Why al-Qaeda attacked the US

The broadcasting of audio and video tapes by Osama bin Laden on Arab
TV channels has been a regular event since 9/11. The US State
Department used to condemn the channel responsible for broadcasting a
message from a terrorist, and US channels were requested not to re-
broadcast it, lest it contain a coded “wakeup” call for al-Qaeda sleeper
cells in the US.

The US authorities are no longer so paranoid. But one feature remains the
same – little or no attention is paid to what bin Laden says on these tapes,
or in his other statements in the past 10 years or so, beginning with his
fatwa against the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, published in
August 1996.

Bush continuously tells Americans that the US is under threat at home and
abroad from terrorists, because they hate the freedom and democracy that
America enjoys. But it is clear from bin Laden’s messages that he is not at
all concerned with freedom and democracy in America or with any other
aspect of the American way of life. He is concerned with American foreign
policy towards, and American actions in, the Muslim world – with US
support for Israel in its ongoing theft of Arab land; US support for corrupt
and repressive regimes in the Muslim world (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf states); and so on. Post 9/11, the US has added to an
already long list of Muslim grievances by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

With considerable justification, bin Laden believes the Muslim world to be

under attack from the US and its allies, and regards 9/11, and the other
actions he has inspired, to be part of defensive jihad, designed to end US
aggression towards the Muslim world.

Bin Laden has said this many times, and he did so again in his most recent
video, broadcast on al-Jezeera on 30 October 2004 (transcript here). This
video is addressed to the American people, and explains why America was
attacked on 9/11 and what Americans must do in order to avoid another
attack.

He begins by refuting Bush’s claim that the attack was motivated by hatred
of freedom, asking that the president explain why the US was chosen as
the target, rather than Sweden, if hatred of freedom was the
motivation. He goes on:
 “No, we fight because we are free men, who don’t sleep under
oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation; just as you lay
waste to our nation, so shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a
dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself
believe he will be secure.”

And he mocks Americans for failing to seek out the causes of the attack as
“thinking people” should do, and for still being in ignorance more than three
years later. He accuses Bush of “hiding … the real causes” from the
American public (which may be unfair to Bush, since it assumes that Bush
knows “the real causes”). In any event, clearly, “the reasons are still there
for a repeat of what occurred”.

His final words to the American people were:

“In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of
Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands.
And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically
guaranteed its own security.”

This video was broadcast a few days before the US presidential election,
and there was much speculation in the US about whether it would damage
Bush, by reminding the American electorate that the author of 9/11 was
still at large. Yet again, there was no discussion of bin Laden’s central
message that America would be safe if it ceased its aggression towards
the Muslim world.

Bin Laden made no distinction between Bush and Kerry, understandably

so, since neither of them proposed to change US policy towards the
Muslim world. Kerry supports Israel’s rapacious behaviour in Palestine,
even more wholeheartedly than Bush. And he didn’t propose to withdraw
from Iraq, merely to plead with other states to provide troops for service in
Iraq, in order lessen the burden on the US military

* * * *

In a previous video addressed to the American people, broadcast on al-

Jezeera on 18 October 2003 (transcript here), bin Laden mocked earlier
pleading by Bush to other states to provide troops:

“To Bush I say, you are begging the world to come to your aid, begging
mercenaries from every corner of the world, even from small states. This
begging has destroyed your pride and revealed how trivial and weak you
 are after claiming to defend the whole world.”

Of Bush invading Iraq, he said:

“He is still following the mentality of his ancestors who killed the Native
Americans to take their land and wealth. He thought that this time it
would be an easy task and a lie that would not be exposed.

“But God sent him to Baghdad, the seat of the Caliphate, the homeland
of people who prefer death to honey. So they (the Iraqis) turned his
profits into losses, his joy into sadness and now he is merely looking for
a way back home.”

To American soldiers in Iraq, he said:

“… now that all the lies have been exposed and the greatest liar has
been revealed, your stay on Iraq’s land is compounding the oppression
and is a great folly. It shows you are selling your lives for the lives of
others. And you are spilling your blood to swell the bank accounts of the
White House gang and their fellow arms dealers and the proprietors of
great companies. And the greatest folly in life is to sell your life for the
lives of others.”
He ended with the threat that the war would continue until the US
abandons its aggression:

“In conclusion, I say to the American people we will continue to fight you
and continue to conduct martyrdom operations inside and outside the
United States until you depart from your oppressive course and abandon
your follies and rein in your fools.”

