Pre-Thread: "Why did the terrorists attack USA?"

[Oystein]

I want to start a thread that discusses questions like
- Why did the terrorists attack tjhe USA on 9/11
- How significant is it to know their motives
- Should insight into their motives result in policy changes, if so, which?
- Has the government been avoiding this discussion? If so, why?

In this current thread, I want to brainstorm on the topic, to find some good initial information, and to formulate an objective for the "real" thread, because I am somewhat uncertain yet, even though I feel this is an important topic.


I am motivated by factors such as these:
- Reportedly, some officials who were involved with the 9/11 Commission Report have critized the Commission (or its commission) for neglecting the foreign policy background of the events.
- Many people believe the mantra, suggested by president Bush, that "They did it because they hate our freedoms". I think this is wrong. I believe they have grievances resulting from overarching US influence (military, economical, diplomatic) in the heart of the Islamic world, pondered a military opposition, and decided on a plan with superb cost-result-ratio.
- 9/11 was used/abused to justify 2 wars. Especially the supposed link of Iraq to Al Quada and 9/11 was a preposterous lie. How important is it to educate the American voters on the true motives of the Bush government?


I want to look at the topic from different perspectives: From the points of view of the American government, the average American citizen, any American ally, Al Quada, the ordinary Saudi citizen, the Saudi government, etc.



This is not about justification. I don't want to assign blame. I just want to further understanding and ask, and answer, questions like

- What are the stated motives of the terrorists?
- Are the stated motives also their real motives?
- What are their premises?
- Are the premises factually correct?
- If their grievances are in fact based in reality, how could they best be redressed?
- Has this discussion taken place in the west? If so, what are the results?
- Has this discussion taken place in the islamic world? If so, what are the results?
- Does Islam hate our freedoms? Is Islam as such to blame? Is Islam a strategic enemy?
- etc.

[Thunder]

their stated motivations were simple:

1. the embargo on Iraq.
2. presence of Western troops in Saudi Arabia.
3. support for Israel.

[Oystein]

their stated motivations were simple:

1. the embargo on Iraq.
2. presence of Western troops in Saudi Arabia.
3. support for Israel.

Source? Haven't heard about 1., I must say.

I admit I started this quite unprepared.

I should point out that I don't want the questions answered yet, I want the questions sharpened.
That could mean striking out those questions that already have quite definitive answers.

[BigAl]

I want to start a thread that discusses questions like
- Why did the terrorists attack tjhe USA on 9/11
- How significant is it to know their motives
- Should insight into their motives result in policy changes, if so, which?
- Has the government been avoiding this discussion? If so, why?



"the government" hasn't been avoiding it even if it's fair to say that most politicians have. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) produces well-researched whitepapers on all sorts of things and they get updated as necessary.

My favorite is Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology Updated July 9, 2007 by Christopher M. Blanchard, Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32759.pdf

The conclusion is that bin Laden wanted to suck the US into a war on his turf. He thought the attack on the USS Cole would do it and when it failed to, he agreed to back an updated version of the Bojinka plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

This is from the CRS report.


...The third and "ultimate objective," according to Sayf al-Adl, (*) "was to prompt [the United States] to come out of its hole." Sayf al-Adl claims that Al Qaeda wanted to provoke the United States into attacking areas of the Islamic world associated with the organization and its affiliates. In doing so, Sayf al-Adl claims, Al Qaeda hoped to make it easier to attack elements of U.S. power and to build its "credibility in front of [the Islamic] nation and the beleaguered people of the world." Sayf al-Adl and others have conceded that the attacks on New York and Washington were not totally successful, while arguing that the September 11 attack "was enough to prompt the Americans to carry out the anticipated response" - namely direct military action within the Islamic world. ...In December 2004, Bin Laden identified the conflict in Iraq as "a golden and unique opportunity" for jihadists to engage and defeat the United States, and he characterized the insurgency in Iraq as the central battle in a "Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation."

(*) Al-Qa'ida Leader Sayf al-Adl OSC Report -GMP2005060637100, May 21, 2005

[BigAl]

Source? Haven't heard about 1., I must say.

I admit I started this quite unprepared.

I should point out that I don't want the questions answered yet, I want the questions sharpened.
That could mean striking out those questions that already have quite definitive answers.

Each of these topics deserves it's own thread.

[RedIbis]

Each of these topics deserves it's own thread.

And none of them belong in this subforum.

[CompusMentus]

And none of them belong in this subforum.


Why wouldn't they? Isn't it often the case that the membership of the "truth" movement deny the involvement of Al Qaeda in the attacks of 9/11? Or even deny that Al Qaeda exist at all?

Studying the motives of Al Qaeda regarding 9/11 would be fundemental to any discussion of the event. In a forum dedicated to debate about that very subject I would have thought this was a given.

Compus

[RedIbis]

Why wouldn't they? Isn't it often the case that the membership of the "truth" movement deny the involvement of Al Qaeda in the attacks of 9/11? Or even deny that Al Qaeda exist at all?

Studying the motives of Al Qaeda regarding 9/11 would be fundemental to any discussion of the event. In a forum dedicated to debate about that very subject I would have thought this was a given.

Compus

Well then that's the problem with your attempt at conflating all opposition to the official story. I don't deny the existence of Al Qaeda, nor do I count out their participation.

The OP is asking for affirmation of the official story, which would exclude it from discussions of woo woo conspiracy theories. Supposedly.

[Oystein]

...The Congressional Research Service (CRS) produces well-researched whitepapers on all sorts of things and they get updated as necessary.

My favorite is Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology Updated July 9, 2007 by Christopher M. Blanchard, Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32759.pdf

The conclusion is that bin Laden wanted to suck the US into a war on his turf. He thought the attack on the USS Cole would do it and when it failed to, he agreed to back an updated version of the Bojinka plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

This is from the CRS report.

