If the W.T.C. attackers acted out of psychological disorder then their actions were apparently beyond their control, and therefore a retaliatory response by the U.S. would be unwarranted.
If the W.T.C. attackers acted in defense of their homeland, culture, religion, and existence from the western capitalist/military system, then they are entitled to self-defense, and again a U.S. retaliatory response would be inappropriate.
Assuming it is the latter scenario, all the W.T.C. attackers did is give the U.S. a sucker punch and in the process bleeding its nose, and more important a stern warning to back off.
If the U.S. goes ahead with its retaliatory response, and causes significant infrastructure damage to for instance Afghanistan, and injuries and kills many innocent civilians, it will only inflame more hatred and attacks against the US system, which in my view would be a sign of the U.S.’s eventual demise; and if the U.S. does a lesser retaliatory response by killing those individuals behind the W.T.C. attack, it would make martyrs out of them, thus encouraging more attacks against the U.S.
The U.S. cannot come out ahead, except by respecting the world’s religious, cultural, and societal diversity, though that would be tantamount to a fundamental change in the U.S. system, which I do not see happening.
Mr. Stephen Garvey is a philosopher and writer, and publisher for Inexpressible Publications who resides in Canada.