The true information is highlighted in this paraphrasing of Noam Chomsky: "We are told that the perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage" (New York Times, Sept. 16). This convenient explanation prevents us from seeking the root causes of the attacks. We should take a closer look at the terrorists' motives. (Why did they do it?)
To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us assume that this is true.
Then to answer the question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East specialists. Bin Laden is bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared.
The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings." The bottom line is bin Laden wants to set up an extreme fundamentalist Islamic government in his land and the Muslim countries and the US is actively interfering with his goal.
Of course the terrorism was wrong but what professors Stuart Meyer and Allan Drebin are writing is simply not accurate. Their claim that "foreign policy not the root of terrorism" and their instance that the attacks were "not rational" is wrong. Attacking the specific targets of economic power (WTC), military power (The Pentagon) and if the 3rd target was the Whitehouse, political power, although wrong, is not irrational. Many ignore what symbols were attacked and what were not. The message in choosing the targets is not too complicated, it is the actors of US foreign policy, those that influence and dictate it, those that enforce it and those that benifit from it. The Statue of Liberty, which was not targeted, is a general symbol of America and not of one of the forces behind US foreign policy but the professors are unwilling to see the message in this. The professors are spreading lies about the 9/11 terrorists' motives and that is extremely offensive and dangerous. As I have said, unnfortunately these two aren't the only ones guilty of this and this isn't new. As Graham E. Fuller former CIA warned in 1998, "It is dangerous to divorce terrorism from politics, yet the U.S. media continue to talk about an abstract war against terrorism without mention of the issues or context that lie behind them." want us to ignore bin Laden's own statements about the terrorists' motives which have been consistent and clear: "The Western regimes and the government of the US bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests."-bin Laden, May 1998. "We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel. This equation can be understood by any American child, but Bush, because he's an Israeli agent, cannot understand this equation unless the swords threatened him above him head." -bin Laden, Oct. 2001