Talk:Motives for the September 11 attacks

Synthesis debate
This article needs to be based on sources that explicitly link motivations to 9/11, not just collect sources that say that Osama bin Laden saw the US an an enemy for this reason or another. Cs32en 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * understand your point i guess, but this is very difficult. i don't know how the sources could be any closer than his video transcripts. any ideas?Spencerk (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

many interviews mention the reason for osama 'war' on america -

here is a very explicit reason from a 1996 interview

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider. I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.107.226 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Seems like this page exists solely for political purposes. If not then were is a "motive for German invasion of Poland" or "motive for attack on Pearl Harbor"? Seems the info on this page should be included in the "attack on 9/11" page and not as a separate entity. Observation Station (talk)

The article has two really major problems:
 * It presents various developments in different parts of the world through the prism of 9/11, which misrepresents them. (The links to the various "main article" are just the formal aspect of this issue.)
 * The video transcripts are primary sources, of course, and we need to use published interpretations of those sources by reliable sources as a starting point. The authenticity of the primary sources would also need to be established by reliable sources. Cs32en  14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with #2, and there are a large amount of secondary literature on this subject that will be great once they are included. This article is 10 hours old!

on #1 -when the perpetrator of an attack explicitly describes specific events as motivations, it is not original research, or a misrepresentation, to list them. - it would be different if, say, bin Laden wrote a book about cooking and one went though it looking for 9/11 motives. That would definetly be synthesis. - But the transcripts to his videos, are VERY clear that their purpose is to explain the attacks. '"So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider." -2004 Osama bin Laden video' I support the changes you've made, (the Bosnian war reference was somewhat synthetic, as it was mentioned in a letter about the saudi government) -despite the fact that it destroys many hours of my work. Though above all, i absolutely support this page's right to exist, I have asked User:RHaworth to defend his prod. cheers Spencerk (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What Bin Laden presents as his motivations and what the actual motivations were may be two different things. That's why we need independent secondary reliable sources. This is not an article about a subject (i.e. Bin Laden), where self-published sources can be used more freely. The different historical events were presented as if they would revolve around those aspects that are mentioned in Bin Ladens published opinions. We need to distance our presentation from this, not just by taking a different viewpoint than Bin Laden, but by putting his thoughts and themes into context. We can save a lot of arduous work if we look out for appropriate secondary sources that have been published on the issue, instead of trying to recount a large part of the history of international relations in the last 20 years without reference to such sources. Cs32en  22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * after a few months of development, now with 26 reputable references, i've removed this tag. The article is much better now than day 1, when the tag was added. great work everyone Spencerk (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's troublesome that Cs32en presents a scenario (probably defendable under certain interpretation of wiki policy) where the factual statements that are easily verifiable cannot be presented in the article but in their place should be the spin placed on them by political pundits aka "analysts". So I recognize your point and it could even be successfully wikilawyered to stand but there is precedent in other historical events for  documents presented at face value.
 * Related, it is a logical fallacy to reject clearly stated grievances (as stated in the 1998 fatwa) in favor of speculative ulterior motivations by the principals, since the fatwa was used to recruit supporters and operatives and was the stated platform of the group. Some say OBL wanted political power and didn't really care about a million dead Iraqis. Well since he doesn't get an ounce of political capital unless he advances the goals of his supporters whose position they believe they share, speculation about such ulterior goals is irrelevant. I think the article is pretty well done the way it is now, I don't think it would be well served to have too much "spin" content added.
 * Lastly, it seems OBL has written a lot of rambling manifesto style rants about this matter, even his first fatwa is in this style. other comments he made or statements in video clips do not have the weight and binding of a Shiite Fatwa by someone authorized to issue one, as he and those signatory to the 1998 document were. The 1998 version being the collective fatwa of several jihadist entities should thus be the primary rationale to be considered, though of course not exclusive. Batvette (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

