Tag Archives: hijackers

9/11: Where’s the Motive?

7 Feb

According to US law, a murder can only result in a conviction if, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a series of events occurs. The killer must have had the mental intent (Mens Rea) to pull off an act (Actus Reus) against a third party and those two events must have happened at the same time (congruence). In layman’s terms, a first degree murder can only be committed if the accused intended on making it happen. Hence why in so many murder mystery movies the first question that most detectives ask is “What’s the motive?”

On September 11, 2001, multiple acts of terror were clearly carried out against various US targets. What is not so clear 12 years later however, is the mental intent of the hijackers. Ask yourself “Why did the terrorists on 9/11 hijack 4 planes to commit multiple suicide missions against various US targets?”

Simple question?

With so much North American media coverage on the “Terrorist Plots” of 9/11, I have always found it odd that no attention has been paid to where these 19 men came from. All I have heard is that we are fighting “The axis of evil” against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, not a single one of those 19 hijackers themselves were, from Iraq or Afghanistan.

So who were these “terrorists”? What could have possibly happened to all 19 of these men to unite them in a suicide attack against a country that supposedly represents democracy and freedom? It is certain that as a grown man, it takes a lot, a mountain, of hate, anger, resentment, to completely “lose it” and decide to take one’s own life. Let alone 19 grown men taking their own lives and the lives of countless innocent civilians from another country around the world… without anyone noticing until it was too late.

But who said no one noticed? Both President George Bush and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice were caught blatantly lying about having prior knowledge of the potential for planes to be used as weapons in terrorist attacks. Then came the controversy over the attacks being allowed to happen in the first place. Vice President Dick Cheney had enough time to stop 3/4 of the attacks on that faithful day, but didn’t. He actually ordered the military stand down from blowing up both the second and third planes, although CNN conveniently reported on his response only after the 3rd plane was allowed to crash.

9/11 Second Plane Crash Close-Up

If you are the President, and a plane full of 200 passengers is headed towards a building filled with 3,000 people, you are given two options: 1) Let the plane hit the building and 3,200 die or 2) Blow up the plane. If your options were this clear, and the course of action was to “stand down”, the entire Bush Administration should be on trial for incompetence that lead to the loss of hundreds of lives. More important, we have to ask what was the motive behind allowing the planes to reach their targets?

If the process of national declaration of war against another country utilized the same process and transparency as a murder trial, perhaps then the United States would not be so overextended, or perhaps retaliatory “acts of terror” against the United States would not happen in the first place. It appears as though the United States takes a murder trial much more seriously than committing to go to war against another country or countries putting thousands of lives at risk.

Whether it was a “holy war” against the American way of life, retaliation or an unprovoked attack, we need to understand why 9/11 happened.  We need to understand who those 19 men were and how they came to be that way. And if they were allowed to attack, we need to understand that our own government may have a much stronger motive than a holy war.

If this truly was a terrorist attack, then contrary to the President’s advice, shopping will not stop this type of attack from happening again.

Where’s the motive?

Advertisements