The two terrorist pilots who crashed the two planes into the WTC shared the same motivation. Mohammed Atta, who flew into WTC 1, was described by one Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked with him, as “most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that.” Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, “when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, “How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?”" - page 162 The 9/11 Commission Report
Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, “Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed.
The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the “mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.” On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says “By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. ” Also, in the “Outline of the 9/11 Plot, Staff Statement No. 16”, from the 9/11 Commission: “Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader, of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets: the World Trade Center, which represented the U.S. economy; the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military; and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel.” [Note: This part of the Staff Statement No. 16, the part mentioning Israel, didn't make it to the final 9/11 Report and we know why]
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue. “Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops.” Yousef wasn't even particularly religious and his letter to the NYT made no mention of religion: “This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, “What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel.”
In 1984, Jamal Ismail met Osama bin Laden,“I knew from the beginning that [bin Laden] was not willing to drink any soft drinks from American companies, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Sprite, 7-Up. He was trying to boycott all American products because he believed that without Americans, Israel cannot exist.”
“Someone approached me in the mosque as I was praying, and started to talk to me about injustice in the Middle East, the poverty, our impotence in the face of Israel. He made me want to listen to him - to find a solution. At first these people don't talk about violence. They concentrate on how much injustice America has caused in the world and how to get rid of this unfairness. They mention Palestine, they call on you to uphold your national dignity, to defend people, and suggest for that you must sacrifice yourself. Then your people will live after you and will always remember you." The young man, himself an Egyptian, speaking in the privacy of a quite courtyard in Cairo, believed this was the way Mohamed Atta was approached. Al-Qaeda by Jane Corbin p125
There is no evidence that bin Laden wasn't actually angered by the specific foreign policies he complained about. It is extremely unlikely that bin Laden didn't actually object to the specific foreign policies he complained about since millions and millions of other people object to the same policies, by what logic would it make sense that bin Laden would have been in an extremely small minority who isn't angered by U.S. support of Israel?
I respond:
Ralph Bodenstein (who traveled, worked and talked with Mohammed Atta) is not a "government report". Ahmed Al Haznawi's video will is not a "government report." And neither are several other examples I cite. Did you read the rest of my post at my blog? I think you are being dishonest and are trying to misdirect Americans away from understanding the main motive for the attack: anger at U.S. support of Israel. What you do with blog posts, powerful people are doing to the American people. Thomas Friedman lied when he claimed there were no specific grievances, this is after the 1993 attack were they sent a letter to the NYT explaining: “This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”
The cat is out of the bag, the two top commissioners admitted: "This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by opposition to American policies - rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy. "
And we can see how evidence specifically mentioning the word Israel would be omitted so that the word Israel didn't make it into the report several times from the source materials and the importance was intentionally downplayed.
Another example of deviousness: The movie Path to 9/11 FABRICATED Fatwa quotes in order to trick the public into thinking the attacks were about a demand to convert to Islam. They had an actor reading what he said was bin Laden's fatwa yet they fabricated words and didn't read what it said about Israel.
Another example of deviousness: Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998
You write, "I have read scores of government reports; most had pre-determined conclusions designed to sway a certain segment of the public." Really? meanwhile I have shown the pattern where they worked to downplay or suppress the main motive and we can see their dishonest works. Maybe a simpler answer is you feel it necessary to cover for Israel because you are ignoring all the evidence?
Posts
