9/11: What was the point?

[Cosmic Yak]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are true, and that the attacks were somehow orchestrated by elements of the US government in order to achieve their nefarious goals.
We are now 20 years past the event, and none of these conspirators has been uncovered or brought to justice. To all intents and purposes, they got clean away with it.
OK? As I say, just for the sake of argument.
Now, if they got away with it, then presumably, they also achieved whatever goals they had in mind when they set this thing up.
This is my question: What were those goals?
This was clearly a complex plot, which must have involved a great deal of time, effort and money to plan and execute. What was its purpose?
The general idea, from what I've seen, is that it allowed America to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with a semblance of legitimacy. Fine. They did that. And then? What did they get from that?
Oil? Can't be. US imports of oil from Iraq fell after the invasion, and American companies do not own or run any significant part of Iraq's oil industry.
A continuance of American power and influence, a la PNAC? Well, that didn't work either. Iraq was a disaster for America: a ruinously expensive quagmire, from which it has only recently extricated itself. US power and influence has diminished, rather than increased. Vast swathes of the world were alienated by the (perceived or actual) anti-Muslim focus of US actions. Russia, Iran and China were able to profit from this debacle and increase their own power and influence. The damage to the reputation of America from such incidents as Abu Ghraib was also massive. The fallout from America's ignominious departure from Afghanistan, after a decade of fruitless occupation, continues to rumble on.
The alleged perpetrators? Rumsfeld, Cheney etc? Gone, and their philosophy discredited.
What, then, was the point? What were the intended goals? What did the orchestrators of this plot actually gain from their endeavours?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It's the same problem the Underpants Gnomes had.

"Step 1: Collect underpants.
Step 2.
Step 3: Profit."

 

[theprestige]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are true, and that the attacks were somehow orchestrated by elements of the US government in order to achieve their nefarious goals.
We are now 20 years past the event, and none of these conspirators has been uncovered or brought to justice. To all intents and purposes, they got clean away with it.
OK? As I say, just for the sake of argument.
Now, if they got away with it, then presumably, they also achieved whatever goals they had in mind when they set this thing up.
This is my question: What were those goals?
This was clearly a complex plot, which must have involved a great deal of time, effort and money to plan and execute. What was its purpose?
The general idea, from what I've seen, is that it allowed America to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with a semblance of legitimacy. Fine. They did that. And then? What did they get from that?
Oil? Can't be. US imports of oil from Iraq fell after the invasion, and American companies do not own or run any significant part of Iraq's oil industry.
A continuance of American power and influence, a la PNAC? Well, that didn't work either. Iraq was a disaster for America: a ruinously expensive quagmire, from which it has only recently extricated itself. US power and influence has diminished, rather than increased. Vast swathes of the world were alienated by the (perceived or actual) anti-Muslim focus of US actions. Russia, Iran and China were able to profit from this debacle and increase their own power and influence. The damage to the reputation of America from such incidents as Abu Ghraib was also massive. The fallout from America's ignominious departure from Afghanistan, after a decade of fruitless occupation, continues to rumble on.
The alleged perpetrators? Rumsfeld, Cheney etc? Gone, and their philosophy discredited.
What, then, was the point? What were the intended goals? What did the orchestrators of this plot actually gain from their endeavours?

Purely for the sake of argument: You can't assume that there was no goal just because the perpetrators failed to achieve the goal. Maybe the answer is that Rumsfeld and Cheney did it on purpose and also really sucked at the follow-up.

I mean, that's basically what we say about Bin Laden, right? He had high hopes of a big payoff from the attack, and in the end he pretty much got nothing. TSA security theater is annoying to Americans, but totally useless to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The US still supports Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The closest islamofascists have come to establishing a Caliphate was ISIS. And they didn't even emerge until Syria started to fall apart. Long after Bin Laden was dead and gone.

 

[Oystein]

For example:

- "Israel forced our hand to gain or maintain power and land, to derail the Oslo process and keep the Palestinians on their knees"
Well, I think you could argue that Israel managed to preserve a status quo. 9/11 kept the USA deeply involved in Israel's neighborhood and committed to Israel's security.

