Not that there's been much warring with set theory, foundations of mathematics, or universal algebra lately on this list, but it occurs to me that what I wrote a couple of days ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sokal_Affair#Analogy_with_religion namely how I view the Sokal Affair, might be equally applicable to such wars. Wars can result from differences of opinion. e.g. ownership of territory, interpretations, cardinality of the set of Gods (I hold that it is a square, hence not a prime like 2 or 3, but am open to all arguments to the contrary), or from perceived slights (gloves thrown down, tactless cartoons, etc.), or failing economies (starvation, etc.), or psychopathic dictators (Hitler, Mobutu), etc. These alternatives suggest that perhaps not a great proportion of wars are attributable to differences of interpretation. 9/11 however seems to me inextricably linked to problems of interpretation, in particular how such core references as the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, etc., each held to be *the* word of God by its disciples, are to be understood and applied, about which there is presently great disagreement just where it seems to matter most. Whatever strategies turn out to reconcile these differences effectively may be just as effectively applied to category theory, lattice theory, universal algebra, foundations of mathematics, and whatever else ticks off the conservative end of the mathematical spectrum. Which presently rather ticks me off, I consider them a bunch of dogmatic atheists. Why can't they be a little more agnostic? Let's make agnosticism a legitimate belief system. Vaughan