Why did they attack us?

[Anders]

This could be "fun".

Why do you believe 911 happened? What did they try to express? I am not looking for the individual "martyrs" rationale but rather the idea that lead the core group of "Al Quada" to think the plans would be a good idea?

And yes, I know the answers can be overlapping but I believe only to a certain degree. I believe there will always be a leitmotif.

If you think of some other simple idea (that can be framed in one sentence) please mention it and I could add it.

[dmz]

Where's the "all of the above button"?

[Anders]

Originally posted by dmz
Where's the "all of the above button"?

I don´t believe that any of the three factors would have resultet in 911. Neither do I believe the combined effect resultet in 911 that one of them would not have on it own.

[segovius]

The simple fact is that 'al Qaeda' do not exist.

This is what happened:

We are living in an age of cults. Think Heaven's Gate, think Waco, think Aum.

They are all the same and it is they that are the leitmotif of our time. Heaven's Gate committed suicide to go to heaven, ditto Jonestown.

Aum launched the poison attack on the subway because society was 'sinful' and it was the duty of the 'righteous'.

No-one called them 'Buddhist terrorists'. No-one claimed they were 'attacking society as part of a war strategy'.

The group that attacked NYC on 9-11 were a cult - an Islamic version of Aum. It really is that simple. Nothing to do with attacking the US - could have been anywhere. It was a cult suicide pact going out in the biggest way they could imagine.

Of course, the US administration decided to capitalize on this and create a 'terrorist threat' rather than just call it what it was - a cult that got lucky.

That's why OBL is loose. That's why they went into Iraq that had nothing to do with it: they knew all along it was just some cult whackos and wanted to get maximum mileage.

They still do - and all the sheep lap it up.

[Anders]

So you want a "ego-hygenic" reason added?

I could do that but I don´t think thats even remotely the case. Sociologically one way of dividing believers in religions is between those who sees this earth as dirty and beyond repair and those who doesn´t.

The beyond repair group only seek whats on the other side of life and/or the closed logic of ideologic texts. They are the Heaven Gates types.

The other fight a fight here on earth because they believe the physical is at least partly repairable.

Osama and those around him clearly belong to the second group. They haven´t given up on this world. The individual terrorists of 911 may have been of the first group (their behaviour the last weeks before 911 indicates this) but those were not the ones I was asking about. So unless you say there were absolutely no connection between Osama and tose around him and the 911 terrorists I don´t think your theory is right.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Anders
So you want a "ego-hygenic" reason added?

"For reasons deriving from an internally coherent perspective of a religious sect or cult" would probably be sufficient.

[hardeeharhar]

Look. None of those reasons are indenpendent of the others.

We have martyred our dead, as they have martyred theirs, and we are worst for it.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Anders
I don´t believe that any of the three factors would have resultet in 911. Neither do I believe the combined effect resultet in 911 that one of them would not have on it own.
I thought OBL very nearly admitted to all three in an interview. (?) In any event, I can't see any one of those reasons being sufficient.

[BRussell]

I think that, as with all motivations, there are layers: True motivations, and then justifications. In this case, the true motivation is a resentment of the success of the West and the failure of the Islamic world in today's global structure. The rationalizations involve Palestine and US troops in Saudi Arabia.

[Anders]

Then true motivations is what I am after :)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Anders
Then true motivations is what I am after :) In my opinion, then, it didn't have a rational foreign policy objective. I guess I'd be in the "see our culture as wrong" camp on your poll, but that doesn't quite do it for me. It's more of a sense of cultural superiority, accompanied by the obvious realization that their way has lost on the world stage. The frustration from the sense of superiority not matching up to the reality is what causes the aggression.

[Anders]

Then let me soften it a bit.

"We hate you"
"We hate your presents here"
"You are buddy-buddy with the ones we hate"

[sammi jo]

The premise of the poll is fatally flawed. They who attacked us have never been positively identified. There was no real investigation, the crime scenes were modified and tampered with, evidence was illegally removed, and nobody has yet successfully prosecuted for the crimes of that day.

In due course though. Wait for the release of the Flight 177 video (the "R and B" singer demo) just before the midterm 2006 elections. Then all hell's going to break loose. :)

I can't wait.

Eat crow, Mr Cheney. And enjoy your sentence.

:lol:

[dmz]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The premise of the poll is fatally flawed. They who attacked us have never been positively identified. There was no real investigation, the crime scenes were modified and tampered with, evidence was illegally removed, and nobody has yet successfully prosecuted for the crimes of that day.

