The Motive For 911

[slapout9]

FBI responds to the Motive for 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

More on the Motive including legal documents used at Trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK7...265&feature=iv

[davidbfpo]

Slap,

Thanks for those Youtube items, which I'd not seen or heard before, although many observers have referred to US policy towards the Middle East and Israel underpinning AQ's original stance / narrative. Citing the FBI agent and KSM's interview testimony is from "the horse's mouth" and far better - first-hand.

I recently read, three times, a Washington "think tank' report on radicalisation and thought something was missing. Yes, there was no mention of Israel / Palestine and after swift research found the "tank" Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) had a close association with the US-Jewish community.

This blindness does not help, politics and Politics intervene.

davidbfpo

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I recently read, three times, a Washington "think tank' report on radicalisation and thought something was missing. Yes, there was no mention of Israel / Palestine and after swift research found the "tank" Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) had a close association with the US-Jewish community.

This blindness does not help, politics and Politics intervene.

davidbfpo

Hi David, I agree..... who pays for a study or report can be very revealing.

[frank]

anyone is believing this FBI (speak Gov.) non-sense?

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by frank

anyone is believing this FBI (speak Gov.) non-sense?

Frank,

I assume the FBI Agent testimony was made as he had interviewed KSM and so commented - upon oath I expect - upon his remarks. KSM's explanation was submitted as a court exhibit; one that few have paid attention to or been publicised. Yes, KSM could even have been lying.

That IMHO hardly deserves 'non-sense'. Uncomfortable to many I say is a far better explanation.

davidbfpo

[bourbon]

Originally Posted by frank

anyone is believing this FBI (speak Gov.) non-sense?

Yes, I am. Bin Laden is explicitly clear in his core grievances against America:

1. Deployment of US forces in the holy land of Islam (Saudi Arabia)
2. Enforcement of UN sanctions on Iraq (1990-2003) that led he claims led to the death of 1 million + innocent Iraqi’s.
3. American support for Israel in its occupation of Jerusalem.


Here's a little tidbid from Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower about lead hijacker Mohammed Atta:

"On April 11, 1996, when Atta was twenty-seven years old, he signed a standardized will he got from the al-Quds mosque. It was the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath. According to one of his friends, Atta was enraged, and by filling out his last testament during the attack he was offering his life in response."

- The Looming Tower, p.307

bin Laden also has explicitly cited the 1996 shelling of Qana - Operation Grapes of Wrath in his declarations against the US.

[Abu Suleyman]

Originally Posted by bourbon

Yes, I am. Bin Laden is explicitly clear in his core grievances against America:

1. Deployment of US forces in the holy land of Islam (Saudi Arabia)
2. Enforcement of UN sanctions on Iraq (1990-2003) that led he claims led to the death of 1 million + innocent Iraqi’s.
3. American support for Israel in its occupation of Jerusalem.

bin Laden also has explicitly cited the 1996 shelling of Qana - Operation Grapes of Wrath in his declarations against the US.

Maybe, but I have two possible reservations:

1) We assume that KSM, or UBL or whoever is actually actively aware of the real reason that they planned these attacks. It is not uncommon that people hide true motives even from themselves (very touchy feely, I know).

2) To be perfectly cynical, people tell you what they want you to believe not what is actually the truth. Indeed, it is even quite possible that there were multiple motives for 9/11 as there were multiple participants and planners.

That said, it is always of some value to consider what people actually say.

[jmm99]

The exhibits, which are the source documents for some of the YouTube story, are at United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Criminal No. 01-455-A, Trial Exhibits, which

link to all 1,202 exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial of U.S. v. Moussaoui, with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under seal. This is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all exhibits online. The exhibits were posted on July 31, 2006.

and has quite a few videos for Slap. See, the court record's scanned text of Defense Exhibit 941, Substitution for Testimony - Khalid Sheik Mohammed (para 15 is the "wake up" quote).

I don't see why this "news" should now be very earth-shaking, since it is not news. The motives for the 9/11 attacks were discussed by UBL in October 2001 (7 Oct 2001, Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (2007), p.276, same text as Scheuer, next paragraph).

The two principal motives were (1) the Israeli-Palestinian problem (focused on US support of Israel and the alleged control of the USG by the Zionist Lobby); and (2) the problem of US military forces in Muslim lands (specifically in the Kingdom). Of many sources, Anonymous (Mike Scheuer), Through Our Enemies' Eyes (2002), p.ix (and discussed at various places in this book and his other book, Imperial Hubris).

