A discussion on problems and solutions
November 30th, 2006 by Wil Robinson
Why did Al Qaeda attack the United States on September 11, 2001?
What are Al Qaeda’s goals it is trying to obtain?
How best can the U.S. combat Al Qaeda and other global resistance forces in the so-called “war on terror?â€
I’m interested in your answers to these three questions.  I have just a couple of ground rules for responses:
* Please keep each answer as short as possible – I’m not looking for a thesis paper, just one or two brief paragraphs for each question.
* Please do not link to other sites, news reports or statistics within your answer.  I’d like your answers only.Â
I look forward to your answers – and especially to any kind of discussion that might be generated.
Al-Qaeda terrorism war on terror Iraq bin Laden 9/11
Hi Will,
I have a theory that this is just a business transaction gone terribly awry. I have always viewed al-Qaeda as a rogue start-up company, and the war in Iraq as a hostile corporate takeover. There are just too many paper trails of transactions between the 2 sides, and particularly the Bush family and the Saudis to lead me to believe otherwise. BCCI is a good example.
Anyway, these are questions we should all be asking ourselves, and of the government, if only we had the true right to petition for information. The curtain of secrecy has been drawn very tight here, thanks to the corporate media.
Morse-
So was the attack on 9/11 because the US wasn’t holding up it’s end of the “business deal” or because Al Qaeda wasn’t holding up their end?
It’s an interesting scenario - can you elaborate on what you think each side had to gain or lose by the 9/11 attacks in such a “hypothetical” scenario?
1) I hate to answer a question with a question, but: DID al Qaeda attack the United States on September 11, 2001?
2) al Qaeda’s goals are to drive us out of their (Arab) lands, and to stop giving Israel unlimited support (militarily, morally, and financially), every time Israel gets in a dispute with anybody.
3) Bring home ALL military personnel, from EVERY foreign land. Use them to protect OUR borders and OUR land. Our Naval Branch is strong enough and big enough to police the world from the high seas. And if not, then the money saved from operating bases all over the world can be used to build it up even bigger.
BT-
I get your point about questions with a question - I think perhaps there is more than one suspect in the 9/11 attacks.
I think you’re right on about their goals and aims - and especially the solution.
Robert Pape wrote a book “Dying to Win” about suicide terrorism where he argues the same point - that a strong off-shore (naval) force should be able to police the world without infringing upon sovereign states. He also uses statistical analysis to show that suicide terrorism doesn’t exist without foreign occupation. (I know this kind of broke my rule about not quoting others…)
Here’s another question - what role does US support for despots like the Sauds, Musharaff, Mubarak, et. al. have in the aims of Al Qaeda and other groups? Is Al Qaeda asking for the US to allow these corrupt regimes to be overthrown if the people deem it necessary?
And perhaps more importantly, how do you think we can bring about such an “off-shore” military force?
I hope this doesn’t give these lunatic Neo-cons any ideas, but someone once said, “He who controls the high seas, controls the world” (Is this still considered rule-breaking, since I didn’t know who I was quoting?)
Instead of spending untold billions of dollars building, servicing, and maintaining foreign bases; we should be building, servicing, and maintaining more carriers and destroyers.
There is not one square foot of land on earth that the US couldn’t totally decimate from sea. Now, I don’t like that idea either, but it is a better option than antagonizing the world with foreign occupation troops.
Will,
In a nutshell, yes I believe it was payback. What had once been a private business transaction changed dramatically one George H.W. Bush became president. At that point, the leverage of the U.S. Government was applied to these relationships, which eventually expanded to include the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which set Osama bin Laden on his course of revenge towards the U.S.
The BCCI connection is critical here. Wayne Masden has a very revealing article on the relationship between the Bush family ventures, and the various Saudi connections, including the bin Ladens. The link is here.
There is a great deal of doubt about who did 911 and 7/7 [you guys happen to remember this one too?] I have a term for it - the 4th player and I’ve posted ad nauseam on this little group.
1. Going with the premise that it was al Qaeda who attacked on Sept. 11, I think they did so to force attention on the terrible inequities suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of the U.S. supported Israelis and, as bin Ladin himself said not long after, to make America move troops permanently out of the Middle East, as we’d said we would after the Gulf War but never did.
2. It’s goals, I think, originally matched the answer to the first question, though they morphed as bin Ladin realized he had a spotlight and could use al Qaeda to fight for a complete return to a unified, worldwide fundamentalist Islamic caliphate with him as Caliph. I don’t believe that al Qaeda is a strong enough entity, however, to achieve anything like that. Nor would the vast majority of peaceful Muslims enjoy being forced into fundamentalism and fanaticism.
3. The U.S. can best fight al Qaeda and other global resistance forces by seriously addressing the underlying issues that drive humans to inhuman acts of violence to force others to listen. There is great wealth (and good will) in the West that could be funneled in that direction. Hand in hand with that goes dogged police and investigative work so that groups and individuals who are involved in planning terroristic violence can be stopped, hopefully before it’s carried out. Finally, America needs to act seriously to defend its most vulnerable spots with stringent port security, security around and within nuclear and chemical facilities, and at her borders, whether those coming into the country are doing so by air, sea or land. I don’t mean that we should build stupid fences, only that we should be taking the same grim, serious security precautions against terrorism that Europe has had in place for at least 30 years. It’s impossible to protect everything and everyone, but we can do a much better job, and do it without stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights to privacy.
Good questions. Thanks, Wil.
Thank you all for your comments.
Wren -
I agree with you, but I think Al Qaeda might have less concern with the Israeli/Palestinian issue than just propaganda.
I think your reference to driving American troops from the Persian Gulf region is the bigger reason - consider this:
Al Qaeda has never attacked Israel.
In the same respect, Hamas has never attacked America.
I think these groups are largely focused on foreign occupation, and are only concerned with the occupying power, despite the benefit of using multiple issues as propaganda to garner wide support.
I’m not sure bin Laden really thinks he can obtain such a worldwide caliphate…though this is often used by western analysts to prove the evil of Al Qaeda. I think they might be more concerned with just allowing Middle Eastern leaders to be removed from power and an Islamic state established if the people wish it…look at Egypt. Mubarak wouldn’t be in power if not for the US support - if the people of Egypt had their way, the Muslim Brotherhood would win truly open elections. The same is true for Saudi Arabia - the corrupt royal family would be out in a second if not for the massive money the US ships to them every day ($400 million EVERY DAY in oil profits - most of that directly to the royal family and not to the infrastructure of the country.)
Anyway, thanks to all for your comments. It’s good to see so many people really thinking about these important questions.
Wil –
You say that my reference to a bin Ladin’s yearning for a “caliphate” is a red herring to prove al Qeada’s evil. I have to admit — I learned the “caliphate theory” while attending a conference on “terrorism preparedness for first responders” in 2005, sponsored by the state and DHS. It was an interesting course, including the two-hour, whirlwind history lesson about Islam. The caliphate explanation seemed semi-logical, but it required the further belief that bin Ladin is a serious nutjob. Even as I listened to the speaker, I wondered about that. He seems deadly sane to me. Dang, I hate being gulled.
Your theory is much colder, more pragmatic and down-to-earth. And since it involves huge sums of money, far more believable. Thanks.