In due course though. Wait for the release of the Flight 177 video (the "R and B" singer demo) just before the midterm 2006 elections. Then all hell's going to break loose. :)

I can't wait.

Eat crow, Mr Cheney. And enjoy your sentence.

:lol:
See Anders! Your whole point of the poll was pointless, Al Qeda was a one-off and they didn't do it anyway.

[Placebo]

Where's the "it was actually the CIA/Inuits/weather control/ KGB" option?

[iPoster]

First you have to define which "they" we're talking about:

Al-Queda?

An Islamic Cult?

Project for the New American Century?

New World Order/Skull + Bones/Illuminati?

A bunch of people brainwashed by psychiatrists?


Because I have yet to see substantial, verified evidence which one of those groups, or some other, were responsible for 9/11. :mad:

Heck, the flight schools the supposed 9/11 'pilots' trained at stated they could barely fly Cessnas, much less multiengine airliners. No-one has been able to prove that the planes were what actually brought the towers down, much less who did it!

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by iPoster
First you have to define which "they" we're talking about:

Al-Queda?

An Islamic Cult?

Project for the New American Century?

New World Order/Skull + Bones/Illuminati?

A bunch of people brainwashed by psychiatrists?


Because I have yet to see substantial, verified evidence which one of those groups, or some other, were responsible for 9/11. :mad:

Heck, the flight schools the supposed 9/11 'pilots' trained at stated they could barely fly Cessnas, much less multiengine airliners. No-one has been able to prove that the planes were what actually brought the towers down, much less who did it!

And the fact that the Bush Administration refused to set up an independent commission in the wake of the attacks "to investigate everything, and leave no stone covered" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. After The Kennedy assassination, the Challenger disaster and the recent Columbia shuttle break up, for example, which were national tragedies/disasters, federal investigations were set up within days or a couple of weeks of those events. It took the Bush Administration 411 days of balking and refusals before they (reluctantly) agreed to demands from the bereaved. Bush eventually testified with Cheney holding his hand; all the questions were pre-screened and even transcripts of the hearing were disallowed. The "Independent Commission" was about as independent as ones right forefinger is from one's right hand... the executive director was Philip Zelikow, another PNACer with intimate ties to Condoleezza Rice and the White House... he refused to consider any evidence that didn't fit in with the pre-ordained "al qaeda" conclusion... and that is one neck of a lot of material, much of it bizarre, and most of it pretty damning.

And they think that we are the wacky conspiracy theorists. If anyone can present real evidence that supports the al qaeda yarn, lets hear it. As of yet, I'm calling BS.

[dmz]

Originally posted by sammi jo
And the fact that the Bush Administration refused to set up an independent commission in the wake of the attacks "to investigate everything, and leave no stone covered" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. After The Kennedy assassination, the Challenger disaster and the recent Columbia shuttle break up, for example, which were national tragedies/disasters, federal investigations were set up within days or a couple of weeks of those events. It took the Bush Administration 411 days of balking and refusals before they (reluctantly) agreed to demands from the bereaved. Bush eventually testified with Cheney holding his hand; all the questions were pre-screened and even transcripts of the hearing were disallowed. The "Independent Commission" was about as independent as ones right forefinger is from one's right hand... the executive director was Philip Zelikow, another PNACer with intimate ties to Condoleezza Rice and the White House... he refused to consider any evidence that didn't fit in with the pre-ordained "al qaeda" conclusion... and that is one neck of a lot of material, much of it bizarre, and most of it pretty damning.

And they think that we are the wacky conspiracy theorists. If anyone can present real evidence that supports the al qaeda yarn, lets hear it. As of yet, I'm calling BS.
So would you say that the initial attempt to knock over the WTC, the Cole attack, and the Clinton cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan were done by the Cheney cabal in their warmup to stealing the 2000 elections, or were they simply isolated incidents? How long has Cheney been involved in this? Did he simply seize the opportunity in 2000, or was he plotting long before?

[jamac]

Where is the "We want to charge more for oil" button?
Oil revenue has gone up by 600% for the Saudis.

[Anders]

Originally posted by jamac
Where is the "We want to charge more for oil" button?
Oil revenue has gone up by 600% for the Saudis.

Is that Bin Ladens interest?

[jamac]

Yes.

[Gene Clean]

Ginsberg (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/america.html) gave the answer a couple of decades ago, although today it could be slightly modified (hint: change Russians with Islamists and Chinamen with Terrorists):

America you don're really want to go to war.
America it's them bad Russians.
Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians.
The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia's power mad. She wants to take
our cars from out our garages.
Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red Reader's Digest. her wants our
auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations.
That no good. Ugh. Him makes Indians learn read. Him need big black niggers.
Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help.

