Why would you include only that section but omit the one above it that contains a theory that the motivations were indeed religious and intended as acts against those who don’t share their religious and cultural beliefs (aka the West and other locations with freedom of religion)

> Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, in their book, The Age of Sacred Terror, argue that the 9/11 terrorist attacks are purely religious. They are seen as "a sacrament ... intended to restore to the universe a moral order that had been corrupted by the enemies of Islam." It is neither political nor strategic but an "act of redemption" meant to "humiliate and slaughter those who defied the hegemony of God."

I wonder if you misunderstood me or what I quoted. I was trying to argue against the person I replied to by showing evidence that those "grievances" aren't necessarily the true motive. If I understand your other post correctly, you agree with this.

The grievances (air quotes are inappropriate here) listed may not necessarily be the true motive, but they sure seem to be the true motive based on the evidence we see.

"evidence"

Well, if we're going to selectively include text from that article, I'll include this one, since what really matters is what motivates terrorism, not what's in that letter:

> Robert Pape identified 315 incidents, all but 14 of which they classified as part of 18 different campaigns. These 18 shared two elements and all but one shared a third:[61] 1) A foreign occupation; 2) by a democracy; 3) of a different religion. Mia Bloom interviewed relatives and acquaintances of suicide terrorists. Her conclusions largely support Pape's, suggesting that it is much more difficult to get people to volunteer for a suicide mission without foreign occupation.[62]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_a...