Cool read, thanks!

Sounds a bit like the terrorists won in the short term...

"the government" hasn't been avoiding it even if it's fair to say that most politicians have. ...

It has variously been claimed by Truthers and others citical of the "OTC" that no "official" investigation specifically of 9/11 has focussed on the politics. To the extent that 9/11 was used to drag the USA to war, commit the lives of soldiers and hundreds of billions of the taxpayers, it seems extremely awkward that most polititians, even those who voted for war in Congress, avoided that discussion. It seemed to have alle been stomped by patriotic rhetoric.
Like the late Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, said on the Senate floor in his "On the Brink of War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9BmwTdpHa8)" speach on 12 february 2003: "Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war."

No doubt there is analysis to be had by soecialists, but hasn't been very much pubicly debated.

[Oystein]

Each of these topics deserves it's own thread.

Maybe. Maybe some don't really deserve their own thread.


And none of them belong in this subforum.

I am pretty sure some do, any maybe some don't. I want to keep the discussion focussed on 9/11 and the disagreements that exist about what the truth is about that day. Surely, there was a conspiracy. Surely, an important aspect of that conspiracy (motives) has been misrepresented even by "the government". This is an issue raised by truthers. So it belongs here, I think.

[Oystein]

...
The OP is asking for affirmation of the official story, which would exclude it from discussions of woo woo conspiracy theories. Supposedly.

No, it isn't.

I don't even know if there is an "official" story, and what that would be. You could be constructive and help this thread by stating and sourcing what "the official story" is with regards to "Why did the terrorists attack USA?". Thanks in advance! :)

[CompusMentus]

Well then that's the problem with your attempt at conflating all opposition to the official story. I don't deny the existence of Al Qaeda, nor do I count out their participation.
The OP is asking for affirmation of the official story, which would exclude it from discussions of woo woo conspiracy theories. Supposedly.


Where did I attempt to "conflate all opposition" or where did the OP exclude "discussions of conspiracy theories"?

Please show me where the above occur or, perhaps, add something worthwhile to the debate. Otherwise stop whining or, respectfully, STFU.

Compus

[njslim]

Because we are christians and exist....


FIGHT TERRORISM!
NUKE MECCA!

[MaGZ]

I want to start a thread that discusses questions like
- Why did the terrorists attack tjhe USA on 9/11
- How significant is it to know their motives
- Should insight into their motives result in policy changes, if so, which?
- Has the government been avoiding this discussion? If so, why?

In this current thread, I want to brainstorm on the topic, to find some good initial information, and to formulate an objective for the "real" thread, because I am somewhat uncertain yet, even though I feel this is an important topic.


I am motivated by factors such as these:
- Reportedly, some officials who were involved with the 9/11 Commission Report have critized the Commission (or its commission) for neglecting the foreign policy background of the events.
- Many people believe the mantra, suggested by president Bush, that "They did it because they hate our freedoms". I think this is wrong. I believe they have grievances resulting from overarching US influence (military, economical, diplomatic) in the heart of the Islamic world, pondered a military opposition, and decided on a plan with superb cost-result-ratio.
- 9/11 was used/abused to justify 2 wars. Especially the supposed link of Iraq to Al Quada and 9/11 was a preposterous lie. How important is it to educate the American voters on the true motives of the Bush government?


I want to look at the topic from different perspectives: From the points of view of the American government, the average American citizen, any American ally, Al Quada, the ordinary Saudi citizen, the Saudi government, etc.



This is not about justification. I don't want to assign blame. I just want to further understanding and ask, and answer, questions like

- What are the stated motives of the terrorists?
- Are the stated motives also their real motives?
- What are their premises?
- Are the premises factually correct?
- If their grievances are in fact based in reality, how could they best be redressed?
- Has this discussion taken place in the west? If so, what are the results?
- Has this discussion taken place in the islamic world? If so, what are the results?
- Does Islam hate our freedoms? Is Islam as such to blame? Is Islam a strategic enemy?
- etc.

You wrote all of the above and you failed to mention Israel.

Amazing…really amazing.

[RedIbis]

Where did I attempt to "conflate all opposition" or where did the OP exclude "discussions of conspiracy theories"?

Please show me where the above occur or, perhaps, add something worthwhile to the debate. Otherwise stop whining or, respectfully, STFU.

Compus

Looking for AQ's motive supports the official account, and no, I won't STFU, respectfully or otherwise.

Perhaps your hostility is based on the fact that AQ's motive isn't as obvious as you would have thought. In other words, why is this thread even necessary?

[Oystein]

You wrote all of the above and you failed to mention Israel.

Amazing…really amazing.

I invite you to contribute productively to this thread by suggesting a line of inquiry that includes Israel. Make some sourced claims or whatever you like.

[CompusMentus]

Looking for AQ's motive supports the official account, and no, I won't STFU, respectfully or otherwise.

Perhaps your hostility is based on the fact that AQ's motive isn't as obvious as you would have thought. In other words, why is this thread even necessary?

My hostility is based on the fact that once again you chirp into a thread offering nothing of any substance, it's something like a bad case of tinnitus.

Stop whining and contribute something constructive for once.

Compus

[Oystein]

Looking for AQ's motive supports the official account,

Not necessarily. If might turn out that inquiring about AQ's motives sheds some light on weaknesses of the official account.

and no, I won't STFU, respectfully or otherwise.

It would have ben courteous of you if you had replied to my last post. I was corteous to you.

Perhaps your hostility is based on the fact that AQ's motive isn't as obvious as you would have thought. In other words, why is this thread even necessary?

It is necessary maybe because AQ's motive isn't as obvious?

[MaGZ]

I invite you to contribute productively to this thread by suggesting a line of inquiry that includes Israel. Make some sourced claims or whatever you like.

