Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (that Bush won't tell you)

[greyl]

The motives for 9/11 are no mystery. The motives have been stated by several people clearly and repeatedly for years. The terrorists are not attacking us in order to force us to convert to Islam or because we don't believe in Islam or that they don't like freedom or that they are envious.

more

[Bryan Sacks]

1. a good post. Selective, but even if we accept that's it's representative, notice:

Nowhere does bin Laden declare that HE masterminded or was ultimately behind the 9/11 plot. His use of "we" could quite plausibly refer to "those of us who struggle against US domination," his brothers in arms, as it were.

This is not a minor point. It leaves entirely open the possibility of infiltration and/or external influence/direction bu US agents/provocatuers. It cannot be avoided that the mujaheddin were used by the US and the ISI to do their bidding for many years, and that deep and lasting ties remain with its remnants right up to the present day.

Whatever is said publically, we can be sure that US intelligence and its elected leaders understand the real motives for terror attacks: US domination in the Middle East, US support for corrupt Arab leaders who oppress their people, and perhaps most of all support for Israel's criminal policy toward the Palestinians.

Of course it cannot be ruled out that bin Laden's "we" acted without US shepherding. I am not trying to strip them of agency or anything of the kind. But an examination of:

-- the historical record (including the long record of US infiltration and support of radical Islamist terrorists, its monitoring of them prior to 9/11, its virtually undeniable foreknowledge of a plot of this kind 'coming soon', the many clear warning from foreign intelligence services prior to 9/11;

-- the desirability of having an enemy stage a successful attack against an apathetic public ; and

---the particulars of the 9/11 attacks and aftermath (the undeniable support from ISI, long a conduit for US money to terrorist/freedom fighters in the Middle East, the need for state sponsorship of some kind during the planning and execution stage, the ease with which the alleged hijackers to and from, and within, the US while being surveilled, the coordination of the plot, the strange lack of response from US forces and the secret service re: President Bush, the Joint Inquiry and 9/11 Commission whitewashes and the silencing of whistleblowers)

all suggest the distinct possibility that the US welcomed or was directly involved in the action. THERE IS NO DOUBT that proteges of US and British intelligence are directly involved. THERE IS THUS NO DOUBT that they are at minimum accessories to the crime. From Nafeez Ahmed's blog::

<i>Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf has disclosed that Omar Sheikh, who kidnapped and murdered American journalist Daniel Pearl and is now facing death penalty, was actually the British secret Agency MI6’s agent and had executed certain missions on their behest before coming to Pakistan and visiting Afghanistan to meet Osama and Mullah Omar.

... General Musharraf has written in his book that while Omar Sheikh was at the London School of Economics (LSE), he was recruited by the British intelligence agency MI6, which persuaded him to take an active part in demonstrations against Serbian aggression in Bosnia and even sent him to Kosovo to join the jihad. At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent.

The local media is discussing the possibility that Omar would use evidence from President Musharraf’s memoirs to save himself from the hangman."</i>

I'll note too that all of this assumes that bin Laden's words are his, and can be trusted. I'm inclined to accept them, but not everyone will. For evidence of this, check the reaction when he disclaims responsibility for the attacks!

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

[greyl]

2. What do you make of

the links on this page, especially the 5th one and its supporting links?

[MervinFerd]

3. You were doing OK until you got here:

"all suggest the distinct possibility that the US welcomed or was directly involved in the action. "

There is no "the US". This is a useful shorthand when the US Gov't is operating in normal fashion--"The US" raised taxes/expressed regrets/invaded Iraq--but when talking about something like "the US" planning 911 or "the US" not responding to attacks it either makes no sense or implies the infamous Secret Shadow Government.

It's certainly possible that -parts- of "the US" intelligence agencies, or the Bush Administration didn't much mind a terror attack, or just frigged up. But not "the US".

The paragraph preceding this statement founders on this confusion:
"the ease with which the alleged hijackers to and from, and within, the US while being surveilled, the coordination of the plot, the strange lack of response from US forces and the secret service re: President Bush"

Each of supposed facts assumes a coordinated action by "the US" (or a large portion of "the US") in support of the 911 hijackers. That's just not credible.

Unless you are a True Believer in the Secret Shadow Government.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Are you suggesting that Iran Contra never happened? Are you suggesting

that Operation Northwoods never existed as a desired plan of action by the Joint Chiefs?

Are you suggesting their was never a "plumbers unit" a secret covert operations group run from the Nixon White House?

If that is your assumptions, then I can see how the concept of Secret Government might be foreign to you.