- "The MIC profits from wars, we got wars, and so the MIC profited". Variation: Cheney, the Bush family, Rumsfeld personally profited by having stakes in private companies running part of the USA's wars

- "Justify an eternal though phoney 'War against Terrorism' and get the US population used to more and more limits to their freedom as a result. What with the GOP working to dismantle democracy altogether? It all started in 2001"


I am not saying these things really happened. I am saying Conspiracy Theorists could see recent history and the world today that way.

 

[Allen773]

The point was to be cartoonishly evil, because that's what EVIL people do.

The US government is made up of supervillains, but don't despair; you, the humble citizen, armed with nothing but a computer and a stable Internet connection, are going to vanquish the Forces of Darkness (TM) with The Truth (TM) that They (TM) don't want told, because you are unique and special and oh-so-much smarter than everybody else, and all the people who mocked you for so long will admit you were right all along.

Or something like that.

 

[theprestige]

To be fair, bin Laden really was cartoonishly evil. 9/11 was exactly the kind of pointless spectacle you'd expect from a comic book villain.

 

[Allen773]

To be fair, bin Laden really was cartoonishly evil. 9/11 was exactly the kind of pointless spectacle you'd expect from a comic book villain.

Unfortunately, it wasn't pointless. He genuinely believed in what he was doing and had plenty of identifiable grievances (whatever you think of them), as undeniably deranged as his overall worldview was and as evil as what he did (or rather, had others do under his direction) was. And he had specific goals - weaken the US to the point it couldn't support its allies in the Middle East, destroy Israel, overthrow the House of Saud and other "traitorous" governments in the Islamic world, and replace all of those governments with Taliban-style regimes that would then somehow lead to the restoration of the Caliphate and "true Islam."

Obviously this is deranged and he failed, though there are still plenty of these Al-Qaeda or ISIS* affiliates or whatnot around ( in countries that most Westerners don't think about.) But it wasn't evil for the sake of evil.

*ISIS is/was even more deranged and in to pointless spectacle, as you put it, than bin Laden. He and Zawahiri were horrified by what Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was doing to Shiites and Sunnis who disagreed with them in Iraq, and Zawahiri absolutely disowned ISIS for similar reasons (plus for prematurely declaring a "Caliphate.") Of course, some of this was petty resentment at the young jihadist hotshots in Mosul and Raqqa sucking away fighters and resources from the old men of al-Qaeda. Jihadists are no strangers to endless infighting, lol.

 

[theprestige]

Nothing that happened on 9/11 could reasonably be expected to further any of those goals.

Even Imperial Japan understood enough to actually attack a bastion of American power. And look where it got them. Bin Laden took a swipe at a product of American excess. He'd have been better off stealing all the gold in Fort Knox.

 

[Allen773]

Nothing that happened on 9/11 could reasonably be expected to further any of those goals.

I would certainly never argue that Osama bin Laden, of all people, was reasonable. But he did have those goals, however deluded and high off of his own ********* he so obviously was.

 

[Axxman300]

The old CTist in me likes to think the dark forces did 9-11 on a $5 bet.

That's the only dumb thing that would make sense if you're a hardcore Truther.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

For example:

- "Israel forced our hand to gain or maintain power and land, to derail the Oslo process and keep the Palestinians on their knees"
Well, I think you could argue that Israel managed to preserve a status quo. 9/11 kept the USA deeply involved in Israel's neighborhood and committed to Israel's security.

OK, but I would argue that this would have happened with or without 9/11. In fact, one of the dangers of the Iraq invasion was that Israel would get involved, thus triggering a more general ME conflict. The Bush administration had to work hard to restrain Israel after Saddam started lobbing missiles at them.

- "The MIC profits from wars, we got wars, and so the MIC profited". Variation: Cheney, the Bush family, Rumsfeld personally profited by having stakes in private companies running part of the USA's wars

I get this argument, and have heard this before from the CT-ists.
My counterargument is that, although some parts of the US economy benefitted from the wars, more would have suffered. Insurance, from the 9/11 payout, for example. The oil industry, for another. Any company looking to sell goods or services to the Middle East. I'm really not sure that war is profitable when taken in context of the entire economy. Not that Bush, Rumsfeld etc would necessarily have cared about that, of course. Perhaps that was their aim, and they were just too blinkered to see the big picture.