OBL has always claimed the US was attacked because of this country’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The two issue mention by him were the American military presence in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel against the Palestinians.

[Thunder]

Source?

source? my damn good memory.


btw, wtf did you put this in the 9-11 CT section?

[RedIbis]

I invite you to contribute productively to this thread by suggesting a line of inquiry that includes Israel. Make some sourced claims or whatever you like.

Most of OBL's published comments on the attacks discuss Israel. This is just the most recent:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5inV15sHG8BPu-lEEM2m3PtNI9QPA

[Oystein]

OBL has always claimed the US was attacked because of this country’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The two issue mention by him were the American military presence in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel against the Palestinians.

Okay. True. (I never intended the OP to exhaustively cover the entire topic)

I also did not mention inner-islamic desires for a united Umma, moving towards a caliphate, and positioning leaders of AQ as leaders of the Umma.
Amazing you did not count these also. Amazing :p

[Oystein]

source? my damn good memory.

btw, wtf did you put this in the 9-11 CT section?

Well, one thing that I do want to include in the discussion is the allegation by some critics of the official reports that this topic has been deliberately left out, for example by the 9/11 Commission.

[Oystein]

Most of OBL's published comments on the attacks discuss Israel. This is just the most recent:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5inV15sHG8BPu-lEEM2m3PtNI9QPA

This reads as if the AFP-article, not OBL in his full statement, concentrates on Israel. It does mention "among "some other injustices," US support to Israel motivated Al-Qaeda", but fails to elaborate on the other injustices...

(AFP = Agence France-Presse, not American Free Press)

[Debaser]

OBL has always claimed the US was attacked because of this country’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The two issue mention by him were the American military presence in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel against the Palestinians.

Looking at articles written before 9/11 (eg relating to the USS Cole, Kenya, etc) it seems it was the US presence in Saudi and the aggression against the Iraqi people.

These are articles also showing OBL did actually exist before 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/19/alqaida.iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/413991.stm
Warning, they've probably been re-written by the CIA since the originals were put up :rolleyes:

Fatwas by OBL.
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

[Debaser]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Letter from OBL (Nov.2002) mentioning Palestine, Somalia, Chechnya, Lebanon, Iraq.

[Thunder]

Well, one thing that I do want to include in the discussion is the allegation by some critics of the official reports that this topic has been deliberately left out, for example by the 9/11 Commission.

i don't think the 9-11 Commission cared about "why" it was done.

Just how.

[Debaser]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism3

In the context of that global programme, the destruction of the twin towers, spectacular atrocity though it was, is merely a by-blow in al-Qaida's current campaign. Neither the US nor Israel is Bin Laden's primary target - rather it is Bin Laden's homeland, Saudi Arabia. The corrupt and repressive royal house, like the Mongol Ilkhanate of the 14th century, is damned as a Jahili scandal. Therefore, al-Qaida's primary task is to liberate the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from their rule.

To the OP...take your pick...it seems to change over time.

[Oystein]

Looking at articles written before 9/11 (eg relating to the USS Cole, Kenya, etc) it seems it was the US presence in Saudi and the aggression against the Iraqi people.

These are articles also showing OBL did actually exist before 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/19/alqaida.iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/413991.stm
Warning, they've probably been re-written by the CIA since the originals were put up :rolleyes:

Fatwas by OBL.
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

Thank you! :)

Indeed, OBL seems to mention Iraq more often in his relevant statements at the relevant time than Israel. That is interesting.

[Oystein]

i don't think the 9-11 Commission cared about "why" it was done.

Just how.

Well, my understanding of the Commissions ultimate commission: To figure out how America's agencies could be prepared to defend against such attacks. That could sensibly include policy considerations to avoid the incentives to be attacked.

[Thunder]

Well, my understanding of the Commissions ultimate commission: To figure out how America's agencies could be prepared to defend against such attacks. That could sensibly include policy considerations to avoid the incentives to be attacked.

no, that would have been very silly.

the 9-11 Commission was not created to suggest alterations to America's foreign policy. had they even SUGGESTED that our foreign policy somehow motivated the attacks, the backlash would have been fierce.

[Oystein]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism3



To the OP...take your pick...it seems to change over time.



Yeah, that's my feeling, too. I am not sure I would take statements made some years before or after 2001 too literally. Anything that AQ leaders say in 2005 for example would likely be influenced by the hindsight knowledge of how the USA did in fact react. It is easy to claim with hindsight that the objective was to draw USA into wars.

Also, I am not sure that we should focus so very much on OBL and the inner AQ leadership.
There is also the issue of KSM, Atta, binhalship forming a cell within AQ that probably had some autonomy, and their owns motivations and objectives. How do you motivate a suicide pilot?


One motivation for particularly the kind of attack that was carried out could simply be: A huge prank.
Imagine many radical islamists, brainstorming.. what can we do... spectacular attacks... There had been bombings of large buildings with tripel digit casualties. How can we top that?
In a sinister sense, 9/11 was waaaay cool. Very visible, very media-friendly, nearly Bond-villainish style. Imagine KSM watching TV that day! The boasting! The pride!

(For the RedIbis of this world: Imagine the set of mind and emotions of the NWO pranksters)

[Oystein]

no, that would have been very silly.

the 9-11 Commission was not created to suggest alterations to America's foreign policy. had they even SUGGESTED that our foreign policy somehow motivated the attacks, the backlash would have been fierce.

So that's why the Commission was ordered to stick their feet into their mouths with regards to foreign policy? :p

Thunder, I am with you that the Commission cannot very well discuss foreign policy strategy.
However, even if the Commission could not talk about it, we can!

[Debaser]

@ Oystein

My aim was to try to find statements made before 2001, basically showing AQ and OBL were active many years before 9/11 and also their original/longer term motivation. There seemed to be a concensus that the August 1998 embassy bombings were carried out on or around the anniversary of the arrival of US troops in Saudi prior to Gulf War 1 and this was his main greivance.