prod
im inclined to remove User:RHaworth's prod, as no defence is given Spencerk (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just removed the template. I do not think it is helpful if such templates are inserted without describing the concerns on the talk page in some detail. Also, I think that authors should be given appropriate time (2 weeks) to improve the article. My concerns are WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK and duplication of information that is already present elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Cs32en  22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the section
I removed the section motivating that bin-laden attacked USA for her support for Israel per this book--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mbz1: could you explain the rationale for deletion?  Reliable sources describe many possible, even conflicting, motivations for the attacks.  Regarding "US support of Israel":  there are many reliable, notable sources that say that was a motivation, including the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer.   I understand that there may be sources that say it was _not_ a motivation (perhaps that book you mention?) but that is no reason to delete that section.  Instead, in that section, we could say "The source SSS in book BBB claims that support of Israel is not one of the motivations".  That way all the information is given to the reader.  Is it okay to restore that section with that new sentence added? --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any motive is a pure speculation. A normal person cannot comprehend a motive of a madman. My reason for the removal of the section was provided above. The section should not be put back.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think this article is trying to comprehend anything: it is trying to capture the assertions of notable sources on the subject. I looked at that link you supplied above, but I couldn't find anything in it related to "support of Israel was not a motivation".  Could you provide the relevant quote from that book?  And, after we have the quote here, could you explain how that quote from the book causes the assertion in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (page 67) to be something that should be omitted from this article? Or how it makes the "Encyclopedia of Terrorism"  something we cannot cite?   Thanks.  --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not provide the quote from the book here. It cannot be copied, and I see no reason to type it. Please read it from the link.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, could you name the page number and paragraph number (on the page)? Should we try an RFC to resolve this impasse?  --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is page 53, actually, when I hit the link, it is the very first statement I see. I believe continuing discussion here should be good enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first 2 sentences on that page are "In fact Osama Bin Laden only paid lip-service to Palestine till the end of 2001. Training to bomb the World Trade Center was initiated before the second Palestine intifadata...".  Hmmm.  I dont see how that means that "support of Israel was not a motivation for the attack".   In fact, I dont see any mention of motivation in those sentences.   Am I missing something?    --Noleander (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you'd agree that, if in his speeches bin laden hardly mention Palestine at all, it means that 9/11 planning had nothing to do with Israel. I believe that jihadists strike, when and where they can, as we saw it in London, Madrid, Moscow,  Beslan  and other places. They even kill their own people absolutely innocent Muslim women and children. That's why any so called "motives" is nothing more than speculations, "motives" without any facts to prove them even more so. I suggest we wait for few more people to comment on the issue now.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be nice to get input from other editors.


 * Here is one (of many) sources that support inclusion of "US support of Israel" is a motivation. This is from  The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer.
 * "When the CNN reporter Peter Arnett asked him in March 1997 why he had declared jihad against the United States, bin Laden replied, 'We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal, and tryrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous, and criminal, whether directly or  through its support of the Israeli occupation of [Palestine]' .... Of all these themes, the notion of payback for injustices suffered by the Palestinians is perhaps the most powerful recurrent in bin Laden's speeches".
 * --Noleander (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A single quote from 1997? Good fact really, and besides what else one may expect from the book with the name "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"? As I said let's wait for input from other users.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many, many notable, reliable sources that say that "US support of Israel was a motivation". Would you like me to supply some other sources that support that?  --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are. Israel has always been a target. I need no more sources.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I only suggested more sources because you wrote "A single quote from 1997?" implying that one notable source was not sufficient. But maybe I misunderstood what your point was.   --Noleander (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1: I think your most recent edit is a decent compromise. Thanks for working with me on this.  --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, good job talking it out guys. The previous section was not very well defended. Osama talks about the us and israel all the time. I don't have access to the resources cited though, Noleander, could they help to make the section 'fleshed out'? quote them and stuff?  cheers:) Spencerk (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Over time, statements about how the Qana massacre motivated the Hamburg cell have been removed from Wikipedia articles. At the moment, in the current article, there is a reference to it in the Lead, but no detail in the body of the article.