- "Justify an eternal though phoney 'War against Terrorism' and get the US population used to more and more limits to their freedom as a result. What with the GOP working to dismantle democracy altogether? It all started in 2001"

Plausible, in the CT context. The old 'slippery slope' argument. Problem is, of course, is that we always seem to be at the top of that slope, and never actually descending it. The same arguments are being used now about vaccine mandates. But, as I say, plausible in a CT context.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Purely for the sake of argument: You can't assume that there was no goal just because the perpetrators failed to achieve the goal. Maybe the answer is that Rumsfeld and Cheney did it on purpose and also really sucked at the follow-up.

That is entirely possible.
However, that level of ineptitude rather jars with the idea of a near-omnipotent deep state. Such inconsistencies rarely trouble conspiracy theorists, but, even if we assume there was a cabal capable of planning a false flag of that magnitude, for them to fail so dismally in the aftermath should at least give them pause for thought before the next Evil Plot.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are true, and that the attacks were somehow orchestrated by elements of the US government in order to achieve their nefarious goals.
We are now 20 years past the event, and none of these conspirators has been uncovered or brought to justice. To all intents and purposes, they got clean away with it.
OK? As I say, just for the sake of argument.
Now, if they got away with it, then presumably, they also achieved whatever goals they had in mind when they set this thing up.
This is my question: What were those goals?
This was clearly a complex plot, which must have involved a great deal of time, effort and money to plan and execute. What was its purpose?
The general idea, from what I've seen, is that it allowed America to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with a semblance of legitimacy. Fine. They did that. And then? What did they get from that?
Oil? Can't be. US imports of oil from Iraq fell after the invasion, and American companies do not own or run any significant part of Iraq's oil industry.
A continuance of American power and influence, a la PNAC? Well, that didn't work either. Iraq was a disaster for America: a ruinously expensive quagmire, from which it has only recently extricated itself. US power and influence has diminished, rather than increased. Vast swathes of the world were alienated by the (perceived or actual) anti-Muslim focus of US actions. Russia, Iran and China were able to profit from this debacle and increase their own power and influence. The damage to the reputation of America from such incidents as Abu Ghraib was also massive. The fallout from America's ignominious departure from Afghanistan, after a decade of fruitless occupation, continues to rumble on.
The alleged perpetrators? Rumsfeld, Cheney etc? Gone, and their philosophy discredited.
What, then, was the point? What were the intended goals? What did the orchestrators of this plot actually gain from their endeavours?

You are describing how possible goals failed, but that is not an argument. Goals fail. The putative US perpetrators might have strived for one or several of the goals you mention, but failed.

After all, the actual perpetrators didn't really get much out of it, either.

ETA: Ninjaed ...

Hans

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You are describing how possible goals failed, but that is not an argument. Goals fail. The putative US perpetrators might have strived for one or several of the goals you mention, but failed.

After all, the actual perpetrators didn't really get much out of it, either.

ETA: Ninjaed ...

Hans

Yes, they might have failed. It still isn't clear to me what those goals might have been. Given that the failures of the goals I have described were reasonably predictable, or, at the very least, dependent on factors beyond the control of the supposed plotters, it does still raise the question of why they went to all that trouble.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, they might have failed. It still isn't clear to me what those goals might have been. Given that the failures of the goals I have described were reasonably predictable, or, at the very least, dependent on factors beyond the control of the supposed plotters, it does still raise the question of why they went to all that trouble.

Oh, I basically agree. But you can't treat it as evidence. Not that any is needed.

Hans

 

[Venom]

After all these years I'm still wondering which came first: the "hey the way that building collapsed looked weird" or "**** George W. Bush".

If I recall in one video in New York on the day of the attack, a bystander remarked that he thought one of the Twin Towers was demolished or bombed after seeing it collapse. And though the invasion of Afghanistan was a while later I don't think the controlled demolition talking point picked up until much later when mainstream Truthers came up with a narrative that included it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

After all these years I'm still wondering which came first: the "hey the way that building collapsed looked weird" or "**** George W. Bush".

If I recall in one video in New York on the day of the attack, a bystander remarked that he thought one of the Twin Towers was demolished or bombed after seeing it collapse. And though the invasion of Afghanistan was a while later I don't think the controlled demolition talking point picked up until much later when mainstream Truthers came up with a narrative that included it.

