PDA

View Full Version : What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?



Qtec
05-30-2011, 08:03 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=relmfu)

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 9-11 Commission held its twelfth and final public hearing June 16-17, 2004, in Washington, DC. On June 16 the Commission heard from several of the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot. It was at this hearing that the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission said, "I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents. ... what have you found out about why these men did what they did? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>What motivated them to do it?" The agents looked at each other, apparently not eager to be the one to have to say it. FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald stepped up to the plate and laid out the facts, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes</span> and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." But this testimony was kept out of the 9/11 Commission Report and no recommendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. After the report was issued, the ten commissioners formed the "9-11 Public Discourse Project." At the August 2, 2005 session on foreign policy, Lee Hamilton quickly tries to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed. The questioner started to ask, "Mr. Hamilton? I had a quick question for you sir. I had spoken with you on C-SPAN about a month ago ..." Immediately Hamilton interrupts him, "I think we'd uh ..." The questioner persisted, "why aren't we addressing the gorilla in the room? The gorilla in the room is US support for Israel." He corrects Hamilton's claim that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute wasn't addressed in the 9/11 Commission Report by referring to page 147 of the report which says, "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.</span>"

The questioner keeps getting interrupted by Hamilton as he pleads, "Why aren't we addressing that sir?" Hamilton didn't answer and dismisses the questioner, "Alright sir. Alright, this is a conversation you and I ought to have. Let's not take up the time of our resource people. May we go to the next question please?" </div></div>


Q

pooltchr
05-30-2011, 08:25 AM
Note the use of "I believe", which would suggest to most rational people that this is nothing more than someone's opinion.

And, even if it were true, it simply says that we were attacked for remaining true to our principles.

Do you think we should just cave in to their demands and try to appease those who threaten us??

That's not how we work in this country. On this Memorial Day, we are honoring those Americans who were willing to give up their lives to protect our way of life. If you are willing to compromise your beliefs, you are doomed to become slaves to those with different beliefs.

Happy Memorial Day.

Steve

Soflasnapper
05-30-2011, 03:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note the use of "I believe", which would suggest to most rational people that this is nothing more than someone's opinion.

And, even if it were true, it simply says that we were attacked for remaining true to our principles.

Do you think we should just cave in to their demands and try to appease those who threaten us??

That's not how we work in this country. On this Memorial Day, we are honoring those Americans who were willing to give up their lives to protect our way of life. If you are willing to compromise your beliefs, you are doomed to become slaves to those with different beliefs.

Happy Memorial Day.

Steve </div></div>

Well, no.

If all we had was that the man questioned said 'believe,' it would be perhaps what you say. But we don't have to rely on anyone's belief, since the clear words of KSM and bin Laden are proof. As are the 9/11 Commission Report's words.

Moreover, it was GW Bush who fairly immediately took one of bin Laden's other stated grievances most seriously and corrected it, by withdrawing the US military presence from the manning of the gigantic $150-$200 billion dollar state-of-the-art Saudi military base. This was a key demand of bin Laden's, ignored prior to 9/11, and then obeyed afterwards.

To obey him, obviously not. To cease what was an overly provocative and strategically unnecessary basing. If even GW Bush could figure out this was the correct action, even as it appeared to be bowing and cowering to bin Laden, that is a great credit to his wisdom and statesmanship, while not a recommendation of yours in this instance.

pooltchr
05-30-2011, 03:53 PM
So you think we should bend over to meet the demands of those who threaten us if we don't.

Got it!

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-31-2011, 07:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note the use of "I believe", which would suggest to most rational people that this is nothing more than someone's opinion.

And, even if it were true, it simply says that we were attacked for remaining true to our principles.

Do you think we should just cave in to their demands and try to appease those who threaten us??

That's not how we work in this country. On this Memorial Day, we are honoring those Americans who were willing to give up their lives to protect our way of life. If you are willing to compromise your beliefs, you are doomed to become slaves to those with different beliefs.