[BigAl]

@ Oystein

My aim was to try to find statements made before 2001, basically showing AQ and OBL were active many years before 9/11 and also their original/longer term motivation. There seemed to be a concensus that the August 1998 embassy bombings were carried out on or around the anniversary of the arrival of US troops in Saudi prior to Gulf War 1 and this was his main greivance.

ObL offered to defend the Saudi kingdom from Saddam with the help of his mujaheddin when Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi. King Saud refused the offer and let the US in instead.

As a direct result, ObL declared was on both. AQ has executed a couple major attacks on the Saudis.

Some of this may be new to you.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09

http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography

Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg
9/11 Comission Report Ch. 6.3
The Commission - The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation by Shenon, Philip
Messages to the world; The statements of Osama bin Laden translated by Bruce Lawrence
Congressional Report for Congress; Al Qaede: Statements and Evolving Ideology
The Power of Nightmares VIDEO (3 parts) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 by Bamford
PBS Nova Spy Factory
Ghost Wars by Cole
The Looming Tower - Wright
The bin Ladens by Cole
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.


[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Ladem
[14] KSM's indictment document

[Thunder]

However, even if the Commission could not talk about it, we can!

um....never said we couldn't.

[Debaser]

ObL offered to defend the Saudi kingdom from Saddam with the help of his mujaheddin when Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi. King Saud refused the offer and let the US in instead.

As a direct result, ObL declared was on both. AQ has executed a couple major attacks on the Saudis.


Putting myself in the Saudi royal family's shoes, I can see the reasoning. Letting a man who hates us and our corruption onto our soil, with his holy warriors (paid for out of his pocket), and then hope that after any conflict they'd quietly leave? The infidel US and the coalition was easily the lesser of those evils.

[sheeplesnshills]

" "Why did the terrorists attack USA?""

because they wanted to draw the US into a religious war. It allows them to gain power as any opponent within their religion can be branded a traitor.

With hindsight staying in Afghanistan was a mistake and invading Iraq likewise.....it let them fight a guerrilla war, the only kind they could hope to win. better to have gone in, swept the Taliban from power......killing as many of them as possible and then left leaving a note......help others attack us and you will pay a heavy price.

[Oystein]

Putting myself in the Saudi royal family's shoes, I can see the reasoning. Letting a man who hates us and our corruption onto our soil, with his holy warriors (paid for out of his pocket), and then hope that after any conflict they'd quietly leave? The infidel US and the coalition was easily the lesser of those evils.

The US ain't leaving either...

[BigAl]

The US ain't leaving either...

Pressured by the Sauds, the US officially closed all bases in 2003 or 2004.

[Debaser]

The US ain't leaving either...

But the US doesn't necessarily have a hatred of the Saudi regime (distaste, maybe) and certainly isn't going to do it's best to topple it. OBL, on the other hand...

[Oystein]

Pressured by the Sauds, the US officially closed all bases in 2003 or 2004.

Hilight mine. Explanation?

[Oystein]

But the US doesn't necessarily have a hatred of the Saudi regime (distaste, maybe) and certainly isn't going to do it's best to topple it. OBL, on the other hand...

Therein lies a good question for a wider discussion in politics: Why indeed wasn't the Bush administration going to change the regime in Riad? After all, it is anything but democratic, and does such vile things as executing citizens just because they convert from Islam to, say, Christianity...

Wasn't the war in Iraq all about bringing the torch of freedom to the oppressed peoples of Arabia? Wasn't OBL in a way fighting for "our" course? (Yes, the last sentence is provocation; I don't mean it really ^^)

[BigAl]

Hilight mine. Explanation?

I'd have to dig for the reporting but ISTR the kingdom wanted us out to give it's Islamist enemies less to be angry about. I assume the fact that by then we had bases in Iraq made it easy to comply.

[Oystein]

I'd have to dig for the reporting but ISTR the kingdom wanted us out to give it's Islamist enemies less to be angry about. I assume the fact that by then we had bases in Iraq made it easy to comply.

I'd have to dig for another reference to make a wider point: I have variously read that the USA maintains military personel in ... (add number far north of 100) countries in the world, thus vastly outdoing the rest of the world.
The USA has 4.5% of the world's population, 20% of the world's economy (GDP), but 50% of the world's military budget. Every president since I-don't know-when (going back to FDR at least) has in fact send soldiers abroad to do actual, lethal fighting in foreign lands, foreign continents even.
It seems quite naturally that many people in many countries feel quite squashed by that massive military might as it is in fact projected around the globe.


Terrorism is a private attempt at countering massive state force with asymmetric warfare, employed my middle-class folks who feel powerless.
(I'll let that stand a bit naked, just trying to illicit comments and perspectives. Remember, I am still brainstorming)

[TruthersLie]

I want to start a thread that discusses questions like
- Why did the terrorists attack tjhe USA on 9/11
- How significant is it to know their motives
- Should insight into their motives result in policy changes, if so, which?
- Has the government been avoiding this discussion? If so, why?

In this current thread, I want to brainstorm on the topic, to find some good initial information, and to formulate an objective for the "real" thread, because I am somewhat uncertain yet, even though I feel this is an important topic.


I am motivated by factors such as these:
- Reportedly, some officials who were involved with the 9/11 Commission Report have critized the Commission (or its commission) for neglecting the foreign policy background of the events.
- Many people believe the mantra, suggested by president Bush, that "They did it because they hate our freedoms". I think this is wrong. I believe they have grievances resulting from overarching US influence (military, economical, diplomatic) in the heart of the Islamic world, pondered a military opposition, and decided on a plan with superb cost-result-ratio.
- 9/11 was used/abused to justify 2 wars. Especially the supposed link of Iraq to Al Quada and 9/11 was a preposterous lie. How important is it to educate the American voters on the true motives of the Bush government?