The first motive has been discussed and flamed to death (as in the YouTube videos and comments); and I will leave discourse (hopefully not flamed) to others. The second motive is of more general application - US military in Muslim lands.

From a short monograph (51 pp.), Lieutenant Commander Youssef Aboul-Enein & Sherifa Zuhur, Islamic Rulings on Warfare (2004), which downloads in pdf (free) from the U.S. Army War College. There, the authors find (p.12):

Further, this law [JMM: the Islamic Law of Nations discussed in prior para] recognized and was organized into two categories dealing with the abode, or territory of Islam (dar al-Islam); and the abode of war (dar al-harb, lands not controlled by Muslims). Those from the abode of war should only enter Muslim territory under an agreement known as an aman that entitled them to trade, or to serve as an emissary, or to enter for other peaceful purposes.[7]

7. Numerous details on the rules of safe-conduct, or aman, are provided in al-Shaybani’s Siyar. See The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar (Kitab al-siyar alkabir), Majid Khadduri, trans., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966, pp. 158-194.

This conclusion is not based on some nutcase AQ interpretation, but is a normative Sharia and Islamic Laws of War rule. See, this post from today for context.

Now, I am not advocating either pulling the plug on Israel, or withdrawing our troops from Muslim lands because that violates a Sharia precept. However, every time we put down a foot or take a knee, we are committing a small act of provocation toward any Muslim who accepts the Sharia prohibition against non-Muslim troops in Muslim lands.

---------------------
PS: The KSM Substitution was not under oath - both sides agreed it was what KSM would testify to, if he had been allowed to testify.

The full text of UBL's Oct 2001 interview with Al-Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alouni. The motives statement is:

We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel. This equation can be understood by any American child, but Bush, because he's an Israeli agent, cannot understand this equation unless the swords threatened him above him head.

The US military presence in Saudi Arabia was an early cause taken up by UBL (it goes back to Gulf I); but, that cause and the Palestinian cause were deemed by him linked in 2001:

Q: Sheikh, I see that most of your answers are about Palestine and the Palestinian cause. In the beginning, your focus on killing the unfaithful and the Jews ... and you specified then that the Americans should be sent out of the Arabian Peninsula. Now you're turning your attention to Palestine first and the Arabian Peninsula second. What's your comment?

BIN LADEN: Jihad is a duty to liberate Al-Aqsa, and to help the powerless in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon and in every Muslim country. There is no doubt that the liberation of the Arabian Peninsula from infidels is a duty as well. But it is not right to say that Osama put the Palestinian issue first. I have given speeches in which I encourage Muslims to boycott America economically. I said Americans take our money and give it to Israel to kill our children in Palestine. I established a front a few years ago named The Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders. Sometimes we find the right elements to push for one cause more than the other. Last year's blessed intifada helped us to push more for the Palestinian issue. This push helps the other cause. Attacking America helps the cause of Palestine and vice versa. No conflict between the two; on the contrary, one serves the other.

CNN posted this February 5, 2002; Posted: 8:50 PM EST (0150 GMT).

Regards

Mike

[Wargames Mark]

Originally Posted by slapout9

FBI responds to the Motive for 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

More on the Motive including legal documents used at Trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK7...265&feature=iv

I think the article Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology is a good alternative explanation, at least with regard to some of the individual enemy.

For an Islamist, to say that one conducts a terror campaign because it makes him feel important and powerful doesn't sound very good. It is not an explanation that many would want to give. Instead, one can say, I did because of this oppression by so-and-so, thereby assigning the blame for one's own conduct on others. I think that with regard to many of those who say they are engaging in violent jihad because of Israel or U.S. foreign policy are saying what they say simply because it sounds good and it shifts the blame.

Even for those who may be motivated for exactly the reasons given in the video, it means little to me. I am not interested in allowing Islamic terrorists to dictate U.S. policy. If people want to discuss U.S. policies on the merits of the policies themselves and urge changes in direction, that's fine. But to say that we should shift make policy on the basis of Islamist intimidation is something I must vigorously disagree with.

[bourbon]

Originally Posted by Wargames Mark

For an Islamist, to say that one conducts a terror campaign because it makes him feel important and powerful doesn't sound very good. It is not an explanation that many would want to give. Instead, one can say, I did because of this oppression by so-and-so, thereby assigning the blame for one's own conduct on others. I think that with regard to many of those who say they are engaging in violent jihad because of Israel or U.S. foreign policy are saying what they say simply because it sounds good and it shifts the blame.