If you admit that Iran/Contra happened and you admit that Operation Northwoods was a desirable plan of action from the Joint Chief's point of view, and if you admit that the "Plumbers" existed, then you already admit to the existence of a secret government. Because those operations alone clearly show the operational ability of that secret government.

So, unless you put your head in the sand, it's kind of hard not to admit the existence of secret government, even here in the good ol' USA. Sorry to clue you in. It might shock you, I know.


edit-spelling

[greyl]

5. Any thoughts on the OP while you're here? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

6. What was the motive of the accused hijackers in associating with

drug runners and US intelligence/LEO people while in the US prior to 9/11? Was that part of thier plan to escape detection?

I didn't see that addressed in the article.

[greyl]

7. Money and information?

Sound reasonable?

edit: also, how solid is your evidence?

[greyl]

15. Do you agree? nt

[CJCRANE]

20. Also the DSM show

Bush & Blair were keen on baiting Saddam to shoot down an allied plane to provide a casus belli.

[Bryan Sacks]

14. Mervin, you show your lack of cognitive sophistication, but it's fixable

For many decades now, people who take thinking seriously have understood that 'reason' is a term of art, a convention, the contents of which are seriously up for grabs. Believing that one has identified the limits of rational thinking is a kind of conceit that serves nobody except the self-satisfied.

Phrases like "that's just not credible" seem to be favorites of yours. These are what we used to call 'closure moves' in grad school. They attempt to establish the boundaries of rational thought, and rule out certain conclusions not on evidentiary grounds but on the supposition that certain habits of thinking are self-ratifying. It's complete bullshit, served up by 'orthodoxy'. It naturally leads to foolish errors, ones you make again and again.

The latest evidence is this passage from you:

you quote me: "the ease with which the alleged hijackers to and from, and within, the US while being surveilled, the coordination of the plot, the strange lack of response from US forces and the secret service re: President Bush"

from which you conclude: Each of supposed facts assumes a coordinated action by "the US" (or a large portion of "the US") in support of the 911 hijackers. That's just not credible.

Unless you are a True Believer in the Secret Shadow Government.

The credibility issue is addressed in my preceding discussion in this post. We may simply have to disagree about that. But your supposition that the facts I listed entail 'true believer' status, or belief in a 'secret shadow government', you are simply wrong. It supposes no such thing.

You fail to make the distinction between conspiracism - the belief in a "world" or "grand' conspiracy that accounts for large-scale events by reference to some clandestine controlling body - and operational conspiracy - the entirely plausible and provable existence of groups within existing power structures that pursue theirn goals through illegal and covert means, which are often illegal and even murderous. The actors in an operational conspiracy - Iran/Contra certainly qualifies as one - try to keep their actions secret, for reasons of public condemnation, censure and the like.

Obviously, belief in operational conspiracies does NOT entail belief in conspiracism or world conspiracies. I certainly don't have a conspiracist outlook. Yet you make this error because of your poor understanding of the terms under discussion.

Maybe you didn't know this, but now at least you can upgrade your understanding if you are so inclined.

[CJCRANE]

21. I also think

that "conspiracy" is a loaded term with popular connotations beyond its dictionary definition.

A friend of mine regularly accuses me of being a "conspiracy theorist" when I've never used the word and also volunteers that a conspiracy always entails thousands of people - when in fact the dictionary definition of a conspiracy is simply a secret plan that involves two or more people. For whatever reason it seems to be a common debunker's habit to project assumptions onto the opposition that they don't in fact hold.

[sofa king]

8. I think that page selectively minimizes Osama's more important objective.

To wit, the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, which George W. Bush actually did after the 9/11 attacks. Since then there have been no credibly verified attacks on U.S. soil by al Qaeda operatives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,954680,00.html

Also, it could be argued that bin Laden's messages did not demand a removal of U.S. support for Israel, but rather that the U.S. should support a sovereign and secure Palestine... which George W. Bush also did.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/11/8f319369-ab3d-4499-920a-91cf09fe6624.html

Now, I happen to believe that the Bush Administration fell all over itself getting out of the way of the 9/11 terrorists and the Mossad agents that were following them. But the above is beyond argument: the Bush Administration also caved in to Osama bin Laden's demands, either consciously or by one of those myriad "coincidences" which are the hallmark of this most criminal regime. That more than anything else may be why United States soil has not since been attacked by al Qaeda.

