Brown, Eds. Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Duff, Michael J. The Theory Formerly Known as Strings. Scientific American 278, (Feb. 1998): 64-69.
• Green, Michael M., John H. Schwarz, and Edward Witten. Superstring Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
• Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.
• Gribbin, John R. The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything. Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1998.
• Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Mukhi, Sunil. The Theory of Strings: An Introduction. Current Science 77 (25 Dec. 1999): 1624-34.
• Peat, David F. Superstring and the Search for the Theory of Everything. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1988.
• Polchinski, Joseph G. String Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Terrorists aim to get a lot of people to pay attention to their cause; they don’t necessarily want a lot of people dead. Since they have neither large armies nor economic power, the terrorists’ political hopes lie in the success or failure of their propaganda (Livingstone, 1988, p.120). However, to get attention terrorists must terrorize, must escalate violence in order to capture or recapture headlines (Jenkins, 1985).

The state’s response to terrorism can be categorised as ‘legitimate’ ‘suppressive’ or ‘concessionary’. ‘Legitimate’ measures include the whole range of legal procedures and punishments, special but ‘irregular’ counter-terrorist forces assisted by special courts, special rights of surveillance and arrest, very specific media restrictions, visa controls, etc. ‘Suppressive’ measures can include punitive military strikes against the terrorists (if they can be located) or military or economic or diplomatic sanctions against foreign powers alleged to be supporting the terrorists, intensive propaganda campaigns, extensive media restrictions, etc. ‘Concession’, obviously, involves negotiating some sort of deal with the terrorists.

The state’s counter-terrorist strategy has four major aspects: deterrence; intelligence (early warning); defence; retaliation. Deterrence works on the assumption that the terrorists can be persuaded that the costs of their policy exceed the benefits. Typically, however, terrorists do not have identifiable assets against which the state can take or threaten action. Deterrent action is therefore usually directed against foreign powers allegedly involved in assisting or supporting the terrorists. Apart from the diplomatic and legal complications which may result from such deterrence, the state must also calculate how far action against the foreign power really would affect the terrorists themselves.

lntelligence aims primarily at early warning of what are by their very nature surprise military attacks. ‘Humint’ or covert human intelligence depends on infiltrating terrorist cells, a more hazardous and difficult task than against other types of enemy organizations. Also, information collected about terrorist activity is usually limited in quantity and quality.

Active defence, pre-emptive arrests or military strikes, depends on identification and early warning. Passive defence consists mostly of so-called ‘target hardening’, that is, making potential targets harder to reach and harder to damage. The financial costs of protecting embassies, airports, individual official or private buildings, are very high. Also, protective measures can seriously interfere with the operations of such institutions. Finally, target hardening can encourage terrorists to move to ‘softer’ targets, terrorists can attack anything, anywhere, at any time, whereas the state cannot secure everything, everywhere all the time. The terrorists, in short, retain an edge over state security forces and security measures (Kegley and Wittkopf, 1989, pp.417-18).

The political cost of retaliation against foreign powers allegedly supporting terrorists can be very high unless there is strong proof of such support (Ofri, 1984). Also, as above noted, retaliatory action of this kind may not always impinge upon the terrorists themselves and may, conceivably, exaggerate the importance of their cause and enhance support for it. It is worth noting, in this context, that the international law surrounding counter-terrorist action is problematic. First of all, it is vague. Secondly, three principles of international law have often worked in favour of terrorist groups and their supporters: the right of self- determination, the right of asylum, and the rule of non-interference in the affairs of other states.

The role of the mass media is a crucial one. The terrorists need publicity since their goal is to win support for their cause. The media generally see their role as checking or criticizing the state: in theory, not being on the side of the state can mean being on the terrorists’ side. State imposed media blackouts certainly do not work. Experts on terrorism have pointed out that this policy only forces terrorists to escalate violence until they do get the media attention. The state, therefore, aims to get the media on its side–to encourage media to focus on the horrors of terrorist acts, and to deny exposure to the terrorists’ cause. Extensive anti-terrorist media-coverage can be of great benefit to the state in providing the background which allows it to plan and carry out retaliatory or other measures, in particular to obtain special legal powers which the public might otherwise resist (Clawson, 1987).

‘The state sponsorship of terrorism’ is an accusation that has been exchanged between various states. For example, the US has accused the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Libya, Iran, North Korea and Syria among others, of the practice and has itself been accused of sponsoring terrorist activities in Vietnam, Chile, and Nicaragua, and, as an ally of Israel in many other places (Kegley and Witkopf, 1989, pp.418-19). The historical fact is that ‘terrorists’, according to the definition of one ideological or political purpose are, according to another, ‘freedom fighters’. There is no coherent or generally accepted set of criteria by which the terrorists can be defined as such. However, acts of terrorism can be identified, and it is generally accepted that such acts should be prevented and/or punished. The difficulty lies in how to do so.