I am pretty sure Osama bin Laden takes full responsibility for his actions in the 9/11 attacks and is not assigning the blame for his own conduct on others – he is saying WHY he did what he did.

Originally Posted by Wargames Mark

Even for those who may be motivated for exactly the reasons given in the video, it means little to me. I am not interested in allowing Islamic terrorists to dictate U.S. policy. If people want to discuss U.S. policies on the merits of the policies themselves and urge changes in direction, that's fine. But to say that we should shift make policy on the basis of Islamist intimidation is something I must vigorously disagree with.

So even though it means little to you, you would be willing to except the idea that they are motivated by US policy? Accept the idea that they are trying to influence, change, coerce, or intimidate US policy? With all due respect Mark, we are talking about motives and the implications of what those motives mean to you are irrelevant. They are what they are, and ignoring them or misinterpreting through your ideological filter is both dangerous and hubristic.

[Wargames Mark]

Originally Posted by bourbon

I am pretty sure Osama bin Laden takes full responsibility for his actions in the 9/11 attacks and is not assigning the blame for his own conduct on others – he is saying WHY he did what he did.

And I am saying that these reasons (given by whomever among the violent Islamists) are given because the Islamists think they sound good. I think that in many cases the real motivations of Islamic terrorists are quite different from those stated in the video. I think that the real reasons can range from the sort of narcissism described by Lee Harris in the Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology article to much simpler reasons, like boredom and the need for excitement. For instance, I think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was probably motivated by the thrill of finally mattering and feeling important. However, had he been captured alive, I doubt he would have explained himself by stating that he had been an ineffectual, undereducated loser his whole life and then had finally found something dangerous, cool, and exciting to do that made the senior heroes of the Islamist world cheer him and honor him. I think that instead he would have tried to say something that he thought would sound noble and worthy - something to make himself out to be an altruistic freedom fighter slaying the evil dragon of imperialist crusader aggression...yada-yada-yada...blah, blah, blah...

When a person says, I am at war with America because America supports the Zionist enemy in Israel and because America buys the oil of the corrupt rulers of the Gulf States and equips their militaries, then that person is saying that the blame for his attacks lies with the U.S. because if the U.S. had not done those things then he would not be at war with America. Thus, that person is seeking to shift the blame for their attacks to the U.S. They are seeking cassus belli. I call B.S.

I acknowledge that I could be wrong, in that I'm not an Islamic terrorist and even if I were such a person, then extrapolating my opinions to the whole of Islamic insurgency and terrorism would be to fall into the fallacy of composition. I just don't buy where they're selling.

Also, a book recommendation: The Al Qaeda Reader

Originally Posted by bourbon

So even though it means little to you, you would be willing to except the idea that they are motivated by US policy? Accept the idea that they are trying to influence, change, coerce, or intimidate US policy? With all due respect Mark, we are talking about motives and the implications of what those motives mean to you are irrelevant. They are what they are, and ignoring them or misinterpreting through your ideological filter is both dangerous and hubristic.

I do not agree that AQ is trying to influence U.S. policy with regard to Israel and the Gulf States.

I think that they are primarily interested in influencing Muslims around the world, and most particularly in the Middle East.

However, I think that certain groups target U.S. public opinion and that certain attacks by various groups are meant to affect other populations/segments.
(For example, I think that attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan are meant not only to intimidate the local population, but also to play upon the American domestic political opposition to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.)

With regard to my statement, it is neither "hubristic" nor dangerous. I have simply stated that I have no interest in adjusting U.S. policy in response to intimidation.

To be a bit absurd, but possibly more clear: If they suddenly start saying that they're doing it because they don't like the Bowl Championship Series, I will agree with their gripes, but I still won't favor adjusting the BCS one iota in response to their attacks. In that farcial scenario, I would say that we should change the BCS because as a system, it stinks - but never because we want to appease a bunch of violent Islamists.

[Dayuhan]

I've always thought that the personal motives were at least as much a factor as the political goals. UBL and his inner circle defined themselves as jihadis during the resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. When that fight ended, they needed to either find new identities or find a new jihad, the latter being the more attractive course. UBL himself went in the course of a few years from being the victorious champion of Islam to occupying a not entirely trusted desk at Bin Laden Construction, and it didn't take long before mouthing off about the royals landed him in exile. He had every imaginable personal motive for going back to his jihadi identity, and a jihadi needs a jihad.