# What Was the Point of 9-11? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064 "2011-09-21T14:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/61 "2011-09-22T09:05:04Z")
But irrational does not equal insane. Beside, in many ways the 9/11 attack was entirely rational, i.e. it involved correct reasoning, albeit reasoning from invalid premises. Bin Laden disliked - strongly disliked - certain aspects of US foreign policy and their consequences. You or I might not share his dislike, but that does not make it either irrational or insane. He felt that he could apply emotional and financial pressure to the US with the 9/11 attacks, and to a large extent he was right. He may have miscalculated in thinking about how the US government, or the American people, would respond to that pressure but, even if he did, miscalculation in such a matter is not necessarily either irrational or insane. It’s not difficult to find examples of other people - including the US government - being willing to launch a deadly attack against a large number of noncombatant civilians in order to exert pressure on a country or a government. We might judge this to be evil, but that doesn’t make it insane or irrational. And we might make distinctions between differetn such attacks and judge some to be evil and others to be morally justified but, again, that doesn’t make either of them irrational or insane. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/62 "2011-09-22T09:16:01Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > But irrational does not equal insane. As I alluded before, I’m not sure what _does_ equal insane. > [@](#): > > Beside, in many ways the 9/11 attack was entirely rational, i.e. it involved correct reasoning, albeit reasoning from invalid premises. Similarly for the woman who recently murdered someone because she thought she was in the matrix and he was an agent. Her insanity plea was accepted, but didn’t the judge realize she was just reasoning from invalid premises? > [@](#): > > It’s not difficult to find examples of other people - including the US government - being willing to launch a deadly attack against a large number of noncombatant civilians in order to exert pressure on a country or a government. I wasn’t arguing that 9/11 was irrational because civilians were killed. And I’m fine with saying evil and irrationality are two separate things. But I’m not being inconsistent here. If the US or any other country attack civilians for political reasons I would condemn such actions as immoral and (depending on the circumstances) often irrational too. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/63 "2011-09-22T12:46:20Z")
I’m a little confused about what people are really saying. Is anyone claiming that killing civilians to achieve a goal is intrinsically insane or irrational. If so, can someone please explain why? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/64 "2011-09-22T13:30:31Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > I’m a little confused about what people are really saying. Is anyone claiming that killing civilians to achieve a goal is intrinsically insane or irrational. If so, can someone please explain why? _Intrinsically_ irrational would be too far for me. I’d say killing an innocent person against their will is of a similar level to, say, deliberately driving your car through the front of a shop. In that, I’m sure there are cases where they could be justified (at least from one perspective), but they would not be common. Note that I _am_ making a distinction here between this and morality. Killing someone against their will is _always_ immoral, and _usually_ irrational, IMO. Some people upthread pointed out that killing comes naturally to our species. Sure it does. Acting on impulse or emotion is natural. That doesn’t make it _rational_. Many people on the dope have no problem with saying religious belief is irrational. And yet in the context of 9/11 many here are using irrational as though it means something like acting against your own will, or an uncaused action or something. It doesn’t mean that. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/65 "2011-09-22T14:34:47Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Some people upthread pointed out that killing comes naturally to our species. Sure it does. Acting on impulse or emotion is natural. That doesn’t make it _rational_. > > Many people on the dope have no problem with saying religious belief is irrational. And yet in the context of 9/11 many here are using irrational as though it means something like acting against your own will, or an uncaused action or something. It doesn’t mean that. Just to make sure we’re on the same page: imagine a hitman kills someone for money and, to coin a phrase, gets away with murder; he plans ahead, makes sure to leave no fingerprints, and so on. Imagine too, if you like, that he later kills someone _ **else** _ for money, gets spotted, and after weighing his options also kills the witness to keep from being identified; imagine that also works. Is he irrational? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/66 "2011-09-22T15:16:49Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Just to make sure we’re on the same page: imagine a hitman kills someone for money and, to coin a phrase, gets away with murder; he plans ahead, makes sure to leave no fingerprints, and so on. Imagine too, if you like, that he later kills someone _ **else** _ for money, gets spotted, and after weighing his options also kills the witness to keep from being identified; imagine that also works. Is he irrational? Possibly. Did he weigh the options in all cases (and that doesn’t mean just planning how he’ll get away with it)? Did he understand the consequences? And if he was starting with any… unusual… premises, did he challenge them? If yes to all of these, then sure, it’s rational (though immoral). I have not claimed that any action is inherently irrational. I’m saying that 9/11 is irrational, because the normal reasons given for it don’t make sense, and clearly were not thought about in any kind of objective way. And because attempts to justify actions with even 1% of the death toll have always been about emotion and little thought IMO. Just to make sure we’re on the same page: is anything that anyone does irrational? What does irrational mean to you? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/67 "2011-09-22T15:18:04Z")