To Bush’s allies, he said:

“We reserve the right to retaliate at the appropriate time and place
against all countries involved, especially the UK, Spain, Australia,
Poland, Japan and Italy, not to exclude those Muslim states that took
part, especially the Gulf states, and in particular Kuwait, which has
become a launch pad for the crusading forces.”

After this statement was made, 19 Italian Carabinieri were killed in

Nasiriyah, British interests were attacked in Istanbul, in November 2003,
and nearly 200 people were killed in the Madrid train bombings, in March
2004. Later, in a tape broadcast on al-Jezeera on 15 April 2004 (see
here), bin Laden said that the latter had been carried out in “retaliation for
Spain's role in Iraq [and] Afghanistan” and he offered a truce to US allies
beginning “with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land”.

The message for allies of the US is clear: there is a simple way of keeping
your citizens safe, and it doesn’t require draconian laws or internment, or
concrete bollards outside every public building; it is to cease standing
shoulder to shoulder with America in its aggression towards the Muslim
world.

* * * *

No significant political figure in Washington is as yet prepared to say that

America is under attack because of its policies towards the Muslim world,
let alone suggest that America could be made safe by changing these
policies. However, there are signs that the truth is getting around.

Recently, a remarkable book was published entitled “Imperial Hubris: Why

the West is losing the War on Terror”. It was written anonymously by a
senior CIA official, with the permission of the CIA. His name has
subsequently been revealed as Michael Scheuer (and he has resigned
from the CIA, because of a disagreement with its new director). His
message is:

“… the greatest danger for Americans confronting the radical Islamist

threat is to believe – at the urging of US leaders – that Muslims attack us
for what we are and what we think rather than for what we
do. Rhetorical political blustering ‘informs’ the public that Islamists are
offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties,
intermingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However,
although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims,
no Islamist leader has, for example, fomented jihad in order to destroy
participatory democracy, the national association of credit unions, or
coed universities. …

“Al-Qaeda’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt

Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and
Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden’s
supporters thus identify their problem and believe its solution lies in
war. [Scheuer] contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our
secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific
attacks on their lands, their communities and their religion. Unless US
leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly,
even moderate Muslims will be radicalized into supporting bin Laden’s
 anti-Western offensive.”

That may be viewed as the raving of an eccentric, but he cannot be

entirely dismissed, since he worked for the CIA for 22 years and was the
head of its bin Laden “desk” for two years.

Remarkably, the same analysis has appeared in a report (dated

September 2004) from the Defense Science Board, which exists to provide
independent advice to the US Secretary of Defense. In this instance, its
advice was sought by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.

The report is on Strategic Communications, that is, the means whereby the
US gets its message to the world. It concludes bluntly that communicating
with the Muslim world is impossible at the present time:

“Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward

the Muslim World is not one of ‘dissemination of information’, or even
one of crafting and delivering the ‘right’ message. Rather, it is a
fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none – the United
States today is without a working channel of communication to the world
of Muslims and of Islam.” (page 41)

And, according to the report, the US is not believed because of its policy
towards the Muslim world, and the problem has got much worse since the
US invasion of Iraq:

“American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically

elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while
diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab
societies.

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom’, but rather, they hate our policies.
The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as
one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and
the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively
see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan,
and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy

to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.
Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen
as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of
the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel
 oppressed, but not enslaved.

“Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of

Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more
chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by
ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve
American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-
determination.

“Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out
the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the
flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and
tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray
themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim
community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

“What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of

fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of ‘terrorist’
groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of
affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide
Islam.” (pages 40-41)

This should make interesting reading for Paul Wolfowitz, and his boss
Donald Rumsfeld.

* * * *

On 29 November 2004, a video tape by Ayman al-Zawahiri was broadcast

on al-Jezeera. For the first time, to the best of my knowledge, an al-Qaeda
tape was widely reported as stating that the issue at stake was US policy
towards the Muslim world. It was widely reported in this way because the
Associated Press report on it began:

“In a video tape aired Monday, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant vowed
to continue fighting the United States until Washington changed its
policies.”

