This has reference to Steve Oh's 'No two ways of denouncing terrorism', (Sept 25). I think from a certain angle there is.

Playing the Devil's advocate, I surmise that the so-called 'terrorists' would seek to justify their attacks on World Trade Center and the Pentagon on the following five premises, which for the writer, and others to condemn as despicable 'acts of terrorism', he like the rest in malaysiakini 's forum, must first be able to demolish dispel and contradict each of these premises, and their logical links. Will the writer and others be able to do so?

1) American foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been decidedly partial in favour of Israel. This is because of the strong influence of pro-Israel lobby in the US administration, Congress and media and corporations. Although in a conflict there will be casualties on both sides, Israeli military depredations (in which innocent civilians suffer) inside the Palestinian occupied territories are preponderant in part enabled by American supply of military arms and equipment.

2) The attackers being Muslims are emotionally embroiled in this conflict on the side of the Palestinians. Muslims believe they are bound by their common faith into a single community - the umma - all of whom are 'brothers unto each other'. This explains the particular solidarity Islam creates, regardless of national boundaries. Was it unnatural then that these attackers (whether they are from Afghanistan or elsewhere in the Arab world) would feel great antipathy towards the patron of Israel on the side of the Palestinian Muslim brothers?

3) Would not this 'war' by Muslim attackers from say Afghanistan for their Palestinian brothers pursuant to the umma against the US not be jihad , the holy war, for the cause of Islam?

4) If it were jihad , wouldn't the attackers be martyrs accorded a privilege place in Heaven? Traditional belief at least in some Arab places alludes to a paradise of milk and honey with several beautiful virgins to every martyr. According to the writer, "Those who resort to suicide and mass murder must know what awaits them after death is not paradise but the opposite".

Where the writer and the perpetrators of the attack differ is definition and belief. Whilst the writer does not believe it is war because the premises in (1) (2) and (3) do not weigh on his emotions, the attackers based on their interpretation of their religious faith, do! The argument here is that it is not mass murder prohibited by religion but it is war, and in a war, including a holy one, there will be justifiable deaths inflicted on the enemy including civilian deaths described euphemistically as inevitable 'collateral damage'.

5) The next question if it were war, why did the perpetrators attack innocent civilians instead of the US government and military targets? First, the Pentagon (defence establishment) was a military target. Of course, the 'Muslim warriors' have no means to attack airfields military bases and forces and arms in being like aircraft carriers of a superpower like US.

Coming to the World Trade Center, it was a symbol of America's economic hegemony and Zionist patronage. The WTC housed Morgan Stanley and many financial corporations perceived to have strong Jewish/Zionist connections. The key differentiating factor was 'symbolism' of the 'enemy's' financial bastion that was attacked - not just some subway with innocent civilians without symbolism. Wouldn't war include attacking the enemy's economic and financial strength and its symbol? Otherwise why is it that the US now is attacking Osama's financial links in the banks of the world?

The question is: can the above five premises and their link be contradicted on logical basis for the attackers to be labeled by all of you as terrorists and not religious warriors? I am not an apologist for what had been perpetrated. Then again I hold a different world-view and faith from the attackers.

But if you were in their shoes, wouldn't the acts be justifiable based on the above premises and their point of view? Pray enlighten which part of the above arguments based on religious belief is wrong extreme, fanatical or logically untenable.