Bin Laden's Fantasy world......really messed up!

Magwitch

I have been seeing and reading alot about Assama Bin Laden of late, his character, history and motives. The first two are pure documentry facts but as to his motives, I am dumbfounded....

Reasons to attack America.....

1. Sanctions on the Iraqi people: Saddam Hussain withholds food and medical aid to his OWN people for propoganda purposes, not the west. Though the on going no-fly zone (and it results) is intolorable his stated beef is with sanctions. The oil for food and medicine deal is in place and only used to support Hussains followers adn armed forces leaving his people to starve and die. So why does Bin Laden not have a beef with Saddam?

2. Americans in the sacred land of Saudi Arabia: The presence of American troops in the Gulf state both currently and especially during the gulf war. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Americans were invited there to liberate an Arab Muslim country from a military state (Iraq). American troops are in Saudi currently, but given the resources (oil) they hold, they can expect the patronage and protection of the superpowers (thats business and common sence). I would add to this that Saddam Hussain launched Scub missles into the "sacred" land of Islam during the war hitting Arab Muslim cities. I smell hypocracy.

3. Americas backing of Isreal: Granted there is alot to answer for in the past, but America has pushed Isreal to negioations recently and done so again in the past few days. Palastinians enjoy a decent airing of their views and suffering in America now days (and hence sympathy). Bin Ladens attack seems to have been aimed at destroying any hope of a free Palistinian people and a behaving Isreal.

4. Sudan. Bin Ladens time there caused him to have pause for though and he recoiled at the suffering of the Muslim peoples. He invested in roads, schools (islamic ones) and hospitols. Now, "suffering of Muslim peoples"? Sudan has had seven Islamic governments in twenty years, each overthrowing the previous in a coup. The War in Sudan is one of Genocide. The Arab Muslim north attempting to (literally) exterminate a minority christian and black south. This war is persued by the North without respite and has taken on a greater impedus now that oil has been discovered in the christian south. The reasons given in this point are from Bin Ladens own words, and yet again they DO NOT ADD UP.

These are his main reasons for attacking America, and no matter what one thinks of America Bin Ladens reasons DO NOT hold water in the light of day.


MY POINT:
This leads me to a conclusion which is both timely and I think correct. Recently in Britian and America there is a recognition of racial hatred between ethnic groups (the white mans burden shared). I believe Bin Ladens statements which contain reference to both Muslim and Arab (as being the same thing) in the same sentences points to racially motivated will for dominence with Religion as the weapon of racial cohesion. The roles of Religion and Race may be exchanged in the equasion of Bin Ladens thinking, but I believe it is his motivation. What stands in the way of this "Eutopia" is of course the West, where religious apathy (apparantly his pet hate) does not allow room to win hearts and minds through religious conversion.

As a supporting point Bin Ladens bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania was in the city of Dar-es-Salam, a city with Muslim traditions and roots. But black roots. Bin Laden killed many muslims in the Dar-es-salam attack, but Black ones - and in his thinking I doubt they count. In the Greater plan, the rise in popularity of Islam with Blacks in America is bound to worry people like Bin Laden for whom control and dominence in Islam is a birthright, born in the middle east (no where else).

Perhaps in the future (hopefully) the West may treat others in the world more evenly and see the simularities in all humanity, BUT this must include a willingness to point the finger at facists and racists who use other names. There are many who complain about inequality, but some of them would be unwilling to be judged by the same criteria as the west (ie. laws and human rights).

We in the west are all too aware of our double standards, but others hold theirs dear.....

Hobbes

Quick someone ban her she's too intellingent!!

Let's play devils advocate.

So why does Bin Laden not have a beef with Saddam?

Well if your hatred against a country causes bias thinking, then the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the US is going to slate your thinking that if the US hadn't interfered then those muslims would have a better life.

they can expect the patronage and protection of the superpowers ... and ... Bin Ladens attack seems to have been aimed at destroying any hope of a free Palistinian people and a behaving Isreal.

Ok I'm going to expand on that later on..

Bin Ladens time there caused him to have pause for though and he recoiled at the suffering of the Muslim peoples

Subjective.

and yet again they DO NOT ADD UP.

Possibly however you are trying to base your information on your experiences and those countries have completly different cultures to American. Your explanation also doesn't explain everything that went on in that region.

But your explanations are intresting, certainly the best I have heard so far.

So on your information, lets try this then...

Who wins in all this?

1. Patronage and protection of the superpowers
The oil barons are all Muslim too. The general feeling is they are tolerated. Why? Well they offer cheap oil, in return they get oil dollars to buy all western goods. So the US gets cheap oil and sales.

However what happens when all the barons no longer need another gold plated toilet? The US has nothing to offer them, so they can pretty much cut off the oil or jack up the prices and all the US can do is put up with it (because invading without a reason is so unamerican).