I want to look at the topic from different perspectives: From the points of view of the American government, the average American citizen, any American ally, Al Quada, the ordinary Saudi citizen, the Saudi government, etc.



This is not about justification. I don't want to assign blame. I just want to further understanding and ask, and answer, questions like

- What are the stated motives of the terrorists?
- Are the stated motives also their real motives?
- What are their premises?
- Are the premises factually correct?
- If their grievances are in fact based in reality, how could they best be redressed?
- Has this discussion taken place in the west? If so, what are the results?
- Has this discussion taken place in the islamic world? If so, what are the results?
- Does Islam hate our freedoms? Is Islam as such to blame? Is Islam a strategic enemy?
- etc.

Have you read Looming Tower? It is an excellent place to start with yuor questions.

- What are the stated motives of the terrorists?
- Are the stated motives also their real motives?

Generally it is
1. the palestine/Israel issue
2. the presence of US troops in Saudi
3. the inequity/inequality among the arab world and the lack of options for the younger folks and for people with different religions. (for a good look, see The world is flat, and hot flat and crowded)


- What are their premises?
- Are the premises factually correct?

see above.

Are they factually correct? Well FACTS are very fluid. No one wakes up in the morning and says "I am evil, I will murder thousands." No. Each person has their own narrative and they are the "good guy." Same with many of the grievences in the Muslim world.

Palestine/Israel...and the reactions of the west... who is the good guy? Who is the "bad guy?" It depends on your POV and where you are coming from.


- If their grievances are in fact based in reality, how could they best be redressed?

Well the palestinian issue is an incredibly thorny problem. And I won't open that can of worms.

Can it be "redressed" in a way that satisfies everyone? I seriously doubt it, not when you have ultra conservative Imams who preach that the jews are evil, and western influence is evil...

The only way I can see a way to redress the grievances is to educate the populations of these countries. Most of the suicide bombers/Al Q members are uneducated and feel very troubled about their lot in life.


- Has this discussion taken place in the west? If so, what are the results?


not openly, not honestly. The US has in general backed Israel and US strategic interests NO MATTER what has happened.

(a good example is that shooting on the Flotilla by Israeli ISI... where they were shot at first... in this part of the world the Israeli's are the devil and started it...)


- Has this discussion taken place in the islamic world? If so, what are the results?


see above.


- Does Islam hate our freedoms?

This is sooooo sticky it is hard to really examine. Do they hate our freedoms? I woudln't say hate. But do they WANT our freedoms? No for the most part they do and they DO NOT.

(there is a great study done by one of my friends awaiting publication, in which he did a survey of over 1,000 UAE college students about censorship (male and female) and over 95% WANTED and encouraged their governments to CENSOR what they could see, read or access over the internet. Lots more informaiton about censorship of information came out in this study, but it says alot about cultural values, cultural and religious ideas)

This is a very sticky idea... if you ask basic questions about freedom, liberty and justice you will get the ideas that "yes we want those things." But when you discuss what EXACTLY freedom, liberty and justice are, you get different answers.

Another example which outraged many folks in the states. a while back a woman was abducted and gang raped by 7 men. The men were all arrested and sentenced to prison. The time ranging from 2 years to 15 years. The woman was also arrested, and sentenced to 50 lashes for engaging in sex with men who she wasn't married to.

In the western sense, it was a "blame the victim" situation. I know many folks here in the UAE (all western) who were up in arms about it. "how dare they give her 50 lashes for getting raped!!!!" Sounds barbaric doesn't it?

I asked my students about it. Their reply was shocking. This is an actual quote from one of my girls. "She is a dumb bitch and deserves it." I was floored. How and why does she deserve it? "for getting caught." Huh? My students then explained the WHOLE story to me. This woman was cheating on her husband. She was in the car with her lover giving him oral sex. She was caught by this group who took her out and raped her.

My students focused on the first part, her having an affair in a PUBLIC place.

The judgement in Sharia courts is often to punish BOTH parties. So the judges ordered her to receive 50 lashes for having sex with men who weren't her husband (in order to PROVIDE HER AN EXCUSE so she wouldn't be stoned for adultery.)

Now is that barbaric? I think so. But it is their judicial system.

So they admire our freedoms, and in some instances would like them, but they also want their government to "look out for them" and censor what they see, read and learn.


Is Islam as such to blame?

Again... this is soooo thorny. In genaral, NO islam is not to blame. The vast majority of muslims are wonderful people. Exceptionally nice, outgoing, community and family orientated.

The problem is that there is a very vast amount of money in the hands of very, very conservative sects of Islam (The world is flat, Hot flat and crowded by friedman discuss the changes in desert islam vs urban islam. And Looming Tower also discusses this shift in atttidues)

IMHO the biggest problem in Islam is the lack of a central moderating voice. Islam is different from country to country, from area to area, and there is NO ability of a "central" voice to reign in different sects. Each Imam has the ability to issue fatwa's or to condemn others. In fact, it is against islam to say "he isn't a muslim."

(we have commericals in the UAE where a child is watching the news with his father, and it is showing the suicide bombings, and terrorists. All are "muslims." The kid asks his father something like (my arabic is too bad to quote, so I'll paraphrase), "are they muslims?" And dad answers "That isn't for me to decide, it is up to Allah." So they have the opportunity to condemn the violence being done in their name, but they can't.)


Is Islam a strategic enemy?
- etc.

I don't think so. But I don't think it is an ally either.

[BigAl]

Have you read Looming Tower? It is an excellent place to start with yuor questions.