AQ was just bringing the war to American turf. We have been blowing up and killing Middle East people for a long time. One of the reasons we are so aggressive is because we don’t feel the effects of our warring. Hell we didn’t even have to pay for them. Perhaps if we took some hits, we would fight our military control. I understand why they wanted to attack us. It did not work out very well for them though. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/68 "2011-09-22T17:12:02Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Just to make sure we’re on the same page: is anything that anyone does irrational? What does irrational mean to you? Well, by way of example, imagine you decided to kill your target of choice by simply wishing him dead. Or by shouting the magic word “SHAZAM” while leaping off the top of a tall building, so you can fly over to his apartment like Captain Marvel before pulping the guy with your impending superstrength. Or by knocking politely on his door and loudly announcing your intention to kill him with your bare hands, figuring he’ll surely then let you in rather than call the police or retrieve and load his revolver or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/69 "2011-09-22T17:43:53Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The idea that the US is being bled dry by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not true. In 2001 miltary spending as a pct of GDP was 3.8%. It is currently at 4.7%. During the Cold War the US spent around double the percentage as we currently do for 40 years. This happened during a period of unprecedented economic growth. The wars cost over 3 trillion dollars. That does not include the billions more that will be spent on medical care for the injured soldiers. That cost will be addressed by denying coverage. That is what we do. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/70 "2011-09-22T18:00:42Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m not a Confederate apologist, but Quantrill and his raiders weren’t part of the Confederate Army. Sorry to continue the hijack… That’s a narrow distinction at best. Wikipedia says “Quantrill apparently did secure a Confederate commission as a captain of partisan rangers.” Partisan rangers were not regular army, but a Confederate commission as an officer – not to mention the adulation of the Confederate press and public – tends to identify him as a Confederate. Besides, the original comparison was between al Quaeda and “any Confederate,” not something as specific as “A Confederate regular army officer of the line,” or what have you. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > One of Bush’s first acts was to order the State Department to lay off Osama. I would be interested in seeing some kind of citation for that (not being sarcastic – I really am interested). ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/71 "2011-09-23T01:56:31Z")
Killing enemy civilians in as large of numbers as was possible was just the universally-recognized done thing in wars, as recently as WWII. Nobody regarded the firebombing of Hamburg and Tokyo, or the V-2 attacks on London, or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as insane, even though most of the casualties of all of those actions were civilians. If bin Laden regarded himself as being at war with the US, then it was not at all irrational for him to seek an inexpensive way of doing something similar. Evil, sure, but rational. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/72 "2011-09-23T02:28:22Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Similarly for the woman who recently murdered someone because she thought she was in the matrix and he was an agent. > Her insanity plea was accepted, but didn’t the judge realize she was just reasoning from invalid premises? Different kind of invalidity. The woman’s premise claim was a fact-claim which could be empirically demonstrated to be false. We wouldn’t normally say that her premise was invalid, in fact; we’d say that it was false. But Bin Laden’s premise was that it was ethically acceptable to kill thousands of uninvolved noncombatants in order to put pressure on the US government to take certain actions. I might not agree with that premise, but I cannot empirically demonstrate it to be false. And it’s a premise shared, and acted upon, by a great many people and agencies besides Bin Laden. > [@Mijin](#): > > I wasn’t arguing that 9/11 was irrational because civilians were killed. And I’m fine with saying evil and irrationality are two separate things. > > But I’m not being inconsistent here. If the US or any other country attack civilians for political reasons I would condemn such actions as immoral and (depending on the circumstances) often irrational too. I appreciate that. But the question I’m addressing here is not whether these actions are immoral or irrational, but whether they are insane. The woman you mentioned was insane because she laboured under a delusional believe, easily empirically demonstrable as false. I don’t think we can say that of Bin Laden. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/73 "2011-09-23T09:18:11Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > The woman’s premise claim was a fact-claim which could be empirically demonstrated to be false. We wouldn’t normally say that her premise was invalid, in fact; we’d say that it was false. I’m not sure about this distinction between “invalid” and “false”. But if it can be empirically demonstrated that we are not in the matrix, then it can be empirically demonstrated that there is no afterlife (and therefore the hijackers have made at least one, very similar error). But of course we _can’t_ rule out that we are in the matrix. So it’s not the falseness of the premise, it’s the fact that she accepted as a premise something which she could not have tested fully and objectively. The hijackers acted similarly. > [@](#): > > But Bin Laden’s premise was that it was ethically acceptable to kill thousands of uninvolved noncombatants in order to put pressure on the US government to take certain actions I wouldn’t consider that a premise. It’s a vague wording of a complete argument, and of course I can’t disprove it because it includes a value judgement. