It seems to me that the causes of the September 11 attacks are still unknown to many citizens. In the spring semester of 2002, only a few months after these attacks, I took a course in World Politics in which we discussed the causes of 9/11 as well as what these attacks would signify. We read parts of [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... ]How Did This Happen?[/url] , an excellent book comprised of essays written by experts of various fields whose insights can lead to a much greater understanding of the attacks. Here's an essay question from one of my World Politics exams (gotta love Dzirkalis tests :roll: ). Keep in mind that these were only my notes that I used to study for the test, so it isn't as specific as it could be.
[b]Question #1: What factors explain how 9/11 was pulled off? What possible motives help to explain this and which seems the most likely? (1-14)[/b] The main factor that explains how the terrorist attacks of September 11th were pulled off is that the attacks were planned out in great detail in advance. It took over a year to put together. The factors that went into the preparations included training for the pilots, deciding which flights and coordinating departure times, figuring out how to maneuver around security, and also planning ahead for possible weather conflicts. They settled on a Tuesday morning because there would be fewer passengers. This would be beneficial because there would be less of a chance of the passengers overtaking the terrorists, and because a greater number of passengers would just be more of a hassle and make things more complicated. The organization of the attacks and the actual operation itself required human resolve. The terrorists had strong convictions and were thus willing to sacrifice their lives for what they saw as a just cause. To these men it was not suicide, but rather martyrdom. In comparison to their predecessors, these men were older, thought to be well off materialistically, and well educated. This is not typical of the historical profile of a suicide attacker, but shows evidence of a change in the motives of terrorists.
The possible motives for the attacks include hatred, punishment, hopes of causing the U.S. to withdraw its troops in the Middle East, personal gain (bin Laden), and hopes of a big U.S. reaction. It is very clear that all of these motives are reasonable. There is an obvious hatred of the West and the U.S. in particular in the Middle East. They view the U.S. to be Imperialistic and resent the military bases, culture, and democratic system that the U.S. has tried to impose on them. Hatred is an emotional motive. Punishment, on the other hand, is a judicial motive. Punishment is an assessment of what has been done and retribution for a wrong. Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. has had military forces in the Middle East (particularly in Saudi Arabia and Syria, where they serve the purpose of enforcing no-fly zones). Obviously, they are unwanted by many people in the Middle East. If the American people are sufficiently terrified, it may be decided that keeping troops in the Middle East is not worth the cost. Lastly, and what seems the most likely motive, is the prospect of a desired big reaction of the U.S. Obviously, if the U.S. is attacked in a major way and its security is challenged, there will be a retaliation. Bin Laden was counting on this. Indiscriminate violence in the Middle East, as it seems to be by the U.S. retaliation, appears to be an attack on Islam. This causes the war to shift to a religious war, which leads to the rallying of the Islamic world to be against America and support bin Laden. [LINE]Now, to be completely honest, when I read the first article in the book ("The Organization Men- Anatomy of a Terrorist Attack"), it made me feel nauseous. And angry. The reasons behind the attacks highlighted in this essay by Brian M. Jenkins are, to say the least, disturbing. And it makes me so angry that the Bush Administration responded to the attacks exactly how bin Laden would want him to.
There also seems to be some common misconception regarding the link between 9/11 and the current war in Iraq. There is no link, except maybe for a misguided attempt at forcing a link by Dubya. The administration has admitted that there is no link between Sadam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11- that was all bin Laden's terrorist organization. Bush has claimed that the war in Iraq equates to a war on terrorism. If that's what it is then it is an obvious failure, as it will only cause more terrorism. I remember watching Bush's State of the Union address this year and actually being scared. I just couldn't understand the logic behind preemptively striking a country because of the fact that they have weapons of mass destruction. They have weapons of mass destruction, so let's start a war with them. Makes sense, huh? No, it doesn't. Alright, I'm not getting into the whole Iraq thing because if I do it will involve mostly heavily opinionated ranting rather than factual accounts. And I'll just get angrier. =)
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
