At the root, the United States was at fault for 9/11.

I would like to begin by refuting my opponents' points, then I will reiterate my own. My opponent's main flaw is that his line of argument relies, almost exclusively, on quotes by the Islamists themselves, rather than any background logical argument. This can be exposed by counter-quotes; Osama bin-Laden said, in 2004, that the United States could have prevented a 9/11 attack if it stopped threatening the safety of Muslims, going so far as to state, "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security" (Source: http://www.foxnews.com...). In fact, in this same video clip, bin-Laden ridicules the idea that religious motivations and Western hatred was the motivation behind 9/11, and goes so far as to blame the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon for the inspiration for the attack. Moreover, before the 9/11 attacks, in a 1998 fatwa entitled "Jihad against Jews and Christians", bin Laden stated that "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples", and "third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there." Therefore, my opponent's first point is, at the minimun, neutralized, if not refuted. Since it is not necessarily accurate to ask the perpetrators themselves about their motives, since they could be easily clothed in deception, it is more logical to consult experts on Islamic fundamentalism itself. CIA analyst Michael Scheuer states that, "They hate us for what we do, not for who we are." Other intellectuals, such as Norm Chomsky and Fouad Ajami, affirm this view. My opponent's non-Osama bin Laden points essentially point to terrorism as a whole. My contention only discusses the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, Mullah Kreikar's quote does not apply. However, another counterargument is that the very cause for radicalization based on religion was caused by the United States. The idea that the attacks were politically and religiously motivated are not mutually exclusive; the United States could be at fault with the attacks still being religiously motivated, as outlined in my first argument. My opponent's claim that Muslim countries have been taught to hate Western countries for centuries simply falls flat. Monsignor Charles Pope states that, "The first Muslim histories of the Crusades did not appear until 1899," (source:http://blog.adw.org...). Therefore, it is impossible that the Crusades could have fomented a culture of Western hatred by Muslim countries. Furthermore, the United States was involved with the end of the Caliphate; it was a result of World War I, which the United States was involved in. By this line of argument, any attempt to reinstate the Caliphate (which was, in actuality, the Ottoman Empire) would be a reaction against the United States or United States-backed forces. My opponents other claim, therefore, falls as well. Now, I simply will ask: Does it really make sense that fundamentalists who hate America because of our success and freedom attacked us to make us less free and successful, or does it make more sense that this attack was a reaction against United States' actions, throughtout history, in the Middle East?I would like to thank my challenger for this lively debate. This debate is my first debate as well, so we should be on even ground!