2. Bin Ladens attack seems to have been aimed at destroying any hope of a free Palistinian people and a behaving Isreal.

So with the realisation the only other thing the US can offer is military protection. However the only way this is worth thier time is if the middle east is kept destablised.

3. Dot com collapse
Despite what you may hear, the dot com collapse is hurting (everyone) but it is also hurting the US. If the WTC thing never happend the recession would of hit later rather then sooner (it's certainly never expected to get better for the next 6-7 months).

Capitalism thrives on war (misquote and I can't remember who said it). When you population no longer needs to buy new toys, sales stagnate and people stop buying. Normally you need something like a good war to build it all up again.

4. Spend money to save money.
Dipping into the budget was in my opinion a bad idea. buying votes out of the same peoples pensions.

Anyway money is low, so it's hard to justify spending on the military missle systems that don't work in a recession. Normally you need good justification.

Likewise with the CIA. After the WTC they came out saying there was no way in hell they could of predicted it as thier budget had been cut year after year and human personell replaced with computer based systems.

5. No more secrets
As you notice prior to the WTC the EEC had in fact proved that Echalon actually exists and has been stealing business secrets from European countries and handing them onto US businesses. In thier report they stated that more encryption should be used and other methods to stop Etchelon stealing.

With the WTC, there are already bills being suggested to enforce backdoors into encryption software. Now I'm sure someone will say "yea but that's only in the US! And terrorists won't use it!".

True, true.

However prior to the US allowing the export of the 128bit key (which they can now crack easily) in order to sell software to outside of the US half of that key had to be handed over to the NSA so they could crack encrypted traffic which doesn't belong to the US. So something along that lines would be enforced again.

6. "Steal a billion, they will come looking for you"
The WTC is a business center. If you were going to steal massive amounts of money, the only way to get away with it is to hide the fact (re: Die Hard).

7. Godwins law
Amazing the number of hate crimes that have taken place in just the last 2 weeks. While the goverment is doing something about it, some of the stuff that people have been coming out is just mind boggling and reminds me of Pre WWII Germany.

Like people suggesting that there should be segregation in airplanes, or that people who are not a US citizen should carry a special ID (although I believe they said wear).

....

Of course all this is conspiricy theroy and based on my biased thinking (I am not Bin Laden/Muslim/Taliban). So it's quite possible that when they were planning it, they were not expecting the US to do anything because they would expect the world to publically condem them. Or prehaps they weren't expecting it to suceed. After all they did actually warn the US a couple of times before it happend.

Carnate

bonkey

Some very interesting points put forward by both people.

Magwitch - good analysis, and while I think you have a certain core truth in there, I think you are also missing some other issues.

Let me try a different approach.

If we make the assumption that Bin Laden is, in fact, religiously motivated, where does this leave us :

1) He supports the "extreme" Islamic tendencies as now in force in Afghanistan, and his aim is to promote this form of Islam over the more relaxed forms in practice in many places - a relaxation which rightly or wrongly has been often blamed on Western influences

2) He believes it is his religious duty to fight the enemies of his religion - those he sees as responsible for the "poisoning" of the pure faith (again, with western ideals).

3) He possibly believes that if the west could be made to stay the hell away from the Middle East, that the expansion of the extremist Islamic movement would be inevitable, ultimately resulting (perhaps) in a religiously united Middle East. Again - while this may be achieved through the actions of Al Qaeda and/or militant takeovers (a la the Taliban), because it is based in religious faith, it is all allowable

4) As far as I know, the Islamic faith honours those innocents "of the faith" who die in a Holy War, almost as martyrs. Therefore, unlike the west, there is no concept of collateral damage amongst the worthy - and no-one else counts.

Now....it all seems pretty plausible. It ties in well with the extremist religious behaviour with which Al Qaeda are often linked.

What about the fact that Bin Laden is, by all accounts, rather well off fnancially? Well, the man does appear (in his rare press interviews and statements) to be living far from the lap of luxury. He uses his finances to aid his cause. If it is true that Al Qaeda (and possibly Bin Laden) tried to make millions by short-selling insurance stocks just before the disaster, this just adds credibility - they are further wounding the western economy, while adding more finances to the coffers. As long as he uses this wealth for terroristic purposes, and not for personal pleasure, there is no conflict there at all.

As for the reasons you posted....such as sanctions on Iraq, protection of Saudi and Israel....these are simply symptoms. If we assume that Bin Laden is religiously motivated, then it is the mere presence of western influence and the consequent relaxation of religious laws which is the problem - their presence in individual nations is merely symptomatic.

I have seen posts saying that these religious fanatics promote this and that, and that its so horrible. It is to us, but to these people this is their way of life - based on their beliefs. While we in the west are all full of lofty ideals that we ourselves do not live up to very well - everyone should be free, everyone should be equal, etc. etc., this flies directly in the face of these peoples fundamental beliefs. We have basically been "guilty" of trying to modify a culture to fit with our ideals of what is right and proper.

