In news:EbWdnXVBzuGqDAPZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@comcast.com,
Respondant <Respondant@nope.invalid> typed:

Amanda Angelika wrote:

In news:mpls92h8188a3s8h3l7b7o1kqb34etaofr@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:06:56 +0000 (UTC),
you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

...the WTC were demolished with thousands of pounds of thermite, a
B-25 Mitchell is the equivalent of a Boeing 767, a building
crumbling from the top down looks just like a controlled
demolition, steel doesn't get weaker when heated, Mossad obviously
demolished the WTC at the direction of GWB, posting untrue things
makes other things untrue...

What were Al Queda's motives for the 9/11 attacks?

Since when do religious lunatics need any motive for their actions
other than religious lunacy?  More wars have been fought, and lives
lost in the name of one god or another, than for any other
reason....EVER.

The problem with that argument is religions are a means of social control.
and wielding power over others. This is particularly so of Patriarchal
religions such as Islam. So whilst you may get fanatics at grassroots level
the leaders might not even believe in God.

I don't think it takes a genius to realise what the consequences of
attacking a Superpower are going to be, the result has been very
predictable. So unless they wanted the US to invade Afghanistan and
Iraq and kill thousands of Arabs, and consolidate the position of
Israel, which is very unlikely since it would appear to be against
everything Al Queda actually stand for I can't honestly see a motive.

One can have all the circumstantial and hearsay evidence in the
World. However without a clear and plausible motive it is worth Jack
Shit.

I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S. you don't
need to prove motive to get any kind of criminal conviction with the
exception of a so-called "hate crime".  Sure it helps your case if
you can, but it's not required by the law.

Even in the States you have different degrees of murder. If can't prove a
motive then you can't prove Murder 1. Since obviously killing someone by
accident is not really murder and in that case the severity of the charge
would depend whether a defendant were found to blame through negligence
and/or recklessness. So you do have to prove a motive and evidence and
motives have to correspond in order to build a case.

Generally evidence is meaningless without a motive, and since the events of
911 involve the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent victims it's a
murder and the motive is just as important as the evidence in finding out
who was responsible.
-- 
Amanda