From the first source I had to hand, an electronic copy of Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan (2017), Scott Horton, page 54/863:
 * "It was just a few months later, in August of 1996, that Osama bin Laden released his first “fatwa” against the United States, entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” In it, there was no mention of a hatred for liberty, democracy, action movies, tacos, motherhood, the county fair or any other wonderful thing. What it did mention was the presence of U.S. military bases on the Arabian Peninsula, the bombing and blockade of Iraq from those bases and Israel’s occupations — especially Operation Grapes of Wrath, including what is now called the First Qana Massacre, during which 106 Lebanese civilians were killed when Israeli forces shelled a United Nations compound where they had sought shelter. ...
 * As journalist James Bamford later noted, “[Bin Laden] frequently mentioned Qana during those times. It was a very inflaming incident in terms of his own development of his hatred for the United States, and as well for other people throughout the Middle East.” When Atta and his best friend and co-conspirator, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, found out how closely Osama bin Laden agreed with their own view, they decided his war was to be their path. The next year, Atta and bin al-Shibh traveled to the training camps in Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden and volunteer their services."

   ←   ZScarpia  18:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Prpose re-name to use "Motives" rather than "Motivations"
The September 11 attacks article has a section on this article's topic, and the section is named "Motive". This article uses the word "Motivations". I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile changing the words to match each other. "Motive" seems more accurate .. it is used often in connection with crimes; whereas "motivation" (a more recent word, more prominent in US than UK) is often used for positive, cheer-leading, business or entertainment-related uses. I guess Im proposing to rename this article to "Motives of ...". Alternatively, if the word "motivation" is better, I suggest re-naming that section in the September 11 attacks article. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The dictionary definitions suggest that "motive" is more accurate, so I"m formally proposing to re-name this article to "Motives for the September 11 attacks".  Note the change of the preposition from "of" to "for", since "of" refers to the motives of the attack, not the motives of the attackers.   Of course, a re-direct would be left at the original article title. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why "Muslim Fanaticism"?
What's the reason for the section titled "Muslim fanaticism"? All it says is that Walt and Mearsheimer have asserted that one motive was the support of Israel by the United States, which is already covered in the section above, but in a much more comprehensive and neutral manner. I'm getting rid of it.Stopzionistediting (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article not even show up on the first page when you google it?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1228&bih=547&q=motives+for+911&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq= This is pretty unusual, isn't it? Seems like something fishy is going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.187.94 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

First result for me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.157.138 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't control Google search results, and much depends (as usual) on your search terms.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant - the search terms are the same, and are included in the link. Either way, a search produces this page at the top of the results now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.157.138 (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Public discussion of the causes of terrorism
, what part of the summary below do you find "non-neutral":


 * In the aftermath of 9/11, public discussion of the causes of terrorism was largely curtailed, which some commentators claimed was an effort to excuse and justify the killing of innocent civilians. Catchphrases – that terrorists were motivated by a hatred of freedom or by a fanaticism inherent to Islam – were prevalent. Arun Kundnani describes the atomosphere as one where "terrorism became an ‘evil ideology’ that did not require further analysis." By 2004 however, the taboo was broken and it was only through the notion of  "radicalization" that a discussion on the causes became possible again.

