In addition to the immediate devastation, disruption and international outpouring of sympathy following the attack on the US, there are the rumblings of post shockwaves that threaten to lash old wounds right along the global shoreline. Long-established undercurrents, including economic, racial and religious stereotyping, are alive and well.

The first signs can be seen in the knee-jerk reactions from the US government and its citizens. US officials have been quick to voice their initial suspicion of an Islamic terrorist group being responsible with Osama bin Laden as number one suspect for the role of mastermind and the Middle East as the probable breeding/training ground for those involved.

Whilst this is a possibility, it is one of several. As in the Oklahoma bombing, it may turn out that the first hunch wasn't the right one. In the meantime, Arab Americans are reported to be keeping a low profile for fear of a backlash from their fellow citizens pointing a general finger.

Malaysia has been equally quick to send official condolences and condemnation of terrorism. Outside the protocol of political correctness however, ordinary Malaysians have been less constrained in professing their opinions. After acknowledging the horror of the events, some expressed concern for the Malaysian economy; others engaged in rating, movie-goer fashion, the action pictures broadcast into their living rooms and then there were those whose blunt summary was, "America's ego was too big".

Whilst no one would wish for a human tragedy, there is a point of view that feels it appropriate that the American administration should have been taken down a peg or two, particularly by those on the receiving end of US foreign policy that has become increasingly unpopular following the appointment of Bush at the helm.

If terrorism can be defined as "organised and violent intimidation against a government", then there may be a case for belief that other nations have suffered as much devastation over the long term as a result of US military intervention and 'economic terrorism' in the form of sanctions, as the US just experienced in short, sharp, large-scale measure.

It might also be a fair argument that with the global reach the US president has, the international community should have some say in who is elected. Americans who voted for Bush, based perhaps on his home policy or pro-life stance, might consider how many lives have or will be affected by his foreign policy.

So now the world holds its breath waiting for the US response. Whilst those responsible remain unidentified, the impatience for decisive action increases. As the anger of the American population replaces shock, the pressure on the president to retaliate with military might is enormous. The longer the delay in confirming the involvement of a specific group or individual, the greater the danger is of accusations taking hold against a general group. Unsubstantiated, excessive or blanket retaliation risks further accentuating US/Arab polarisation.

Malaysia is an Islamic country, albeit a moderate one, with a leader renowned for his outspoken views. Since the tragedy Dr Mahathir Mohamad seems to have sensitively kept his anti-globalisation/anti-West rhetoric on the back burner, but doubtless support for the ideal of a united Arab/Islamic world that would challenge the supremacy of the US as the world's superpower, remains.

Malaysia takes an anti-Israel stance but desperately needs to maintain cordial relations with the US as a trading partner if the Malaysian economy hopes to have any place in the financial world's post-Sept 11 struggle. The predicted negative effect from the tragedy on world markets, however, could conveniently provide a diversion away from opposition calls for the government to explain its own part in a declining Malaysian economy.

That there will be a response from the US seems certain. That the fallout from this tragedy will affect Malaysia is inevitable. How Malaysia positions herself to minimise the impact remains to be seen.