It was prepared before the US presidential elections, of which it said:

“The results of the elections do not matter for us. Vote whoever you
want, Bush, Kerry or the devil himself. This does not concern us. What
concerns us is to purge our land from the aggressors.”
It concluded:

“Either you choose to treat us with respect and based on an exchange of

interests ... or we will continue to fight you until you change your
policies.”

Why Did Al Qaeda Attack the United States?

September 11, 2008 by richmcsheehy
I would guess that most of us can recall exactly where we were and
what we were doing when we first heard about the horrific attacks on
the Twin Towers and the subsequent attack on the Pentagon. There
aren’t many moments in your life, no matter how long you live, that
you will recall as vividly as the moment you learned about it. The
assassination of John F. Kennedy was also like that for me. I don’t
think anyone really feels that they have heard a satisfactory
explanation of why Lee Harvey Oswald killed him. That was over forty
years ago, and there are still many people who don’t believe the
results of the official U.S. government investigation.
The U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission Report has also failed to gain
unanimous support. The report is primarily an analysis of how we
failed to prevent the attacks and how we failed to be aware that they
might even occur. However, the greatest failure of the report is that no
attempt is made to understand what motivated the attacks. We are
left to believe that the motive of Al Qaeda is some sort of radical
Islamic hatred of the Christian and Jewish west. However, just a
simple observation of the attacks themselves show quite clearly that
the attacks were not at all an attempt to begin a religious war or even
to wage a terrorist campaign against people who were not of the
Islamic faith. Look at their targets:
The World Trade Center could be described as the financial capital of
the multinational businesses of the United States. The twin towers
were not only functional centers of finance, they were iconic symbols
of America’s mighty economic impact throughout the world. The
second target, the Pentagon, is another icon as well as the functional
center of the vast military might of the United States. Long after the
attacks occured, and after much investigation, it has been learned that
the U.S. Capitol building was the intended target of United flight
93. The aircraft that crashed in Shanksville, PA after heroic
intervention by its passengers. The U.S. Capitol building is also an icon
and the functional center of our government. The 9/11 attacks were
an attack on a U.S. financial – military – government triad. While it
would have been easy, there were no attacks on any Christian churchs,
Jewish synagogues, Mormon, Buddhist, or Hindu temples or any other
religious organizations or icons. The attackers may well have all been
Islamic, but the attacks were not about Islam.
If we are to understand what 9/11 was all about we need to consider
one very important point: every single attacker was on a suicide
mission. Why is that important? Consider Japan at the close of World
War II. Defeat was seen to be inevitable. Many Japanese feared
severe retribution from American forces. Their backs were against the
wall and they expected no mercy. Thus was born the Kamikaze pilots,
the “Divine Wind”. The Kamikaze pilots flew their bomb-laden aircraft
directly into American warships in a last ditch attempt to stop the
advance of the U.S. Navy and a subsequent invasion. There is little
doubt that the courage of these Japanese pilots was sustained, in part,
by their trust in God. However, no one has ever suggested that the
Kamikaze attacks were some sort of group of religious fanatics.
Toward the end of World War II the Nazis in Germany also planned to
develop a suicide bomber squadron called the Leonidas Squadron. The
pilots would fly Messerschmitt Me328 aircraft, equipped with a single
2,000 bomb, into selected Allied targets. There were problems with
development of the aircraft, however, and the squadron never saw
action.
The common thread among the Nazis, the Japanese Kamikaze, and the
Al Qaeda attackers is that they were all desperate attacks. Suicide
attacks are always an indicator that the attacker feels severely
oppressed and near defeat, but out of a sense of patriotism, rage, and
injustice decides to make one final attempt to destroy a hated enemy
even if it means his own death. It’s not about converting someone to
his religion, nor is it because he is unhappy that people on the other
side of the world don’t worship the same God he does. The 9/11
attacks were desperate moves by men who felt their backs were to the
wall. But why did they feel that way? And why us? What did we do?
We didn’t do anything. Neither you nor I, nor any of the people who
died in the attacks were a threat to Al Qaeda. The people who were
killed are what our military would call “collateral damage”. Sort of like
the innocent civilians who were killed in the “Shock and Awe”
campaign in Iraq. The real targets were the iconic, and also
