The stupidity of the question you are reffering to... That requires an armored truck.

Muslims see all Muslims as members of one family / body / community, to an extent we don't really have any more in the West. They undoubtedly subscribe to hate-theology that the West and Israel are the disciples of Satan who are stealing Palestinian land, propping up illegitimate regimes in Saudi Arabia & elsewhere, and attacking Islam through our sinful lifestyles and media images. They wanted to shock us so much that we'd withdraw from the region.

Must have been the other passengers in the plane.Those poor people.Can you just imagine being asked if you want nuts?I dont blame them one little bit.I was watching TV on that terrible day and sat down and cried for them.Imagine their families sitting at home,on the ground,next to their camels,thinking "poor %&*^^*^ they only wanted a warm towel." Bastards...sorry my temp is going up I need to get outta here!

americans, deerr

In their eyes, us. I know it sounds outrages, but it's what they believed.

WTC = banks and finance, WTO Pentagon = military

By means of this document we send a message to America and those behind it. We are coming, by the will of God almighty, no matter what America does. It will never be safe from the fury of Muslims. America is the one who began the war, and it will lose the battle by the permission of God almighty. -- Al-Qaeda statement, April 24, 2002 In the wake of the September 11 attacks, President Bush moved quickly to dismiss al-Qaeda operatives as part of the lunatic fringe, religious usurpers bent on misrepresenting and "hijacking" Islam to serve terrorism.1 This characterization was echoed in the Muslim world, where an assortment of government officials, religious scholars and opposition figures fervidly denounced the killing of civilians as un-Islamic.2 Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Ashaykh, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, argued that "hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."3 Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, the rector of al-Azhar University in Cairo, issued a similar condemnation: "Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgment. . . . It's not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack."4 Shaikh Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent Islamic scholar and television personality from Qatar, emphasized that "Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin."5 Even Islamic fundamentalist groups issued sharp denunciations. Forty-six leaders representing an assortment of Islamist movements and groups signed a letter opposed to the attacks: The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States, which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam, which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Quran: "No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Surah al-Isra 17:15).6 Signatories included the general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan and Ahmad Yassin, the founder of Hamas. To be sure, many of these condemnations were blunted by concomitant criticism of American foreign policy as the primary catalyst for al-Qaeda's war. Leaders throughout the Middle East, including traditional allies, cautioned the United States to reflect on the consequences of its "unbalanced" approach to the region (particularly vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq), and public opinion in the Arab world indicated mounting resentment against perceived American hegemony and arrogance. Yet in the wake of September 11, U.S. allies and adversaries alike in the Muslim world joined President Bush in rejecting the radicalism of al-Qaeda. Given this broad rejection, how could al-Qaeda defend killing thousands of innocent civilians in the name of Islam? Although pre-September 11 fatwas, interviews and statements by Bin Laden and al-Qaeda representatives clearly outlined the movement's belief that American civilians are legitimate targets, al-Qaeda had yet to articulate its religious rationale for attacks against civilian populations. In the first six months after September 11, al-Qaeda failed to issue a response to the maelstrom of criticism that denounced the attacks as un-Islamic. Then finally on April 24, 2002, al-Qaeda released an extended statement (approximately 3,700 words) outlining, for the first time, its religious justification for killing civilians in a total war against the United States, titled "A Statement from Qaidat al-Jihad Regarding the Mandates of the Heroes and the Legality of the Operations in New York and Washington."7 Unlike previous al-Qaeda statements, the justification was not published by Arabic or Western newspapers and has largely been ignored by experts. Yet it provides essential insights into the movement's religious rationale for September 11 that could help American policy makers in the war on terrorism. The 2002 statement is best understood as part of an ongoing debate about the use of violence in Islam. Al-Qaeda is a component of a broader "fundamentalist" community and as a result is actively engaged in debates about religious authority, the legitimacy of war and rules of engagement in combat. In the 1990s, most disputes focused on whether it was permissible to rebel against incumbent regimes in the Muslim world. Toward the late 1990s, this focus shifted to address the United States as an emerging enemy and the legitimacy of particular tactics in warfare against unbelievers. The 2002 document is part of this latest debate and should therefore be understood as an argument that seeks not only to outline al-Qaeda's justification, but also address alternative, competing religious interpretations about acceptable violence in Islam. ***Forgive me for my long answer, I felt it was needed.

I winder if Muhammad Atta and some of the others were going through a real bag mid-life crises.

And the logical fallacy in that case is that even though the United States has acted in a way that angers Muslim states, the blame does not solely fall on America's shoulders. I don't understand how Nick Berg's death was his own fault...was it a long time ago or do you remember who the user was? I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.