Osama bin Laden (1957 - )

Osama bin Laden, terrorist or nationalist? In today's society it is easier and makes us feel better to sit back and label things. If somebody is on Our Side, a Freedom Fighter, then we don't bother to ask questions about the women and children that they killed, trusting they had Good Reasons to do so. Similarly, if we can label someone some kind of crazed terrorist, a violent thug who threatens our safety, then we don't have to step back and analyze their viewpoint to see if it as far removed from reality as we'd like to believe.

Introduction

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi by birth. He was born in Riyadh in 1957 into a wealthy family that owned a construction business (ironically, this same family business had ties with the Bush family). During the eighties the Soviet Empire attempted to expand into Afghanistan, thus provoking a war between Russia and the mujahedeen. Osama left his easy, secure life at home and went to join the resistance in Afghanistan.

Since that time he has been linked with "terrorist attacks" on and off U.S. soil, the most "famous" of course being the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. It is since that time that the US has taken decisive action in attempts to find and eliminate Osama (as opposed to the handful of missiles Clinton threw on civilians in 1998). His name is now synonymous with all that is terrible in the human character; he has become the new face of evil, a raging madman who won't stop until all the world is Islamic and men can be seen on the streets beating their (several) wives with a stick, but is this really the case? Osama bin Laden has made many broadcasts that suggest quite the opposite. This profile is an attempt to place these into context and a condensed fashion so that somebody willing to look beyond CNN may grasp a more accurate view of the situation.

American/Israeli alliance

"The fatwa includes all that share or take part in killing of Muslims, assaulting holy places, or those who help the Jews occupy Muslim land."

In some senses bin Laden would be described as a nationalist in that he wishes to see Muslim land free of outside influence and non-Muslims. However, since the eighties he has been critical of national divides within the Middle East, that is to say he hasn't been in agreement with Muslims who were concerned with sorting out their own country and weren't bothered with what might go on in another. As previously mentioned, bin Laden left his home country to provide support in Afghanistan; he has provided support (financially, physically or spiritually) in many places where the Islamic cause has needed it.

The threat against the Islamic world is two-fold with the combined threat of America and Israel. Israel is a powerful military force but its military involvement (with a few exceptions) is limited when compared to the involvement of the US. However, Israel has employed a passive-aggressive strategy, painting themselves as the victims in every scenario, and thus anything they do is met with very limited objection. Being able to potentially get away with anything is equally as dangerous as having the actual means to do anything.

Israel's "victim status" has allowed it to run rampant around the Gaza Strip; anything done by the Palestinians is vile terrorism and anything done by the Israelis (even when the types of victims are women, children etc.) is seen as a mild defence against some kind of wild and ferocious enemy that can strike at any time, unseen until it is too late. A Palestinian child throws a rock at what he perceives to be a big bully and the tanks roll in, generally to the applause of most who nod, knowing that the Israelis just crushed the next suicide bomber.

"The Americans impose themselves on everyone who believes in his religion and his rights. They accuse our children in Palestine of being terrorists. Those children that have no weapons and have not even reached maturity. At the same time they defend a country with its airplanes and tanks, and the state of the Jews, that has a policy to destroy the future of these children."

Events such as these have lead al-Qaeda/bin Laden to provide support however possible in countries such as Palestine in order to show a united stance against the perceived threat to Arab culture and existence. It is interesting that actions in Saudi Arabia against Americans have also been supported even though, in an Islamic context, the regime has been classified outside of the religion due to the actions of the ruling powers there.

"Our main problem is the US government while the Saudi regime is but a branch or an agent of the US. By being loyal to the US regime, the Saudi regime has committed an act against Islam. And this, based on the ruling of Shari'a (Islamic jurisprudence), casts the regime outside the religious community. Subsequently, the regime has stopped ruling people according to what God revealed, praise and glory be to Him, not to mention many other contradictory acts. When this main foundation was violated, other corrupt acts followed in every aspect of the country, the economic, the social, government services and so on."

Countries now that have a somewhat traditional Islamic view have found themselves handcuffed and cornered. Any action brings cries of anti-Semitism from one side and the threat of potential bombing raids, forced revolutions and so on from the other. Sane people can only take such pressure for so long before they are forced to react. To this end, the Israeli-American alliance is as responsible for the actions against it as the very people who carried out the very same.