You're right, or at least your recollection tallies with mine. The initial talk was mostly about how the attacks were staged to provide an excuse for Dubya and his sinister coterie to invade Iraq. I don't recall much being said about exactly how that was done until some time later.
That said, the anti-semitic ideas were there from the very start. The Saudi Defence Minister phoned Bush the next day to tell him the Jews had done it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You're right, or at least your recollection tallies with mine. The initial talk was mostly about how the attacks were staged to provide an excuse for Dubya and his sinister coterie to invade Iraq. I don't recall much being said about exactly how that was done until some time later.
That said, the anti-semitic ideas were there from the very start. The Saudi Defence Minister phoned Bush the next day to tell him the Jews had done it.

Anti Semitic views and outright Propaganda was what we saw in the Conspiracy theories, some from Aqueda some from Moscow, all by design.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Bin Laden took a swipe at a product of American excess. He'd have been better off stealing all the gold in Fort Knox

Haven't you heard? There isn't any gold in Fort Knox, and hasn't been for many years. Just imagine how disappointed the terrorsists would have been to fight their way in there, only to discover the vaults were bare!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Anti Semitic views and outright Propaganda was what we saw in the Conspiracy theories, some from Aqueda some from Moscow, all by design.

Well the Saudis certainly had good reason to pin it on Israel - or anyone except themselves. And it's not like Israel hasn't done similar stuff in the past.

But as for Dubya and his sinister coterie, all the evidence suggests they had no involvement in 9/11 and simply took advantage of it. The simplest proof of this is that there was no obvious finger pointing at Iraq - which there should have been if they had orchestrated it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

But as for Dubya and his sinister coterie, all the evidence suggests they had no involvement in 9/11 and simply took advantage of it. The simplest proof of this is that there was no obvious finger pointing at Iraq - which there should have been if they had orchestrated it.

True. Bush and the neo-cons- as well as Tony Blair- were angling for a pretext to invade Iraq from the very early days of the Bush administration.
Also, as you rightly say, if they had somehow set up the 9/11 attacks, they surely would have used at least some Iraqis in it. This points away from the conclusion that the attacks were designed to facilitate an invasion of Iraq, and also, of course, Saudi Arabia was and is an important ally of America in that region. It would seem utterly pointless to create a plan that would simultaneously not give any solid reason to attack Iraq, and also embarrass America's strongest regional ally.
Once again, then, we are left with no obvious motive for staging an inside job, even allowing for the known incompetence of the Bush administration (and presumably, then, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, the unknown incompetence of the cock-ups we still haven't heard about).

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

True. Bush and the neo-cons- as well as Tony Blair- were angling for a pretext to invade Iraq from the very early days of the Bush administration.
Also, as you rightly say, if they had somehow set up the 9/11 attacks, they surely would have used at least some Iraqis in it. This points away from the conclusion that the attacks were designed to facilitate an invasion of Iraq, and also, of course, Saudi Arabia was and is an important ally of America in that region. It would seem utterly pointless to create a plan that would simultaneously not give any solid reason to attack Iraq, and also embarrass America's strongest regional ally.
Once again, then, we are left with no obvious motive for staging an inside job, even allowing for the known incompetence of the Bush administration (and presumably, then, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, the unknown incompetence of the cock-ups we still haven't heard about).

One of the things you have to remember is the Miss Information by Russia at the Time and the attack on Russia By Islamic separatists during the Clinton Administration, help let Russia partially exploit opening division between Islamic countries and The United States, the war on Islam Propaganda that was spread then was mainly coming not from the middle east but from Former Soviet Territories. That feed into extremist views like candy to a Toddler.
Islamic Countries had Legitimate grievances but Russia had to involve the United States in it war on it's break away republics to stop United States and UN sanctions.

 

[Darat]

Nothing that happened on 9/11 could reasonably be expected to further any of those goals.

Even Imperial Japan understood enough to actually attack a bastion of American power. And look where it got them. Bin Laden took a swipe at a product of American excess. He'd have been better off stealing all the gold in Fort Knox.

I think that gets to the heart of Bin Laden's delusions. He went for the towers because they were called the "World Trade Towers", in his mind that meant they were at the heart of the globalists that he thought ran the world and he thought he was fighting against.

 

[bknight]

I think that gets to the heart of Bin Laden's delusions. He went for the towers because they were called the "World Trade Towers", in his mind that meant they were at the heart of the globalists that he thought ran the world and he thought he was fighting against.