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/74 "2011-09-23T15:07:51Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > I would be interested in seeing some kind of citation for that [that one of Bush’s first actions in office was to tell the State Dep’t to lay off Osama bin laden] (not being sarcastic – I really am interested). I inserted bracket text for context in **Sailboat’s** quote. Below is a timeline from the 9-11 Commission report. I haven’t read it in years, but I’ve attached what I believe is the relevant part, the transition of power from Clinton to Bush and events leading up to 9/11. [9/11 Report - Chapter 6.4: Change and Continuity](http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch6.pdf) (PDF) > [@](#): > > In December, Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour, one-on-one discussion of national security and foreign policy challenges. Clinton recalled saying to Bush,“I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda.” Clinton told us that he also said,“One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn’t get him [Bin Ladin] for you, because I tried to.”159 > … > In early March, the administration postponed action on proposals for increasing aid to the Northern Alliance and the Uzbeks. Rice noted at the time that a more wide-ranging examination of policy toward Afghanistan was needed first. She wanted the review very soon.184 Rice and others recalled the President saying, “I’m tired of swatting at flies.”185 The President reportedly also said,“I’m tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists.”186 President Bush explained to us that he had become impatient. He apparently had heard proposals for rolling back al Qaeda but felt that catching terrorists one by one or even cell by cell was not an approach likely to succeed in the long run. At the same time, he said,he understood that policy had to be developed slowly so that diplomacy and financial and military measures could mesh with one another.187 > … > On May 29, at Tenet’s request, Rice and Tenet converted their usual weekly meeting into a broader discussion on al Qaeda; participants included Clarke, CTC chief Cofer Black, and “Richard,” a group chief with authority over the Bin Ladin unit. Rice asked about “taking the offensive” and whether any approach could be made to influence Bin Ladin or the Taliban. Clarke and Black replied that the CIA’s ongoing disruption activities were “taking the offensive” and that Bin Ladin could not be deterred. A wide-ranging discussion then ensued about “breaking the back” of Bin Ladin’s organization.196 > … > The main debate during the summer of 2001 concentrated on the one new mechanism for a lethal attack on Bin Ladin—an armed version of the Predator drone…The [Administration] concluded that it was legal for the CIA to kill Bin ladin or one of his deputies with the Predator. Such strikes would be acts of self-defense that would not violate the ban on assassinations in Executive Order 12333. There’s plenty more, and I suggest a full reading of Chapter 6 for more context of the above select quotes. I don’t think Bush said “lay off bin laden” or anything like that. I’m always open for correction of course as I just skimmed through this report. I think the administration was planning for a longer, different approach - defensive to offensive - but was taking it’s sweet time (which frustrated some working in counterterrorism, as also stated in the 9/11 report). It’s important to remember that bin laden was a legit target since about 1996 and had yet to be killed. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/75 "2011-09-24T02:20:50Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Bin Laden’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. Your link is to a statement bin Laden made more than three years after 9/11. Since some of his original goals, like getting the Jews and crusaders out of the lands of Islam, were obviously not working out, he came up with this after-the-fact justification. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/76 "2011-09-24T07:10:31Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Your link is to a statement bin Laden made more than three years after 9/11. Since some of his original goals, like getting the Jews and crusaders out of the lands of Islam, were obviously not working out, he came up with this after-the-fact justification. Economic harm was the way he intended to accomplish that goal. Bankrupt us, forcing us to get out of the Middle East because we simply could no longer afford to be there, and could no longer economically support Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/77 "2011-09-24T07:41:33Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually **Naxos** ’s claim goes beyond that; he/she claimed that killing your political opponents is always insane. … “Political opponents” ?!? The passengers on those planes and the civilians in the buildings or the ground where those planes hit were “political opponents” ? I claimed that mass killing people is _always_ insane, yes. You seem to claim that the AQ terrorists made a legitimate political statement by mass killing people. You do, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/78 "2011-09-24T10:29:30Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Economic harm was the way he intended to accomplish that goal. Bankrupt us, forcing us to get out of the Middle East because we simply could no longer afford to be there, and could no longer economically support Israel. Are we bankrupt? Have we gotten out of the Middle East? Do we still economically support Israel? ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/79 "2011-09-24T11:53:22Z")
9/11 was not the Osama Bin Laden Show contrary to popular discourse. Bin Laden was the leader of simply one of many Middle Eastern groups, all of whom despised Western interference and power. Al Queda proved to be one of the strongest groups because of the intelligence and leadership of Bin Laden and his close associates. But it was (and is) a large group of Muslim people spread around the world who share common anti-Western views. My somewhat laboured point is 9/11 could not have happened without a lot of people being committed to a cause. Osama was the spokesman - clever, didactic, but far from alone. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064/80 "2011-09-24T12:01:15Z")
Anyway, the reasons for 9/11? In the most simple terms it was to provoke the USA into attacking the Middle East. In turn the Muslim world would arise as one nation and throw the Crusaders into the sea. Then the Second Caliphate would rise again and purity would be brought to the holy lands. It hasn’t got that far yet, but in terms of humiliating the USA and causing longterm harm, it was a very effective act. Appalling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-point-of-9-11/597064.md?page=5)