Happy Memorial Day.

Steve </div></div>

Well, no.

If all we had was that the man questioned said 'believe,' it would be perhaps what you say. But we don't have to rely on anyone's belief, since the clear words of KSM and bin Laden are proof. As are the 9/11 Commission Report's words.

Moreover, it was GW Bush who fairly immediately took one of bin Laden's other stated grievances most seriously and corrected it, by withdrawing the US military presence from the manning of the gigantic $150-$200 billion dollar state-of-the-art Saudi military base. This was a key demand of bin Laden's, ignored prior to 9/11, and then obeyed afterwards.

To obey him, obviously not. To cease what was an overly provocative and strategically unnecessary basing. If even GW Bush could figure out this was the correct action, even as it appeared to be bowing and cowering to bin Laden, that is a great credit to his wisdom and statesmanship, while not a recommendation of yours in this instance. </div></div>


LOL...amazing how he manages to irrationally cherry pick in order to bastardize reality, in the interest of Repiglicans, don't you think?

It's simple, in his irrational world, Repiglicans good, Democrats, Bad!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I don't think, "Our Principles" included invading and occupying a foreign country, for oil contracts for former cronies, do you?


Killing innocent civilians, in Bush's Shock And Awe, policy, in spite of the FACT, that our CIA experts, were telling him that Iraq, was not an immediate threat to our country, and then blaming everyone who told him in advance, that he was making a mistake.

We have proof, that Bush lied in the State OF The Union Address.
American Principles? I don't think so.

I don't think "Our Principles" include a President, who gets unprecedented warnings of a coming attack, and does not one single thing, to divert it!

I don't think "Our Principles" include sending our soldiers to war, on lies, and without decent equipment, or lying in the State Of The Unions Address, to push the country into an illegal war, by fear mongering about Mushroom Clouds!!!

I don't think "our principles" ever included <span style='font-size: 14pt'>torturing</span> prisoners of war, using an al Qaeda, attack, to try to justify invading a completely different country, and then joking about not finding the WMD, in the Oval Office, after so many had died looking for them, and then saying, "I don't know where he is. He's hiding. I don't think about him."

Gee, did Bush know anything? After trying to use bin Laden, to promote a war in Iraq, he turns right around and tries to dilute the threat of bin Laden, and al Qaeda, when we now know, bin Laden, was still leading al Qaeda, and planning more attacks, and leading his followers, but then, his interest was not protecting America, it was in making his oil cronies, and war profiteering pigs, richer.

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers, was watching the US side with Israel, completely, even when Israel was committing inhumane acts of their own, and watching us kill arabs, for oil, for decades.

"My understanding is that the war in Iraq, is about oil."
Alan Greenspan

G.

pooltchr
05-31-2011, 07:37 AM
So you also think we should bend over to meet the demands of those who threaten us if we don't.

Got it!

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-31-2011, 09:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note the use of "I believe", which would suggest to most rational people that this is nothing more than someone's opinion.

And, even if it were true, it simply says that we were attacked for remaining true to our principles.

Do you think we should just cave in to their demands and try to appease those who threaten us??

That's not how we work in this country. On this Memorial Day, we are honoring those Americans who were willing to give up their lives to protect our way of life. If you are willing to compromise your beliefs, you are doomed to become slaves to those with different beliefs.

Happy Memorial Day.

Steve </div></div>

Well, no.

If all we had was that the man questioned said 'believe,' it would be perhaps what you say. But we don't have to rely on anyone's belief, since the clear words of KSM and bin Laden are proof. As are the 9/11 Commission Report's words.

Moreover, it was GW Bush who fairly immediately took one of bin Laden's other stated grievances most seriously and corrected it, by withdrawing the US military presence from the manning of the gigantic $150-$200 billion dollar state-of-the-art Saudi military base. This was a key demand of bin Laden's, ignored prior to 9/11, and then obeyed afterwards.