functional, buildings of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the
Capitol. But why? Why strike at the heart of our multinational
business system, our military, and our government? It’s because these
Al Qaeda terrorists, and their leaders, view these three icons as one
sort of an unholy Trinity, and it was this Trinity that was threatening
their very existence. Al Qaeda was, and is, made up of desperate men,
but they are not crazed religious fanatics.
OK, so how can these people feel so threatened? What could we be
doing to them that would make them feel that they are on the brink of
destruction? The answer is the same answer that can be given as the
cause of all wars: they perceive us as stealing their wealth. It is our
wealth that allows us to live. Our homes, our jobs, our land, our
money, our industries – all these things, and more, could be
considered our collective wealth. For the people of this part of the
world, their principle source of all their wealth lies in a single word:
“oil”.
The U.S. has a long and checkered history of being in the oil business
in the Middle East. When Iran nationalized their oil operations in 1951,
the U.S. began efforts, led by the CIA, to depose their leader. This
succeeded in 1953 when the Shah of Iran was reinstated and Iran
began to sell cheap oil to American oil companies again. The Shah was
deposed in the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and they haven’t been very
friendly to us ever since. Similarly, Saddam Hussein nationalized the
Iraqi oil industry in 1972 and tossed the American oil companies out of
Iraq. The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and captured Saddam. He was
executed on Dec 30, 2006. The Iraqi Oil Ministry is now negotiating oil
deals with Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Total, and Chevron so that U.S.
companies can pump oil from Iraq again.
It is interesting to note that almost all of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists
were from Saudi Arabia. So is Osama bin Laden. None of the terrorists
were from Iraq. Yet, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda was quick
to enter Iraq and join the fight against the U.S. In the past Osama bin
Ladin has stated that some Al Qaeda attacks were due to the U.S.
support of Israel and its perceived unfair treatment of Palestinians. It
is pretty clear that Al Qaeda sees itself as a sort of defender of last
resort of the entire Middle East, defending it from domination, and the
subsequent loss of its wealth, by the U.S. Unholy Trinity of
our multinational businesses, military, and government. The thing is,
this is not exactly an irrational fear.
In 1997 the Project for the New American Century was founded. It’s
stated proposition was that, “American leadership is good for both
America and for the world.” It has been a strong advocate for
American leadership, or domination, of the world. It has been very
influential in the Bush administration. In 1998, members of the
organization, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz warned
President Clinton that Saddam was a threat and should be removed
because of his weapons of mass destruction. In a report written in
2000 the group warned that “Over the long term, Iran may well prove
as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has.” Paul
Wolfowitz became President Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense in
2001 and, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, pressed for the invasion
of Iraq, an idea also strongly pushed by John McCain at the same time.
Donald Rumsfeld was President Bush’s Secretary of Defense at the
time.
The fact that these three people immediately advocated an attack on
Iraq as a response to 9/11 indicates that their view of the conflict is
not too different from that of Osama bin Laden. This is a conflict
between America and its policy of financial, military and political
dominance throughout the Middle East and a small group of guerrilla
fighters who view this as nothing less than the theft of the entire
region’s wealth.Basically they feel they are getting a really, really bad
deal.
There is no doubt that these guerrillas are fanatical fighters. There is
no doubt they feel their backs are to the wall. There is no doubt they
will employ suicide tactics again if they feel it will help achieve their
objective. And there is also no doubt that this war is not about
religion. It is not about Islam or Christianity. Nor is it about American
freedom. It’s not about any of the great emotional issues that the
leaders of all countries always try to stoke in order to get their young
men to go out and die for their country.
The cause of the 9/11 attack is not radical Islam; it is the same as the
cause for every war that has ever taken place. It’s about wealth. It’s
about money. It’s about some people believing they are being
exploited so badly that they and their way of life can’t survive, and the
people on the other side not even aware of this and, come to think of
it, not even caring whether they survive or not anyway.
The tragedy is that it is the innocent who always suffer the most.