OBL may indeed have a delusional viewpoint of the world, but from what I've read he was upset the America was on Suadi soil "defending" them and Kuwait against Sadam. In his mind this was sacrilegious and therefore needed to be punished, the Towers were a significant "emblem" of the power/prestige of America and therefore were a prime target, the Pentagon was a target because of the military forces on the ground in Saudi. The last target may never be known but was likely Congress for funding the "occupation" or the secondly the White House, seat of power for the US.

 

[Axxman300]

KSM and Ramzi Yousef chose the WTC for two reasons: They are iconic landmarks in the media center of the United States/most prominent city. And because they assumed a lot of Jews worked in the buildings.

 

[theprestige]

I think that gets to the heart of Bin Laden's delusions. He went for the towers because they were called the "World Trade Towers", in his mind that meant they were at the heart of the globalists that he thought ran the world and he thought he was fighting against.

I don't think Bin Laden was as stupid as this, but if it suits you to imagine him this way I probably can't stop you.

Really I think this was a PR stunt, mostly aimed at an audience of jihadis and jihadi sympathizers in the Middle East. It was to make a name for Al Qaeda as the predominant jihadi organization. The one with the resources, the will, and the vision to create and rule a new Caliphate. After witnessing the colossal victory, at the very heart of the great colossus, other factions and warriors would flock to his banner. Fund-raisers and sponsors would withhold their largesse from lesser factions and redirect it to the Undisputed Champion of International Terrorism.

Riding this surge of enthusiasm, Al Qaeda would ride out of Afghanistan back into Mesopotamia, destabilize the fragile detente there, and carve a new holy land out of the ensuing chaos.

Basically what ISIS ended up doing, for a time. It's ironic that Bush and Obama did more to set that up, than Bin Laden ever did. Personally I'd rate him as stupider than Obama, but not as stupid as Bush.

And it seems to me that international terrorism is a bad investment for the terrorists. The Taliban and ISIS both seem to have figured out a much more profitable business model: Destabilize the local region, then carve out their own kingdom there. Much more effective use of resources to make real gains.

 

[Oystein]

I don't think Bin Laden was as stupid as this, but if it suits you to imagine him this way I probably can't stop you.

Really I think this was a PR stunt, mostly aimed at an audience of jihadis and jihadi sympathizers in the Middle East. It was to make a name for Al Qaeda as the predominant jihadi organization. The one with the resources, the will, and the vision to create and rule a new Caliphate. After witnessing the colossal victory, at the very heart of the great colossus, other factions and warriors would flock to his banner. Fund-raisers and sponsors would withhold their largesse from lesser factions and redirect it to the Undisputed Champion of International Terrorism.

Riding this surge of enthusiasm, Al Qaeda would ride out of Afghanistan back into Mesopotamia, destabilize the fragile detente there, and carve a new holy land out of the ensuing chaos.

Basically what ISIS ended up doing, for a time. It's ironic that Bush and Obama did more to set that up, than Bin Laden ever did. Personally I'd rate him as stupider than Obama, but not as stupid as Bush.

And it seems to me that international terrorism is a bad investment for the terrorists. The Taliban and ISIS both seem to have figured out a much more profitable business model: Destabilize the local region, then carve out their own kingdom there. Much more effective use of resources to make real gains.

Wins thread.

 

[Allen773]

The Saudi Defence Minister phoned Bush the next day to tell him the Jews had done it.

A number of senior Saudi princes said this. IIRC Prince Nayef, the Saudi Minister of Interior, called the hijackers "Zionist dupes" and ventured the idea that the hijackers had stolen passports/identities (ie there weren't actually any Saudi hijackers on board the planes. Must've been Mossad agents framing the Kingdom. )

 

[Hlafordlaes]

To be fair, bin Laden really was cartoonishly evil. 9/11 was exactly the kind of pointless spectacle you'd expect from a comic book villain.

To be more accurate, he showed the world that Americans walk no values talk of any kind. Got the US to embark on a period of bloodyminded revenge that had no viable endgame and saw it commit every crime charged at Nuremberg, all while claiming to be above international tribunals, then pardoning war criminals. Certainly dropped trou on due process and embraced collateral damage as a matter of course.