The terrorists are hoping to provoke an over-reaction from the state so that it will appear repressive. But if the state is to counter terrorism effectively it may have to take strong and unpopular action, given that a weak response will give an impression of weak government. One way out of this dilemma is for the sate always to act through the normal processes of the courts and not be panicked into any hasty suspension of civil liberties.

One approach is vigorous police action against terrorists, short of a full military commitment but not altogether excluding military involvement–for example, commando-style raids to seize hijackers, relieve hostages, etc. Overt and full-scale military action against terrorists is more controversial–for very good reasons. The record of what might be termed cross-border, military, punitive responses to terrorist actions is not particularly encouraging. For one thing, the motives and consequences of such actions are liable to misinterpretation. Incursions into a foreign country by the forces of one power may provoke another power which has interests or ambitions in that country. Also, such incursions, however honourably motivated, may legitimize similar incursions by others which claim, falsely, the same motive of combatting or punishing terrorism. For example, only five weeks after the US raid on Libya of 14-15th April 1986, South African forces attacked a series of targets in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana, arguing that they were terrorist centres. Then, there is the difficulty of choosing the targets of such military-punitive raids. It is not at all easy to select suitable targets since relatively few potential targets are indisputably associated with terrorism (Freedman, 1986. pp.l9-22).

Although there is considerable evidence that military retaliation does deter terrorism to some degree, military force is certainly not the answer to every terrorist challenge. Both politically and militarily, the army is a crude instrument. It, at least partly, legitimizes terrorist demands to be treated as political or military prisoners rather than as criminals. Army involvement heightens public tension and creates a feeling that the situation is getting out of hand. What can a state then do to combat terrorism?

One is never sure, where, when, how terrorists will attack. The state should use special intelligence and anti-terrorist units rather than the army. Such units must operate, and be seen to operate, within the law and under the control of legitimate authorities of the state. If not, these units may themselves be labelled terrorist and lose public support for the state’s policy. Given that such units must be ‘undereover’, public supervision of their work is bound to be a difficult and delicate task.

A ‘no concession to terrorists’ attitude, although painful in hostage situations, has been proven to be effective. Following the experience of Irish security forces in 1975, a policy of ‘no deals’ and ‘no assaults’ in a hostage situation was found to work. The tactic used is to wear down the resistance and the morale of the terrorists. Negotiating with or giving in to terrorist demands is generally perceived by the public as weak government and leads to anxiety about what the next concession is going to be (Wilkinson, l988, p.l3l).

Domestic or internal acts of terrorism can usually be traced to minority groups who perceive themselves to be excluded from the political or economic rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority. It is self-evident that the legitimacy of the power and authority of the state will be challenged by grieved parties if their grievances cannot be redressed through the normal political channels. Similarly, international terrorism can flourish where the international system fails to satisfy the aspirations of people whose national or ethnic or religious-cultural rights (or hopes) are denied and, often, denied brutally. Terrorism is, insofar as one can generalize, the weapon of the desperately weak: the despair and the weakness need to be addressed if the causes of the problem, as well as its symptoms, are to be eradicated. The sad reality is that, despite the existence of international law, that law is relatively ineffective in controlling the ‘competition for power’ between powerful states. Sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, terrorism is used as an instrument of foreign policy. To the extent that a foreign policy may be shared by a number of states, these states may agree to poll information and resources in the fight against terrorism (Borg, 1988, pp.11-12). But international co-operation achieved in this way is limited to the states who support or share foreign policy objectives–once the objectives are not shared, the co-operation becomes a pretence, terrorism again finds an ideological space to inhabit and a cause for which to seek attention and support. 

References 

• Borg, P. W. (1988) ‘The evolution of US. anti-Terrorism policy’ in Livingstone and Arnold (1988).
• Clawson, P. (1987) ‘We need more but better coverage of terrorism’, Orbis.
• Freedman, L.(1986) Terrorism and International Order, Routledge, New York.
• Jenkins, M. (1985) ‘Will terrorists go nuclear?’, Orbis.
• Kegley, C. W. And E.R. Wittkopf (1989) World Politics, St Martin’s Press, New York.
• Livingstone. C. Z. (1988) ‘New media strategies for addressing terrorism’ in Livingstone and Arnold (1988).
• Livingstone, C. Z. and E.T. Arnold. (1988) (eds) Beyond the Iran-Contra Crisis, Lexington Books.
• Ofri, A. (1984) ‘Intelligence and counter-terrorism’. Orbis.
• Wilkinson, P.(1986). Terrorism and the Liberal State, Macmillan, London.