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" 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?