Arab-Israeli Conflicts

On the news we often here how al-Qaeda 'hates America' and considers it 'the great Satan.' The U.S. government has turned up such stories as 'they attack us because they hate our freedom.' The reality lies a little deeper than that. America has found itself in the middle of a conflict that reaches back arguably to biblical times. Thus the 'democratic' and 'humanitarian' arguments it tries to put forward to solve the situation aren't of much use, to the Arabs or the Israelis.

Whilst the first dates given for an 'official war' are 1948 through 1949, Zionists and Palestinian Arabs had fought guerrilla-type skirmishes against one another and whilst Palestine was under British control, British forces were also a target for Zionist guerrillas.

Aside from officially declared cease-fires there has always been unrest in the Middle East since Israel once again became an officially recognised state. The action has escalated into a few wars over the decades following the forties, the world saw tensions mount and erupt between the Israelis and countries like Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

For the most part, these wars saw Israel despatch its enemies with relative ease (as easy as a war ever is, anyway). To this end, the wars are not that important. However, what is important is the attitude of the state of Israel in the aftermath. In each situation Israel claimed a victim status (despite its military superiority) and held onto captured territories, claiming it would continue to hold them until relations improved. One may read that as '...until everyone starts liking us!'

Whilst it might be hard to argue against the existence of Israel (everyone needs a homeland), one also needs to recognise the severe problems it may cause. Seemingly the Palestinian Arabs have got the worst bit of the deal and been told to like it unless they want to be bombed out of existence. Everything they do is wrong and is defined as terrorism.

Recent events have made the tensions in the Middle East worse as both parties view themselves as even more victimised. The Arabs feel they are being marginalized for their beliefs, the Israelis feel they've discovered another reason to try tighten their grip on the Middle East with spy satellites over Iran.

US Occupation of Afghanistan/Declaration of Jihad

In the latter months of 2001 we saw the U.S. declare war on terror. The first casualty in this war (other than 'truth') was the nation of Afghanistan. Similar to the invasion of Iraq we saw many reasons listed. First it was to flush out al-Qaeda, then we learned it was also to oust the Talibans (who were knowingly harbouring bin Laden) and finally we were told it was actually to 'bring democracy.'

Prior to the invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan by US forces, bin Laden had already called a Jihad against the West, stating:

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world."

Whilst the media has constantly fed the masses the idea that attacks on the U.S were completely unprovoked, we can see that this is not the case; one might conclude that attacks on the US were somewhat insignificant in scale when compared to those made on the Middle East by the USA in previous years. Regardless of this, far from seeming to be the fanatical ravings of a mad man, are they not the words we'd expect from any sane person whose people had constantly been subjected to bombing raids from a larger, richer and more powerful country?

Words such as these should probably elicit more support in the West than they have done. Looking from a Nationalist viewpoint, the two worldviews are reconcilable; both groups want the same thing in the long run: a chance to determine their own trajectory without interference from large democracies that view themselves as world police. Unfortunately, most "nationalists" have gone the other way and heaped their scorn on bin Laden and his associates, rallying to cries of Freedom and Democracy.

The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US's aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the defensive jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather the US must desist from aggressive intervention with Muslims in the entire world.

Of course, since 2001 the aggression has increased and, more than just a war, we see something darker going in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Far beyond beating the enemy, clearing out the dead and going home, we see a war based not on ideology (as wars generally are), but a war based on enforcement. It has nothing to do with publicly executing dissidents, but a more passive approach. Buildings of cultural importance are ignored as McDonalds and Burger Kings are built. Democratic elections are enforced, the irony being the US/UK alliance decide who can stand for election in the first place.

Whilst this has probably made some people see the "light" of Western democracy, freedom, peace and so on, it has also given more support to groups like al-Qaeda. This is because intelligent people can see that these Western promises don't hold much promise in the long run. They might have "exciting" new food and fizzy drinks, but these thrills don't last forever. These same intelligent people realise that if they choose this easy path, after they get bored of plastic trinkets everything that they once held dear will have turned to dust and their civilisation is - for all intents and purposes - dead, leaving them to play video games and buy junk they don't need.