If the Middle East did not have oil, did not have resources which the economic world desperately wants and needs, do you honestly think the western influence would have been so great there? More likely, some of the nations would have decided long ago that they do not want western influence, and like Afghanistan would more or less have closed their borders. The west, not wanting anything from the region, would have complained bitterly about human rights violations in the area, but whie they stuck to themselves, would have left them the hell alone unless they came asking for external aid in some form, at which point the age old question of "what do we get in return" would have cropped up. Its sad, but its very probably true.

So far, I have blamed "the west" in general for the issues which would drive bin Laden, but in all honesty, the largest influence has been the US. They are, in some respects, the flagship of western culture in terms of its permeation of the Middle East.

Dont get me wrong - the attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, the embassies, the USS Cole, and so on, cannot be justified by our ideals. However, they can be justified to someone of a completely different set of beliefs - one which we do not wish to accept.

Many scholars have come out and said that Islam is about peace, and no true believer could partake in such atrocities. But if this is true, then where does the concept of Holy War (Jiyhad) come from? It is a religious concept, which justifies war in certain conditions, and as far as I know, it also discusses the death of innocents and the result of same.

It is entirely possible that bin Laden is a religious fanatic. Your "racial" explanation actually fits into this quite closely - he only cares about true, extremist/fundamentalist Islamic believers.

This does not make him mad. It makes him very, very dangerous, and it shows once more the dangers of meddling in other nations' affairs.

Just some food for thought, whcih no doubt will be taken by some muppet as me supporting bin Laden. I do not and could never support such actions as he has taken.

I do think, however, that we need to look a lot more closely at the reasons for what is going on. Dismissing him as a madman, or the ultimate racist, or an anarchist, or an anti-American - these all fit nicely into our western ideals, but it is probably the most dangerous thing we could do right now.

jc

Magwitch

While I take your points my argument is that Bin Ladens own motivations (as HE has stated them) do not add up. Iran and Iraq can fight for 10 years, use chemical weapons and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Muslims over OIL (basic motivation "greed"). Pakistan has a thriving Heroin slave industry of 2.5 million (people recieving pay in having their addiction sated rather than money). Homosexuality, infedility, drug abuse and alcholism are rampant in the closed society of Saudi Arabia - Bin Ladens home. Arabs are about the richest peoples alive, yet their people are under educated and impoverished for the most part - not the fault of the West (this is also relivent to Hussains (ab)use of sanctions on his own people as a propoganda weapons against the west).

Are perhaps the short commings of his own people too hard to handle? Surely his crusade should be closer to home, it would achieve more.

As for America and the Wests influence, OPEC have in the past hiked prices an plunged the west in to recession (the 70's) at the drop of a hat. Did the west find it necessary to launch a "Crusade"? Six of one, half a dozen of the other (Isreal not withstanding).

Bin Ladens network is made up of Islamic extremists from many Arab counties. These self same extremeists have carried out prolonged campaigns against tolorant* Arab states (*comparitivly speaking). All Arab "Kingdoms" are ruled by families who are decended by blood from the Prophet Mohommed - Bin Ladens choice in not attacking these ultra rich and pro-western targets points to a complete inability to deal with reality or the will to question the restraints of his own faith.

Bin Laden operates in a convienient parrallell reality of Islam - ignoring the blatent injustices and inherant inequalities amoung Muslims in Arab countries and instead concentrating on an exterior targets. I would harken back to my origional point by comparing his beliefs to that of the KKK whose impoverished white members saw fit to take out their anger on other races rather than upset the status que of an unequel white society. I have no doubt that Bin Laden is an idealist, but so was Rudolf Hess and Milosovic and other who saw themselves as "victems" and carrie out wars with percieved justification.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Magwitch
As for America and the Wests influence, OPEC have in the past hiked prices an plunged the west in to recession (the 70's) at the drop of a hat. Did the west find it necessary to launch a "Crusade"? Six of one, half a dozen of the other (Isreal not withstanding).

First off. Do not use the term "Crusade". (Can't find the article), but the term actually means something completly different to Arab nations, and I believe Bush apologised after mentioning it in his speech.

But who is to say they didn't set up the Middle east so that they would never be forced into a recession again?

As mentioned by one of the heads of the CIA today on TV "This war is so secret that most Americans won't even realise when the US is winning".

Homosexuality, infedility, drug abuse and alcholism are rampant

As it is everywhere else.

Arabs are about the richest peoples alive, yet their people are under educated and impoverished for the most part

America suffers with a similar problem, although not so big.

not the fault of the West (this is also relivent to Hussains (ab)use of sanctions on his own people as a propoganda weapons against the west).

Hussain is only in charge of Iraq, not the Middle East. What about Kuwait? Could you say the same of them? What about Egpyt?

who saw themselves as "victems" and carrie out wars with percieved justification.

Indeed, one mans "Liberation" is another mans "Invasion". Problem is that goes both ways.