Alternate theorists on 9/11 ?

Hi, as part of an essay i have to give two different social theorists view as to why the events of 9/11 took place.

I have used znet to get some good information, but my problem is this: i have to use social theorists, but they all seem to agree that the root causes of 9/11 lie in Islamic fundamentalist anger at US 'occupation' of Saudi, US support of Israel, terrorist bomibng in beirut, and harsh trade sanctions in Iraq. (Chomsky, Said, Fisk)

I can't really find any theorists that differ from this view?


Do you know of any? , or is it unlikely that any social theorist will reach a conclusion different to the one above?

Thanks.

Well, ZNet is probably a little bit too left leaning to give you all the views on the issue.

Do a "Attn: RightUppercut" on the OG and ask him for the input of conservative social theorists on the issue. He probably knows that side better.

thanks for you help once again my friend.

LOL at Dogbert. Why not just put in a request to WeibeEnergie as well. They'll get you some good "alternative" theories.

The Boston Review New Democracy Forum may also be of interest:Islam and the Challenge of Democracy

I would hope that our leaders are smart enough to stage an event like 9/11 in order to further our interests abroad.... unfortunatly...

Why September 11th happened

The US controls the world's wealth and will not share it. Every year the gap between the poorest in the world and the richest gets bigger. Every dollar the US sends in foreign aid is sent with strings attached, forcing the country in need to by American exports (with the money being given for aid). The US indorses patent laws that allow Major pharmaceutical companies, that could cure disease in third world countries for pennies, to deny them life saving produces until thousands to dollars are paid (and if anyone were to duplicate these medical products the US would call them thieves and break away ties with that country.) The US has never went into a single war with good intentions and will only enter the wars with economical gain. The US let Hitler destroy Great Britain and lead Jews into giant ovens for THREE YEARS before they felt they could economically gain from the war (and we knew Hitler had weapons of mass destruction) The US has a long history of not wanting to engage in war with countries that actually have weapons of mass destruction (North Korea) The US is lead by the stupidest world leader of all time. This is only scratching the surface

miller, go back to CNN and beer dumbass

You're going to use Chomsky (a linguist), Said (a literary critic) and Fisk (a newspaperman) as your sources? Are they even social theorists?

I would suggest you look into people who are actually arabists, that is people who study the arab/islamic world as a profession, not part-timers who are the shock-jocks of the editorial pages.

First, at least to present the alternative view, look into Bernard Lewis' two most recent (and pretty slim and readable) books, "What Went Wrong?
The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" and "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror". Just to show how prescient Lewis is, the former was at press when 9/11 happened; the latter was written in response to 9/11 and was based on his award winning article in the Atlantic. He was the chair of the Middle-Eastern studies department at Princeton and actually knows what he's talking about. He's considered the most prominent arabist in the english language.

Again as an alternate to the above, I'd recommend Fouad Ajami's "The Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Generation's Odyssey". Ajami is the head of the Middle East Studies department at Johns Hopkins. These guys are historians/political commentators, so I'm not sure they qualify as "social theorists" anymore than the guys you mentioned.

Having written that, I'm wondering if your prof suggested using Chonsky, Fisk, Said-- so I'd also warn you that despite the sterling academic reputations of the guys I recommended, academia being what it is these days, your teach may fail you out of hand for using them. Or maybe just denounce you publicly as a racist.

Good luck.

Oh, and I'd add that neither of these guys could rightly be called "conservatives" in their approach. They just generally disagree with the left.

If you're looking for conservatives, look at Daniel Pipes' books, or go through backissues of The Weekly Standard or The National Review. That won't really give you a better understanding of the issues though as they, like Chomsky, Said and Fitch, approach it with pre-set opinions.

You may also want to go through back issues of the Council on Foreign Relations' journal "Foreign Affairs". You'll get excellent articles from both sides in that, although it certainly leans left-- they're just more professional in their leftist approach and provide better support than those you mentioned. Any university should subscribe to it.