When a conflict has been raised to a response#2 level, e.g. between Israel and the Palestinians in the Camp David process, and then, blocked by the lack of will and knowledge to move forward, drops back to resorting to response#1, individual, chaotic and state terrorism, the point of mutual understanding to which they had previously risen, be it with good intentions, honestly, or simply for tactical or even strategic reasons, to level#2, was not sustainable enough, for it can never be!

When an unknown adversary, such as a terrorist, is still not properly identified or refuses to relate, as Milosevic tries to do, with the International Tribunal in Den Haag, then both sides are forced into making a virtual#0 image of each other to justify saving face or brooding on revenge. If one has power over the other, by mobbing or is holding the opponent in custody, then the stronger side uses the defeated one as a scapegoat for its own impotence to resolve the problem. That inability is always a thorn in one's own flesh, one wants to get rid of. This gives the victim the power of the oppressor in a sado-masochistic relationship based on hiding, suppressing, avoiding or distorting the truth about each other's identity. Thus both sides are not free to let go the respective illusions in order to get rid of the problem by getting rid of the scapegoat, or with the lie, to cover up one's deeds.

The proper response#0 is to reconstruct the actual critical event based on facts; the evil one is to create a virtual reality to suit one's hidden agenda. If say Kennedy was not really murdered by Lee Harvy Oswald, or Osama bin Laden was not the mastermind of the New York terror attack, then someone is still around implement an evil agenda. Among other things that is what Hitler did, when he organized the burning of the "Reichstag", the German symbol of power in his day, in order to pursue his prime agenda of annihilating the Jews in Europe. This agenda required other symbols than those of a Reichs-democracy; specifically it needed the symbols of a Nazi-dictatorship. Obviously someone on September 11, 2001, wanted to replace the symbol of the global economic imperative with that of another power, that prefers to remain hidden by the darkness of speculations – just like the post-modern spirit of times...

In the flow of time response#0 results in revitalizing the deregulated world with a New Order, a New Economy. When the flow gets stuck, with a New War in order to create new heroes with new mental operating systems who are really up for a conclusive response#3.

In this way, among others, Luther opened the first, solely response-able#0 =, closed Middle Age Catholic Church and Gorbatschov with his "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" equally closed the communist response#2. Jesus Christ also attacked the symbol of power at his time (Mat 21:12) and has set the example by opening the Jewish law#2 closed religion towards a global Christianity, which as a consequence opened up the Roman Empire#1 which was stuck in its own cannibalization represented by its won symbol, the amphitheatre in Rome.

The Christian martyrs of those days attacked that symbol by praising God, when being delivered to their cruel death, contrary to what was a politically correct way to perish as represented by the Gladiators. The same happened in the flames of the Inquisition. Even before September 11, 2001 suicide terrorists attacked places of socially compatible living, or of wheeling and dealing together (the Munich Olympics, various airplanes, even a previous failed attempt on one of the Twin Tower etc.). These places and objects were obviously perceived to exist at some kind of cost to the cause of the terrorists, unholy, not open to their ideas etc. The result that remains is personal concern for those who survived the terror with a potential to make those concerned rethink their lives. Many war veterans who experienced the kamikaze attacks of the Japanese, or endured imprisonment by the Vietcong changed their attitude about response#1. One of the American Gulf War veterans even became the executed Ohio bomber. This is not to justify terrorism, but it points to the unresolved problem we started with; of a meaningfully desirable way to change models without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, e.g. without getting locked into response#1,2,0 and for that matter #3...

In short, the response#0 is a way to survive the trap of one’s own prejudice or that of others who hold power over us; it has a potential to make us rethink our think-system in a

	worse way by trying to make coalitions#2 to mob the enemy, or foster a mentality that allows a more cruel response#1, up to a suicide attack with a virtuality#0 that even defies one’s own survival instinct#1, let alone truth, honesty and morality#2!
	or a better way by allowing constructive impulses and solutions#2 to be expressed in more effective#2 way for others to understand and overcome outdated prejudices#2.