[greyl]

9. Check the next page, linked at the bottom

www.representativepress.org/whylie.html

The FBI testified clearly that Al-Qaeda had specific goals. "One of the primary goals of Sunni extremists is the removal of U.S. military forces from the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia."

referring to www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm

[sofa king]

10. See, I think that might be spin.

I don't want to belabor the point too much, but as I recall it the message Osama sent before the attacks specifically referenced moving American troops out of "the holy land," meaning specifically the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia.

I'm sure the Bush Administration would be happy to have that demand expanded to encompass the whole of the Persian Gulf, to distract from the cold hard fact that they did exactly what Osama told them to do, but that is not how I remember it.

I'll look it up if I can find the time.

[sofa king]

11. Here's an example.

Osama's "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," 1996:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

The two holy places obviously being Mecca and Medina, or Saudi Arabia.

However, back in those days bin Laden had a habit of putting out a statement a few weeks or months before he attacked, and 9/11 was no exception. Unfortunately I'm having a little bit of trouble turning that critical message up.

[greyl]

12. I'm not sure what you mean by spin, in your previous post.

Who's doing the spinning of what, iow?

This is from my reply to Bryan above,
bin laden inteview in 1998:

Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?

Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula ... against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.


The federal government in the US. is still investigating their suspicions that you ordered and funded the attack on the US military in Al Khobar and Riyadh.

We have roused the nation and the Muslim people and we have communicated to them the fatwahs of our learned scholars who the Saudi government has thrown in jail in order to please the American government for which they are agents. ... We have communicated their fatwahs and stirred the nation to drive out the enemy who has occupied our land and usurped our country and suppressed our people and to rid the land of the two Holy Mosques from their presence. Among the young men who responded to our call are Khalid Al Said and Abdul Azeez Al... and Mahmud Al Hadi and Muslih Al Shamrani. We hope Allah receives them as holy martyrs. They have raised the nation's head high and washed away a great part of the shame that has enveloped us as a result of the weakness of the Saudi government and its complicity with the American government ... . Yes, we have instigated and they have responded. We hope Allah grants their families solace.
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

[seatnineb]

13. Bin Laden hated the House Of saud so much....he fought the Soviets!!!!!!!!

....on behalf of the House Of Saud and the good ol' House Of Reagan!....for the best part of 10 years.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Radical Islamism never had much in common with secular systems

The Soviets didn't think much of the Islamic fundamentalist resurgence and saw it as a hostile force. The U.S.A. lost control of the Shah's Iran and it went into Islamic fundamentalism (but not into Soviet hands). The U.S.A. hoped it could cultivate Islamic fundamentalist hostility to the Soviet Union and the Soviet-backed secular Marxist government in Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen did its job in getting Afghanistan outside of the Soviet sphere of influence (using supplies and assistance from the U.S.A. and its allies), but the U.S.A. never could control them. It is little wonder that resentment of U.S. foreign policy caught the attentions of this force who sought to take its 'war' to the United States and undermine its strategic interests in the Middle East.

[seatnineb]

19. The CIA gave $600Million a year to a force that that they

...could not control!!!!!????

Meanwhile, after the Soviet invasion, the other outside powers also stepped up their activity. Afghanistan became the CIA's No. 1 project, funded by $600 million yearly. The Saudis added additional funds. So did Pakistan, China, the European imperialists and others.
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/28cAfghanHistory.html

You OTC's talk bull.

[CJCRANE]

23. It isn't necessary to control

all of the Mujahideen/al-Qaeda. Only to facilitate/manipualte a cell to do Bushco's bidding when required.

[Recursion]

17. Also note that Osama's other stated goal was the overthrow of Saddam

Which we also brought about shortly thereafter.

Is it worth considering that the war in Iraq might have been a "buy-off" of the Wahabi?

Consider: an enemy attacked the US on its soil with two concrete, specific, and publicly-stated goals. Within 2 years of the attack we had effected both demands.

Once upon a time we called that surrender.

[ma2007]

18. Cheney said it openly:

http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

Dick Cheney's speech at the Institute of Petroleum Autumn lunch, 1999: "That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?"

Compare the change of NATO Strategy during the war against Yugoslavia - 1999.

"Alliance security interests can be affected by other risks of a wider nature, including acts of terrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the disruption of the flow of vital resources"

Now add Wolfowitz` "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" in the PNAC and his speech in West Point,

take the topic "Pearl Harbor of the 21. century" which was so often used - and you have a full overview.

[CJCRANE]

22. Motive, means and opportunity.

Motive is only a small part of a crime.

The means and opportunity for 9/11 would be impossible without the negligence or complicity of Bushco.

Also, the neocons also have a strong motive for carrying out 9/11, that's why I see it as a joint venture (perhaps unwittingly on the part some or all of the hijackers).