Made a habit of turning on local allies while at it, meaning no one is stupid enough to not think twice about trusting Americans. The US has been virtually swept from the board in the Middle East, benefitting its traditional foes, Iran and Russia. This is why Sunni states signed up for Isreali protection: the US has been displaced by other forces, and Israel is all they have to counter Iran.

At home, the generation paid well to treat civilians as targets has come back, defeated on the battlefield and spoiling for an easy win, calling for civil war, as unarmed civilians have become the permanent target. If that is comical, the ones laughing are those who see an ongoing imperial mindset blinding a nation now known as a violent hellhole, epically punked, stripped of honor, defeated big time.

Not the reality anyone wanted, but there it is, the character of the American people cracked and fell apart under pressure, and all the pretty talk got dropped like an irksome figleaf. "Torture, alright!" Meanwhile, belly button TV sooths the nation with myth, armed idiots fight for "free dumb", and idle bomb tossing remains a lasting habit.

In all this time, did Whine boys ever get the spine to man up to history? Quite the contrary, now burning the evidence and waving gun barrels as if they were, are, or ever will be men.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

TL;DR: Osama bin Laden beat the everliving crap out of US soft power, now waning, almost gone, whispering farewell. The rest will be done by the place GOP financiers shipped all the factories and sold off the IP.

 

[Darat]

I don't think Bin Laden was as stupid as this, but if it suits you to imagine him this way I probably can't stop you.


...snip..

How strange, I never said he was stupid at all.

 

[erwinl]

I don't think Bin Laden was as stupid as this, but if it suits you to imagine him this way I probably can't stop you.

Really I think this was a PR stunt, mostly aimed at an audience of jihadis and jihadi sympathizers in the Middle East. It was to make a name for Al Qaeda as the predominant jihadi organization. The one with the resources, the will, and the vision to create and rule a new Caliphate. After witnessing the colossal victory, at the very heart of the great colossus, other factions and warriors would flock to his banner. Fund-raisers and sponsors would withhold their largesse from lesser factions and redirect it to the Undisputed Champion of International Terrorism.

Riding this surge of enthusiasm, Al Qaeda would ride out of Afghanistan back into Mesopotamia, destabilize the fragile detente there, and carve a new holy land out of the ensuing chaos.

Basically what ISIS ended up doing, for a time. It's ironic that Bush and Obama did more to set that up, than Bin Laden ever did. Personally I'd rate him as stupider than Obama, but not as stupid as Bush.

And it seems to me that international terrorism is a bad investment for the terrorists. The Taliban and ISIS both seem to have figured out a much more profitable business model: Destabilize the local region, then carve out their own kingdom there. Much more effective use of resources to make real gains.

I always undestood it as his having the intention to trick the USA (or the west in general) to overreact to the terror attacks, so that they would make it possible for the Muslim population to rise up and reclaim their territory (what Bin Laden thought of as being the Muslim territory).
In a sense he was right. After Afghanistan, the US did indeed overreact in regards to Iraq and thing did snowball from there where Al Qaeida and later IS were able to carve out their 'perfect' societies.

And from a certain poijnt of view, this train of thought does make some sense. Especially if you do have a fatalistic view of life.
Bush and co handed him this opportunity and in the end it did work somewhat.

What he thought wrong was, that this whole precess, hinges upon a popular uprising of the muslim people themselves. Wherever governments were more or less firmly in power, this process (as seen with the Arab Spring) failed.
Only in Libya, Iraq and Syria did it find some fertile ground. Heck. Not even the Palestines went for it, as Hamas is firmly in controll there and not even they want to go for Bin laden's vision.

But nothing is ever only one explanation, I think yours was also a very big part of it.

 

[Darat]

One does wonder how many people passing remarks about Bin Laden have listened to his many rants (translated of course) or read his many essays (in translation)? If you haven't look some up, the man was clearly delusional, and he was no great mastermind.

 

[theprestige]

To be more accurate, he showed the world <blatant terrorist rhetoric snipped>

Whatever he showed the world, did it really benefit him or Al Qaeda in any way?

 

[theprestige]

How strange, I never said he was stupid at all.

You described the kind of plan a stupid man would come up with. I don't think Bin Laden was stupid, so I don't think his plan was what you described.

