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

Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks 9/11 http://Tinyurl.com/911Motivation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHyUhd...
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
"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."
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
http://www.representativepress.org/do...
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/
http://Tinyurl.com/WhatIsWrongWithIsrael
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers to attack the US?

US foreign policy bias for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and US government support for other oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

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? 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 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, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."

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?"

"This was sensitive ground," Hamilton and Kean say in their new book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission," and some commissioners worried "listed U.S. support of Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." There is a reason politicians don't want US support of Israel listed as a root cause of al Qaeda's terrorism. There is a reason politicians don't want the American people to "reassess that policy." If the public were to take a good look at the facts, if they researched what the policies actually do to people in the Middle East, they would be horrified. Politicians lie to us about "hatred of our freedoms" because they care more about serving special interests than about keeping us safe.The Commissioners were more interested in playing politics than in fulfilling the 9/11 Commission's mandate to "to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." These politicians betrayed the American people. Dishonesty about the 9/11 motives robs us of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
http://www.representativepress.org/Bo...
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

• Category

  News & Politics

[patmanfondu1]

I don't understand what you're saying? Did youtube delete bin Landin's denial? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last statement.

[RepresentativePress]

You wrote this: "Bin Laden said repeatedly that he was not involved in the attacks."

where did you get the idea he "said repeatedly"? I explained that the only time was when he was on the run and in imminent threat of being handed over by the Taliban. The CIA's bin Laden unit chief found nothing odd about his initial denial. And the tapes talk about anger at US support of ISrael and that is the last thing US officials what said, so how could it make sense for them to "fake" him saying it?

[patmanfondu1]

Bin Laden said repeatedly that he was not involved in the attacks. There was never any evidence linking him to the attacks. Ten of the hijackers announced they were alive after 9/11. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The question should not be "what are the hijackers' motives?" The question should be, "WHO would have motives?"

[RepresentativePress]

wrong. He said it once when on the run and the very time the US was demanding that the Taliban hand him over and at that time the Taliban said they would hold him accountable if presented with proof. Well AT THAT MOMENT if bin LAden admitted to it (when he was till in the reach of the Taliban and at the time the Taliban was trying to stop their country from being bombed) the US could have then said, well he is admitting to it right now, there's your evidence, so hand him over! Understand that?

[patmanfondu1]

No. He never admitted to anything. The US put out a video of his confession, and it was seriously debunked. It didn't look like him, he wrote with his wrong hand, he wore jewelry, etc. It wasn't him. "Proof" means evidence that will stand up in a court of law. Nothing was ever presented. Shameful! Estimated deaths are now closing in on a million, mostly civilians. That's good revenge for 3000.

[RepresentativePress]

FIrst of all, I explained your 1st claim was wrong yet you glossed over that. 2nd, you are relying on ignorant websites because the act is the videos were not "seriously debunked." 3rd, this whole line of "reasoning" is so irrational that it is draining. You have fallen for the same agenda of deny that people are attacking the US in retaliation for US foreign policies. Considering what the US does, you don't think it would be odd if no one stuck back? And military action is NOT a legit response.

[220830lock]

Follow the money!

Silverstein got his money, defense contractors are happy, oil companies are happy. Who did benefit from these attacks? Israel did, special interest groups did, some evil corporations did.

Who lost? Muslims and the tax payers of America. We need to team up with the muslims, THEY ARE NOT THE ENEMY, CORRUPTION IS!

[kazoorocketman54]

As long as people persist on thinking these wars were for the interests of American freedom (as the Right tends to say), or primarily for oil (as the Left tends to say), progress is not going to be made.

America's unconditional support for the state of Israel is the problem people need to begin becoming aware of. Fortunately, I think more people are.

[bookguitarguy]

Your "brilliant logic" is nothing more than the cliche, "the end justifies the means", which throws all morality out the window. A perfect analogy to your logic (& this is NOT a threat) is that I need a house, think yours looks like shit, & believe I could do much better things w/your property than you are, so I come over, tell you to get lost (or kill you), then move in & fix the place up much nicer than it was before. Then I say it's OK, bc you weren't taking care of the place anyway. Capish?

[bookguitarguy]

As long as you realize that your words are a total cop-out & rationalization, it works real well. Oops..except for the fact that, whether you approve of the Ottoman handling of the area or not, there was a rich culture there, w/some 500 Palestinian Arab villages, 400 of which were wiped off the map by Zionist immigrants, who appropriated the homes & property left behind by the Arab residents w/no compensation of any kind. You must be in Israel, where government propaganda keeps you brainwashed.

[PoofDuddy]

How does this rationalization work: the Ottoman Empire of Pirates got it's ass kicked in the early 1800's leading the Turks into a century-long downward spiral until the US and British kicked 'em out of Palestine, which they left in disrepair for 600 years.

The Ottomans left the place a toilet. Those found in it by the time of the British Mandate Declaration? Remnants.

Look at the gleaming cities in just 65 years and how the Jews built it up from nothing, compared to 600 years of Turk decline.

[PoofDuddy]

Did the Medes "steal" the land and then force-migrate Assyrians to move into the land during the Jew's exile to Babylon?

What about the Assyrians rights.. they do have a heritage and should be allowed THEIR lands back to from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - like THAT will go over well.

[bookguitarguy]

You also neglect-conveniently-to mention the hypocrisy of the "Christian" settlers, who used their God as justification for stealing the land, & killing millions (Manifest Destiny), pressuring natives to convert to a religion that they THEMSELVES did not follow... Ie, they did not live according to Jesus' teachings, but satisfied their greed for land (like Israel), w/the justification that God gave it to them, & they were entitled to it due to better technology. Your arguments are lame, at best.

[bookguitarguy]

Pretty good job of completely missing/dodging the point-& nice try rationalizing injustice to make yourself feel better! The point, for those w/good reading comprehension skills, is that what you do w/a piece of land after you've stolen it from others doesn't change the fact that you've stolen it. Thus your rationalizations do not IN ANY WAY address, & certainly don't SOLVE the problem of the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians, which folks like you refuse to acknowledge. Nice try though!!

[PoofDuddy]

Quit defending the dispute of the Indian-givers. If the Indians had an equivalent municipal system of dispute, the early settlers would have had their lands forfeited for a number of reasons: murder, terrorism, contract fraud, theft, rape, torture, kidnapping, arson.. all things which those same tribes did to each other for centuries PRIOR to the early settlements.

In fact, the Indians keep fucking each other genealogically by denial of tribal land descent disputes, so they'll NEVER CHANGE!

[bookguitarguy]

Oh yes, and Americans have done wonderful things "for the land" that they stole from Native Americans, too... so how could it be wrong? Gee, you're a dumb ass.