Generally it is
1. the palestine/Israel issue
2. the presence of US troops in Saudi
3. the inequity/inequality among the arab world and the lack of options for the younger folks and for people with different religions. (for a good look, see The world is flat, and hot flat and crowded)

.

A good list but Kashmir as an incendiary topic has to be added even though Americans are clueless about it.

As I understand it, In Pakistan, Kashmir is used by Islamists to inflame emotions and raise money and volunteers. Much of this gets diverted to fight in Afghanistan or fund terrorist elsewhere.

It's possible that Kashmir is as much a threat to world peace as Israel and Palestine.

[Oystein]

A good list but Kashmir as an incendiary topic has to be added even though Americans are clueless about it.

As I understand it, In Pakistan, Kashmir is used by Islamists to inflame emotions and raise money and volunteers. Much of this gets diverted to fight in Afghanistan or fund terrorist elsewhere.

It's possible that Kashmir is as much a threat to world peace as Israel and Palestine.

Especially with the foes being so huge and nuclearly armed.
Yes, add "Kashmir" to the list.
But don't forget to add "Pakistan" explicitly to it. Pakistan is a dangerous even without Kashmir: You have militants of several sides fighting there now: Secular military, islamists of several provenances, including but not limited to AQ, a shady secret service, and of course the USA with their drones. India too, in all probability.

[Oystein]

Have you read Looming Tower? It is an excellent place to start with yuor questions.

No, I haven't. Thanks for the recommendation!

Generally it is
1. the palestine/Israel issue
2. the presence of US troops in Saudi
3. the inequity/inequality among the arab world and the lack of options for the younger folks and for people with different religions. (for a good look, see The world is flat, and hot flat and crowded)

Uhm - 3.: Are the terrorists really concerned with the people with different religions? :confused:

Are they factually correct? Well FACTS are very fluid. No one wakes up in the morning and says "I am evil, I will murder thousands." No. Each person has their own narrative and they are the "good guy." Same with many of the grievences in the Muslim world.

I was talking about the premises that give rise to narratives and the perception of grievances. A US home grown terrorist might percieve a grievance in that his evil government killed 3000 fellow Americans, and knits a narrative that makes him a fighter for the common good, but he bases this all on false premises.

For example: While no one doubts that the USA had military bases in Saudi Arabia since the Kuwait war, the premise that the USA maintained these bases to effectively guard the holy sites, or the royal regime in Riad, may or may not be factually correct. It seems to me they were really there just to be closer to Saddam. As is evidenced by the absence of troops in S.A. before 1991 and after 2004 or what was it. Apparently, the King can guard both his family's hold on power and the holy sites without having US troops in the country. (US sales of military equipment at favoured conditions is another story)

Palestine/Israel...and the reactions of the west... who is the good guy? Who is the "bad guy?" It depends on your POV and where you are coming from.

Same here: No one disputes the existence of that conflict. Beneath the differences of evaluation, there are however some plain facts that can be named and discussed. For example concerning the conduct and outcome of certain elections; the level of cross-border violence and the numbers of victims on either side.

Well the palestinian issue is an incredibly thorny problem. And I won't open that can of worms.

Actually, I don't think we shoild go very much into depth on that problem, other than maybe discussing a general tendency - should the USA favour one side, with or without conditions, or would that be counter-productive...

Can it be "redressed" in a way that satisfies everyone? I seriously doubt it, not when you have ultra conservative Imams who preach that the jews are evil, and western influence is evil...

The only way I can see a way to redress the grievances is to educate the populations of these countries. Most of the suicide bombers/Al Q members are uneducated and feel very troubled about their lot in life.

Oh - are they really? Some of the suicide terrorists and planners of 9/11 were students at, or had university degrees from western universities. This can't be said about a too great proportion of Americans...

not openly, not honestly. The US has in general backed Israel and US strategic interests NO MATTER what has happened.

(a good example is that shooting on the Flotilla by Israeli ISI... where they were shot at first... in this part of the world the Israeli's are the devil and started it...)

Yeah. Seems like we need to educate some people in the west, too...

This is sooooo sticky it is hard to really examine. Do they hate our freedoms? I woudln't say hate. But do they WANT our freedoms? No for the most part they do and they DO NOT.

(there is a great study done by one of my friends awaiting publication, in which he did a survey of over 1,000 UAE college students about censorship ...)

That is a matter of degrees, right? In Germany, people don't like to give Nazis full freedom of speech, which many Americans can't understand. In the USA, people don't like to give ravers the right to display their boobs publicly, which many Germans can't understand...

This is a very sticky idea... if you ask basic questions about freedom, liberty and justice you will get the ideas that "yes we want those things." But when you discuss what EXACTLY freedom, liberty and justice are, you get different answers.

Another example which outraged many folks in the states. a while back a woman was abducted and gang raped by 7 men. The men were all arrested and sentenced to prison. The time ranging from 2 years to 15 years. The woman was also arrested, and sentenced to 50 lashes for engaging in sex with men who she wasn't married to..
...
Now is that barbaric? I think so. But it is their judicial system.

We can tackle that from a sceptic point of view. It wasn't so long ago that adultary was considered a crime in the west. Interesting in your case that the woman did in fact commit adultery. So while the lashing is barbaric, at least justice was not dealt out discriminatorily. Many in Europe find some punishments that are still in use in the US quite barbaric.

Again... this is soooo thorny. In genaral, NO islam is not to blame. The vast majority of muslims are wonderful people. Exceptionally nice, outgoing, community and family orientated.

When asking if "Islam" is to blame, the topic is not so much if any proportion of its adherents are nice or not. Many communists, even many nazis, were personally quite nice.

The problem is that there is a very vast amount of money in the hands of very, very conservative sects of Islam (The world is flat, Hot flat and crowded by friedman discuss the changes in desert islam vs urban islam. And Looming Tower also discusses this shift in atttidues)

So that seems to indicate that indeed at least some flavours of Islam are dangerous.