To obey him, obviously not. To cease what was an overly provocative and strategically unnecessary basing. If even GW Bush could figure out this was the correct action, even as it appeared to be bowing and cowering to bin Laden, that is a great credit to his wisdom and statesmanship, while not a recommendation of yours in this instance. </div></div>

Notice, how his version, completely overlooks the following?



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On June 16 the Commission heard from <span style='font-size: 14pt'>several of the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot.</span> It was at this hearing that the question "What motivated them to do it?" was <span style='font-size: 14pt'>finally</span> asked. </div></div>

Typical RW denial. "I believe" when coming from:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the federal government's top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al Qaeda and the 9-11 plot</span></div></div>
\
Does not mean, what he twisted it to mean, at all.

Typical of the Kool Aid slurpping RW.

Additionally, the word, "finally" smacks of the proven efforts, by those Repiglicans involved in the investigation, to avoid allowing anything untoward, to lead back to the Great Ignorer, of threats and warnings, GWBush and RR, both of whom had policies which flamed the entire problem, all along!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you think we should bend over to meet the demands of those who threaten us if we don't.

Got it!

Steve </div></div>

Hardly.

However, if we are engaged in foolish, or counterproductive, or unjust actions, we definitely should reconsider our actions, EVEN IF some whom we consider enemies are also stating that as their position.

We should act in our best interests, and according to our own principles, even if our alleged enemies also say that.

To always refuse to do what they say, even in cases where they have a correct point, puts us as much in the thrall of our alleged enemies as if we always bowed to their demands unthinkingly.

The question is really what is the correct thing to do, not who is saying it.

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you think we should bend over to meet the demands of those who threaten us if we don't.

Got it!

Steve </div></div>

Hardly.

However, if we are engaged in foolish, or counterproductive, or unjust actions, we definitely should reconsider our actions, EVEN IF some whom we consider enemies are also stating that as their position.

We should act in our best interests, and according to our own principles, even if our alleged enemies also say that.

To always refuse to do what they say, even in cases where they have a correct point, puts us as much in the thrall of our alleged enemies as if we always bowed to their demands unthinkingly.

The question is really what is the correct thing to do, not who is saying it. </div></div>

Bravo!!!

Excellent post!

Right on the money.

I've always thought the best response to 9/11, would have been through special forces, drones, and diplomacy.

No boots on the ground, in the Middle East, as a first choice.

Iraq, was the worst foreign policy decision, in history.

Kerry was right, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

IIRC, the majority of Dems, voted against it, or a good many, at least.



G.

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

IIRC, the majority of Dems, voted against it, or a good many, at least.



G. </div></div>

IIRC, the Dems had the majority in both houses, and could have stopped it if they wanted to.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

IIRC, the majority of Dems, voted against it, or a good many, at least.



G. </div></div>

IIRC, the Dems had the majority in both houses, and could have stopped it if they wanted to.

Steve </div></div>

You're quite wrong. Repiglicans had their blank check Congress going. Repiglicans had both ends of Pennsylvanis Avenue.

Wrong AGAIN!

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 02:35 PM
G, the Dems held the majority of the House, and the majority of the Dems there voted against. However, enough of the Dems joined the entire GOP caucus except probably Dr. Ron Paul voting yes, for it to pass the House.

The Dems probably did not have the Senate, depending upon when Jeffords switched, and in the Senate, they voted about equally for and against. There, again, the near- or actual unanimous yes vote by the GOP carried that body to a yes decision.

The problem at that time was that anyone who wanted to appear 'serious' (HRC, cough) and in particular was thinking of running for president (HRC, cough), decided the national security state (i.e., Israel) demanded a yes vote.

pooltchr
06-02-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You're quite wrong. Repiglicans had their blank check Congress going. Repiglicans had both ends of Pennsylvanis Avenue.

Wrong AGAIN! </div></div>

Yes, Gayle, you are wrong again. If you don't believe me, read sofla's post.

Steve