Arun Kundnani is an Adjunct Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, and teaches terrorism studies at John Jay College. He is the Editor of the journal Race and Class.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You've just answered your own question. All your "sources" are highly biased. End of discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Looks like you are still stuck in the September 2001 that the authors precisely described. I reinstated the content for now. Let us know when you are ready to move on, so we take you more seriously. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversies - Jeremiah Wright
I copied Jeremiah Wright's content from the main article on the controversy, unaware of the wordpress reference. Though the existing ABC news and CNN are reliable, and the material is easily available in multiple other sources. I added an academic reference for Wright's speech. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to mention that morons left wing idiocy except in passing. Like the disgraced Ward Churchill, his opinion is worth about two dead flies.--MONGO 14:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * are you denying that there's been a controversy around his views? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No...but his comments are not relevant to this article since he's not an authority on the subject matter.--MONGO 15:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You objected to a tenured academic and published author on terrorism when it came to the article on Islamic terrorism and now you want us to consider Jeremiah Wright's analysis of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? What next? Should we include Pat Robertson “controversial” explanation that "the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen.”??? (from the Robertson article.)  Jason from nyc (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is worthy to point out the controversies surrounding the views of Wright, Churchill and Robertson on the causes for the attacks, given the amount of publicity each controversy received. After all, this is an article dedicated entirely to the motives for the 9/11 attacks (I agree that their views are absolutely unacceptable in the main 9/11 articles). They would be conveniently listed under a "Controversies" section and one that comes at the end of the article. So I don't see how any of their views could be mistaken for a "valid view", comparable to the views on the stated/inferred motives detailed above the "Controversies" section? I'm all for trimming Wright's views and keeping it concise.
 * You and the other American editor (MONGO) need to relax and understand that inclusion != endorsement for the validity of their views. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop this nonsense now. It is obvious that the sources and persons you quote are not experts on the subject and, as stated before, are highly biased. Also stop making comments about editors themselves as you have done above. Your editing history is, frankly, dreadful and I would respectfully suggest you take your "contributions" to somewhere other than Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * David, I'm glad to hear you've been checking me out. You don't seem to realize this, but this section is completely unrelated to the one above. Maybe you should invest more time into reading rather than whining? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the sections - thank you. Yes, I have checked you out and your continued comments about other editors just confirm my statements. When you're in a hole: stop digging. Your poor editing history just proves that you cannot abide by Wikipedia conventions. Please stop now. David J Johnson (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifying that the 9/11 attacks were an act of Islamic terrorism; issues of grammar and vagueness brought up by
Am unsure why you reverted my edit, which specified that the September 11 attacks were an act of Islamic terrorism, as you included no explanation with your edit. The attacks were of course a prime example of Islamic terrorism — in Wikipedia they're included on the Islamic terrorism page in and the US-specific Islamic terrorism category. Moreover, the "Motives" section of the "Islamic terrorism" page links directly to this page. Lastly, the main page for the attacks links to both the Islamic terrorism page and the broader Terrorism page (as well as to the Al-Qaeda page). To resolve this, I will edit to include the same links as on the main page – that way all bases are covered. Please discuss if there's any issue with that — thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Quiet simply, the issue of stating "Islamic terrorism" has been discussed many times before, if you look on the Talk pages of various subjects concerning the 9/11 attacks. We don't state other religions in terrorist attacks.  These people were extremists and not representative of the mainstream Islamic religion.  Also your change introduced a redlink, which did not support any sources.  I suggest you wait for consensus before re-inserting any of your "edits". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you were in a hurry and that your reversion of my edit was in good faith. That said, perhaps you should have checked the Talk page before reverting my edit with a note for me to discuss it on the Talk page — since I'd already explained my reasoning above, at least as to the primary change. Furthermore, it appears you didn't even properly read the edit I made before undoing it, since what you cite as a "vague" addition was there prior to my edit.

1. What "grammatical errors" were "introduced"?

2. You write "some of the content added is vague such as unspecified 'investigators'" — except that I didn't add the "investigators" as you claim; it was already there and citing a book I haven't read (which I assume was done in good faith). I simply tried to clean up the language and fix two independent clauses that were improperly and confusingly joined with a comma. Since you're obviously concerned enough about the vagueness to undo edits, I suggest you edit it for clarity and grammar rather than wholesale undoing edits without actually bothering to read what they changed. In the meantime, are you seriously suggesting that:

Motives for the attacks were stated before and after the attacks in several sources, Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a fatwā signed by bin Laden and others for the killing of Americans in 1998, are seen by investigators as evidence of his motivation.

is clearer, more accurate, and/or more grammatically correct than:

Motives for the attacks were stated before and after the attacks in several sources, and investigators cite as evidence both Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States and his 1998 "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" fatwā exhorting Muslims to kill American soldiers and civilians, along with their allies.

What was there before my edit isn't even close to a proper English sentence, let alone comprehensible or clear.

I eagerly await your thoughtful reply. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You should not be restoring this content to the lead before there is consensus for your edit per . Dartslilly (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

In attempting to reach a compromise version I have made the following changes: Dartslilly (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed inaccurate uses of the word "organized". EIJ's merge with Al Qaeda is unofficial through most of the planning stage (and not members of Al Qaeda yet). It's also not accurate to say Al Qaeda organizaed and the hijackers carried out as some of the hijackers attended the Malaysia meeting
 * I added that Al Qaeda is Salafist, which is supported by many sources. If other editors still want to remove it it's ok, but I think it addresses concerns about neutrality without being overly broad.