IMHO the biggest problem in Islam is the lack of a central moderating voice. Islam is different from country to country, from area to area, and there is NO ability of a "central" voice to reign in different sects. Each Imam has the ability to issue fatwa's or to condemn others. In fact, it is against islam to say "he isn't a muslim."

This is not very different from the situation of Christianity in North America, where there are many denominations and not much of a central voice.

I don't think so. But I don't think it is an ally either.

Actually, I do think so. An enemy, although not a military one.

[ElMondoHummus]

TruthersLie beat me to it. I hate to just point people at books and say "have at it" because reading a book and following up on its sources is a seriously time-consuming undertaking (In regards to Looming Tower, I've yet to actually do the second part of that :o). But seriously, it's very well sourced and laid out.

Ghost Wars is also worth a read.

I read an earlier edition of this book - Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and Responses, James M. Poland (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Terrorism-Groups-Strategies-Responses/dp/0131127152) - and it's also worth a read. Warning, though: It's rather painfully dry reading, since it's basically a textbook for courses (I found it in my local university's library). Plus, it's not all on terrorists rationales; a good deal of it covers governments responses and other elements that are on-topic regarding terrorism but not necessarily on-topic regarding your OP. Still, though, it's worth a read.

There was another book I found in that same university library that actually recounted the history of the hijackers themselves, but for the life of me, I can't remember the title. It was also some rather dry reading, but it had some interesting stories (for example, Mohamed Atta wrote a thesis on urban planning in Aleppo, Syria. Slate.com author Daniel Brook also discovered and wrote about this in one of his columns (http://www.slate.com/id/2227245)).

At some point, I want to reconstruct the list of books I've read over the years on the topic. I never thought about it at the time, since I was just picking up a book here, a book there, but it would be helpful to have a reading list beyond the obvious choices (everybody recommends The Looming Tower, and for good reason, but there are other works beyond that which are worth reading). At any rate, if I end up recalling some other titles that'll address your initial post, I'll list them here.

[TruthersLie]

A good list but Kashmir as an incendiary topic has to be added even though Americans are clueless about it.

As I understand it, In Pakistan, Kashmir is used by Islamists to inflame emotions and raise money and volunteers. Much of this gets diverted to fight in Afghanistan or fund terrorist elsewhere.

It's possible that Kashmir is as much a threat to world peace as Israel and Palestine.

That is VERY true too.

I left kashmir out on purpose because it expands the conflict, but I agree. It brings in the pakistani ISI, and the funding for these terrorists groups.

I have had some great discussions with my pakistani and indian friends, and they expect a full out war over kashmir (and I expect the possibility that things could go nuclear), it is that much of a threat to peace.

[TruthersLie]

No, I haven't. Thanks for the recommendation!

Looming tower, spying blind, the secrets factory and I would also include the world is flat and hot, flat and crowded (the last two are aimed more at globalization, but have a very detailed and in depth examination of how the muslim world is incredibly closed with very few opportunities for young people, which causes anger and resentment.)

All of those are great resources for getting a feeling for how the muslim world has gotten into the state it is in (particularly Looming Tower and Hot, Flat and crowded.


Uhm - 3.: Are the terrorists really concerned with the people with different religions? :confused:


Of course not, but they claim to be. When you want to hate and hurt people, any rationalization you can come up with is better than none.

Again remember, in the scope of our lives, EVERYONE thinks they are the "good guy." And in our own personal narrative we want to be right. Everyone is like that (including sociopaths, mass murderers and the worst people in history. They all thought they were "right.")


I was talking about the premises that give rise to narratives and the perception of grievances. A US home grown terrorist might percieve a grievance in that his evil government killed 3000 fellow Americans, and knits a narrative that makes him a fighter for the common good, but he bases this all on false premises.

For example: While no one doubts that the USA had military bases in Saudi Arabia since the Kuwait war, the premise that the USA maintained these bases to effectively guard the holy sites, or the royal regime in Riad, may or may not be factually correct. It seems to me they were really there just to be closer to Saddam. As is evidenced by the absence of troops in S.A. before 1991 and after 2004 or what was it. Apparently, the King can guard both his family's hold on power and the holy sites without having US troops in the country. (US sales of military equipment at favoured conditions is another story)


Looming Tower takes a VERY good look at this relationship and the premise it is based on. I highly recommend it.



Same here: No one disputes the existence of that conflict. Beneath the differences of evaluation, there are however some plain facts that can be named and discussed. For example concerning the conduct and outcome of certain elections; the level of cross-border violence and the numbers of victims on either side.

Not really though. Many of these events which have helped shape the more fundamental parts of Islam are very open to interpretation. It is like playing the game Telephone in grade school. What happens factually is often distorted, retold, second hand accounts and WORSE in the Middle east.


Actually, I don't think we shoild go very much into depth on that problem, other than maybe discussing a general tendency - should the USA favour one side, with or without conditions, or would that be counter-productive...


The entire issue is incredibly complex (palestine/israel). And there is NO real way to "fix it."

We (the west) had holocaust guilt, for what we LET happen. And the Jews who moved into Israel were determined to NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.

It was becaue of a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about the Muslim world that had the Allies take the palestinian land and give it to the Jews. And that lack of understanding (even evidenced by GWB with his "ain't they all muslims?" comment)



Oh - are they really?

Yes they are. Looming Tower and Hot, Flat and Crowded outline how the money and Imam's come from Saudi Arabia and they are exceptionally conservative, and how the Islamic world has shifted dramatically away from the more liberal/urban Islam of places like Turkey, Jordan and even Egypt to a much more conservative/fundamental Islam of Saudi.


Some of the suicide terrorists and planners of 9/11 were students at, or had university degrees from western universities. This can't be said about a too great proportion of Americans...