 

[theprestige]

One does wonder how many people passing remarks about Bin Laden have listened to his many rants (translated of course) or read his many essays (in translation)? If you haven't look some up, the man was clearly delusional, and he was no great mastermind.

He was producing rhetoric for a target audience. I don't think speech intended for public consumption is a reliable indicator of the speaker's state of mind or true intentions. I'd be much more interested in his private correspondence. In the frank conversations he was having with his co-conspirators behind closed doors.

 

[Axxman300]

KSM and Ramzi Yousef devised the 9-11 attacks. Bin Laden just green-lit the project. We know this because they've told us this, even when we weren't torturing them. KSM loves to rub it in the faces of the prosecution every chance he gets.

Bin Laden's delusions were based upon the idea that jihadists alone had driven the Soviets from Afghanistan. The fact is much more complex, and involved the CIA's contribution to the Mujahideen in the form of Stinger missiles, and a steady flow of weapons/ammunition. There was the Afghan War before the Stingers, and the war which followed. Obviously there was no US follow-through with financial aid in Afghanistan for a variety of bad reasons, which opened the door for the Taliban. By the mid-1990s the US contribution to the Afghan resistance was forgotten, and it became a tale of foreign Muslim jihadists defeating the Soviet bear.

Yes, bin Laden played to that audience. That's where his money came from.

 

[Allen773]

Yes, bin Laden played to that audience. That's where his money came from.

ie. wealthy donors primarily in the Gulf, some of them members of the royal families, others being wealthy businessmen and heirs to fortunes (much like Osama bin Laden himself!).

I wonder, to what extent Osama was consciously courting the support of anti-American individuals and factions within the Saudi royal family, the Wahhabi religious establishment, and rich Saudi business elite (along with popular support from the Saudi public), as well as likewise for the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and so forth. This would put the allegations of Saudi government support for the 9/11 attacks and broader support for al-Qaeda and other Salafi jihadist groups in an interesting context.

Court support from dissident factions of the power elite in these countries, infiltrate the embassies and consulates, the Wahhabism-promoting religious ministries, the Islamic charities, and do this alongside the bin Laden/al-Qaeda media operations and recruitment of Saudi nationals….seems like it could have been a potentially effective strategy for destabilizing the Saudi government and ruling family’s hold over it, and make it more difficult for the senior most princes and government officials to crack down on al-Qaeda donors and supporters of bin Laden at the elite level. Not to mention, make it harder for the Saudi government to justify their alliance with the US….

Of course, bin Laden ultimately failed in both destabilizing/overthrowing the Saudi regime and driving Saudi Arabia away from the US , but I wonder if these were not among his most important strategic objectives. Actually, he did explicitly call for the overthrow of the al-Saud, didn’t he?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It is interesting, isn't it, that, whichever way you look at it, the 9/11 attacks were a failure for the perpetrators.
Either Bush and the neo-cons did it, and set in motion a massive and probably irreversible erosion of American prestige and influence around the world, or Al Qaeda did it, and failed to ignite the global Muslim uprising OBL had in mind. Moreover, 9/11 was probably the apogee of Al Qaeda: the US invasions, the split with ISIS and the withdrawal of support from much of the Muslim world followed shortly thereafter.

In fact, it occurs to me as I write this that the only groups really to have profited from the attacks are the conspiracy theorists- Jones, Gage et al. Curious and ironic.

 

[Oystein]

...
In fact, it occurs to me as I write this that the only groups really to have profited from the attacks are the conspiracy theorists- Jones, Gage et al. Curious and ironic.

Yep.
Except that their profit is marginal at best. The most valuable currency they received is some 15 minutes of fame among a tiny and strange fringe.

Gage arguably has been the most successful profiteer of 9/11 Truth - but his earnings amount to under $100k per year - which does not wildly surpass is salary as an employed architect, I suppose.
DRG's books sold okay, but didn't rival Harry Potter or even just Bill O'Reilly or Michelle Obama: "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" is #295,631 in Amazon's Kindle Store
Alex Jones hauled in a few millions - but he is a brand which covers 9/11 as only one of many selling points. And he has his losing streaks as well.
SE Jones was forced to retire from a full professorship.
The blog "9/11 Blogger", which used to be 9/11 Truth Central, is in dire straights: They fail to raise US$ 600 per year just to cover costs.