Osama bin Laden's rejection of Western values and his urge for violence against occupying forces has nothing to do with war mongering or "freedom hating" or any other reasons you might see in the media. He, like a lot of people, has seen that the world is currently on a path of self-destruction and is urging his people to revert to a traditional Islamic culture instead of the cheap liberal and Westernised "Islam" that is the thing in places such as Saudi Arabia.

When any government talks of invading a country to 'bring democracy' it means much more than changing the political climate and system of said nation. As we are currently seeing it is a means of culturally reforming (or deforming perhaps) the nation to make it as non-belligerent as possible. Any religion that takes a form of meaning anything other than shielding against reality must be eradicated or liberalised (or in the case of Iraq, caused to implode) and as we explored above, the general culture must be passively erased by offering McDonald's instead of local cuisine and Television instead of art.

New Middle East: Desire for traditional Islamic culture and rejection of Western liberal democracy

You reap what you sow, as the saying goes. Osama bin Laden has spoken many times of the US government being responsible for the havoc wreaked on its civilian population, stating that only the governments alone can decide the future course of relations between the Middle East and the Western world and that all it would take for friendly relations if for them to adopt a policy of non-interference and non-aggression towards the Muslim world. There are reasons why the West will not do this, yet despite this, such statements give a glimpse into his views with all the hype and scare mongering stripped away.

As explored above, the most natural thing for any civilisation with a healthy population is to retain its own culture and to repel invaders whether they are invaders in a physical or spiritual sense. The media describes bin Laden as a coward who encourages youngsters to go die for a deity that may or may not exist (they never clarify this in order not to alienate potential sections of their audience). One could interpret this literally, or see it in a more metaphorical sense. Risk dying for Allah (your beliefs) or risk staying alive and having nothing to live for at the end of it all.

No healthy culture fears war; it may not like it yet knows it is a necessity at times. The Islamic world at this stage faces a crisis: it can choose the path of most resistance and fight doggedly until either a) they win or b) the enemy gives up on the cause and ceases to fight. The other option is the path of least resistance: give in, eat a burger, flip on the TV and drink a diet coke, why not? You can be free.

Should the Islamic world continue down the former, they will have come a long way to recapturing the traditional spirit that lies dormant in all places that once had a great civilisation: China, India and even all the great old empires of Europe.

Osama bin Laden: A CORRUPT Perspective

"Open your chest welcoming death in the path of God and utter your prayer seconds before you go to your target." "Let your last words be, There is no God but God and Mohammad is His messenger. Then, inshallah, you will be in heavens."

The above quote reaches back to the above paragraphs, seeing bin Laden's traditional Islamic worldview in a spiritually metaphoric context not unlike that of old European religion or Hindu scriptures. Heaven can be seen as an escape from reality where no bad things happen or it can be seen as a state of mind that comes from doing one's purpose. Many expect "suicide bombers" to be raving lunatics, itching to cause some bloodshed even if it means their own demise, yet even the most pro-West research has revealed that most people chosen for such a task have been bright, intelligent and emotionally stable people.

People who willingly and calmly take their lives for a cause recognise the continuity of life. They realise that even though they may die, great beliefs will continue to exist so long as there are similar people to uphold them with similar sacrifices. Islam distinguishes between suicide from a selfish perspective (inability to face up to life on earth) and suicide for a nobler cause.

Whilst the Corrupt organisation doesn't advocate Islam in the West as this would be encouraging the multi-cultural mess that has already wreaked havoc upon our nations, it does recognise the ties and common goals between the pan-Arab nationalists in the Middle East and the traditionalist nationalists in the Western world.

Like bin Laden and his associates, the Corrupt organisation seeks a better alternative to the crowd-pleasing, bread and circuses that is modern society. Both parties can see that this way of thinking is leading the world down a spiral in a hurry and both realise that action must be taken if it is to be stopped. The only way to do this (another point of agreement) is that the better alternative can be found in the traditional culture of the ancients in their respective ethnic contexts.

Written by David Brooks

Further Reading

Al-Qaeda Appreciation Society of North America (AQASNA)
CNN Interview with Osama bin Laden