The direct hijackers (pilots) and upper leaders of Al Q are all college educated. They were trained. The vast majority of suicide bombers, and the folks recruited by Al Q are NOT. In many of the mosques and Madrasa's that have been set up by Saudi, they (Saudi) trained the Imam's in exceptionally fundamental Islam, and then send them out to extremely poor areas and have them preach what amounts to hate.


Yeah. Seems like we need to educate some people in the west, too...

No argument there. When 1/4 of the US public thinks that Obama is a muslim, then that is 25% of the American public who shouldn't be allowed into the gene pool.

In general though, when education levels rise so to does domestic peace and international trade. The level of the education system in the muslim world is abysmal.


That is a matter of degrees, right? In Germany, people don't like to give Nazis full freedom of speech, which many Americans can't understand. In the USA, people don't like to give ravers the right to display their boobs publicly, which many Germans can't understand...


No, not in terms of the study I mentioned. It was a direct 95% who wanted the government and the religious leaders to censor what they saw, read, or had access to. Across the board.


We can tackle that from a sceptic point of view. It wasn't so long ago that adultary was considered a crime in the west. Interesting in your case that the woman did in fact commit adultery. So while the lashing is barbaric, at least justice was not dealt out discriminatorily. Many in Europe find some punishments that are still in use in the US quite barbaric.

Oh she was committing adultery. Which is why the group of 7 men thought they could get away with raping her. After all, why would she go to the police and turn them in if in the same event she could be sentenced to DEATH for adultery. So they figured out she was having an affair, and then took her and raped her.


When asking if "Islam" is to blame, the topic is not so much if any proportion of its adherents are nice or not. Many communists, even many nazis, were personally quite nice.


Yet the difference is that when you read what the ideas are based upon, Islam is a religion of personal struggle and peace to everyone. You can't say that about Nazi's, nor about many communists (esp if they idolize people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, or Che).

Islam the religion is NOT to blame, how some people have taken the relgion and twisted it to murdering innocents (the wahabist... again see Looming Tower)


So that seems to indicate that indeed at least some flavours of Islam are dangerous.

Under that thinking, we can say that many flavors of christianity are dangerous (abortion bombings, killing abortion doctors, people who say Nuke Mecca and let god sort them out.) It isn't the religion, but rather the crazies, the people seeking power or those who want to hate.


Actually, I do think so. An enemy, although not a military one.

I disagree. But I think that Islam needs a central voice or at least a recognized strand... (but that is what and why they have been killing each other for 800 years.)

IMHO the problem isn't the religion, but the fact that the religion is intertwined with the politics of so many places. And the fact that often the politics are based on the relgiion.

Turkey, Jordan (and lebanon before the civil war in the 80's) were GREAT examples of how a secular government can coexist with the religion and the areas can prosper.

[TruthersLie]

TruthersLie beat me to it. I hate to just point people at books and say "have at it" because reading a book and following up on its sources is a seriously time-consuming undertaking (In regards to Looming Tower, I've yet to actually do the second part of that :o). But seriously, it's very well sourced and laid out.


Hi Mondo...

Sorry to have stolen your thunder. :D

Yet when we have such a complex topic as the WHY would Al Q want to attack the US, it is beyond the simple scope of what we can post here in a few thousand words. Why reinvent the wheel when others have already written very indepth analysis.

I point to Looming Tower just because it has everything which Oy was asking about.

I also point to The World is Flat and Hot, Flat and Crowded by Friedman because his take on it is economic and geopolitics is often based on economics...

[BigAl]

TruthersLie beat me to it. I hate to just point people at books and say "have at it" because reading a book and following up on its sources is a seriously time-consuming undertaking (In regards to Looming Tower, I've yet to actually do the second part of that :o). But seriously, it's very well sourced and laid out.

Ghost Wars is also worth a read.

I read an earlier edition of this book - Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies, and Responses, James M. Poland (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Terrorism-Groups-Strategies-Responses/dp/0131127152) - and it's also worth a read. Warning, though: It's rather painfully dry reading, since it's basically a textbook for courses (I found it in my local university's library). Plus, it's not all on terrorists rationales; a good deal of it covers governments responses and other elements that are on-topic regarding terrorism but not necessarily on-topic regarding your OP. Still, though, it's worth a read.

There was another book I found in that same university library that actually recounted the history of the hijackers themselves, but for the life of me, I can't remember the title.

Maybe it was Perfect Soldiers by McDermott

Here's my recommended list for this topic:

Taliban - Rashid

Lawrence and Aaronsohn - Florence

Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq by Christopher Catherwood

The Malakand Field Force by Winston Churchill
( text available free online)

Inside the 9/11 plot and why the FBI and the CIA Failed to Stop It. - Miller, Stone, and Mitchell

Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg

terror in the Name of God - Stern

Understanding terror networks by Sageman, Marc.

All The Shah's men, An American Coup and the roots of middle east terror

The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America
- James Bamford

The Devil We Know by Baer, Robert

Spying Blind by Amy Zegart

[dudalb]

Maybe it was Perfect Soldiers by McDermott

Here's my recommended list for this topic:

Taliban - Rashid

Lawrence and Aaronsohn - Florence

Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq by Christopher Catherwood

The Malakand Field Force by Winston Churchill
( text available free online)

Inside the 9/11 plot and why the FBI and the CIA Failed to Stop It. - Miller, Stone, and Mitchell

Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg

terror in the Name of God - Stern

Understanding terror networks by Sageman, Marc.

All The Shah's men, An American Coup and the roots of middle east terror

The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America
- James Bamford

The Devil We Know by Baer, Robert

Spying Blind by Amy Zegart

I would add "A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin, a excellent history of how the modern Mideast emerged from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War One.
Not a big fan of Robert Baer, who views Iran through rose colored glasses to put it mildly.