[Anders]

Originally posted by jamac
Yes.

You HAVE to elaborate on that to be taken serious :)

[Nightcrawler]

If Osama Bin Ladin and his group is indeed responsible for the9 /11-attack, then it's clear to me why said attack was planned and executed:
In order to provoke the US to engage in a military campaign against islamic countries, so that the muslims in the whole world see the US for what, in the eyes of Bin Ladin, it really is... and therefore unite and throw off the shackles the US has put upon the islamic world.

Nightcrawler

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by dmz
So would you say that the initial attempt to knock over the WTC, the Cole attack, and the Clinton cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan were done by the Cheney cabal in their warmup to stealing the 2000 elections, or were they simply isolated incidents? How long has Cheney been involved in this? Did he simply seize the opportunity in 2000, or was he plotting long before?

There remains an omission re. the public knowledge re. the first WTC attack, although it does register in the wikipedia entry regarding the case:

In the course of the (Ramzi Yousef) trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
Salem asserts that the original plan was to have the plotters build the bomb using a harmless powder instead of actual explosive, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiates his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.
Salem says he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has not explicitly denied Salem's account.

What does this all mean? Why would the FBI (?) prefer to have a major potential catastrophe on their hands, as opposed to a fake bomb threat with harmless materials, which would have probably gotten a single 12 line, single column mention at the bottom of Page 67 in the New York Times, and forever forgotten about?

I don't submit for an instance that the FBI, as an institution, was responsible. But it surely looks as if some parties within the FBI were influenced or corrupted by a third party who decided it was necessary for reasons that one can speculate upon, to initiate a massive disaster on US soil.

Despite the huge damage to the basement of the tower, 6 deaths and 1000 injuries, the attack failed in its mission, namely to destroy the World Trade Center. Whoever wanted the WTC destroyed succeeded 8 years later... and coincidentally, the FBI once again knew very well that the attacks were going to happen. Former Clinton lead impeachment lawyer David Schippers was approached by 3 frustrated FBI agents in the months leading up to 9-11, saying that they had a very specific warning that there was going to be an attack. The 3 agents' information was specific to the point that the locations, method, date and time of the attacks were known and they also claimed that this fore-knowledge was "widespread within the agency". When the alarmed Schippers attempted to contact officials within the Justice Dept. to sound the alarm, his phonecalls and emails, including those to (then) Atty Gen. John Ashcroft were ignored, and shortly afterwards (Schippers) was threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if he went public with this information.

Does all this look like pure incompetence? If so, why were most of the US naval units in place off the coast of Pakistan before 9-11? And why was the Patriot Act largely written and ready to go before 9-11? Is this pure coincidence as well?

So, either the Islamists are on a self destruct course, by invoking a huge US military response, or the Islamists are being promoted as the next 'evil empire' which of course would be impossible without something shocking.
It would be hard to justify and pursue an endless war on terrorism, if there are no attacks in the first place.

[SpcMs]

We should have a similar poll for 'why did the US attack Iraq'. I'm sure the confusion would be even greater.

Oh, and it's tough to pick just one option in this poll.
Al Quaeda's expressed goals have always been the elimination of infidels and their influence in the ME. Of course you could give a socioligical, psychological, historical, religious and/or economical explenation behind those goals, or behind the way you fight for those goals, but that wouldn't result in a one-sentence answer :D

[segovius]

I think there's a problem with #2 or rather the perception that it is correct.

I have heard it convincingly argued that the reason no attacks followed 911 on US soil was because the 'terrorists' had succeeded in luring the US onto their won home ground where they could be fought more effectively. Indeed, it was suggested this was part of the rationale behind the attacks.

If this is the case then surely 'they' actually DO want the US in the ME in order to take them on more effectively.

And if there is any degree of truth in this then surely #2 in the poll is a non sequtur which does not even address the issue?

At best it is an oxymoron - if they attacked because they want the US out of the ME they cannot also want the US in the ME to attack them or as a continuing presence in order to aid recruitment as has also been suggested.

[segovius]

And another thing: al Qaeda really do not exist so the reason that the 911 hijackers did what they did could be very different to say, the London bombers.

Does anyone seriously think the London bombers were part of an al Qaeda network? Even Blair doesn't think that.

There is no such thing. There are many disparate Islamist terror groups but they all have differing agendas and in amy cases are opposed. The 'al qaeda' thing is just crap.

It is not even the name of Bin Laden's group and Zarqawi uses it in an adjusted fashion to cash in on psychological fears.